Belaying pin dimensions

[BANYAN]

Hi folks. Apologies if this topic has already been covered previously, but I could not find any reference in multiple searches of these forums nor online generally.

 

I am trying to find a rule-of-thumb for the dimensions of a belaying pin (19th century +) . I am aware earlier metal pins tapered either side of their middle and did not have a handle/grip.  I am also aware the pin length and diameter is related to the max rope size to be belayed in the respective vessel - but found no other guidance.

 

I have seen some dimensions by modern manufacturers but they do not explain how they arrived at the their dimensions/proportions.  As best I can determine it appears that the stem/pin part is about 2/3 the overall length.  Most sites simply refer to a length (L) overall, length of stem/pin and stem diameter, one site also referenced the handle/grip length and shoulder diameter - BUT all of these was to allow the viewer to select what they needed, it was not a rules based dimension.

 

Any pointers or information would be most appreciated.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited November 8 by BANYAN

[Jim Lad]

Sorry Pat, I've got nothing definitive. photos, of course, but then I expect you have a few of those yourself.

 

John

[Dr PR]

Here are some things I found for belaying pin dimensions. Chapelle's American Fishing Schooners had this illustration:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mondfeld gives has a diagram of belaying pin proportions and gives a general description in Historic Ship Models:

 

"Generally speaking, the lower diameter of a belaying pin was never less than the diameter of the rope which was to be belayed. As only one size of belaying pin was kept on board, its diameter was that of the thickest rope to be belayed."

 

Starting with the largest rope diameter to be belayed, and using that as the lower diameter of the pin, you can calculate the overall pin length from these diagrams.

 

For example, if the largest rope was 1 inch diameter and the pin was wooden from after 1800, the pin length would be 1 x 16 = 16 inches.

 

Mondfeld also says the British used metal pins that tapered at both ends in the late 1700s. These were force fit into the holes in pin rails.

Edited November 8 by Dr PR

[wefalck]

I tend to mistrust zu Mondfeld somewhat, as he tried to cover too many periods ... I would also question the statement that only one size of pins was used on any one ship. I can understand the logic, but it also a question of space and materials economy. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, belaying a too thin rope on a too big pin either requires a lot of rounds or it will not be secure. It also take a long time to do.

 

I have a table of belaying pin dimensions from Middendorf (1903), which I can copy here tomorrow. It would be correct for late 19th to early 20th century and contains metal pins for sure, but I am not certain about wooden pins.

 

[BANYAN]

Thanks all.  Eberhard that table from Middendorf would be very useful.  I also agree that it would not be ideal, or perhaps even practical, to have pins all the same size.  As you infer, and as stated in my initial post, I have seen discussion that the size of the pin is governed by the size of the rope.  While it is practical to round out/group some of these to minimise the number of different sized pins required, larger ropes will have needed larger (well at least longer) pins.

Dr PR, thanks for the feedback; at least that provides a good starting point - much appreciated.  I am still trying to clarify what Mondfield is saying though  Where do we get the value of 1 from? I note your comment:

On 11/8/2024 at 5:37 PM, Dr PR said:

If the largest rope was 1 inch diameter and the pin was wooden from after 1800, the pin length would be 1 x 16 = 16 inches.

But how did you get the value 16?  Am I correct in saying that if the rope diameter is 1" then the pin diameter is 1" also, and as that diameter is 1/16 of the length then the length is 16?  

[Dr PR]

Banyan,

 

In the drawing I posted for a wooden pin after 1800, the diameter of the lower part of the pin was 1/16 of the full length of the pin (1).

 

So, if the lower part of the pin was equal in diameter to the rope diameter, and the rope diameter was 1 inch, the pin would be 16 times as long as the diameter of the rope. 16 x 1" = 16"

 

I agree with Wefalck that zu Mondfeld covers such a broad range of dates and nationalities it really must be considered a summary and not a detailed compilation. I think its greatest value is to show just how different similar things were throughout time and geography.

 

While studying schooner rigging I came across several authoritative works telling how to build and rig these vessels, each with its rules or formulae for calculating dimensions. No two sets of these "rules" were the same, but the results were similar. There were distinct differences among nationalities, and within each nationality the construction and rigging differed for warships, merchantmen, privateer, slavers and pirates. And each Captain or owner had a preferred way to do things. I doubt that there ever were any two ships that were exactly the same!

 

I would bet there really was no "standard" for belaying pins. Each locality probably had it's own "right" way to make them, and even individual ships may have had a "better" way. So take all these rules with a grain of salt.

[wefalck]

Apologies for the somewhat rough-and-ready images, but I was too lazy to pull out the scanner and just took a couple of shots with the telephone:

 

From: MIDDENDORF, F.L. (1903): Bemastung und Takelung der Schiffe.- 401 p., Kassel (reprint 1977 by Horst Hamecher).

 

These are for iron pins (= Belegnagel) in spiderbands (= Nagelband). Durchmesser stands for diameter. Unfortunately, the table only gives the total length f and the diameter of the lower part g, but not the other proportions. However, I think one can assume that the parts above and below the pinrail should stick out about the same length for functional reasons, which means that the total length below the handle should equal to the length of the handle plus the thickness of pinrail in which the pin is to be used.

