Down-sizing rope ratio compared to the proper scale

[Sandor Laza]

Dear all,

 

I am trying to calculate the size of ropes to use to my model. I calculated the rope sizes according to the scale of the model, but they feel to heavy. For example, my stay should be 2 mm diameter, but it feel to much. As I recall, I have read somewhere that one should approximately 80% diameter compared to the "proper" size. In other words, I should use 1.6 mm instead 2 mm.

 

Is there an "ideal" widely used down-sizing ratio?  

[allanyed]

Sandor, At least for British ships of war, all standing rigging (except ratlines, robands, gaskets, and brails which are usually a given fixed circumference)  can be determined as a ratio going back to the diameter of the lower masts.  Running rigging can be determined as a proportion to the appropriate stays.   The proportions also vary with the year the ship was rigged.

 

To which line are you referring, what ship, year, and to which scale are you building?  

 

Allan

[Sandor Laza]

Thank you, Allen! I calculated the exact sizes/diameters already.

The problem is that they appear to be too thick on the model.

 

I was thinking about to scale the ropes back to 80%. E.g. instead of 2 mm,I would use 1.6, and so forth.

 

Cheers,

 

Sandor

[DelF]

I apologise in advance if this is a point you have already considered, but are you sure you are not confusing circumference and diameter? As I'm sure you know, historical sources tend to give rope sizes in circumference. Even on a first rate like HMS Victory at 1:48 scale, very few ropes would be 2mm in diameter - the main stay and a few others, but certainly not the shrouds and the running rigging.

 

Derek  

[Bossman]

1 hour ago, DelF said:

I apologise in advance if this is a point you have already considered, but are you sure you are not confusing circumference and diameter? As I'm sure you know, historical sources tend to give rope sizes in circumference. Even on a first rate like HMS Victory at 1:48 scale, very few ropes would be 2mm in diameter - the main stay and a few others, but certainly not the shrouds and the running rigging.

 

Derek  

Yep, made that mistake before!

[Sandor Laza]

13 hours ago, DelF said:

I apologise in advance if this is a point you have already considered, but are you sure you are not confusing circumference and diameter? As I'm sure you know, historical sources tend to give rope sizes in circumference. Even on a first rate like HMS Victory at 1:48 scale, very few ropes would be 2mm in diameter - the main stay and a few others, but certainly not the shrouds and the running rigging.

 

Derek  

I checked it, and it seems to be (almost) fine. This is Cannonniera Ollandese #2, 1:43. 18th century cutter. Main mast diameter at deck is 12 mm on the model. If the circumference of the main stay is half of the diameter of the mast, then the main stay diameter should be 1.91 mm. (I hope I am not screwing this up!) And that seems to be too thick to me. Please correct me if I am doing something incorrectly here.

[allanyed]

Yes Sandor if the mast diameter is 12mm the main stay should be as you wrote, 1.91mm diameter.  I guess the appearance being too thick is really how you see it, but based on Lees, at least for British ships, 1.91 is correct.   As the closest you have is 2 mm, it will appear too large by 5%.  But, if you go to 1.6mm it will be undersized by 16%.   Your choice in the end.

Allan

[amateur]

Hi Sandor,

 

Is it the rope that is too thick, or is it your expectations that did expect something small?

 

Bear in mind that the old-fashioned hemp-ropes needed to be way thicker than the modern materials to have the same strength.

 

On my Prins Willem (scale somewhere around 1:80-1:100), the mast is 11 mm in diameter, the main stay around 1.8. It looked a bit heavy at first, but now the whole rigging is done, and all is more or less in proper thickness, the total picture looks right to me. The only thing: The first version of the 2 mm-rope was too coarse: you could see the strands from 'quite a distance'. The rope should be proper laid, otherwise out looks out of scale.

 

[edit]. My post crossed with the previous.

One additional remark: the Dutch contemporaneous models tend to be 'oversized' when it comes to rope-thickness: from that point of viewchoose 5% oversize, and not 16% undersized thickness. The other reason to choose the oversized stay: all ropes have a more or less fixed ratio to the stay. Choosing undersized stay, will make using the proper ratios  fro the remainder of the rigging more difficult (less sizes available between .1 and 1,5 mm than between .1 and 2.0 mm.) In the end the variation in thickness of the ropes used is what counts for the overall impression.

 

Jan

[amateur]

I guess I gave this link before. It is one of the models Mamoli based their kit on.

 

https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/NG-MC-673

 

It is a contemporaneous model, with original rigging done by the builders of the 1:1 ship.

Notice the heavy main stay. Almost as thick as the yards of the square sail, and as thick as the gaff of the top gaf sail. 

 

Jan

[popeye2sea]

 

I think what you are experiencing is very common to scale modelling.  Aesthetically, the proper size rope can appear too heavy for the model.  Although you use the exact right size for the rigging the overall look of the rig will appear to be overpowering.  It is often said to err on the small side if you have to make a choice.

 

If you look at the rigging of a real ship it appears to be almost delicate with plenty of space between each element.  On the model everything is compressed together and that delicate feeling can be lost.

 

Regards,

[wefalck]

Colour can also matter. Lighter coloured ropes may appear thicker than dark coloured ones of the same diameter.

 

We also tend to have modern ships in front of our mental eyes. There, even natural fibre ropes tend to be thinner than they would have been say 150 or 200 years ago. Since the 1880s or so techniques to quantitatively testing the breaking strenghts of rope have been developed and also quality control measures on the raw materials that go into them. In this way ropes can be made thinner than in previous centuries, where they had to err on the safe side.