Bitt cross piece height

Don Case

Don Case

Joined
Jul 10, 2021
Messages
1,479
Points
393

Location
Vancouver Island
Here's a picture of the trial fit of the main bitts on the Discovery1789. The coaming is 12" high like Steele says it should be and the top of cross piece is 1'8" high, also like Steele says. If I'm right this cross piece has a bunch of belaying pins in it. How short were these people? My wife is 5'2" and 1'8" is just above her knees. If I were tying ropes al day I would want the cross piece waist height at least. Am I missing something here? Why are these things so low?

DSC04511.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something not right there. Maybe he means 1'8" above the coaming? That would make it about waist high?
 
Don Case said:
Here's a picture of the trial fit of the main bitts on the Discovery1789. The coaming is 12" high like Steele says it should be and the top of cross piece is 1'8" high, also like Steele says. If I'm right this cross piece has a bunch of belaying pins in it. How short were these people? My wife is 5'2" and 1'8" is just above her knees. If I were tying ropes al day I would want the cross piece waist height at least. Am I missing something here? Why are these things so low?

View attachment 297773
Click to expand...

The seamen at this time were maybe in avarage 5 to 10 cm shorter, but I think, that this would not influence so much the height of the cross piece of the main bitt

Something is really wrong here.

If you imagine also the pins, there would be no space between the lower end of the belaying pins and the top of the coaming.

DSC04511.JPG

There was definitely necessary some additional space, first for the handling of the rope,

Belaying+pins+with+four+turns+of+the+rope.jpg

and second also some height where the necessary coil of the ropes (when the yards are lifted) could free hang - otherwise it would lay on the deck and would not get dry

Unbenannt.JPG

Unbenannt1.JPG

it would work, but only in the case the coaming would not be there
 
I found another interesting contemporary photo


s3442.jpg

View looking aft to the poop from the port side of the upper deck on (possibly) the barque Mary Dugdale (1835).​

A whole plate size salted paper print. A view from the port side of the upper deck on (possibly) the barque Mary Dugdale (1835) looking aft towards the poop accommodation doors and windows. The deck in front of the photographer is covered with untidy coils and runs of rope. On the left is the main hatch coaming with the hatch partially uncovered. The main mast jeer bitts, containing the running rigging belaying pins, can be seen behind the hatchway and in front of the main mast.

Reverse has been annotated in pencil by Admiral Ballard in 1934: 'Deck of merchantman in 1935'.

The identity of the ship is tentative, as Calvert Jones lists negative in his letter dated 3 November 1846 to WHF Talbot, two of which fit the broad description [BL, LA46-123]. These are '120. View on deck “Mary Dugdale”, and '148. Scene on deck, poop cabins & Mary Dugdale', both are large calotype negatives. Jones had arrived back in England from his European trip in early June 1846 to sort out the afffairs of his dead uncle.

View looking aft to the poop from the port side of the upper deck on (possibly) the barque Mary Dugdale (1835). | Royal Museums Greenwich

www.rmg.co.uk www.rmg.co.uk
 
and checking the contemporary drawing of the ship we can see this

j0509.jpg

with red arrow is the cross piece of the main jeer bitt (I think so) . dark blue should be the level of the deck and green dotted line is the lower end of the cross piece. So it is appr. at the center of the gunports.

Unbenannt3.JPG


BTW: Did you check what is written in Peter Goodwins Construction and Fitting book?
I am pretty sure, that there are some information or table given, related to the type / size of the ship
 
Last edited:
Thanks Uwe. I'll check that tomorrow. I'm away today. You have to be careful with that drawing because there is "before" and "after" on the same drawing. Makes for a lot of lines.
There is still the fact that Steel says that the top of the cross piece is 20" from the deck.
That area seems very crowded on the Discovery compared to the Swan series. Having the bitts actually over the main hatch(or very close to it) seems odd.
 
OK I don't have that Goodwin book. I have English Man of War and couldn't find anything in there. I compared your blue and green lines with my correct to scale version of that drawing. I think that your blue line should be up a couple more lines to allow for the crown of the deck but that's not much of a difference. Anyway measured off my drawing I get a height of .65" which is 31" in the real world(waist height to an English seaman) which seems much more realistic looking. The drawing is my primary source so I will go with that but I'm still wondering why Steel has it so low. I'm looking at Yedlinsky's book, folio 51, line X for sloop of war.

DSC04512.JPG
 
Don Case said:
OK I don't have that Goodwin book. I have English Man of War and couldn't find anything in there. I compared your blue and green lines with my correct to scale version of that drawing. I think that your blue line should be up a couple more lines to allow for the crown of the deck but that's not much of a difference. Anyway measured off my drawing I get a height of .65" which is 31" in the real world(waist height to an English seaman) which seems much more realistic looking. The drawing is my primary source so I will go with that but I'm still wondering why Steel has it so low. I'm looking at Yedlinsky's book, folio 51, line X for sloop of war.

View attachment 298420
Click to expand...
these are 80 cm - which I would also suggest - somehow up to 1meter.
It is a good height when you have to pull a rigging rope which goes / redirected by the bitt cross beam
 
Don Case said:
I'm still wondering why Steel has it so low.
Click to expand...
I remember, that there was once a check by Daniel alias @dafi who realized, that there are in some tables by Steel with data about the bitts some errors and mixed ups......
 
If I get a minute(or longer) I'll look in the original Steel(internet version:)) and see what I can find.

Edit-- I found it in the original and it says 1'8" also. So I'm thinking that's an error.
 
Last edited:
You have received some good feedback on your issue of the crossbar height. In my experiencer doing several ship models the crossbitts have always been located towards the top of the bitts. These photos are good examples of what I have always encountered. These are just one ship...the HMS Revenge 1577...so it is definitely just a an example without expertise. But they are good examples of what I have universally experienced in assembly of jeer bitts. Note even the very short bitts locate the cross bitt towards the top.

IMG_1732.jpegIMG_1730.jpeg
 
I've been putting some thought into this and I'm wondering if the cross pieces are set low so that you can hook the line around the belaying pin and then put your foot on the cross piece and really put your back into it when needed. You could definitely get a rope tighter on a pin that was knee height rather than waist height.
 
Don Case said:
I've been putting some thought into this and I'm wondering if the cross pieces are set low so that you can hook the line around the belaying pin and then put your foot on the cross piece and really put your back into it when needed. You could definitely get a rope tighter on a pin that was knee height rather than waist height.
Click to expand...
You have to take into account, if there are pins or no pins installed
see photos in my post #4 and #5 of this topic
 
maybe the low cross piece was to secure blocks

8 jul 032.jpg
judging from the lookout standing on the post the cross piece is at least 4 or more feet above the deck
lookout.jpg
 
Don Case said:
Again me assuming things. I thought all bits except for the riding bitts were drilled for belaying pins.
Click to expand...
I am discovering that this is not a universal practice...especially for cross bits. Pin rails on the bulwarks were more common. Belay pins themselves did not come into common use until the rigging of ships became more complex around the mid 1700s (1750s). Prior to that belay pins were not universal. I am discovering that belay pins were not used on the HMS Revenge 1577 that I am currently working on. Thus I assume not used for race galleon rigging of the 1500s. The kit has 75 belay pins to set for the Revenge model rigging but this would not be historically accurate. All the pin rails are drilled for belay pins and this would also not be historically accurate. So I am probably going to split the difference somehow…use a few belay pins in some key pin rails and simply tie off rigging through the drilled holes on other pin rails. More on this in my log of the Revenge build as I get to the rigging phase. I am still researching the whole belay pin, pin rails, and cross bitts useage. Member thoughts on this highly welcome! :)
 
Interesting stuff. What I want to see now is someone actually belaying a line on the bitts. I can see the block that's attached to the deck changing the direction you have to pull on the line so you can get a real good pull.
 
I think you are reading the plan wrong. The arrow points to the cross piece. Note that the uprights go thru the deck as the bits would. iMarkup_20220401_143544.jpg

Fair winds.. Ed
 
I think you're looking at the bottom of the gallows and the top of the rail. If that were the cross piece it wouldn't be going through the middle of the pin. The cross piece is just let in 1 1/2" approx.

I reserve the right to be wrong:):)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top