[C38] Stanchions
Anders Finn
anders at finn.ws
Wed Feb 2 18:01:31 EST 2011
Wait, so. . . I'm an engineer who does engineering, sales and
management. . .what does that make me? All mighty?
Anders
On 02/02/2011 11:39 AM, Steve Smolinske wrote:
>
> Well, engineers, machinists that's all great but without salesmen
> none of ya all would have anything to work on J
>
> *From:*listserve-bounces at catalina38.org
> [mailto:listserve-bounces at catalina38.org] *On Behalf Of *Steven Ribble
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:39 AM
> *To:* Catalina 38 Listserve
> *Subject:* Re: [C38] Stanchions
>
> Steve-O...hate to burst your bubble, but I think you're busting
> Chuck's chops!...I'm a Landscape Architect and I typically get to tell
> both [civil] engineers AND fabricators what to do! ;o)
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, S Orton <ssorton at hotmail.com
> <mailto:ssorton at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:steve.ribble at gmail.com>
> To: listserve at catalina38.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 Regardless, this takes Steve's "out of date" to a whole new level!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 <mailto:charles at finn.ws>
> To: listserve at catalina38.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:maxsoto at gmail.com>
>
> *To:*Catalina 38 Listserve <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:steve.ribble at gmail.com>
> To: listserve at catalina38.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:steve.ribble at gmail.com>
> To: listserve at catalina38.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:charles at finn.ws>
> To: listserve at catalina38.org <mailto: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
> <http://www.rigrite.com/Hardware/Stanchions_&_Bases/Stanchion_Bases_SS.html#SS+Stanchion+Bases+that+Attach+to+Toerail>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <http://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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Listserve at catalina38.org>
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Ribble
> 207/852-0971
>
> _______________________________________________ Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org <mailto:Listserve at catalina38.org>
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org <mailto:Listserve at catalina38.org>
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Ribble
> 207/852-0971
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3418 - Release Date: 02/02/11
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/be6aa3c5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Listserve
mailing list