¹ The company is still active today in Porto S. Stefano, Grosseto.

² Luciano Bonassi, whom we should never stop mourning, was the deus ex machina of Barbarossa: a profound innovator, but with respect for tradition, in the field of winches, blocks and coffee grinder systems.

Running rigging

Runners – Why have Runners?

Runners at Work

Runner Blocks and Their Circuits

The Various Systems for Tensioning the Runners

The Runner Tail

Lower Runners

Mast Attachments of Upper and Lower Runners

The Backstay

How to choose wire rope, identify the right purchase and select the correct winch.

Why have Runners?

‘Why have runners?’ ‘What use are they?’ we may ask ourselves. Good questions! For without runners, the lives of sailors would be much easier! In fact, with the growing number of boats with aft raked spreaders,¹ the use of runners and the need for them seem to be dying out. I say ‘seem to’ because there is still an impressive number of boats around that use – and will continue to use – runners, both in racing and cruising.

The saying attributed to Eric Tabarly: ‘What you don’t have on board won’t break,’ is certainly true. But on the other hand, if you need something, you really need it. And you really need runners, unless you have a rig with aft raked spreaders.

1.1
The difference between a masthead rig (left) where the forestay is attached to the masthead and (right) a fractional rig where the forestay is attached lower down.

On a masthead rigged boat, when you tension the backstay to take the sag – the curvature caused by the pressure of the wind on the genoa – out of the forestay, it is easy to see that a part of this tension (the horizontal component) will bring the masthead aft and thus reduce sag. But unfortunately the tension also has a vertical component that has the negative effect of compressing the mast. And if this compression increases beyond a certain point, it will induce sag even worse than that we are trying to eliminate.

In a masthead rig, the runners² allow us to counter the bending of the mast caused by the tensioning of the backstay, while in a fractional rig³ the lower runners counter the same effect caused by the tensioning of the upper runners. There is another thing that helps explain why runners are necessary. If a masthead rigged boat is sailing hard on the wind with full main and the heavy genoa, and there is a sea running, the mast will be seen to ‘pump’ (to bend back and forth) with every wave. To avoid this, forward the babystay⁴ is tensioned and aft the runner (usually the lower one). Together, they will hold the mast still and stop this pumping movement.

Things are even worse if on the masthead rig the inner forestay is tensioned to set a staysail. This extra foresail will increase the compression on the mast, and hence its tendency to pump with sea running, and will require an upper runner leading aft to counteract this. Incidentally, if we were in the land of dreams, the best way of removing the sag from the forestay would be to exert a force equal and opposite to the sagging force at the point of maximum curvature on the stay. How? Well, it is certainly not easy! You would need somebody to hover in mid air while the boat was under way and ‘pull’ the forestay to windward with the same force, but in the opposite direction, as that with which the sail was making it sag to leeward. In the real world, we prefer to use a line that runs from where the forestay is attached and leads aft where it is tensioned as needed.

1.2

1. Static situation: at the quayside with true wind speed zero; the forestay is straight and there is no sag.

2. Dynamic situation: under way, the apparent wind speed is 25 knots, the forestay is curved and sag is very pronounced.

3. If we tension the backstay (or the runners on a fractional rig) we tension the forestay, but part of the force has a negative role and compresses the mast.

4. The compression on the mast makes it bend, partly frustrating the positive action of tensioning the backstay.

5. If we tension the runner the mast straightens and thus the sag is also reduced.

6. The ideal would be to have ‘someone hovering in mid air and pulling the forestay upwind’.

 

On a fractional rig the need for a runner is even greater. The upper runner has the same function as the backstay in a masthead rig: to hold the mast up! In fractional rigs, to underline the vital importance of this piece of rigging, the runner is said to be ‘structural’. On rigs of this kind it is not completely unusual to find three sets of runners.

Why open this book by talking about runners? The answer is simple: runners, the kings of running rigging, best exemplify the basic concept of rigging itself, for they are called upon to offer at one and the same time qualities that appear to contradict each other: reliability, speed (both in tensioning and easing) and precise regulation. These are all fundamental characteristics that we will find to varying degrees in every part of a rig.

Runners at Work

It is wrongly said that runners are a hallmark of modern boats, while in fact the opposite is true. Here is a quote from Carlo Sciarrelli’s book Lo Yacht:

So there is nothing new! Again, about 30 years later in the summer of 1983, the English (and not only the English) greeted Pinta, a big fractional rig 43 footer owned by German Willi Illbruck and designed by Judel and Vrolijk, with derisive chuckles mixed with disbelief as she sailed into the waters of Cowes. This reaction melted like snow in the sun after the crushing victory of the German team in that year’s Admiral’s Cup, which dispelled any doubts about the validity of the fractional rig for racing yachts.

The fleet of IOR 30.5 raters in the 1984 One Ton Cup, held in Trinité-sur-Mer, France, was made up almost entirely of fractional rigs, and marked the definitive affirmation of this type of rig on the racing circuit, even on big boats.⁵ So we can use the One Tonner as a testing ground for the observations we will be making.⁶

The upper runner of a fractional rig of this kind has a working load of about 2200 kg. Note that this value was obtained through field measurement, with a tension gauge with a load cell mounted on the stay: in 1984 on the One Tonner Brava, a beautiful Vallicelli built like a Stradivarius by the Morri & Para yard, we had a hydraulic tension gauge! The stay on these boats had a maximum working load of 3400 kg.

We will explain later how to determine the working load on the various pieces of rigging, using special formulas and load deviation angles. Today, load cells are all electronic. Here it is vital to underline the importance of our starting point. It does not matter whether this comes from practical experience on board or from theoretical calculation. What does matter is that we must set out having a very clear idea of what loads our piece of rigging must bear. For example, too many people still think that the load on the number 1 genoa sheet is greater than that on the sheet of the number 3. In fact the opposite is true (we will look at this in more detail later).

It is vital that the starting point be clear, from both a pragmatic and a logical standpoint (though we are well aware that the science of boating knows above all that it does not know everything!) Otherwise we would set out, right from the very start, on a road that would lead us to wrong conclusions. To have a sufficient safety margin with respect to our working load of 2200 kg we should use, for the runner, a line with a breaking strength not less than 3500 kg.

1.3
An example of three-strand rope. First stage: the fibres are twisted to form yarn. Second stage: the yarn is twisted into strands. Third stage: the strands are twisted. Fourth stage: the twisted rope is made.

We say 3500 kg to have a minimum safety coefficient⁷ of 1.5, which allows us to have a breaking strength that is 50% more than the maximum working load we expect on the runner. A choice that allows us to sleep at night. On a cruising yacht, we would certainly prefer to use a safety coefficient of 2, which would give us a breaking strength 100% greater than the presumed maximum working load, though the weight of the line would be far greater than that chosen for the racing yacht.

For love of paradox, but above all to help understand why we choose one material rather than another, let us imagine for a moment rigging our One Tonner exclusively with materials that were widespread in the first half of the past century. We would have used laid three-strand tarred hemp rope (similar to today’s mooring lines) for the runner. But using this would mean, at the effective working load of 2200 kg,⁹ that the rope would stretch several metres. And we could not tolerate this, for once the effective working load was reached the runner would stretch so much – like an elastic band – that we would have to tension it further, and this would stretch it even more, so we would have to tension it again, thus stretching it even more again. And this would lead us into an unending vicious circle and we would lose our patience and perhaps also our mast!

There is no doubt that the choice of hemp rope satisfied our first fundamental requirement in terms of breaking strain. But that is certainly not enough. For if the breaking strain were assured, and the legitimate need for light weight and low cost were met, we would still end up with a miserable failure. The rope would be so elastic as to be completely unusable, and we would be at the danger limit.

Let us learn here that rigging is the art of compromise: you gain on one side and lose on the other. The perfect balance of the various components of a piece of rigging, meeting the requirements in this way, determines the success of a project, and thus of the project put into practice.

