Standing Rigging

When should standing rigging be replaced? I sail my craft in fresh water, but the shrouds are now forty years old - still the original set. I have had them checked professionally and they appear good with no discoloration or apparent corrosion. A clean bill of health.

However, all the rigging places I have talked with say 20 years is the limit, regardless of what they look like. Does anyone have any experience in this regard? Has everyone replaced theirs? Have there been any bad experiences with the original standing rig failing?


Here are a couple comments I have heard from riggers. If, in the north country, you leave the mast mounted when out of the water, it is very hard on the standing rigging, even if the turnbuckles are loosened to allow for contraction with the cold. First of all, water drips down, getting in the swage fitting, freezes, and can hairline crack the fitting. The crack is not detectable, until the shroud explodes while under strain. Secondly, when the wind buffets the boat in the winter, with the hull on a rigid mount, the shrouds take all the jerking and pounding, since the boat can't cushion the jolts as it would when in the water, and this pounding can weaken the shroud.

Even regardless of how the mast is stored, corrosion can occur inside the swage fitting, or the swage fitting can become cracked or damaged, and not detectable. The argument goes - "Don't take a chance".

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Check out www.briontoss.com

This is our local rigger - well respected, author of excellent books and videos. Look at the articles and discussion sections of the site.

If you have 40 year old rigging, I suspect I know what Brion would say.

Chapter III of the Owners Manual covers standing and running rigging and includes maintenance and safety information. It discusses many of your questions.

Riggers in our area (SF Bay - saltwater environment)recommend replacing standing rigging at ten year intervals.

I posted it. We'll see what he says. Did you put on new stays because of age?

I received a partial answser - more research is forthcoming hopefully. The life of standing rigging does depend on the use, climate, size, the steel, etc. di da di da, etc.

However, the controlling event may well be that stainless steel crystalizes with time and use, and, according to one rigging source, if it has crystalized, it will fail catastrophically.

I'll find out more if I can, like what causes it to crystalizes (and that would relate to the life).

Here is the answer I got from Brian Toss

From: "peter@briontoss.com" <peter@briontoss.com>
Subject: ariel rigging


Hello Mr. Theis,


This is a followup to your question about how you tell when it is time to replace your rig. The answer is that stainless steel rigging is defeated by metal fatigue and galvanized steel rigging is defeated by rust.
A stainless steel rig will wear out over time even if it never sails but is constantly tied to the dock or a mooring. This is because even while tied to the dock the rig undergoes hundreds of tiny load cycles where the boat rocks one way and the shrouds get tighter, then looser. Over thousands and thousands of load cycles the rig will eventually wear out. You can see the signs of metal fatigue if you look at the wire and swages wih some kind of magnification. In this shop we use a small 50 power microscope to see the pits and cracks of metal fatigue.
Your boat would seem to have the most going for it in terms of rig life. That is you are in a cold northern climate, fresh water, and do not sail year round. However if the rig is original from 1962 it should be replaced. Around here we start thinking about replacing a rig based on age alone around 20 years.
I hope this has answered your question.


Regards,


Peter Bates

I also called West Rigging and they gave me a similar answer with some additional details. The stainless steel does corrode, but, unlike galvanized it is not readily visible. The corrosion tends to be inside the shroud where it is not visible.

There are two types of wire used (one is 602 and the other 612, as I recall - the latter being used in salt water, and the latter in fresh water) The 602 tends to break at the fitting. The latter tends to break an inch or so above the swage fitting. The latter wire while under compression in the fitting is not under pressure above above the fitting. So it works, twists, stretches, whatever in the short area above the fitting.

In any case, everyone agrees that when the shrouds go, they generally go catastrophically. There is no slow first one strand, then another and with time all of them. There is just one shot.

It appears that when the shrouds are changed, the turnbuckles are also replaced. Apparently they too fatigue.

I have been informed that a set of 8 Ariel shrouds will cost about $550 to $600. Anyone else have any more insight on the price issue?

i want to second the idea that shrouds do not degrade gracefully, a strand at a time.

i was sailing my (now) old boat, a 16' hobie cat, with my father, and out of no-where, the mast catapulted off the deck and sails, mast and all catapulted into the river. after regaining composure and putting the mast back on the trampoline, we found the culprit, a broken shroud. it is now on my desk at work.

i agree that it makes no sense, that if there are 19 strands or so, one shouldn't break the stay totally, but it does. the engineer in me is still pondering why. my only though is that when the one breaks, it not only sends it's load onto the other strands, but there is a force/pressure pulse, usually exceeding the strength of the wire. and so under a slo-motion camera, one might see the first break, and send it's pulse up/down the shroud and when it reflects back to the site, breaks the rest. but since the shroud is under such tension, the frequency of the wire is so high the naked eye can't see the two actions occuring separately.

just a though.
-km
#3

Here is a nice article on standing rigging failures.

This subject is kind of a bummer. Replacing the rigging doesn't make the boat sail any faster or look any better.

Still, most of us are probably toolin around with the original rigging. That's getting on 40 years.



http://www.dixielandmarine.com/yachts/DLrigprob.html

Great article...thanks for posting. I think I may fall into that category of having original standing rigging. My boat was surveyed about 3 years ago (a year before I bought it), and the rigging checked out OK, but I was unimpressed with the overall quality of the survey. I'm planning to take the rig down this time next year, have the standing rig surveyed, and replace it if necessary. In the meantime, I have an admittedly "head in the sand" attitude about the standing rig. Was planning to give her as thorough an inspection as is possible for an amateur before next season...this'll help. Thanks again,

Dan

Thanks. That is the most thorough analysis I have seen. Has anyone seen evidence of the Ariel/Commanderchainplates deteriorating as he described? I believe there are some other cables out there than the 304 and 316 he mentioned. Does anyone know about the alternatives, why and when?

I found another article on rigging inspection.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/rigging/default.asp

I had a rigger check out my boat the other day. Right now he's "working up the numbers." This is sure to hurt. But, when the rigging is replaced I'll have some piece of mind.

My rigger told me he raced an Ariel years ago on Long Island Sound and "tore up the fleet" with a 247 PHRF.

He did say that the chainplates (at least on the lower shrouds) should have a toggle attached because the turnbuckle comes off at an angle.

I'm reading about the guys here supersizing their chainplates, but
I don't see the chainplates as being the weak link in the system.

They seem pretty thick and heavy to me.

The part you have to worry about is the part where the chainplate passes through the deck. With the rig up, you can pull the chainplates out one at a time and take a look see.

You really want to make sure the chainplates are bedded properly so no water gets in (to the bronze or the deck core).
Although the balsa core tapers out to solid fiberglass where the chainplate holes are, you can still find areas of balsa core inside the holes. This is scraped out and filled in the usual manner. I used a bit of 4200 to bed the chainplate and cover trying to get maximum adhesion to the bronze.

The rigging on these boats has probably lasted this long because it was stout to begin with. Take a look around the boatyard at some similar sized boats. You'll often see shrouds as thin as piano wire, only two per side, attached to one chainplate.

My three quotes for a replacement set of standing rigging (8 stays, with turnbuckles and swage fittings) and a new main halyard (the combination of wire rope and line as in the original). FYI, the price ranges ran from the high five hundreds to the mid eight hundreds, so it does make sense to shop.

Riggers all seem to agree that swage fittings are fine for this boat and it doesn't make sense to go to the more expensive Norseman or Sta Set (?) fittings. There is also agreement that the turnbuckles should be replaced when the shrouds are replaced.

However, an issue has arisen, and I would appreciate any comment. There is wide disagreement on the cable that should be used. The original shrouds, as I understand it, are 302/304 stainless steel. The 316 stainless, I am told, is a bit more flexible, and has much higher corrosion resistance than the 304. There appears to be a concensus is that near salt water, 316 is better. Another rigger said that 316 is the cable that everyone will be using (although it is not a new blend, but the price has dropped, apparently). Another rigger said that in the Great Lakes, there is no need for it. Another rigger said there is no reason to pay the extra money for the 316 if I am not near salt water

Curiously, the highest and lowest bids were 304. And the 316 bidder said that the 316 today was no more expensive than the 304.

Does anyone have any insight that could ameliorate the self perceived confusion of this farm boy?

As I understand it, 316 is more resistant to all types of corrosion, not just salt water in particular.

304 is somewhat stronger. Of course its the corrosion that causes the failures.

You might want to ask the 304 guys what type swage fittings they use, since these are usually 316, and it doesn't seem to make sense having two different types of materials.

I'm sure either material would be fine in fresh water. This might be a good question for the Brian Toss forum.

One important factor is the quality of the swages. You want the swages done on a true rotary swaging machine. This is a massive piece of equiptment which only the larger rigging outfits have.

Most riggers don't do the swaging but send the measurements to a company that supplies the wire and does the swaging. Ask them which company does this work for them. You don't want somebody doing the swages in his garage.

You are right about only a few firms doing it. I received quotes from Boat US, West Rigging, and Palmer Johnson (local, but big). I hadn't thought about the issue as to what the fittings were made from, but that information is worthwhile. I would prefer not to mix metals.

As for Brian Toss, they have been notoriously unresponsive. I did ask them for a quote ( couple times) and they only profusely apologize for the couple month delay.

Your comments have more or less convinced me, or confirmed my decision that 316 is the way to go.

I appreciate your comments. The quotes I got were from West Rigging (304 highest bid), Boat US (316 middle), and Palmer Johnson (a local, but large marine facility)(304, lowest). I asked Brian Toss to quote a couple times ( which seems to be the pattern in that industry), and he has yet to reply since the second request (a couple months have gone by).

It seems like you are confirming my thoughts that 316 is the only way to go, if there is no cost difference. Your comment about the swage fitting tells me something, since my own experience tells me that mixing metals is generally to be avoided.

Your comment about other types of corrosion is relevant. For many years my boat wintered in the industrial south side of Chicago, and, based on how the chrome disappeared, and the aluminum got pitted, I have wondered about just how polluted the air was down there.

Thanks.

I posted a question about 304 vs 316 wire on the Brion Toss forum "Spar Talk" as follows:

"When replacing standing rigging, what are the pros and cons of one type of wire over the other. I understand 304 is stronger and cheaper, but 316 is more corrosion resistant for salt water. However, the boat is sailed on the Great Lakes."

I got this response from the man himself:

"Hello,
Get the best quality wire you can, of either alloy. You don't need 316, but if you could find a brand of it that had breaking strength comparable to 302, and if this wonderful wire actually cost less than most 302's, that would be the stuff to get. As it happens, that is the wire we sell...
Fair leads,
Brion Toss"

Very mysterious. I suppose he's trying to keep business for himself (yet won't respond to your requests for a quote). We can probably assume he only uses one type of wire--his "special" 316.

He's throwing another dimension into the equation: the quality of the wire. I think I'd be comfortable with BoatUS. Just for kicks, you could ask them the manufacturer and rated breaking strength.

Are you using the procedure where you send your old rigging to them and they duplicate it? Sounds like a good way to go, since errors of measurement can be a big problem.

To that end, you might want to inquire about the turbuckles. I've seen two different sizes used on our boats, one larger (thicker) than the other. Thicker turnbuckles can also be an inch or so longer.

The equiptment list in the Manual specifies 3/8" pin diameter turnbuckles. They may be trying to sell you 5/16" (about half as strong).

Interesting idea about shipping old shrouds to be duplicated. Here, most of us use a rigger who comes out and drops a measuring line for each wire. The advantage may be that new wire stretches and if you use the old (stretched) wire for measurements, the new wire could end up being too long.

My experience is that riggers will want you to tune the rigging, tape the studs where they exit the turnbuckles, and then back the turnbuckles to remove the shroud or stay.
The rigger will then measure the whole unit set as marked and compensate for stretch when building the new one.
--Dave

Interesting thing flew though the window this evening. SailNet has an informative piece on replacing standing rigging. http://www.sailnet.com/view.cfm?page=10278

However, they missed the details that are being raised in this forum -but it is still interesting stuff.

Since I take the spar down for the winter, it makes it easy to send in the standing rigging in to be duplicated. That way, if it doesn't work, I have an indisputably right to complain. On of the fears, a rational fear that has held true too many times for me, is that of having the work done over the winter when there is plenty of time to do a job right, and then when spring comes and the boat is ready for the water, either the part/work/whatever is not done, or doesn't work - and there will be a two day/week/month/year/decade/millenium/eon delay. Sending the rigging in should help alleviate that concern.

As to the wire manufacturer, I would like to assume 316 is definitive, but if I were to ask the name of the manufacturer, I wouldn't know a good Korean, Russian or Japanese one from the bad one. I have to believe that a professional rigger doesn't goof around with questionable materials.

Good comment about the turnbuckles. I had been asked about the clevis sizes but didn't pay much attention (That is an advantage of sending the originals to the rigger). The ones quoted are 3/8"

Incidentally, the price quoted was $611.42 plus $15.00 shipping. The pin size is 3/8". The quote includes eight shrouds, new turnbuckles, and the replacement combination line/cable main halyard. It is based on the specs in the Ariel source book so capably published by the administrators of this website.

Theis
This thread is fleshing-out some good points. I didn't think six hundred is too high assuming 1/4"wire and new turnbuckles. One thing I've learned since jumping into boats is that nothing new is cheap, even the cheap stuff. Because of being in the middle of nowhere I counted on having to do my own rigging via The Rigger's Apprentice and This Old Boat and supplies alone were in the neighborhood of four hundred plus. Of course that price included either norseman or sta-loc terminals all the way around and I don't think a rigger would bother with the added expense with all of that swaging equipment laying around.;) I can't wait to see how this all ends. Tony G

OK ,if no one else will say it I will . Theis , you ordered 6 shrouds and 2 stays , not 8 shrouds .
We must keep the 'salt ' level up on this forum if we are ever going to go pro and take it on the road . Click & Clack , The Tappet Bros. , need a nautical counter on PBS and it could be us if only we can get it all in one sock . Commander Pete has been working too hard on his routine for us to let him down now , so let's not let him down or we wont even be allowed to sail on Lake Wobegon ;>)

Theis
This thread is fleshing-out some good points. I didn't think six hundred is too high assuming 1/4"wire and new turnbuckles. One thing I've learned since jumping into boats is that nothing new is cheap, even the cheap stuff. Because of being in the middle of nowhere I counted on having to do my own rigging via The Rigger's Apprentice and This Old Boat and supplies alone were in the neighborhood of four hundred plus. Of course that price included either norseman or sta-loc terminals all the way around and I don't think a rigger would bother with the added expense with all of that swaging equipment laying around.;) I can't wait to see how this all ends. Tony G

Salty Mike is keeping an eye on us

I'm really being hauled on the carpet (I think that is the expression - hoping I haven't screwed up again).

Yes, there are two stays and six shrouds. And just a few months ago I would have erred again saying four masthead shrouds and four baby shrouds. I'll bet Bill has something built into this website so that something like that wouldn't pass spell checker when "submitted". It would be rejected just like something over 10K characters is. No one would ever know my blunder and I wouldn't have egg on my face (I was actually just testing y'all.)

Tony: all those wires are 3/16", not 1/4". Does that change your opinion about the price? Norseman and Sta Lok are both more expensive, and apparently significantly so.

Bill: For the next update of the manual, you might want to add the clevis pin size. (although I did notice that those wires that go up the mast were correctly named in the manual - a benefit to those that read). Possibly even something about the 316 v. 304 wire might be of interest.

Perhaps my misnaming the wires is why Brian Toss did not reply. He probably figured I wouldn't know the difference between 316 and cotton clothes line.

I'm going with swaged at the top and Norseman at the lower ends , why ;
1) they can be shortened if needed from stretch
2) the Norseman are more waterproof and stronger
3) I hope my upper ends are never in saltwater

I need some help with words from the experts. This question has destroyed my whole day, and threatens Christmas.

Where does the word "shroud" come from? I can't believe they are named after the inventors, Bertram and Hazel Shroud, who dreamed up the idea in 1926.

It is curious that it would only pertain to side stays (Is that true?). I assume the word comes from way back and relates to the square riggers in some fashion, but if so, there must be further limitations on the scope of the word. Why would it also pertain to half stays?

Whoever figures out this one gets ten points on the GoodGuy scale.

Modern convention separates the good guys (that brace the mast) into shrouds and stays. Shroud goes way back to viking ships in describing the ropes that held up the mast. The root word SKRUTH means clothing in Old Norse - probably the cloak or outer garment, the shroud - ie the stuff protecting you from the elements and by extention protecting the ship, the mast of the ship.

Maybe the expression "to dress ship" originally meant to skruth up yer longboat with a proper mast, an upstanding male member.

Stay is a younger word devoid of poetry describing a job of work, while shroud metaphorically describes what it looks like while it is doing it.

You have a staysail because why would you have a shroudsail. Or a guysail for that matter.:D

Way to go ebb. All questions get answered here (in one fashion or another).

What I want to know is...where can we pick up a bottle of Chateau Ebb wine?

Now I can relax and enjoy the holiday season, one upping all those guys that use fancy words like "cheeks", "lazarettes", "sheave", "bow", "rope" and "back end".

I am impressed. My wife couldn't answer that question.

I thought their origins were shrouded in mystery !

and their brains clouded in mead

Wanted to follow up on your quotes of +/- $500-$800...was that for the rigger to do all the work or for a DIY effort? Thanks,

Dan

All. Everything. I deliver the old ones to them, and they send the new and old back. Right now they are quoting based on the Ariel specs - but the quote and actual charge should be very close, if not identical.

Theis and all,

That sounds like a pretty good price! I just started looking into re-rigging and what I've found is the prices are all over the place.
Even considering the DIY approach using sta-lok terminals.
So far as pricing goes. Sta-lok eye terminals for 3/16 wire and 3/8 pins run $21.21 ea. ( That's the lowest price I've found so far)
Sta-lok fork terminals run $26.12 ea.
3/16" ss316 wire rope runs $0.73/ft cut size. (currently waiting for reel price if can be had in 250' length - hope that's enough).

So I figure it'll be about $600 using the orig turnbuckles.

Musta clicked the wrong button!

The SS316 wire rope was "Criterion" brand which seemed to be the same brand in several of the online as well as hard copy catalogs that I've accessed.

Peter T,

Did you wind up sending your "wires" off to US Boat as it appeared you were about to do it a few posts back? If so, how did they do? Did the quoted price hold up when finished? I need to get mine done, and haven't been very happy with the quotes I'm getting from riggers around Galveston Bay. Wide range in price for same hardware, and all higher than you were quoted.

And now that it should be gettin' warm up your way, you can gaze at your Ariel name plates without freezing your butt off!

It was all done on schedule and as planned. At this point I have only praises and no objections. 100%. That does not mean that I have discarded the old ones. That will have to wait until the mast goes up and all the stays wind up the right length (I have measured them, but my measurements mean little to me. The proof is in the pudding - so to speak.) But yes, I would give them the highest marks.

As for my butt, the past two weekends has been as miserable weatherwise as it gets. Tonight we have frost warnings. It has been so cold working on the boat that I am wearing Depends just to keep my butt warm.

As as for the nameplates, I am waiting for a warm day so I can spread some new varnish on the coaming. (Last year, as I recall, the warm day was a Thursday.) According to my decorating consultant, it would not look right if the bright shiny nameplates out shone the luster of the coamings. It is a classic boat tale of woe - just one little job leads to another job, which leads to another, and then you have to start the process all over because of a screw up on the first job.

ah, the luster of the coamings
a warm salty breeze
a sheet to windward
on a sunny spring day

The new stays went up without a hitch. Perfect. I can now say they were done 100%.

I am replacing my chainplates. My uppers and aft shroud chainplates are mounted to plywood bulkheads. My lower forward shroud chainplates are mounted to knees that run from the underside of the deck to the shelves in the V berth area.

Has anyone run into this problem?

My original 39 year old bronze chainplates are shot. I had new ones made from 316 stainless steel. They are one and a half inch wide and 3/16 inch think. That is a sturdy piece of steel. The original port-side forward lower shroud bronze chainplate had a significant bend to it.

On filling the chainplate slot and surrounding deck area with epoxy and re-cutting the slot, I discovered the reason for the bend in theporiginbal chgainplate. I had thought that the bend was caused when I removed the bronze plate, but instead the bend was created when the original bronze chainplate was originally installed so that the chainplate bolted flat to the knee. The knee is not perpendicular to the deck, but instead angles aftwards as it runs downward from top to bottom.

To fit the new chainplate I would either have to cut an anngular slot throughtyhe deck, which would leve the top of the chainplate other than vertical, or bend the chainplate aftwards as I bolt it to the knee at the bottom two of the three holes.

Any thoughts?

How did you know your chainplates were shot. What caused you to come to that conclusion?

When 338 was being decommished (when I was getting to see into things, getting to know the boat), the chainplates started me down the road of Pearson putdowns.
They were 8" long (1 1/4" X 3/16", if I remember) bronze. There were three holes for bolts - the top bolt went over the top of each bulkhead right under the deck. The plates were held on with two 3/8" bolts each.

The tops of all plywood showed some rot, the aft lower 'knees' (elbows?) had the most.

After the shelves came out that rode on the stringers, it was obvious that the little pieces of 3/4 ply were only attached to the hull with tabbing. [That means ONE edge of the plywood was attachted to the boat] The aft lower, because of the furniture, went down a little lower, was more substantial than the forward lowers which terminated on the shelves in the V-berth cabin.

The 3/4 ply shelves were tabbed to the hull on top - which convinced me that Pearson considered them structural. The furniture (hanging closet and drawers) were screwed in.

None of the bulkheads including the 'compression' bulkhead were glued in on their tops, therefor I concluded that all of the strength of the rig depended on plywood that was tabbed to the hull. That includes the main bulkhead which is also only attached to the hull. [The top part of the whole unit is attached to the coach roof with two #14 screws that hold the mast pad on.]

Minimum upgrade should be longer plates with bolts that are spread out more.
The forward lower plates, unless you are remodeling, can't be lengthened much. In 338 we took the 'knees' straight down to the hull and doubled the plywood, glassed them over and tabbed them to the hull.

The plates sure don't follow the line of pull of the rigging. Suppose that the deck itself must be a factor in keeping the plates at their designed angle. I'ld guess the pulling they get at the angle may also be why they can't be made waterproof. Ran across one guy who called his shelves "water troughs." More or less keeping stuff underneath dry.

What I consider pretty loose and funky overall construction may also be why the rig has lasted all these years. Has anybody heard of a 'catastrophic' rig failure of an Ariel or Commander? It is amazing the mast has sailed our boats merrily along for 45 years!

The vertical bulkheads in 338 (including the lazarette) were made from house grade plywood. So are the cabin sole and the step ups. A dead-give-away are the thick ply layers in the center of the laminate. The other horizontal stuff: settees, V-berth and the way forward bulkhead were made out of some of the best fir plywood I've ever seen: even, thin veneers of all heart. :D

Timely thread. I'm trying to figure out the standing rigging ,while it's not standing, to send off numbers to the sail loft. It all seemed so simple at first! Measure the forestay from pin to pin. Subtract the length of the furler from the pin to the tack shackle adding the turnbuckle. Add the first extrusion to find the distance to the feed groove...someone said something about adding toggle to the top of the forestay too :eek: So off to the boat to sit and think.

That hull is like a incubator for thought and dreams. And memories. I was, no more than a week ago, recalling the distinct 'curve' to the lower aft chainplate knees I noted before removing them. At that time I was eager to replace them with new, stronger, straighter, 'plum' knees. But a week ago I thought, 'crap, I bet they used to match the shroud's angle up to the tang.' In all actuality, they probably twisted when the P.O. replaced the standing rigging with 1/4" shrouds and chainplates and water began leaking in through the deck slots. However, I began to have doubts about the work I had already done. My greatest fear was that I may have introduced a stress point to the system that HAD worked properly for forty plus years.

When I replaced those lower aft chainplate knees I had devised a jig that mounted to the original main bulkhead and used the chainplate itself to orientate and align the new chainplate knee(s). The same jig, along with the upper shroud chainplates, was used to align the new main bulkhead when that went back in. I know that those two structures are now parallel to each other, right or wrong. I also know the forward lower shroud chainplate knees DO angle aft a few degrees. I discovered that when I was cutting patterns for a hanging locker that ties into that structure. At first I thought it was just mediocre craftmanship accentuated by compound angles. But after trying a couple of different approaches I discovered they are canted aft. At least on 113 they are.

So this is a great thread! It does very little to help me with the measurements I so desperately need for the sail loft but it has done wonders to relieve the internal turmoil I've been harbouring over the aft lower chainplate knees I added. The answere, so simple, is found in some toggles.

One nice thing about buying an older boat is that you always get a couple boxes of 'boat stuff' with it. In one of our boxes was the original backstay chainplate. It looks to be in really good shape. That is, no dull or discolored areas or bands where it came through the deck. It is flat and the pin hole is not oblong. It does, however, seem pretty thin. Maybe I'm just used to the heavier chainplates and shrouds now. But one thing I did notice is the tab on the stem fitting which the forward turnbuckle is pinned to is a full 1/4" thick. I dunno but...

I never have seen the original forward lower chainplates for 113 so I don't know if they, too, had a bend. The new ones slide in and out without much binding. That doesn't surprise me now that I've removed the paint on the decks. It seems that at one point in time 113 had a deck job done. Apparently, 'filet' was not an option. :mad: Nor was sealing the deck slot around the chainplates! :mad: :mad: Oh well. It'll only take about 3 to 4 inches around each slot to fix and that's about how far out I would have liked to gone anyways. And besides, they did an out standing job solidfying the area around those 'butt-ugly' side deck scuppers which I WILL REMOVE next spring.

Geez, what a great thread and does anybody have some pictures about this stuff? Tony G

Tony,
Spent a lot of time on my chainplate plywood.
It's there Pearson attempted to orient the pull of the rigging to the plates.
My forwards turn a little more inward toward the main bulkhead than do the afts. Maybe it's because the boat gets more pointy in the V-berth suite.
The plates are best lined up at 90 degrees to the center of the mast - to keep them from being unfairly bent or twisted.

I believe that the holes thru the deck the plates are mounted in should be 1/8 to 1/4 inch wider on both sides and the edges. This would be filled with 5200 - used as an adhesive and chaulk. This would form a gasket that would be less likely to break than a thin line. I would also take the Dremel and cove out the epoxy lined hole a little, also to insure more gasketing material.

The beauty plates that slip over the chainplates should fit tight and be caulked to the deck with polysulfide, allowing removal in case leaks happen. Be great if they were concave underneath to create the best seal possible, and more caulk over the thrudeck.

I would also do a real number removing the balsa core round each hole filling it with epoxy gel of some sort.
This epoxy filled and lined slot along with 5200 should come out waterproof.
Bronze in the hole should bright and clean and I would abrade the surface some to give the rubber plenty of tooth. If you are using s.s., even 316, you take your changes burying it. Might use stainless mounted to the outside of the hull.

{Five decades is a long time for copper alloy that has a large quantity of zinc in it to last. I believe that 338's chainplates were cast manganese bronze supplied to Pearson by Bristol Bronze. It is hard to argue with the 'experts': copper alloys with a bit of tin in them, along with the zinc, are very strong - but as we see they dezincify given the opportunity, like when captured in a continuous wet place like a leaky installation thru the deck where water always runs and collects. Everdur (silicon bronze #655) won't corrode because it has no zinc. It is not as 'strong' but just upsize a bit.
S.s. needs to be passivated to remove tiny free iron molecules from the surface. Even so, stainless depends on the oxides produced on its surface for corrosion protection. That's why you see on many boats stainless that is attached to the hull or deck showing rust. Chainplates especially. S.s. needs oxygen to protect itself.)


Tony.....Somewhere around here 338's old rigging can be found - I'ld be happy to measure it up. Also the Harken roller/furler that came with the boat is still intact if a measure would help there also.

Tony, you want some pictures. Here are a few. Photo 1 provides some of the answer your question Peter. In know my chainplates are shot because...well you see, because in the midst of my little accident repair project, which eventually I hope to further document on the "Cave Paintings" thread on the Gallery forum, I said to myself:

"While the mast is down and off the boat, since I have some voids around my chainplates, the slots are enlarged in strange ways, (see photo 1A), and the chaiplates leak fromt ime to time, so why don't I remove them and fill the plate slots and voids with epoxy and then cut the slots so that they fit the plates snuggly and permit no water into the balsa cored hull in the surrounding area.. AT the worst I wil be out the cost of a few bolts.

Sweet thought, but when I removed the 3/8 bronze 1.5 and 2.0-inch chainplate bolts, this is what I found (see photo 1B-D). These are original bolts and plates in all probability. Many of the bolts broke off in the process (see Photo 1C and 1 D).

The chainplates could not be brought back to their original bronze color, but remained mostly red with application of nylon and steel wire brush drill heads. Some of the chainplates were bent. Would the chainplates have lasted a few more years? Perhaps so, indeed probably, but was it worth the risk to me to re-install the old partially-red-metal plates with new bolts in light of the levelof corrosion in teh bolts? No.

I took the plates to a marine steel fabrication shop where I have had very satisfactory work done in the past and where I trust the expertise of the machinist owner. He pronounced the plates as being "shot".

As a result, I decided to order new plates. I had a set of #136 stainless steel plates made from 1.5 inch wide stock. The plates are 3/16 inch thick. I consulted two machine shops at boat yards in Alameda, CA, a general steel fabrication shop in Watsonville, a Marine fabrication and rigging shop in Watsonville, and the marien fabrication shop where I purchased my new chainpletes in Moss Landing. Some shops recommeded #304 steel. "It's stronger," was their argument, "And corrosion is not significanlty different in #304," they said. Others said that corrosion was a very big factor, and that i shoudl use #316 to win that game. The amount of rust that runs from my three-year-old #304 stainless (thicker) backstay chainplate told me that I agree with the #316 stainless advocates.

In a racing boat where the mast goes up and down after evey race, I might elect to use #304 foir shainplates, but I want these babies to last, and even the #304 advocate (who argued that #316 is weaker by 25% than #304) agreed that #316 is stronger than the origininal bronze plates of the same thickness. I can keep the original screw holes ffor the cover plates with 1.5 inch stock, so I went wider. I also had new #316 cover plates made.

I dry fitted all of this today.

I agree with Ebb on that top bolthole:

The top holes on the upper and aft lower should not have been so close to the top of the plywood bulkheads. The bulkheads were in good shape generally, although I had to take off some water-damaged wood near that top boltholes and a few other places. I added #9 fiberglass cloth and epoxy to the bulkheads as needed and glassed the bulkheads to the overheads with epoxy. I then re-drilled the boltholes. The only place I did not have to add significant epoxy. Cloth was the forward knee.

Re-cutting the slots was a pain, but after the first three holes I got the hang of the process. Two small pilot holes, drilled one at a time near the sides of the former slot hole furthest from the bulkhead in question, followed by drilling two holes slightly smaller than 3/16. I think I used an 11/64 drill. Two jig saw (saber saw) cuts between the holes to create a thin rectangle slot. A thin flat fine file followed by a flat file just under 3/16 width. When the slots were completed and the chainplates dry fitted and temporarily bolted in place, I marked the precise size of the necessary final slots with tape if the slots seemed wider than I wanted. Two of my first three slots were a bit wide.

I then removed all of the plates, backfilled the slots up to the tape line with colloidal silica thickened epoxy where necessary, and check all slots for any voids, or stray pilot drill holes and filled these also. I used a putty knife. One of those West Systems epoxy resin/catalyst packages that come in the six packs was sufficient fort all of the slots. I did find one void a the top of the port forward lower just above the knee where my new slot nicked that void. My goal was to keep any water that might enter those slots from getting to any wood.

Tomorrow, I hope to bed the plates and bolt them securely in place. In the photo below of the port-side bulkhead that secures the rear lower shroud chainplate, you can see that the bulkhead has been epoxied to the underside of the deck. This should both make it stronger and also prevent any water leaking through the chainplate slots from getting to the top of the plywood bulkhead as was once the case.

Here is the new chainplate both before and after installation.

The bulkhead on both sides has been reinforced with 9 oz glass cloth and epoxy. The reinforced epoxy section fills the space between the top of the bulkhead and the underside of the deck in the area where there is no cabin liner. The bulkhead has been reinforced on both sides for the full length of this chainplate. The white line above the wood grained Formica in the middle photo is a bead of 3M 5200 that I used to replace the old worn out soft gray-green foam trim piece that originally filed the space between the Formica and the cabin liner.

Note that I have increased the size of two of the three washers in the right hand photo. The top washer is the original size. It could not be enlarged because of the proximity of the bolt to the overhead. It was tempting to move the top hole down one inch, but I chose not to do so.

The photos below show the newly installed 1.5 inch wide X 3/16-inch thick chainplates #316 stainless steel, polished with mirror finish from top to second hole. These photos show chainplates before deck paint (beige) and gelcoat (white) touch-up and installation of #316 stainless cover plates. Chainplates are bedded in 3M 5200. Covers will be bedded with polysulfide. The original bronze chainplates were 1.25 inches wide X 3/16 inch thick. The partially decomposed deck core adjacent to the chainplate slots and screw holes was removed with progressively larger bent nails in a hand power drill. The debris was then vacuumed from the slot.

The bottom of the slots was plugged from below with West Systems epoxy thickened with colloidal silica. Twenty-four hours later, unthickened epoxy was injected into the slot and into the (now core-less) screw holes and this was followed by forcing colloidal silica-thickened West Systems epoxy into the three holes ( slot and two screw holes) until it began to come out of the others. I used a putty knife, a squeegee to force the epoxy into the slot and screw holes, and pushed the epoxy down and out into the core with probing tools. The squeegee allowed me to force epoxy through all three holes simulataneously. The putty knife permitted me to foce epoxy in one hole at a time.

I then cut the new slots by drilling two pilot holes and then after ensuring that the holes were where I wanted them, I increasing the bit size to slightly less than 3/16 inch. Checking the location of the holes as I went was critical because some of my original chainplates had bends in them and because I reinforced the plywood bulkheads with 9 oz cloth and epoxy.

I then cut a narrow rectangular slot between the two drill holes. Finally, I used one narrow and one wider flat file to enlarge the slot for the new chainplates. When the slots were complete, I dry fitted the chainplates and bolted them in place. I then inspected each slot. I found one void at the top of the port forward lower knee, which was left by the manufacturer. I filled this void with thickened epoxy. I then adjusted the slot width by marking the precise slot width that I wanted with masking tape, removing the chainplates and backfilling the slots with thickend epoxy to the border of the tape. A small amount of file work was required the next day before bedding the plates. My objective was to align the new slots perfectly with the bulkheads/knees so that the chainplates fit flat against them with out having to bend the plates. The only significant problem that I encountered was with the port forward lower plate, which bolts to a knee that was at a wacky angle. This was not he case on the starboard forward lower knee.

My original chainplates did not conform to the drawing in the Ariel Association's manual. Mine were were longer. The holes were in similar, but not precise locations from chainplate to chainplate, so each chainplate had to be drilled separately. The originals were not all exactly the same length. Dry-fitting is a must. Which side of the new chainplates faced forward made a difference when matching the holes in the bulkheads. In some cases, the three holes were in alignment, but the line was not the centerline of the chainplate. In other cases one of the three holes was out of alignment. The differences were slight, but significant, because I was using the original bolt holes in the bulkheads and knees.

To everything there is a reason
And a time for every purpose,
A time to buildup, a time to break down.

Articles posted in #1 and #4, especially #1 with its great photos, should be absorbed by anyone contemplating refit.

300 series stainless steel depends on free oxygen reacting with the chromium content in alloy to create its surface protection. Scratch that thin oxide layer or deprive it of ambient oxygen and it will begin to break down. Whether it's the shaft in a cutlass bearing under water. a screw or bolt head, a chainplate against the hull or buried in the deck. Chainplates, unlike chocks or cleats, are continually worked, tweaked, stressed and so forth.

316 is 304 with a little molybdenum added to the nickel and chromium that makes it about twice as resistant. That's a good thing because 304 doesn't belong on any boat in a saltwater environment.

Stainless must be passivated to remove the tinyest iron particles (something you can do yourself) and be buffed absolutely smooth. If I had to use stainless strap or bar I would look for it under the names Aquamet and Nitronic - higher up in the 300 range. This stuff is used for shafts and rod rigging. There are hundreds, well, dozens of stainless steels - some claim to be highly if not completely resistant to corrosion. But not having researched it, don't know if they can be used like bronze is in our application.

There is good reason to use (the correct) bronze for refitting chainplates on the A/Cs.

Well Ebb,

The articles and photos are quite good. They present the "stainless horror hour" when it comes to chainplate failure. The photos of my original chainplates demonstrate why it may be wise to take a look at the bronze chainplates on your forty-year-old boat, and particularly the bolts that secure them.

I checked with five different fabrication shops, four of which make metal parts exclusively for the marine industry. Two of those fabricators are well known west coast manufacturers. They all make stainless steel chainplates. Some recommend 316 (to prevent corrosion) and some 304 (for strength). They mostly shook their heads when I said that I preferred bronze. It all depends upon how much you want to spend. If you want bronze and your supplier has to special order it, then you are going to buy who strap, bar or whatever.

Although bronze may be preferable, it is not as strong as stainless steel, and having bronze chainplates on ones forty-year-old boat is not an assurance of safety.

1. Bronze thru-hulls can and do fail due to corrosion. Some of those failures are documented on this forum. A number of cruising sailors have related spooky bronze thru-hull failure stories to me.
2. The heads of my bronze gudgeon bolts snapped off when I removed the gudgeon to drop the rudder this summer.
3. Bronze rudder shafts eventually turn to red mush in salt water.
4. Even in the relatively dry environment of the main bulkhead on my boat, which showed no signs of water intrusion below the top bolthole on the starboard side, my bronze chainplate bolts were pretty much shot. See photos above.
5. My bronze chainplates were mostly red metal beneath the green verdigris coating of corroded bronze See photo above.

Personally, I like the idea of chainplates mounted to the exterior of the hull, despite the impact on sailing performance as discussed elsewhere on this forum. It seems a worthy idea, since at least one side of the chainplates can be inspected without removing them. My father’s boat, which was a 22,000 lb heavy displacement cutter, had such chainplates. They were stainless steel. In the twenty-two years that he owned the boat, we never observed any corrosion or any other indication for chainplate failure.

At least on my boat, the chainplate slots are now solid epoxy. There is no longer a wood deck core to hold moisture against the chainplates.

Scott,
Looks to me like you did a real nice refit of those s.s. chainplates of yours.
Differences of opinion is what cooks this web site, I wish there was more of it.
There is no way anyone can predict the longevity of a particular installation except by the experiences of others. I am obviously a bronze guy. And maybe the reason for that is that bronze is more romantic than stainless.

Nevertheless, those dinky bronze plates that the factory put in my Ariel lasted 5 decades. Even so, I believe they used a questionable alloy. The installation was bound to leak and the bolts were probably a different alloy therefor exacerbating corrosion. Don't know, never had tests done, so it's all bs. Everything I can find out about stainless, though, makes it a much more dicey, less forgiving alloy than copper.

Could it be that you're both right? Perhaps chainplate replacement is something we're just going to have to face every thirty, fourty or fifty years? I can live with that.

Everything from alligning the knees with the 'pull' of the rigging to oversizing and switching to stronger materials is a worthwhile improvement to these great little boats. I think that given the quality to the materials available to us these days, the fact that we are striving to accertain a level of craftsmanship in our repairs/rebuilds exceeding mediocre, and a far better understanding of the longterm effects on, or expectations of, the new systems we incorporate into our boats, just widens the gap of allowable margin of error.

Even with our oversights our boats are better than they ever were. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting some sort of snobish, elitest distinction between original Ariels/Commanders and rebuilds or remodels. I'm just saying that any improvement is an improvement.

Scott, you note that "Bronze rudder shafts eventually turn to red mush in salt water." IMHO, proper zincing should take care of that problem. Ditto for failing bronze through hulls. It's the electrical current . . . :eek:

Tony,
Bronze plates won't just suddenly let go like stainless.
No way will stainless last 45 years. Prove it!


Bronze is a metal of nobility.
Stainless is a metal of utility. :p

Bronze is a metal of ability
Stainless is a metal of futility.


Besides Ariels and Commanders ARE bronze fitted boats.
I won. :eek:

To: All

If you are talking the right bronze in the right places, I am a bronze guy also. Just knowing that my rudder shaft has lasted 39 years thus far and that my chainplates lasted 39 years and probably would have lasted much longer if I had not removed them to repair the deck delamination in the chainplate area and repair the bulkheads where the upper and aft lower shrouds are attached. Once removed, the evident corrosion in the bolts and the overall condition of the plates plus "expert" opinion dictated replacement, but they probably would have lasted a few more years if new bronze bolts were inserted.

I have personally lost two rudders at sea, one on a Catalina 22 due to a failed weld on one of the pintels on a transom mounted rudder, and the other a catastrophic failure of the very substantial spade rudder shaft on a Cal 25. Corrosion and metal fatigue were factors in both cases. I don't know the alloy, but both of those rudder parts were stainless steel. The Catalina parts were less than ten years old.

However, there is a very big difference to what someone might do who is basically redesigning a boat from the keel up like Ebb and some others on this forum are doing, and someone who is merely replacing a single system as part of periodic maintenance between sails or performing accident repair on a budget as in my case.

In my case, I am trying to deal with what is turning out to be very expensive accident repair, and the chainplate project was just an added uninsured cost, as were the thru-hulls that I had to replace, the rudder repairs, blister repairs, yard costs, and the replacement of the electrical wire and coaxial cable in the mast. I was actually planning to sail regularly over the past three months rather than spending hour upon hour on boat repairs.

So, I was striving not to impose my ideology on the marine industry, but instead to work with real-life credible suppliers whom I could reasonably enlist to build a set of chainplates within a three-week time frame. I was looking for a relatively reasonably priced, but professionally recommended solution to replacing my chainplates. After consulting five fabrication shops, and in addition consulting two professionals, the latter of whom had no economic interest in this part of my project, I found seven recommendations that I use stainless steel. One of those shops in the SF Bay area has already built ss chainplates for Ariels, and recommended 316 stainless, but they were backlogged with work.

So, I personally feel that bonze should probably be the metal of choice under water or where crevice corrosion is a factor, I also feel that owners should understand that even bronze will fail, and that if their local yard or fabrication shop tells them to go with stainless, that recommendation is indeed the conventional wisdom of industry professionals, and not an aberration.

As we have discussed on other threads, the conventional wisdom of industry professionals also gave us inline valves instead of flanged sea cocks, faster boats with less ultimate stability that knock down without lots of rail meat, and a whole host of other ideas that we Ariel/Commander sailors believe to be "bad ideas".

I believe in zincs Bill, but let's face it: In some of our "hot marinas", our moored boats are little more than giant batteries, with or without zincs. Conventional wisdom again says out of one side of its mouth "You should bond all below water bronze," and out of the other side of its mouth, "Don't bond isolated bronze thru-hulls." My original thru-hulls were isolated, and unbonded and 100% AOK after forty years (OK so two were probably replaced sometime in the 1970s or 1980s). My new cockpit thru-hulls are Grocco, with Grocco flanged all-bronze seacocks. That cost me extra, but having the all bonze seacocks and thru-hulls was a priority for me. By the way, Grocco recommends that all thru-hulls/seacocks be bonded.

We may all vow to maintain our zincs, but how can we account for or make up for the deferred maintenance of prior owners? We can’t, and many of us purchased boats with deferred maintenance. The first things to go are the haul-outs, zinc replacement etc.

So my point is that we need to have realistic expectations for the original equipment installed in our Ariels and Commanders. A surveyor who inspected my boat thumped on a couple of places on my already-sanded hull and pronounced that I would not find any blisters on my ancient hull. In my opinion that thinking was based on myth perpetuated by some of my maritime literary heroes, but teh surveyor seemed satisfied. In that same haul-out, I repaired two blisters, each the size of a fist, one shallow and one deep. The deep one took five layers of 10 oz cloth and epoxy.

Does a similar level of faith in the construction skills of the ancient Pearsonians lead us accept myths that bronze lasts forever, that our hulls are thicker than they really are, or that we actually have any mechanical fasteners holdign deck and hull together in our hull deck seam?

One final question: When was the last time that you removed and examined one of your chainplates? You can do that with the rig up one plate at a time.

My personal answer to that question is: “Had I not had my mast down for accident repair, I would not have removed the chainplates…well not this year anyway." But checking our chainplates once every forty years by removign at least one of them is probably not wise based on what I discovered when I removed mine, and particulalry so in light of the deck section in the chainplate area. Zincs may prevent or slow future corrosion on our boats, but a zinc-less past under a prior owner could make a zinkable future.

Scott,
Let us amend that Screech toast of another thread to:

"May your big jib keep drawing and your chainplates last forty years."
Lift my glass of Moylans to a great job - and your exploits as a raildown offshore skipper!!!

As for copper alloy. Recall that 5300 year old guy they found shot in the back in the Alps? His axe hardly had any patina on it. Now, if it had been stainless steel......



I think, please research it!, current thinking with hot marinas in mind is NOT to bond your underwater fittings together into an electric circuit. Asking for trouble. Recomendations now are to independantly zinc each fitting, or not to zinc at all. As you know, IMCO, gunmetal used for casting thruhulls and seacocks is no longer good enough. Obviously it depends on where the boat is berthed or anchored. Ebb and his bronze, he's going with nylon.

Ebb,

No metal is maintenance free. As we now know, neither is fiberglass, and many plastics become brittle over time. I am not sure how long those Nylon thru-hulls last. Avoiding corrosion problems makes them attractive though. This issue is no human made material is maintenance free.

One final thought in your search for metalic perfection: If stainless steel is a concern wherever crevice corrosion might occur, please keep in mind that crevice corrosion is very possible and often encountered on standing rigging, wherever steel wire disappears into a swage or fitting. Lots of salt water, and no oxygen = crevice corrosion. So are you going go with bronze wire rigging, or...

Now carbon fiber rod rigging. There's an idea. I wonder of 5300 years from now archeologists will pry a plastic-age skier from the hard Alpine ground along with a fully functional pair of epoxy skis, carbon fiber ski poles, and and a Chocolate Cookie Supreme Cliff Bar still edible in its plastic wrapper. Too bad about those stainless steel bindings of his though. :)

Great discussion -- every time I open my locker or lazarette I wonder about those plates. The obvious next step for the association is to get a head count and make up a bunch so those of us too lazy to pull them and have them made can order a set. That will force me to action!

Ted

Ted,

The only three problems with a group chainplate order are:

1. Not all Ariels were built with the same chainplates. My bronze chainplates, although probably original, were not identical to those in the Ariel Association Maintenance manual.

2. Not all chainplates on a single Ariel were built identically. Each new chainplate built for my boat had to be drilled separately since the three bottom holes were not drilled uniformly, or even always drilled in a straight line. THius made for a very expensive set of plates.

3. Pin size may vary based on whether your boat has been re-rigged in its forty-year life. My upper shroud pins turn out to be a different size than the 3/8 pins used elsewhere. Unfortunately the holes in my original chainplates were all over-drilled size-wise. This is the same on the backstay plate made for me in 2002 by a professional igger, and the original stem fitting holes for the forestay. They were neither 3/8 nor 7/16 inch and furthermore, the rigging component that works with my upper shroud chainplate does not come with a 3/8 pin apparently.

