How hairy are ropes?

[georgeband]

How hairy was a real rope and should we replicate it?

 

The thread supplied in some kits is quite hairy and people devise techniques to smooth off the model rope, for example to pass it through a candle flame or to run it through bees wax. But how hirsute is a real rope? They must have some straggly ends that eventually break off and form the wisps on deck that become a job for someone to sweep up. 

 

I was in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard during the Trafalgar weekend and one of their volunteers made a length of hemp rope for me and spliced an eye into one end. Thank you to Len Cullen and the other volunteers who give their time there. This rope is about 3/8" or 1cm diameter, so it is one of the thinner ones on a ship. The rogue fibres are about 1" or 3cm long and are clearly visible on the photos below. 

Converting the lengths to a 1/64 scale model rope we get about 0.5mm as an acceptable level of hairiness, and a bit more on a 1/48 scale model. I guess that a thicker rope would have the same lengths for the hairy bits because it is formed from the same strands.

 

Natural hemp ropes are not silky smooth in real life and a model with perfect ropes would please an artisan who prides himself on his workmanship but would look toy-like to someone who strives for realism. A cheap thread with 2mm or 3mm strands sticking out from it should, in my opinion, be brought under control but it does not need to be taken to extreme smoothness.

On standing rigging the tar or pitch (I cannot remember which) that coats it would act like a hair gel and stick down the loose fibres. It is reasonable to make our model ropes smooth when they represent standing rigging. 

 

Does anyone have photos of ropes made in other materials for comparison?

 

 

George

 

[wefalck]

I think your rope is untreated hemp for one.

 

Another point is the quality of the hemp as such. I gather today they have to take what they get, while in the old days certain regions specialised in the production of particularly long-fibred and smooth hemp, for instance certain provinces of Russia I believe and also in Germany.

 

The second point is the preparation of the hemp, which is quite elaborate to obtain only the long fibres, while the rest goes to waste. 

 

The third point would be how careful and tight the initial spinning was performed. Your example doesn't seem to be particularly tight.

 

The rope-maker also goes along the rope in making with a rough cloth to rub off loose fibres.

 

I seem to have seen rather smooth, tighly twisted ropes. 

 

So in essence, at any of our model scales one should really see any fibres sticking out. Many people now use synthetic fibres that are essentially endless and where the problem of 'hairs' sticking out does not really occur.

 

 

[Keith Black]

 Rope hair like treenails would be impossible to see at scale. 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  I've made  aprox. 3/8" diameter rope for demos ... this size seems to happen 'naturally' by using twine of either sisal, jute or hemp.  Sisal is the worst for little 'bits' sticking out, jute approximates hemp - but hemp (the best) is also expensive.  Three lengths of twine are strung on each of the three turning hooks for ordinary rope, and the counter twist is regulated by the rope maker's 'top' ... or by reverse cranking in other setups.  As you can see in the photos, from a foot away (the first picture), the jute rope seems minimally fuzzy.  But get in to a couple of inches away (the second photo) and it DOES appear as fuzzy as your rope.

 

  From 6 feet away (72"), you don't see anything ... and at 1:72 scale that would be merely an inch away from scale rope.  Ergo, 'average' kit rope that looks fuzzy from an inch away should not be used ...  nicely made scale rope passes the 'inch away' rule.

 

 

  

 

  BTW, I found that using a little bees wax on the twine reduced the 'fuzziness' of 3/8" rope by about half.

[Dr PR]

The fuzz on scale rope should also be to scale. If the fibers on 1:1 rope are 0.001 inch (0.025 mm) -  5 times the diameter of a human hair - the scale fuzz would be 0.00002 inch (0.0005 mm) at 1:48 scale. You would need a microscope to see them.

 

From a normal viewing distance the ropes on a scale model would have no visible fuzz.

[georgeband]

Thank you all for your photos, comments and interpretation. I have just had a look at my length of natural, untreated hemp rope from a distance of about 24 feet which is equivalent to a model viewing distance between 4" at 1/72 scale and 6" at 1/48 scale. I could not see any loose stragglers and will continue to aim for smooth ropes on my models, smooth meaning that I cannot see rogue fibres from 4" to 6" away. That is closer than I can focus without a magnifier, but it does mean that some of my close-up photos show ropes that should have had a hair cut. 

 

George

[wefalck]

... or a close shave 😆

[druxey]

We may be splitting hairs, ahem, fibers here! Years ago in theatre 'hemp houses' (where flying scenery was done using rope instead of wire cable) the surface was fairly smooth, if not shiny from wear. There was the occasional protruding fiber, so one always wore work gloves when handling the line.

Edited October 26, 2023 by druxey

[Bob Cleek]

2 hours ago, druxey said:

We may be splitting hairs, ahem, fibers here! Years ago in theatre 'hemp houses' (where flying scenery was done using rope instead of wire cable) the surface was fairly smooth, if not shiny from wear. There was the occasional protruding fiber, so one always wore work gloves when handling the line.

As was alluded to above, most rope was thinly tarred in its manufacturing. This is what gave the new rope its characteristic shiny honey color.  It also served to stick the fibers together (and to preserve the rope from moisture degradation.)  "Fuzzyness" depends upon both the material used and the quality of the workmanship of a given rope. Brand-new high-quality rope won't have much of anything sticking out of it, while low-quality rope will look like Don King's hair. I'm guessing that the rope you encountered in the theater "hemp houses" was of a significantly lower quality than what would have met Admiralty standards. "An occasional protruding fiber" of sufficient size and stiffness to require the wearing of work gloves would have been pretty low-quality rope, although probably suitable for indoor use hoisting relatively light theater "flats."  

 

As stated above, for modeling purposes, the "scale viewing distance" principle applied to any lines or ropes on a model precludes the visibility of any "fuzz" at all and, in any event as a practical matter, after a short amount of use, rope will quickly lose most, if not all, of its "wild hairs" and be smooth anyway.

 

Comparing pictures of newly made rope and noting the fibers, yarns, and strands, the differences that the materials and construction make in the quality of a rope become more apparent: 

 

 

 

Average quality new hemp rope - shorter fibers used, yarns are less uniform and tightly twisted:

 

High quality "seamless" hemp rope -  long fibers, tightly twisted uniformly sized yarns:

 

 

Average quality tarred Manila rope - thick, coarse fibers, less uniformly twisted yarns:

 

 

Higher quality tarred Manila rope - honey-colored, less coarse, more uniformly sized fibers and more uniformly sized yarns:

 

Higher quality untarred Manila rope - "whiter" color than tarred rope:+

 

* Note that the "tarred" reference here describes the application of a greatly diluted amount of tar applied to the fibers before the construction of the rope which gives it a light honey color and not to the "tarring" that was done to standing rigging when installed on the vessel, which refers to the repeated application of undiluted pine tar to the outside of wormed, parceled, and served standing rigging, causing it to acquire a brown color so dark it would appear black when viewed from any distance.  

 

And, pardon the thread drift, but an aside, at least...

 

About about those work gloves...  There must not have been any sailors on those stage crews! One of the first rules of seamanship I learned from my crusty old retired MCPO mentor was that wearing gloves when handling line is a huge no-no. Apparently, there is the risk that a glove can be caught by the line and thereby pull the glove-wearer's hand into a block or worse. The thinking is that it is better to tear flesh than to wear something that could cause greater injury. I never figured out exactly how that could happen, but he was so adamant about it that he wouldn't even allow a pair of work gloves anywhere near his boat. A corollary to this rule was that no finger rings could be worn aboard his boats. He'd demand that anybody who wore one around his boats remove it immediately. I thought that was a bit "overboard" until I saw a couple of "ring avulsion" injuries in the boatyard, which is when the ring gets hung up on something and the finger it's on keeps on going, peeling all the meat right off the finger, if not simply ripping the finger clear off. I also watched a guy's wedding ring short out a hot 12 VAC buss bar and in a flash the ring got so hot it just burned the flesh right down to the bone before the victim could get it off. Those made a believer out of me when it came to rings. It took an accident another guy had with a lathe to convince me that work gloves had no place around moving machinery of any kind.

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[druxey]

Yes, Bob, it was untarred Manila. Your photo (last one) shows the odd protruding fiber. Gloves were more for when running line rapidly : the frictional heat build up was very impressive!