But let us continue with our hypotheses. Since ‘. . . the first metallic shrouds, in galvanised wire, appeared on the cutter Cymba, built by William Fife in 1852 . . .’,⁸ at this point let us try using a 19 strand metal wire in 316 stainless steel, external diameter 7 mm and breaking strain 3550 kg.¹⁰ To check whether our current choice is an improvement as concerns the problem of excessive stretching we encountered with hemp rope, let us right away calculate the stretch. The runners are 15 m long and each weighs 3.645 kg. The elastic stretch in millimetres is given by the formula W × L/E × A, where W is the load applied in kN; L the length of the wire in millimetres; A the area of the cross-section of the wire derived from the formula D² × 3.14/4 and E the module of elasticity for the material based on its specific composition. So we will have: 21.5 × 15 000/107.5 × 38.46, which gives us a stretch of 78 mm.¹¹

We have certainly made a lot of progress in reducing stretch compared with the three-strand tarred hemp rope: from metres of stretch we are down to millimetres! But when we get to our fateful One Ton Cup¹² we realise that many of our most fearsome opponents are already using for their runners another material that is decidedly more advanced: a single rod of steel known as Nitronic 50. The diameter of rod that comes closest to our needs is 5.5 mm with a breaking strain of 3220 kg.¹³ The formula we used earlier gives a stretch of 70.3 mm. So we have slightly lower stretch than the spiral wire, though not significantly so, just a few millimetres. What is significant, however, is the weight saving: from 3.78 kg with the spiral wire we are down to 2.85 kg with the rod.

Table 1.1 Typical values for E in kN/mm² for various materials

spiral 1 × 19	107.5
dyform 1 × 19	133.7
nitronic 50	193.0
Kevlar rod	124.0
wire 7 × 19	47.5

1.4
A diagram showing the relationship between the elastic modulus of various materials and kinds of wire and the resulting stretch.

We must bear in mind, too, that this saving must be multiplied by two, as runners are always in pairs, and above all note that the weight we have saved would have been at a height of about 7.5 m above the deck, with all the negative effects it would have had on heeling, pitching and rolling.

But we must also underline a disadvantage for each of the last two options. And this will allow us to introduce a third and very important factor that we really must take into account in choosing a material and the form of that material for a piece of rigging. Besides breaking strain, working load and stretch, there is practicality.

Unfortunately spiral wire has an annoying tendency to twist under tension. And it is no small problem when you realise that the block of the runner you are tensioning has rotated and taken a couple of twists. This makes it hard to tension the runner further or even to ease it. This is a nasty problem and unfortunately we have to take it into consideration when we have a runner in spiral wire that passes through a block. If the wire ends without a block, and thus the runner goes directly to its tensioning system, a winch or similar, the defect is still present but is obviously less damaging. Rods, since they are formed of a single piece, are ‘stable’ and so do not have this tendency to twist. But they have another disadvantage that is no less serious: they are particularly susceptible to knocks from the boom when gybing. These knocks bend the rods, thus shortening their working life and reducing their strength.¹⁴

Another hypothesis that tends to reduce both these disadvantages is to use AraLine 49, a braided Kevlar¹⁵ line with a protective polyurethane outer sleeve. These lines were distributed in the boating sector by the French company EPI, now marketed by Navtec.¹⁶ AraLine 49 with an external diameter of 10 mm has a breaking strain of 5184 kg, and at the working load of 2200 kg stretches by 0.49%. Over a length of 15 000 mm, that means only 73 mm of stretch.

Certainly this is more stretch than in the case of steel rod, but we have a decisive saving of weight (each runner would weigh 1.335 kg) and above all we eliminate the practical problems we had with both spiral wire and steel rod, for Araline does not twist under tension and is well able to cope with any knocks from the boom.

Let us sum things up at this point. Though it may seem paradoxical, the first solution, with three-strand rope for the runners, is the typical one for very low budget sailors. The Bohemians of the seas, the hippies of the ocean certainly do not disdain it, and if you find yourself in one of the ports they frequent you will see several examples of it. Runners in 19 strand spiral wire are usually found on former racing boats adapted in a makeshift way for sporty cruising, while runners in exotic fibres are found exclusively on racing boats and very high prestige cruising yachts. All have clear and distinct pros and cons, as we have seen, but the only solution I really would recommend abolishing is the steel rod, for its disadvantages far outweigh its few advantages.

What I am saying is that the ideal solution in absolute terms does not exist; what does exist and has a meaning is the ‘xy’ version that is the best solution available for a given problem.

