[C38] Stanchions

Sat Jan 29 13:26:43 EST 2011

Don't know who made the toerail, but the same cross section is used by
several different boat builders of the era so it must be an established
extruder...I had the same thing on a 1980 Mirage.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Chuck Finn <charles at finn.ws> wrote:

>  Steve,
> I called Garhauer yesterday about stanchions and the toerail.  Mike told me
> they never made the toerail as that is not something they are set up for.
> He was interested in my idea of a toerail stanchion, but would make no
> comment until he had seen what our toerail looks like.  He offered to work
> with me on this after I got him some specs/pictures of our rail.  Does
> anyone have a cross-sectional view and/or measurements?
>
> If I were to guess, I would say our toerails were made of T6 aluminum as it
> extrudes and anodizes well and is one of the hardest and strongest types.  I
> have cut this stuff on a lathe and it does not remotely behave like ordinary
> aluminum!  You need ear protection.   I agree with Steve O. that low bidder
> could be our problem here, which of course would vary by batches and years.
> All aluminum I am aware of can contain some small levels of iron, but I
> recall Grumman successfully figured out how to reduce this back when they
> were the aircraft frame folks.  By the way, don't try to weld on this stuff
> as it requires TIG and a lot of practice!  One more thing, aluminum can
> corrode when exposed.  The neat thing about this stuff is it almost
> immediately begins to form an impermeable skin as part of the corrosion
> process that essentially stops further corrosion and it is able to do this
> across a wide PH range.  Now you know pretty much all I know about this
> stuff!
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck Finn
> Mighty Quinn #114
> Great Lakes
>
> On 1/29/2011 12:19 PM, S Orton wrote:
>
> Phil,  I don't think a backing plate is worth the effort- the underside
> clearance/access is very tough.  Use oversize washers if possible.  If the
> holes are rotted out, fill with epoxie and redrill.  My toe rail also has
> worm holes, near the gates.  I assumed the reason was low bidder on the
> extrusions with much more impurities included.  The aircraft specs would
> preclude what we a seeing.  Has anybody contacted Garhauer about this
> problem?  I can understand corrosion at the SS fasteners, but these worm
> holes appear unrelated.
> Cheers, Steve O
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:09:44 -0500
> From: steve.ribble at gmail.com
> To: listserve at catalina38.org
> Subject: Re: [C38] Stanchions
>
> Great thought about the backing plate, Phil.  I've always considered
> stanchions and lifelines to be expendable in the event of emergencies...that
> they were basically to break your fall, not necessarily there to support the
> weight of the world.  That said, obviously I/we don't want to replace these
> things every month or two so they need to be stout enough.  It seems like
> one of the first things to go, when looking at the entire stanchion "system"
> is the through-bolt hole (as Phil indicated) and that a backing plate would
> disperse the loads/forces among the 4 bolts/holes rather than the two that
> experience expansion when torque is applied the the stanchion. Long story
> short, assuming we're all not going to run out and replace our stanchions
> for another design, that Garhauer already has the the backing plate (the
> base prior to welding to the stanchion tube) so it should be an easy and
> relatively inexpensive process to upgrade the holding power of our existing
> equipment.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Phil Gay <eyriepg at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  I thought I would explain what I think I know about metals from my
> aircraft engineering background.  I agree that the toe rail on our C38s is
> an aluminum alloy.  Pure aluminum does create its own oxide coating which
> retards corrosion.  But, when it is alloyed to increase its hardness and
> strength, it loses the ability to protect itself unless it has a pure
> aluminum cladding on the surface.  Typically these alloys have an anodic
> coating (the dark surface on our toe rails) or a chemical conversion coating
> which created this protective oxide on the exterior surface.
>
>
>
> Near the bow of my C38 the toe rail has started to pit.  I don’t think it
> has progressed much lately with all the rain water that we get here in the
> NW.  I doubt that it has weakened the extrusion much at all.  I agree with
> the statements about the loads on the stanchions.  Later model Catalinas
> have the stanchions that fit into sockets molded into the toe rail as well
> as being bolted through base plates to the deck.  BTW I am pretty sure that
> the deck area where the toe rails are attached on our C38s is solid un-cored
> fiberglass.  A lot of the looseness of the bases is caused by the rocking of
> the bolts, and subsequent elongation of the holes, because they don’t have
> backing plates to hold them vertical.  I think that there are ways to
> securely attach our stanchions to the toe rail if they are also bolted
> inboard to the deck.  I have also thought about having the existing
> stanchions modified so that they angle outboard to allow more room to pass
> around the shrouds.
>
>
>
> Phil Gay
>
> C38 049 Que Linda
>
> Everett WA
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* listserve-bounces at catalina38.org [mailto:
> listserve-bounces at catalina38.org] *On Behalf Of *Anders Finn
> *Sent:* Friday, January 28, 2011 4:25 PM
>
> *To:* listserve at catalina38.org
> *Subject:* Re: [C38] Stanchions
>
>
>
>
> Really? I thought that toe rail was aluminum. Should be pretty resistant to
> salt corrosion. I think what my old man is trying to say is that the toe
> rail is at least as strong, if not stronger than the plywood under the deck
> to which the stanchions are currently screwed into. It would be interesting
> to know the dimensions of the toe rail if anyone has them (I think my dad is
> going up to measure in a few weeks) and I can figure out what kind of moment
> could be applied safely to the toe rail if one could find a way to apply the
> load evenly.
>
> Anders
>
> On 01/28/2011 04:06 PM, Don Strong wrote:
>
> The toe rail really is not that tough.  As well, in salty boats as old as
> mine (1980), the toe rail has some indication of chemical decomposition
> along the bottom side. I treat my toe rail with care. Like the rest of this
> wonderful 30 year old device, I hope it lasts longer than I last.
> Don
>
> On 1/28/11 2:15 PM, Anders Finn wrote:
>
> Think about pivot point. If there is indeed only two bolts, the only thing
> keeping it from pivoting is compression between the plate and the toe rail.
> The bolts are there simply to provide a leverage point. That's what concerns
> me.
>
> Anders
>
> On 01/28/2011 02:13 PM, Chuck Finn wrote:
>
> This type of fitting is used by:  C&C, Hunter, PDQ, Bayfield, and Freedom
> yachts.  I think the footprint is the entire toerail, which is significantly
> stronger than our pad fastened to a plywood deck....   If I was to worry
> about strength, it would be the shear force exerted on the bolts if the
> toerail stanchion base is not a good fit with our toerail...  I would weld
> the stanchion to the base rather than rely on the throughbolt.  I can also
> comment on the strength of at least the C&C toerail as I have raced these
> boats and that means bounced a time or two off the lines and stanchions!
> Have crewed Hunters as well, but don't remember the stanchion design.
>
> I think my next step will be to contact Garhauer as they are reputed to
> have first made our toerail.  I also could easily fabricate my own bases
> that would incorporate Ander's ideas.
>
> But, will it look pretty?
>
> Chuck Finn
> Mighty Quinn #114
> Great Lakes
>
>
> On 1/28/2011 4:16 PM, Anders Finn wrote:
>
> Yeah, I just got a chance to look at this. I think Steve is right here
> about a large drop in torsional resistance. However, that being said, those
> stanchions forward of the cockpit are not really THAT strong. I would like
> to see at least a three bolt design with a larger outer plate to provide
> some surface to disperse the torque to the hull.
>
> Anders
>
> PS. They say they're used on Freedom 32's however, from pictures, I can't
> see anything resembling a toe rail that would support load on them.
>
>
> On 01/28/2011 12:42 PM, S Orton wrote:
>
> Chuck,  If I understand the concept correctly, it is a very poor structural
> design.  There is no foot print to react the outward cantilever force on the
> stantion- you need a four bolt pattern to react this force in all
> directions and I only saw two fasteners parallel to the toe rail.
> Cheers, Steve O
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:27:31 -0500
> From: charles at finn.ws
> To: listserve at catalina38.org
> Subject: Re: [C38] Stanchions
>
> Max,
> Here is the rigrite url:
> http://www.rigrite.com/Hardware/Stanchions_&_Bases/Stanchion_Bases_SS.html#SS%20Stanchion%20Bases%20that%20Attach%20to%20Toerail
>
> As you can see, this would put the stanchion on the outside edge of our
> toerail and would eliminate the base.  This would result in a lot of room on
> the deck.  I am thinking of using two of the bases for the gate and then
> moving forward.  My issue about this would look is that I will have to
> connect to the stern rails and bow pulpit, which would remain as they are.
> I would also have to fill all the holes in the deck from where the plates
> were and re-route the holding tank vent, but that would be worth it for the
> extra room on deck and the elimination of possible leaks.
>
> What to our C38 folks think?
>
> Chuck Finn
> Mighty Quinn #114
> Great Lakes
>
>
> On 1/27/2011 11:21 AM, Max Soto wrote:
>
> Chuck, Did you send a link for the rigrite stanchions?
>
>  Regards,
>
>
>
> Max
>
> 2011/1/26 Chuck Finn <charles at finn.ws>
>
> One way I know it is sailing season is the scrape on my shin obtained as I
> climb from the cabin to the cockpit.  The other wound is the bruises on the
> side of both legs as I bang into the stanchions.  I love the look of our
> boats, but the design idea that the stanchions should follow the inward bend
> of the tumblehome really does not work for me.  There just is not enough
> deck for a guy my size.  I am still considering bending and re-welding the
> current stanchions into a vertical position, but perhaps even a better
> solution would be to remove the current stanchions altogether and going with
> a toe rail stanchion like you see on C&C yachts.  Rigrite.com has these.
> Attaching stanchions directly to our toerail seems to be a viable option as
> the rail is really heavy duty.  Additionally, you can buy the bases and use
> the current tubing assuming it is not the light weight stuff Tom has
> commented on.   This would give us a lot more deck space for size 11 feet.
> Just thinking aloud at this point, but I really am tired of the bruising!
>
> Chuck Finn
> Mighty Quinn #114
> Great Lakes
>
>
>
> On 1/25/2011 3:25 PM, Max Soto wrote:
>
> Good to know that they share the same foot print... If the removable
> stanchion's base also fits, I'll go for that one next time..... A little
> heavier, but if they bend, it will be so much easier to replace.......
>
> Thanks, Max
>
>
>
> 2011/1/25 Steven Ribble <steve.ribble at gmail.com>
>
> Max, yes...same foot print.  Garhauer has a square-ish base that I think
> are for removable stanchions and a one that's trapezoidal for the
> solid/fixed type, which is what mine are (also characterized by the "flat
> top").  I can't speak to the quality comment that Tom refers to, I just know
> mine have been on the boat for 30 years and only needed to be replaced
> because the over-wintering force exerted by the shrinkwrap caused them to
> bend.  I thought I saw reinforced/gate style stanchions on their website,
> but don't know about the footprint.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Tom T. <tdtron at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> After hurricane Dennis (the Menace) skirted Tampa Bay a few years ago with
> a near miss, we got tangled up with a piling with the surge and had our
> starboard lifelines damaged along with the stanchions on that side.
>
>
>
> I replaced the stanchions near the rail at the aft end of the cabin
> with Catalina Direct stanchions. I replaced both sides so they would match.
> My boat had standard stanchions and those stanchions should have been the
> reinforced gate entry types which are heavier and more expensive.
>
>
>
> I didn't shop Garhauer and I probably should have but the original
> stanchions were JUNK so anything was an upgrade!  The metal in the
> replacement stanchions was much heavier gage and with the reinforced foot
> design of the gate type stanchion there was no comparison between quality or
> strength of the two types.
>
>
>
> The reason I bring this up is some of our members may have stanchions like
> the ones I replaced which may be a disaster waiting to happen.  If the
> stanchions at the front of the gate are like the thin, weak ones like I had
> they could fail.  The thin tube original stanchions may be OK for middle of
> the lifeline mounts but where the gates terminate they are inadequate
>
>
>
> Tom Troncalli
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Max Soto <maxsoto at gmail.com>
>
> *To: *Catalina 38 Listserve <listserve at catalina38.org>
>
> *Sent:* 1/25/2011 12:00:20 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [C38] Stanchions
>
>
>
> Steve, do they have the same footprint???
>
> Regards, max
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Steven Ribble <steve.ribble at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Our stanchions are Garhauer...I replaced a couple last season...about $50
> each.
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Max Soto <maxsoto at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Steve,
>
>
>
> I'm not surprised if they were made by Garhauer......
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Max
>
> 2011/1/24 Steve Smolinske <SSmolinske at rainierrubber.com>
>   Does anyone know who made our stanchions?
>
>
> Steve Smolinske
> President
>
> 425-227-4500
> www.RainierRubber.com <http://www.rainierrubber.com/>
>
> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or
> proprietary in nature and is intended for the recipient of the email only.
> Please treat all information contained in this and any communication with
> the 4M Company as such.  Thank you.
>
> P Before printing, think about ENVIRONMENTAL responsibility
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Max Soto
> C38 #198 ESTANCIA
> Puntarenas, Costa Rica
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Ribble
> 207/852-0971
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Ribble
> 207/852-0971
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Max Soto
> C38 #198 ESTANCIA
> Puntarenas, Costa Rica
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Listserve mailing list
>
> Listserve at catalina38.org
>
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Max Soto
> C38 #198 ESTANCIA
> Puntarenas, Costa Rica
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>

-- 
Steve Ribble
207/852-0971
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110129/bc420817/attachment-0001.htm>