Cave Paintings - The evolutionary History of Ariel #330

I have uncovered conclusive proof that the Ariel is a direct descendant of Viking vessels utilized by Eric The Red to colonize Vineland AKA the east coast of North America, and further that Hull Number #330 is descended from Hull # 331, which would tend to support my long term assertion that time is actually moving backwards. (Otherwise why would we all be rebuilding 60s vintage Ariels and Commanders in 2004?). The photo below was discovered in an excavation that I originally initiated to explore the cavern of Ariel Hull #330 for bulkhead damage as part of a mast-related accident repair project to the mast, hull, and main bulkhead of my boat.

If there is interest, I will post the progress of the repair on this thread.

I removed the doorframe in the main bulkhead today and then lifted the Formica piece above the door. I discovered this very interesting drawing, which must have been made by a Pearson Employee in 1965 when my boat, Hull #330 was built. Oddly, if I can decipher the hieroglyphics, the number above the drawing is #331. The drawing proves that Viking naval architects heavily influence the design of the Ariel. Note that the vessel portrayed is a double ender with two masts. I cannot determine whether the drawing depicts a yawl, ketch, or schooner, because the rudder is not shown and the tops of both masts are truncated. There is some disagreement among local archeologists here as to whether the horizontal lines on the hull of the vessel areintended to represent ocean waves, or whether they represent an outrigger. I thought that you all might find the drawing interesting. It would interest me to know if this sort of cave painting is typical of Ariels, or if my boat is unique.
:D

Note the crack running through the two larger bolts in the above photograph. This crack in the cabin linner is the only cabin liner manifestation of damage resulting with a low speed collision between the masthead of Hull #330 and a concrete bridge while the mast was lowered at an angle of somewhere between 45% and 60% from horizontal.

Here is the post accident masthead:

What goes up must also come back. Just like time, mastheads move backwards as they are raised in a tabernacle operation. When a crewmember decides to help you raise the mast by pulling down repeatedly on the four part mainsheet tackle without first asking whether or not this will be helpful...well shall we say that he or she is not being helpful.

So much forr the genesis of the damage, now back to the cavern. The interesting and suspiciously intentional looking void depicted in this photo is present and identical on both sides of my main bulkhead door, although it was hidden by the door frame. This space would be open on the outboard side to the forward stateroom, but sealed by the door frame on the inboard side. Is if intended as a drain in the event that water runs down from above? Would sealing this cavern with epoxy be a good or bad idea?

High above the cavern in the last photo is the principal crack in the cabin top deck adjacent to the mast. This area of the deck absorbed the impact of the collision. Note that the crack continues into the non-skid area. There is evident compression damage to the deck also. This compression damage does not show in this photo, but you can see from the cabin liner shot above that that compression impacted the cabin liner as well. The main crack in the photo is strattled by brown looking fractures.

This area of the deck will be cut away from the top. A new solid fiberglass cabin top will be built up in this area. The bulkhead and strongback will be strengthened. Fiberglass strongback reinforcement will be integrated into the deck beneath the mast step/tabernacle plate.

After swallowing that pill that made me very small, and with the aid of digital technology, I was able to crawl through the space below the main bulkhead in search of stress damage there. It looks like all stress was absorbed by the structures above the cabin sole. This is a good thing. I did discover some interesting archeological evidence that the builders were in the fir trade, and that they traded with the Weldwood tribe.

You can almost feel those fine, dedicated New England craftsmen at work building # 330, sort of like Norm Abrams, only half-drunk and Portugese.

Sorry about the mast. I had a close call with a bridge once, almost had a coronary and/or stroke.

I've devised some optional equiptment you could attach to the top of the mast

Scott,
The wild, elongated chamfer on the hardwood supports on either side of the main bulkhead are allowances for the tabbing I believe. There was something very similar in 113 that I unearthed when I discovered what initially looked to be 'a little rot'. Look at the photos in the Technical posts under Paranoia Subsides back in 2002.
I don't think there would be a problem epoxying that area except that it may hamper future repair work.
Tony G

A - C
is an early form of Argh! An expletive, usually reserved for the discovery of coprolite in the head upon lifting the lid.

Later, plywood manufacturers (known as APAs -
having dropped the CR, for 'criminal')
pleased that a boat company like Pearson used common house plywood for their yachts
named their product after the
A-riel / C-ommander.

This is called an archetectural dig.:D

Opening the burial vault in the bottom of the bilge gives further insight into the lives of these ancient beings, who apparently prized antimony as a great treasure. Further thoughts have suggested that the boat itself is actually a complex sort of floating burial chamber, as encapsulated within this cavity along with the treasured antimony were a bottle the ancients must have intended to carry the essence of the departed, whose name according to the writing thereon was "Jim Beam". It is likely that these were peoples who alternately travelled by land and by water, perhaps in the desert, as a small, crumpled packet which must have carried the essence of the departed Mr. Beam's Camel was also recovered from the antimonious cavity. Whether these being believed that the spirit essence of the departed could be carried into eternity within only a glass bottle or whether a packet would suffice is not clear, as similar crumpled packets have been found bearing other names such as "Pall Mall", "Chester Field" and "Philip Morris". It appears that the believers crumpled the packets as a means to keep the departed's spirit essence from spilling out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Galloway

There is some disagreement among local archeologists here as to whether the horizontal lines on the hull of the vessel areintended to represent ocean waves, or whether they represent an outrigger.

---

Pure speculation here, as I slept through archaeology, but is it possible that this may be an in-place, Viking engineering drawing specifying the reinforcement of this area with multiple layers of a strengthening fibrous material, in case of future bridge strikes (or, being Vikings, bridge *assaults*)?

Sadly if so, the advice of the engineers was obviously not heeded during the construction of #330, the results of which are evident in the failure of the structure to absorb the stresses of your bridge-butter.

Perhaps placing the boom below, braced at the upper end in this spot, and the lower against the base of the companionway, will allow you to conduct your bridge assaults more effectively in the future. :D

Sorry no camels on my boat, but there sure are a lot of side caverns off the main cavern. I am chasing cracks around the main bulkhead and in the process have discovered that the bulkhead weathered the impact well. However the builders made some interesting omissions. The aforementioned choice of plywood varieties is further evidenced in the interesting void pictured below. I discovered it when I peeled away the top section of Formica. I found that a very fine Moto-Tool bit worked well to cut a more or less straight line, level (more or less) with the top of the doorframe. The void was betrayed by a hammer mark. The hammer, mark, now some 39 years old was created when one of the builder's hammers broke through the outer layer of plywood. I cut away the broken section and found a very regular (rectangular) void. I stuck a knife into the unbroken section, and the rectangular void continued down at the same angle into the bulkhead. This is merely a Weldwood AC plywood void, but if water had ever entered the top of the bulkhead, that water would have run down this void through the bulkhead. It sure would have been nice if Pearson had used marine ply. Since I do not intend to remove any more Formica, I filled the opening to the void with epoxy, and later also filled the exposed part of the void with epoxy.

And here is another side cavern. If you flash back a few postings you wil see a bilge level shot of the sub floor transverse bulkhead plywood bulkhead support beam. It has the Wildwood AC stamp on it. To the right of that piece of plywood is what was an attempt to tab that beam to the hull. You wil see a light spot to the right of the letters E and L in Weldwood in teh above shot. That light spot is thsi hole on teh cabin side. The shot below is just on the other side of that beam, which formed the face of the step from the main salon into the foreword cabin. What appeared to be a crack from the cabin side was but another mysterious passage left by the builders: Perhaps an escape route for a pet rodent, or a hidey-hole for one of Commander Pete's camels.

Some #10 fiberglass cloth and a few coats of West Systems epoxy, and the void is no more. I decided to take a humorous tack on this thread after I discovered the Viking ship #331 drawing. When I removed the green semi-translucent coat from the exposed bulkhead plywood I discovered that the black Viking ship drawing appeared to have been made by the 1965 equivalent of a marker pen directly on the plywood before the green semi-translucent coat was applied. I presume therefore that the entire bulkhead was built up at a different location and then inserted into the hull, where it was probably painted. Strange though that after the effort made to identify this bulkhead as the bulkhead for hull #331, it was inserted into hull #330.

Or perhaps Pearson did not assign the actual hull number until the boat left the factory. The hull number is after all merely stamped on a bronze plaque is it not? My boat might have started her life as hull number 331, but finished before the boat that was originally slated to be hull #330. Who knows?

Despite the humor implicit in the approach to this thread, this is a very painful experience. I am amazed however that the boat is a strong as it appears to be despite the selection criteria for building materials and the haphazard way some of the tabbing was done.

It appears that the deck section took the brunt of the force of the impact. I am still chasing cracks, however. So far none of these cracks (side caverns) are related to the accident, but instead are part of the mystery of construction.

I have been admiring all of those bulkhead strengthening modifications in the form of steel plates through-bloted through the strongback above the door in the main bulkhead.

My question is why?

I thought that my door looked a bit saggy also until I removed the Formica above the door and the doorframe. Cutting the plywood above the door in a straight line didn't seem to be a priority for the builders, but there doesn't seem to be a bit of compression above the door. The strongback and plywood appear to be in like new condition.

Now, when my mast accident shoved the mast down into the deck, it did so at an angle since the mast was partially lowered when it hit, and that shoved the tabernacle deck plate down and back, compressed the deck lamination, and forced a couple of bolts to push down and crack the cabin liner aft of the main bulkhead in the main salon, but there still is no observable deformation of the main bulkhead or strongback in 39 years of sailing.

See the photo below. You can see the dip in the white cabin liner, but the liner rises just aft of the plywwod bulkhead to it's original height.

So, although like others, I want my main bulkhead to be a strong as possible, what is the point of installing these steel plates if forty years of successive owners riding a Pearson Ariel hard and putting it away wet has caused no deformation, or am I missing something here? :confused:

Always remember that these are PRODUCTION boats...and that meand hurry-up. You can look in any other production boat for the most part (including those of the brand-new Hunte-Bene-Lina ilk that cost 200K) and find just as much chicken crap in the places they figure the owner isn't too likely to look at or see. There are exceptions, but they are always in lower-production boats for the most part (although my pal's little Vega has incredible attention to detail...well, it is the Saab 99 of sailboats, after all...).

Another friend of mine once observed that old Pearsons are HEAVILY and STRONGLY built boats, ENDURINGLY buitl, even...but not particularly WELL built boats. Fair enough.

I have found parts in my Triton which bear hull numbers a few away from my own, as I did in my Commander, as I did in a friend's Triton. Not too hard to understand if you think about it, I guess...when a build order is issued materials are gathered, grouped and staged, sometimes on pallets, sometimes on rolling carts. Sometimes the boats move to the parts, sometimes the other way around, but there is always gonna be a "hey! where's the ______?" "Dunno, Fred, just grab one off that pallet over there and GET MOVING!!" and that sorta thing. Probably well exacerbated by the fact that the actual hull number is indeed only on that plate and was only assigned permanently to the boat, more-or-less at least, on the boat's way out of the plant. No biggie. Also remember that in all truth and honesty the majority of the Pearson production workers in the old days spoke little or no english and read even less. And drank home made port wine from hip flasks throughout the day as we would drink water at work now. Dead serious.

Dave

Scott, yes,
over time the area in question did change from its original configuration. Many have noticed a sag in the deck under the mast (showing up in an out-of-square doorway) even tho Pearson obviously intended the compression beam and bulkhead to support the downward pressures entirely.

No rot may be present. My theory is that over time wood naturally shrinks. Shrinks a little.
The compression beam, bulkhead, and braces are screwed together without glue. This does not make a monolithic structure (tho, on 338, one relatively easy to take apart.)
Another important observation is that the bulkhead is NOT tabbed to the overhead. Pearson, on 338, made some sloppy allowances for the meeting of the cabin liner, the compression beam and the bulkhead. This definitely was no grand piano they were building. So, I believe there was space fot downward movement anyway.

If you are taking the time and going to the expense IMCO I would restore the area in question to its intended specs. The deck under the mast is a fair curve, after disassembly on 338 it nearly went back to its original shape.
Because of the holes in the deck under the mast 338 had some deterioration in the balsa core. Some deflection there may be evident. Solution on 338 was to cut the core out in way of the mast and replace it with solid fiberglass.*

The top of the whole unit is not attached to the overhead or under the decks. On 338 we avoided the possible tabbing mess by glueing the new laminated beam to the overhead and the ply - and glueing the replacement struts or braces to the ply bulkhead.

I'm not sure that the metal cross brace does anything except stablized a happening problem. If you adjust (rebuild) all the original parts upward or carefully fill the space between the beam and the overhead AFTER the deck has returned to its original shape without any weight on it, and rebuild the doorway etc to squareness, and keep water out, it ought to last another half century.

*the new beam on 338 - and I would think an original one after it has been detatched from the plywood - was snugged up in place - carefully - with a bottle jack. Under the micarta, there are maybe 4 large screws going thru the ply into the beam. Had to use a brace and bit to 'start' them, and winde them out. You may be able to cut the micarta away in a nice curve that matches the beam in the forward stateroom. Jack the beam with or without glue (If you use epoxy on top you don't want to squeeze all the glue out.) , insert some filler (ply) on top of the braces. Replace the micarta with a nice piece of mahogany trim in the cabin. Something like that may be a 'quick fix.' :)

I still have 338's original beam. It has no rot, and still has the nice fair curve it had the day it was put in.

Simply put, the strong back will deflect downward as pressure from the mast increases as the shrouds are tightened when tuning the rig. Since installing the fix on Maika'1 in 1982, there has been no downward deflection in the strongback. (At the time I installed the plates, Maika'i had more than a half inch of "sag" in its strongback.) BTW - this "fix" was designed by an engineer who was an owner/member in the early 1980's.

Thanks for all of the helpful comments regarding production standards at Pearson, hull numbers, and strongback/bulkhead issues.

I have been tearing into my main bulkhead in search of possible damage, and repairing things as I go. I am starting at the edges (top and bottom, and I probably won't go much deeper. I have been chasing cracks, but so far they have led to workmanship and assembly issues that happened forty years ago when my boat was built, and not to damage caused by this recent accident. So I’ll strengthen a few of those things that look odd. This bulkhead and strong back have served three owners well over the years. My somewhat destructive examination continues to show virtually no bulkhead damage from the accident, despite damage to the deck and cabin liner. Both experts that I have consulted here fail to see how through bolting steel plates on either side of the strong back would improve the boat, in as much as in my boat there is no evidence of sagging whatsoever. Once the teak doorframe was removed, the horizontal beam above the door is level. One of the vertical frame members is actually vertical, but the other is not, so that the door opening is a lopsided trapezoid. Since the plywood opening is cut this way and there is no separation from the hull on either side or underneath, I must conclude that this “as built”, rather than “as failed”.

Although the Main-salon-side plywood bulkhead panel is not glassed to the cabin liner, I can see over this panel to what appears to be a glassed seam between the strong back and the deck. I’ll have to take another look at that, but my first glamce told me that this seam was solid and not indicative of any sag or separation. I could have concluded that from the V Berth side by looking at the seam between the strongback and the underside of the deck, but I have not removed the paint from that area, or relocated the many wires that are clamped to the strongback on the V Berth side. However, the area above the plywood on the Main Salon side of the bulkhead is unpainted and looks as fresh and solid as the interior of Ebb’s rebuilt boat.

So the cracks that I am chasing and the voids that I am discovering were probably left by the builders (the failure to wet out tabs holding key braces in place, voids in the fiberglass, the use of AC plywood with significant internal voids, etc. So I would have to say that my boat might have been both hastily built, but it was also overbuilt. It's sort of like a Sherman tank built by the low bidder. This is one strong boat, albeit one built somewhat strangely in places.

Because it is conventional wisdom to strengthen the strongback, I will continue to explore options to do this, although I can find no evidence whatsoever in my boat that there has been any downward sag in the strongback. I very much like Sirocco’s treatment and may pursue a similar design, but I am also exploring a retrofit paralleling Ebb’s design, but without the tear-out. My thought is to use unidirectional cloth or 20 weight triaxial cloth (not an original idea on my part, but one suggested to me) glassed onto the bulkhead and or strongback in a sufficient number of layers to reinforce the strongback/bulkhead without drilling holes through it. This would allow the strongback to be glassed to the deck also. This would also permit filling of the void above the plywood section of the bulkhead on the main salon side that was originally filled by that strange foamy wire-reinforced trim piece. That piece was glued into the void above the plywood. Those little wires are sharp and hard to remove. What the heck was that stuff anyway? Hmmmmm?

So anyway, my problem currently is not a sag in the strongback, but is instead a compressed and crasked deck and cabin liner that did not result in a failure or sagging of the strongback. The top of the deck is depressed in the vicinity fo the mast step. The mast base is damaged, and the mast step plate is lifted from the deck in the front and driven down into the deck in the back. Two bolts attaching the tabernacle mast step were driven through the cabin liner behind the main bulkhead. The solution to these problems will be chasing all cracks in the deck section (top), and then replacing all of the damaged glass and core with solid fiberglass and fairing it all out to match the rest of the cabin top. This will be done from the topside. The bottom side will also be delt with by chasing cracks, and replacing and reinforcing all damaged glass, then tying the liner, and deck together to the reinforced strongback.

Speaking of tabernacles, last Friday when sailing his boat, a friend had his tabernacle rig fail. His mast dropped all the way down and smashed into his bow pulpit. All three of the attachment points failed (two fixed eye boat snaps on the bridle and the other, a Shaffer snap shackle on the main sheet block failed. The original boat snap that failed was undersized for the load in my humble opinion, but there could have been a defect in the part. The fracture was either not a clean break, or there was a void in the metal at the site of the break. Only one half of the part remained to examine, so I could not tell which was the case. The resulting asymetrical load tore the Shaffer mainsheet block shackle apart. The Pacific Seacraft 25 has a much shorter mast than the mast on the Ariel.

Someone could have been seriously hurt on this fellow's boat last Friday. I examined the broken parts today. The metal attachment snaps sheared in half and the Shaffer mainsheet shackle did as well. It was both lucky and a testimony to the quality of the boat (a Pacific Seacraft 25) that no serious damage was done to the boat beyond the aforementioned shackles and attachment clips. I never would have guessed that the failure of one of the bridle attachment points would so overload the rig that the Shaffer shackle on the mainsheet would break.

Is not a problem, Scott.
Only a matter of level of involvement,
and talking it over with a couple of guys or gals.

You have to remove those two screws that held your mast step on.
You then let (or persuade) the deck to return to its undeflected self.
See if the composite core is ok.
You should make all skin repairs and patching first.
In other words I would do all the cosmetics first (except finish) then stabilize the deck over the beam. You may be saying in what I read that you don't have to do that. That is quite true - you won't drive that mast much further into the boat. But it would look a lot better without the flattening of the liner which could be pushed back up again. "Shippy" is the word.
You can invisibly repair the crack in the cabin.
Then access the mast compression beam shrinkage problem.


IMCO you could probably get by by carefull shimming, carefully fitting in long shims above the beam. AND YOU PROBABLY COULD DO IT DRY. Without fabric and glue. Tho an easy glue to use (assuming you'ld be shimming with long thin wedgies of something like white oak or mahogany) is Titebond II. Without taking anything apart.

I'm not an engineer, IMCO if you fill the top in, you don't need the metal stabilizing straps. Each boat is different, each with it's individual problems. If your bulkhead and beam are in good condition, it is not a problem. You do have to have access from the V-berth side, not the salon side, to put in those shims Good luck!

By the way, I have not done this myself. You have invented the process so that we can see your results - in those bitty pics you post!

Well, like I say, I will further meditate on the strongback issue, but there is no compression in evidence there. It appears that the deck section itself absorbed 99% of the impact, with the remaining 1% resulting in damage in the main salon side cabin liner as a result of the fact that the two bolts that held the tabernacle deck plate in place were pushed downward which caused a deflection and crack in he cabin liner.

The solution wil be to completely remove the deck skin and the core and build a new solid fiberglass deck beneath the mast and above the strongback. The extent of the damage to the laminate will dictate how larger this new solid fiberglass deck section wil be.

There is nothing to shim from below, because the beam as far as I can tell is “as built” with absolutely no sagging and no separation of depression caused by the impact. In other words, the strongback ably withstood the force of 6000 + lbs (boat plus three crewmembers and gear) coming to a sudden and complete stop, with said force directed at the six by ten inch tabernacle mast step directly above said beam. Now in all fairness, since the mast was lowered to shall we say 45 degrees, the force was diagonally aftwards, and so the rear portion of the mast base plate pressed into the deck at a location behind the strongback, and this is where those two bolts penetrate the cabin liner. We wil be repairing that area.

So whatever reinforcing I do to the strongback will be in the way of preventative maintenance rather than remedial maintenance, and I am struggling with that issue because after nearly forty years the strongback appears to be as good as new. So despite the intuitive benefit of adding some stainless steel plates, the dis-benefit of drilling holes through what appears to be a perfectly functional strongback for any reason is also a concern. That is why I like the idea of a non-invasive approach such as beefing up the area with a laminated section of unidirectional or triaxial cloth to replace the Formica on the top of bulkhead on the main salon side of the main bulkhead and wrapping that around the strongback to meet an equivalent reinforcement on the V berth side of the strongback.

This forum is so very useful to me in the process of maintenance and upgrading of my Ariel, that I am almost overwhelmed by the responses and the years of experience that the members contribute to mutual support. Your Gallery thread alone Ebb is a wonderful resource. For those of us who are not inclined to tear our Ariels limb from limb and rebuild them, (unless we have to do so of course) your thread is like a short course in Ariel anatomy.

All your questions have been answered.

Every cavern should have a few dripping springs and some turquiose pools, don't you think? If you are wondering what sort of valve this is, see the "New Fangled Hose" thread in the Technical forum.

A few lines from "A Sailor's Yarn" by J.J. Roche....

They bored a hole below her line to let the water out
But more and more, with awful roar, the water in did spout.

"With simple shackles costing forty bucks, and the basic no-chart GPS running $200, why would anyone voluntarily select an in-line ball valve over a seacock to save forty bucks. A two-inch hole in the bottom of a boat is a formidable thing to face at sea."


Or at the dock!

Look. the yard is not going to admit to any wrong doing. Like a police investigation of a police shooting of an unarmed citizen.

Bill is correct, I'll paraphrase: There is the best way (flanged seacock) and the ok way (ball valve). It is possible, probable, you will find anecdotal support for your installation. However, that ball valve depends entirely on the thruhull for its strength. You, they, the experts, can't get away from that. When you turn the handle, it being at the side, you are putting forces on the fitting that couild crack it or bend it or unseat the thruhull.

A seacock installation protects the thruhull and therefor protects the boat from sinking.

I would only trust a yard or a surveyor who can spell out impartially all your options. They may very well be influenced by your desire to be correct.


You photo does show a nice fat backing block which helps in supporting the thruhull.

Ebb's right--

No one, certainly not a boat manufacturer, a yard/installer, the surveyor who recommended the yard and/or personally felt it was just fine...is going to say that in the interest of a bit more profit and productivity that they have installed/added/recommended/sold to you something sub-par. I mean, no one is gonna say that!

There is a defined reason for proper seacocks...Llloyds' standards are VERY specific about it, and I mean the Lloyds standards for small craft insuranve here. To my understanding ABYC standards were pretty specific too...if nothing else, at least about the hose.

You gotta watch surveyors, too. In most respects, you or I or my dog spot can go out and print business cards, hang up a sign, and be a marine surveyor...it is not a regulated industry. This I get from a friend of mine who is a very talented marine surveyor. He also advises me that there are a lot of surveyors in this world who will tell the pleasureboat owner what they want to hear rather than being the contrarian, as repeat business and word of mouth do depend more on warm-fuzziness than accuracy in a lot of cases---at least in the minds of the unscrupulous.

If, for example, I do a lot of business inside a certain yard across town...and if, for example, they have the ability to either recommend me or talk trash about me...or just take me off the "approved contractors" list...I may think or even know that I would not let the crew over there haul and block a dinghy of mine so to speak, but I can't be running around saying it loudly. For that matter, I could be the very worst contractor they ever saw, but as long as I make the customers FEEL good and as long as I keep sliding 'em the referral fees...they will keep on handing out the cards!!! Sorry to seem cynical, but I see this all the time and it is just a matter of how it works. You can't walk into the liars' club and expect someone to tell the truth!

This is not to say that there are not good yards, good yard crew, or honest surveyors to be had in the world--there sure are, and I am glad to know the ones that are who I am fortunate to know. For every one honest and forthright outfit or person, though, there are a gaggle more who are looking to gouge, get-over-on and generally decieve the customer as this is traditionally how the money is made from the pleasureboat community! That's gone on for years and years, but in the main this sort of thing is a cancer that sweeps all bounds of our society anymore.

Agent Mulder has it right: Trust No One. Especially when they are making money off of you and your boat.

OK, off my soapbox.

Dave :eek:

Interesting philosophical musings my friends. Confucius said one picture is worth a thousand words. So here are two thousand words. I do think, however, that yards would make more money in parts mark-up and labor by installing sea cocks unless built-in obsolescence of the ball-valve-to-thru-hull option brings boaters back sooner for replacement or repairs.

Confucius said one picture is worth a thousand words. So here are two thousand words. But first a few dozen words about the two thousand words:

The first photo is the outside of the thru-hull removed from my boat today. This was my second haul-out this month and was solely to replace this thru-hull. The thru-hull was installed as a new part this month. Note the green corrosion on the shaft.

The second photo shows the interior. You can see a faint line about a quarter to a third of the way down the barrel, which the yard and I presume is a castling flaw (crack) that occurred during manufacturing. The crack is not parallel to the bastard (supplier’s term for non-standard) NPS (straight) threads, but it is at the precise location of the corrosion stain on the outside of the barrel.

The haul out today was at yard expense since they sold me the part and did the installation. My third haul-out scheduled for tomorrow is also at their expense. But this time we have a different sort of leak in the same cockpit drain assembly. So I really don’t think yards save money by installing inferior products. I think that they try to so their best to keep pace with the market and keep their costs and risks in line. Usually the stuff they install seems to work, and it doesn't come back broken very often, or so my yard say about their ball valve to thru-hull installations. However, I am with you guys. Sea cocks are a better way to go for a number of reasons. This cracked thru-hull shaft would have been inside the barrel of the sea cock, embraced by NPS sea cock threads and downstream of the valve rather than above it.

Now, considering the crack, calculate the structural integrity of the exposed section of this thru-hull as pictured in place below the ball valve in the photo above.

This is the promised phtoto number 2. The faint green line is the business end of the thru-hull leak.

Can't really SEE the crack or the green line inside the thru hull. If not a trick of light it looks like some of the threads are galled on the top of the fitting. If this is so, you might share your research with the yard. It means the Taiwan tail was not a match with the Malaysian ball cock.

If those two pieces were hard to get together by the installer because of a mismatch between the SOB and the bastard threads, then it was the installer that more than likely cracked the fitting. And caused your leak. Right, blame it on the fitting!

I'ld wager, despite pipethread letters and numbers, you'ld better use a thruhull made by the same manufacturer as the valve. You'ld be more likely to keep galvanic action at bay because the alloys might be a closer match. If you're lucky. Parts come from all over the world now - nobody knows brass from bronze anymore either.

So far as I know there is only one maker of Marelon. The parts ought to match. The stuff has gained a pretty good rep over the decades. You can get a ball valve or a seacock. Don't think there is much of a price break any more.

Look how thin than wall is with the threads cut in it. Scarey, huh?

Ebb,

Sorry that very thin line 1/3 of the way down shows up only as a hairline. I can see it plainly, but I know what I am looking for, because I have seen it up close and personal. Here it is blown up a bit in the photo below. This "crack" appears to the yard experts and to me to be a casting flaw. Upon close examination it corresponds precisely with the corrosion stain on the outside of the threads as shown in the above photo. The leaking occurred precisely at this location.

The ball valve and thru-hull were made by one and the same manufacturer. The thru-hull valve has bastard (supplier’s term for non-standard) NPS (straight) threads. The ball valve has NPT (tapered threads). By their very nature the two thread designs are not the same, but they are intended by the manufacturer to go together turning by hand for 3.5 turns and tightening mechanically from there. I spoke to the manufacturer's engineering department personally to obtain this information. I use the term manufacturer loosely, since I believe that this manufacturer is actually a supplier who may actually procure the parts elsewhere, but my yard endeavors to match thru-hulls with ball valves from the same manufacturer.

Anyway, I spoke with the manufacturer’s engineer, and he told me that it is possible to "ring off" the thru hull by over-tightening the nut, however, this crack was above the nut in the exposed part of the thru hull as you can see from the horizontal green corrosion stain in the "as-installed" photo several photos above on this thread.

After this experience and a few days of obsessively playing with various thread designs, I am more convinced than ever of the time worn wisdom favoring flanged sea cocks. As a result of my new found devotion to flanged sea cocks, today I experienced my third haul-out in less than a month for a replacement of the cockpit thru hulls and ball valves with Groco full flow flanged bronze sea cocks with bronze handles and matching Groco thru-hulls. One of those Groco sea cocks is pictured in the second photo below. Just looking at it gives me a much greater sense of personal safety.

A Groco 1.5 inch flanged bronze seacock awaiting installation. NPS threads on bottom, NPT threads on top, and one well built low maintenance seacock.

If you are suffering from cave deprivation, here are three photos of my most recent cavern exploration and repair. A bulge on the starboard bow below water told me that I had a blister. When we parked the boat with the starboard side to the south, a small bleeb of green resin-smelling stuff appeared. So I decided to open what turned out to be a fair sized blister. Upon grinding with a disk sander, I discovered cracks radiating outward from the central bleeb. I chased these to their bitter ends and as I did, brown water poured out for a time. I removed most of the water by applying pressure to the damaged laminate with a screw driver and continued to grind away with my sander until I removed all fractured glass. This took me down a layer or so. I don't know about you, but this is very exciting stuff to me, especially knowing that the inside of the hull is not terribly accessible at this location.

From the photo, you can see that there has been some delamination, Oddly, this delamination continued into an area where the glass and space in between ws completely dry. It appears that the first and second layers of glass were either laid-up at different times or were not sufficiently wetted-out. One wonders a whether the Pearson folks laid up the gelcoat and first layer of glass one day #one and waited to day #two to lay up the remainder of the hull. This was for a time the practice of many boat builders, or so Don Casey writes, and this practice would create a weaker bond between layer #one and #two and facilitate both delamination and more rapid lateral transporation of osmotic and/or other water.

Another possibility is that this long-ignored blister just ate up the resin between these two layers, but the fact remains that the space beyond the bulge of the blister (as delinated by the cracked and bulging area) was absolutely dry. Please see below on how I fixed this blister. I more or less followed Don Casey's advice in his fine and easy to read book on fiberglass repair, augmented by a little of my own home-spun inprov. Perhaps you have a better method for repairing these pesky caverns.

Hmmmm, very strange. I tried posting the above two images simultaneously as an experiment, but they appear only as links above. Well, that's OK I guess. Maybe it saves bandwidth.

Here is the third blister repair image. This photo is of the completed repair. I need to do a light finish sanding and add bottom paint, but this third photo is taken after grinding away all weakened and wet surfaces until I had a very solid and very dry undamaged area, thoroughly washing the area, then drying the area both by air drying, application of hot air (hair dryer), and several applications of acetone, and then air drying once again. I wiped the area down once again with acetone, and then applied un-thickened epoxy to the original laminate ("delaminate"), and laminated five new layers of #10 weight fiberglass cloth with West Systems epoxy. I then faired out the remaining space with colodial silica-thickened West Systems epoxy in two layers to obtain a fair surface corresponding to the curvature of the hull in this location. I spent an afternoon and a few hours on a second day on this project, allowing the epoxy to kick and cool between every two layers of glass, and between each layer of thickened epoxy. I sanded between the final two layers of thickend epoxy to better fair the area in preparation for the final coat of thickened epoxy.

The mast and tabernacle mast step are now off the boat. The thumbnail photo collection below reflects some of the damage to the deck from the accident. Note that a previous owner removed the wood core beneath the mast step and built a solid epoxy core. This core cracked in the accident. The cracks entend beyond the epoxy into the wood cored area. The cracked epoxy and wood cored sections will be removed. A new laminated fiberglass deck section will be constructed. This new section wil be solid glass. It will not have a wood core. The new solid cored glass section will extend to at least the width of the forward hatch.

Note the bent longer bolts in thumbnail image C. These two bolts were inserted in the foreword two holes, which are directly above the stongback. They penetrate the forward plywood section of that strongback unit directly above the doorframe. Their securing nuts were captive inside the beam. Inspection holes were provided in the bottom of the beam. Those holes were drilled completely through the teak door fame as well. The beam prevents the lower portion of the bolts from bending. The bolts were pulled upward, and the bends occurred at the very top of the bolts. The angle of the force of the impact pulled the longer forward bolts upward, and the shorter aft bolts downward as the mast step plate rotated aftwards into the deck. This effectively crushed the deck.

There was no sagging or deflection in the strongback or plywood bulkhead although the force did cause some cosmetic cracking in the glass at the base of the doorway where the vertical door posts intersect the horizontal support beneath the door. I have chased those cracks and repaired them with epoxy and fiberglass cloth. The cabin liner in the main salon is obviously distressed as can be seen in thumbnail image A. Less severe distress is evident in the forward salon.

The shorter bolts were driven down through the cabin liner causing the liner to crack and shatter as show in thumbnail image A. Thumbnail image B is a closeup of the port side (left) hole also shown in thumbnail image A

Our lead archeologist discovered six new tunnels at the Ariel 330 site leading to hidden chambers located in the deck laminate. Here is one of the larger entrances. We are referring to this tunnel as the Starboard Upper Shroud Chainplate Slot. We have not yet fully explored the six caverns, but they appear to have been wood-lined cisterns for the storage of rain water. Mineral tests indicate that salt water intrusion must have contaminated these cisterns. This may have been one of the reasons that the builders concealed these tunnels beneath polysulfide, abandoned this site, and moved on to build site P 26.

This will be the site of our primary excavation. The accident-caused crack runs completely through the epoxy section. This epoxy section is not an overlay, but completely fills the deck core. This is not a standard feature, but was added by a previous owner who added the tabernacle deck plate. This was his solution to delamimation beneath the original mast step plate. It worked well enough until the mast struck the bridge transferring the full force of the impact on this area forcing the epoxy fill downward and cracking the cabin liner aft of the main bulkhead. This epoxy section does not appear to have been laminated, but seems to be a solid epoxy pour. We will know more when we remove it. We have to chase the cracks to their outer limits. The excavation will extend at least to the width of the forward hatch.

Filling The Holes

1. Mast
After nearly four months the process of accident assessment and repair has been completed. I used professional help for the rigging and structural repair to the deck and strong back, and personally took care of the mast work, chain plates and reinforcement of the bulkheads, and gooseneck. In order to rebuild the deck and strengthen mast support structure following the accident the mast was unstepped, stripped of its paint, and rewired. A new VHF antenna and coaxial cable, new steaming light, and new wind vane were installed. The spreaders were removed, inspected, and reinstalled.

The photo below shows the mast after it had been stripped. For more information on the rewiring effort, see the technical forum.

The photo below shows the mast installed at the end of the project. The mast has been protected with three coast of marine polish with Teflon. Reapplication will be required about once every six months. With a tabernacle this will not be a major effort.

2. Deck

Once the mast was off the boat, the deck cracks were evaluated. A previous retrofit (an epoxy core with horizontal dimensions equal to the tabernacle mast plate) was removed. All deck cracks were followed both horizontally and vertically with a grinder until undamaged top deck sections and undamaged balsa core was reached. The repair was initiated.

The photo below is a composite of photos taken during the repair process:

Photo A. Shows the original epoxy retrofit
Photo B. Shows the stainless steel mast plate with damaged bolts beside the old epoxy core insert
Photo C. Shows the new Q Cell core after it was poured, but before sanding
Photo D. Shows the area after the top section of the laminate was completed
Photo E. The image in photo A was superimposed on the image in photo D to create photo E. Cracks caused by the accident are highlighted in white. These cracks were removed by grinding prior to building the new deck section.
Photo F. A new slightly raised mast base is shown in photo F. after the application of two coats of gelcoat and sanding. The color of the new gelcoat matches perfectly the forty-year-old surrounding gelcoat.

The photo below shows the re-installed mast after completion of the repairs.

3. Repair of Mast Support

The photos below show the repairs completed below deck

V Berth side:

The first photo shows the V berth side of the strong back in various stages of repair.

In photo A, the cracks in the bottom laminate were removed by grinding, as was the paint on the central section of the strong back. The two holes in the deck are for mast wiring (Coaxial VHF cable on port and electrical wires for mast on starboard).

In photo B, multiple layers of vinyl ester resin and fabric were added to the damaged area and to the strong back to tie the deck section to and reinforce the strong back.

As can be seen in photo C the application of glass to both sides of the strong back and to the deck sections forward and aft of the strong back created a very strong integral structure to support the mast.

Photo D shows the area after the application of gelcoat. Screws protruding through deck are hinge screws for forward hatch.

Main Salon side:

The next composite photo shows the main salon repair in a single composite photo.

Photo A shows original plywood taped for application of product after minor repair of voids in plywood and sanding.

Photo B shows area after sanding of applied product. Strong back area (both sides and bottom) was reinforced with multiple layers of vinyl ester saturated fabric including unidirectional cloth and x mat.

Photos C and D show finished project after application of two layers of new gelcoat. The two holes aft of the strong back at the top of photo D are newly drilled holes for attachment of the mast base. The original holes were filled prior to application of glass and resin to top and bottom deck sections.

The next photo shows the finished project. Seam between Formica and original gelcoat was sealed with 3M 5200 and topped with a bead of 5200.

The next photo shows the new mast base bolts with washers in place.

While we were at it, I repainted the interior of the boat.

Soft luggage is my solution to storage. The black bags are multi-pocket brief case style vinyl bags from Ross Dress For Less. They don’t scratch painted surfaces, and secure easily, and are easy to lug around the boat. One of the two black bags holds my wrenches, vice grips, channel locks and pliers, and the other holds all of my other tools, with the exception of large tools and box wrench set, which store under main salon settees. The red bag holds 75 feet of towrope, a towing bridle, and a polypro throwing line with monkey's fist.

Behind the red bag is a padded bow bag (as in bow and arrow) that holds my Garhauer Lifting Davit. All soft bags secure to eyehooks mounted into the starboard shelf above the V berth.

Cushions are Ross Dress For Less nautical theme cushions. The green cord holds the cushions securely in place. The cushions match those in the main salon.

The wood and bamboo partition between the V berth and anchor locker is secured by four bolts with wing nuts on the anchor locker side. The entire partition can be removed quickly to allow access to the anchor locker for more serious maintenance. The double doors allow reasonable access to work with the anchor, rode, and perform minor maintenance.


The lee board on the berth comes apart in secitions to allow easy access to the head below the V berth. The cushions on the berth are two chair cushions that double as cockpit lounging cushions. They fit perfectly on teh cockpit seats with the hbvack of the cvushions against the trunk cabin.

4. Rig and Chain plates

The chain plate project has been documented on the technical forum. Three photos will suffice here.

In the first photo a single chain plate slot is shown in various stages of repair. The original bronze chain plates were removed. Corrosion to the plates and bolts was evident. The delaminated deck core was removed in the area of the slot. The bottom of the slot was capped with epoxy. Epoxy was then pumped into the deck core until it squeezed from the slot and the screw holes for the chain plate covers. A new slot was cut using a drill and a saber saw.

Below deck, the areas of the bulkheads adjacent to the chain plates was stripped with a nylon brush head and sanded. Voids and the spaces between the plywood bulkheads and deck were filled with epoxy. Glass fabric and epoxy were added to reinforce the bulkhead. The boltholes were reopened using a drill and file.

New chain plates were dry fitted and then installed with bedding compound. Finally the new chain plate covers were bedded and screwed into place.

The next composite photo shows the new installed 3/16 inch thick 1 1/2 inch wide 316 stainless steel chain plates with their new covers installed. Photo E shows two of the portside chain plates. Photo F shows the main salon side of the bulkhead after it was reinforced and repainted, but before installation of the aft lower chain plate. Photo G show the port side upper shroud chain plate after installation.

The photo below shows a section of the new rig installed. The Norseman fittings and tangs were inspected and reused. Swaged fittings, turnbuckles, and all wire were replaced with new.

The project is completed.

Sailing again!