[C38] Stanchions

PAUL NOTTE panotte at shaw.ca
Thu Feb 3 02:15:19 EST 2011


I'm retired so the only one I get to tell what to do is the dog, and he doesn't listen anyway.

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ribble <steve.ribble at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 11:38 am
Subject: Re: [C38] Stanchions
To: Catalina 38 Listserve <listserve at catalina38.org>

> Steve-O...hate to burst your bubble, but I think you're busting 
> Chuck'schops!...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> 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
> > 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 Regardless, this takes Steve's "out of date" to a whole new level!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 <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<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>
> > 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>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Listserve mailing list
> > Listserve at catalina38.org
> > http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve Ribble
> 207/852-0971
>




More information about the Listserve mailing list