and their brains clouded in mead
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!
Kent
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?
Scott
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.
Last edited by ebb; 10-11-2004 at 12:17 PM.
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 tooSo 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.Nor was sealing the deck slot around the chainplates!
Geez, what a great thread and does anybody have some pictures about this stuff? Tony G
Last edited by Tony G; 10-11-2004 at 09:09 PM.
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.
Last edited by ebb; 10-14-2004 at 07:14 AM.
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.
Last edited by Scott Galloway; 10-13-2004 at 12:32 AM.
Scott
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