So whether you go with bronze or 316 stainless steel, my advice after my recent experience is:

a. Remove the chainplates, and inspect them. If they need to be replaced, use the same hole spacing, assuming your bulkheads and knees are solid, but if possible add one more hole to give you four locations per chainplate to bolt through a bulkhead or knee. You are going to have to measure this carefully before you do it. Remember anything you do to add material to the side of a bulkhead or knee against which the chainplate rests will cause the chainplate top move forward away from the original chainplate slot. This could have other ramifications. From the bends in some of my original chainplates, it is apparent that the original chainplate slots were not always in line with the forward face of the bulkheads and knees, as one would presume to be prudent for correct placement of chainplates, so your new chainplates may move somewhat in any case, unless you intend to bend them.

b. The open top edge of the plywood bulkheads is exposed. Cap it with epoxy and, if possible add some cloth and tie that bulkhead into the deck. One objective is to seal the bulkhead to prevent water intrusion, and another is to correct, to a limited degree, for the very close proximity of the top bolt to the top edge of the bulkhead.

c. While the chainplates are off the boat, clean out the delaminated deck core in the area of the chainplates and fill it and the chainplate cover plate screw hole areas with epoxy, so any future leaks will not run into the core.

d. If you are having new plates made, identify each removed chainplate as port aft lower, port upper, port forward lower etc. and mark the plates accordingly and redundantly with marker pen and lettering on tape. Verify your pin size on all six shrouds, and your bolt size also. Take the pins and bolts with you to the fabrication shop so that they won't have to guess pin or bolt size from what might be oversized or friction-elongated or stress elongated, or sloppily drilled holes. Make sure that the understand that each of your plates may be slightly doffeent (if indeed they are)

e. Put your order in writing, and/or ask for a written order with your specifications printed thereupon. This exercise will ensure that you have told your fabrication shop all that they need to know and that you and they have a record of that conversation.

Note: I actually ordered a set of 316 chainplates 3/16 of an inch thick from one source, and the specifications were written on the order, but the plates they made were less than 3/16 inch. As it later turned out they did not have 3/16 inch steel, but they made and deliveed them anyway. I did not install those chainplates. Instead I ordered my chainplates from a different source.

I discovered later that the upper shroud used a different sized pin. You really want to closely match your pins to the chainplate holes to avoid problems caused by point loading when your pin is too small for the hole. In other words, a very small pin will engage only one small point on the hole transferring all stress to that single point as opposed to spreading the load over the top half of the hole.

If you have a small pin in a big hole you can bush the hole to the correct diameter (with a bushing), but good luck finding the correctly sized bushing. If you have to make soem bushigns they will be expensive, and there are limits to what can be made.

Does all of this pin size vs. hole size stuff really make a difference on a small boat like an Ariel or Commander? Can't say that I know, but if you have a chance to do something correctly, you might as well take the time to do it correctly since it will not cost you any more momey or time to do it correctly, and you wil sleep better after you do to it correctly.

However, my boat seems to have sailed around in all sorts of conditions for nearly forty years with pins smaller than their respective chainplate holes, and was none the worse for the wear. The chainplates were tired, but had not failed. The top holes were on some plates elongated, but that appeared to be wear and not stress caused hole elongation.

Scott,

Thank you for the most thoughtful reply. It certainly demonstrates how much you have thought about the problem. Hull 56 will come out for a bottom job next summer, and I'll probably tackle a few other major items at that time. Since I currently have a good friend at a stainless shop it would not be difficult to have exact copies made. I'll heed your advice with regards to inspecting, recoring, retabbing, and adding an extra hole! She has been rerigged exactly once, by me, so the rest of the rigging is in order.

Ted,

My comments were based on my own experience and not extensive study of the issues involved. The good news is that my bronze chainplates were probably originals installed nearly forty years ago, and I had not messed with them would probably have held a few top many more years, although they were corroded tpo the degree that it would have been irresponsible to re-install them. The bolts, however, were pretty much shot. Albotu half of them snapped whiel I was removing them.

The fourth bolt hole that i suggested is an optional thing, and I would not change my plates just to do that, but if you are ordering new plates, and if you have the space for a few more inches of steel and one more hole, then why not? This would be even more of an issue if the top chainplate bolt hole in your bulkeads (like mine) was ever so close to the top edge of the plywood and water damage had occurred there from past leaks.

The matching of chainplate holes to rigging pin size is an important issue, however, and you will need to insure that you, your chainplate fabricator, and your rigger, if that is someone other than you, are on the same page as far as hole vs. pin dimensions. It may also help if you talk philosophy with all of the above before you start to spend money.

this photo is the final chainplate installation less standing rigging. Insert is aft lower port chainplate

Lets get this thread going again. Anybody replace their rigging?

Anybody use toggles? I've only got one on the furler.

I'm going to start getting quotes to have my rigging replicated, swage fittings.

I like the idea of using Norseman or Sta-Loc, but I don't want to devote the time to the project. Sometimes you got to pick your battles. Interesting article by our own Bill Sandifer, although he's talking about the rigging on his new boat:

http://www.seafarer-research-center.com/diyrigging.htm

And a little something I came across

http://www.riggingonly.com/wire.h4.gif

MO-Darn rigging is too much for me. Could do credible in galvanize iron and trawl wire. So a couple weeks befor solstice I sent off a proposal to Brion Toss who uses, and I heard flogs, Sta Lok. I think it was his site that had something to say about Norseman (there are other whiners - and don't quote me on that) - what was it, a warning?, Norseman had some mechanical problems and did not respond properly to customer complaints? Doesn't matter. If I had did a survey among those on the internet (cruisers) who've actually used both: Sta Lok wins every time.

Stak Lok uses a bronze body with s.s. ends. I like the look of the original Pearson unchromed bronze turnbuckles - so I asked him about that. I want unchromed, understand the reasoning for the two metals. 338 wants to upgrade to 1/4" as well. So another question I had was whether 7/16s turnbuckles was copacetic or should it be the more massive 1/2" trurnbuckle. (Weight, Cost, AND Aesthetic considerations, etc)....

Anyway, Brion Toss Enterprises has not RSVP'ed yet. Maybe they're trying to translate my letter into real american. I will report gory details as they occur.

If you have the old rigging and you are not up-sizing - why can't you have your rigging upgraded to swageless fittings and new wire? You really DON"T need dangerous swage fittings!

C'pete -

A couple of years ago I completely rerigged my Com-Pac 23D (which left just yesterday with her new owner :/ ), having the rigging shop at Sailrite do all the wire assembly work. The cost for everything was about $450 IIRC. The wire and hardware on that boat should be a size or so less than what is on an Ariel, so the quotes I've seen posted here previously don't seem out of line.

I plan to do #370 up with Norseman or Staylok all the way around, buying the wire bulk, cutting and assembling it all myself. A friend who is involved in the rebirth of a Rhodes Meridian (very similar to our Ariels) is doing this, and has estimated his costs to be near $500 for the wire and terminals.

B. Toss' comments about the quality of wire have to do with QC in the manufacturing process. According to his book and videos, wire manufactured in the US is made under much tighter controls and must meet federally-mandated specifications, so as a result it is a consistent higher quality than much of what you see coming out of Asia. (Makes sense - and its one of the few demonstrable good results of big government, IMO :) ). Toss also says that quality can vary betweens batches of the same type of wire from a manufacturer, and so he recommends consulting with a rigger you trust to find out who's been producing the top-notch stuff at the time you rerig.

Know any good high-quantity riggers who use a variety of wires from different manufacturers? Me neither. :)

One interesting rigging tidbit - in Toss' book, he states that a galvanized rig can have a life expectancy of well over 20 years in saltwater, if it is assembled and cared for properly. Serving and seizing, anyone? I think I'll stick with low-maintenance stainless just the same...

It was Toss' book what got me to successfully parcel and serve the wire on a gaff-cutter I had. Maintenance requires wiping down the shrouds and stays with a mix of Stockholm Tar. The smell of Stockholm Tar gets the same warm fuzzies going in me as does a Thanksgiving turkey in the oven.

A galvanized rig is a logical, proven, dependable, interactive rig. Not only is it possible to get black stains on the sails and deck and your favorite cutoffs - but there is unequivocal direct connection, when you do the work on the rigging yourself, to the great days of sail. Befor it became a sport. With leathered/spliced soft eyes you have a safe low stress rig aloft not depending on tangs and pins. Your turnbuckes are replaceable anywhere almost and all 'one' metal, not expensive hightech jewelry that can let go without warning. And you don't need Brion Toss :) or a rigging shop to rerig, repair or upgrade.

With a 'galvanized' rig. you probably interact with your boat on another level. Because if something happens you know you can fix it, or at least jerry-rig yourself out of trouble.

ebb -

Most excellent of you, sir! You are the first person I know who has maintained ther very own galvy rig. :D I have a question for you regarding that Stockholm Tar -

What does that gunk do? Serve as an outer layer of "stuff" to keep salt from getting to the metal underneath? If so, I wonder aloud whether/would a more modern product such as "Corrosion Block" ("ACF-50" in the aviation world) serve the same purpose, yet without the mess and stains...

Perhaps I could crack the spine of Toss' "TCRA" and find out fer meselfs...

The Corrosion Block/ACF-50 is what we call "miracle sh*t". :D Up at Oshkosh for the annual EAA airshow, the company reps demo it by applying it to some sort of electrical device which they then submerge in water while it is working. Amazingly, the device continues to work. I've seen TV's working underwater, and it's weird.

Speaking to the rep the year before last (who had a bicycle LED light blinking away merrily in a glass of water, batteries and circuit board exposed in plain view - it had been there for 7 days), he told us one of their reps used to take a running electric drill that had been liberally coated with their product, and plunge it into a 5 gallon bucket of water. Now that is some faith in what you are selling! The company higher ups asked him to stop doing that, fearing legal reprisal from the family of someone who perhaps didn't coat their own tool well enough when demonstrating this remarkable feat...

Have to look into that Corrosion Block. I suspect that Toss or anybody else wouls choose something, anything, less messy than wood tar.

Digressing to the distant past. I found some 6 X 7 Korean trawl wire (yes, way back then.) It had a fiber core and was dressed in tar. The dressing had some set, as it didn't actually bleed tar. And back then I wouldn't have known to ask WHAT the wire had on it, I assumed it was tar. but it could have been creosote.

When I had learnt splicing around thimbles and soft eyes, I decided to do a full service on the length of the rigging. Old fashioned electric tape was wrapped around the rope (with the lay,was it?) It is a thin cloth impregnated with a tarlike gum. Then put on a "flying service" (see Toss) using tar impregnated marlin from a fisher supply. Got it smoking! Had the parceling squeeze out, and the nylon went on so tight the rigging became as stiff as rod. Mostly.

