[C38] Stanchions

Max Soto maxsoto at gmail.com
Mon Jan 31 23:55:55 EST 2011


That one is totally different than mine...The slots are spaced 10" away and
this one uses #10 fasteners, mine also has some kind of edge on the bottom
of the external side..  I just found an old 2002 West Marine Catalog with
the toe rail on Estancia... Is also from Taco and the serial
is A62-0086bkh26d, but I guess is no longer in production....

Here are the pics from my toe rail, and let me say that mine looks like a
rat did the holes and not a worm...... 90% of the holes are located on the
stern on port side, and also noticed some corrosion around the fasteners,
but only on that same section, the rest is in great shape....... I don't
know what the hell could be causing the electrolysis in that area
only.........

Regards, Max

2011/1/31 Anders Finn <anders at finn.ws>

>  Ask and you shall recieve
>
>
> http://tacomarine.com/item--1-9-16-x-1-1-2-Aluminum-Sailboat-Toe-Rail--A62-0009.html
>
> According to the tech's at Taco Marine, this is our toe rail spec.
>
> Anders
>
>
> On 01/30/2011 12:56 AM, Steve Smolinske wrote:
>
> I have worm holes on the aft section of the stbd rail far away from the
> gates.  Good luck fishing that line I did that once took me most of a
> morning
>
> Steve Smolinske
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 29, 2011, at 7:55 PM, "Patrick Harpole" <1derful at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>   *Speaking of stanchions and "worm holes" I got the pleasure of worming a
> wire through pulpit (aka stanchion) because the bow navigation light wiring
> failed.*
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Max Soto <maxsoto at gmail.com>
> *To:* Catalina 38 Listserve <listserve at catalina38.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [C38] Stanchions
>
>  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_&_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
>
> 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
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing listListserve at catalina38.orghttp://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110131/0da7ea54/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSC03003.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 137527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110131/0da7ea54/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSC03005.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 150605 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110131/0da7ea54/attachment-0006.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSC03006.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 158819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110131/0da7ea54/attachment-0007.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSC03001.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 156090 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110131/0da7ea54/attachment-0008.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSC03002.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 151087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110131/0da7ea54/attachment-0009.jpe>


More information about the Listserve mailing list