400e Inner Forestay - Deck chainplate solution?

On the upside, our anodes last vastly longer from rarely using shore power. I’ve actually started to make the ‘annual’ lift an 18 month cycle (limit is prop greasing & antifoul life now). So outside of the cost of power there’s a huge saving on annual lift costs from going heavy on solar & power systems onboard. 

Ps I talked to Lat Bros re arch for the future. Thanks for recommending. 

1. Mounting for radar/solar/starlink/JonBuoy recovery system

2. Raising of stern light height, thus increasing visibility from astern

3. Easily removable solid bar across the transom, increasing security at sea for the helm while still permitting easy access.

4. Strong base for extending steel rails from the stern to the entry gates, replacing the guard wires.  Provides greater security when transiting to/from the cockpit in a seaway.

5. Secure framework increases safety (or at least the feeling of) behind the wheel, particularly in bouncy seas.

6. Provides security when standing high at the stern with binoculars or when 'watering the fishes'

7. Provides a rig for the 6:1 tackle for bringing scuba or other heavy gear onboard

8. A base from which to rig safety lines at chest height from stern to shrouds if required by conditions.  Used as an extra hand-hold these augment but do not replace a centre-line jackstay; they are never clipped onto anyone's harness.

9.  Strong attachment for cockpit tent, making the structure sturdier at sea.

Disadvantages:

1.  High initial cost.  Its up to us as individuals how much we assess the advantages as 'value for money'.

2.  Weight.  This is the third-worst place to add weight on a seagoing yacht.  However, it can be mitigated by careful re-stowing of other heavy gear.  I now routinely carry our tender on the coachroof amidships instead of in the stern locker; while accepting a hit to the AVS this has obviated any increased tendency to pitch. 

3. Lower radar position, thus decreasing range.  However, in practice this is not an issue for me.  Given AIS, I'm not that interested in any target beyond 12 miles anyway and the mast is the worst place to have extra weight, though admittedly modern domes are very light.

I needed to substantially increase the backing plates beneath the appropriate stanchions; not a bad idea anyway for anyone wanting to hang heavy weights on the pulpit rails.  However, it I were doing it again I'd try to use aluminium or a thinner tube size to reduce the weight yet further.  The solar capacity could easily be increased at a later time if necessary.

Pictures below; hope you find this useful but if there's anything else do shout.

Iain

IMO its important to make sure that the arch design flows with the lines of the boat.  Its in the eye of the beholder, but I think my fellow got it about right:

Showing attachments

At the risk of being provocative, the following picture shows what not to do with a yacht being used for anything else than short trips in calm seas.  Not only has a substantial weight been added at the stern, its been placed high up as well.  I think this will certainly increase that vessel's willingness to pitch, perhaps to the point of just hobby-horsing up and down as I was surprised to see even an HR36 do last year and its AVS will also have taken a hit.  However, the owner may well be aware of those effects yet still accept them; we all use our boats differently and what's good for one may not be for another.  We just have to know the trade-offs.

He said he would not trust the cleats unless they were reinforced

Thanks Eoin 

I had the pleasure of visiting Mark's 'Grey Goose' and was impressed with the aesthetics as well of the strength of the steel bar he's fashioned to take the loads in the forecabin.  However, I'll be genuinely interested in the results of your further analysis.

Iain