So the galvanized wire was well protected. Somewhere, after the rigging bleached a few seasons and showed signs of fuzzing I found a formula for the dressing. Wasn't from the book. It had somewhat equal parts of Stockholm Tar and varnish with japan drier added to get it to dry and skin over. It took a while to set. And then I forgot about it. You hear that some of the rigging on old clipper ships is still as good as the day it was served. UNgalvanized, right?

Stockholm Tar by its nature is a penetrant, preservative, mastic. It's always been used around wood, to caulk seams and preserve, I'm sure the Vikings used it. When ever you burn wood in an oxygen deprived space you end up with charcoal, of course, and various amounts of glop in the bottom of the pit. [It is also an antiseptic, still used for dehorning, treating wounds around animals. Like all good ole dressings it's been surplanted by cleaner more expensive pharmaceuticles, and stuff in spraycans. I don't know why it smells so good to me. The volatiles are called phenols and are related to alcohol.]

I faked it alot on my galvanized rigging. If someone like BrionToss does a compleat set from start to finish, I think 20 years is very conservative estimate of longevity. It is more like 100 years. You probably can only get the real stuff from England or Scandanavia.

Next thing you guys are going to tell us how to make baggywrinkle :rolleyes: .

Take a look at this from the Triton site if you're going to use Sta-Locs

http://www.tritonclass.org/mir/norsstalok.html

On the turnbuckles, the original ones are "rigid jaw" turbuckles. Hard to even find them. Did see some here

http://www.riggingonly.com/stdrig1.jpg

Mostly you see the toggle/jaw variety

Probably better. I think they will be longer than the originals, so you have to factor that in

Those rigid jaw turnbuckles are the style we have here. When the PO replaced the standing rigging on 113 he kept that style of turnbuckle. With 1/4" wire they are pretty 'beefy'. When I was thinking about replacing them I felt the 'T' style toggles just weren't stong enough. Absolutly no scientific proof that they weren'tas strong. It's just that they don't have the mass of the old rigid jaws. Finding toggles as robust as the rigid jaws is hard, and expensive. Anyone have any leads?

I decided to have the rigging duplicated by

http://www.riggingonly.com/

Used the same size wire 3/16, and swage fittings. I'm not planning on crossing any oceans here.

Cost was $ 543. They used 316 stainless wire and chrome bronze turnbuckles. Price included a boom pigtail, but not the headstay, which has a recent furler.

Hope it fits. The old stuff is in the back.

In the midst of all this, has everyone looked at their chainplate attachments lately?

I poked at mine today. What I found was that while the port aft 'looked' good, it was not.

I slacked the shroud and removed the chain plate.

Here is what was under it. (well, actually that is what it looked like after I pealed the teak cover panel off of it, and tore it up with a screwdriver)




I was sailing on this YESTERDAY in 25 knots.

Yeah, that looks familiar. Wood that had a similar appearance to your chainplate knee is what precipitated the complete rebuild of 113. Of course, it was just going to be a quick repair of the bulkhead at first. Then look at what happened!

It doesn't surprise me that it held up to sailing the day before. Where is it going to go? It wouldnt rip through the deck. Not that I advocate that behavior :D ! The main thing is that you were inquisitive enough to do some digging around probably based on what you had found elsewhere. Ariel/Commander owners are just smart. No bias here. Just proven fact.

Have you considered an external mounted chainplate system.I've thought of peeling the paint away ,putting a couple of layers of cloth and west epoxy for additional backing and mounting them out.End of worries and by epoxying the existing chainplate holes , the potention delamination on deck in that erea do to water penetration would be minimized.I don't think it would be a big job at all (famous last words) but would require new-longer plates....good time to do rear stay plate ouside also.I'm seriously considering it this fall. I think that is probably the weakest link with these aging boats at this time. #50

Frank, have you looked at the external chainplates on Geoff's thread in the gallery forum?

http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...5&page=4&pp=15

Photos of the cp's are shown in posts 60 - 62. They were installed by Tony Benado who sailed the boat to Australia.

Bill...you sure know this site !! Yep. thats what I was thinking. Couldn"t be that hard and would end problems . He did a nice 'heavy' job.I think a couple of layers of cloth/epoxy behind would be in order 'just in case'

Since I'm considering buying an Ariel AND taking her across oceans, this thread has been a huge help. I'm still a little fuzzy on exactly WHICH Sta-lok pieces I need (there are around 8 million), but the prices quoted here are encouraging. I figure I can have a first-class rig and super-duper ground tackle if I live on Ramen noodles. :)

But does anyone know about how much a decent machine shop charges to make new 316 chainplates? Internal or external?

Many thanks!

Jeremy

Decided to go external with the chainplates, myself. Naturally I find all kinds of issues real and imagined. One of them is that the set of 3 is probably going to go on aft of the bulkhead(s) and therefor 'off' the original lines. I'm not too worried because there is a little room to move the mast back the required (I estimate) 1 1/2".

[Moving the mast back takes it even further off the bearing bulkhead inside. It's already only half on the beam by my estimation.]

Assume that you absolutely have to have the upper shroud 'splitting the mast' as shown on sail plans. I think Geoff told me his plates were aft. But didn't ask him to line up his mast for me. Heavily beefed up the knees for the lowers - doubled their thickness and terminated all four on the hull, faired to the hull.) Now, I believe, will have to glass in backing by building up layers of ply. How strong is strong?

Building up thickness to back the plates brings the resulting longer holes in and away slightly from the bulkheads. Allows the bolts larger washers and maybe a little tighter to the original location.

Going with 655 bronze and siliconbronze stud bolts. Stud bolts because I thought they were cool. They look like giant machine screws with slotted head. The ones I found from Glen, I think, still have an unmachined shank, so they don't fit a half inch hole, too large. For cryin-out-loud! So I'm going to have to machine the shoulders down. Got these fastners because of their deep shoulders, to avoid having threads in the hull and backing ply - thinking solid metal in tight holes would never shift and would be less likely to leak. Not a s.s. fan. Costly snobbery.

Ebb -

One of my favorite books (I think I've mentioned it on here before Edit: Yes Link ) is Griffiths "Bluewater" (written by a 5+ time circumnavigator who owned a 60' cutter with a very Ariel-like shape to her). On his boat Awahnee, he described a bar mounted above/at the top of his external chainplates, and the shrouds attached to this bar. The same bar was also handy as a place to hang fenders, sidelights, etc, while serving to protect the lower ends of the shrouds when lying alongside docks or other vessels.

Anyway, we could use this idea to mount external chainplates slightly aft of the current bulkhead locations, and then attach the shrouds to the bar in their proper locations, so as not to have to shift the mast.

Sounds OK to me, but what say y'all to the idea?

BTW - Have a sweet job for a few days yet - tending this boat (below) for the owners - very sweet boat, and super nice people! All because curiosity and coffee got the better of me when I saw them tied up in our marina yesterday. :D (She's a doll, but I still like my Ariel... :D:D:D)

They said they knew a girl named "Darcy" who had a boat much like an Ariel, she sailed all around the NE until getting married to a fellow with a larger boat. Anyone know of or ever hear of her? Just wondering...

Article link

http://www.boats.com/published/images/bw_stroque_5.gif

Kurt,
That is a great idea!

Remainder of brain working.... Well yas, particularly in 338's case because I'm still going to have a modest mahogany toerail on top of the molded one. Which means the plates are longer (looking at 15 1/4" top to bottom), and the top bolt is (forget) like five inches down from the pin hole. And bronze ain't stiff like s.s. So...

So linking them together makes them stiffer and stronger. And because they are tied together isn't this an opportunity also to lighten up on the backing? Loads on each shroud are shared, really sounds right! Have to think about it, run it by some more folks.

Possible cons: Adding weight, adding connection points, aesthetics.

But... haven't let the cat out of the bag yet... you may have solved a real weight problem, because I've seriously been considering the addition of a solent stay, that might have required another chainplate per side, just abaft the rear lower. This looks like an opportunity to skip the extra chainplate completely and put the 4th shroud's pin hole in the connecting bar. The extra plate is an attempt to avoid runners. Did have an architect run numbers - he said it was possible to add the extra shrouds from the "3/4" position on the mast where the new stay would terminate - instead of adding runners back to the cockpit because of the Ariel's strong mast. But a well known rigger didn't think so and pointed out the runners could be lighter no stretch line and cool 4 part blocks to an eyebolt in the deck. Anyway...

Just curious if Ebb has attached his external chainplates yet or Kurt or TonyG have looked into it further? Mine have been removed and I'm taking them in soon to be inspected. The knees seem to be in pretty good shape too, so there'll be no serious rebuilding in there - so far.

With an ongoing recore mostly as a result of leaking chainplates, and the chainplates removed, it seems like a good time to at least consider the external chainplate setup.

Not to worry - it's not blood. This was the drop cloth from a house painting project. :D

In addition to the strongback reinforcement, I'm guessing I'll need at least 2 chainplates remade. Here's why. These are the "mids". Not sure what or if there should even be a "bend". :eek:

I could see a reason for the bend, even though it's the Mid-uppers if your mast was/is raked Fwd/Aft then the mids would follow the mast, and the Fwd/aft (depending on rake) would be straight would be curious for a shot of all three showing their bends (or lack) laid out Forward to aft.

All I can say is thing Rt Triangle

Then again I could be wrong . . .

The plates should be bent or the holes should be drilled not square to the surface so the entire clevis pin is taking the load and not just the inner edge .
In other words , if you don't bend them the rig will try to bend them itself trying to even the load . It also puts more stress on the inboard end of the clevis and will eventually wear more. It can also stress the lower fork of the turnbuckle or bottlescrew if you are a Brit.

