yes.. we can give them even more sharp angle slacking first couple of shrouds and slacking parrals as much as possible , but main stay couldnt be slackened, there is limitation
Vasa - 1:65 DeAgostini [COMPLETED BUILD]
- Thread starter dockattner
- Start date
- Watchers 148
Well Paul,
It seems I've just traversed the information gauntlet that your build log is famous for.
Now it's a matter what to do (again, kind of reminds me of picking out wallpaper with the admiral). At any rate I cannot think of a better venue than your Vasa log for this, thanks. PS... Let me know what you're going to do 
, I've got a week or more of ratlines to do.
It seems I've just traversed the information gauntlet that your build log is famous for.
Now it's a matter what to do (again, kind of reminds me of picking out wallpaper with the admiral). At any rate I cannot think of a better venue than your Vasa log for this, thanks. PS... Let me know what you're going to do , I've got a week or more of ratlines to do.
For good or for bad ... I'm serving the portion of the backstays that will wrap the mastheads as we speak. I can't wait to hear the collective UGH - I CAN'T BELIEVE HE DID IT THAT WAY!Well Paul,
It seems I've just traversed the information gauntlet that your build log is famous for.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2019
- Messages
- 4,841
- Points
- 688
I wrote it before on page 133. Look here
I may be saying it wrong. Not that the rope is rubbing against the yard, but it is in the way when bracing.
In purple it says:
"Om alzoo voor het brassen niet hinderlijk te zijn"
You can't put it in Google or in deepl to translate, it means
"Not to be in the way when the sails are braced"
We say "slingerpardoen" translate it raw in English sling/pendulum-backstay
The translate version of Mondfeld in Dutch says exactly the same thing while the Englisch version don't write a word about bracing the sails.
Translate
Running backstays were attached with a tackle. They were located between the front cross-beams and were detachable so as not to interfere with the yard when bracing.
That's what the translation of Mondfeld says it "interfere" and the other in "Old Dutch" words say "in the way"
Ps. My last word about backstays here.
Praktikale Zeevaartkunde en theoretische Kennis
books.google.nl
In purple it says:
"Om alzoo voor het brassen niet hinderlijk te zijn"
You can't put it in Google or in deepl to translate, it means
"Not to be in the way when the sails are braced"
We say "slingerpardoen" translate it raw in English sling/pendulum-backstay
The translate version of Mondfeld in Dutch says exactly the same thing while the Englisch version don't write a word about bracing the sails.
Translate
Running backstays were attached with a tackle. They were located between the front cross-beams and were detachable so as not to interfere with the yard when bracing.
That's what the translation of Mondfeld says it "interfere" and the other in "Old Dutch" words say "in the way"
Ps. My last word about backstays here.
Ok, I understood ,there is the text says " They were located between the front cross-beams and were detachable so as not to interfere with the yard when bracing."
We show you natural experiments, on the drawing and on the model, that yard will never touch backstays even on max bracing position...I don't understand what about citate says ... how it should look like, can You make simple scketch? Braced yard touches backstays...
Are they talking exactly about backstays which are positioned behind aftermost shrouds, far to the aft, or they talking about something else?
We show you natural experiments, on the drawing and on the model, that yard will never touch backstays even on max bracing position...I don't understand what about citate says ... how it should look like, can You make simple scketch? Braced yard touches backstays...
Are they talking exactly about backstays which are positioned behind aftermost shrouds, far to the aft, or they talking about something else?
Lets narrow our discussion to exactly What Fred H says about posible location of Vasa backstays:
"...backstays each, the mizzen only one. As far as we can see, there is no evidence for topgallant backstays, although it is not impossible.
The backstays are not set up on the aftermost chain as in later ships. On the mizzen, the backstay looks to be between the third and fourth shrouds, while on the mainmast and foremast there appears t be a backstay between the last and next to last shroud, and possibly one farther forward. ... "
As we could see , in this backstays location , they also will never touch the yard when it bracing, only first couple of shrouds could touch the braced yard...
By the way,
Paul, Daniel,
if we will set backstays as FH advised their locations, between shrouds, how they will pass top mast fighting platform, will not touch it and bent over it?
