Scott,

Your forward crew can do the same on an R22.

Regards,

Rick Lange

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:50 PM Scott Andrews via Rhodes22-list <
rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org> wrote:

> Thanks everyone, I get it now. I was thinking of my experience with
> smaller boats, thistles & flying Scots when forward crew could clip on the
> ball.
> Scott
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 9, 2021, at 1:49 PM, ROGER PIHLAJA <roger_pihlaja at msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > Scott,
> >
> > Assuming you are using Peter’s below attached definitions for bow eye
> and bow cleat, the only reason you would want to tie off to the bow eye vs
> the bow cleat would be if you are anchoring on short scope or if the anchor
> is set into a poor holding bottom.  Tying off to the bow eye reduces the
> vertical distance from the tie off point to the anchor.  Remember, the
> vertical distance is the water depth + height of the tie off point above
> the water.  An example may make this more clear.  My bow eye is about 1.5
> ft above the water and my bow cleats are about 3.0 ft above the water.
> Suppose we are anchoring in 7 ft of water using 60 ft of anchor rode.
> Tying off to the bow eye would yield a scope ratio of [60 ft] / [7 ft + 1.5
> ft] = 60 / 8.5 = 7.1 .  Tying off to the bow cleat would yield a scope
> ratio of
> > [60 ft] / [7 ft + 3.0 ft] = 60 / 10 = 6.0 .  A scope ratio of 7.1 would
> probably be OK for anchoring overnight.  A scope ratio of 6.0 would be
> iffy.  So, if you are trying to anchor in a situation where there is
> limited room to swing &/or a poor holding bottom; then, consider using the
> bow eye vs the bow cleat to slightly improve your scope ratio.  Of course,
> using the bow eye is much more trouble vs using the bow cleat.  A typical
> mooring has a huge deeply set anchor that is unlikely to drag and so there
> is usually no reason to use the bow eye vs the bow cleat on a mooring.
> >
> > Having said that, I used my bow eye and stern eye at my slip very time I
> docked at my home slip.  But, I was in a situation where I parked sideways
> to a wharf and the boat was exposed to wave action from the side.  Rather
> than depend upon fenders to absorb the wave action and keep the hull off
> the dock, I had a pair of mooring whips.  Mooring whips look like HD
> fishing poles attached to the dock.  I had my mooring whips setup to attach
> to the bow eye and stern eye using quick release carabiners.  They held the
> boat about 2 ft off the dock.  Of course all that gear was swept away along
> with my dock during the May 19, 2020 dam failure and flood!
> >
> > Roger Pihlaja
> > S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >
> > Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> >
> > From: Peter Nyberg
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:00 AM
> > To: sea20 at verizon.net; The Rhodes 22 Email List
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] mooring
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > I’m not sure what you’re asking, and it may be a terminology issue.  Is
> it possible that when you say ‘bow eye’ you mean ‘bow cleat’?  The bow
> cleat would be attached to the deck, where as the bow eye is attached to
> the stem of the hull.  You could in theory attach your mooring to the bow
> eye, but I can’t see why you would want a second one.
> >
> > Adding one or two more cleats at the bow is a pretty common project. You
> would want it through-bolted, and you would want to avoid any possibility
> of water finding it’s way into the deck core.  I’d recommend a
> drill-fill-drill approach.  If you don’t know what that is, I can
> elaborate.
> >
> > —Peter
> >
> > > On Mar 9, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Scott E Andrews via Rhodes22-list <
> rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings all,    I will likely be on a waiting list for a slip next
> season and will be on a mooring. I have a couple questions regarding
> painter and pendant attachment. I read MJM"s email regarding use of the bow
> eye with chocks. Is the any reason not to add a second bow eye? Also, is
> there a recomended pendant or painter length? Thanks everyone.
> > > Scott AndrewsFirst year owner, Wilmington De
> >
> >
>