All of the finer sailing yachts I have worked on and sailed on , had the chainplates bent , with the exception of the uppers when the spreaders were wide enough to get the shroud tangent with the tang .

You always want to be tangent with the tang!

The thirdman is correct as usual. The fore and afts SHOULD be bent to follow the line of the rigging up to the spreaders. All 4 could be approprioately upset to line up the forces.

However, all 338's shroud plates were very upsetting. They were too short and they were installed thru the deck out of alinement to the pull and angle of the rigging. The plates come out of the deck, let's say, vertically - while the rigging wants to pull then in, let's say, 12 degrees. If Pearson had wanted to aline them they would have had to install them further inboard - that's why they didn't!

Imco only bronze could have put up with the unfair stresses on the plates all these decades. I also believe that the PLATES should only be upgraded with bronze, NEVER 304 and NOT 316. This is absolutely real if you are going to keep them coming up THRU the deck.

Putting the plates on the outside of the hull would ensure each bolt in a chainplate would share the load. Each bolt would be in the same sheer alinement. And the top of the plate would be bent to aline with the angle of the rigging. Beefing up the hull with epoxied-in backing plates, instead of messing with the plywood knees like we did on 338, would be easier and stronger.

The time to consider upgrading the chainplate system is when replacing the wire rigging. There are other swageless systems on the market: HiMod (Hayne) is well advertised - and turnbuckles by Suncor, I think (I can't see paying Bosun's extreme prices). The final arguement for swageless fittings on the wire is that you can do it yourself. While saving weight and streamlining with swaged on the mast is good, it still IS a swaged fitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tha3rdman

would be curious for a shot of all three showing their bends (or lack) laid out Forward to aft.

---

That's what I was going for with the picture in post 47 - not that you can tell very well. But the "fwd"s are flat, the "aft"s have a slight bend, and as seen in post 48, I'm not sure which is the "proper" angle for the "mid"s. Looking through the manual, it has a schematic for them and includes a "bend" for the backstay chainplate (which I'm not sure is needed), but not for the others.

Anyone have an idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebb

Imco only bronze could have put up with the unfair stresses on the plates all these decades. I also believe that the PLATES should only be upgraded with bronze, NEVER 304 and NOT 316. This is absolutely real if you are going to keep them coming up THRU the deck.

---

It looks like I will be keeping the stock setup for the chainplates and keep them coming up through the deck - though I really like the idea of the externals. But the knees look fine as do most of the chainplates, so it seems to be the path of least resistance. A beefier aft chainplate and the strongback reinforcements as per the manual are being fabricated now.

BUT, just to flash my ignorance - why Ebb? Is bronze stronger than stainless?? My stainless chainplates seem to have held up pretty well over the last 40 years... (Assuming they haven't been redone at some point, that is.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbd

BUT, just to flash my ignorance - why Ebb? Is bronze stronger than stainless?? My stainless chainplates seem to have held up pretty well over the last 40 years... (Assuming they haven't been redone at some point, that is.)

---

Now, I see. After some searching and reading - as I suspected, Ebb has already answered the question in the "Standing Rigging thread: http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...56&postcount=9

No idea how I missed this thread previously, but it has some excellent info: Standing Rigging Thread - I'd be really curious to hear from Capt Galloway how his installation has held up.

Sigh. So much info, so little time.

Mike, yeah,
Simply said, stainless steel fatigues.
Silicon bronze and galvanized iron chainplates do not.
On the Pearson Ariel Auguistine restoration page you will discover that Scott repaired and replaced his chainplates insitu with 316.
316L is possibly the only commonly available stainless that you could use to replace the original manganese brass plates. You can easily find a shop to fabricate stainless.
Silicon bronze is expensive. I don't know how it compares in price to passivated 316. Probably around the same.

I don't see how you can get a waterproof installation doing it the original Pearson way. I think sailing the boat HAS to loosen the plates. If salt water gets down into the rubber caulk that surrounds the plates coming ouit of the deck, that will be a condition that s.s. will fail in, eventually. My opinion.

Silicon bronze does not corrode in salt water, or if painted or partially covered in fiberglass or rubber even if water migrates thru. Size for size I do not know how S.B. compares to iron. Since it's mostly copper I would go up one size. Original 3/16", 40 year old, A/C plates that suffer from galvanic corrosion are, in my opinion, not true bronze,

Since you asked: My installation of new 316 stainless chain plates in Augustine, Ariel hull #330, is holding up just fine. I have been sailing around in some decently strong winds in the open ocean, and I don't reef early, and really I don't reef very often at all.

If you take a look at my retrofit page,

http://www.solopublications.com/sailarir.htm

You will see what was left to my old original bronze plates after forty years. The photo of the bolts shows that the remaining bronze that had not corroded was pencil thin. The bolts snapped in come cases when I was trying to remove the nuts.

I think bronze is very cool, and I also think that 316 stainless steel is pretty cool too. I have a relatively new (2002) 304 stainless steel backstay retrofit, which replaces the flimsy original, but I think I will eventually replace that with 316. The thing runs with rust in that salty wet lazarette environment. No chainplate will last forever. Your decision has to balance strength, durability, availability and price. If your boat is in a yard awaiting a chainplate order, time is money. My decision had as more to do with the time it was going to take to make them as it did with money. I could not afford to have a delay in a chainplate order cause a disruption of the overall retrofit schedule.

Certainly, the brief two years since my retrofit is not a sufficient test period for chainplate corrosion. The true test would be after a few more years. Then it would be interesting to see to what degree crevice corrosion has been a factor with the 316 ss.

As far as the bronze goes, the original bronze plates were still holding after forty years, but the corrosion was evident thoughout the plates and bolts, not merely in the crevices. I removed them merely because it seemed like a good idea while I had to rig down for wire replacement and mast work to remove the inspect the chainplates, and core the deck laminate surrounding the chaiplate slots with epoxy. After inspecting the chaiplates, I decided to replace them. I consulted Svendsons in Alameda, Ballenger in Watsonville and Aquarius in Moss Landing before electing to go with 316 ss. for chainplates. Mine were fabricated without bends by Aquarius, as perfect duplicates of the original bronze plates. And by the way, the original bronze plates were not identical as far as the bolt hole spacing. Beware of using a single chainplate as a template for a set of new plates!

And by the way, I am going to guess that all of the original plates installed on Ariels were probably bronze, and were probably not bent, so if you have SS plates or bent plates they are probably later retrofits.

There is no unanimity of opinion on this subject. It depends on who you ask and what sort of boat they normally retrofit. Bronze is usually a special order job.

If you are going to make something for your boat, you might as well do it well as is suitable for a "fine yacht", but those little bends and such are going to cost you extra money. At some point we need to ask ourselves whether we are trying to make our boats safe and seviceable for the conditions in which we will use them. Are we planning to sail them in day sailing conditions, use them for local coastal cruising, sail them around Cape Horn, or park them on a showroom floor for all to admire?

Thanks everyone for your replies. Here are the chainplates that will eventually go back on the boat. Lacking any information on a "proper" angle for the "mids", I had them flattened and will do more research on the angles and pay close attention when I reinstall them on the boat.

I still like the external chainplate idea/look, but with a set of good ones on hand already, and assurances from the boatyard manager and fabricator that they are all sound, it seems to make more sense to go with the original setup.

I'm in the process of tracking down previous owners to see if someone had rerigged at some point, because, as you see, the "originals" are stainless, not bronze. I would think if someone HAD rerigged the boat, that the Backstay Chainplate would/should have certainly been replaced at that time, but since it obviously wasn't...

Anyway, I tried to take this picture showing the angles they are bent. They are laid out from forward to aft, port and starboard, just as they'll be replaced on the boat. Only the aft chainplates have a bend now.

Here's a better look at the angles of my chainplates as I will be installing them. The picture is fore to aft...

I may be missing something here, but, why the bend? Why not use toggles? :confused:

Thought I could share one of those “Oh Crap” moments. I was doing the spring thing on Pathfinder a couple of weeks back and was in the process of tuning the rig. After a full inspection of all the standing rigging everything was backed off and cleaned and lubricated. I was in the final stages of getting all the shrouds tensioned when - POW!

On Pathfinder we have replaced the shrouds a couple of times over the years but always used the original turnbuckles. Well we now have new turnbuckles. The threads let loose on a forward lower. Glad it happened at the dock. I guess 47 years was the life span of a turnbuckle that lives on a boat in a salt air environment on the west coast.

Just wanted to offer this to those that might still have to original hardware on the standing rigging. All is well on Pathfinder now and we have been out sailing often……ed

Yes... better at the dock than out in the bay...


I'd not read this thread before - here is C-155's upgrade to the chainplates:

<img src=http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=5087&stc=1&d=121790485 5 />

I am somehow oddly unable to link the picture here...
A space keeps getting inserted between the last two '5's on the link.
In any case; the pic is at this link post #28
http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...ead.php?t=1552

The original backstay chainplate is 1/8" SS plate. I used 3/16" 316 SS plate for the new one. This was mostly because I wanted some increased torsional rigidity as I thought that this was the original design's biggest weakness. A sudden jolt that pulls in a direction that is out of line with the axis of the thin plate would make it twist and fail... Unlikely, but this is how this would fail...

In the picture, you can see the 6 little chainplates to replace the original bronze ones, and the original backstay chainplate lying between two copies of the new design. (Which I'll .pdf and post for reference.) Missing in the picture is the top plate. The one that covers-up the opening as the chainplate comes through the deck. This is also a bit larger than the original which is only there for looks...

There are two new chainplates in the picture. I still only have one backstay, but I ended up with two copies of the new design due to an order mishap...

I cleaned & polished the tips so that they are shiny on the top ends...

You can see the final results in post #28 on and in the rest of the thread.
http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...ead.php?t=1552