Vasa - 1:65 DeAgostini [COMPLETED BUILD]

[RogerD]

That last post topic tired me out. ....think I'll take a nap.

What do you think you are on - the 12-4 watch?

 

[Steef66]

Yes, they are... top gallant back stays./ I used same arrangement, but limit them to top mast poz 3-1 on my drwng..
View attachment 306916however F. HOKER told about a little bit different arrangements...phisicaly they should look like another mast tackles, well ... top mast tackles )) which run to the chanels between shrouds...not top gallant backstays...

Sorry Kirill but your wrong about this. Paul shows this picture

And those in yellow are the ties and halliards of the top- and topgallant yards of the foremast. These are made with the crowfeet. The rigging plan of a galleon in the book of Peter Kirsch don't show the backstays. Because before 1640/50 they where mostly not attached. But there is evidence that on "big" ships they where attached before 1650. And in that case a single backstay like the picture in Anderson's book. See post #2.634
That is also the reason why the drawing of Paul just show a single construction. Backstays will be mounted on both sides of the mast.

 

[Steef66]

No one knows how long the transition to single, central backstays tied to forestays was, when that transition started, or who use the new backstay style before whom.

That is because the crowfeet show in the drawing are no backstays but ties and halliards

With a single stay it means a stay with 1 single block
Like this


Here is what Anderson wrote about the ties and halliards of the foremast

 

[dockattner]

Or...could use them ,if You like some amateur version of rigging very much !!!))

Yes, Kirill, amateur rigging is precisely what I am trying to avoid though at times is seem inevitable!

 

[Robp1025]

Yes, Kirill, amateur rigging is precisely what I am trying to avoid though at times is seem inevitable!

Paul wants to prove he is the ultimate newb of news!!!

In all seriousness though I think the debate is not so much of what is right then an opinion showing of what people think based on the knowledge presented. I mean we have to remember and take into account the fact that this ship only lasted 30 minutes before sinking. The other ships did not and therefore I can assume you can't take into account what others have done to ships of the time because theirs lasted much longer then this beauty.

My vote is to go off of what the vasamuseet came to understand and go for that route for authentic representation of the true rigging.

 

[dockattner]

HA! I found the source of some of the confusion...

Anderson (p 118): "It is possible that part of the elaborate tackles that run from the topmast heads to the lower stays, in early 17th century prints (Plates 1, 5, 6, 7), is intended for backstays, but personally I prefer to interpret the whole thing as topsail halliards and it will be so described in Chapter IX."

So, with that as background for why different people have come to different conclusions and completed their builds in different ways... I think I will run backstays on each side (one or two for the fore and main, one for the mizzen) to the channels. Stephen you showed what I understand to be standing backstays. Kurt you have described what I think are running backstays. Anderson says this:



I think I could tie off the lead (the fall) to the hook - would that make sense?

Thank you, everyone, for your help!

 

[Steef66]

HA! I found the source of some of the confusion...

Anderson (p 118): "It is possible that part of the elaborate tackles that run from the topmast heads to the lower stays, in early 17th century prints (Plates 1, 5, 6, 7), is intended for backstays, but personally I prefer to interpret the whole thing as topsail halliards and it will be so described in Chapter IX."

In "A treatise of rigging - W. Salisbury 1620" rewritten by RC Anderson gives there an explanation (it seems) because Peter Kirsch mentioned in his book when he explains the ropes of his rigging plan. He says that a lot of ropes where not mentioned and show in the plan. I gave a screenshot of that part of the book before. Peter Kirsch made this rigging plan with the help of Anderson. That's why in the back there is the "treatise of shipbuilding" of Anderson attached. So I think these two writers make a good source to follow. Salisbury could know, he live in that era. A very difficult subject these backstays, you could leave them away, because there is less proof they existed on the Vasa.

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

HA! I found the source of some of the confusion...

Anderson (p 118): "It is possible that part of the elaborate tackles that run from the topmast heads to the lower stays, in early 17th century prints (Plates 1, 5, 6, 7), is intended for backstays, but personally I prefer to interpret the whole thing as topsail halliards and it will be so described in Chapter IX."

So, with that as background for why different people have come to different conclusions and completed their builds in different ways... I think I will run backstays on each side (one or two for the fore and main, one for the mizzen) to the channels. Stephen you showed what I understand to be standing backstays. Kurt you have described what I think are running backstays. Anderson says this:

View attachment 306921

I think I could tie off the lead (the fall) to the hook - would that make sense?

Thank you, everyone, for your help!

Yes. And you could tie the lead to either the hook or the railing. I don't really know which is more appropriate. It would be best to search for some examples in research sources, if there are any. On La Couronne, I tied them off to kevels on the inner side of the bulwark, because on the Corel model, there were there and appeared to be stronger than the railing. Check your model and photos and see if there are any kevels in the vicinity of the rear end of the channel (where the backstays lead to). If there are, they may have been tied to there. I have my doubts, since kevels are usually used for running rigging such as main and fore course tack lines, which are adjusted frequently to work the sails. The backstays would seldom need adjustment, so wherever they are belayed would be some more semi-permanent fixture, such as the standing part of the lead itself or the hook above the deck eyebolt/ring. I try to use logic like this to solve problems where evidence is scant. If you don't, you choose methods which appear impractical to a sailor or wildly inaccurate. Make your best guess, Paul. What's frustrating is R.C. Anderson is often mute on where leads from tackles are belayed, and this is true in his descriptions of backstays.

 

[dockattner]

What's frustrating is R.C. Anderson is often mute on where leads from tackles are belayed, and this is true in his descriptions of backstays.

Yes. This is an example of how I struggle as a new builder. Understandably, Anderson assumes that anyone using his book as a reference comes loaded with some previous knowledge and experience. He often leaves a line "hanging there" (as do other writers) because we all know what happens next. Which is great unless you don't know what happens next.

I have been encouraged by the fact that I am not the only one to struggle to get the details right - and I am grateful for how you and others have been generous with guidance. I may not get everything right - but it won't be for lack of effort.

 

[kirill4]

Good day everybody,
Dear Stephan,
Sorry for my english, I wrote too much in my comments,looks like it happened that my arguments were not clearly given ...
main idea of my text should be - all the same as You told in your explanations!!! )) Paul 's yellow "backstays" on the Vasa museum rigging drwng - these are parts of topsail and top gallant sail tie tackles,not backstays.
Paul, yes, indeed, Anderson on the page 118 says" It is possible that part of the elaborate tackles that run from the topmast heads to the lower stays, in early 17th century prints (Plates 1, 5, 6, 7), is intended for backstays, but personally I prefer to interpret the whole thing as topsail halliards and it will be so described in Chapter IX."...
For me is strange , why some modellers made accent on his minor suggestion that it could be backstays, but not on his phrase "but personally I prefer to interpret the whole thing as topsail halliards" !!! ))
As I understood, this was his basic point of vew, and he gave all followed explanations and examples in this respect, when he continued talking about topsails halliards arrangements and backstays arrangements...

 

[kirill4]

As I understood, You are not going to follow advises given by Fred Hocker regarding possible arrangements of Vasa backstays? ....consider nowadays He is lead specialist in Vasa rigging ...
all he told about Vasa backstays( in that his mail to your) very informative and with solid archeological background, why not follow him?
His suggestions are not contradict with information from Anderson book regarding backstays possible arrangements.

 

[kirill4]

I made my backstays in form of long pendants ( portcand starbord) ended with single blocks and a whip , started from the ringbolt on the small chanel aft of main chanels and running end secured on the small knights with sheeve, knights fitted near the place where whip started.

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

What do you think you are on - the 12-4 watch?

On the ship I really WAS on the 12-4 watch.

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

Yes. This is an example of how I struggle as a new builder. Understandably, Anderson assumes that anyone using his book as a reference comes loaded with some previous knowledge and experience. He often leaves a line "hanging there" (as do other writers) because we all know what happens next. Which is great unless you don't know what happens next.

I have been encouraged by the fact that I am not the only one to struggle to get the details right - and I am grateful for how you and others have been generous with guidance. I may not get everything right - but it won't be for lack of effort.

You are certainly not alone. It's comforting how many of my guesses are corroborated by your guesses!

 

[Steef66]

Sorry for my english, I wrote too much in my comments,looks like it happened that my arguments were not clearly given ...

Got the same problem translating, no problem. But your richt about the halliards in this post.

I think the most confusion comes from translation of the books we reading. I will come back about this subject later, the dog needs to walk.

 

[kirill4]

regarding backstays, for proper functioning, they must be fitted in pair...
and it is very doubtfull that there could be single backstay running to the stay and secured overthere...
in this respect I fully agree with Anderson, that all these complicated tackles with crowfitts - they are most probably upper sails tie halliards...
interesting, on these pictures(fragments taken from famous arts), we couldn't see clear presence of any kind of backstays ,..in their single forms
in general ,rigging arrangements on these pictures is similar to that reproduced on the Vasa museum model, or Piter Kirch galleon reconstruction... not exactly of couse, but very close in many details...

 

[GrantTyler]

HA! I found the source of some of the confusion...

Anderson (p 118): "It is possible that part of the elaborate tackles that run from the topmast heads to the lower stays, in early 17th century prints (Plates 1, 5, 6, 7), is intended for backstays, but personally I prefer to interpret the whole thing as topsail halliards and it will be so described in Chapter IX."

So, with that as background for why different people have come to different conclusions and completed their builds in different ways... I think I will run backstays on each side (one or two for the fore and main, one for the mizzen) to the channels. Stephen you showed what I understand to be standing backstays. Kurt you have described what I think are running backstays. Anderson says this:

View attachment 306921

I think I could tie off the lead (the fall) to the hook - would that make sense?

Thank you, everyone, for your help!

Hello Paul. Oh boy- a massive amount of diverse information for you to sift through. Back to your rigging work- brilliant as always. I’m super glad I’m doing the Victory with zero crows feet...how you got those so right and tensioned is a testament to your work. Cheers Grant

 

[Peter Voogt]

I agree with Grant: a beautiful pair of stays, nicely rigged on tension.
And for the discussion: I hope you find ‘your solution’ for your great Wasa.
Regards, Peter

 

[Steef66]

In J. Harland's book he's talking about traveling or braest backstay. And they needed to be running. Because when brace the sails they where in the way of the movement of the yards. (page 23 Harland J. Seamanship in the age of sail, 1985)


In Dutch they called this a "Slingerpardoen" In the Dutch translation of Mondfeld there is a better explanation how this backstay is used.

"Slingerpardoens werden aangezet met een takel. Ze bevonden zich tussen de beide voorste dwarszalings en waren losneembaar om de marsera bij het brassen niet in de weg te zitten. De onderstejufferblokken van de pardoens werden met kleine puttingijzers op de rust vastgezet (vaak ook op een eigen rust) of zaten op
ringbouten op de reling achter de rust."

Translated:
Breast backstays were put on with a tackle. They were located between the two front crosstrees and were they were detachable so as not to get in the way of the topsail during brace the sail. The bottom blocks of the Breast backstay were secured to the channel with small futtock irons (often on their own channel)
or sat on ring bolts on the railing behind the Breast backstay. ring bolts on the railing behind the channel.

On internet searching for "slingerpardoens"gave me a result how they where attached to the channel exactly. They needed to be quickly removed when bracing the sails. In the book "Praktikale Zeevaartkunde en theoretische Kennis: voor Handel en ..., Volume 1 by Pieter Le Comte" where you can find a copy on google:

Praktikale Zeevaartkunde en theoretische Kennis

books.google.nl

You can read the following thing:

The text says that the "Slingerpardoen" didn't was attached with lanyard because they needed to relocated in a fast time. Just a single block on the stay and the the other ends of this simple tackle to the channel like Anderson shows in his book. A running backstay!


I hope this explanation helps to understand how and what these backstay did and where used for on these ships.

In this era there was a change going on on support the mast. The ships getting more sails and went higher up. They compensate this by more shrouds. But this was limited. So the invention of the backstay took place and there where less shrouds necessary to do the job. In a later era you see less shrouds and more backstays.

 

[Nomad]

Wow, that was a lot to absorb. Sometimes I wonder where they found space for all those rigging lines, and conflicting opinions on such complex rigging is perfectly understandable. Your rigging is admirable though Paul, the consistent tension even more so, no matter how or where you attach those stays