Interesting that Kalmar Nykel replica has it setted far to the stern after last shroud, but not between them...as FH sugested
"...backstays each, the mizzen only one. As far as we can see, there is no evidence for topgallant backstays, although it is not impossible.
The backstays are not set up on the aftermost chain as in later ships. On the mizzen, the backstay looks to be between the third and fourth shrouds, while on the mainmast and foremast there appears t be a backstay between the last and next to last shroud, and possibly one farther forward. ... "
As we could see , in this backstays location , they also will never touch the yard when it bracing, only first couple of shrouds could touch the braced yard...
By the way,
Paul, Daniel,
if we will set backstays as FH advised their locations, between shrouds, how they will pass top mast fighting platform, will not touch it and bent over it?
Interesting that Kalmar Nykel replica has it setted far to the stern after last shroud, but not between them...as FH sugested
Last edited:
It's worse than that Kiril. To run the backstay to the channel means it has to pass THROUGH the shroud set. I think I need to run it aft of the shrouds.
Last edited:
Just for interest, but not for the Vasa case 
))
Ab Hoving on reconstruction of Vitsen pinass , gave top mast running backstay and topgallant fixed backstay , and running backstay for mizzen
)) Ab Hoving on reconstruction of Vitsen pinass , gave top mast running backstay and topgallant fixed backstay , and running backstay for mizzen
Yes...run trough shrouds ...and whats wrong with it?
At least according to FH it will be historic accurate for Vasa, if He says there is avidence they run like this, than run them aft of the shroud ...it will be just ...what... pure improvisation?
))But if set them between shrouds, how they will interfere with fighting platforms? That is interesting... if they will touch and bend over it, than better to sett them aft of the last shroud...to keepbthem clear from platform edge...
Last edited:
I too will run my backstays aft of the shrouds, I actually have a little room aft of the aft shroud line on my fore and main chain walers. Enough room for at least one backstay and the topgallant of both locations may have to go onto side bolts. I have options just need to sort it out.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2019
- Messages
- 4,841
- Points
- 688
No, because you need to read what I wrote, when bracing the sails the backstay interfere with it. There is more than just a yard. It's called a running stay. In Dutch slingstay. This name describes the function. Explained in that document of 1842.
In a other post I exactly explained you how and what, with drawing, how it was done. Page 133 or so. I said there we both did it wrong.
But feel free to have your opinion on this. I respect that. I do not feel like translating that document into English. I gave a summary of what it says. That is enough. You can accept it or not. But if you are going to comment, please read carefully what I wrote before.
I cannot give you more information than is written there. What I think is enough info to give yourself an idea how it probably looked like. I have already said enough about that. And given enough examples.
Hey @Steef66 and @kirill4,
I just wanted to thank both of you for helping me out with this particularly confusing stage of the standing rigging. If it wasn't for your assistance I'd be running halyards as backstays. And then when I got around to learning about halyards I would have been in real trouble. You both saved me. I believe I now have the backstays figured out - and even if I mess them up I have learned a lot and will always be grateful for your contribution. Heck, even if I put them on upside down this will still be the finest DeAg 1:65 Vasa built by an orthodontist who is also a ordained minister started in September of 2020 with thinning hair and an oddly high forehead on the entire SOS forum. I can live with that. I GOT THIS! Or maybe not...
Onward!
I just wanted to thank both of you for helping me out with this particularly confusing stage of the standing rigging. If it wasn't for your assistance I'd be running halyards as backstays. And then when I got around to learning about halyards I would have been in real trouble. You both saved me. I believe I now have the backstays figured out - and even if I mess them up I have learned a lot and will always be grateful for your contribution. Heck, even if I put them on upside down this will still be the finest DeAg 1:65 Vasa built by an orthodontist who is also a ordained minister started in September of 2020 with thinning hair and an oddly high forehead on the entire SOS forum. I can live with that. I GOT THIS! Or maybe not
...Onward!
Last edited:
Heh Guys,
While all this discussion on backstays is interesting, I think we had best take a step back and recognise that we are modelling the ship, VASA. We also have the extreme advantage of having the actual VASA available to provide evidence of where backstays may have been secured. Below are a couple of photos of the Vasa flanks just aft of the mainmast and mizzen chainwales. I can see NO evidence of any securing points to the outer hull aft of the wales, but rather to the chainwales themselves, amid the shrouds.
Looking to the aft on the starboard side:
And looking forward on the port side between main and mizzen chainwales:
From the above, actual, real ship photos, I see no evidence of securing points to the hull aft of the main or mizzen chainwales. The securing points appear on the chainwales themselves but as indicated in the photos.
In my opinion, we should take the actual physical evidence available rather than speculation as to what it 'may' have been. I am rigging my ship as per the Vasamuseet plans!!
Note too that the photos are in keeping with what Fred Hocker has said:
"The backstays are not set up on the aftermost chain as in later ships. On the mizzen, the backstay looks to be between the third and fourth shrouds, while on the mainmast and foremast there appears t be a backstay between the last and next to last shroud, and possibly one farther forward. ... "
As we could see , in this backstays location , they also will never touch the yard when it bracing, only first couple of shrouds could touch the braced yard..."
What Dr Hocker says is entirely consistent with what is seen in the photos, but not with the backstays secured to any aft chainplate or hull location.
Regards,
PeterG
While all this discussion on backstays is interesting, I think we had best take a step back and recognise that we are modelling the ship, VASA. We also have the extreme advantage of having the actual VASA available to provide evidence of where backstays may have been secured. Below are a couple of photos of the Vasa flanks just aft of the mainmast and mizzen chainwales. I can see NO evidence of any securing points to the outer hull aft of the wales, but rather to the chainwales themselves, amid the shrouds.
Looking to the aft on the starboard side:
And looking forward on the port side between main and mizzen chainwales:
From the above, actual, real ship photos, I see no evidence of securing points to the hull aft of the main or mizzen chainwales. The securing points appear on the chainwales themselves but as indicated in the photos.
In my opinion, we should take the actual physical evidence available rather than speculation as to what it 'may' have been. I am rigging my ship as per the Vasamuseet plans!!
Note too that the photos are in keeping with what Fred Hocker has said:
"The backstays are not set up on the aftermost chain as in later ships. On the mizzen, the backstay looks to be between the third and fourth shrouds, while on the mainmast and foremast there appears t be a backstay between the last and next to last shroud, and possibly one farther forward. ... "
As we could see , in this backstays location , they also will never touch the yard when it bracing, only first couple of shrouds could touch the braced yard..."
What Dr Hocker says is entirely consistent with what is seen in the photos, but not with the backstays secured to any aft chainplate or hull location.
Regards,
PeterG
Last edited:
Good day Peter,
Agree with all You told above... but even more than , on the foto I couldnt see places, where to secure this backstays, where they were secured originaly? ....
to fitt them instead of some of masttackles, between shrouds?
Personaly, I love that Vasa museum model rigging plan , without any backstays..
BRGDS
Kirill
Agree with all You told above... but even more than , on the foto I couldnt see places, where to secure this backstays, where they were secured originaly? ....
to fitt them instead of some of masttackles, between shrouds?
Personaly, I love that Vasa museum model rigging plan , without any backstays..
BRGDS
Kirill
Good day Stephan,
I apologize , there was no my intension to rise up degree of discussion....
I feel myself too stupid to understand this part of our conversation about counteract of running backstays and bracing yards... still cant get full picture ,from my point of vew, they are positioning too far from each other to be in touch even yard will be sharp braced..
mybe I will understood it later on when I see some examples on a models or art paintings....
Sorry again
BRGDS
Kirill
Last edited:
Kirill4,
I agree with what you said:
“Personaly, I love that Vasa museum model rigging plan , without any backstays..
BRGDS”
I prefer the museum model too, hence I have adopted the Vasamuseet rigging plans.
Regards,
PeterG
I agree with what you said:
“Personaly, I love that Vasa museum model rigging plan , without any backstays..
