Ebb, I have not had time yet to look closely at mine now that it is down. I did notice the same setup on the track, and I have blocks hanging from an add on tang also that does not look original (or at least the way I would hope that it would be).
Ebb, I have not had time yet to look closely at mine now that it is down. I did notice the same setup on the track, and I have blocks hanging from an add on tang also that does not look original (or at least the way I would hope that it would be).
1965 Ariel #331
'MARIAH'
Hey Tim.
I guess it's a decision whether the mast gets painted or not, right?
None of the aluminum fittings on 338's mast were radiused to match the mast curve. That left some tight spaces for stuff to collect, and it did.
But after removal the naked spots under the legs of the fitting were like brand spanking new, with a dime or a quarter sized bling of anodize showing - like the day they were screwed on.
I haven't forensic-ed the threaded screw shanks in the wasted aluminum chunks - but I guess there is some white powder in there.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
Tim, ANY observations you have will be welcomed.
Photos especially.
Last edited by ebb; 07-12-2008 at 05:52 PM.
Today, just before a casual race in winds gusting to 30 knots, I decided to replace the port upper turnbuckle as I had found one to replace a mis-matched one. As soon as I had the stay loose enough to remove the turnbuckle the spreader just fell off the mast. The Spreader fitting had broken between the spreader and the upper and lower attach bolts. the tension on the stay had been keeping the spreader trapped between the two broken off ears. Who knows how long ago it broke. What luck to discover such a failure at the dock instead of having the spreader pop out during a tack. Inspection of the broken parts showed what appears to be intergranular corrosion. I had inspected the rig about a month ago when I stepped the mast and had missed it. I robbed a fitting from an old P-26 mast I have around the yard,(They use the same fitting and the masts would make an excellent substitute) popped it on and quickly re-tuned, but alas missed the first gun. I would recommend close inspection of the fittings next time ya'll drop your rig.
Last edited by Commander227; 07-13-2008 at 05:10 PM.
That's AMAZING.
That's the trouble with cast aluminum.
Would think that the fittings do little more work than hold the spreaders in the right place and position.
Are the through-bolt holes elongated on your mast?
Showing perhaps that the lowers were over loaded and pulled the fitting apart?
Seems unlikely.
If only one is broken like this, maybe the boat had a one side spreader accident in its past?
The spreader fittings I took off of 338's mast were very crudely bedded with black epoxy goop. (Carbon is added to epoxy for UV protection. It is at the wrong end of the galvanic scale to aluminum - so the absence of corrosion is a mystery.) The reason for this is that they are not faired to the curve of the mast. Which should have been done instead of using easy poxy. An oscillating spindle sander is made for the job.
If you had flat bottom fittings on the curved mast, that means most of the fitting is unsupported - unless something hard like black epoxy bondo was used to sculpt a HARD bearing surface. Don't think rubber would work.
An unsupported fitting obviously might be broken by some stress on it or other.
You have another replacement. I'm wondering if renovating these fittings would included having them anodized? Or painted with LPU, or even powder coated?
Pointed out above: Some bedding compounds used on 338's mast caused SERIOUS corrosion. They are white and may have some metallic base like lead, I don't know. Generally, ALL fittings show some corrosion - some little crusting or activity - where they are attached, sometimes very little. Some aluminum to aluminum had a pristine patch of original anodize on the bearing surface. How do we know what these were mounted with if anything.
The only thing that seems to have worked is the 'electric tape' separator under the mainsail track. The ultimate trick for reducing galvanics may not be any goop but fairly FITTED BEARING SURFACE with a separator like modern HDPE polyethylene tape. Fine rather than coarse threaded machine screws in correctly tapped holes with tefgel or lanoline.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Have not been able to locate B.Toss' HDPE polyethylene tape. There is a lot of tapes out there. This seemed important enough to find. Managed to locate a UHMW p. tape which has weatherability - but not researched by self.
(Google seems to be becoming more and more useless for product search - it's lost its target finesse, if it can be put that way. Used to get a shotgun pellet spread on a subject - now google just seems to wander off.)
The very slick ultra high molecular weight tape is used for exterior aps on vehicles and in extreme industrial environs where slipperiness is required. Available from McMasterCarr - 7344A42. Peel-and-stick one side. Some come two-sided. It is translucent rather than gray or black as you might expect it. ????
Have to question the provenance here - I'm a bit uncomfortable using a tape on the mast whose main claim is its extreme low surface energy.
Last edited by ebb; 07-15-2008 at 10:38 AM.
Aluminum like s.s. needs "free access" to air, to oxygen, to help prevent corrosion by forming a protective oxide layer.
Welding parts onto a new aluminum mast is the best way. But not recommended to old aluminum. Not sure why. Maybe because it takes an expert to weld the stuff properly. On altering the base for masting (lowering) on 338's mast which will require rounding part of the bottom and adding a plate to fit the new shape: Ballenger Spars said, Weld It.
The problem is crevis corrosion, called that by Kasten, any time you place aluminum on aluminum, or wood to it, or even plastic on it - unless it's welded you have made the condition for crevis corrosion - because salt water can wick under the addition.
Here is Kasten's recommendation for adding stuff to the mast:
Roughen the mast surface by grinding.
Degrease with a solvent (leave no fingerprints)
Apply Alodine. (I get my Alodine and Alumiprep from Aircraft Spruce.)
Apply epoxy paint. (Not without a system primer imco)
Add a plastic isolator under the part. K. recommends micarta and pvc, not mentioning polyethylene. Doesn't like electric tape (black vinyl) because it stretches.
Isolate parts further with adhesive caulk. K. mentions Sikaflex, 5200, BoatLife.
(on a mast I would use LifeSeal or another silicone/urethane hybrid because of their long life flexibility, temp range and adhesion life.) But it's your choice.
Anodizing does not prevent crevis corrosion.
(The implication here is that if you have a new anodized mast you have to destroy the coating in those places where you are adding something.
Where s.s fastenings must be removed use "never seize"* But don't use a product with graphite or copper in it. Zinc formulations and Teflon are OK.
Think a product without metal should be considered. And I've heard Teflon (Tefgel) implicated in corrosion, but that is hearsay.) K. recommends anhydrous lanoline for THREADS only.
(None of these are thread locks which are acrylics of various holding strengths used to keep screws and nuts in place. Not considered by Kasten.)
Almag 35 is marine grade cast aluminum. I'll bet it'll be hard to find mast cleats with this designation. My understanding is that it's kissing cousin to the extrusion our masts are made with. see Perko's marinium line. The cast aluminum on the Ariel supposedly were made with this alloy.
Swage fittings eventually throw rust, which throws suspicion on them. Why use a stainless fitting that promotes rust or use any stainless that will? Use only 316L on the exterior of the boat.
(Never use 18-8 or 304 or '300 series' on the mast, even if Jamestown says it's OK or if off-the-shelf products say they are made for it. If there are no numbers on the stainless avoid the stuff.)
And welded fittings in stainless grades with higher carbon than 316 become real problems because carbon in the form of carbides will collect along the weldline and failure will occur there.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
*"never seize" exists in various formulations from Permatex. "Never-Seez' in a blue can labeled Mariner's Choice, for instance: the material contains copper flakes, graphite, and aluminum paste. Sounds like this stuff will really crank your mast. There appears to be NO 'Never-Seez' product specific to screwing stainless steel fasteners into aluminum.
There are Permatex ThreadLockers. Blue is a medium strength acrylic material that allows non-destructive hand disassembly. Whether there is choice here, I'm not sure - threadlock maynot be good at dissimilar metal isolating.. Anybody know?
Woolfat is my choice.
However with the above elaborate chinese firedrill of adding a cleat to the mast, most of us will drive the machine screws in through wet caulk. IE, LifeSeal may be a good isolator. I'm sure this is done, but I've not found a source for this as practice. ???
www.kastenmarine.com
Last edited by ebb; 07-21-2008 at 06:49 AM.
may not be readily available.
[Available from Hamilton Marine - Duralac (British import) $36.99, about 4oz]
Contrary to what Kasten sez, this "zinc formulation" should not be used to isolate stainless and aluminum on the mast! According to Storrar* it will cause Mast Rash.
The weathered hard white material that caused corrosion on 338's mast may have been this stuff or a putty version of it. If I understand Storrar correctly.
Best rule may be: Use no material to isolate metals from each other that has any form of metal in it.
Now THAT brings into question the zinc chromate layer in the mast painting regimen.
I believe AwlGrip uses a STRONTIUM chromate interim coating, whatever the hell that is.
*
http://www.storrarmarine.co.uk/Storr...Newsletter.pdf
google title: Storrar Marine
type into google port: Storrar Marine Newsletter July 2008
(it should come up)
Zinc chromate as a paste or putty just does not exist in the public sphere anymore.
The Duralac product mentioned seems to be considered a substitute for it -
but it does not have zinc in it.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
Naturally I had to look uo Duralac
...Jointing Compound DTD369B. There may be, unbeknownst to me, a dozen Duralacs. This one has no zinc in it (so that assumption by Storrar is incorrect), instead is made with barium chromate in a lacquer base and an inert filler. Lacquer means VOCs.
"..it is essential that the points of contact should be treated with corrosion inhibiting materials because in the presence of electrolytes considerable difference of potential arise, not only where different metals are in contact, but also where components of the same metal under different stresses are in contact: for example as between the aluminum plates or extrusions and rivets or bolts used in building up the structure..."
There is a strong suggestion in this (edited) Duralac technical statement that the material is made for recommisioning Little Gull's ancient mast.
There may be a typo in the Storrar statement or may have British coloquilisms I don't know how to read. That is: his statement NOT to use "zinc chromate" on the mast.
If you are convinced that forking over $10 an ounce for this goop will DE-ELECTROLYTE your mast from its cleats and eye straps for years of benevolent neglect, go for it.
I'm convinced that total isolation of different alloys is the key. A physical barrier of an inert plastic also included. But more important is the caulk, glue, goop, paste. If the isolating barrier breaks down and the "treatment" leaches away in weather and our sodium chloride environment and allows differences in potential to rear up again.... then we have to use the best caulk/adhesive available.
Don't think Duralac will remain flexible over time. ("Jointing compound" also assumes close fitting pieces - not usually the case with mast appendages.) "Corrosion inhibiting" to me is something that will stick til kingdomcome. Synthetic rubber has to stick so well that no moisture can EVER wick under it! Abrade the hell out of both interfacing metals - maybe not with a grinder! For Kasten, adhesion is the key. 5200 and polysulfide both get hard after awhile in ozone, UV, and heat, so I'm going with the hybrid - which also advertises it's willingness to adhere to all kinds of surfaces without priming and always stay flexible. Good signs.
Don't know who to believe: marine architect, marine yard owner, or manufacturer hype. The whole net seems to suffer from EXPERTOSIS. Forumilytes? Something...
Opinions - anyone?
Last edited by ebb; 07-19-2008 at 06:32 AM.
hello.
last week y had broken the base of the spreader i think it is not possible to repear there is a lot of crack and very oxidized.
someone there has already replaced this piece?
and what is the solution.
thank you
Grindel,
Searching using "Spreader Base" you will find several discussions. The most recent source for spreader bases (2005) is:
D&R Marine, 14 Water St.
Assonet, MA. 02702 USA
508-644-3001
thank you
i think i found the spreader base in the site of D&R Marine
i am waiting for dimention and how too do pay and if they can send it to france.
Someone here has two beautiful replacements made out of Stainless steel and has photos ( I can't locate right now). Claimed they were on the boat when purchased.
If I can remember looked to be 1/4" thick plate sheared to the same dimension, bent to conform to mast and the had Stainless round tubing welded on for sockets for spreaders.
I also have a broken one, after 40+ years I think they have served their life expectancy and will use my one good one to copy in stainless
look here: Memphisto Cat 155 thread, post 92, for photos of bases in stainless
if D&R Marine sold the original part i prefer
but i certainely use the assembly of mephisto cat whit the pipe to avoid to compress the mast when tighten the nuts. when i had broken my spreader base its my mistake.
the wind grow slowly 0 to 25 knots and i was run genoa whit pole one side mainsail on the other side when i decide to late (1 mistake) to remove the genoa pole i gybe to remove the wind of the genoa, i put the autopilot ( i was alone ). and when strore it the boat gybe alone. i had no vang on the boat ( 2 mistake) the boom raise up and the mainsail roll up aroud the shroud upstair the spreader, i roll the genoa, and i try to unroll the mainsail aroud the shroud i can't. i go wind ahead the and the spreader come whit the main sail. i think its natural she break in this case.
a good point is i cant Stiffen the shroud whitout the spreader whit the original, (in french) "ridoir". I just came to grease them. and come to the harbor
After painting hull and topsides of Commander 131 the mast is looking really sad. I have read the threads about awgriping the mast, but has anyone explored simply sending it out to get reanodized?
I think the problem with re-anodizing is finding a place with a big enough tank to fit the mast. Then you might have to pay to tranport the mast back and forth.
To get a good paint job, it really helps to remove all the hardware on the mast and boom. Maybe if you re-anodize, you might not have to remove all the aluminum/marinium hardware beforehand (the cleats and end castings). I'm not sure what the process would do to the mast track.
So I was advised NOT to do it - but couldn't help myself.
Took the cordless Hitatchi hammer drill and backed out the 104 screws that hold the track on the mast.
Broke 17 of the buggers. All have white poultice (just discovered that word) in the threads, but also most of the 5/8" coarse thread #8 machine screws still have sharp threads. These RHMS look like they are specially designed to attach sailtrack to aliminum. But the wide apart threads would only work in a mast as thick walled as ours.
Imco I did right by taking it off. There would be any guessing now. But is this cost conscious?
Between the track and the mast there was a strip of black plastic tape, quite thin, but still strong. It obviously had been adhered as one sided tape to the mast. The glue long gone.
The mast track fastening holes are 3" apart.
QUESTION: Is the stainless steel track still usefull?
There appears to be nothing wrong with it.
It has an overall bronze patina, which made me wonder. But it is obviously stamped or rolled metal that hasn't a thicker bronze metal look. The edges look kindof thin to me. But I don't have any new track to compare.
QUESTION. Is this the time to replace the track?
Internet 7/8" Shaefer track is more than $8 a foot! $30+ = $300
[bloody vendor is not interested in telling the buyer the spacing of the screw holes]
Then there's the screws, endstop ($44.51!), gate, etc.
What the gate is at the end of the track is a bent piece of metal sharing the last track screw. Extensive corrosion of the aluminum there because the moving metal could not be isolated.
QUESTION. Has anyone figured that out?
There is also a separate 18" long piece of what looks like 7/8" extruded aluminum track that is attached 4" below the gate. It's on the track flat.
QUESTION. What is that for?
The track that came off the mast is a single piece.
Definitely think that putting new track on in pieces is asking for trouble.
I don't even have to ask for it, know it will happen!
Instead of revitalizing the existing fastener holes, maybe the thing to do would be to drill them out clean and fill them with LabMetal.
Then jog the track up 3/4" and drill in brand new holes? Seems easy.
That's a QUESTION too.
Does anybody see a problem what that? Moving the track UP or DOWN, does that make something bad happen with the sail?
I noticed on Lackey's Triton 381 site that he installed TidesMarine StrongTrack.
I assume it uses the existing track to hold it on. Yes?
Anyway in looking around the net, it came up on a cruisersforum where a guy who installed it on a customer's boat found it cracking after "about 10 years" on the mast.
StrongTrack is plastic of some sort.
What the upgrade does is change the original 'male' track to 'female', as the StrongTrack is a groove system.
Does this make any difference to the sails (more pricey slides?) sailing, hoisting, or reefing? It is also expensive. Anybody using this? What is gained?
There will never be another time when a change or an upgrade will be made on this mast. By me.
Feed back would be fabulous! Thanks.
Last edited by ebb; 10-29-2011 at 11:06 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