 

In any case, this discussion shows that the commercially/kit supplied belaying pins, particularly those made from wood, are just caricatures of belaying pins, being usually far to 'knobby'. From a manufacturing point of view this is quite understandable, as shape-turning such long, slender items is quite a challenge, even if one had a Swiss automatic lathe.

Edited November 10 by wefalck

[druxey]

Examples of wooden pin in the Royal Museums Greenwich collection range from 43 to 49 cm (17" to 19") in length and 4 to 5 cm (1 1/2" to 2") in maximum diameter.

[Gregory]

For modeling, I think it has a lot to do with the look you are going for, with nice proportions rather than precise measurements.

A lot of modelers may not have the tools or desire to make their own, so it is good to be able find an acceptable source.

Some of these are not like the others.  The pins on the left are from Falkonet while the ones on the right are typical kit pins and what you find in a lot of retail outlets.

The kit pins can be chucked up in a Dremel and made a lot better, but I have found that getting uniformity can be a challenge.

 

[mtaylor]

7 hours ago, Gregory said:

Some of these are not like the others.  The pins on the left are from Falkonet while the ones on the right are typical kit pins and what you find in a lot of retail outlets.

The kit pins can be chucked up in a Dremel and made a lot better, but I have found that getting uniformity can be a challenge.

 

I'd not use a Dremel but a lathe or even milling machine so I could control the dimensions to a finer degree.  

[BANYAN]

8 hours ago, Gregory said:

For modeling, I think it has a lot to do with the look you are going for

Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated. Gregory, quite true, but this is some research I am doing for inclusion in a book (non-commercial).

 

Dr. PR and Eberhard.  Thanks again.  I have to agree.  I have continued looking through quite a few contemporary, or near contemporary, sources for the mid and late 19th century, and early 20th century, and I have not been able to find anything.  I think it is quite correct then to conclude that there really is no 'standard' or even a rule-of-thumb.  I think I will cite Mondfeld with the caveats highlighted by you both and point these out (citing you gentlemen - with your permission of course?). 

 

Eberhard, I quite agree with the functionality.  If a turn is taken on a pin above the rail, then there would have to be a turn below as well, and therefore the pin also has to cater for the thickness of the rail.  This then would govern the length of the pin overall.  I have tried looking for the minimum number of turns required to secure a line on a pin with no joy.  This info would also help determine the length. 

 

This leads me to the next issue then.  The best guidance I have to date for pin rails/racks is that they were set-up abreast the respective mast.  Analysis of many photos shows that the leading edge of these were generally aligned with the vertical axis of the mast, placing the first pin just abaft the trailing edge of the mast.  My thoughts are that the first pin should generally align with the leading shroud, as often the first sail handling lines would often be led down that shroud?  Most authors simply do not provide a length, which is appropriate as that would be governed by the number of pins required.  others imply that most RN ships has a continuous rail, while merchants had separate rails.  No guidance is given WRT to their thickness (that I have found so far). As to their height above deck the best I have established is from G. Campbell (CTC) who writes that where no topgallant rail is provided, the rails are inset into the faces of the bulwark stanchions.  While written for modellers, Davis (1966), page 126, suggests that for a 16-gun Brig, pinrails would be just under 8′ in length, 9″ wide and 3″ thick.

 

Again thanks for the feedback and info.  If anyone can offer any additional info WRT the pinrails, that would also be most appreciated.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[wefalck]

Pat, with my somewhat limited sailing experience I would say that two rounds usuallysufficient, particularly, when you finish of with half-hitch (not sure that this is the correct English term here ...). You may need space for a third-round for hanging the coiled rope. If the pin is too long, it take too long to belay.

[Jim Lad]

pat, from available contemporary photos, there appear to have been very few turns taken on the pin. The photo below (first photo) of the 'Port Jackson's' spanker sheet (1880's) appears to have three turns on the pin, but in most other photos, such as that of the 'Loch Tay' (1869) (second photo) there seems to be only one or two tuns. Unfortunately in most photos the turns on the pin are concealed by the coil of rope.

 

John

 

[BANYAN]

Thanks again Eberhard and John.

 

John, thanks for the visual evidence.  I agree, seems only a couple of turns would suffice.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[popeye2sea]

To properly belay a line to a pin the first turn is around the lower part of the pin and then straight up around the top part. In other words, no cross over.  The next turn is to cross the line over itself around the lower part of the pin and then the last turn is to throw a half hitch over the top.  You end up with 2 thicknesses of line over both the top and bottom parts of the pin. That will provide enough friction to hold any load.

 

As a practical matter, there would not be that large of a variation between the diameters of lines coming down to pins.  Anything much bigger than an inch in diameter would probably be belayed to a kevel, knight head, or large cleat. One size of pin throughout the whole vessel would be entirely plausible and practical.

 

Regards,

Henry

 

 

[wefalck]

Another constraint towards the lower end is, that ropes of less than about 10 mm that move any kind of load are not normally used, as they become difficult to hold on to. Flag-lines and such, of course, would be much thinner and would have proportionately sizes pins, if not belayed on cleats.