BRGDS”
I prefer the museum model too, hence I have adopted the Vasamuseet rigging plans.
Regards,
PeterG
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2019
- Messages
- 4,841
- Points
- 688
No problem @Kirill, I'm not angry, you don't have to say sorry. But I think everything rests on a language problem.
I think that writers of today's books and model makers attach just a little too much value to the words that were used, in practice as well as in professional language, by sailors of earlier centuries. I think the vocabulary of those sailors was not as set in stone as ours is today. These words undoubtedly received somewhat different definitions at different times and received somewhat different definitions in different countries. I suspect then that "shifting backstay," "traveling backstay," “breast backstay” "running backstay" ”slingerpardoen” were also used interchangeably in different periods. In other words, in every time and in every language a different meaning and look. But that the operation of this object amounts to the same thing. And that was to give a reinforcement to the topmast in full sail and strong wind.
I think that writers of today's books and model makers attach just a little too much value to the words that were used, in practice as well as in professional language, by sailors of earlier centuries. I think the vocabulary of those sailors was not as set in stone as ours is today. These words undoubtedly received somewhat different definitions at different times and received somewhat different definitions in different countries. I suspect then that "shifting backstay," "traveling backstay," “breast backstay” "running backstay" ”slingerpardoen” were also used interchangeably in different periods. In other words, in every time and in every language a different meaning and look. But that the operation of this object amounts to the same thing. And that was to give a reinforcement to the topmast in full sail and strong wind.
Hmmm…50 pages talking about rigging, will be followed with a few pictures of the end result.
I want to begin by thanking all of you for your continued interest in my build and for the active participation of many as I struggle to work out the details. While I have to accept that every question I would like answered can't be answered - and that I will make errors in judgement and execution along the way - neither do I want to be dismissive of the simple fact that I am building a model of a real ship with real history.
Over the past several weeks I have come near to completing the standing rigging. I have made some decisions along the way that not everyone will support but that's OK - it wasn't for lack of time spent trying to figure things out.
My customary blue background didn't cut it for pictures of rigging, so I cobbled together a few pieces art board that my kids had lying around... and now that I see the photos I regret not taking the time to set up proper lighting...
The overall view:
Mizzen:
Main:
Fore:
Sprit:
And I chose to rig the top ropes just for fun. Obviously these lines would have been taken down once the masts were raised but I think they make a nice addition to a model and could create a worthwhile talking point. I only did these for the top masts not the topgallants...
I'm confident, given the attention they have received on this log, that you didn't miss the fact that backstays are not rigged. Research continues with the hope that more can be learned.
Fun fact: I have now used nearly 60 meters of the smallest rope (roughly 0.24 mm) I can make from my chosen source threads. Most of this went to ratlines but also lanyards in a few spots. While there is great satisfaction in rope fabrication - I'm no longer sold on the (time) cost to value ratio.
Thanks for stopping by! It's a joy to share this journey with you!
Over the past several weeks I have come near to completing the standing rigging. I have made some decisions along the way that not everyone will support but that's OK - it wasn't for lack of time spent trying to figure things out.
My customary blue background didn't cut it for pictures of rigging, so I cobbled together a few pieces art board that my kids had lying around... and now that I see the photos I regret not taking the time to set up proper lighting...
The overall view:
Mizzen:
Main:
Fore:
Sprit:
And I chose to rig the top ropes just for fun. Obviously these lines would have been taken down once the masts were raised but I think they make a nice addition to a model and could create a worthwhile talking point. I only did these for the top masts not the topgallants...
I'm confident, given the attention they have received on this log, that you didn't miss the fact that backstays are not rigged. Research continues with the hope that more can be learned.
Fun fact: I have now used nearly 60 meters of the smallest rope (roughly 0.24 mm) I can make from my chosen source threads. Most of this went to ratlines but also lanyards in a few spots. While there is great satisfaction in rope fabrication - I'm no longer sold on the (time) cost to value ratio.
Thanks for stopping by! It's a joy to share this journey with you!
I think your model is coming together extremely well and I am glad you have your own decisions in this model!! Make it's more personal to you and I think it helps with continuing on to the end.