[C38] Stanchions

[S Orton]

Hey Steve R,  The industry does need both tool & die machinist and engineers.  You guys could design and build a locomotive but couldn't get a 747 off the ground without engineers- and big computers!  But we do need T&D machinist to make the various components.
Just a fun comment, Steve O

 


Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:29:04 -0500
From: steve.ribble at gmail.com
To: listserve at catalina38.org
Subject: Re: [C38] Stanchions

This has certainly been an interesting string!  And, hey Max...from that las pic it looks like your line/knots wore a hole in the toerail! (kidding).


So, just a comment for anyone thinking about the Taco part referenced above: it states it has a clear polished anodized finish.  Like Max's photos, mine is black...something to look into before ordering to replace [just] one side.


On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Chuck Finn <charles at finn.ws> wrote:


Anders and Steve,
I was a tool and die machinist for U.S. Steel way back in the 70-80s.  And you know what we machinists say about engineers!
Regardless, this takes Steve's "out of date" to a whole new level!
But, Anders back of the envelope calculations need to be compared to the strength of a 4 square inch plate attached to the deck with 1/4 inch screws with perhaps 3/4 inch washers on the underside.  I would reduce any estimates by 1/2 due to deck compression, leaks, etc. (that is what we machinists would do when we have to make the engineer's designs work).

Here are the urls for spec on 6063:


http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6063T5
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6063T6

As you can see, there is a big difference regarding the way T5 and 6 spec out.

Best discussion is here:
http://www.asminternational.org/pdf/datasheets/al392.pdf

Max and anyone with the hole problem:
If you want to treat the holes, here is an article about the Alodine pen.  Best price I saw while wandering around was about $80
http://www.aerospace.henkel.com/us/content_data/Henkels_Alodine_871_Touch-N-Prep_Pen_Meets_Aerospace_and_Military_Specifications953433.pdf

Way too much fun for an old man!

Chuck Finn
Mighty Quinn  #114
Great Lakes




On 2/1/2011 2:05 AM, Anders Finn wrote: 
Steve,

If you go to the website, and click the image (not obvious I know) you'll get a brochure. It says 6063-T5, my dad's abbreviating where he should not be when talking about shear strength rather than tensile strength.

Spec for 6063-T5 is:
Al: 97.5% (max)
Cr: 0.1% (max)
Cu: 0.1% (max)
Fe: 0.35% (max)
Mg: 0.45-0.9%
Mn: 0.1% (max)
Si: 0.2-0.6%
Ti: 0.1% (max)
Zn: 0.1% (max)
other: 0.05% (max each)
other: 0.15% (max total)

Anders

On 01/31/2011 10:28 PM, S Orton wrote: 
Did the tech at Taco Marine tell you what material the rail extrusion is?  I always assumed it was a 6000 series which is not a very strong, but is weldable, free machining and has good corrosion resistance.  6061 can have up to .7 % of iron in its alloy.  I've been retired from the aircraft design for 13 years and to me T5/T6 is not a material, but a temper (strength) condition of the material.  Please re-educate an ole dog.
Cheers, Steve O  


Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:17:44 -0500
From: charles at finn.ws
To: listserve at catalina38.org
Subject: Re: [C38] Stanchions

T5 is a lower cost material than T6.  Not as hard or strong, but still some of the strongest aluminum made.  It is a bit more ductile.
So, is it strong enough to support those torsional forces?
Inquiring minds want to know!

And Thanks!
Chuck Finn
Mighty Quinn #114
Great Lakes

On 1/31/2011 8:15 PM, Anders Finn wrote: 
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 
To: Catalina 38 Listserve 
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



_______________________________________________
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 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110202/bb4d01cb/attachment-0001.htm>