Table 1.2 Performance comparison between various kinds of runners

From the EPI style runners of the 1980s to the present day we have seen a series of attempts to improve things that have not always succeeded perfectly from all points of view. First of all, work has been done on the quality of the material used for the terminals of the runners, moving from normal 316 steel to 6061 aluminium and, where class rules permitted it, titanium. But the most extensive experimentation has been carried out on the material used for the core and its morphology. With the advent of fibres of the latest generation, Kevlar has been replaced both by Vectran and by the very costly PBO to obtain better mechanical resistance and tolerance of solar radiation and bending, but with the disadvantage of astronomical expense.

1.5
Yale’s Vectrus single core line, used for a spinnaker guy.

But the biggest breakthrough has come from the manufacture of these lines no longer with the classical technique of parallel fibres or fibres braided like those used in double braided line, but instead – once the overall pin-to-pin length¹⁷ of the line has been established – by winding a very tiny thread of the chosen exotic material around this length until the breaking strain required by the project has been achieved. It is easy to understand that once this winding has been done, the knot or braid used to make fast the two free ends of the thread has to support only a very tiny part of the working load, so this manufacturing method is much more reliable than the classic splicing.

Also, this unending thread does not need heavy terminals like those of one-way lines but only thimbles, though sometimes these must be of a special kind.

1.6
Left: a classic soft eye splice, that is without a thimble, on a double braid line, used in upper and lower runner systems with an eye more to cost than to performance.
Right: an upper runner in exotic fibre and lower runner in wire rope, connected by a swivel plate.

Runner Blocks and Their Circuits
When and how to avoid them and, if you really cannot do without them, how to size them

Let us be honest, even without heeding Eric Tabarly’s warning, we really would like to do without the runner block. By runner block we mean the block fitted to the runner cable and usually called the flying block because it flies back and forth over the deck, frequently clouting the helmsman over the head on its way, depending on whether the runner is in tension or not. A deck block, on the other hand, is fixed to the deck. This block is generally bulky, heavy, costly and in some cases downright dangerous.

The maxi My Song, a Reichel-Pugh 85-footer, when racing keeps her runners close to the centre of the transom, but when cruising they are moved to points out on the quarters so as to avoid the flying block getting in the helmsman’s way when the runner is eased.¹⁸

1.7
The ‘T’ terminal of a 1 × 19 strand spiral wire runner. Note the safety plate for the ‘T’ terminal and the shock cord.

These observations help us understand what we want from the flying block: we want its dimensions to be as little gigantic as possible, and it should be as light, inexpensive and reliable as it can be. Having said that, we quickly realise that we are yet again in that age-old and intricate situation of finding the best compromise from among the various solutions to the needs we have described. We will see later how to unravel the problem, but meanwhile let us examine an apparent shortcut and take a look at a runner circuit that does not use a block on the runner itself.¹⁹ The only runner circuit that does not need a block fitted directly to the runner is the 1 : 1 circuit where the runner (either a single runner or an upper and a lower runner) leads either directly or via a link to a winch or other tensioning system. Let us examine the pros and cons of a circuit of this kind.

1.8
The flying block of a 2 : 1 runner. Note the special sailmaker’s thimble at the extremity of the upper runner in continuous thread; the lower runner is fixed to the block with a strop made of several turns of Vectran between the sheave of the block and the runner.

The pros are easy: if to tension the runner you have to haul, for example, 5 m of line because that is the distance from the shrouds, where the runner usually rests, to the block that turns the line, if there were a 2 : 1 system you would have to haul double that amount of line, that is 10 m. The 1 : 1 system is far faster both in tensioning and in easing. The 2 : 1 system with its flying block offers a lot of resistance to the necessary retaining shock cord of the runner that needs to be eased, both because of the weight of the block itself and because of the friction of the line that has to run for a full 10 m through the blocks in the system.

In short, a direct circuit with no blocks, as is the 1 : 1, has as its (only) strong points simplicity, speed and practicality. On the other hand, its downside cannot be ignored. When you haul the runner directly, with no block and tackle interposed, the load on the block on the deck is extremely high, so you need a very robust block (and that also means you need to have a sturdy reinforcement on the part of the deck where the block is fitted) and you will also need a very powerful winch or other tensioning system. And let us make it quite clear that ‘robust and powerful’, while sounding reassuring to many sailors, also means high weight and cost, and these are negatives. In practical terms, let us sum up the pros and cons of this kind of circuit: