[C38] wormholes in toe rail

Larry Malmberg larrypi at live.com
Sun Jan 30 11:32:15 EST 2011


Would that happen to be the sunny side of the boat?  Perhaps there is some
UV damage taking place?  Just a thought.
 





Best regards,
Team Hassle
 


 

  _____  

From: listserve-bounces at catalina38.org
[mailto:listserve-bounces at catalina38.org] On Behalf Of Don Strong
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 6:39 AM
To: listserve at catalina38.org
Subject: Re: [C38] wormholes in toe rail


Wormholes is a good description of the erosion. And, as Max points out, ours
are not near fasteners.
Don

On 1/29/11 5:31 PM, Max Soto wrote: 

The weirdest thing is that the worm holes on the rails are not located  near
a single fastener. Thy are located on the sides of the rails... Most of them
on a single side.....
Max

Sent from my iPod

On Jan 29, 2011, at 6:09 PM, S Orton <ssorton at hotmail.com> wrote:



I should of continued with the "worm hole" discussion, adding I don't
consider it a structural problem unless a hole develops at several adjacent
fasteners thereby destroying the clamping force between the hull and deck.
If it is a hole here and there, fill it with 5200 and forget it.
Cheers, Steve O 
 

  _____  

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:26:43 -0500
From: steve.ribble at gmail.com
To: listserve at catalina38.org
Subject: Re: [C38] Stanchions

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_
<http://www.rigrite.com/Hardware/Stanchions_&_Bases/Stanchion_Bases_SS.html#
SS%20Stanchion%20Bases%20that%20Attach%20to%20Toerail>
&_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 <mailto:maxsoto at gmail.com>  

To: Catalina 38 Listserve <mailto: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
 
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

_______________________________________________ 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




_______________________________________________

Listserve mailing list

Listserve at catalina38.org

http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org


-- 

Donald R. Strong

Professor

Dept. of Evolution and Ecology

University of California, Davis 95616
  _____  


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 1435/3412 - Release Date: 01/30/11

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 1435/3412 - Release Date: 01/30/11

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110130/823a7f33/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Listserve mailing list