+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 95

Thread: Standing Rigging

  1. #76
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pembroke Ontario Canada
    Posts
    591

    Talking nice plates

    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'

  2. #77
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    36

    Chainplate cost....

    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

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621
    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.
    Last edited by ebb; 06-03-2005 at 09:57 AM.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Winyah Bay, SC
    Posts
    605
    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. (She's a doll, but I still like my Ariel... )

    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

    Last edited by epiphany; 06-03-2005 at 11:11 AM.
    Kurt - Ariel #422 Katie Marie
    --------------------------------------------------
    sailFar.net
    Small boats, long distances...

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621
    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...
    Last edited by ebb; 06-06-2005 at 03:49 PM.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Scarborough, Maine
    Posts
    1,439
    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.
    Attached Images  
    Mike
    Totoro (Sea Sprite 23 #626)

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Scarborough, Maine
    Posts
    1,439
    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".
    Attached Images  
    Mike
    Totoro (Sea Sprite 23 #626)

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Havre de Grace, MD
    Posts
    207
    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 . . .
    #97 "Absum!"

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Hampton Roads Va.
    Posts
    821
    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!
    Attached Images  

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621
    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.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Scarborough, Maine
    Posts
    1,439
    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?
    Last edited by mbd; 07-19-2006 at 11:35 AM.
    Mike
    Totoro (Sea Sprite 23 #626)

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Scarborough, Maine
    Posts
    1,439
    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.)
    Mike
    Totoro (Sea Sprite 23 #626)

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Scarborough, Maine
    Posts
    1,439
    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.
    Last edited by mbd; 07-22-2006 at 10:31 AM.
    Mike
    Totoro (Sea Sprite 23 #626)

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621
    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,
    Last edited by ebb; 07-22-2006 at 09:41 PM.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    461
    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?
    Last edited by Scott Galloway; 07-25-2006 at 02:57 AM.
    Scott

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. WTB: Original standing rigging turnbuckle
    By c_amos in forum General/Off-Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-08-2004, 07:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts