1
INTRODUCTION
The Rhodes Reliant and its close sistership, the Offshore 40, are remarkable boats. They
are fast, comfortable cruisers, secure under all conditions at sea, and have a classic beauty
of form and detail. They have explored the harbors and islands on both coasts, cruised
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as well as inland lakes, circumnavigated the globe, and have
been comfortable homes at anchor and at docks. They are, as Arthur Beiser said, proper
yachts.
Built between 1963 and 1976, most of these boats are thirty or forty years old and are
being restored, refitted, and modernized by owners around the country and around the
world to prepare for the next three decades of cruising in style and comfort. I can't
imagine there is another class of 30-40 something year old boats that look so beautiful,
that work so well, and that have received so much loving labor from their owners.
This handbook provides the collective experience of owners in maintaining, restoring,
and upgrading these remarkable vessels.
RELIANT AND OFFSHORE 40 HISTORY
To review the history of the Rhodes Reliant and Offshore 40 classes, I chatted with David
Toombs, the "father" of the class, several times and received detailed notes from him. He
conceived of the idea of getting a Rhodes design in this size and interior configuration
and having it built at Cheoy Lee. I also talked with Tad Woodhull, at Wayfarer Yacht
Sales in Camden Maine. He worked closely with Dave Toombs after 1973. I also talked
briefly with Philip H. ("Bodie") Rhodes, son of the designer, and Charles Jannace, who
was a draftsman at the Rhodes office.
Responding to my inquiry, Cheoy Lee graciously sent me copies of early promotional
materials, which I enclose in Annex 1. In addition, they sent me the actual production list
of Reliants and Offshore 40s, so I now have much more detailed and more accurate
information than I ever had. On the list Cheoy Lee sent me, I have not only the Yard
Number for each boat, but also its class, its rig and interior configuration, and in some
cases, whether it was ordered with Lloyds 100A1, Lloyds, or Lloyds Moulding
certification.
Note: The Yard Number (Cheoy Lee's serial number) originally was on a chromed plaque
on the forward bulkhead of the main cabin. On some boats it was carved in the lazaret
framing or painted on the bottom near the forward waterline stripe and visible when the
bottom paint was stripped off. It was painted on the original shipping cradle and penciled
or scratched on the bottom or inside of parts workmen took to the shop for fitting, such as
the drawers, boards under the bunks, floorboards, moldings, chainplates, etc. In at least
one case, the number was penned on original plans, which were provided with the boats.
On one boat the yard number is stamped on the bronze rudder casting that receives the
2
rudder post; on my boat it is stamped in the top of the rudder post. It is not the Coast
Guard documentation number, the Hull Identification Number (HIN), or a racing number,
that might be on the sail.
Origins of the Rhodes Reliant
When we review Richard Henderson's book Philip L. Rhodes and his Yacht Designs, it is
clear that the Reliant was an evolution and combination of several of Rhodes's previous
designs. It was, in some ways, the culmination of his insights after four decades of
designing sailboats, both with respect to the hull form and interior layout.
Over the decades, Rhodes had designed two hull forms, a fairly narrow boat and a
somewhat wider one with a centerboard. The classic, narrow form included the 27 foot
lwl Rhodes 27, developed in 1938. In 1955, Rhodes enlarged this design with Altair, a 29
foot lwl version. This was scaled down slightly to the 28 foot lwl Bounty II, later
produced as the Pearson R41. Rhodes had also designed a beamier centerboard model,
the most famous example of which was Carina. When the centerboarder proportions
were applied to the 29' waterline Altair, Erewhon was created.
The Reliant is a slightly scaled down version of a combination Altair/Erewhon, with a bit
more beam and less draft than Altair, but not as much beam or as little draft as the
centerboarder Erewhon. In a sense, it was a new hull form for Rhodes, a "medium" boat,
with more beam than his narrower, classic forms, but not as much beam as his
centerboarders. The profile and sail plan for a sistership of Erewhon looks almost
identical to the Reliant, except that Erewhon's mast is designed for two spreaders. We
have seen Erewhon's sistership Thor, and, at a distance, her hull has the same distinctive
shape.
The Reliant was initially designed for wood construction; I am not aware of any built in
wood. The designs were then redone for fiberglass construction. By the 1960s, Philip
Rhodes was not actually doing the drawing work in his office. He was meeting with
clients and getting contracts. James McCurdy, a distinguished designer in his own right,
was yacht section head, doing much administrative work. The actual drafting of the
Reliant hull was done by Bodie Rhodes, Philip Rhodes’s son, following certain formulas
and rules that Philip Rhodes had developed in previous decades. Al Mason and Charles
Jannace did the detailed plans for the interior and the actual drafting. Dick Davis also
worked on sailboat designs.
In later years, James McCurdy's son Ian had a partnership with Philip Rhodes's son
Bodie; Al Mason became a well known designer, and Charles Jannace developed a
specialty in sport fishing boats. http://www.jannace.com/yachts/home.htm
3
design
R27
BountyI
Altair
Erewon
BountyII
Pearson 41
Reliant
Year
1938
1939
1955
1955
1956
Loa
29'2"
38'9"
42'3"
42'3"
40’10
Lwl
27'
27'6"
29'
29'
28'
Beam
9’8”
9’8”
10’6”
11’3”
10’3”
draft
5’10”
4’8”
6’
4’7”
5’9”
1963
40’9
28'
10’9
5’9”
The designed displacement, according to a Cheoy Lee brochure, was 22,040 lb. The
displacement of the Reliant WINDIGO has been measured (for IMS rating certificate,
copy in Annex 9) at 22,357 lb. at a waterline length of 28.67 ft. Sinking the boat .01 ft
displaces 130.54 lb. of water, so an inch of immersion displaces roughly 1,088 lb. of
water. One 1 inch of immersion changes the water line by about 5 inches. So each inch
of water line plus or minus is about 217 pounds of displacement, plus or minus. If you
can measure your water line accurately, with these numbers you can come quite close to
your actual displacement (in salt water). As the boat goes deeper and the water line
lengthens, each inch displaces somewhat more water, so you might try to estimate a
correction for this. Because the Offshore 40's keel goes down 3" more, at the same
waterline it displaces about 100 lb. more. Note that the displacement reported on the
Coast Guard certificate does not refer to the weight of your boat; it involves some sort of
theoretical calculation about potential hold capacity for some sort of freighter or barge.
Most of the boats were sold as yawls, but a sloop rig was offered as an option. The
original sail plans show that the masts and fore triangles of the two rigs are identical, but
on the sloop the boom is a little longer, reaching back to the end of the traveller. Even
when the boat was sold as a sloop, the mizzen chainplates were normally installed,
making conversion to a yawl relatively simple. The yawl provides a mizzen to hold the
boat into the wind when hoisting or lowering sails and permits a jib and mizzen
combination in strong winds. It also provides an attachment point for a summer awning
and a good mounting location for a radar antenna. Most fun, a mizzen staysail can often
be hoisted. On the other hand, there is the extra weight and windage of the mizzen mast,
and some interference when installing self-steering equipment or dinghy davits.
GEMINI was converted from a sloop to a yawl in around 1971. Gary Stephens recently
converted PEGASUS from a sloop to a yawl and was delighted with the advantages.
Nick Maddalena has similar plans for KEA LII.
While the hull form and rig of the Reliant evolved from other designs, the actual idea of
the Reliant as it was built has its origins in David Toombs. David was a pilot for United
Airlines and flew frequently to Hong Kong, so he was able to dovetail a flying career
with a career as a yacht broker-creator-importer. After working part time as a broker
with Herbert Hayes he created LION YACHTS in 1960 and imported the 35' Lion and
the Robb 35, made by Cheoy Lee. These boats were originally made of teak, but in 1963,
when Lloyds of London approved fiberglass construction, Cheoy Lee and Lion Yachts
started to build them in fiberglass.
4
David Toombs had the idea of putting the three-cabin layout into the Reliant 28'
waterline hull and building it in fiberglass. Alden, apparently had squeezed three cabins
into a 42 footer, and Toombs wanted to see three cabins in a Rhodes design. David
insisted that the overall length be less than 41 feet, because shipping charges from Hong
Kong went up a lot for cargoes longer than 41 feet.
In conversations with David, Phil Rhodes was initially skeptical that three cabins could
fit in a 28' waterline. He did not disclose to David that he had the potential solution in
previous designs, Copperhead and Olsching. In Copperhead, a 48 footer (34' lwl) from
1939, Rhodes had designed an aft stateroom; a starboard side companionway coming
down from the cabin top almost amidships; a head to port (with two doors to provide
separate access to the aft cabin and main cabin); and a wet locker outboard of the
companionway. In Olsching (1953 #618, 32' waterline), Rhodes offered two possible
interior layouts, one of which had a main cabin featuring a dinette to port and a galley to
starboard. Two years later he penned three more alternative layouts for design #618, one
of which a near replica of Copperhead's interior.
The dinette to port and linear galley to starboard, coupled with two aft quarter berths
shows up in the 1957 design Firande (#666).
To make the Reliant, he took the aft stateroom, midship head, and companionway from
Copperhead and the 1955 sketch for #618 and joined them to the starboard galley, dinette
to port and forward cabin from the original 1953 sketch for #618!
Rhodes combined these ideas and refined them in these ways:
He curved companionway so it would be compatible with the galley.
He provided a side deck walkway to the main companionway, so it could be used without
climbing up on the cabin top (as in Copperhead and the #618 sketch). The side deck to a
midships companionway had been fairly common in the 1930-1950s among many
designers, including Alden, Stephens, Potter and others. I don't think Rhodes had used
it, however. It fell out of favor because of fears that it could let in dangerous amounts of
water in the event of a knockdown. (Probably there was some incident that made this
view very widespread.) Nevertheless, for the Reliant, Rhodes drew on this idea.
He re-arranged the head a little bit so it had two doors, one to the main cabin area and one
directly to the aft stateroom. (The two doors were in the Copperhead plans but not on the
#618 plan.)
The result was an offset companionway somewhat forward and to starboard that leads to
a main cabin with a dinette to port and galley to starboard. On the port side is the head,
with two doors providing private access from the aft cabin and general access from the
main cabin. The aft cabin, with full standing headroom, has two quarter berths and direct
access to the head. A forward cabin includes two Vee berths. Fiberglass construction,
5
new in the early 1960s, freed up space that the earlier wood construction had used, and
allowed this path breaking three-cabin layout in a 28' waterline. Only a very few lockers
were lost in the process. In wood, this interior would have required the 34 foot waterline
of Copperhead or the 32 foot waterline of design 618.
My family was in the market Toombs had in mind. My mother especially liked the
Reliant because it gave her both a private stateroom and private access to the head. That
was the main reason she agreed to let my father buy the boat.
The Reliant has been recognized as a special boat. It was one of the boats featured in
Arthur Beiser's book The Proper Yacht (1st ed.) (New York: Macmillan, 1966). Beiser
commented,
In view of (her) parentage, then, it is not surprising that Reliant should be a fine looking
masthead sloop (or, alternatively, yawl) of obvious ability under sail. However, what
really distinguishes Reliant from the hundreds of other auxiliaries of similar size and
external appearance is the three-compartment accommodation, a triumph of meticulous
planning. To sleep six on a boat with a 28 ft. waterline is no trick at all, but to do this
with two double cabins, both small but not impossibly cramped, and without any serious
sacrifice in the main cabin, galley, head, or stowage space counts as a real achievement.
(Annex 3)
Richard Henderson, in Philip L. Rhodes and his Yacht Designs (Blue Ridge Summit:
McGraw Hill, 1993), has similar views:
Perhaps the most admired and sought-after fiberglass boat from the board of Phil Rhodes
is the Rhodes Reliant....I have sailed on and against this boat in races, and she handles
extremely well. In addition, she has great aesthetic appeal...But the most distinctive
feature of this 1963 design is her deck layout and arrangement below...This layout affords
remarkable privacy for a 28-foot-waterline boat... (Annex 4)
Construction on the first Reliant was started in June 1963, and production of the next four
began on January 9, 1964. Generally, the boats were built in clusters of four or five at a
time. Doug Wintermute sent me photos of a group of boats under construction in late
1964 or early 1965, probably including CAPELLA, RAVEN, and WINDFLOWER. (see
photo section)
My father contracted for a boat from the first group after studying plans but before any
Reliant could be seen. I inspected our new boat on the deck of a freighter in Brooklyn
N.Y. on October 14, 1964 (Khrushchev's ouster was on the radio as we drove out to
Brooklyn.) At that time, imports were not allowed from mainland China, but I noticed on
the rubber exhaust hose a big green label that the hose had been made in the People's
Republic of China. (I was studying Chinese at the time and could read the Chinese
characters.) I covered the label with tape, fearful that U.S. customs would ban the import
of our boat because of the communist exhaust hose.
6
The next day, I watched as a special barge with a giant crane lifted the massive wooden
cradle holding our boat off the freighter and lowered her into the water. The cradle had
been weighted with chains, so it sank, releasing our boat. She was towed to Connecticut
by a small tug boat, rigged, and delivered two weeks later. Building and delivery time
was roughly ten months. Coming down the Mianus River was tricky because of the fixed
bridge. We had to put the whole crew on one side of the boat and heel her over to
squeeze under the bridge.
Origins of the Offshore 40
The sixth boat in this series, commenced in March 1964, was the modified version called
the Offshore 40 in the United States and the Empire 40 in other markets. The differences
between the Reliant and the Offshore 40 are these:
- The most obvious change was a mirror deck plan and interior layout (main
companionway and galley to port, dinette and head to starboard).
- The Offshore/Empire 40 was marketed as a boat 1 foot shorter. The Reliant was 40'9"
and the Offshore 40 was 39'9". I finally got two hulls together, and they are about this
different in length. The Offshore 40's overhangs are a little shorter. The transom is cut
off perhaps 3-4 inches forward of the Reliant's and the bow pulls in a bit and is a little
shorter. Even with this difference, the deck mouldings were interchangeable! At least
two Offshore 40 hulls have been fitted with Reliant decks. (See below.) The water line
length and beam of the two classes are identical. In short, the hulls are basically the
same, except the Offshore 40 has slightly shorter ends. The other minor differences are
the keel and rudder, noted below.
- The ballast was changed from external lead on the Reliant to internal iron, weighing 340
pounds less. On GEMINI, the ballast consists of a row of wine-glass shaped iron
castings, set in concrete, with a thin layer of concrete over the top. There are no keel
bolts to worry about. To compensate for the reduced density and thickness of the internal
iron ballast, the Offshore 40's keel was 3" deeper and had a slightly different profile. On
the Offshore 40, the hull molding goes down all the way to the bottom, while on the
Reliant, the hull molding leaves space for external ballast and a grounding shoe. The
forward entry of the Offshore 40 keel is slightly finer than on the Rhodes Reliant.
- Rudders are different in shape and in construction. On the Reliant, the rudder is wood,
and the rudder post is a solid shaft that can be detached from the rudder. On the Offshore
40, the rudder is made of fiberglass and has a permanently attached rudder post that is a
hollow welded pipe that is welded to a solid shaft. On at least one boat, the weld in the
hollow pipe cracked and created a serious leak of water into the boat. Also, the weld
connecting the hollow to solid pipes can fail. See below under "Rudder." The Reliant
rudder can be taken off fairly easily because it can be detached from the rudder post;
removal of the Offshore 40 rudder requires extraction of the propeller shaft and lifting the
boat high or digging a hole for dropping the rudder. On the Offshore 40, the propeller
7
aperture is larger, making it far easier to install a MAXPROP feathering propeller.
(Some Offshore 40s have the Reliant style rudder or at least the detachable rudder post
similar to that in the Reliant.)
- The Offshore 40 was built with a thicker hull layup, perhaps with mat only, whereas the
specifications for the Reliant call for a mat/roving combination. Some data suggest that
the Offshore 40 hull may be more susceptible to blistering. (see below).
- Reliants had stainless steel water tanks, which have developed leaks and have required
replacement. Offshore 40s have fiberglass tanks. These seem more durable.
- Offshore 40's often have one or more supplementary fuel tanks under the quarter berths,
increasing fuel capacity, sometimes to 100 gallons. For offshore voyaging, this is a
distinct advantage.
-The Reliant had her running lights mounted on the bow pulpit. The Offshore 40 has
running lights recessed into the hull near the bow. (These running lights no longer meet
regulations, that now specify running lights must be above deck level.) The Reliant has
her bow chocks built into her rail; on the Offshore 40, the chocks sit on top of the rail.
-On the Reliant, the deck mold included fiberglass bolsters for lifeline stanchion bases.
The Offshore 40 deck mold lacks these bolsters. Instead, wood bolsters sit under the
stanchion bases. The wood bolsters are difficult to seal and more prone to leaks.
- According to specifications, the sail plans of the Offshore 40 and the Reliant, including
the lengths of all three sides of every sail, are identical. However, Park Shorthose
ordered Offshore 40 sloop SHIBUI in 1970 with the mast moved 11" aft. Patricia Zajac
measured her Offshore 40 built in 1972 against a Reliant and discovered that her mast
was a foot longer and the boom was a foot shorter. I wonder if slightly modified rigs
were generally built on Offshore 40s of this time period.
- There seems to be a difference in the chainplates between the two classes. Rhodes had
specified for the Reliant that chainplates would be cut out of 3/8" stainless steel plate, so
the chainplates were angled to the shrouds and enlarged below decks to distribute strain.
On the Offshore 40 the chainplates seem to be made of simple strap, 5/16" thick and
about 1 1/2" wide. There are indications on at least two boats (RUSALKA and
WINDRESS), that the chainplates were made of separate pieces of stainless steel welded
together to angle them to the shrouds. On RUSULKA the welds broke and on
WINDRESS also suffered chainplate failure. On GABRIELLE, cracks were evident
radiating out from the clevis pin holes. At this stage in life, the chainplates need careful
inspection and probably replacement on all sisterships, and at a minimum, in the
replacement process Offshore 40s should step up to 3/8" material.
In addition, the bolsters to which the chainplates are bolted are much more robust on the
Reliant than on the Offshore 40s.
8
For mizzen chainplates, Rhodes had specified a welded fabrication resulting in
chainplates parallel to the toe rail; Offshore 40s have simple straps mounted on transverse
bulkheads.
- The original Reliants had the main sheet with two blocks on the deck and a block on a
traveler. This put half the load directly on the deck. Offshore 40s generally have no deck
blocks and all the sheet load on the traveler.
- I visited Offshore 40 FLASH in 1998 and was impressed that the deck hardware (pad
eyes, hatch hinges) and cabin door latches were more robust than on my boat. FLASH
was built in 1969, five years after my Reliant, so the differences may reflect the passage
of time at the Cheoy Lee yard as much as a change for the Offshore 40 class.
- The Reliants had the three-cabin layout, but the Offshore/Empire 40 was offered in both
the mirrored three-cabin layout as well as three different two-cabin layouts. Of the
Offshore 40s for which I have data, roughly one-third have two cabins, in these
configurations:
1. E-type: dinette, galley, head to port; quarterberth, chart table to starboard.
Companionway about 6" offset to starboard.
ANTERES (CA), BALLERINA, ELUTHERA, HOLOKAI, HUNTRESS,
NORTHERN LIGHT, SALA-MA-SOND, SCAREDY CAT, SERENITY, SONRISA,
VALHALLA
2. dinette, galley, head to starboard; quarterberth, wet locker to port. Companionway
midships.
GANNET, HO'OHOLO, SELENE, SHIBUI (see photo), TOMTEN, WILLOW.
3. folding table, pilot and transom berths both sides of main cabin. Stove, sink, head to
starboard; ice box (through cockpit), chart table to port. Companionway midships.
FEMME, FLASH, MURITAI, SERENDIPITY, SISKIWIT (see photo), THALASSA
(galley more of E type).
In reality, Cheoy Lee built interiors with mixes and modifications of these general
patterns. THALASSA has the transom berth main cabin, but a modified E-type galley to
port and a wet locker instead of quarterberth to starboard. SHIBUI has refrigerator and
freezer instead of a quarterberth to port.
In addition, some of the two cabin layouts have some larger windows. It seems there was
some variability her in size and utilization of opening ports, probably determined by the
original purchasers of the boats at the time of manufacture.
The advantage of the three-cabin layout is privacy. The advantages of the two cabin
layout are that for ocean voyaging, the center line companionway is considered safer in
the event of a knockdown, the aft galley may be a bit more convenient when under sail,
and the midship cabin with settees and pilot berths are well suited for off-watch crew. It
9
is easier to fit a dodger, and a larger dinghy can be accommodated on deck. However,
some offshore sailors find that the three-cabin layout, with its smaller spaces, provides
more handholds and less likelihood of being thrown around below in a seaway. The twocabin layout provides a larger main cabin, suitable for larger crowds Each type of
interior has its devotees.
- Rhodes first conceived of this boat as a sloop, but added the yawl option. In practice, I
think that all of the Reliants were yawls, except for CALYPSO and GALUETTE.
However, almost a third of the Offshore 40s were sloops:
ABTU, AURORA, CAPELLA, DRACO, ELUTHERA, ELYSIA, FEMME DU CREUX,
FLASH, HO'OHOLO, HOLOKAI, ICARUS, JOHN TROUT, KEI LII, MAJESTIC,
MURITAI, SCARDY CAT, SERENITY, SHIBUI, SISKIWIT, SONRISA, TAI PAN,
TOMTEN, WILLOW,
- On both Reliants and Offshore 40s, the basic boat came with wooden spars, and
aluminum was an optional extra. The wooden masts have proven quite durable, and most
original wooden masts are still in service. They need regluing or splining. The mast step
has been problematic.
The Offshore 40 was built from a different mold from the Rhodes Reliant. I am quite
sure that after the Reliant mold was constructed, the plug used to make it was modified to
make the Offshore 40 mold. The ends were trimmed a little, pinched in, and faired, to
give it the shorter length on deck. The cut-outs for the ballast and grounding shoe were
filled in, but imperfectly. On an Offshore 40’s hull that I examined carefully, there was a
slight imperfection in the hull, showing the line where the original Reliant plug ended
and the ballast began. The imperfection marked precisely where the lead ballast of the
Reliant had been placed. When they filled in the ballast area, they made the new keel a
little sharper at the front. Eventually, the Reliant mold wore out. Cheoy Lee never made
another Reliant mold, and probably one (of several) reasons was that the plug which had
been used to make the Reliant mold had been altered to make the Offshore 40 mold.
Actually Cheoy Lee seems to have mixed up and modified the components of the boats
more than would appear from the marketing brochures, probably at the request of
individual purchasers. ANTARES and AURORA may have the Rhodes Reliant external
lead keel and rudder but the Offshore 40 deck and interior (a "Rhodes Offshore").
SERAPHIM, WINDRESS, and DRUMDOE,, all built in 1973-74, have Offshore 40
hulls and rudders, but Reliant decks! ("Offshore Reliant") GALATEA is similar, but her
Offshore 40 hull was modified to have external ballast, so she is that much closer to
being a Reliant. DRAGON LADY, SALA-MA-SOND, SHIBUI, THALASSA, probably
PEGASUS, and WILLOW (all Offshore 40s) have the internal ballast in their keels, but
the ballast is lead, not iron. (I am not sure if the greater density means that the actual
weight is more, or just that it is lower. In any event, it means that if there is water
penetration into the keel, there will not be rust and the expansion that can result in
damage to the fiberglass.) Offshore 40s KEI LII, JOHN TROUT, MARKADA,
TOMTEM, and WILLOW have the Reliant half-moon rudder, while MYTH OF
10
PROVIDENCE, a Reliant, seems to have an Offshore rudder! Offshore 40 VELERA
LINDA has the Offshore 40 shape and construction for her rudder, but it has the Reliant
detachable rudder post.
Park Shorthose, the original owner of SHIBUI, confirms that Cheoy Lee was willing to
make modifications at the time of ordering the boats. He ordered his Offshore 40 with
lead ballast, extra thick teak decks, mast moved aft 11 inches, extra large forepeak with
large hatch (see photos), and custom cabinets and carvings, and a special interior
configuration. This gives us some idea of the variations that are possible. Maybe some
of these changes that Park ordered were revised standards or standard options for
Offshore 40s ordered around 1969-70 and show up in other Offshore 40s of that vintage.
FLASH has a short but robust wooden bowsprit to help anchoring and an arched
helmsman's seat, both probably specially requested when the boat was ordered.
There is one other variation in deck forms worth noting. On three-cabin layouts, both
Reliants and Offshore 40s, Cheoy Lee offered the option of building the boat with either
a companionway from the aft cabin to the bridge deck (as Rhodes designed) or having a
window facing the bridge deck and a skylight hatch on the cabin top. This design
provides more privacy in the aft cabin, while the original design with a companionway
provides a second access point to the interior of the boat, makes it easier to pass food to
crew in the cockpit, and easier to have communication between the navigator and the
helmsman. With an aft companionway it is also easier to extract the engine for major
servicing.
The Offshore/Empire 40 was created to provide a boat at lower cost. Savings were
generated in a few ways. First, as the volume of Reliant production increased, Cheoy Lee
proposed a reduction in the design royalty, from $1,000 per boat to $500. Rhodes
rejected the lower number. By making the modifications for the Offshore 40, Cheoy Lee
claimed that it was its own, novel design and refused to pay any design royalty to
Rhodes, enabling them to lower the retail price further. Secondly, according to Dave
Toombs's estimate, the shift to iron ballast reduced Cheoy Lee's costs by 15 percent
because lead was in short supply in Hong Kong. Cheoy Lee had to get lead from ship
breakers and scrap dealers of lead pipes and batteries, and melt its own lead. Moreover,
it was difficult and costly to handle and attach a four ton piece. In addition, I presume
Offshore 40's rudder system and water tanks cost less. A few other cost savings changes
were introduced in some boats over the years: narrower, simpler main chainplates; flat
instead of welded mizzen chainplates; welded instead of cast lifeline stanchion bases; 3"
instead of 4" cowl ventilators, elimination of deck blocks for the main sheet.
As Cheoy Lee started selling the Offshore/Empire 40 without paying any royalties,
Rhodes considered litigation, but ultimately decided that only the lawyers would win that
case. The Reliants went out of production by 1968, partly because the hull mold was
deteriorating and not easily replaced after the plug had been modified. I think that
"Reliant" hulls made after that date were built in the Offshore 40 mold, in at least one
case modified for the external lead (GALATEA), and in other cases with the Reliant deck
but Offshore 40 hull. Offshore/Empire 40 boats were produced until 1976, without
11
royalties.
Previously, I had presumed that the Offshore 40 was developed as a result of royalty
disputes. However, the first Empire 40 was built at the very beginning of the Reliant
production run. The importers were not aware that the mirror image existed until some
time later. It certainly seems that at the very beginning of this project, Cheoy Lee was
planning to modify the boat and sell it as its own design without royalty.
While on the topic of litigation, I learned that Rolls Royce threatened to sue Philip
Rhodes for taking its insignia for the RR insignia on the sail, but ultimately did not.
Maybe they realized that it could be elegant advertising.
Production figures for the boats are:
Year *
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
TOTAL
Yard Numbers
1146
1220-1437
1583-1662
1685-1760
1807-1978
1981-2104
2151-2348
2372-2486
2497-2560
2624-2656
2681-2806
2992
3026
160
Reliants
1
21
15
5
2
1
1
45
Offshore 40s
14
5
12
20
20
17
7
8
3
7
1
1
115
*Year refers to year in which construction was commenced. Delivery was several
months after commencing construction (maybe less to the West Coast).
Most of the Reliants were delivered to the East Coast of the U.S. Many of the Offshore
40s were sold in the United States, especially to the West Coast. David Toombs/Lion
Yachts was the preliminary importer in Connecticut in the early years, but boats were
sold to the Southern California, Seattle, the Gulf Coast, and Hawaii. Many of the Empire
40s were sold globally. Purchasers are listed in Hong Kong, U.K., France, Singapore,
Philippines, Australia, etc.
David Toombs recalls that the Rhodes Reliants were originally introduced on the U.S.
market at $29,950, including a diesel engine, not including sails. (I think my father got a
special introductory discount, as we ordered the boat before any came to the United
12
States, when Toombs was concerned about funding the cost of the mold.) Prices went up
over the years. When the Offshore 40’s introduced a few years later, they were originally
priced at around $42,500 and by the 1970’s were priced in the mid to upper $40,000’s.
One owner of a sister ship reports information consistent with these numbers. An old
brochure from a Great Lakes dealer in the early 1970s quoted prices of $45,500 for a
Rhodes Reliant and $39,000 for the Offshore 40. An Offshore 40 was imported in 1973
at a dealer price of around $28,500, including transportation to San Francisco and import
taxes. The retail price to first owner was around $42,000, very likely without sails. This
boat changed hands in late 1974 at $52,500.
Tad Woodhull points out that our boats (and other Cheoy Lee products) were originally
offered at a rather low (relative) price, and were bought by people who did not fully
appreciate the fine points of maintenance. They were not accustomed to turning their
boats over to very experienced, expensive boat yards for elaborate periodic overhauls.
(This social history certainly fits my family and the way ASTARTE has been managed.
We have always been do-it-yourselfers, and boat yards have done virtually nothing other
than hauling and storage. Fortunately, I am now at a boat yard where I finally get expert
advice, but I still do all my own work.) In Tad's theory, as the boats were sold second
hand at lower prices, the new owners were even less able to deal with maintenance
issues. As a result, a large portion of the fleet suffered serious maintenance problems (eg.
damage to the deck core, etc.) and by now are beyond repair.
It may well be true that it is not economically sensible to restore a Reliant if one is paying
boatyard labor $50 per hour. However, I figure that I am paying myself $50 per hour to
work on my boat (tax free), so in this way, by doing the maintenance myself, I have
earned a lot of money! (I haven't fully convinced my wife of this accounting.) Whatever
the economics, I have been impressed by the fabulous standards of restoration and
maintenance of the boats with which I am familiar. The data on the market prices of our
boats, collected near the end of this handbook, show that the market place recognizes the
cost of restoration, and that much if not all of the cost of restoration shows up in
increased market value of the boat.
While Tad might be correct that many original and subsequent purchasers may have been
somewhat naive on many maintenance issues, I can assure you that the boat never came
with a maintenance manual. I am not sure that the importers and brokers, who have such
insight now, fully explained, much less appreciated, the maintenance issues when they
sold the boats. In a sense, our collective insights, pooled in this handbook, can be
thought of as the maintenance manual for these boats.
When boats were originally ordered, one option was Lloyds Certificate. Different Lloyds
services were available, including building to their standards with regard to virtually
every aspect of the boat (Lloyds 100A1) or having Lloyds certify only the hull molding.
Starting around 1965, there was a resident Lloyds inspector at the shipyard, but he
concentrated on commercial boats. The Reliant/Offshore hulls were molded to Lloyds
specifications, but not necessarily individually inspected. For any boat, the certificate
from Lloyds could be purchased, but few owners purchased it. It is thought that the hulls
13
are essentially the same, regardless of whether or not a certificate was ordered.
ORIGINAL PLANS
I visited the Mystic Seaport Ships Plans Division in the summer of 1997 and reviewed
the Rhodes Reliant file. The file of drawings is very large, and you can order any of the
drawings from them at a nominal charge. (See below, Annex 2.) The drawings include
hull lines (included in Annex 13 in reduced form), wooden spar construction, detailed
construction drawings for wood construction as well as fiberglass, and plans for an
alternative interior layout, with a conventional galley aft, main cabin, head/lockers, and
forward cabin. There are extensive drawings for rigging details, including spreader tip
castings, chain plates, tangs, big nuts, etc. A notebook includes engineering calculations
for the mast step, rigging, mast sections, and propeller. (Needless to say, the plans do not
include anything about the modifications made for the Offshore 40.) I took a copy of the
fiberglass construction drawing. Bill Heron keeps hull and spar plans aboard. When a
shroud terminal failed on CAPELLA and he lost his mast, having the spar plan aboard
vastly simplified having a new mast built.
The boat was not built exactly as specified in the drawings. I noted the following
differences from our boat:
The plans for fiberglass construction called for the mizzen mast to go through the deck to
a step at the bottom of the lazzaret. (Other plans for wood construction show the mizzen
mast stepped on the deck with a 3"x3" wooden compression post.) In fact, the mizzen
mast is stepped on deck. A bulkhead under the deck near the mizzen mast step was
added by Cheoy Lee to strengthen the deck in this area. The mizzen plans (#75313)
show a welded fabrication to secure the main backstay along with the mizzen aft lower. I
am thankful that my chainplates are not welded plates and not welded fabrications.
Plans called for an Edson steering pedestal, with the quadrant on the forward side of the
rudder post, coming very close to the pedestal. On our boat the quadrant faces aft, and
the pedestal is made by Cheoy Lee, with a drum on the bottom tensioning the steering
cables.
Plans hint that the deck moulding had integral lips to serve as hatch frames, not the
wooden hatch frames screwed on. The original plans would have avoided the problem of
re-bedding hatch frames. (Since I was planning to do that task this winter, I now wonder
about building fiberglass hatch frames as part of the cabin top, and never having to re-bed
them again.)
Plans called for all tanks to be made of 18 gauge monel. Our tanks were made of
stainless steel, and they failed early. David Toombs points out that monel was not
available in Hong Kong at that time. (More of this later.)
Plans had the cockpit a bit shorter, ending in front of the rudder post. As planned, the
14
rudder post came up behind the cockpit and higher above the level of the cockpit floor.
An emergency tiller came out of a hatch in the area that in my boat is a locker under the
helmsman's seat. Maybe the rudder shaft could have been removed through the hole in
the deck for the mizzen mast. (On our boat, if I wanted to remove the rudder shaft, I
would have to take out the propeller shaft to pull the rudder shaft down and out.) The
original construction plans show only the two forward cockpit drains.
Plans specified ventilation slots at the bottom of the panel facing the icebox. My boat
does not have them. This seems like a good idea; I may try to put them in.
The interior lockers and drawers have some deviations from the plans.
The planned galley sink was a single sink with the drain quite far inboard; it probably
would not have been under the water line when heeled down.
The original plans offer virtually no hints on plumbing (other than tank specifications) or
on the electrical system.
RELIANT/OFFSHORE 40 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Our sisterships have made extensive ocean passages. Sisterships have made at least five
circumnavigations and a sixth sistership is mostly around. They have survived fierce
storms. The boats are very strong, built before designers and builders knew how strong
fiberglass was. The narrow hull heels easily but has great ultimate stability. If knocked
down, it will right quickly, and it can not stay capsized, as modern, wide boats can. One
circumnavigator, Frank Litchfield, felt the boat motion at sea was remarkably gentle and
comfortable. The relatively narrow hull, slack bilges, heavy rig, and full keel gives the
boat a rather slow roll. She rolls far in the trade winds, from rail to rail, but the time
period is long, and this, says Frank, makes all the difference. Frank is very clear, that the
biggest problem on a circumnavigation is re-entry into life ashore. Lennart Konigson,
who has sailed ROBUST trans-Atlantic and made ocean passages on several other boats,
comments, “The Reliant is very comfortable for long ocean passages. She has excellent
downwind course stability. Harmonious ends make her easy to steer, in sharp contrast to
modern wide stern designs.” For serious sailing, our boats have important advantages.
(Annex 10 is a short piece on seaworthiness from the ECONOMIST that puts these issues
of hull form in historical and engineering perspective.)
The more modernist critique is offered by Ron Dwelle in Annex 12. In comparison with
more modern boats, he felt that his Offshore 40 was heavy, had a shorter waterline, was
slower, needed more sail power, and pitched an rolled in anything but the longest waves.
He did appreciate the inherent ultimate stability of the design.
Whatever the debates, the actual record of our boats is impressive:
ANTARES cruised from Seattle down the Pacific coast, through the Panama Canal,
15
through Belize and Guatemala and through the Western Caribbean and Bahamas for six
years.
ARETHUSA lived in England for some years, presumably sailed back and forth.
ASTARTE started a two-year cruise to Azores and the Mediterranean Sea in 1969.
Women mutinied, seized control of the boat, and turned her around after 44 beautiful but
wet hours at sea. ASTARTE did cruise to the Bahamas and back in 1974 and to Bermuda
in 2002.
BLUE STOCKING, based in Bermuda, has made many passages to the Bahamas, Virgin
Islands, and Caribbean between 1966 and 1985
BRETT ASHLEY, based in Antigua, won her class race in the Antigua Classic Yacht
Regatta, April 1998. She has sailed back and forth from Maine to Antigua. Her owner
reports, "BRETT's had a lot of hard sailing and she's stood up to it fairly well."
BRIES has cruised at least to Mexico.
CAPELLA was purchased in St. Thomas.
DOLCE VITA has cruised to the Caribbean.
ELYSIA was sailed from her first home in Hong Kong to the Bahama Islands. She is
now in the Virgin Islands.
FEMME DU CREUX has cruised the East Coast from Bras d'Or Lake Nova Scotia to
Fort Lauderdale.
FOLKSONG recently sailed to Bermuda. When she was named TAKE FIVE and owned
by Nick Litchfield, she circumnavigated in 1974-78. She was the first Reliant brought to
the United States. She sailed from Maine to Panama, through the canal, across to Fiji and
New Zealand. Then across the Indian Ocean, around South Africa and home, in four
years. He sailed with his wife Nancy and their cat, and encountered occasional strong
winds but no serious storms on the whole trip. Nick's preparations for circumnavigation
are discussed below in the section "Preparations for Ocean Sailing
GYPSY circumnavigated when owned by Leonard and Betty Pratt
1970-1974
HAVAIKI cruised extensively in the Western Pacific Ocean in the late 1960's and early
1970s. On one cruise, she went form Hawaii to New Zealand and back. She also cruised
from Hawaii to Tahiti.
HO'OHOLO, based in Hawaii, has cruised the South Pacific and Alaska.
HEARTSTRING sailed to Bermuda and regularly cruises Nova Scotia.
16
KEA LII has cruised to Tahiti.
LA EMBRA has cruised to the South Pacific.
MARKADA had sailed and chartered in the Caribbean and Bermuda.
MARY T sailed from California to New Zealand in the 1970s, and to Mexico a couple of
times in the 1980s. Then she started really cruising, sailing to Tahiti, New Zealand
(1992), Fiji, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Australia (1994), Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia,
Thailand (1995), Malaysia, India, Oman, Aden, up the Red Sea to Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean, including Cypress, Turkey (1997), Croatia, Greece, and Turkey (1998).
In this Odyssey, she survived the very destructive storm between New Zealand and Fiji,
June, 1994. After some years in the Med, she sailed to the Carribean and is in Pananma
now (2003), obviously nearing the end of an 11 year circumnavigation. Some of her
experiences are summarized below, see also Annex 6).
MATELOT has circumnavigated. She currently is restored in Italy.
MURITAI was delivered to Singapore and sailed extensively in the South China Sea and
Indian Ocean. She encountered pirates on the Malayan coast. Later she was shipped to
San Francisco and sailed regularly to Mexico.
OWL spent the winter of 1997/8 in the Bahamas.
PELAGIC, based in Seattle, cruised to Alaska in 1990, and has plans for Mexico in 1998
RAVEN has cruised to Bermuda and the Caribbean, enduring storms with the
anemometer pegged at 90 knots over 12 hours.
RESTLESS WIND reportedly circumnavigated in her youth.
ROBUST has made three Atlantic passages. She first sailed to the Mediterranean in the
late 1960s and then returned to a chartering career in the Virgin Islands. She returned to
Florida and Chesapeake Bay. Then Lennart Konigson bought her ad sailed her in 1978 to
England and then Sweden in 1978-1979, through the “snow storm of the century.” Since
then, she has sailed the Swedish and Norwegian coasts as well as the Baltic Sea.
RUSALKA has taken several knockdowns in its "Pacific" sailing.
SALA-MA-SOUND has cruised to the South Pacific and Mexico twice (when named
FLYING EAGLE).
SELENE has cruised from San Francisco to Canada and to Mexico and the Caribbean,
1980-81. (Annex 7, 35 pages and Annex 8, 4 pages)
17
SERENDIPITY traveled from Texas to the Bahamas and up to the Chesapeake, and has
cruised to the Bahamas again.
SHIBUI has been home for the Shorthoses for 26 years, and has taken them on thousands
of happy and secure cruising miles in the Pacific Ocean.
SISKIWIT has cruised extensively in the Bahamas.
SUNFLYER III started life in the United Kingdom. She sailed French canals and the
Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean to Dar Es
Salaam, Tanzania. She is now based on the Kenya coast.
TIRANTE has sailed twice to Bermuda.
TRINKA when purchased in the Caribbean had charts for the entire North Atlantic.
TSARITSA has cruised the Pacific Coast from Juneau to Acupulco.
VELERA LINDA cruised the Pacific from Hawaii to Alaska and New Zealand, and is
now in Singapore.
WINDFLOWER has cruised extensively in the Bahamas.
WINDRESS was in San Francisco Bay area, and sailed to Florida.
WINDIGO circumnavigated 1986-89, when owned by Geoffrey Palmer.
MAINTENANCE:
The "name of the game" on these old boats is maintenance. How a boat has been sailed
affects her maintenance cycles. Rene Vidmer, who has sailed BRETT ASHLEY from
Maine to Antigua and back several times, comments, "BRETT is afloat 12 months under
the Caribbean sun, and a North/South passage will impose ten years of wear and tear on
any boat." This said, even a boat sitting quietly at a dock is exposed to the forces of
corrosion, electrolysis, expansion and contraction, and ultra-violent radiation. Whatever
our boats have done and wherever they have been, they have reached the stage in life
where they need or are in their thirty year maintenance.
Sig Baardsen, who is in the midst of sailing MARY T most of the way around the world,
has this understanding for maintenance:
Work together with your surveyor to develop a routine maintenance schedule and an
operation routine. Include checks, inspections, replacements to be performed; on every
engine start-up, daily, weekly monthly, yearly, every 5 years, every 10 years and every
20 years. For example;
18
On very engine start up, check lube oil and coolant levels, check hoses and belts, check
bilge and sump.
Monthly check battery fluid levels and terminals.
Yearly check fire extinguishers, life raft, EPIRB, etc.
3 years re-galvanize anchor chain (in tropics) Bottom paint. Service thruhulls etc.
7 years replace all standing rigging due to fatigue.
10 years. Pull rudder, prop shaft and chainplates for inspection.
11 to 12 years replace sails.
This list is by no means complete but it is a starting point. Normally it takes years to
develop a routine like this but it is well worth while. With this spirit, a boat never wears
out.
I agree in spirit with Sig, but feel that using my boat seasonally, having her out of the
water more than half the year, by maintenance intervals are roughly twice the times
suggested by Sig.
What follows is a long analysis, but I urge special priority be directed to these sections
because they involve areas of critical safety and potential catastrophic failures:
Lifeline Stanchions
Metal Deterioration, especially chainplates, mast step
Mast
Underwater Plumbing
Exhaust System
Decks
Probably the biggest single project in our thirty-year maintenance cycle is deck
restoration. The teak decking was essentially a surface treatment over a very strong and
complete fiberglass cored structure. The underlying fiberglass deck was molded to a fine
finish; indeed, when we bought the boat, the "standard" boat came with the fiberglass
decks and the teak overlay was an optional extra (that most people ordered).
The top fiberglass deck is about 3/8" thick. Then there is a core. Rhodes' specifications
were for 1/2" end grain balsa, but on my boat and I think others, lauan planks were used
for the core, roughly 9/16" x 3 1/2" planked fore and aft. The lauan may be a bit heavier
than the specified balsa, but, at least on my boat, it did not rot and deteriorate when it got
wet. There is plywood under the winch pads. (Some boats may have other materials in
the core. My guess is that there is more variability in the Offshore 40 than in the
19
Reliant.) Below the wood core is another layer of fiberglass, roughly 1/8" thick.
The teak was about 3/8" thick, machine screwed (wood screws on some boats) to the
fiberglass. David Toombs said that some boats bought 1/2" decking at extra cost, and at
least one (SHIBUI) originally had decks ordered extra thick (3/4"), so its decks can be
expected to last longer. Certainly on the standard 3/8" deck, there was not much wood
between the top of the screws and the surface of the deck, and we all learned that teak
decks wear down, faster if cleaned often and vigorously, until the plugs are thin and fall
out. We have gone through the challenge of making thinner and thinner plugs (I have
made shavings 1/32" and epoxied them on) or trying other techniques to cover the
screws.
It may have been the intent that the machine screws would not penetrate through the
fiberglass deck, so that leaks would not reach the wood core; I doubt, however, that
construction was perfectly uniform in this regard. The teak was bedded to the fiberglass
in thiokol (same as the seams), and over time this adhesive seal failed. Ultimately it was
possible for water to penetrate through the teak, either between the seams in the teak
decking or near deck hardware and chainplates. The water could migrate around under
the teak, find its way through some screw holes that hold the teak down, and reach the
wooden core. Water in the core froze in winter, expanding and delaminating the core
structure and affecting the core and creating more waterways. When TAKE FIVE was
about 10 years old, Nick Litchfield was able to cure deck leaks by drilling the teak,
screwing in zerc fittings, and pumping Dolphinite under the deck. Whether this approach
might extend the life of 30 year old decks, I do not know.
It is possible that the wear and tear on the teak decks is affected by climate. Probably if
the boat is left exposed to the elements and if there is frequent rain, the teak will not dry
out and will stay tight. If, however, the boat is hauled out and is wintered in a dry, heated
shed, the teak will dry out somewhat and pull at the seam compound. Probably baking
under a winter cover in the summer heat does similar things. According to this analysis,
the Puget Sound boats will probably need deck restoration last.
Of 49 boats for which I have data, 28 have undergone deck restoration. On 18 boats, teak
was put down again on the fiberglass deck, and 10 finished the original or a new
fiberglass deck (although some have teak on the bridge deck or a few other places). Of
the 21 still with original decks, at least 4 need deck restoration soon.
At least two have re-fastened the decks (CARINA, SERAPHIM) in hopes of making the
old decks last longer. A danger of re-fastening is that if the new screws go deep into the
wooden core, they may accelerate water penetration into the deck core. On FIONA,
HUNTRESS, and PEGASUS, the decks have been re-caulked and fittings rebedded. At
least on FIONA, this seems to be maintaining water-tight integrity.
Gary Stephens reports a re-caulking project on PEGASUS:
I completely recaulked the decks using the new 3M teak caulking; I sure hope the stuff
20
works! It took about two weeks and it was made easier with a Fein detail sander and its
seam cutter and a reconfigured laminate router. I refastened a few planks with epoxy or
screws.
In some of the restorations, the deck was cut open to expose and dry out the core, and
epoxy resin used to re-establish the structural integrity of the sandwich system. On at
least five boats (ALDERAAN, BLUE STOCKING, CALYPSO, HEART STRING,
MAJESTIC), the decks (and in at least one case the cabin top) have been fully re-cored
and new fiberglass decks constructed.
David Epstein offers this summary of how he re-cored CALYPSO:
When replacing my decks I had to completely re-core them. I used end grain balsa, I
started by cutting as close as I could to the rails with a circular saw to a depth through the
teak deck the fiberglass and into the old rotted out mahogany core but not threw the last
layer of fiberglass. I would cut a section about three shape. Next I laid new mat down,
then my balsa. After that I filled the sides, and crevices with a thickened epoxy to fill any
voids I had. By doing this I had no balsa core near any of the new stainless feet at a time
then cut the same section near the cabin sides. My saw allowed me to get about 1 1/2
inches from the edge. Then I cut across the deck to complete my cuts, at this point I was
able to lift out the rotted section but not the bottom layer of thin fiberglass. Next I raked
out the rotted core in the 1 1/2 inch section near the rails and the cabin sides. I left all my
stanchion pads in place and simple cut around them with a grinder in the same fashion as
above, it was much easier and they seemed to be in good bolts that I used to fasten my
stanchions with. This is a method that Guegon Brothers suggest in their books which
doesn't allow water to come into contact with your new core even if you should develop a
leak. I then put on a top layer of mat. I worked about five sections on each side of the
boat at the same time, I was quite concerned that if I did any longer runs I may have
distorted my boat. After those areas set I then went to the areas adjacent to them and
continued on. When this was all completed I laid several layer of mat over the entire
surface up to the existing stanchions bases but not over them. The new deck surface is a
good 3/8 inch below the stanchion bases allowing for water to run off but not as nice as
when the old teak flushed out with the bases. This difference could be made up by
installing new teak or by using a much thicker core material. I then gave the whole deck
a non-skid finish that I rolled on with a stipple roller. You will have to make teak pads
only for your winch bases and mizzen base so the old holes in the cockpit coaming match
up. When you are done it will be much easier to drill all your new holes from inside the
boat as you have a template from the original layer of fiberglass. Good luck as you have a
tough job ahead of you. But if your boat is like Calypso see will reward you greatly for it
and you won't have to get up in the middle of the night with some rain dripping on your
bed.
On ASTARTE, I removed the teak and its thousand machine screws, cut open the deck,
dried the core, re-glassed the deck together, injected epoxy resin to re-establish the
structural integrity of the core structure, and then restored and finished the fiberglass
surface with non-skid paint. After suffering decades of deck leaks and filling thousands
21
of holes in the deck, I couldn't bear to put any new holes in the deck. The photo
collection includes pictures of the new teak decks on WIND SONG and OWL, and
fiberglass decks on ASTARTE and the fiberglass/treadmaster decks on HEART
STRING. I am pleased with our fiberglass deck. I think it looks fine, and the non-skid
paint feels good, although it is difficult to keep clean. The paint does chip a bit when
metal objects fall on it. I am very happy that it does not have any fasteners puncturing
through it to hold a teak deck down.
As for putting on new teak decks, Thatcher Lord describes how he did it:
When I took up my old deck, I did it with a shovel. It was that far gone. As a result in
two days I had the old deck up, the glass deck ground off and the old screw holes drilled
out and filled. So there wasn't any chance of water getting into the core. There was a
soft area in the foredeck which I cut out and reglassed. The core was not rotten, just
delaminated. The core is what appeared to be pine planks laid longitudinally. I've never
seen anything quite like it. Once it was glassed up it became quite stiff again.
The teak deck I laid in thickened epoxy so there are no fastenings. I used a
clamping system of blocks of wood screwed between the seams. I think from start to
finish I was at the job for about three weeks to a month. It was definitely more work than
painting the deck but not as much as you might think. It has been six years now and it
still looks like new.
Sheila Ross got prefabricated teak decks for DOLCE VITA made by Teakdecking
Systems in Sarasota FL (941-756-0600). Alan Brosilow there is very familiar with our
boats; they have provided teak decks for about ten sisterships. Alan tells me that our
boats have about 225 square feet of deck, and that a complete prefabricated deck,
including installation materials costs about $60-$65 per square foot. This puts the price
for the complete deck in the $14,000 range. The deck can be installed by a boat yard or
by do-it-yourselfers. Teakdecking Systems can provide a technician to assist in the
installation for extra cost. Alan recommends that some screws be used to hold the
decking down, in addition to adhesives. Unfortunately, there is enough variation in the
way rails were put down on boats to prevent the use of patterns made for other boats.
Each installation requires its own patterns. Of course, before putting down any teak there
is a lot of work in removing the old teak, removing all the screws, cleaning and fairing
the decks, and dealing with all the structural issues (drying/replacing the wood core and
re-establishing laminate structure). Brosilow estimates that boatyards in the northeast
charge around $125-145 per square foot to do everything, stripping, rebuilding, and
putting down a new deck. This comes out near $30-45,000 for the total job.
Another company that makes a similar prefabricated teak deck is Maritime Wood
Products. They are located in Stewart Florida. I have not gotten prices from them, but if
I were doing decks, I would compare the products, services, and prices of these two
companies. Their website looks promising: http://www.maritimewoodproducts.com
tel: 1-800-274-8325 or 1-561-287-0463, mail@maritimewoodproducts.com
Maritime Wood Products Corp.
3361 S.E. Slater Street
22
Stuart, FL 34997
The prefabricated teak decks are very handsome and probably cost effective. They are
mainly secured with adhesives, but I think they still use some fasteners to pull the deck
structure down onto the fiberglass deck and help hold it there. As far as I am concerned,
minimizing holes in the fiberglass deck is a key objective.
By way of contrast, the spray painting of my deck (labor and materials) was around
$2,300, but I did all the preparation work, including a very elaborate and tedious masking
job. The materials for rebuilding the deck structure involved several gallons of epoxy
resin, fiberglass, tools, abrasives, masking supplies, fastenings, sealants, etc. -- were
probably in the $1-2,000 range. I spent several hundred hours. The decks look fine and
do not have the holes for fasteners to hold the teak down.
Henry Young is thinking about a slightly different approach for SISKIWIT. He is
considering leaving the outer teak strakes on, but removing the others. Then he would
put down on the deck epoxy encapsulated plywood, finished like a traditional canvas
covered deck. This will provide a way of sealing his (new) cabin sides and will leave the
old teak near the rail to look like a teak covering board. I saw a schooner in Martha's
Vineyard that had such a treatment, and it looked very nice. This approach has much
esthetic appeal, but ends up with new holes in the deck to fasten the plywood, old holes
under the outside strakes, and a plywood deck that has some potential of delamination.
We'll see what he does and how it works out.
Here is some correspondence from owners about new teak deck costs and options, from
September 2000:
STAR (ex-ARETHUSA) is currently having new teak decks installed in Annapolis. Teak
decking systems is building them presently, delivery is scheduled for Oct.15+-.They are
making weather and bridge/companion way decks.The sail traps I,ll do. Square footage is
180 +
20 for trim excess. The cost is around $12.5k that includes all the epoxy and caulk but not
shipping. No screws will be used in the installation, but before that can
happen...RECORE! I knew when I bought the boat the aft deck was a goner. It had lost
all of its camber due to the lack of deck beams and puny support of the mizzen. That is
being corrected by a 3/4 okume plywood bulkhead and 3 laminated okume beams, 2
under the mizzen, 1 just aft of the hatch.The companion way was another problem area I
knew about. To recore that properly the starboard coaming was removed. To make the
deck installation easier the port coaming was remover also. Moisture meter readings of
the rest of the deck along with core samples said 80% of the deck was moist or wet, only
one choice...replace it all. I don't believe this is uncommon for 33 year old decks,
especially ones with 10,000 screws in it.
From Kurt, researching redecking of ASSAYDEH:
23
1) The cost of deck replacement, including moderate core repair, is somewhere between
$18,000 - $25,000. I am told by a couple of sources that using the prefabricated deck
doesn't really save money, but it does save time (which can save yard fees), because the
deck is being built at the same time that the surface is being stripped and repaired. Up
until a year or two ago, the prefab deck was made by gluing and screwing 3/8" teak
boards, in a traditional plank pattern, onto 1/4" plywood, in four sections - a bow deck,
aft deck, and two side decks - which were then epoxied or screwed and epoxied down.
The down sides of this were that uneven epoxy filling occurred under the plywood so that
voids were created which could hold water and cause problems over time. As well, at the
four "seams," the planking pattern did not look right as it was made up of short
overlapping boards. This past year, I am led to believe, the prefab deck is made
differently - in that it now comes in two sections, each forty feet long, with silicon seams
already in place, but not including the fore and aft king plank. Instead of being backed by
plywood, it is now backed by fiberglass meshing which allows for each plank to better
adhere to the deck. The King planks are then epoxied down and silicon sealant used for
the remaining seams. Since the king planks form the only seams, the decks look
equivalent to an individually planked deck. The actual costs of individually milling teak
planks and "king" boards (the center boards that tie the deck together in the bow and aft
sections) is around $5,000, according to two local yards here in Annapolis. Ross
Anderson, new owner of Arethusa as of July 2000, tells me that the TDS (Teak Decking
System, Inc.) deck which he is putting down will cost $12,000, not including Installation
and that he expects his replacement deck, which will include an entirely new core, will
run $30,000 (this makes sense as he thinks he will spend $5,000 on core replacement).
One advantage that the prefab deck has is that the kingboards can be selected from a
much larger selection of boards by the prefabricators, so that the grain pattern for those
larger boards is generally nicer than what might be available from a carpenter who has
less teak to choose from. The advantage of individually laying the planks is that one can
be certain that each plank is fully epoxied to the deck so that no defects exist which can
later fill with water and cause the plank to separate. The planks, which are all quarter
sawn teak, are spaced 3/16" apart and glued down with a slow cure epoxy (not 5200),
usually at a rate of one course a day, from the toe rail in. Sandable silicon sealant is then
used (instead of thiokol, which will rot over time) for the deck seams, with the seams
going all the way to the deck (no rabbit joint). I am told that the Bridge deck on the
Reliant was layed as a part of the weather decks and the cockpit combings were then
installed over it, making it necessary to either remove the combings or chisel out the deck
laminate under the combing where the bridge deck joins the weather deck..
Ross tells me that he and a friend spent two full days removing the hardware and that the
old deck then came up easily with a crowbar. He then pulled out the remaining machine
screws with a pair of pliers. Since the deck skin is gelcoated, and the gelcoat would need
to be removed anyway in order for a good bond to exist between the planking and the
deckskin, I am thinking that I might rip off the old teak and cut all around the edges and
just remove and replace the core and the deckskin rather than trying to dry the core or
save the deckskin. That would make removal of the machine screws unnecessary.
One issue which I have received different advice about is the thickness of the planking.
24
Marty Muench of Osmotech, here in Annapolis, tells me that he has gone to using 3/4"
thick planks which end up at about 9/16" when seamed and sanded, because the extra
1/16" does not add that much weight on our boats (about 200 sq. ft. of teak), and it adds
3-4 years of life to the deck (He has done 10-11 deck replacements on Swans and other
boats over the last 15 years.). Edmund Cutts of the Cutts & Case boatyard in Oxford,
Md., tells me that the Gougeon Brothers manual recommends no more than 1/2"
thickness of teak laminate in order to ensure that the epoxy bond is stronger than the
wood. In his experience, using thicker wood causes problems because the wood takes on
a life of its own over time and it can overpower the bond and cause defects to develop.
I am now in the process of getting firm quotes for replacement and will let you know if I
find out anything different than this "ballpark analysis". Kurt
I don't want to say more about this matter, as most of us know far more about decks than
we ever wanted to learn. For those who have not yet experienced this baptism by
fiberglass dust and epoxy resin or check writing into a new and higher order of boat
maintenance, I will just say it is a unique project. It takes confidence and boldness to tear
off the teak you have worked years to protect and to put a power saw to your deck that
you want to strengthen. It finally gives some legitimacy to the old phrase "destroy to
save." It is a project that goes on for months and months, requiring hundreds of hours of
very careful labor. Astronomical boatyard bills for unimaginable labor time do have
some basis in reality. If you are considering doing this project yourself, it is absolutely
essential to have the boat under a waterproof roof before you start. Frank Hamilton wrote
an excellent description of his deck project on HEART STRING in OCEAN
NAVIGATOR (Annex 5).
Incidentally, it is not uncommon for boats from other high quality builders to need deck
restoration far earlier than our boats do. Even your house needs a new roof every 20-30
years.
For broader perspective I have put in a short article from Latitude 38 as Annex 11. Its
details are not precisely accurate with respect to our boats, but its overall perspective that
a teak deck is a maintenance item is certainly applicable.
One of the minor side benefits of redoing the decks is that you remove and re-bed deck
hardware, and this is a good time to change deck hardware and discover and replace
corroded fastenings.
To extend the life of teak decks and delay the replacement task, Gary Stephens
recommends using Thompsons wood sealer. He writes:
Two coats of Thompson water seal and my decks look like new; its raining right now and
the water just beads up and runs off. I used Thompson's on my other Rhodes Traveller
32 for eight years and it worked fine.
25
Thompson water seal had no effects on the DETCO thiokol. I used on my other boat for
eight years before I sold it. We took that boat down across the equator and back. I
noticed that the other teak decked boats out there had more drying and checking problems
than we did using Thompsons. Thompsons is just emulsified wax in some type of
petroleum carrier that evaporates. I put two coats on to start, then one coat each spring
and fall. The teak eventually fades to gray, it takes a little longer than if you didn't use it.
Be sure to use the original type of Thompsons; the one made for California has a bad
reaction to the black tar sealer Cheoy Lee used under the teak. It causes it to sort of get
runny or melts it, and it oozes up in the hot sun making for a nice black butt! I'm
beginning to believe that wood of any type needs some sort of protection from sun and
maybe rain too, for it to last.
Sig Baardsen has a bold idea for protecting teak decks in the tropics:
In the tropics the teak decks become too hot to walk on barefoot. We simply paint out
the teak with cheap, white, latex house paint. Cheaper is better as it doesn't last too long.
It looks like hell but the decks are cool enough to walk on. The heat loading on
everybody and everything is reduced. The cabin temperature is reduced 10 deg. F. The
paint fills the pores, protects the wood and makes for easy cleaning. It also makes it
easier to see and work on deck at night. After about half a year the paint is mostly
washed off and looking pretty blotchy so it is time to re-coat or just scrub it off with
water and a 3-M pad.
On two sisterships (LA EMBRA and WINDIGO), there was concern about whether the
fore deck was structurally strong enough. (WINDIGO is one of our circumnavigators.)
Structural reinforcements were placed under the deck. On LA EMBRA, at the front of
the cabin trunk, large knees were fiberglassed at the hull-deck corner, and a
supplementary frame was placed under the deck. In addition, another supplementary
frame was installed halfway between that location and the forward bulkhead. It is true
that the deck is unsupported for about six feet over the bunks, and there is a bit of
flexibility if you jump on the deck. While reinforcements can't hurt, I have confidence
that Rhodes knew what was needed to design a secure deck.
Cabin Sides, Toe Rail, Coaming, Windows
Cabin Sides
The teak cabin sides deteriorate and in some cases have been replaced. There is some
logic considering these issues at the time of deck restoration, regardless which deck
strategy is chosen. The cabin sides are held in by the innermost deck board, and it pretty
much is necessary to remove that board to remove the cabin facing boards. Several of the
boats (e.g. WINDSONG, TRINKA) that redid the decks with new teak also replaced the
teak sides of the cabin top at the same time. On SISKIWIT, the teak sides have been
replaced but the deck were not done at that time.
26
The problems with the teak cabin sides are that they thin with years and crack because of
expansion and contraction. More important but less visible, the bond behind them fails.
They were bonded to the cabin sides with fiberglass mat and polyester resin. Over the
years, as wood expands and contracts and moisture penetrates, that area, the bond fails.
When moisture gets behind the wood, maintaining varnished surfaces is very difficult.
The varnish peels off when moisture comes through the teak. Equally important, when
that bond/seal fails, water can get behind the board and penetrate into windows and
companionway moldings. These leaks are hard to stop because they need more than
simply rebedding the windows or mouldings.
Thatcher Lord describes his project in replacing these facing boards:
I can add some input in the discussion on cabin sides. I have replaced all of the teak
overlay, both inside and out on TRINKA. This was a most miserable task. I could write
a volume on this so I will try to keep it short. The prep work was the worst. Removing
the old sides and grinding the glass was a mess. TRINKA came with only two opening
ports. I found a set of opening ports at a used equipment store. They were smaller than
the original ports, which meant that I had to glass in the port holes a bit to accommodate
the new ports.
The ports I used do not require an outside trim piece. This has made maintenance of the
varnish easier and improved the look. I also eliminated the port in the foreward part of
the cabin house, because I didn't have enough ports. At this point I am happy with this,
it's in a vulnerable spot. So far I don't miss it. I also used a laminated glass for the large
aft window. It is starting to show a little delaminating now at the corners, it's been 6
years.
I had some 12 inch boards that I re-sawed on a re-saw band saw and planned to about 3/8
inch for the outside and 1/4 inch for the inside. I edge glued these to make up the full
size pieces I needed. When removing the old overlays I noticed that they were "attached"
by gluing with
polyester resin and a layer of mat. This I did the same way only using epoxy. I used a
system of clamps around the ports and sticks and wedges in between. I also used this
opportunity to eliminate the trim around the ports.
The mat makes the installation much easier for it allows for much less clamping pressure,
an excellent bond, and fills any voids you might encounter otherwise. In fact with such
thin boards there is a danger of over-clamping and actually pulling them out of fair. And
with the wonders of epoxy, clamping pressure isn't an issue. I think the flexible epoxy
would work great with this method. I chose this method because when taking off the old
sides, they were attached the same way only using polyester resin. And they lasted for 25
years; so epoxy can only better that I think.
The inside teak was a big project as well. All the trim pieces had to come down and the
27
old stuff pealed, chipped and ground off. You can imagine the mess.
My philosophy is that if you are going to own a classic boat, the wood is part of it. Sure
it's expensive and time consuming to maintain but that's what we have all bought into,
right? It comes home when you row away from your boat and note, once again, that she
is the prettiest boat in the harbor.
As Thatcher points out, if you are replacing the wood sides, this is also a good time to
think about portlights. In a later section of this Handbook is a discussion of opening
ports, which some owners have chosen to add.
I am starting to experiment with re-attaching the sides. My experiment is with the short
portion along side the passage way to the companionway. Since I removed the teak
decks some years ago, I don't have to take off any deck planks. It is necessary to remove
the window moldings. I found that the machine screws securing the board to the cabin
side came out easily. The bond holding the facing boards had failed, and the board came
off with little trouble. I plan to sanded the boards and treated them with Smith Clear
Epoxy Penetrating Sealer. I reinstalled them with a special flexible epoxy distributed by
Teakdecking Systems, designed specifically to attach teak to fiberglass.
Park Shorthose (SHIBUI) and Nick Maddalena (KEA LII) found that the panel joints
failed and routed them out to either side and inserted new teak strips. Park used 3M 5200
as an adhesive. This repair works well. Phil Norgaard has put teak faced plywood on
one side of the cabin top of JOHN TROUT. He'll let us know how well it holds up. On
ROBUST, Lennart Konigson replaced the teak sides with a teak faced plywood of
substantial thickness, both inside and outside, not only for cosmetic reasons but also to
strengthen the cabin sides in case of a possible knockdown. Writers reviewing
experiences of many boats at sea have found that when boats are thrown over by waves,
cabin sides have been weak places and have sometimes fractured. While of this
experience was for wooden boats, and while there has been no incident reported of any
such damage in our sisterships, Lennart wanted to strengthen this area. So far, the
plywood sides have held up for five years.
A few boats have painted the teak cabin sides or taken off the teak and left the cabin sides
in fiberglass. On SERENDIPITY, Al Roosov simply faired and sealed the teak sides and
painted them white. The photo section includes "before" and "after" photos of
SERENDIPITY. While the varnished cabin sides are beautiful, the boat still has its
lovely shape with white cabin sides.
PEGASUS has had similar treatment. Gary Stephens commented, "Painting was an
answer to the de-laminating and decaying teak on the cabin sides. Three years and no
problem, and no varnish. This boat has plenty without that."
Rails, Coamings
28
As these boats age, the toe rail becomes an issue for two reasons. First, I wonder about
the strength of the bolts that fasten the toe rails to the hull. I am not sure what material
was used for fastening; if it was either stainless steel or brass, there could be
deterioration. Certainly in at least some boats they bolts are stainless steel. I have seen
rust stains on the top of the topsides on one boat, clearly indicating penetration of water
and deterioration of the stainless steel bolts. In this location, crevice corrosion is to be
expected. Secondly, the bedding compound has become brittle and loose, and water can
penetrate through the bolt holes. I suspect this is one of the sources of bulkhead
problems.
In addition the hull-deck joint is under the toe rail. Rhodes’s specifications were that the
two moldings were to be bonded together on the inside with fiberglass and epoxy resin,
without mechanical fasteners. On the Reliant, the bonding is made with several layers of
fiberglass cloth, overlapping about 4 inches on the hull and deck molding. On the
Offshore 40, the connection is made with fiberglass mat, overlapping about 2 inches on
each side. In appears less robust. It seems that bulkheads were installed before the deck
was dropped in place, so there most likely is a gap in this bonding directly above the
bulkheads. Thus, if the seal of the toe rail fails, water can rather easily penetrate to the
top of a bulkhead. Saturation and delamination of bulkheads can result. It is not clear to
me at the moment whether chainplate bolsters were similarly installed before the deck
was attached, in which case they would similarly be vulnerable to water penetration.
Sig Baardsen suspected the joint leaked on MARY T, after sailing across the Pacific
Ocean rail down for two or three weeks.
Sig reports:
When we removed Mary T's toerails we found it was held in place with with hand made
l/4 inch SS carridge bolts on 4 inch centers. 50% were cracked or broken. All were
corroded. We also had brown stains on the topsides. Not from the rusting bolts but
rather "teak juice". Also fuel spills over the years had dissolved small quantities of the
seam/bedding compound and that also was contributing brown stains at the top of the
hull. Phosphoric acid did fine to remove the stains but they returned.
He sent another more detailed report:
After 30 years ALL metal fastenings are suspect, at best. When removing toerail, to
reglass the broken hull to deck joint, we found the fastenings in poor condition. The 4"x
#14 F.H. wood screws that held Genoa track in place were wasted to the diameter of a
matchstick. 90% broke off on removal, until I started heating them with a soldering iron.
The trick is to heat the fasting until the wood begins to char a little and releases the
screw. The 2 1/2" x #14 F.H. Bronze woodscrews holding the railcap on were also dezinkefied and wasted. The toe rail itself was held down with handmade Stainless carriage
bolts. At least 50% of them were cracked, wasted or broken.
When you remove the bolts, remember that this is all hand-made so there are no standard
29
or symmetrical dimensions. You will have to measure, mark and record the dimensions
of each bolt so that you can make the replacement bolts to the correct length. Because we
disturbed the hull-to-deck joint all the dimensions changed so we had to make a simple
depth gauge to determine the correct length for each new bolt.
Even with the nuts removed it was difficult to remove the rail, using many thin oak
wedges. It was impossible to remove all the nuts because some were hidden under
bulkheads and structure, so I just broke them. Even with the nuts off many of the bolts
broke off. It will need full support as you remove it, as the old teak is dry, brittle and
easily broken. It would cost several thousand dollars to replace the material and what you
can buy today is inferior to the original, so be very careful.
It can be a big job. You must be prepared for the possibility that the leaks appearing
under the toerail, might be from the hull to deck joint itself. I removed nearly 900
fastenings. All of them had to be heated and still many broke off.
For heating the fastenings it is useful to file the point of soldering iron and use solder for
better conduction. Also it is easier to use two or three soldering irons simultaneously to
save time. I make wooden stand/holders for the soldering irons. They looked rather like a
drill press, in shape.
I know of at least three boats that have rebedded or replaced the bulwark and rail cap
(FOLKSONG, ROBUST, MARY T) and another that is thinking about it (TRINKA).
Dave Cherubini has successfully recaulked the bulwark on DESTINY without removing
it. He cleaned and opened the seam under it, perhaps using a hack saw blade where
needed, taped it off, and worked in 5200. I have similarly started to pull out old sealant
and put in 5200. I made a special routing tool from a thick putty knife. I found my
forward bunks stopped getting wet when we were heeled over (the windward bunk was
getting wet), so I think this patch may work.
In addition, on MARY T, Sig put additional fiberglass over the hull-deck joint. He took
it from the deck, down to the top of the cove stripe.
We used the opportunity to remove the outer three strakes of the teak deck. That allowed
us to refasten the stanchions, cleats and fittings directly onto the fiberglass for a stronger
and leak-free mounting. Also it provided waterways for better drainage and easier
cleaning. I also used to
opportunity to remove the deck drains and eliminate two through-hulls.
I think that one or two boats (at least) (FIONA, TIRANTE) has replaced the coamings.
On FIONA, one of the deck leaks was at the coaming through bolt in the aft hanging
locker.
Thatcher Lord mentioned a key issue in tackling the toe rail: getting proper material. He
30
notes:
I haven't yet taken off my toerails. That will be next year's project. Before I left the
Virgin Islands I ordered a large quantity of plantation grown teak from Trinidad. A good
friend went down there and hand picked the lumber and though I haven't seen the wood
yet he says the quality is excellent. The key here is the hand picking. The quality does
approach the level of Far Eastern timber in maybe 20 percent of the stock. He saw
timbers 4" x 16" x 24 feet long! The price varies from $4.50 to $7.00 a board foot in
Trinidad.
Windows
While talking about cabin sides, we can discuss windows. They are source of leaks and
need rebedding periodically (10 - 15 year?). The windows were originally 1/4" laminate
(auto) glass, and this is considered to be the proper material. I recently did some
windows, and I replaced the glass. In one of them, the internal plastic was deteriorating
at the edges. I also replaced the large, aft cabin widow because it was not laminate, and I
thought laminate would be safer.
To rebed the windows, the exterior frames musts be removed. Heating the machine
screws with a soldering gun seems to help loosen them. The inner moldings perhaps do
not have to be removed, unless there is damage to the interior plywood facing. I will
follow the advice from Hinckley and use 3M 101 sealer for the moldings and glass.
The seal of the inner molding is critical too. On the inner moldings/window frames, I cut
out a 1/8+" notch from the corner where it seals against both fiberglass cabin side and the
window glass, so there will be a thick bead of sealant there. It will be a little like a teak
deck, where there is a notch in the wood for the caulking. A thicker bead of sealant will
have more flexibility and will be less likely to break. For one window, I have removed
the inner moldings (to repair interior plywood facing), so cutting the notch was simple.
On another widow, I cut the notch "in situ" without removing the frame. I used a dremel
tool with a small routing bit.
As suggested above, window leaking must be considered within the broader issue of
water getting between the fiberglass cabin sides and the teak covering boards. If water
gets behind these boards, it will likely come in by the windows. Thus, part of the strategy
to stop window leaks must deal with preventing water getting behind the covering
boards. The tops should be sealed carefully at the seam between the nose molding and
the top of the covering board. Short of replacing the boards, it may be possible to drill
holes in the covering board and inject epoxy resin or 5200 to re-establish a bond/seal with
the fiberglass. Of course the holes can be plugged afterward.
(Several owners have replaced the original windows with opening ports. This is
discussed later in the section on upgrades.)
31
Companionways
For the main companionway molding, it is now clear that the water penetration came
inside the cover board at the very front end, where it extends about 2" under the
companionway molding. I cut off the covering board so it extends only about 1/4" under
the molding, and epoxied wood onto the molding, so that the molding can be sealed
directly to the fiberglass of the cabin top. I faired the fiberglass area so that a good seal
can be made.
The miter joints at the bottom of the companionway moldings are susceptible to leaking.
With my dremel router, I cut some small slots in them opposite each other in the joint,
so that bedding compound (101) can make a gasket going between the pieces of wood.
On the aft companionway, the molding on the high, inside (starboard on a Reliant, port
on an Offshore 40) is particularly vulnerable to leaking at the back end, where the cabin
top curves down. I plan to build up the cabin top in that area with epoxy resin/filler to
present a better surface for sealing the molding.
Sig Baardnsen adopted this approach:
I have also have been plagued with leaks under the hatch coamings. Re-bedding is
hopeless. This fall I made an epoxy/microballon fillet (1" radius) around the hatch
coaming bases and covered it with a single layer of glass with epoxy resin.
That ended the problem permanently and reduced the area of varnish by 1/12 square feet
in the bargain. The job takes fewer man-hours than re-bedding, 8-10 hours but the epoxy
curing time will make it a full weekend or a two-weekend job depending on curing times
and quality of finish required.
Here is a trick of the trade, learned in Turkey. When making a fillet, I use a fresh-cut
potato as a forming tool. The resin doesn't stick to it. You can carve it to any shape or
angle. It is disposable. I like anything that is simple, cheap and effective
Teakdecking Systems, referred to above (941-756-0600), can supply custom made-panels
for the cabin sides, rail caps, etc.
Cockpit
When restoring the deck, the cockpit gets attention. There are a few options to consider.
Are the aft cockpit drain holes really useful? Some owners have felt they are not, and
have filled the holes in the cockpit floor and eliminated this piece of plumbing. I seem to
recall at some point in time we had many people in the cockpit and were under power,
and water was accumulated at the back of the cockpit and not able to drain. So I think
they are useful and I have retained them.
32
On my boat the drainage off the cockpit seats is not good, and if the boat sits quietly,
puddles will form near the front of the seats on the outboard sides near the coamings.
Next time I refinish the cockpit, I am going to put some foam or fill on the cockpit seats
so that the outboard sides and forward ends are higher, to ensure they drain well into the
cockpit or into the sail trap gutter.
This is also the time to double check the size of the cockpit drain hoses and through hull
fittings. I think the original ones were too small. We enlarged to 1 1/2" for through
hulls, valves, and hoses, and as far as I am concerned, this is probably a minimum.
(Note: Rules for the Marion to Bermuda race specify at least two 1" drains, and notes
that bilge pumps should not be plumbed into the drain hoses.) In all my reading about
cockpits being filled with water (on other boats, not our sisterships), I have read only
about how slowly they drain, not how quickly.
Similarly, it is a good idea to replace and enlarge the scupper drains under the cockpit
seat. I epoxied in some marelon hose adapters in the cockpit seats and cocpit sides, and
put in a somewhat larger hose. I wonder if I could have put in something even larger.
Cockpit grating is a wear item. Over the years, the teak slats are thinned by the wear and
tear of walking and weathering. They get so thin that they break frequently. On
ASTARTE, I had a carpenter take out the fore-and-aft slats, rout out the locations where
they fit in, and make new slats that are thicker and will last the next 30 years. On
SEACALL, something similar was done.
Frank Hamilton removed the grates on HEART STRING and replaced them with
plywood inserts faced with Treadmaster. He reports, "They don't look as yachty but they
are very practical." My own view is that the grates are very practical also. They trap a
lot of dirt from shoes in the cockpit before it gets elsewhere.
Teakdecking Systems, referred to above (941-756-0600), can make cockpit gratings
(around $65-$100 / square foot) and new cabin floors in teak and holly (around $50 /
square foot).
Sheila Ross had new grates made for DOLCE VITA by Ken Clift, Teak Flex Products,
113 Liberty St., Pawcatuck CT 06379. (860-599-8005) Because of variations in steering
pedestal and railings, Ken does not keep old templates, and needs new ones for each job
(or the old grates that will be replaced). He charges about $50 per square foot. Similarly,
Ken can make cabin floors and pretty much anything else out of teak (bookshelfs?
drawers?). My main companionway washboard was damaged by burglars last summer,
and Ken did a nice job in making a new one for me ($90).
Lifeline Stanchions
A major discovery I made in conjunction with restoring my decks was that many of the
33
"bolts" holding down the lifeline stanchion bases were in fact machine screws simply
tapped into the bolsters, not going through the deck with a nut and backing plate below.
In fact, when one had been stressed inward, it pulled and broke the fiberglass part of the
bolster UNDER the teak. (This finally explained why there had been a leak over my
mother's bunk for about 25 years that we never could solve. She never believed our
analysis that the problem was caused by unavoidable "condensation.")
The solution, of course, was to drill through the bolsters systematically and put in longer
machine screws with backing plates and nuts. To simplify fitting the backing plates, I got
a sheet metal shop to make pieces of 1/8" stainless steel about 1" x 5" (or whatever it
was) and punch in two holes with the correct spacing--two straps per stanchion base.
Maybe Cheoy Lee did better on your boat than they did on ours, or maybe someone fixed
this defect already. It is worth checking it out carefully. Lennart Konigson discovered
ROBUST’s stanchion base bolts were brass, certainly not strong enough. You may have
to lift or cut out some of the trim to access where nuts and backing plates should be.
Many of the stanchions were bent; a machine shop used a hydraulic press to straighten
them. A few had cracks in welds and had to be re-welded.
On RUSALKA, Patricia Zajac's lifeline stanchion bases have fractured, and she has been
replacing them.
On the Offshore 40s, it might make sense to construct fiberglass bolsters directly on the
fiberglass deck to support the stanchion bases. Here is Sig Baardsen's thinking on this:
Wooden lifeline stanchion bolster are nearly impossible to seal. It is difficult to seal a
rigid metal fitting to a constantly flexing wooden base. Swelling and contraction of the
wood, moves the screws and breaks the seal. Mine were replaced long ago with epoxy I
removed the outboard 3 teak planks from the deck to get a clear waterway and to have a
solid surface upon which to seal stanchions, cleats, chainplates etc. The same applies to
the cockpit coaming, winch bases, vents and anchor windlass. The fittings should be
removed, the teak cut away and the fitting bedded upon bare glass with and epoxy-bog
pad. See; Gudgeon Brothers book.
Metal Deterioration
Normally we think of metals as strong, reliable, and permanent. Over a few years, they
are. But over a few decades, metals on our (and all) boats suffer different forms of
deterioration, with very important consequence for the structural integrity of the rig and
the water-tight integrity of the hull. While, as will be clear, there is some debate about
how best to build or rebuild boat parts to minimize future metal deterioration, there is
agreement that careful examination of metal parts is needed at this stage in our boats' life
cycles.
34
An excellent reference on this topic is an article by Steve D'Antonio in Cruising World,
June 1998, p. 73-78 about stainless steel deterioration, complete with very helpful photos.
In addition, Dave Gerr has an article about boat metals in first issue of Good Old Boat,
summer 1998. I am also most thankful for insights from Fred Frederolf (Rambal Test
Labs), Greg (Areo Welding), John Paradis (owner of a sistership), and others who have
shared their insights.
There seem to be roughly five different forms of metal deterioration that affect us: rust,
crevice corrosion, stainless weld decay, fatigue, and electrolysis. I will give an overview
of these problems, and then go into each problem area in more detail:
Rust/corrosion
Our boats do not have much ordinary steel which rusts, but rust is a problem on the mast
support poles. Of course it is in the engine area also. We expect rust, we understand it,
and we all pretty much know we have to replace parts that are badly rusted. I won't try to
add to our general understanding.
Crevice corrosion
Crevice corrosion is a common form of failure for stainless steel, of which we have a lot
on our boats. The underlying problem is that the word "stainless" was developed by the
marketing department, not the maintenance department. Stainless steel can pit and
corrode when it is wet but tightly covered, because it can not get oxygen to make a
protective coat of chrome oxide. Wherever stainless steel is encapsulated in damp wood
or fiberglass, it starts a slow process of deterioration. These conditions might exist for
bolts going through the deck to hold deck hardware, chainplates passing through a deck,
chainplate bolts going through thick knees, the insides of a swaged rigging terminal
fittings. If stainless steel is under water, it can obtain oxygen from flowing water, but
will run out of oxygen if trapped in stagnant water. Propeller and rudder shafts are
vulnerable to this problem.
The inherent resistance to corrosion of stainless steel is related to its precise alloy (the
amount of chromium nickel and other elements) as well as the way the materials are
mixed and cooled. Stainless steel can be "passivated" by dipping in nitric acid to
improve its resistance to corrosion. There may now be exotic alloys developed in recent
decades in response to the need of the nuclear power industry, that are more corrosion
resistant. However, the normal, high quality marine alloys (303, 304) of 30 years ago,
and even a more recent alloy, 316, all are vulnerable in varying degrees to crevice
corrosion.
Stainless steel 316 has a reputation for high resistance to corrosion, but an engineer at
Hinkley with whom I spoke told me that type 316 is resistant only when it is polished and
in the air all the time. If it is embedded in wood, type 316 is highly corrosive. In this
situation, type 304 is superior. (The view that 304 is more corrosion resistant in an
embedded environment is controversial. I am used to getting contradictory insights from
35
very knowledgeable people in the industry and I will keep trying to get more
information.) Also, type 304 is less brittle and preferred where there are shock loads, as
chainplates. I am told that type 347 and 348 are more resistant to corrosion.
When our boats were built, Cheoy Lee had a foundry and made its own alloys.
According to Jonathan Cannon, the stainless steel alloy they mixed is close to type 304.
Presumably, there would be some variability from batch to batch, but the alloy they were
making is highly regarded. I don't know about the actual mixing and cooling of the metal
during the manufacturing process.
Laboratory tests confirm Johnathan’s claim. I had a mizzen chainplate analyzed
chemically in March 1999 by Ramball Test Lab, and it came out this way, essentially 304
L (for low carbon). Cheoy Lee made an excellent alloy.
carbon
manganese
phosphorus
sulfur
silicon
chromium
nickel
molybdenum
copper
0.030%
1.41%
0.031%
0.021%
0.60%
18.50%
8.68%
0.35%
0.26%
Polishing stainless steel cleans and seals its surfaces, and improves its resistance to
corrosion. When polishing, regular steel tools (files and wire brushes) should be avoided,
as they will force flakes of steel into the surface, where they will rust. Emery cloth
wheels, abrasive disks, and stainless steel wire brushes should be used for polishing
stainless steel.
If you don't want to deal with the inherent corrosion issues of stainless steel, monel (67%
nickel, 30% copper alloy) is about as strong as stainless steel but far more corrosion
resistant. It is hard to get and expensive. (For a small piece of monel to make 6
chainplates, I was quoted $600.) Monel bolts might be ten times as expensive as stainless
steel, but going from $.15 to $1.50 for four bolts is no problem. For some critical highcorrosion locations, monel is worth trying to get. Hinckley recommends monel bolts to
secure seacocks. I used monel for chainplate studs. Fortunately, monel is adjacent to
stainless steel on a galvanic chart, so it can be used in proximity to stainless steel without
electrolysis. Aquamet-22 (a special stainless steel alloy with molybdenum) is good for
underwater applications (propeller and rudder shafts or keel bolts).
Metal fatigue
Metal fatigue includes both stress fatigue and corrosion fatigue. Stress fatigue results
from repeated pulling and pushing of metal. Bending metal involves both pulling and
36
pushing different sides of the metal. Eventually tiny cracks develop on the surfaces,
reflecting this fatigue. Corrosion in these cracks expands these cracks resulting in
deterioration. Our stainless steel mast steps and stem fitting are victims of these forms of
deterioration. Stainless steel wire ultimately can suffer from the fatigue of constant pulls.
Weld Decay
Welding stainless steel creates problems. Steve D'Antonio's article in Cruising World
explains:
Stainless steel is also subject to failure when it is welded. "Weld migration," also known
as "weld decay" or "carbide precipitation," occurs when heat drives certain elements out
of the alloy adjacent to the weld bead. If stainless steel (whether 304 or 316) is to be
welded, it must include the suffix L after its designating number. This denotes low
carbon content. Welding stainless without the L suffix creates a 1/16 t 1/8 strip of mild
steel along either side of the weld. This is undoubtedly a critical area, as the weld is only
as strong as the metal surrounding it. Worse yet is the insidious nature of this type of
corrosion. Except for some brown staining, it can go undetected until it fails, perhaps
catastrophically. So beware: Never weld, or have welded, a stainless stock of unknown
alloy.
Another piece I read explains that welding causes redistribution of carbon in the molten
metal. The carbon mixes with chromium to form chromium carbide, and this remains
adjacent to chromium depleted stainless steel. These components are different enough to
suffer internal electrolysis (sort of like brass).
It should be pointed out that the problem of carbide precipitation in a weld is not
exclusively related to how much carbon there is in the alloy. It is also related to the
technique of the welder, who can control the temperature of the material near the weld
and how long the weld is kept above some threshold temperature. Also the use of inert
gasses in TIG welding is critical in reducing the problems of weld migration. A skilled,
patient welder willing to work slowly to allow cooling can minimize the problems of
weld migration.
I have been impressed by how many stainless steel welds I have seen on my boat that
have cracked. They show up in the mast step, stanchions (apparently made of pieces
welded together), pulpit and pushpit, chain plates (if they have been made of welded
pieces). Welds should be inspected with a critical eye. It is due to these problems that
stainless steel is not approved by the American Boat and Yacht Council for fuel tanks.
In addition to types 304L and 316L, types 321 and 347 are said to be good for welding.
(The low carbon stainless steels are slightly less strong at first, but in the long run their
welds may be stronger than regular 304 or 316.) Type 321 has been successfully used for
tanks when welded very carefully with proper rods, flux, etc., but still it is not officially
approved. I think these are new alloys, and Cheoy Lee can hardly be blamed for not
using them 30 years ago.
37
As for old pieces that have suffered from this form of weld decay, it is best to make new
fabrications from new low carbon stainless steel, rather than to try to reweld old pieces.
Among boaters, there seems a perception that metals from Asia were often made poorly.
While there certainly is variability among manufacturers and from batch to batch of the
same manufacturer, on my boat there is no indication that the metal itself was made
badly. I have seen failures in stainless steel in both original Cheoy Lee parts but also in
stainless steel we have bought here. I belive the problems stem from the inherent tragic
character flaws of stainless steel in a marine environment for several decades, rather than
from how it was manufactured in Asia. It sounds like a Greek tragedy (or perhaps like
the story of all of our lives): King Stainless in his youth is so strong and shiny. By the
end of the play, his crevices are corroding, his strength is fatiguing, and his welds are
decaying. He breaks when challenged by a stress he managed effortlessly in his youth).
Testing Stainless Steel
Stainless steel deteriorates from the surface towards the center. If the surface is good, the
metal is OK. The surface can be checked with dye penetrants. It turns out there are
different types of dyes. The red dye we can get easily is least penetrating. Professional
metal testing shops have dyes that can test more thoroughly. XRay is also used but not
magnaflux, because stainless steel is not magnetic. XRay will reveal internal voids in the
metal. I used Ramball Test Lab, 1-800-768-3200 to check my chainplates. (cost was
$150 for the six shroud chainplates. They can passivate the plates for another $50. This
involves a nitric acid bath that reduces chances of corrosion.
The surface cleaning and preparation for dye testing is very important. I have some
specific discussion about this later in the section about chainplates.
There is another benefit in seeking out a test laboratory. Their personnel can be expected
to have especially strong background in metallurgy and will have a very good
understanding of the regional metal working industry. They can be very helpful in
negotiating issues of metallurgy, metal analysis, frepair and fabrication.
Electrolysis
Electrolysis occurs where dissimilar metals are in proximity to each other in the presence
of an electrolyte, such as salt water. Stray electrical fields can strongly aggravate the
deterioration. In brass, the dissimilar metals (copper and zinc) are mixed into the alloy,
so brass destroys itself. On our boats, brass was used for some screws and did
deteriorate, but was not used originally in underwater fittings or plumbing. Bronze
resists corrosion and electrolysis very well, but not perfectly. There seem to be slight
dissimilarities in the alloys used for through hull fittings and seacocks, creating the
possibility of electrolysis in the seacocks after decades in sea water.
Now that we know what to anticipate, we will not be surprised when we look at the actual
38
problems we face.
Standing and Running Rigging
They key problem in standing rigging has been the swaged terminal fittings. CAPELLA
(RR) lost her mast in 1982 when a swaged fitting broke. (Needless to say, it was the only
one Bill Heron hadn't yet replaced with Norseman fittings.) TSARITSA almost lost her
mast when back stay terminals failed.
The problem with swaged fittings is particularly acute on the lower fittings. Water drips
down the cable and sometimes gets into the fitting. If it does, the corrosion sets in, and
this seriously compromises the strength of the fitting.
John Paradis emphasizes that the swaged terminal fittings need careful inspection. They
MUST be replaced if there is any hint of cracking. The mechanical terminals, Norseman
or STA-LOK, are generally considered more reliable than swaged terminals. They can
be assembled with sealant that keeps water out
According to Tom Bigsby (ELUTHRA), both Norseman and STA-LOK were designed
by the same person and both have been certified by Lloyds. Norseman is forged and
STA-LOK is machined from bar stock. Both are highly regarded (by Chesapeake
Rigging as well as Tom) and equally secure. Norseman markets to professional riggers,
while STA-LOK markets through places like WEST to the retail market. In both cases,
failures are rare, and seem to have occurred when they cracked because of overtightening. Tom points out that there are subtle changes in the insides of these fittings,
necessitating use of new style cones or wedges. Old parts are not necessarily
interchangeable.
Over the years, we have seen many main shroud terminals cracked and have replaced
them (generally in time) with STA-LOK fittings. I recently examined mizzen terminals
carefully and found that several were cracked. I replaced rigging. Similarly Richard
Kask on CARINA has replaced some wires and fittings when they show signs of
deterioration. On MARY T, heavier rigging was installed as well as a new masthead
fitting.
In recent years, there has been shift from using type 302/4 stainless cable to type 316,
which is more corrosion resistant when exposed to air. However, this shift involves a
loss of strength of the cable. Gary Stephens (PEGASUS) has replaced standing rigging
with dyform cable, which is stronger than the 1x19 cable, and Norseman terminals. (I did
the same.) SISKIWIT also is using dyform cable for the main uppers.
Just to underscore these issues, I got information about the strength of different wires, in
pounds:
5/16 type 302/4 (original)
12,500
39
5/16 type 316
5/16 dyform
3/8" type 316
10,200
13,530
14,476
When getting new rigging, one option will be to have terminal fittings that are parts of
the turnbuckles rather than marine eyes, that attach to turnbuckles with clevis pins. I
prefer being able to separate the shroud from the turnbuckle with a clevis pin. When I
take the mast off, I want to be sure that the entire turnbuckles stay together on the deck of
the boat, where they won't collect sand, won't be stepped on, and won't attract the interest
of anyone wandering around a boatyard looking for spare parts.
On RUSALKA, the large nuts on the end of the bolt at the top of the mast that provide
attachment points for the toping lift and spinnaker halyard broke. Pat wasn't sure if on
her Offshore 40 these nuts had been fabricated by machining a single piece of stainless
steel (as specified in rigging plans) or by welding. In any event, it is a place that should
be inspected carefully.
I have not heard of long term problems with the original Merriman bronze turnbuckles
and toggles. I dye tested mine in 1996 and found no problems. If your boat has stainless
steel turnbuckles and toggles, obviously you have to consider the various forms of
stainless steel deterioration.
For reference purposes, Brian Johnson replaced all standing rigging, including the
turnbuckles, on WINDRESS in Annapolis in 1998, for $2,600. He observed a cracked
Norseman on one of the main lowers, and a cracked fitting on the mizzen jumper. My
bill for the six main shrouds with stayloc fittings and dyform cable is around $1,600.
In July 1998, I visited the Mystic Ship Plans Collection and found in Rhodes' notebook
the calculations for rigging strength. Rhodes estimated the side pressure on the masts
based on the area and hoist of the mainsails as well as headsails and mizzen staysail. He
estimated loads for rigging and the safety factor for different wires. Here are his
numbers:
side
load
shroud
load
cable
strength
Safety
Factor
MAIN MAST
upper
525
2,877
9/32 10,300
5/16 12,500
3.58
4.34 OK
lower
728
4,252
9/32 10,300
5/16 12,500
2.42
2.94 OK
MIZZEN MAST
40
upper (cap) 316
mid (fore)
30
lower (aft) 162
1,239 3/16 4,700
7/32 6,300
3.79 OK
5.08 OK
162 3/16 4,700 28.48 OK
5/32 3,300 20.00 OK
1,908 3/16 4,700
7/32 6,300
2.46 OK
3.30 OK
I have these reactions to these numbers:
1. Rhodes was uncomfortable with main rigging in the strength range of contemporary
type 316 5/16 cable, although it provides a substantial safety factor. I am happy I went
with the stronger dyform cable.
2. The lower shrouds are more heavily loaded than the uppers because they take the bulk
of the sail area and have the pressures from the top transferred by the spreaders. I
discovered the chainplates for these shrouds were damaged from the stress. This is an
area where a slightly larger cable and heavier gage chainplates are not a bad idea.
3. The mizzen calculations do not take into account the facts that the mid stays double as
forestays and the lowers double as back stays. They take more load than is built into
these calculations. Given the load on the aft lowers, it is important to use the running
backstays, particularly when using the mizzen staysail.
4. The calculations are based on the obvious idea of holding up a mast up against sail
pressure. Alternatively, one can think of a mast as a big lever that lifts up the ballast as
the boat heels. I wonder if the calculations would be different if one designed rigging
from that perspective. Maybe the mizzen rigging would be heavier.
5. The calculations are static and do not deal with the forces of momentum as the boat
rolls and pitches. Presumably these are absorbed into the large safety factor. Indeed,
when one thinks about what is not included in the load factors, and when one realizes the
need for a large "safety factor," it is clear that these methods of stress analysis are pretty
crude.
6. Whatever the calculations and philosophies, the empirical results have been good. I
have not heard of any dismasting that resulted from under-dimensioned cables.
Chain plates/tangs
Chainplates are a critical safety item that needs to be considered carefully. The stresses
and corrosive action of salt water combine to make stainless steel vulnerable to failure.
Rhodes specified 3/8" material for main chainplates. The Reliants have this size (at least
41
mine does), but Offshore 40s have 5/16" material. This means that the Offshore 40 chain
plates inherently have less of a safety factor and need more frequent examination.
Reed Simons (TIRANTE) tells me that over the years, he had one chain plate fail at the
clevis pin hole. Bolts securing chainplates were also rusted. He has replaced all the main
and mizzen chainplates. On SERAPHIM, chain plates have broken and have been
replaced. SUNFLYER suffered one chain plate failure. On ROBUST, Lennart Konigson
discovered thousands of small cracks on an upper shroud chain plate after a trans-Atlantic
passage, presumably reflecting fatigue. He replaced all of the chainplates. Bub Sundman
reports of his chainplates on SUGAR LOAF:
I found cracks in two of the main mast chain plates. The cracks were located horizontally
from the center of the top 5/8 inch pin hole and were found by liquid penetrant dye
inspection. The cracks were not visible by eye but were very visible by the dye test. I
ground into the cracks and they were still visible half way through the 5/16 thickness of
the chainplate. I was considering welding the crack but a metallurgist said that welding,
especially in older saltwater exposed stainless, may result in heat induced cracking in the
heat affected zone of the weld. I am having new chainplates fabricated from (oversized)
3/8 thick monel and using monel fasteners.
Owners of at least eight other boats (ARETHUSA, BRETT ASHLEY, BLUE
STOCKING, ELYSIA, HEARTSTRING, MARY T, WINDIGO, WINDRESS) have
replaced chain plates. Park Shorthose found a piece of 3/8" monel so he replaced the
chainplates on SHIBUI. Bob Sundman did the same for SUGAR LOAF. On
RUSALKA, the backstay chainplates broke off at the deck. They had been made of
pieces of stainless steel welded together there, and the welds broke. Pat has replaced
backstay and cap stay chainplates, which similarly were welded.
On CAPELLA and SUNFLYER, chainplate studs have been replaced.
Anteres (mizzen)
Astarte (mizzen)
Blue Stocking
Bret Ashley
Capella
Cocodrillo
Elysia
Gabrielle
Mary T
Maverick
Owl
Robust
Rusalka
Seraphim
Shibui
Star-Ellie
Sunflyer
Tirante
Whisper
Windigo
1964
1964
1965
1968
1965
1966
1970
1969
1971
1966
1965
1966
1973
1974
1970
1967
1966
1965
1968
1964
OS
RR
RR
OS
RR
OS
OS
OS
OS
RR
RR
RR
OS
OS (reliant deck)
OS
RR
OS
RR
RR
RR
42
Windress
1974
OS (reliant deck)
John Paradis feels that in general, chain plates are very strong (relative to the stresses
they endure), and, if protected from water and rust, should be reliable.
While surfing the web, I found some chats about Cheoy Lee Clippers and Offshore 47s,
and found this comment:
Suggest you look carefully at all original stainless steel. I have seen fittings fail (that
looked good on the outside) that very nearly brought the mast down on an Offshore 40,
and Bill Luders, my boat's designer and yours, told me of a Clipper 48 whose chain plates
failed one after another, dismasting the ketch.
While it is easy to blame chainplate failure on "Asian metals," I guess that problems with
chainplates have been related more to maintenance problems. If there is any leak of
water through the deck seal on chainplates, stagnant water can result in crevice corrosion,
where chain plates go through the deck and chain plate studs embedded in the knees. To
make matters worse, any water penetration into the knees may result in swelling and
thickening of the knees, placing enormous tension on the studs.
Consequently, periodic removal and careful inspection of parts may be necessary.
Chesapeake Rigging recommends checking (with penetrant dye) for cracks near the
clevis pin and near the bolt holes. Professional metal testing laboratories can help also.
Certainly, if you find chainplates that are welded together, they should be checked with
special care.
On ASTARTE I took out the main chainplates in 1998 and the mizzen ones in 1999.
Professional testing with dye testing and X-raying confirmed the main chainplates were
in fine shape, with no indications that they need to be replaced, so I put them back in.
With regard to the mizzen chainplates, I took mine off in 1999 and had them inspected.
One of them was severely cracked, ready to fail. It was a chainplate for the aft lower
shroud, the one Rhodes gauged was most heavily stressed. (Years we snagged a mizzen
shroud on a dock and severely over-stressed the mizzen mast. The mast shattered. I
suspect the chainplate problem began with that stressful event.) I had a new chainplate
fabricated, using 1/4" stainless steel 304L. Two other chainplates had slight cracks,
which the welder ground out and repaired.
In this process I have learned that inspection of chainplates is an important and tricky
process. I have cleaned chainplates with a rotary emery cloth tool. While this works
fairly well, it can actually pull metal over a crack and seal the crack so that it doesn't
show up on a dye penetrant test. It did show up after the metal was passivated.
(Passivating is a process of washing the stainless steel in nitric acid. This slightly etches
the surface and reduces the chances of corrosion.) This experience indicates that the best
procedure to ensure accuracy of a dye penetrant test would be to clean the chainplates
43
using a blaster with a fine glass medium. That will strip all dirt without pulling over the
metal and closing cracks. Then, the metal should be passivated before testing. This
sequence will ensure that the test procedures are as accurate as possible. It should be
noted that the welder also tests. Sometimes there are suspected cracks. The final test is
that the welder heats up the metal. If it smokes that is a clear sign of foreign matter in a
crack. It can be ground up and welded.
Chainplates that test OK can be reinstalled, according to the opinion of may highly
knowledgeable people whom I asked.
In 2009 I finally was able to ascertain that the original chainplates were cast, not rolled,
and casting is not the strongest method of making chainplates. I had new chainplates
made of duplex stainless steel (type #2205), a more recent alloy that is said to be stronger
and more corrosion resistant than the 300 series alloys. It was clear to me that simply
from the perspective of “peace of mind,” new chainplates were needed.
Chainplate studs of course are critical too. On my main chainplates about half of the
studs showed signs of deterioration, ranging from rust to severe deterioration. Several
were broken or broke while removing them. (To remove studs, I removed the nut on one
side and tightened the nut on the other side to start pulling the stud out. Then I backed
off on the nut and was able to pull on the nut with a large crow bar, the end of which I
modified with a high speed grinder to fit under the nut and around the stud. In some
places, where I had more space to work, I drove studs out with a hammer and pin.)
The mizzen studs showed less deterioration than the main chainplate studs, but some
were bent. I reviewed Rhodes’s specifications for chainplates fasteners, and discovered
he had specified more, heavier bolts than Cheoy Lee installed. (The main backstays were
supposed to have eight 3/8” bolts; they had four). The mizzen forward intermediates
were supposed to have six 5/16” bolts; they had five. The mizzen side pairs of
chainplates were supposed to have six 3/8” bolts, but had four 5/16” bolts.) I replaced all
of the studes with 3/8” to move a little closer to Rhodes’s specification. (The trick to
enlarging holes in locations too small for an electric drill was to have a small 3/8" drill
brazed into a 1/4" drive 3/8" socket. I could turn it easily by hand with a ratchet tool.
I decided to replace all studs with monel. Monel does not suffer from crevice corrosion,
as stainless steel does. On a galvanic table, monel is right between stainless 304 and
316, so there should not be electrolysis issues with monel mixed with stainless steel. As
far as strength, I had some destructive tests of original and monel studs done. The tests
revealed that monel is slightly less strong than the original stainless steel when it is in
excellent condition, but stronger than the stainless steel once it has started to show signs
of crevice corrosion:
1. Best condition original stainless steel:
psi 111,000 (we'll say 100%)
broke in threaded portion, stretched and broke clean (like taffy)
44
2. Monel
psi 105,000 (95% of the one above)
broke in threaded portion, stretched and broke clean (like taffy)
3. original stainless, with slight hints of crevice corrosion on surface
psi 90,000 (81% of the strongest one)
broke at beginning of thread, broke more like a broken stick
inside of metal has extensive discoloration (rust?)
crevice corrosion is very clear in the middle of the metal
When I look at the broken cross section of sample 3, with crystallization and
discoloration, I am surprised it still had 80% of its strength.
Monel studs cost around $7.00 each (for 36) from B&G Manufacturing (Hatfield PA,
800-366-3067) or Pacific Fasteners Seattle/Vancouver, 800-345-0766, 604-294-9411).
About half of the price is for the monel material, so making them in stainless steel could
not result in a huge saving. Then think about the labor costs (or time and effort) to pull,
check, and replace bad studs ten years from now. Against that bill, monel seems a good
investment.
Cheoy Lee used "heavy duty" nuts and washers to install the chainplates. These are
available from McMaster Carr (see below in the section about parts if you are not
familiar with this source for special hardware).
I got these tips in chainplate installation from my various conversations:
-use sealant (I like 3M 101 because it permits disassembly for maintenance) where the
plate goes through the deck as well as around the bolt holes.
-the nuts should have lock-tight, so they don't loosen from the vibration.
-chainplates should be left unpainted, so moisture won't be trapped under the paint.
Clearly the key to long-term reliability on chainplates is to prevent leaks at the deck. At
any hint of water getting through the deck seal, the seal should be restored. I am making
small fiberglass bolsters and fiberglassing them to my decks (which are fiberglass,
without the teak), thereby raising the metal trim piece 1/4" above the deck. This will put
the waterproof seal above the normal rainwater on the deck and very much reduce the
water that gets near the seal in the first place. (see sketch in annexes) I expect it will
help in sealing the chain plates.
Tangs seem reliable but not perfect. Mark Treat reports that the strap across the top of
the mast (of WINDIGO) has cracked. David Epstein (CALYPSO) found problems in
some of the "dog bone" tangs on the mizzen mast and has replaced all of them. Sig
Baaredson replaced the masthead fitting. Thatcher Lord reported a frightening failure of
45
a spreader clip. All these parts need vigilant inspection. Careful cleaning is the key to
discovering early cracks in stainless steel.
On the main lower external tangs that are held by the spreader bolts, the tangs had come
lower, with the result that the inner and outer holes are out of alignment. I finally
determined that the problem was that the threads on the spreader bolts were cut too long,
so that the tangs were sitting on a threaded portion and settling down between the threads.
My solution was to weld strips on the tangs to increase the bearing surface and to have
new bolts made with the threads cut very short, just enough to hold the nuts, so the tangs
sit on solid metal.
Stem Head Fitting
Gary Stephens (PEGASUS) reports that the stem head stay fitting on Offshore 40s is a
weak point. He says to look for cracks on the plate on the front of the stem, where it
curves over the bow, as some have broken at that point. He had an extra plate welded on
to it. Gary thinks that the stem fitting on the Reliant is the same as the Offshore 40.
Robert Heidrich replaced the stem piece on his Offshore 40 HO'OHOLO. The fitting has
also been replaced on BRETT ASHLEY, BLUE STOCKING, SERAPHIM, and MARY
T and repaired on HOLOKAI.
Lennart Konigson made a new one along these lines:
For the stemhead fitting I used the same steel (Avesta Sheffield no 2205 duplex stainless
steel -- ASTM S31803) but changed the design to increase the strength. The vertical
front part of the fitting was extended upwards and bent backwards. In the top part of it I
inserted a hole for the forestay. The horizontal and backplate of the fitting was welded to
the front part. The horizontal part of the fitting was thus flat which enabled me to mount
an anchor and chain roller that is made specifically for the 50 lbs Bruce anchor I prefer to
use.
An inner staysail stay can provide some back-up if there is a catastrophic failure of the
stem fitting. See discussion below on double headsail rig.
My boat is the only one (I know of) with a bowsprit. This takes the bulk of the stress
instead of the stem fitting. I just discovered a crack in the solid rod bobstay. The same
stresses and vulnerabilities have manifested themselves in a different piece of "stainless"
steel.
Mast Step
We have a serious long-term maintenance problem with the mast step. Our boats have a
very peculiar mast step. Normally, masts come through the cabin top and are stepped on
the keel. If they are stepped on the deck, a strong compression post carries the
46
compression from the mast to the keel. However, on our boats with the innovative three
cabin layout, a mast or even a compression post under the mast interferes with access to
the forward settee. To solve this problem, Rhodes designed an unusual mast step, that
would transfer the compression to two compression posts, located conveniently in the
middle of the table and in front of the forward bulkhead.
The original Rhodes design of the mast stem is a channel |__| (See photo of SHIBUI).
However, on some boats (apparently some Reliants and Offshore 40s) Cheoy Lee revised
the design, more like an inverted T __|__ . The mast sits on top of the step and is
attached with a large through bolt. (See photo of SERENDIPITY).
I have not discovered a pattern concerning which boats have which mast step. Both show
up on Reliants and Offshore 40s; both have been used with wooden and aluminum masts;
both have been used on three cabin and two cabin layouts. The revised mast step starts
showing up in 1966, and boats built after 1966 had both types. Probably the pattern is
simply that original buyers were given a choice about which mast step they wanted, and
they made different choices.
The original design has suffered numerous failures. The pattern is so clear that owners
who have this mast step should consider prophylactic replacement. I am less certain
about the revised design.
Original design |__ |
Reed Simons (TIRANTE) discovered a frightening crack in the mast step, had it welded
and reinforced, and ultimately replaced it after new cracks developed.
On RAVEN, Doug Wintermute found serious cracks in the mast step after sailing in a
heavy storm from Bermuda to Edgertown, with winds 90+ knots for 12 hours, and waves
as high as the mizzen mast. He had a new one built.
One day on CAPELLA, returning from the Bahamas after some heavy weather and
breaking waves, Bill Heron noticed that the rigging was loose. Careful analysis revealed
that the mast had settled down. The mast was taken out, and a crack in the mast step of
about 3/16" was apparent. He made a new mast step of 1/2" material, with a double
bottom.
Howard Lapp (SHEARWATER) reports that on one sister-ship the mast step collapsed,
and the mast was lost. On his boat, in a seaway, the mast was pushing down, loosening
the rigging and shaking too much.
On WINDSPRINT III, the mast step has been replaced with a new one made out of
titanium. (The former owner had a business that facilitated titanium fabrications.)
Presumably the original mast step failed.
BLUE STOCKING's mast step has been replaced.
47
On the basis of all these reports, I examined ASTARTE'S mast step closely. Guess what
I found: immediately under the mast, the bottom plate had pushed down and broken the
welds attaching it to the side plates. In addition, at the tops of the vertical welds that hold
the short cross pieces that make the front and back of the mast box, three of the four
corners showed cracks. I guess these cracks in the welds developed years ago, but I am
not sure. ASTARTE has accumulated years of coastal sailing, but has never experienced
a major, sustained storm at sea.
Mark Treat just discovered a 2" vertical crack in the side of WINDIGO's mast step, in the
box area.
I visited HUNTRESS and observed small vertical cracks on one side of the step, two
rising from the limber holes and one between in the mid point of the box, rising from the
base. The base seemed cracked too. WINDRESS’s mast step showed a similar pattern of
cracks by the limber holes. David Epstein has found cracks on CALYPSO and Lennart
Konigson has found them on ROBUST.
MARY T's mast step has been replaced.
Gary Stephens (PEGASUS) considers that the mast step has been a "weak point" on
Offshore 40s. His original channel type is still OK.
MARKADA's mast step is welded on the inside of the mast box as well as outside. The
bottom welds are OK, but I noticed at least a couple of tiny cracks radiating away from
limber holes.
BRET ASHLEY is still on its first mast step, which is made of steel, not stainless steel.
She has a teak cover that hides its rust.
If the mast step has not been replaced, it should be inspected very carefully, with the
expectation that there are cracks there, waiting to be located. The cracks normally appear
radiating out from the limber holes and in the bottom plate forward and under the mast. I
have no idea how much a small crack weakens the mast step, but certainly when cracks
appear, they should be monitored carefully and replacement should be considered if
ocean voyages are planned.
Revised design __|__
Thatcher Lord (TRINKA) straightened and reinforced his mast step.
SISKIWIT's mast step had totally failed and has been replaced.
Christopher Nunns replaced the step on VELERA LINDA.
John Paradis reports no problem with the revised step on FEMME.
48
SELENE's mast step looks OK.
It is clear that the mast step takes great strain. All the weight and compression on the
mast stresses it. If the rigging is set up tightly to minimize jib stay sag, a heavy constant
stress is on the mast step. Moreover, every time wind hits the boat and it heels over,
there is great pressure down on the mast step. With every pitch, the angular momentum
of this very heavy mast ends up converted into a downward thrust, like a pile driver
hitting the mast step. In addition, if the boat is left out of the water during the winter, the
contraction of the shrouds may increase stress, and the vibrations of the mast in winter
storms will create stress and fatigue.
The Mystic archives show Rhodes engineered the step for 20,755 lb. of pressure from the
mast. John Paradis, with decades of experience in testing and analyzing failures in naval
aircraft, feels that this number should be roughly doubled. My instinct is that the number
may be adequate for the static loads of lifting the ballast as the boat heels over, but does
not adequately cover the dynamic forces of the boat rolling and pitching as well as the
tension on the headstay and back stay that is not involved in heeling the boat over and
lifting the ballast. In any event, it is clear that the mast step receives both constant stress
and many blows over three decades, and that metal fatigue is a very serious consequence.
The vertical crack on the side of WINDIGO's mast step is conclusive proof of the
cumulative impact of the pile driver on the mast step.
Apart from the fatigue on the side plates, there is the issue of the welds. It is clear from
the discussion above about weld decay that this has been a major factor in mast step
failures.
In addition the original welding may not have been done well. Greg (at Areo Welding)
saw the errors in the original welding on my mast step. The most serious problem was
that there was no welding on the inside of the mast box. Precisely where the mast was
pushing down on the bottom plate and cracking the weld, there were welds only on the
outsides of the side plates. Welding should have been done on both the insides and
outsides. Similarly, on the cross plates, welding should have been done on the inside as
well as the outside. Moreover, Greg gauged that in many places, the bead of weld was
too small to provide the full strength that welding can provide. From his perspective as
an experienced welder and safety inspector (to aircraft standards), the problem in my
mast step step clearly was a welding fabrication problem.
Another factor is the stress of stepping and unstepping the mast. If the top of the mast is
pulled 2 feet fore or aft or sideways in any direction, this movement at the top requires
about 1/4" extra space in all directions at the top of the mast step to avoid binding and
enormous stress on the welds. I do not think the original wooden mast wedges (which we
still have) allow this movement. This may explain cracking of the welds that form the
box in which the mast sits. Has anyone located/used some sort of compressible rubber
wedges, that would have enough compressibility to avoid these stresses?
49
Yet another factor may be this: the bottom of the mast shoe is slightly curved. This
concentrates the pressure of the mast in a small area and on a small portion of the welds,
making it easier to break and "unzip" the welds. I wonder if putting a 1/8" neoprene
strips below the mast shoe fore and aft of the center would spread out the strain onto a
longer part of the welds, thereby reducing the PSI at any particular point.
Finally, of course, there is salt water sitting in corners of the mast step, creating problems
of crevice corrosion and perhaps electrolysis, in and round the welds. For all these
reasons, and in light of all these experiences, it is clear that the areas around the limber
holes should be inspected periodically.
For me, the question was whether to grind out and re-weld the flawed joints or whether to
build a whole new mast step. Greg said that stainless steel is a bit like wood, in that
metal fatigue is like rot and it permanently weakens the metal. Welding up fatigued
metal is as silly as gluing together rotten wood. How much fatigue the old step has
absorbed is anyone's guess. I was impressed that Reed Simons's efforts to reweld the
mast step in TIRANTE failed, and he ultimately replaced it after new cracks developed.
WINDIGO's vertical crack was an obvious indication of extensive fatigue.
I had a new mast step, using 1/2" rather than 3/8" material. I ordered mine of type 316,
but as my understanding of metals has improved, I think it would have been better if I
had ordered either 316 L or 304 L. Greg was very careful in welding it to minimize
carbide precipitation. It is welded inside the box as well as outside, I trimmed the wedges
where the new welds are put in. In addition, I had the sides flared out about 1/8" to
permit more space for mast movement.
Mark Treat (WINDIGO) had a new step made just about the same as mine. His
surveyer/consultants recommended using 1/2" sides and 5/8" bottom. They also used
type 316. For both Mark and me, the new mast step cost about $1,500. The cost of the
metal itself is several hundred dollars, shaping the metal is costly, and welding it required
many hours of a skilled craftsman.
Is the inverted T design any better? John Paradis considers the revised mast step __|__
that Cheoy Lee developed is superior in design. In his words, "Since the mast sits on top
of the vertical strength member, it does not rely on vertical bending strength being
obtained or passed thru the welds and side pieces. I consider it superior to the channel."
John is certainly correct that if the revised design pushes down from the top, it would
place less stress on welds, this is helpful. Another advantage of the revised design is that
it allows more movement of the mast and lets the mast drain water more easily.
At the same time, this design has its inherent problems also, as Gary Stephens has noted.
We have to look very carefully to see if the mast rests on the bottom plate, in which case
it would be pulling a weld apart. In addition, depending on how the bottom fitting is
made for the mast, stress is concentrated somewhere, and a careful examination is needed
to consider how the stress is handled. In any event, the mast step is still a bridge that
absorbs the same pounding and presumably incurs the same fatigue. I think the bridge is
50
lower, and if this is true, it could be less strong. There are also questions about how the
lateral strains are handled on this elevated bridge. I would think that gussets are needed,
but I think they were not put in the original fabrications.
An alternative would be to fabricate out of steel and have in hot-dipped galvanized. It
also might be possible to re-engineer the step, but this would take some very careful
design work.
There have been a few efforts to redesign the mast step. CHALLENGE has a specially
designed mast step made from a large I beam, with plates welded into the sides. A strong
tab is welded to the top, and the mast sits on that, in the Cheoy Lee style, secured by a
bolt. That bolt sitting on top of the I beam, is about 6" above its original location. I am
not sure whether the mast was cut off by that amount to retain its original location, or if
the rigging was lengthened to let it sit higher.
On KEAA LII, the Cheoy Lee inverted T mast step has been heavily reinforced, with
large plates welded to the sides and a box welded into the center. It looks as though the
original Rhodes design was superimposed on top of the Cheoy Lee adaptation -- the best
of both worlds.
The most elaborate effort to re-engineer the mast step has been undertaken by Lennart
Konigson. He writes:
After having found minute cracks in the mastfoot fitting and given up attempts to
strengthen the fitting I proceeded to design a new one. You will recall that you sent me
Philip Rhodes calculations. They helped a lot. With those and with the help of some
marine engineering friends who used a program for calculating the strength of beams I
had a new mastfoot made using Avesta Sheffield no 2205 duplex stainless steel (ASTM
S31803). This is possibly the best steel there is in terms of corrosion resistance and
strength. A full description can be found in
http://www.avestasheffield.com/products/steelgr_charac.htm (click on 2205).
The new mastfoot fitting has the dimensions the original with the only exception of the
dimension of the side plates, which I increased from about 9 mm to 15 mm. For the
bottom plate, which is not subjected to nearly as much stress, I used 9 mm.
The calculations we did showed that, at the maximum load used by Philips Rhodes in his
calculation (20,750 lbs corresponding to 92,322 N or 9.4 ton), the mastfoot fitting would
require a steel tensile strength of 202 Mpa. My new one has a strength of 460 to 480
Mpa, i.e. twice that of the maximum, according to Philip Rhodes. I attach a copy of the
calculation of the maximum required steel tensile strength (Sigma 0.2 or Rp0.2) in file
rob-calc.bmp (in annex book).
The original design for the mast step are available in the "Structural Laying down plan
for fiberglass construction," plan 753-16 in the Mystic Seaport archives.
51
On the two-cabin layouts, the mast step is of similar dimensions but the support columns
are closer, presumably putting less flexing stress on the mast step. Nevertheless, the
failure pattern seems similar to the three cabin boats with the columns spread out further.
A fundamentally different approach to the problem of the mast step is to add a
compression post directly under the mast, despite the interference with access to the
dinette. Several owners have done this, and this will be reported below in the section on
Mast Support Posts.
Mast Support Posts (Compression Posts)
Obviously, the support posts absorb the compression from the mast. In many boats, the
bottoms of the support posts have been weakened by rust. Owners have repaired or
replaced them. The archives show Rhodes's calculations for how the support posts will
manage the 20,755 pounds. The weight is greater on the forward post, because the mast
is forward of the mid point of the step. (This is on the standard three-cabin layout.) The
aft post is longer, and this is factored into the calculations.
Rhodes calculated the strength of different sized pipes, and specified 1 1/2" regular pipe
for both posts. (1 1/2" pipe is 1.9" OD; 2" pipe is 2.375" OD) He notes, however, that
the 1 1/2" forward pipe was "NOT QUITE OK," and had a bit less of a safety factor than
he wanted. The potential load was 11,505 lb and the pipe could take 11,200 lb.
On our boat, we found rust on the bottom of our aft support post, and we replaced it
around 1990 with a polished stainless steel one. It looks very nice. In 1998, I replaced
the forward post, which was also rusted at the bottom, with 1 1/2" schedule 80 stainless
steel pipe to give a larger safety factor.
On some boats, where the bottoms of these pipes have rusted, extra pieces of steel have
been welded on to reinforce them. I feel that if I am going through the bother of taking
them off, I might as well go to stainless steel.
Thatcher Lord is planning to create fiberglass pads for his new support poles. This will
lift them up, keep them dryer, and make it easier to replace them in the future.
On Rhodes Reliants, the compression posts sit directly on the bottom of the fiberglass,
directly over the lead. Pressures are directly transmitted to the lead, which can distribute
the strain. However, on Offshore 40s, at least the forward post sits on a wood platform
on top of concrete. Obviously it is important that the wood and the underlying concrete
are completely solid so they can spread and transmit the compression into the structure of
the boat.
Howard Lapp tackled the mast step and support post problem simultaneously by
fabricating a post to take the pressure of the mast directly:
52
I removed both poles in the cabin and had new bottoms welded on. The old ones were
mushroomed, from compression, and heavily corroded. Even after this, I didn't have
much faith in the mast step setup and decided to reinforce it. I built a level pad of epoxy
resin directly beneath the mast and drilled and tapped it to receive 3/8" bolts for sideward
support. I also had a stainless collar made for the overhead and between these two points
I installed a sold, laminated mahogany pole. The pole was shaped to the mainmast's
dimensions and fastened to the settee along with floor timbers, the collar and the blocks
on the epoxy pad. It impedes access to the settee somewhat, but is great for the cook to
lean on and gives me great peace of mind. Pre-support, the mast would occasionally
shake when motoring into a chop -- it no longer does, which makes me feel this wasn't
such a bad idea after all.
On SUNFLYER, an extra mast support column similarly has been placed under the mast
in the main cabin to stop deflection.
Christopher Nunns (VERELA LINDA) advocates the same approach.
VERELA LINDA has a third pipe support under the middle of the step (ie under the
mast. I suppose it does not seem intrusive to me because I've never known anything else.
I replaced the mast step last year (at great expense) with an identical copy of the Cheoy
Lee inverted tee design but I never considered removing the extra support. In fact, I
cannot imagine how I could sleep at night without it!
Bob Sundman did it slightly differently:
While re-building Gabrielle's interior I modified the settee to a "L" configuration by
eliminating the forward athwartship portion of the settee. This gave room to locate a mast
support post directly under the mast, room to get behind the table, a post to lean against
while cooking, a post to grab while going to weather, and room for a cabin heater.
Mizzen Mast
The mizzen mast is supported on the deck also, and how its compression is transmitted to
the hull should be checked. One of the reasons is that Cheoy Lee did not always follow
Rhodes' plans in this regard. In an early sketch (showing a wooden hull), Rhodes the
mast stepped on deck and having a wooden 3"x3" compression post under it. The
drawing for fiberglass construction shows the mast coming through the deck and stepped
on a mast step on the hull.
On ASTARTE, the mast was supported by a 3/8" bulkhead just aft of the mast step. This
bulkhead was not shown in the original design I felt it was flimsy for supporting the
mizzen, and I have beefed it up with 4 pieces of 3/8" plywood (1 7/8" total) glued and
screwed to its front, going down to the hull.
53
In contrast, DESTINY does not have this bulkhead but rather has a partial bulkhead
under the back corner of the cockpit, and then has a wooden post from under the mast,
down along the back side of the cockpit and this lower, partial bulkhead. This system
seems adequate and in no particular need of reinforcement.
I am not aware of any major failure in the support of the mizzen mast, although Pat Zajac
has wondered if the deck is sagging, as she has had to tighten her mizzen shrouds.
Keel and Keel Bolts
One of the key differences between the Reliants and Offshore 40s is the construction of
the ballast keel. Reliants have external lead ballast, bolted on, and can be concerned with
possible deterioration of the bolts. Offshore 40's generally have internal iron ballast and
can be concerned with water penetration into the keel.
In the Rhodes Reliants, Rhodes specified bronze for keel bolts, and that is what my boat
has. If Cheoy Lee used stainless steel on any boat (either to cut corners or at the request
of an original buyer), this could be a real problem because stainless steel is vulnerable to
crevice corrosion. Frank Hamilton reports that HEART STRING does, in fact, have
stainless steel keel bolts..
When Thatcher Lord (TRINKA) has this important report on keel bolts:
When I replaced my water tanks, it was the obvious time to check the keel bolts. I put a
wrench on the first one and quite easily twisted the head off. In the end I think I broke
off ten of the seventeen bolts. I ended up removing thirteen of the seventeen. The bolts
all broke off right at the bilge level and other than that spot, the metal was in excellent
condition. Maybe the boat was badly grounded at one time or had stray current corrosion
in the bilge, I have no idea.
The bolts have nuts in the end which are counterbored into the bottom of the lead. I was
able to drive them down and out with a small sledge hammer and a suitable rod. As the
heads emerged from the bottom, I dug holes in the ground below the keel, and then drove
them out.
I ended up cutting off some of the longer ones, rethreading them to use for the shorter
ones. I got bronze rod and threaded it to replace the long ones. The bolts were quite easy
to replace, once the interior was dismantled.
If anyone is changing water tanks, I would recommend testing and perhaps changing
bolts at the same time, at least the ones under the tanks.
A few years ago, Lennart Konigson took out keel bolts of ROBUST and had them Xrayed, and found they were in mint condition. His update in 2000 is:
54
With the bilge opened I also had the chance to examine the top part of the keel bolts.
Bolts and nuts are made of stainless but the plate underneath is of some other metal
presumably bronze. The lower bolts and nuts were heavily pitted, especially the part of
the bolts that extended above the nut. I think that this can only have been caused by
galvanic corrosion, presumably between the two different metals bronze and stainless.
None of the bolts or nuts was, however, so corroded that their function or strength
seemed to be impaired. I nevertheless changed all the nuts. I was surprised to find that I
could remove all of them by hand, albeit with a very large spanner.
On our boat ASTARTE, we tightened keel bolts after running aground around 1970.
They tightened a bit (with a 3/4 socket drive set and very large breaker bar), and were
solid. (That was when I learned how to take out the forward water tank; see below. We
previously had converted our aft water tank into an integral tank with a removable bottom
plate to provide access to keel bolts.) Frank Hamilton (HEART STRING) recently took
off the nuts from some of his keel bolts (under the aft water tank), cleaned them up, and
tightened them securely, and none broke. Doug Wintermute tightened bolts on (RAVEN)
and one nut broke.
Why can keel bolts weaken? Did the boat ever run hard aground and pound the keel?
Was there water penetration between the hull and the ballast? (Dave Toombs's memory
is that the boats were assembled with a felt gasket saturated with red lead between the
fiberglass and the lead.) Was there electrolysis at a dock or in the bilge? (Bronze is a
little less nobel than lead, and might suffer some electrolysis.) Or was it the result of
metal fatigue from years of hard sailing? Tad Woodhull believes that the main problem
for keel bolts is that water enters the space between the ballast and the hull and causes
deterioration. His view is that the hull should be lifted off the ballast every 10 years, and
that the ballast should be re-bedded to ensure water-tight security of this joint (despite the
water tank obstruction).
Lee Cherubini, my local boat guru, is more optimistic. He thinks that in our case, with
lead ballast and bronze bolts, we have little to worry about. On boats with iron ballast
and iron or stainless steel keel bolts, a little water in the boat-to-ballast seam can cause a
lot of problems, but not the case of lead and bronze. His view is that if the boat is not
leaking, if the ballast is not obviously loose, if there are no signs of corrosion on the
outside (rust or green color residues), if the bronze metal work on the outside of the
bottom (rudder fittings, stuffing box, etc.) shows no signs of electrolysis, then use the
strategy of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As are boats put on the decades, I think it does make sense to test keel bolts when the
water tanks are out, and it is easy to access the bolts. At a minimum, it makes sense to
try to tighten them up. If they break, then replace them. Alternatively, a few could be
driven out for examination.
Kurt Karstan (MISTRESS) told me a story of meeting someone who used to own a
55
Reliant in Chicago. Suddenly one day, the lead ballast fell off. It was said that at one
point there was a shortage of lead at the Cheoy Lee shipyard, so the lead keels were
somewhat hollow and filled with iron (cast or pigs? I don't know). David Epstein has
heard somewhat similar stories, but focused on the Offshore 40s. (This sounds strange as
they had internal iron ballast.) I don't know what to make of these rumors. I think the
key point is that if there is corrosion on the keel bolts heads, there is a good chance they
were made of stainless steel, and this may merit further examination.
As for the Offshore 40 ballast I have these insights.
David Toombs reports:
Regarding CHEOY LEE internal iron ballast, standard in many of their products big and
small, your comments are on the mark. We at LION YACHTS delivered hundreds of
such yachts and never had a warranty claim in the short or long run. The sectional and
tapered ballast is of cast iron and was as I recall coated with red lead or the equivalent, a
standard approach in those days. Underwater cement was then poured in and around the
sections with a final layer to seal the bilge. I have never heard of rust expanding and
cracking a hull in all these years.
We did have one case in the 60's when a brand new 36 on the Owner's first run from the
Yard hit a ledge at 7kts, driving most of the ballast sections up through the cabin sole and
fracturing the hull. (Fortunately a quick call to our pump-equipped work boat saved it
from sinking on the way back.) The repair was not difficult but labor intensive as all
cracked cement had to be removed.
There is nothing wrong with iron ballast provided it was contemplated in the original
design and not simply substituted for the denser lead. In the early days lead was very hard
to find in Hong Kong and used only on the higher quality products, and of course is much
more expensive. We insisted on external lead ballast for the RELIANT and paid
accordingly for the material and the added labor to fit.
Bob Sundman has this report on repairs to his Offshore 40:
After spending time in the bilge areas of GABRIELLE making repairs to bulkheads, mast
supports, tanks, repairing and adding lead to the existing ballast, etc. I noticed some gaps
between the poured cement (concrete) ballast and the fiberglass hull. After removing the
loose and broken fiberglass covering over the concrete the gaps were chipped out,
cleaned, dried, and then filled with fiberglass resin. All the surfaces were then
fiberglassed and painted. I didn't notice any athwartships cracks in the concrete ballast
before fiberglassing a 4 inch by 10 inch by 16 inch mahogany plank for a direct (third
Pole) mast support. Tapping on the outside of the hull showed no signs (before or after
repairs) of voids and there were no visual discontinuities in the hull shape when view
from the outside.
I think the fiberglass thickness in the OS40 keel is over one inch thick. This is based on
56
holes that I made for speedometer and seacocks. A hull with this amount of thickness
would be self supporting and would not rely on the concrete ballast for strength. The fact
that concrete and
fiberglass expand at different rates and don't bond well together is probably the cause of
the gaps I've noted. My reasons for making this repair were:
- Allow a easy visible path for any bilge water to drain quickly to the aft
deep bilge.
- To keep bilge water from entering this gap were it could cause future
problems (freezing - rusting of iron ballast).
- To provide a good support for the third mast pole I added directly under
the mast. This puts concrete in compression.
- To make it easier to clean and eliminate bilge "odors."
There are some cases reported in which Offshore 40's were specially ordered with lead
internal ballast. These boats might end up heavier and lower in the water, and probably
have a lower center of gravity. The other advantage of lead, of courses, it that in the
event of water penetration there would not be rust, with its expansionary efforts. It
should be easy to determine whether a boat has iron or lead ballast by use of a magnet or
compass.
Sea-cocks/Through Hulls
Our collective experience with seacocks seems quite diverse, but includes some serious
warnings. Kurt Karstan had the head outlet seacock fall off in his hand when he tried to
close it. There had been electrolysis in the bronze valve. In some other cases, he has
found the through hulls a bit short, and secured by only 2-3 full threads. Similarly on
FEMME, John Paradis reports the head outlet seacock fell off when being closed, and
required a very quick towel insert.
On some boats, the seacocks and through-hulls seem OK, while others have replaced
them. Since electrolysis seems to be the main problem, boats kept in the water all year
will suffer roughly twice as much electrolysis as boats out of the water half the year. I
guess that boats that have been kept at moorings (as mine) have had far less trouble with
electrolysis on these fittings than boats kept at docks, where stray electrical currents can
create problems. I would presume that electrolysis would take place at a faster rate on
boats in southern, warmer water.
I just took out some seacocks and through hull fittings and was very impressed by the
robustness of the material and the craftsmanship in bending tubes and brazing fittings. In
removing the seacocks and through hull fittings, a blow torch is an excellent complement
to a large pipe wrench. I used a high speed grinder to remove some of the nuts securing
the through hull fittings where I couldn't swing a wrench.
Tom Rose found that on SERAPHIM, the valves needed replacement, but the original
through hull fittings were in excellent condition and did not need replacement:
57
We are currently replacing all of the valves on the through hull fittings and all of the
associated hoses. The actual through hull fittings were cleaned and checked and all were
fine. They are set with a white lead compound that is still very tight. We also added two
new through hull drains in the rear of the cockpit so the rear cockpit drains have their
own exit. The original cockpit drain system did not work well. We have taken some
large waves over the stern, which caused drainage problems in the cockpit.
If you have the original seacocks, David Toombs suggests examining the copper
tailpieces.
When I have replace seacocks now, I have used the Forespar Marelon "Integrated
Plumbing System" valves. These are different from, and better than, the Forespar valves
shown in the catalogues, and are normally supplied only to manufacturers. They are the
valves of choice at the Cherubini Boat Yard, where I winter, and they build to the very
highest standards in all regards. If you are replacing seacocks, get the Forespar catalog
(tel: 714-858-8820) and consider this option. The normal suppliers (eg. West) are
comfortable special ordering them, even though they are not catalogued.
When you grease seacocks, do them one at a time. The parts, of course, are not
interchangeable.
DESTINY, RAVEN, AND SELENE have replaced (or are in the process of replacing) all
plumbing systems.
Pulpits
I took off my (not original) stern pulpit a couple of years ago (while restoring the deck)
and was astounded by the number of cracks in welds holding the stainless steel pipes
together. I found some cracks in lifeline stanchions also. Frank Hamilton (HEART
STRING) found cracks in his bow pulpit. The implications are clear. These items need a
vigorous cleaning and careful inspection from time to time.
It is critically important to check the welds at the rings which anchor the lifelines. Many
of the man-overboard stories I have read involve lifeline failure. A cracked weld on a
lifeline fitting is a disaster waiting to happen.
Certainly all of these critical metal parts that are subject to crevice corrosion, weld decay,
metal fatigue, and electrolysis merit careful inspection and replacement (and possible
reinforcement) as needed, especially if the boat has been or will do extensive ocean
passaging. The metal parts have to be cleaned up very thoroughly for a good inspection.
Penetrant dye can help locate incipient flaws.
Shroud Rollers
58
Our boat came originally with some black, fairly flexible plastic pipe about 1/2" ID on
the bottom 4-5 feet of the main shrouds as shroud rollers, to reduce chafe as the genoa jib
comes around. The plastic is flexible enough to permit coiling up the shrouds when the
boat is un-rigged. However, they are not readily removeable and replaceable (except
when you replace rigging or if you have removable terminal fittings). As they have
deteriorated, I have wondered what to do. (They show up on the photos of ASTARTE,
MOONGLOW, and OWL.)
I think that the material that was originally used is listed in the McMaster Carr catalog as
"polyethlene pipe," flexible and black. A role of 100 ft of 1/2" costs around $14 (plus
shipping).
John Paradis (FEMME DU CREUX) made shroud rollers of white PVC pipe, 1 1/2" to fit
over the turnbuckles and 1 1/4" to fit over the terminal fittings. See photos and sketches
(Annex 14).
Bob Mallers (SHENANDOAH) has white oak rollers.
Mast
Those of us with the original wooden mast know that it is very heavy -- probably around
600+ lb, without the rigging. When my mast was lifted off with rigging, the scale in the
crane said 7-800 lb., with standing rigging, but much of the running rigging off. Lennart
Konigson replaced his wooden mast with an aluminum one, and also increased the
ballast. Between the two changes, the boat became noticeably stiffer to windward. He
could not discern any changes in the overall motion of the boat.
I am aware of these reports of mast failures:
CAPELLA lost her main mast when a shroud terminal fitting broke. Obviously, this was
not the fault of the mast.
ASTARTE lost her mizzen mast when a shroud caught a timber sticking out from a high
dock. Again, the mast can not be blamed for this type of accident.
ROBUST’s main mast developed horizontal cracks just below the spreader. This area is
very highly stressed, but why it failed is not known. Was rigging not set up properly,
allowing the mast to bend too much? Did glue joints fail in the mast first? Was there rot
from water entering near the spreaders? This is a troublesome mystery. Lennart
Konigson replaced the mast with an aluminum one.
Over the decades, we have had some failures of the glue joints of the original wooden
mast. According to Sheila Ross's carpenter, the resorcinol glue crystalizes and
deteriorates after 2-3 decades. Rene Vidmer says roughly the same thing: "these spars
59
were glued up with casco glue at the factory and after twenty years that glue looses all its
adhesive property."
I got the following feedback on "casco" glue from Cruising World's website bulletin
board:
Probably "Casco" is "Cascomite." It is a waterproof resorcinol resin glue that was
developed during WWII and was used mainly for Hurricanes, Mosquitoes and other
wood stringer aircraft. Its problem is that it is non elastomeric and eventually shears
along the bond as it is stronger than the wood. All glues/adhesives should have at least
the same or more ability to expand/contract as their host materials over their entire life
span, otherwise failure will always occur.
Whatever the precise formulation of the original glue was, we sometimes have mast
delamination and projects. Rene advises, "It is then a simple matter to split the spars and
re-glue them with epoxy."
Thatcher Lord (TRINKA) has done precisely that. He broke apart the glue joints and reglued the original boards.
John Paradis used this approach to repair weakened seams:
I took all the old varnish off with a heat gun, cleaned all the cracks and loose areas I
could find with a hacksaw blade to take out old glue. I made a dike along each crack
with masking tape where I wanted to reglue, and kept dabbing West system epoxy into
the vertically supported cracks until they appeared filled. I used 2" galvanized dry wall
screws from top to bottom, set 4" apart on the aft two seams (which were more
deteriorated) and 12" apart on the front two seams. I predrilled the screw holes and
counterbores before putting the epoxy on. When I set the screws, the epoxy oozed out to
confirm a good joint. After the epoxy set, I put bungs in the screw holes (made of spruce,
set in epoxy). After all was dry, I sanded the mast to clean wood and put five coats of
Flagship varnish on. Whole job took about 20 hours.
Tim Litvin (SALA-MA-SOND) heard an illuminating mast story:
I recently spoke to a guy named Phil who owned and cruised SKYLARK for 17 years.
He told me a story about when he stepped his wooden mast for repainting. He used the
hoist at a yacht club in San Diego to do so and rested the mast on a series of sawhorses in
the hot summer sun. Then he went into the yacht club to have a beer. When he returned
some time later he noticed a long crack had appeared in the paint. He pushed and gently
tapped a putty knife (not a chisel) into the crack and it continued to open up. By day's
end he had entirely removed one of the four timbers of the mast's box section. He said
the interior looked like new but there was little evidence of glue on the seams!
Once the seams were entirely cleaned, he organized a glue party of about 20 people. He
used West Systems and a bunch of home-made clamps to rejoin the box. After that set he
60
removed (just as easily) the opposite timber to reveal the two remaining seams. Another
glue party was organized the following weekend and it was done.
He said that although the questionable integrity of the original mast joint was a startling
revelation, the seemingly ominous repair was remarkably easy.
I have been less insightful and less bold. When I find glue joints that are failed (they
appear black through the varnish), I cut out the joint about an inch deep and the width of
the blade of a power saw and epoxy in a narrow spruce spline. (My boatyard had some
aircraft spruce and cut slightly tapered splines so it was easy to fit them in.) My father
repaired several joints this way about a decade ago, and this seems to be an excellent
repair for this problem. Last year I made a special jig that clamps onto the mast and
restricts the lateral movement of the power saw, so I can easily do more of these joint
repairs as required.
At the bottom of the mast, I took off the stainless steel shoe and found the same situation.
The wood was in excellent condition, but the glued joints had opened. In this case, I used
a hand saw to cut open the joints. This left two slots of about 4 1/2" x 7" x 1/16". I
found wood 1/16" at a hobby shop, which I epoxied in, to fill the space.
Stan Starkey (SELENE) found rot on the top of his mast and rebuilt the top two feet.
Bob Mallers (SHENANDOAH) found deterioration at the bottom of his mast and is
rebuilding it. He thinks water entered the mast through unsealed mast hardware
(especially the spreader bolts. He recommends rebedding mast hardware every few
years, with special attention to the spread bolt.
The (wooden) mast should have a drain hole to enable escape of any water that gets in.
Rhodes' original plan for the mast, which I got from Mystic, specifies a drain hole down
the middle of the bottom solid portion of the mast (which extends up 30"). I took off the
shoe on the bottom of my mast, and there was, in fact, a 1/4" drain hole in the mast.
Small channels are carved in the bottom of the mast, to enable water to flow to and out
the holes on the four sides of the mast shoe, which also enable water that might collect
between the mast and the shoe to escape. This system is exactly what Andreas Sarris
(KENARIS) had previously described on his mast.
While the theory is fine, on my mast I found that:
-the bottom holes in the shoe were sealed with bedding compound.
-the bottom of the drain hole was clogged.
-the drain hole was about 20" long and seemed to terminate there. I am not sure that it
can drain the bottom of the mast.
-the glue joints holding the parts of the mast together had failed. I repaired them, as
61
described above.
Having a functioning drain hole seems like a good idea, especially as I learn of masts that
rot and need substantial repairs. On my mast, in recent years I have had lots of blisters in
the varnish, as though there were some vapor pressure from inside the mast. It could be
moisture in the mast trying to escape. Maybe I have to help it get out before it rots the
wood. To ensure that this drain system works, I:
-drilled the hole longer. At about 23" it reached the hollow portion of the mast. (Home
Depot has very long drills in electrical wire department). I drilled it out to about 9/16"
(because the boat yard had a long drill bit of that diameter).
-sealed the wood in the hole with epoxy. I wraped some rags around a long rod and used
some epoxy sealer.
-drilled a hole in the shoe under the drain hole, so I can easily clean the drain hole
whenever the mast is out.
-to take off the metal shoe, I fabricated a puller out of 3/4" plywood and 2x3s. I drilled
and tapped the drain holes for 3/8" threaded rod, and set up my puller. Heating the shoe
with two blow torches loosened whatever was holding it. It pulled off pretty easily.
Please contact me if you want to borrow the puller.
John Paradis (FEMME DU CREUX) has a homemade electric powered elevator, which
slides up and down the mast track, to simplify mast varnishing and other work. See
photo and sketch in Annex 14.
If you get into heavy duty mast reconstruction, you might want to get Rhodes' original
plans for the masts from the Mystic Seaport Museum:
75303 Spars (wood) - sloop 4/25/63
75310 Aluminum mast sloop 4/25/63
75317 Mizzen mast, spreaders and boom-yawl 11/13/63
There are also special drawings for spreader tips, spreader clips, shroud tangs, and
mastheads for both main and mizzen. Rhodes clearly was very careful about designing
all the details of the rig.
The aluminum mast needs periodic maintenance also. Gary Stephens reports how he
refinished the mast for PEGASUS:
I repainted the mast with Sterling. The hard part here was removing all the stainless from
the aluminum and running the conduit. Replacing all the internal wires was relatively
easy. New antenna, wind speed and direction, a lightning dissipater, and new lights. The
wind indicator is the first one we have ever had and I really like it. The sail track was
replaced with all stainless rivets, 3/16, and what a set of Popeye arms I had after that.
62
By the way Sterling is very easy to paint with, if you have quality sprayers, HVLP system
made it a breeze, total time spent spraying was less than two hours, and it looks
professional. To say the least I was extremely happy with the outcome, it looks like we
have a brand new mast, to go with the new mizzen.
Mast Wires
Mark Treat reports that on WINDIGO he was able to pull the mast wires out to replace
them. Of course, he attached a leader to the wire before pulling it out, and used the
leader to pull new wires in.
John Paradis (FEMME) has had a similar experience. He was able to pull a new radio
lead through the mast by pulling it with the old lead. He was also able, with the mast up,
to drop a string (with a small lead sinker at the end) down through the mast, with a bit of
jiggling. The string emerged at the main halyard winch.
On the other hand, Bryan Johnson reports:
Try as I did, I couldn’t get the mast wires to budge to use as a messenger for my new
mast head instruments. The good news was there were more than enough wires in place
from the original instruments to splice in the new to old at the mast top opening and stuff
the splices into the mast.
I have tried pulling the wires through, but found the wires immovable, leading me to
think that they were screwed into the inside of the mast. With Mark's and John's reports,
I'll try harder and be sure to remove all the silicone sealant where the wires go through
the mast. Mark also says it might be necessary to remove the spreader hardware/bolts.
Now that I have a big, accessible drain hole in the bottom of the mast, I think I will also
be able to use an electrician's fish next year to put in wires.
Halyards
One problem that came up on ASTARTE and WINDRESS was that the main halyard
jumped the sheave and jammed. We had to take down the mast, take out the sheave box,
and have shims made on either side of the sheave to eliminate any space that might attract
an errant halyard. We haven't had problems again.
On ASTARTE, we still use the original wire halyards and reel winches. I know that
current thinking considers these systems obsolete and somewhat dangerous, and it is
popular to use rope halyards now. However, we have had no problems with the "classic"
system. We put numerous pieces of metal on the mast to protect it from chafe and are
always careful to tie halyards off the mast, and have very little problem with chafe.
In thinking about halyards, I consider the safety of a halyard when used for a boson's
chair to be a critical factor. Years ago, we put on a larger, geared reel winch for the main
63
halyard, mainly so a weaker person (my mother) could hoist a heavy person (my father)
in the boson's chair. When the sail is up, we always remove winch handles. I think that it
is easier and safer for a single person to handle a second person on a boson's chair with
the reel winch than with a rope halyard on a winch, which would need tailing. (Of
course the winch handle is always tied for boson chair use, as a backup for the clutch; in
addition we use a safety line.) On a friend's boat I experimented with mast steps and
found them very "un-relaxing." You have to focus on holding on, pulling yourself up,
stepping in precisely the right place and can't think about anything else.
Brian Johnson has gone to rope halyards on WINDRESS:
I replaced the wire to rope main and jib halyard with a pre-maid 7/16" StaysetX halyards
from Westmarine. The cut in the mast head sheave for the jib looked like it would work
fine for the new rope. The main sheave had a deep "V" cut for the wire so I filled the
entire "V" with West System epoxy with a filler and let dry. Then I mounted the sheave
on a very slow turning drill and used a 7/16th inch round file to make a new groove for
the new main halyard.
They have both worked great for the last year and a half and I am sure my varnish on the
mast is much better for the change, My mizzen already has an all rope halyard but any
required sheave modifications would have been the same as with the main...
Pat Zajac is using wire spliced into rope for main and mizzen halyards on RUSALKA.
Roller Reefing
Last year I took off and revitalized the original main boom roller reefing equipment. It
turned out that wear and tear had enlarged a hole and worn down a shaft, accounting for
the wobbling and binding. My friendly machine shop easily solved this problem. New
chrome helps also.
Andreas Sarris (KENARIS) reports there are drain holes in the end of the outhaul fitting
that allow water to drain out of the aft groove in the boom. Check them to be sure that
varnish has not clogged them.
Hull and Blisters
The hull fabrication seems to be different in the Rhodes Reliant and Offshore 40 hull.
The "Structural Laydown Plan" for the Reliant says:
Basic Hull Layup: Gelcoat, 10 oz cloth, 4 layers each consisting of 1 1/2 oz mat and 24
oz woven roving. Forward of Station 3, add one layer of 1 1/2 oz mat and 24 oz woven
roving for total of 5 layers.
64
Layup doubled at stem, to 10 layers.
In the concave curve of the hull near the keel, add three layers of mat and roving for a
total of 7 layers.
Very bottom of hull near lead ballast: Layup doubled to 14 layers.
However, a marketing brochure for the Offshore 40 that Cheoy Lee recently sent me said
its hull was 3/4" at the sheer to 2" around the keel, without specifying the layup. The
Offshore 40 hulls are laid up entirely of mat, with no woven roving. According to David
Toombs, at that time Lloyds did not like woven roving and its polished threads, and
preferred (required?) using mat only. Cheoy Lee liked to stay close to Lloyds’
requirements.
Peter Kantor confirms and explains:
The hulls of OS40 are laid up with multiple layers of mat. As far as I know, there is no
woven cloth or roving in the layup. Supposedly, Lloyds would not insure them unless this
technique was used. During one of several visits to the yard in Hong Kong back in the
late sixties, I saw a layup in progress. Full boat length layers of mat, cut off huge rolls
were laid in to the mold. The theory was that the random orientations of the strands
provided greater strength than the orthogonal lay of woven material. As testimony, I offer
the following incident. An OS 40 was T-boned by a wooden gillnetter near Anacortes.
The OS40 suffered a sprung deck (the teak part) and a broken toe rail. The gillnetter
damaged its stem to the extent that planking broke loose from the stem rabbet. Prompt
delivery of a large pump saved it.
My boat (ASTARTE) seems to have woven roving in the inside, and seems to be laid up
in conformity to the Reliant design specifications. ASTARTE's hull is around 5/8" thick,
where I have replaced seacocks.
Are blisters a common problem? I have heard of more blister problems on boats with the
thick Offshore 40 layup:
FEMME had about 85 blisters in the late 1980s. John Paradis routed them out with a
sharp chisel and sealed the spots with epoxy and filled them with epoxy paste. He then
put 3 coats of epoxy over the whole bottom. This has worked well.
RUSALKA, with the same thick hull layup, has continual, growing numbers of blisters
each year.
SERAPHIM needed major bottom work, involving removal of the outer layer and
replacement. Tom Rose reports:
Four years ago I had extensive blister problems including delamination in one area all
the way through the glass. My yard did a gelcoat removal (about 1/8 inch) off the
original glass and then ground out all the bad glass in the blistered areas. After this the
65
boat was left to dry which took almost 6 months. Next the bottom was reglassed with 1/4
inch of new mat, then sealed with an epoxy primer. The boat was just hauled for the first
time in 4 years and the bottom is excellent. This was a long and time consuming job with
a final bill of approximately $9,000.
On SHIBUI, Park Shorthose epoxied the bottom around 1980, but blisters appeared
around 1993. He ground them out, filled them and re-applied four coats of epoxy.
Of Reliants, I have this information:
David Epstein found small blisters on one side of CALYPSO, and had the boat ground
down by over a half inch, and then 5 layers of mat were put on, followed by barrier coats
of epoxy paint.
OWL has also suffered blister problems; she has been in southern waters.
ROBUST developed small blisters in the gel coat after at least five years continuously in
the water. The blisters were sanded down, and the bottom was painted with a two-part tar
based paint. The boat has been hauled out every winter thereafter, and no further
problems have developed. More recently, Lennart Konigson took this approach:
For some years I have been concerned with osmosis. I have had something in bottom.
Small pitted holes rather than the water filled pimples of osmosis. Last year I removed
the paint and gelcoat on the starboard side of the bottom. Five days of dirt and grime and
heavy grinding. This last winter I started on the port side but took the advice of an
osmosis expert who, among other things measured the humidity of the underwater body
of the hull. The end result was that I had to remove not only the port side paint and
gelcoat but also the epoxy and new paint I had already put on the starboard side.
Thereafter the whole underwater body was wrapped in three layers of plastic and a heater
and humidifier inside took five weeks to bring down the humidity on both sides to a point
where it made sense to apply epoxy. I put on three coats of 100 percent epoxy (no
solvents).
I was told that ROBUST had an early but rather very mild case of osmosis because the
gelcoat had started to let through moisture in very many places. The reason why this had
not resulted in a full fledged case of osmosis with bubbles of acid water, etc was said to
be that, at the time when our boats were built, they used fiberglass with a surface
treatment which was less susceptible to conducting water than that used some years later.
I would recommend other sistership owners to check the humidity of their underwater
hull. It is done with a small calculator like device and is a relatively simple thing to do if
you know how to interpret the results. I had an expert do it for me. I still have too much
humidity between the keel and the fiberglass which I will try to get rid of this coming
winter. They say you can use infrared light or something similar.
DESTINY and MYTH OF PROVIDENCE had their bottoms cleaned and barrier coated
66
but in both cases this was done more because the boats had been out of water a long time,
so it was a good opportunity to do so, not because they really needed it.
On ASTARTE, I have not noticed any significant problem with blisters, but ASTARTE
is out of the water every winter for a long time and the truth is that I haven't looked very
hard.
As for repair, Park Shorthose used epoxy resin and found blisters 12-14 years later. He
thinks that epoxy looses its water repellant properties with time and plans to renew the
epoxy coating every 5-6 years. At the boat yard where I winter (Cerubini's, discussed
more below), they use vinylester resin, which is said to be more impervious to water and
more permanent in this application. Certainly the selection of resins for this purpose
merits careful research.
Obviously, many factors influence the emergence of blisters, including:
1. original layup
2. original resins
3. water temperature
4. extent of hauling out and drying the hull
As far as I can gauge, blisters have been more of a problem in boats that have been in
southern waters and not hauled out regularly. Whether the thicker "Offshore 40" layup is
more vulnerable is not clear. There are more Offshore 40s than Reliants, and maybe
more Offshore 40s have been cruising for longer times in warmer waters.
It is worth while noting some insights I saw on Cruising World's Other Opinion from an
owner of a cousin-ship, a Cheoy Lee Offshore 47:
The hull had had some blisters in the past. These had been repaired by filling the holes
and epoxying the hull without drying it. This sealed in the moisture. As these hulls were
built with all layers of chopped mat (not chopper gunned) the sealed in water eventually
wicked its way deep into the laminate. By the time I bought the boat she was covered
with hundreds of bumps 3-4 laminates deep. As we could not get the hull to dry out
adequately, I had to have the bottom stripped down 3-4 layers and relaminated with
epoxy and cloth--a very expensive proposition. I have known other Cheoy Lee owners,
and talked to Lion Yachts, who had my type of boat created, and have heard of no similar
problems.
When we look more generally at the yacht industry's experience with blisters, it is clear
that our "mature" sisterships have had fewer problems with blisters than many younger
boats built by well known builders whose advertising dollars help support the sailing
magazines.
Some excellent articles have been placed on the internet by David Pascoe, a marine
surveyor in Flordia. I have links to them in our web site. Pascoe argues that a great deal
67
has been known for decades about how to avoid blisters at the construction stage, but
many if not most builders cut corners and costs, leaving the owners to deal with the
costly blister problem years later. I also had a chat with Marty, owner of Osotec (410280-9704), an Annapolis based company that has specialized in blister repair for almost
20 years. They invented and patented some of the tools for stripping off fiberglass from
hulls and supply tools and sharpen cutters for the industry. This keeps them in pretty
close contact with the industry around the country.
The first insight is that many factors lead to blisters. Key issues are the type of resin
used, the degree of wetting out, the type of layout, the bonding between layers of the hull
(affected by how much a previous layer had cured before the next was added, and by
other factors), engine vibration transmitted to the hull, history of hull stress and flexing,
etc. In general, hull layups made purely of mat tend to blister sooner than layups of
woven roving, because the mat fibers provide more capillary opportunities for water
infusion. In some cases, hulls made in the 1960s used a high resin content and wetted the
glass thoroughly, and have not had blister problems. Cheoy Lee probably used a lot of
labor, so many, many pairs of hands could spread out resin and ensure that it fully
penetrated the fiberglass as the hulls were being layed up. Our good luck may have this
simple explanation.
In the 1960's and into the 70's, orthopthalic poylester resins were used. Its molecules
presents many spaces where water molecules can attach, so it is most sensitive to
hydrolysis. During the 1980's isophalic polyester resins became available. These were
somewhat more resistant to water but not perfect. In the 1990's, vinylester resins have
been used, and these seem very resistant to water.
Before deciding what to do about blisters, it is important to determine the cause of
blisters. In some cases they may be in the surface. In other cases, there may be problems
below the first layer. In other cases, the problems may be deeper and perhaps pervasive
in the hull. Marine surveyors may play a helpful role here.
How are blisters repaired? If they are at or near the surface, it might be feasible to clean
off the bottom, dig out the blisters (a dremel is a wonderful tool for this), dry or extract
moisture and chemical residues, fill them with some resin paste, and cover the bottom
with resin to seal it. The West System of epoxy fillers and coatings is often used. Filling
depressions without removing moisture and other chemicals simply seals in the materials
and is a sure ticket to future problems.
For blisters deeper in the laminate structure, a more aggressive strategy is to peel off the
hull relaminate it. One company that specializes in this business is Osmotec. They peel
off some of the hull (how much depends on the nature of the blister damage). They then
put on layers of mat (sometimes 3 layers) with vinylester resin. This establishes a very
secure skin for the hull that is highly resistant to water penetration. I watched them do
this on a 48 footer, and it was very impressive. They had a crew of about 4-5 men,
dressed in space suits with air tubes so they could work in the middle of thick
fiberglass/bottom paint dust. They had very powerful, effective tools. In just one
68
weekend, they stripped off the boat and had applied several new layers of mat. The
bottom still needed fairing, sanding, and finishing, but phenomenal progress was made in
just two days!
This work is not cheap. While every job is individually priced according to the condition
of the hull, prices have averaged in the $175/foot (LOA) range. For our 40 footers, this
would be around $7,000. While it seems to be an excellent, albeit expensive approach, it
might not necessarily work if the original hull laminates are porous.
OsmoCure (410-888-676-6287) argues that this conventional approach is inappropriate
and can often seal in problems that continue to spread inside the fiberglass laminates.
Their view is that water per se is not the problem, but rather that water triggers a
chemical deterioration of the resin (hydrolyzation). The residues of this process spread
throughout the laminate, weakening the laminate bonds and ultimately affecting
structural integrity. They use a special heating and evaporation process to extract the
chemical residues and then a penetrating epoxy to restore the interity of the original
exterior fibers. They offer a ten year guarantee for their blister work. Whether their
approach of heating the hull to extract chemical residues is correct or not, we certainly all
know that putting a finish on rotten wood or rusted metal can aggravate problems; so we
should not be surprised that coating a blister-prone hull can lock in the problems and
make them worse.
The selection of resins to make the repair is a matter of some controversy. Marty
believes that as a general rule, it is somewhat inappropriate to mix epoxy resins with ester
resins. They are chemically different, have different degrees of flexibility and different
coefficients of expansion, so that especially for under water applications, Marty prefers to
repair poylester hulls with vinylester resins. Epoxy resins seem good, and they have had
some success with epoxy resins, but are more comfortable using ester resins with ester
resins. (It sounds a little like the philosophy of not mixing metals.) OsmoCure uses some
form of epoxy. Vinylester does not adhere well to epoxy, so if epoxy has already been
used for repairs on the hull, vinylester might be unsuitable. I don't know how much
epoxy on the hull is too much for vinylester overcoat. A few blister repairs? Filling a
few through-hull holes? A full epoxy barrier? Expert advice is needed on this question.
Not surprisingly, Gougeon Brothers Inc, the suppliers of WEST SYSTEM epoxy resins,
is confident that epoxy is the preferred material for blister repair. They cite the excellent
adhesive qualities of epoxy. They say that vinylesters need special heaters to ensure
proper cure.
I asked Marty if they ever put in the new layers a layer of kevlar around the bow to make
the bow less vulnerable to puncture caused by hitting semi submerged shipping
containers. His view was that kevlar was very expensive, and the hulls were quite strong,
so in practice they don't use kevlar in this way. Osmotec services the East Coast from
New York to Florida, can be an excellent source of insights on the blister problem, and
can help boat owners in other regions locate companies that do similar work.
69
Is there anything owners of boats without blisters should to avoid blisters in the future?
Conventional wisdom now is to put on a barrier coat (probably of vinylester resin). An
alternative view suggested by one very knowledgeable person is that the problems are
caused by the internal laminate structure, and if we don't have blisters after all these
decades, we won't get them in the future. Moreover, a barrier coat might lock in
moisture that otherwise can escape during winter haul-outs. If my boat were in the water
year-round, maybe a barrier coat would be helpful. In any event, even with a barrier coat
on the outside of the hull, moisture exists on the inside, both real water in the bottom of
the bilge and humidity in the air throughout the interior of a boat.
I am always amazed on boat maintenance issues that I start out thinking that I have a
simple question for which there must be some clear simple answer, and very often the
deeper I dig, the more controversy I discover. I have given information on how to
contact Osmotec and other companies that do blister repair on our web page. Osmotec
can help you locate local companies in the blister repair business.
When our boat was quite new, we discovered a small leak (drip....drip...) coming down
the back seam of the boat, in front of the rudder, visible by sticking my head down in the
bilge and looking aft under the drip pan (maybe I used a mirror, I don't remember). We
had to move the engine and the drip pan to access the area. It turned out that the holes for
the gudgeon rivets were not adequately covered up with fiberglass and resin. We cleaned
up the inside of that joint and extended the fiberglass/resin, and have not had any
problems since. If and when your engine is out and this area is exposed, it couldn't hurt
to look at this area carefully and perhaps put on some more fiberglass.
Hull-Deck Joint
Rhodes’s original designs for the Reliant specified that the hull and deck would be
bonded together with four layers of mat and roving, roughly the same thickness as the
hull. There were no mechanical fastenings in the joint and no flanges. The idea was to
produce virtually a one-piece boat.
On MARY T, the joint between the hull and deck was leaking (after three weeks of hard
sailing with the rail down, as she cut across the trades winds in the South Pacific). Sig refiberglassed the joint. He removed the toe rail and all lifeline stations. He also removed
the outer three deck planks, using a powerful heating iron to heat the boards enough to
soften the bedding adhesive as well as the machine screws. He ground down the inner
tabbing and put on cloth-mat-cloth. On the outside, he sanded the joint clean and put on
fiberglass and mat. The fiberglass went up on the deck to the old planks. Having the
outer edge of the decks as an unteaked waterway works fine. On the outside of the hull,
the fiberglass comes down to the top of the cove stripe, and is not noticeable. Then the
original toe rail and cap were put back on, carefully bedded, of course. That area of the
boat is far stronger and perfectly water tight now.
70
Rudder and Pedestal
The rudder is one of the parts in which there is a difference between the Rhodes Reliant
and the Offshore 40. There may also be some variability within each class.
In my experience, the Reliant's wooden rudder has held up pretty well. It certainly looks
fragile in the spring after the wood has dried out and contracted (see propeller photo), but
the rudder has bronze rods that give it more strength than is superficially apparent. After
a few days in water, the wood swells up and the rudder looks whole again. A few years
ago, when I had access to an excellent machine shop, I had the shop put the rudder on a
horizontal boring machine, drill and put in a few additional bronze rods for extra strength.
On the Reliant, the rudder post is solid and can be detached from the rudder post, so that
the rudder can be removed fairly easily. The nut on the bottom of the post is removed,
and then the shaft has to be pushed up and out of the bronze casting at the front of the
rudder. (A "one-armed" propeller puller worked very well last time I had to do this.)
There is some metal trim at the top of the rudder that must be removed and the upper
gudgeon must come out (drill and drive out the rivets). Take the quadrant off the rudder
post, push up the rudder post, and the rudder comes back, up, and off. To remove the
rudder post, the propeller shaft must be removed first.
The Offshore 40 rudder is made of fiberglass, with a mahogany core. Small areas of
loose glass can be sanded off and re-covered. However, if left unattended, water can get
inside the rudder and freeze, leading to delamination, further water penetration, and
possible rotting of the wood core structure. The fiberglass rudder on MYTH OF
PROVIDENCE become waterlogged and delaminated. James Lyne did a total rebuild,
including opening it up, removal of core material, and installation of a new core.
On the other hand, Sig Baardsen checked MARY T's rudder after some damage and
found it was in good shape:
In 1992, we damaged the rudder backing off a coral head in Papeete, and spent a week in
Ellacott's boatyard installing a new stern tube and rudder tube and getting the rudder reglassed. When we stripped the glass off the foam sandwich rudder, we found the herky
rudder post and struts in excellent condition. The glass work was so good that we should
have just puttied it up instead of re-doing it. It's wise to examine old stainless carefully,
but we were pleased with what we found.
A second difference is in the rudder post. The rudder is built with an integral hollow
tube/pipe (rolled and welded) rudder post, which is welded (I am not sure exactly where)
to a solid rod to which the quadrant is attached. Stan Starkey discovered that the rudder
post on his Offshore 40 SELENE was leaking water. The hollow pipe apparently
extended above the stuffing box and was cracked below and above the waterline, and this
let water into the boat. He had to haul the boat, remove the rudder/rudder post, and have
the rudder post re-welded. On SHIBUI, the weld between the hollow and solid rudder
71
posts failed on the first spinnaker run in 20-25 knots of wind. Park Shorthose rebuilt the
whole thing. Gary Stephens (PEGASUS) feels that this rudder post arrangement is a
"weak point" on the Offshore 40, and has failed with some regularity. On the Offshore
40, because the rudder post is an integral part of the rudder, the propeller shaft has to be
taken out to remove the rudder. The normal caveat is needed: Cheoy Lee made some
boats differently. At least one Offshore 40, VELERA LINDA, has the Reliant style
detachable rudder post.
Rene Vidmer points out that the rudder shaft can suffer from corrosion, and as a result
BRETT ASHLEY has a new rudder shaft. He suspects that careful attention to
maintaining the zincs on the rudder, near the propeller, might minimize this corrosion. (It
might help on the electrolysis side, but might not solve the problems of stainless steel
lacking oxygen in a stagnant environment, such as in the rudder shaft areas.) A good
replacement material for the rudder shaft would be to use monel or Aquamet-22 propeller
shafting material. A machine shop that specializes in propeller shafts would be well
suited to make a replacement. (Riverside Marina in Delran NJ would be a fine supplier
of such a shaft. tel: 609-461-1077)
I presume that the other mechanical aspects of steering are the same on the two boats. On
my boat there had been a lot of wear and movement (over 1/2") at the bottom of the
rudder, so I took off the heel fitting and had a bushing made and the pintal on the rudder
filed round again to fit the new bushing. To take off the fitting, I drilled off heads on the
four rivets and drove them out. Also, there are two screws going up from the bottom of
the fitting into the wooden shoe which must be removed. (To put rivets back into this
fitting and the rudder gudgeon, it was very helpful when I was able to get a foot of old,
scrap propeller shaft to buck the rivets, made of annealed copper or bronze rod.)
Next time this area needs attention, I want to re-configure the fittings. I would prefer an
upward pin on the heel fitting attached to the boat, and a hole in the fitting at the bottom
of the rudder. This way, sand could not accumulate in the fitting and accelerate wear.
Cheoy Lee made the pedestals for steering. There are at least two versions. The earlier
boats have a cylindrical pedestal. The steering wheel shaft turns a bevel gear, which
rotates a vertical shaft going through the pedestal. On the end of this shaft, below the
cockpit floor is a drum, which pulls the steering cables. On at least some boats built later
(certainly by 1972, perhaps earlier), Cheoy Lee built a larger, square pedestal that
incorporated engine instruments and controls. In addition to the steering wheel shaft, it
has a second shaft below that. These two shafts are geared together, and the lower,
horizontal shaft has the small vertical drum that has the steering cables.
Disassembly instructions for the earlier, cylindrical pedestal from Thatcher Lord.
1. Remove wheel brake shaft and rotate brake until you see the allen key. Remove brake.
2. Release wheel shaft gear set screw and drive out pin. (Tapered pin)
3. Release shaft keeper (Fwd) set screw and remove wheel shaft.
4. Remove large bolt on gear top and shaft will fall out.
At this point the six binnacle bolts can be removed and she will be free.
72
Disassembly instructions for later version, square pedestal, from Peter Kantor:
.
Disassembly is quite straightforward, after removal of the compass.
(a) Secure battery power and remove the engine instrument panel screws.
The panel now needs to be lifted sufficiently to gain access to the steering gear.
Depending on how the instrument panel was assembled, it may be necessary to
disconnect some instruments and electrical wiring so that the panel can be lifted far
enough to provide access.
(b) Disassemble and remove the helm brake locking assembly.
(c) Using a long Allan wrench, back off the upper shaft stop collars. Then remove the
large cotter pin at the rear of the upper gear.
(d) Turn the shaft so that the locking key of the upper gear is on top. Then carefully start
sliding the upper shaft out, toward the rear. The locking collars, gear, and brake drum
will slip off the shaft. (Be
careful not to let components, particularly the key, fall through the pedestal) The lower
shaft and wire drum will now be accessible.
(e) To remove the lower shaft assembly requires slacking of the steering wires. The shaft,
gear and drum are then removed in similar fashion as the upper shaft. (It may be easier to
remove the steering wires from the quadrant.)
Peter decided to abandon the wire drum concept on TRARITSA:
It was becoming a gratuitous clutch. I removed the wire drum and had it machined to
accommodate a sprocket gear. I then installed a length of chain, which connects to the
steering wires. Regrettably, I went one size too small on the sprocket gear which resulted
in five turns, stop to stop. (This puts Tsarita's steering gear in the same class as the
legendary Natchez or Robert E. Lee) .
On my ASTARTE, the steering wheel shaft had a lot of sideways movement in the
pedestal, so I disassembled it, in the way Thatcher describes, and then made a puller
(with 1/2” allthread and pieces of pipe and washers) to extract the old, badly worn babbitt
metal (?) bushings. A machine shop made new fiber bushings. Steering feels much
better.
On ELYSIA, Richard Taylor took off the pedestal. The main problem was that a bottom
bushing had frozen on the internal shaft and the bottom of the pedestal was corroded
The hardest part was getting the stainless bolts out of the aluminum pedestal base. I tried
73
to do this before I disassembled the gearbox, but I am not sure I could have removed the
pedestal anyway with the bolts still in place with the nuts removed. I have a raised
wooden base of about 1 -1/2" that the bolts went through and I had to drive them out
with a hammer and punch. They either broke off or I had to hacksaw them off. There was
also a lot of aluminum deterioration on the bottom of the pedestal. I acid treated this and
primed with yellow zinc chromate. My current problem is the end of my steering shaft is
still stuck in some sort of end cup bearing.
The gearbox came apart fairly easily. I took off the wheel brake and then removed the set
screws in the forward and aft retainers. The shaft slipped right out. The large bevel gear
has a bolt to hold it in place and is keyed. After removing the bolt and the key, I was able
to work the gear off of the shaft by pulling up the loose pedestal housing and using it as
hammer on the bottom of the gear.
I have one cable off the quadrant and plan to replace the cable when I get the shaft totally
disassembled, since I do not want to do this again anytime soon.
The steering cable is, of course, a maintenance item. Park Shorthose experienced failure
of the original 1/4" galvanized cable very early and replaced it with 3/16" 7x19 ss wire,
which has lasted for over 30,000 miles. On our boat, I do not remember the original
cables to be so flimsy, but I know that it did fail some years ago and my father replaced it
with stainless steel cables. He also said that the emergency tiller worked pretty well, but
he put set screws in it to hold it tightly to the rudder post.
There are two reported failures of the bonding holding the steering pulleys to the hull
(CELICIA II, KANARIS). It would be a good idea periodically to examine these pulleys
when under stress to see if there is any movement, which might signal a weakness in the
bond.
The quadrant stops are important components of the steering system. I have not heard of
problems with them, but if they are removed for any reason, they must be put back. I
bolted some blocks of wood on mine to reduce the rudder swing from about 45 degrees to
about 30 degrees, to match limits of the auto pilot hydraulic ram I installed. On MARY
T, they had been removed and replaced with something weaker, and under storm
conditions the stops broke and the rudder moved so far that it bend the propeller,
essentially putting the engine out of service.
On MARY T, the steering gear has been replaced with a cable type system, and a new
quadrant was installed. Sig Baardsen gives lots of ideas and details on the installation:
A previous owner had removed the original, Cheoy Lee, cable-quadrant steering, and
installed the Don Allen System. I can only speculate as to why. The boat would probably
we better with tiller. I found under the cockpit seat lockers (sail traps) remains of pads
for turning blocks, inside the hull. Presumably these were left from the original
installation. These turning blocks were loaded in tension rather than sheer. I suspect
that one of them might have peeled off the hull and led to replacement of the whole
74
system.
To avoid that problem, I glassed in struts, on each side, from the after lower corners of
the cockpit to the hull. I mounted the turning blocks on those struts. Also the struts give
additional support the cockpit tub, bearing in mind that when the cockpit is full only to
the seats, that is one cubic meter of water (one ton) When the cockpit is full to the
coamings that is 2 cubic meters. That is 2 ton or 20% of the displacement of the boat. I
used the opportunity to enlarge the cockpit drains. I also glassed in struts between the
underside of the cockpit sole and the fuel tanktop, to better secure the tank and support
the cockpit. Massive quadrant stops are also glassed in.
I had a custom made bronze quadrant cast. Bronze cost only 10% more than aluminum. I
found, after I had paid, that the cable grooves were not in a plane square to the axis of the
shaft so I had to re -machine the grooves. Also, when back out to sea, the cables started
to wear and fail prematurely because the turning sheaves were not correctly grooved for
the 6mm 6x25 wire. After re-grooving the sheaves, at Cairns, we haven't had a lick of
trouble.
In this installation, alignment of the sheaves and quadrant grooves is critical. Two secrets
for easier installation are:
1/ Just as you align the pulleys on your alternator- Lay a length of rod (same diameter
as the intended wire) in the quadrant groove and check its alignment with the groove in
the turning block. Shift the turning block until it is in perfect alignment with the rod.
Then perform the same operation between the turning block and the heel block under the
pedestal. The heel blocks furnished with the pedestal are usually self aligning. You will
have to perform this operation cycle several time to get it perfect. Now you are ready to
drill the mounting holes, preferably a little oversize to allow final fine adjustment. If you
are using metal mounting brackets, now is the time to fix them with 5 minute epoxy and
take them ashore for welding.
2/ Final mounting- Cover the back of the brackets or turning blocks with cellotape as
a mold release. Put a big gob of slow curing epoxy on the back of the block or base and
proceed with the final installation and alignment while the epoxy cures. When the epoxy
is hard you will have a strong permanent installation with perfect alignment and one that
can be readily removed for eventual repair.
Some owners have considered replacing the original Cheoy Lee pedestal with a new one.
Edson is the obvious choice; Rhodes initially specified Edson fig. 300 pedestal steering.
The original drawings show the quadrant facing forward, with his grooved side just under
the pedestal, and Edson 606 idler pulleys attached to the bottom of the cockpit floor.
While replacement might be necessary if the original pedestal is structurally damaged,
there is nothing inherently un-seaworthy with the original setup. Maurice and Lynda
Johnson, completing a total restoration of BLUESTOCKING, report:
75
We re-built the original Cheoy Lee cable steering, the one with the blocks glassed to the
hull, which we found to be very efficient and well balanced.
Of course the rudder stuffing box needs to be re-packed with flax once in a while. I
recently re-packed ASTARTE's for the first time, but I guess boats on extensive ocean
passages might need to do this more often than once in 30 years. It uses 1/4" flax
packing.
The wooden rudder on Reliant ROBUST deteriorated badly, and Lennart Konigson had a
new one built. It was made with a fixed rudder post and stainless steel internal structure,
perhaps some wood or foam core, and lots of fiberglass. It followed the original Reliant
rudder shape, but had a larger aperture to permit installation of a MAX PROP.
Bob Mallers rebuilt the rudder on his Reliant SHENANDOAH to give more area at the
bottom for better control and pointing to windward. I think one should be careful about
this; I think it is good to have the bottom of the rudder coming up to reduce the
possibility of damage when being pulled backwards off a sandbar (as Rhodes designed
it).
Sig Baardsen offers these comments on the emergency tiller:
The original emergency tiller on MARY T was a huge affair of galvanized steel pipe,
over 2 mtrs long.. It was made with an S-bend to clear the binnacle. The wheel had to be
removed to use it. The end was fitted with a square socket to fit over the 1¼ inch
squared ruddershaft.
It suffered some disadvantages e.g.;
1/
It was impossible to stow
2/
It was magnetic and interfered with the compass
3/
The range of motion was limited.
4/
It occupied too much cockpit space and inhibited maneuvering.
5/
Most important it failed when most needed, due to poor design.
The worst design flaw is the commonly used method, of fitting a square socket to a
square rudder shaft. In order to fit there must be 0.5 mm clearance. That clearance is
enough slop to allow the joint to wear. We found that after three days hove to, in bad
weather, with the emergency tiller lashed hard over, the socket simply wore out, allowing
the rudder to slam back and forth dangerously and destroy the propeller. The wheel
steering gear and rudder stops had previously carried away, when falling backward off a
wave.
There are a variety of ways to fit a tiller to a rudder shaft, including; key and keyway,
tapered shaft with key, clamping with bolts, pinning with tapered pin, pinning with
throughbolt and conical washers. Simply through bolting is not acceptable, as the holes
will wear oval and become slack with time.
76
Our new emergency tiller retains the same old 1¼ inch square socket but is now fitted
with three 3/8 inch set screws to take out any movement. It is fabricated from welded
steel, with a short tiller welded to the square socket at a 45 degree angle, to which is
bolted a wooden tiller (non magnetic) with places to attach relieving tackles. For full
range of movement the tiller is fitted thwartships like the steering bars on ancient Viking
ships or Arab dhows. This keeps it clear of the binnacle, frees cockpit space and allows
the helmsman to sit either to windward or to leeward.
The HYDROVANE steerer has been very useful for emergency steering, as it has its
own, very strong, independent rudder. We have sailed over 500 miles without wheel
steering and without the emergency tiller, steering with the HYDROVANE alone. There
was no need to bother with jury rig steering. That is a wonderful safety feature. It is also
particularly well suited to our hull form with long overhangs and small, raked main
rudder.
Grounding Shoe
On the Reliant (but I presume not on the Offshore 40), there is a wooden timber on the
bottom of the keel, aft of the lead ballast. The back end of it supports the rudder heel
fitting. Owners have wondered what it does and how to maintain it. I have always
thought that it was a grounding shoe, to protect the fiberglass hull from grounding. We
have sometimes grounded, and I know our shoe has been "reshaped" by the experience. I
have always been happy to have the damage limited in this way and isolated from the
fiberglass structure of the hull.
Some people (including my father) have put fiberglass over the wood shoe, but in my
experience, the fiberglass does not work or help. To fiberglass it, we try to dry out the
wood, but then the wood gets wet and swells up and breaks the fiberglass, and water
flows between the fiberglass and the wood. There is no adhesion. In winter, the water in
there freezes and expands and further breaks the fiberglass. Eventually it tears off. I have
been removing the fiberglass and leaving the wood exposed.
Frank Hamilton (HEARTSTRING) took off the shoe. I'll let him describe the project
after removing the tanks, a separate project discussed below:
After removing the gudgeon and with the help of long extensions and a swivel socket, I
was able to unbolt the shoe for removal. Once I got the shoe in my workshop, I cleaned
it and dried it under heat lamps for a couple of weeks. All clean and dry, it was quite
easy to coat the exterior with West System epoxy, and fiberglass cloth. The old bolts
showed some crevice corrosion just under the nuts, so I bought new nuts and bolts.
I cleaned the sump area as best I could with a pressure washer, then re-installed the shoe,
setting it in epoxy and found mixed with high density filler. After the gudgeon was back
in place with new bronze bolts [ed. note: I use copper or bronze rivets for these
fasteners], I faired the entire area.
77
The reason I removed the shoe for repairs was that water was getting between the
fiberglass hull and the shoe. When HEART STRING was pulled out of the water, water
would squish out between the hull and the shoe when she was set on blocks. This no
longer happens.
Frank’s recollection is that there were one or two bolts under the aft water tank. (In his
boat, the aft water tank had been replaced earlier, so it was not a big problem to remove.)
On ROBUST, the wood shoe deteriorated from worms, and the boat started to leak.
Lennart Konigson used the old shoe to make a sand mold, and then had a new shoe cast
out of lead (about 300-400 pounds.) Not only did this solve the leaking problem; it
stiffened the boat to windward. He made a new stainless steel fitting on the bottom to
hold the bottom of the rudder.
Lennart recalls that all nuts were accessible. The sump tank had to be pulled out (not a
difficult job), but the aft water tank did not have to come out. If there were bolts under
that tank, they were cut off.
Bulkheads
It is not uncommon for sisterships to have some bulkhead deterioration. It may be highly
localized and easy to repair. In some cases of badly neglected boats, where rain water
was able to penetrate the deck in various locations (companionway, open hatches, under
toe rail) and where high humidity was locked in the cabin, there can be very extensive
delamination of bullheads, to the point where one can easily push a finger through the
bulkhead. In the worst cases, many or most of the bulkheads must be removed and
replaced, and this can be a very major part of restoring the boat.
I have experienced the localized problem. I (and many other owners of sisterships) find
that the tabbing that secures bulkheads breaks off from the bulkhead. I used to think that
failure is simply due to the deterioration of the resin bond with the wood, coupled with
stress and motion. As long as the wood seemed in good condition, the failure was easily
repaired. I used to inject thickened epoxy between the tab and the bulkhead, and then put
in some temporary screws to keep them together.
I now realize that a more thorough treatment is generally needed. In some or many cases,
water has gotten into the edge of the wood, and has penetrated the wood. If it sits long
enough, the wood delaminates and deteriorates. For this reason, where the tabbing seems
loose, it is best to pry the tabbing loose and inspect carefully. If the wood is pretty good,
I drill small holes in the wood so that the area can be carefully dried. Epoxy can then be
injected into the wood to restore internal adhesion of laminates. I am now using Smith
Clear Penetrating Epoxy Sealer (SCPES) in these situations of restoring plywood. It
penetrates very well. However, it probably will not penetrate from laminate to laminate
because of the glue in between, so I am still drilling holes so the epoxy can get to each
78
lamination.
Various sisterships have found these problems and more serious cases of bulkhead
deterioration in several places: the bulkheads going down into the bilge near the water
tanks, the bulkhead under the main companionway, the forward collision bulkhead by the
forepeak. On my boat I found an area of deterioration about 1 x 1 1/2 feet on the forward
starboard collision bulkhead, above the foot of the bunk. I dug out the deteriorated wood
with chisels and small dremel-mounted routing tool. I fitted pieces of 1/4" plywood into
the hole, which I configured so that each layer of new plywood was larger and could be
attached to a different part of the old bulkhead. It was sort of like scarfing the plywood
coupled with fabricating plywood from thinner plywood. I left the original tabbing in
place, and fitted the new wood into the old tabbing. I used the Smiths penetrating epoxy
on all wood surfaces, old and new, and then I bonded everthing together with epoxy resin
and some fill, and bonded to the insides of the tabbing. I put additional cloth on the old
tabbings to lengthen and strengthen them.
Recognizing that this is, indeed, a collision bulkhead, I filled some holes in it we had
made years ago for hoses and wires to restore its water tight integrity. (It is not a
watertight bulkhead, but does come above the waterline.) I covered up the limber hole
and put in a through-hull fitting and a valve, with a hose leading through a filter to the
sink drain system that I have previously plumbed to the sump tank. This way, the area
will drain to the sump tank, leaving the mud in the filter. In an emergency, I can close
the valve to seal off the area.
On my boat, the bulkhead under the mizzen mast was wet and delamianted. I pulled out
the bad material and rebuilt the bulkhead.
Several owners have reported similar problems and similar strategies. On MARKADA,
Bill Welsh found extensive delamination of bulkheads. Obviously, there were leaks
through the deck at many points. However, in that boat the delamination is virtually
systemic. Was the boat left in storage in a very humid environment without ventilation
for an extended period? Did Cheoy Lee get a lot of non-marine plywood with an inferior
glue? Moreover, Bill feels the tabbing is minimal -- a layer of mat. He is removing
portions of these bulkheads and will restore them.
Bob Sundman reports that on SUGAR LOAF:
I've noticed a lot of de-laminated and wet plywood in the area of the tabbing. In fact each
bulkhead is afflicted with it for several feet along the lower portion of the hull. I think
the wood behind the tabbing gets wet and can't dry well causing the problem. i.e. The
back of the settee where it is secured to the hull is a mess.
My planned solution is to remove and cut out all sections of bad or delaminated plywood.
Locate the cuts out so they can be backed up, glued, screwed or glassed to remaining
bulkhead in an area that is normally hidden from view. Grind out one side of the tabbing
(makes it easier to fit new plywood) Make templates of section. Cut and fit a good grade
79
of marine plywood to each section. Re-glass, glue, screw and tab in place - make sure
the finished bulkhead will be aesthetically pleasing. Sand, prime and paint white. (I liked
the picture or the white painted bulkheads you forwarded in a previously email.)
Allen Brenzlow from Teak Decking Systems stopped by and inspected these areas - He
said from his experience in updating many Cheoy Lee's than this is a typical problem and
that it is easier to repair the bad areas than it is to replace the entire bulkhead. He did say
that the aft bulkhead (under the lazzaret) was an important structural bulkhead to support
the mizzen mast and stresses on the mizzen chainplates, and in my case should probably
be replaced.
Andreas Sarris has some thoughtful insights and suggestions on this matter:
On Kanaris I have had loosening of the connections between some bulkheads and the
hull, without rot. I think this happens over the years as the structures flex. The fiberglass
tabbing is not too long and this is probably the reason. I suspect that wet plywood
contributes. A major source of water in the forward anchor compartment is the anchor
rode and whatever opening exists to allow its entry. In the aft bulkhead, moisture usually
gets in from the cockpit lockers. Again on Kanaris the little drains that drain the gutters
around the cockpit lockers get plugged up with debris and allow water to overflow in.
Usually this water drains into the bilge, but the small drain holes at the bottom of various
bulkheads are often clogged with debris, and water is retained at the bottom of various
compartments.
I would let the wood dry as you are doing, but in addition I would sand down any rotted
bulkhead, and either scarf in a new piece if the rot goes through and through or use epoxy
with a filler. I would give the whole bulkhead an epoxy coating, and then retab anew with
fiberglass. I am not sure whether leaving the old fiberglass tabs in place are going to give
enough adhesion to keep the bulkhead attached. The boat flexes sailing in rough weather.
Finally, I am enlarging slightly the drain holes that exist at the bottom of various
bulkheads on KANARIS and I might drill some new ones. I am going to epoxy the
openings, to facilitate drainage of the water into the bilge.
Speaking of rot, I recently replaced the head, and in doing so I found that the wood in the
little compartment under the bowl and the aft head bulkhead were wet and rotted. These
I am repairing now, but this is another area that owners of sisterships may want to check
for rot. The stagnant water not only rots, but also smells. I am trying to see how I can
put a small drain from this compartment to the bilge or the grey water tank.
Kurt Karsten has similar views:
Regarding the question about the forward bulkhead attachments, I made a repair on these
a few years ago, after consulting with a surveyor, and at his suggestion I did what you're
considering with one modification, which was to put a through bolt with a large washer
through the fiberglass tab. Apparently, the issue here is lateral hull shape, from what I
was told, so fixing the collision bulkhead firmly to the tabs in order to locate it to retain
80
hull shape is the goal.
Kurt is correct that strength is needed here, and it is reassuring that this bulkhead is well
braced mechanically by the narrowing bow in front, and by the shelves and end of the
longitudinal stringers near the bottom.
Tanks
Reliant owners have had problems with tanks. Both of our water tanks failed when the
rivets holding internal baffles broke, leaving rivet holes in the sides of the tank to leak, in
a completely unreachable area. (Gary Stephens (PEGASUS) sees weeping at rivets on
his fuel tank and on some extra tanks that are under his aft berths. He has been able to
stop the weeping with an epoxy/metal mending compound, coupled with some thin sheets
of brass on the outside of the tanks to give them a little more stiffness near the rivets.)
When the rivet failure occurs on the side of the tank adjacent to the hull, however, there
is no simple solution.
As for the Reliant's metal tanks, the forward water tank can be replaced fairly easily. The
table is removed by unscrewing the leg fittings, and the floor boards have to be
unscrewed. The seat aft of the table can be unscrewed and removed easily (although old
brass screws may have to be drilled or cut out--but first try heating the heads with a
soldering gun), and the timbers holding the floor boards can be lifted up one by one, in
proper sequence. Of course plumbing must be taken out. The tank lifts out and will fit
out through the main companionway. We replaced our forward water tank in 1991.
To remove in one piece and to and replace the aft water tank at the maximum size
requires removal of the head. Doug Wintermute did this on RAVEN. Howard Lapp did
this also and reports it is not too difficult. I'll quote his letter on the subject:
Howard Laps (SHEARWATER) writes:
The head framework is pretty well fastened together, but everything could be gotten to by
removing plugs and the headliner [shower pan?]. Most of the screws broke when I tried
to back them out, so I had to resort to prying pieces slightly apart and cutting the screws
with a hacksaw blade. This was tedious but it worked. [My note: I have learned recently
that old screws can often be removed by heating their heads with a soldering gun. This
softens the wood resins that are holding the screws.] After removing the head
compartment it was simple to loosen the floor timbers and remove the aft tank. I thought
that I was going to have to cut it up inside the boat, but it fit through the companionway.
I used an A-frame and block and tackle to hoist it. I had 2 stainless steel tanks fabricated
to replace the originals. They are sized so that their removal won't necessitate taking the
boat apart again. Neither tank has a flare (they are rectangular) and I figure I lost about
20 gallons of capacity. I rearranged the way the floor timbers were fastened together, so
that removing a few short pieces and a few floorboards gives me complete access to both
tanks. I also have drains in the tanks that can be reached by hand while lying on the
81
floor.
Bill Heron (CAPELLA) discovered that the Vetus Company was able to make custom
plastic tanks to fit the space available. Jeff Healey (ARETHUSA) is trying to fit a
standard plastic tank into this space and having problems. It is a little to big, and he is
wondering if it can be cut smaller and re-welded
Loren Schaller (ANTARES) did not remove the head, but extracted the old tank in
pieces. He had two stainless steel tanks fabricated; a smaller one drops down and tucks
under the aft head; the larger one drops straight down.
Thatcher Lord made fiberglass tanks, using the original ones for molds to retain the
original shape. He is pleased with the result. He was able to transfer to the new tank the
original inspection plates as well as some of the hardware.
When our aft tank started to leak (around 1967), we did not undertake the removal of the
head, but instead cut up the tank in situ to remove it. We then built an integral water tank
of fiberglass. It is still working fine. This tank pretty much uses the volume to the
maximum; hit holds 75 gallons.
The construction of the tank included these aspects:
1. We got a sheet of 3/4 plywood covered on both sides with fiberglass. This was used to
make the fore and aft sides (screwed into the bulkheads) and top and bottom. (The top
was made of several pieces, screwed in place and fiberglassed together.
2. The bottom (supported by cleats) had a substantial stainless steel access plate that
could be unbolted to provide access to keel bolts. The top has a very large hatch, actually
large enough so I can get into the tank and work in it. For both top and bottom access
plates, bolts were put through and welded to a stainless steel strip. The bolts come
through the fiberglass/wood and the stainless steel plates, which are secured by nuts
every few inches. Neoprene gaskets are used for both plates.
3. We sanded the sides of the boat and put on some coats of resin and fiberglassed around
all the joints (top, bottom, front and back). Knowing what I know today, I would consult
more carefully about which resin to use in this application.
4. Two acrylic baffles were made, with corners cut out and large holes in the middle. I
made fiberglass brackets attached to the hull, which are then bolted to the acrylic, so it is
removable, both for cleaning and accessing the bottom plate and the keel bolts.
Lennart Konigson's apprach was this:
After having had only one functioning water tank for many years I finally gathered
enough courage to start the disassembly of the interior so that I could remove the aft
water tank for either repair or replacement. It had been leaking in one or several of the
82
bottom seams when filled with water. However, when empty and not under pressure it
did not let in any bilge water.
I had to remove the head floor, door and door post and the aft part of the settee plus all
the floorboards including those where the table is mounted. It was quite a job. I had a lot
of help of the little tool for removing broken screws that I found in one of the catalogues I
got from you. All the original screws in my boat appear to have been brass and I managed
to remove very few without them breaking off. With the tool I could remove the broken
part and replace it with a wooden plug. Had I known the trick with the soldering iron I
might have saved some plugs.
Both tanks rest on wooden chocks, one in each corner. The top of the tank was
fiberglassed to those chocks with small fiberglass tabs at each corner. Underneath, the aft
tank rested on three beams held in place by vertical wooden posts approximately 1 by 2
inches, which were fiberglassed to the side of the hull. I attach a photo (rob-bilge.bmp)
that shows the three beams and the bulkhead aft of the tank as well as the bottom of the
bilge. In the photo the vertical supporting beams for the aft support had been removed.
The photo also shows an extra hole that I made in the aft bulkhead in order to be able to
reach in under the water tank once it had been put back in place. As is shown there is a 25
inch deep space between the bottom of the tank and the bottom of bilge.
All beams and posts were partially disintegrated and the fiberglass cover could be ripped
off by hand. Over the years they had been soaked by bilge water and oil on account of
many small oil leaks. They were all made of teak, which was probably the reason why
they had not disintegrated entirely.
When I had removed the fiberglass tabs on the chocks I could lift the tank and winch it
through the main hatch. In one of your recent mails you wondered if the tanks would fit
through the main cabin hatch. I can tell you that they will, albeit with a very slim margin
as far the aft tank is concerned.
My theory as to why the aft tank developed a leak is that there has been galvanic
corrosion. The tank is made of monel which cannot be welded so the seams have been tin
soldered on the outside. As monel and tin are quite far apart on the galvanic table a
galvanic current is likely to have been generated when the bottom of the tank was
immersed in bilge water. As a result the less noble of the two metals, the tin, was
dissolved. This theory would explain why only the bottom of the aft tank has developed a
leak.
My options were to either repair the tank or replace it with a stainless tank. Repairing the
soldered seams would have made sense only if I would use silver instead of tin and this
would require that all tin be removed. Instead I decided to repair the tank and to use
fiberglass and epoxy. After sandblasting the tank I covered it with two layers of
fiberglass cloth and soaked the cloth with epoxy. I had no problem with adhesion.
I also steam cleaned the inside of the tank and found out that its inside bottom was
83
covered by a layer of cement presumably to reduce the upward force when it is immersed
in bilge water.
When I had successfully removed the aft tank I decided to also do the forward one which
was given the same treatment.
Offshore 40s have fiberglass water tanks, so these tanks do not have this rivet problem
and have been durable. John Paradis reports that Offshore 40 FEMME's fiberglass water
tanks have no taste problem, but he does use an activated carbon filter.
Sig Baardsen reported a different type of problem on the water tanks in MARY T:
There are two interconnected freshwater tanks. (Poor practice) They share a common fill
pipe and chare a common vent pipe. They are inter-connected by a short crossover line.
The crossover line consists of an 1 1/2" hose 4 inches long installed with hose clamps.
The crossover line is installed close to the bottoms of the tanks, deep in the bilge. It
passes through a floor timber and is virtually unreachable. I can barely see it.
Bulkheads, cabin sole supports, the head doorpost and other furniture have been installed
on top of and after the tanks were installed. When that rubber hose, crossover line
perishes, we will lose all the water from both tanks. We carry Jerry jugs of water, on
long passages, in anticipation of that eventuality. I would like to correct the problem.
The fuel tank can be removed after the engine is pulled forward and cockpit scupper
plumbing is removed. Mine came out of the aft companionway after I cut off the little
sump on the bottom from where fuel comes. In a later section of this Handbook, there
are detailed discussions of design issues of the fuel tanks.
The shower sump tank removes easily. We have covered it (twice) with fiberglass to stop
leaks.
While on the subject of tanks, we should note that some boats, particularly Offshore 40s,
were built with additional tanks. PEGASUS and WINDRESS both have additional tanks
under their aft berths. On PEGASUS, one tank is for extra fuel and the other for extra
water. In WINDRESS, both are for extra fuel, giving it a total of three fuel tanks
carrying 100 gallons of fuel. RUSALKA has a second fuel tank under the aft starboard
bunk, providing roughly 20 gallons extra.
Some owners have re-configured their tanks. Frank Hamilton (HEART STRING)
converted the space for the aft water tank into a fuel tank. He removed the original fuel
tank under the cockpit, and uses that space for engine access and spare anchor storage.
He has installed two 20 gallon water tanks under the forward vee berths for extended
cruising. Other boats have installed fuel tanks in the aft hanging locker or under aft
bunks, and others have put either water or fuel tanks under the forward vee berths or
under the main cabin settees. On FOLK SONG, the fuel tank was removed from under
the cockpit and new ones installed under the aft settee and in the aft hanging locker. She
now has a very large access plate on the cockpit floor for both engine maintenance and
84
other machinery, including her Esbar heater.
Underwater Plumbing
Cheoy Lee made a critical blunder in the plumbing of the head. The head inlet and outlet
originally went directly from the head to the seacocks. Proper plumbing practice, of
course, requires that both inlet and outlet hoses be led up well above the deck, fitting with
siphon reliefs, and then looped back down the the seacock. Lacking this modification, if
the head seacocks are left open, it is possible for water to back up through the inlet valve
or outlet joker valve, flood the bowl, and sink the boat.
According to Ernie Croan (BRIES), more than one sistership suffered this horrible
ignominy at the docks of San Francisco with water coming in the outlet. Stan Starkey's
SELENE came close to sinking when the boat was left unattended with the head inlet
valve open. The pedal operated inlet valve somehow was stuck in an open position, and,
well, water does flow downward. The value of an automatic bilge pump was
demonstrated. Stan added a supplementary valve on the inlet pipe in the head, which is
kept closed with some shock cord. (For me, part of the routine of pumping the head is to
push the pedal up with my toe to make sure it is closed.)
If your head plumbing does not have above water line loops, make this modification a
very high priority. My father modified the outlet line in this manner years ago but now I
have to fix the inlet line. Of course, you have to clean the siphon relief fitting regularly.
The same type of above-the-waterline loop with a siphon relief valve is needed on bilge
pump outlets as well if they exit below the waterline. (I think that the piston bilge/sump
pumps Cheoy Lee installed are OK. The outlet comes very close to the deck, and I
presume air can pass by the plunger shaft and relieve any vacuum forming in the pump.)
If we need biblical references on this matter, let me quote Nigel Calder’s Boatowners
Mechanical and Electrical Manual, p. 302: "It is absolutely essential to fit some form of
a siphon break on both suction and discharge line." (Calder's emphasis)
Mark Treat's WINDIGO has the head lifted a bit, so that the top of the bowl is above the
waterline. This reduces risks of flooding when the boat is unattended at mooring or dock,
but doesn't fully solve the problem of heeling over.
Pat Zajac's suggestion is to keep seacocks closed all the time, except when using the
head, pump, or whatever.
Fresh water pump
I have chatted from time to time with Betsy Van Winkle (FOLKSONG) about the
85
annoying problem of air getting into the intake side of the fresh water pump. Maybe
others have this problem too, so I'll mention my (finally) happy experience. This year,
for the first time in decades, I did not have that problem. I don't know which of my
modifications solved the problem, maybe all were needed. So I'll list the various things I
have done in recent years to solve this:
-I replaced the original valves to turn on and off the tanks with contemporary ball valves
(sea-cock type).
-Years ago we had connected plastic tube to pipe fittings by making adapters with copper
tube and flare fittings. I discovered a compression nut had cracked. I replaced these with
simpler and far more reliable brass hose barb adapters.
- I discovered a crack in the top plastic housing of the old PAR diaphragm pump. We
had an old pump which I was able to cannibalize for parts. This stopped the leak of water
and perhaps air.
On PEGASUS, Gary Stephens was having trouble with drawing water from his tanks and
found the draw tube was cracked and corroded. He put some tubing over it to seal it, and
this solved the problem.
Bilge pump
Last year I had problems with the bilge pump. Finally I determined that the 3-way valve
that selects between bilge and sump had deteriorated (corrosion, electrolysis), and was
sucking in air by the plug. I replaced the valve with a similar valve (Apollo ball valve, 3way) and the problem is solved (for a while, at least). I realized that although I have been
very careful to grease all seacocks every year, I had always overlooked that valve. The
problem with doing your own work is when there has been a stupid mistake, you can't
blame some other jerk.
The Wilcox-Crittenden manual piston bilge pump is a lovely piece of hardware, and with
a bit of effort it can be restored.
1. First, You may have to remove the cabinetry so that you can access the body of the
pump, namely a large cylinder. At the bottom of the cylinder is a bronze casting screwed
on to the cylinder. The pump intake hose is on that bronze casting. With a large pipe
wrench, unscrew the large nut to detach the intake hose. (Do not use a wrench on the
cylinder. It is very thin and can be damaged easily.)
2. On the top of the bottom bronze casting, you will see that there is check valve. A
small bracket holds the valve in alignment, and it is held in place by a couple of (bronze)
screws. Make sure all these parts are working properly. On my boat the little mounting
screws had deteriorated and were not holding the valve in a correct position, so that water
would not be held up in the cylinder. I got some bronze machine screw and this fixed the
86
bottom valve. It might be helpful to use a bit of grinding compound to ensure that the
valve seats well in the bottom casting.
3. To continue dis-assembly, lift the handle about 8 inches to expose the shaft. Put a vice
grip on the shaft right under the handle and see if you can unscrew the shaft from the
handle. Heating with a blow torch may help. After you can get the shaft separated, hold
it in place and have someone else go below and carefully try to pull the shaft down and
out of the cylinder. Maybe you'll succeed; maybe there is stuff in the way.
4. If there is stuff in the way, see if you can unscrew the cylinder from the top deck
casting. Note that the cylinder has a very thin wall, you can't put a pipe wrench on it.
You have to treat in very carefully so you don't dent it. I put on some foam padding on
the top and held it tightly with both hand and eventually with a plastic strap wrench. If
you can unscrew it, then slide the cylinder down. Mark the top, and put it somewhere
safe.
5. At the bottom of the shaft, there is bronze disk screwed on. The top surface should
have a piece of leather that seals a second valve. If that leather has deteriorated, or if the
rivets have corroded, the leather may not be held in its correct position. In any event,
make sure that the leather is held in the correct place. (I had a thicker disk made and
replaced rivets with bronze machine screws.) On my boat, this bottom disk
spontaneously unscrewed itself a couple of times. I finally used loctite when I put in on.
6. Above this bronze disk is a bronze cup that slides up and down. When you pull the
handle up, the cup goes down and seals water and lifts it up. When you push the handle
down, the cup slides up and allows water to flow above the cup so it can be lifted on the
up-stroke. Make sure that part is working correctly.
7. The last important part is the leather cup that seals the valve assembly to the outside
cylinder. The leather cup is held to the bronze cup by a bronze threaded ring. Once that
ring had slipped off, so the leather cup was not held in position and ended up stuck on the
inside of the exterior cylinder half way up. Another time the leather cup wore out and did
not seal. Under these conditions, the piston could not create a vacuum and suck up the
bilge water.
You can get a replacement leather cup from:
A-1 Leather Cup and Gasket Co.
3336 Stuart Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76110
tel: 817-626-9664
Size: 2 1/2 inches
Inside hole: In practice, you need an inside hole of about 1 15/16". The supplier might
cut one specially to this size. Otherwise get one with a smaller hole and enlarge it to fit,
using a dremmel sanding drum and some other tools.
8. If all this looks right, you can reassemble the parts. Use loctite on the bottom of the
shaft to secure the bronze disk. When screwing on the large external cylinder, use some
87
waterproof grease on the threads to seal the joints and to ensure that it will be easy to
disassemble in the future. Be careful not to over-tighten. The threads on the cylinder are
very small and probably easy to strip.
It is very difficult to push the top end of the shaft up and into the hole in the deck fitting.
It helps if someone is on deck with an ice-pick to guide the shaft into the correct
position. Additionally, you can file off the corners of the top of the shaft, and taper it a
bit, so that it will get into the hole in the deck fitting more easily.
If all these parts are working correctly, the pump should work fine for another several
decades.
Doing all this seems like a lot of work, and it is. But doing an overhaul once every 35 or
40 years doesn't seem so bad. Furthermore, how much work would it be to install some
other hand bilge pump in the cockpit? And where can you find another pump that will
last 30 years?
88
Electric Bilge Pumps
We never had an automatic electric pump until about five years ago when an insurance
surveyor said we needed one. So I decided to add an automatic switch to control the
manually controlled heavy duty PAR-Jabsco diaphragm bilge pump we already had,
located well away from bilge water under the aft port bunk. I liked the idea of the PARJabsco air-controlled diaphragm switch because it kept electric wires, connections, and
switches far away from the bilge, so I put one in. It has a rather low amperage rating, so I
have it controlling a power relay (Radio Shack automotive type), which supplies the
89
pump.
This system proved unreliable in the second year. The air bell and tube, located at the
bottom of the bilge, have narrow passages, and I think bilge oil clogged them. So I
replaced the air bell with a long plastic pipe (1" diameter) reaching to the bottom of the
bilge, attached to the narrow tubing (1/4" diameter) about 6" below the floorboards. The
narrow tubing goes up to the diaphragm switch. This way there are no narrow passages
anywhere near the bilge water that can be clogged by floating oil or other debris. The
narrow tubing is installed so it has no low loops. It goes continuously up (or down) hill,
so if any water gets in it (condensation?) can drain and not create an obstruction. This
system has worked perfectly reliably for several years. Sketch in Annex 15 or
http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/bilge-pump-switch.htm
After a couple of years later, I realized that under some conditions of pitching and rolling,
the sloshing water in the bilge trigger the switch on and off too much. So I installed a
second long pipe into the bilge, with the bottom terminating about 3" above the first, with
fitting on the top to connect a small tube that goes to a second pneumatic diaphragm
switch. I wired the two diaphragm switches together with a spdt switch. After many
hours of studying my wiring diagram, I figured out how to put the wires together so that
when the switch is in the down position, the lower switch controls the pump. When the
switch is in the upper position, the upper switch turns on the pump, but the lower switch
turns it off. This way the sloshing does not unnecessarily activate the pump.
Closely linked to this discussion, I put in a device which counts the number of times the
pump as turned on. I find this a wonderful help in keeping track of water coming in the
bilge. On ASTARTE, virtually the only water coming into the bilge comes from the
shaft log, so this counter reminds me to pump more grease into the shaft log.
In 1998, I installed a bilge level audible alarm and warning light as well, controlled by its
own pneumatic diaphragm switch. (The Jabsco switch has gone up in price, so I used a
similar switch from Groco.)
I also put two little red indicator lights on an instrument panel in the cockpit. Whenever
the pump turns on, one light goes on. This helps us monitor its functioning while we are
under way. The second light is connected to the high water alarm, so if both lights are
on we know that immediate attention is needed to determine what is happening.
In 2002, the system developed some unreliability, and I will check to see if the
diaphragm switches might be leaking air. If the boat leaks very slightly, water would rise
in the tube very, very slowly, and even a tiny leak in the air side of the system would
prevent air pressure from building up and stitching on the pump.
I am aware that there are some new, sophisticated bilge pump switches, and I don't know
if they might be better than my arrangement. I think the new systems use a little
electricity continuously to monitor the water level and require some electric wiring deep
into the bilge. For these reasons, I haven't researched this option.
90
John Paradis (FEMME) has found that the submersible pumps (Rule, Attwood, West,
etc.) are not adequately sealed and fail too soon. He hangs his pump high above the
water and drops in into the bilge water when needed. If you try to use it the way it is
designed, he suggests you seal the top end of the wire with liquid electrical tape or
something similar.
WINDRESS's electric bilge pump is mounted on a piece of stainless steel about 6 inches
wide, 4 feet long and 3/16th inch thick. Everything was mounted on the stainless strip,
pump and float, lowered and screwed in place at the top. This works very well and the
flex of not being attached at the bottom is not a problem.
GABRIELLE has a similar system involving a pump attached to a pipe that can be
attached just below the floorboards, enabling easy service of a pump far down in the
bilge. GABRILLE''s system incorporates a small hand pump to pump out the very
bottom of the bilge.
Here is Bob's detailed description: photos can be seen at:
http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/gabrielle-bilge-pump.htm
The following is my solution for getting water out of the bilge on GABRIELLE. I
fabricated a platform to accept two bilge pumps. A Lovette bilge pump on the
bottom and a Par positive displacement pump on the top. The platform is made of
stainless steel and is attached with one 3/8 inch bolt after it is lowered in
place. There is also a bilge pump cycle counter, high water float switch and
alarm attached.
Note: The Lovette pump is one of the few centrifugal pumps that will pump bilge
water 8 feet up from the bottom of the bilge to the bridge deck. The Par pump is
a positive displacement pump and doesn't care about the 8 feet height.
The bilge pump assembly is installed in the aft deep bilge with plenty of access
for inspection and maintenance. The pump discharge hoses are led to a high point
just under the bridge deck (for anti-siphon) and back down to where they are
connected to the cockpit drain. The one bolt used to hold the assembly in place
makes everything very secure and no movement is noticed when sailing. The whole
assembly can be removed in 5 minutes by removing one bolt, disconnecting 4 wires
and 2 hoses.
Just forward of the bilge pump assembly is the gray water collection system.
The yellow plastic jerry can has it own Lovett pump and takes care of all the
drain water from sinks, showers and ice box. Also just to the side of the
yellow plastic jerry can is a hand bilge pump use to strip the last ounce of
water from the bilge.
I also have a Whale Gusher hand pump mounted to a board as a standby pump and
for pumping out the dinghy.
91
Engine Maintenance
Fuel Filter
Of course the first priority in a diesel engine is the filtering of the fuel. We replaced our
Fram filter with a Racor filter a few years ago, as the primary filter. There is, of course
the secondary filter on the engine, near the lift pump. When we wintered ASTARTE in
New York and launched by May, I never learned about algae in the fuel. Now that I am
wintering the boat in Philadelphia and launching in June, the fuel tank gets warmer in the
spring. I am learning about algae, cleaning the filter, and biobor.
Cold Starting
Some owners report the engine is sometimes hard to start. Andreas Sarris read the
instruction manual, and discovered that it says to have the throttle about half open when
starting. He confirms this helps a lot.
For cold weather starting (below around 40-45 degrees), the engine originally came with
an electric igniter, that would light diesel fuel that was dripped into the air intake. Years
ago, we removed the supplementary fuel tank and fuel lines for this system, as they got in
the way of other things and leaked and smelled. Instead, in cold weather, we slip off the
air filter and gently use a blow torch to heat up the air coming into the air intake. As
soon as the engine starts, the blow torch can be removed and the air filter put back on.
While this is a little inconvenient, in practice I resort to this trick only once every year or
two.
Bob Sundman uses a hair dryer or heat gun in the same way. This might be a better tool,
as it is more controllable and doesn't use the oxygen in the air. However, it requires
using shore power.
I'm going to try making a new device, taking some 8" pieces of copper tube and binding
them with a hose clamp. I plan to lift off the air filter and sit this in the air intake and
heat it with a blow torch. Then I won't need a second person on deck to start the engine
and manipulate the controls.
Oil Changing
I drain the oil by taking out the plug at the front of the oil pan. The problem is that oil
then gets onto the bottom of the pan and drips all over the place. To solve this, I put a 45
degree street ell into the oil pan, and the plug after that. The fitting changes the angle so
oil drips down nicely into a simple oil recovery pat ($5.00 at Pep Boys). Since the oil
92
pan is aluminum, I got an iron fitting (MSC catalog) rather than the more easily
obtainable brass ones.
A special valve to drain the oil is available from Fumoto Engineering, 425-869-7711
www.fumotovalve.com. I'm thinking about trying one.
Some owners suck oil out of the dispstick tube. They think this is more effective in
reaching the old oil in the back of the oil pan.
I found this note on the Cruising World Bulletin Board no. 28 about oil and oil changes:
For normal sailing temperatures, 30 weight oil is fine. What is really important is that the
oil be formulated for diesel application -- the bottle should say "CD" in the specs. Oils
for diesels (CD) have different wetting properties and temperature-viscosity response.
Changing oil (and the filter) frequently (or having a re-processor like the big trucks) is
KEY. You can buy a lot of oil and filters for the cost of a rebuild/new engine. Perkins
says to change oil and filters every 100 hours. This is for an engine operated at full load
for a lot of those hours. For a sailing auxiliary with a lot of stops and starts and low-load
operation (battery/refrigeration charging at anchor), I'd drop back to every 50 to 75 hours.
Oil Cooler
Perkins is recommending that in some service applications, which probably includes
many of us, it is better to bypass the oil cooler and run with hotter oil. I will quote here
the email I got from the Perkins service people (in England):
We confirm that in temperate climates and when operating at lower speeds, the use of the
engine oil cooler is not strictly necessary. The oil cooler can be removed from the engine
provided the
following conditions are not exceeded:
1. Full power/full throttle engine speed does not exceed 3,000 revs/min for continuous
operating duty.
2. Engine room temperature measured adjacent to the oil filter and support bracket does
not exceed 60 deg C (140 deg F).
When deleting the engine oil cooler from the oil system, it is only necessary to remove
the flexible pipes from the filter head to the oil cooler and replace the filter head adaptor
with a new adaptor which allows the oil flow to pass directly to the filter element.We will
require your engine number to establish the marinisation specification before we can
identify the replacement filter head adaptor.
I emailed again asking more pointedly if they would recommend removal of the oil
cooler. The reply is:
The oil cooler is not necessary if the conditions stated are not exceeded. The engine will
benefit from not having an oil cooler installed if running at low speeds as the oil
temperature will be at a higher level. The oil change intervals will not alter with the
removal of the oil cooler.
Kind Regards
93
Barry Etches
Service Supervisor
Sabre Engines Ltd
"barry etches" <service@sabre-engines.co.uk>
Note: I presume this does not refer to transmission oil cooling for engine with the dual
filter.
Oil leaks
(from Sig)
It is very difficult to visually locate the leak-point, so you must do some simple tests.
How much oil are you losing per hour? Was the onset sudden or gradual?
Rear seal failure is extremely rare in the 4-99,4-107 and 4-108, almost never. The onset is
is gradual and limited to a slow drip that is an inconvenience rather than a problem. A
bread loaf pan, placed under the engine can collect the oil for re-introduction into the
engine. You can run for years in that condition.
Failure of the cork packing at the rear end of the crankcase is much more common. It can
have a sudden onset and can leak as much a 4 quarts per hour, due to slight (1 psi or less)
crankcase pressure.
Failure of hose or fitting is by far most common and can be sudden and catastrophic
leaking all 5 quarts in 15 minutes or less because of the 50-60 psi operating pressure.
With black motor oil covering everything is difficult to locate the leak. First clean-up as
best you can both under the engine and the engine itself. Place newspaper under the
engine and turn the engine over with only the starter (in stop mode), just enough to recreate and locate the leak.
If you still suspect it as at the rear of the engine, try degreasing the area and spray with
white spray paint, to reveal the leak, precisely.
A rear seal leak will fill the bell-housing (flywheel housing). Check by removing the
starter and examining the ring gear for oil and slid a dipstick down into the hole to check
for presence of oil. Also you may be able to remove one of the bottom bell-housing
mounting bolts to see if oil leaks out. Years ago I drilled a weep hole in bottom to the
bell housing for just that purpose.
A rear seal failure will leak aft of the adaptor plate, between the bell housing and the
adaptor plate. You will need an inspection mirror to see it.
A crankcase gasket failure will leak forward of the adaptor plate, between the engine
block and the adaptor plate.
94
To make the repair the engine will have to come out and be turned upside down to get at
the work area. It can be done inside the aft cabin. Therefore establish with absolute
certainty that is not the hoses that are leaking. rear seal and crankcase gasket replacement
can be done without inverting the engine but you have less than a 50:50 chance of
success.
This might be the time to consider a total re-build. Examine the rocker-arm shaft for
wear, as an indicator of the engines general condition. The rocker-arm shaft is the
highest component and last to receive lube oil, hence first to show wear. It is not 100%
reliable but an indicator, to help you decide.
Bleeding
We all probably have discovered the critical importance of bleeding the fuel lines to start
the engine after changing fuel filters. I have followed the Perkins instruction manual, and
have found a serious problem. Contrary to the instruction manual, we should NOT
loosen the screw on the top of the fuel pump. The threads in the housing of the fuel
pump are fragile, and when this screw is loosened and tightened year after year, the
threads break and the screw can not be tightened; the fuel pump must be removed and
serviced. It should be sufficient to bleed the incoming fuel line, and then the high
pressure fuel lines. Don't touch the screw on the top. (I have paid tuition of $92 to have
the help of a superb mechanic who patched this up, and I probably will have about $500
more tuition this winter when I take the fuel pump off and have the part with the
deteriorated threads replaced. I will send it to Hansen Marine in Marblehead MA, the
Westerbeke distributor, for rebuilding.)
WINDRESS has an small, in-line electric fuel pump that can assist in bleeding the fuel
system.
Transmission-Oil Seals
For many years, we struggled with a leak of transmission oil. Finally, I decided that it
was more than an inconvenience and potentially a safety problem, so I fixed it. I
correctly guessed the leak was from a worn seal on the output shaft. I lifted the motor up
and moved it to the aft cabin, so I could access the back of the transmission.
The truth is that replacement of the seal is rather easy IF you can loosen up the nut on the
output coupling. I tried and I could not turn it. I rather quickly concluded that I lacked
the skill and tools to take off the coupling plate from the transmission. After
consultation, I discovered it was relatively simple to unbolt and remove the reduction
gear and take it to a diesel engine shop to have a new seal put it. They told me some neat
tricks to re-install it (make two 6" studs to use to locate the reduction gear, then slide it
on; secure the flange with temporary bolts so that the new seal does not get damaged
during installation).
95
On one sistership, the transmission output seal kept failing quickly until the owner
installed a flexible link in the coupling (Drive saver or equivalent). (My mechanic said
he thought this could have been caused by not tightening up the nut on the flange
enough.)
I am told it is possible to replace the front seal of the crankshaft, without removing the
engine. I am contemplating trying it, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that
this seal accounts for only a very small part of the oil loss my engine is experiencing.
Can the transmission be taken out without moving the engine? Peter Kantor did:
TSARITA's transmission has been removed without moving the engine. A small hole
was drilled in the cockpit floor above the transmission center and a bushing inserted.
With appropriate fastening to the transmission, it was lifted over the engine and out. (Of
course heat exchangers, pipes, hoses, wires, etc. were first removed from the engine.)
My guess is that this transmission did not have a reduction gear. A reduction gear
requires the engine to sit higher, reducing the space above it. And a transmission with a
reduction gear is higher, longer, and heavier. However, it is good to know for boats
without reduction gears that the transmission can be removed without moving the engine.
Lifting Eye
To help lift the back side of the engine, I put a padeye high on the inside of the front side
of the cockpit. To avoid having four nuts or bolts facing me in the cockpit, I put an
identical padeye in the cockpit side, as a place to attach safety harness lifelines. (You can
see it in the photo of ASTARTE's autopilot control unit, just between my daughter's
legs.) This has made removal and installation of the engine much easier.
Sig Baardsen had a similar idea for MARY T:
I have drilled a half-inch hole in the center of the bridgedeck. This allows me to pass a
lifting wire through to lift the engine by the boom. This keeps the load off the bridgedeck
structure, which is not really strong enough. When the job is done I simply glue in a halfinch bung. I use a 2x8 to bridge the after hatch and keep the load off of the hatchrails and
house structure. (The 2x8 serves also as a fenderboard, passarelle, and many other uses)
Drip Pan
On ASTARTE, I built a special tank (a gallon milk container) that sits in a bracket under
the aft floorboards. A pipe and hose connects the engine drip pan to this "tank." This
way, drips from the engine are collected, can be analyzed, and removed easily.
Exhaust System
If you still have an original exhaust system, count your blessings and replace it now. The
96
original exhaust system was a water-jacketed exhaust. The danger is that eventually the
inner exhaust pipe corrodes through, and cooling water comes back down the exhaust
pipe, through the exhaust manifold, and into the cylinders, where it very rapidly destroys
your engine. We had to replace the cylinder block in 1976, and CAPELLA had a similar
event. Unfortunately, there is no way of inspecting or testing the condition of the inside
pipe. Our original one, made of iron, rusted out after 11 years. Our second one,
beautifully fabricated of copper, was still OK after 20 years, but I decided not to find out
how many more years it would last.
On SELENE, Stan Starkey has placed a drain cock on the front of his engine that can
drain the sea water from the exhaust jacket and top of the engine when he leaves the boat.
Of course he has to be certain that the intake seacock is closed. And before he starts the
engine he has two valves that must be operated. This way he is protected if the inner pipe
starts to leak.
The contemporary hydrolift, pot type of exhaust system has the advantages that it is
assembled from off-the-shelf items and does not require special fabrication, and, if and
when it fails, it results just in a big mess, but not it the destruction of the engine. I used
the Vernay 2" pot and had a special riser from the exhaust manifold fabricated by Marine
Manifold in Long Island (516-694-0714). I also put a Vernay check valve in the line
(between the cockpit and lazaret) to ensure that large following seas would not find their
way all the way up the exhaust pipe. (Gary Stephans reports his new exhaust installation
on PEGASUS is very similar, and SEA CALL's exhaust is similar.
The sea water side of the system must have a siphon break to protect against possible
flooding of the engine. It is a good idea to attach an overflow line from the siphon break
to into the cockpit, so any water that goes by the valve ends up in the cockpit floor rather
than on the engine.
The main disadvantage is that if/when the engine sea water cooling system fails and the
exhaust system cooling fails, the rubber hoses and fiberglass pot can overheat and
disintegrate much faster than the all-metal water-jacketed pipe system. I also added a
heat sensor on the exhaust riser, connected to my engine alarm system, to warn me if the
cooling water is not flowing.
Actually, the heat sensor was a challenge. Years ago, when I first installed this, the
sensor supplied by Hanson Marine, Westerbeke distributor in Marblehead MA, was
designed to be normally closed and to open under conditions of high temperature, around
270 degrees, to turn off a genset. I wanted one that would normally be open and would
close at a much lower temperature, around 200 degrees, to turn on the alarm. I was very
happy when the company that made the sensor, sent me a prototype to do what I wanted.
They might do it for your. Call KLIXON, Bessie Bain, tel: 606-873-2709 and ask for
normal off, alarm on: 20400F29X F210-1.5 P96V
The update for 2004 is this: check the web page of Borel Mfg. company.
http://www.borelmfg.com/
97
They have both a water flow sensor (for the sea water side) and a temperature sensor for
the exhaust pipe. You can get complete alarm systems from them or just the sensors, to
integrate into an existing alarm system (as I did).
There is a simpler way of having an alarm if you can tolerate a little water in the cockpit.
If you remove the rubber flap from inside the siphon break, then in normal engine
operation, some water will come through and drip on the cockpit floor. If water cases to
flow, you will get exhaust gases (and maybe sound) from the pipe, so this is an
alternative way of having a warning that the cooling system is not functioning.
Part of the trick is mounting the pot where it works, but is not too much in the way of
servicing the stuffing box or cockpit scupper seacocks. On my boat, I put it on the port
side of the engine, behind the fresh water pump, in front of the cockpit scupper seacock.
To service the seacock, I cut a hand-hole in the bulkhead to the locker under the aft port
bunk.
Engine Sea-water pump
In recent years, the sea water pump on my engine (21 years old, around 2,350 hours) has
lost its prime and failed to pump too many times. Finally this year I guessed that the
metal housing of the pump might be so worn out that the impeller would not seal
properly. A new pump has worked flawlessly this season. (A new cover plate would
have helped for a while, but I was really sick of this problem. I am not sure, but I do not
think there is a replaceable back plate; I think there is just casting in the back.)
To me, the story is allegorical. On these "experienced" boats, we are way past the normal
seasonal maintenance issues (impellers) and even past the periodic rebuild issues (seals
and bearings). Some things really do wear out and need to be replaced.
Sig has this advice about the seawater pump:
Perkins 4-107-8 raw water pump
JABSCO England Model No.3270-200 JABSCO U.S.A. Model No. 3270-0003
For years I was plagued with leaks, premature bearing failure, premature seal failure and
mysterious failures of the coupling (Perkins PN 0980655) I finally traced the problem to
misalignment and solved it easily. The method of installation shown in the shop manual
is not adequate. You must make and use an indexing tool for correct alignment, as
follows.
Fabricate a metal tube 6" long by 1.3725" (plus 0 minus .0005) outside diameter by
0.8768" (plus .0010 minus 0) inside diameter.
To reinstall the raw water pump: 1/ Loosen the 4 nuts holding the adapter plate PN
33154119 so that it can move. 2/ slide the guide/tool through the hole in the adapter plate.
98
3/ push the guide/tool far enough into the hole so that it slips over the shaft PN 32461313.
4/ tighten the 4 nuts and it will be locked in the correct position for perfect alignment. 5/
remove the tool. Now your are ready to proceed with normal installation. Note;
sometimes the adapter plate will be fixed in position with Permatex, rust, or a sticking
gasket. It must be freed up,
Because of the slope of the engine, any seawater leaking past the pump seal will travel
along the shaft to enter and destroy the bearing. To prevent this one should install a
flinger ring on the pump shaft. Water traveling along the shaft will be flung away by
centrifugal force. A flinger ring is simply a plastic or fiber washer fitted tightly onto the
shaft in the air-gap, between the pump housing and the bearing housing. It can be stuck to
the shaft with silicone. I have a flinger ring fitted to my propeller shaft as well, to protect
the shaft coupling. In a pinch, for a barrier to water traveling along a shaft, simply tie a
few turns of knitting wool around the shaft and smear them with grease.
To further protect the bearing, drill a 2 mm-drain hole in the pump body, into the air-gap
so that water is not left standing against the bearing. I drilled the hole through the "B" in
JABSCO. Often a leaking raw water pump will drip onto the V-belt. That will fling
seawater all over the engine compartment. Threading a string through the drain hole to
conduct the water away and control that.
The manual says that for initial start up and for winter lay-up the impeller should be
packed with MARFAK #2 grease. That is wrong. They do not tell you that the impellers
are made in a variety of materials: rubber, neoprene, viton, Buna-N etc. Not all impellers
are compatible with petroleum grease. The impeller should be removed for lay-up. Prior
to the first start up of the season, the pump should be primed by loosening the coverplate,
long enough to bleed air out of the system and allow the pump cavity to fill.
You can alter the output (volume vs pressure) by changing the cam. The cams are made
in three different thicknesses. None of the books or catalogues will tell you that.
The quickest way to destroy on of these pumps is to restrict the inlet. The danger is not
that it will run dry and burn up. The danger is that the suction created will strip the vanes
off the impeller. When that happens, you have to go into the heat exchanger and collect
all the parts and reassemble the impeller to see if you have gotten out all of the pieces. If
not, you should purge the system with compressed air.
Trouble-shooting the sea water pump
1. The seacock fitting has a strainer built into it. Do you use this periodically to remove
eel grass? (Of course, you have to close the seacock before unscrewing the top plate of
the strainer.) If there is a blockage in the strainer, that might create problems.
2. Have you replaced the sea water pump impeller? It should be replaced every 2 years
or so. If the impeller is not stiff enough, it might not create enough vacuum to bring up
99
the water quickly.
Note: I remove the impeller for winter storage so it won't take a "set."
Use a bit of soap or petroleum jelly to lubricate it when the pump is try (first time when
launching).
Jabsco makes a very nice (and somewhat pricey ) "puller" tool that makes removing the
impeller very easy.)
West Marine Model number 286880 -- a nice birthday present for yourself.
When you take out and put in an impeller, be careful about the location and position of
the woodruff key.
3. Maybe there is a problem in the sea water pump itself. It is important that the
dimension between the back of the pump housing and the front plate be correct. If the
dimension is too large, the impeller might not suck water well. The dimension could be
too large for these reasons:
a. The front plate is badly worn and scored, so the impeller is not sealing properly.
The front plate is available as a replacement part.
b. Someone installed the front plate with a real gasket, and the thickness of the gasket
results in a poor seal. The proper gasket is paper-thin. I put waterproof grease on both
sides of it so that it will not be damaged the next time I take the plate off.
c. The pump is very old and the back of the pump housing has worn enough so that the
impeller does not seal properly.
d. The cam in the pump that distorts the impeller vanes is worn down so it doesn't
work properly. This cam is also available as a replacement part. I replaced mine, and the
pump worked much, much better.
4. If the pump isn't pumping, there is one more thing to check. Remove the plate and turn
the engine over by hand to confirm that the impeller is turning. If the impeller is not
turning when the engine is turning, then there are three possibilities: you forgot to put in
the woodruff key, the pump shaft broke, or the coupling that connects the pump shaft to
the engine has broken. To deal with this, you will have to take the sea water pump off
the engine. Retrieve the broken parts if you can before they fall into the crank case. The
quick solution is to get a new pump (or install the spare pump you have on board).
Presumably the connector is available as a part, and probably needs a heavy press to
install.
Note:
The pump is made by Sherwood
http://www.sherwoodpumps.com/enus/Products/Engine+Cooling+Pumps/PerkinsEngineUS/
My engine 4.108 uses G65. The Sherwood website shows a different model number for
100
the 4.107. Your pump number should be stamped on the front plate.
Heat Exchanger
On the 4:107, the heat exchanger is inside the radiator in the front-top of the engine. An
oil cooler is part of the assembly. (In at least some versions of the 4:108, the heat
exchanger is a separate bolt-on part at the back of the engine.) On the 4:107 heat
exchanger, yellow metals are in close proximity to aluminum, separated by a gasket. A
little leak in the gasket and electrolysis can set in. Then, as the aluminum disintegrates,
the leak gets worse. And of course the thin tubes carrying seawater can become
constricted because of mineral deposits. Like everything else, it is a maintenance item.
Sig Baardsen offers these suggestions in servicing the heat exchanger:
Concerning the maintenance of the top-front mounted heat exchanger for coolant and oil,
there is one "gotcha." The bronze sex-bolts that thread onto the tie-rod and
hold the end-caps on are often de-zinkefied and very fragile. So is the tie
rod. Replace them if in doubt. Make your own fiber packings because the
standard issue are often old, dried out, hard and require too much clamping
pressure to seal. The segments are sealed with ordinary O-rings. Buy them
from a bearing house at half the price. . before reinstalling be sure to
pressure test on all three sides- Oil side, coolant side and the raw water side. That is
because, Because oddly enough sometimes a leak will pass fluid in one direction but
not the other, particularly where O-rings are involved.
In at least some set-ups, I think mainly confided to 4:108s, there is a bolt-on heat
exchanger at the back of the engine, across the front of the transmission. The original part
is manufactured by Sendure. http://www.sendure.com/ It is good to remove this
periodically and take it to a radiator shop to have the insides cleaned.
Peter Ciriscioli discovered that Sea-Kamp makes a cupronickle replacement heat
exchanger at about half the price of the equivalent Sen Dure original component. The
Sea-Kamp exchanger opens on both ends, making periodic clean out easier. The web
site for Sea-Kamp is: http://www.engines1.com/sea_kamp.html
Engine mounts
When I last had my engine off the mounts, I didn't pay too much attention to engine
mounts. I think I erred. As I have read more, I have been impressed by the frequency of
discussion of engine mounts. Obviously, engine mounts are affected by hours of engine
101
operation and also by oil or similar fluids which might affect the rubber shock absorbers.
In addition, mounts are probably affected by hours of sailing, particularly heeled over and
in rough seas. Simply holding the engine in place as the boat is being tossed around must
impose substantial stress on the mounts. This suggests that boats that do extensive ocean
voyaging may require more frequent replacement of engine mounts.
On HeartString, Frank Hamilton got flexible engine mounts from VETUS (K75 around
$48)
Flanges, Flexible coupling
The engine normally attaches to the propeller shaft by bolting together flanges on the
engine and the shaft. These flanges look simple, but they are precision pieces. The shaft
flange has a pilot, which fits into the pilot hole of the engine shaft. This serves to ensure
concentricity between the engine and the shaft. The tolerance here is about .002 inches,
so the precision is high. These parts have to be treated very carefully. If they are
bumped in some ways, they might get distorted, and then they might not fit together. So
do not smash them together, and be very protective of the surfaces. Most recently, my
pilot hole somehow got distorted in a bump, and I spent a week trying to align the engine
before I realized that something had to be wrong with the flange. Careful examination
revealed a distortion of a couple of thousands, which I had to file off (with a dremel tool)
to get the pilot in its pilot hole.
When we think about alignment it is clear that especially if we have flexible motor
mounts (which my dad installed in 1976), the motor will vibrate and move a little, and
this gets transmitted to the shaft. Also, when the engine is under load, in might push
down on the mounts more in the back or front and change positon slightly. Our shafts
are short, without much flexibility, so any movement probably gets largely absorbed by
the stuffing box, which helps explain why I always have to squirt some grease in after
every engine use, and why teflon packing didn't work.
A more effective flexible coupling might help. There are a few different types. I had a
DriverSaver for several years. Then, for no particular reason, I changed it to one
distributed by PYI, the company that makes MAXPROP. Both are similar; they have a
hard plastic disk that sits between and is bolted on to the two steel flanges. I was told to
install one when I put in the feather propeller, to absorb the shocks of the propeller blades
catching the water. The unit I am using is described at:
http://www.pyiinc.com/rdmarine/?page=shaft-coupling
Frank Hamilton put a more elaborate flexible coupling on HeartString. He used a
VETUS Bullflex Type 2 (BULFL0225), costing around $360. He reports that it absorbed
a great deal of vibration and reduced engine noise. It required some special machining of
the end of the propeller shaft. However, an elaborate flexible coupling might be larger
and create geometry problems, particularly with the bilge pump intake pipe which I still
have in the original location. It is also another mechanical device that can fail. Lee
102
Cherubini recommended against it, on reliability reasons.
Long Term Storage
I have heard of more than one engine seizing up during an extended period (over 1 1/2
years) of non-use. If the engine will not be used for an extended period, special
precautions should be taken. I'm not certain what they are, but it might mean either:
1. periodically cranking the engine (with the kill knob pulled) so oil pressure will build
up and re-cover the cylinder walls.
2. taking off the injectors and putting oil in the cylinders, and then hand cranking
periodically.
Engine Access
We all struggle over the challenge of servicing the back side of the engine. We have
been careful to leave the starboard side of the engine reasonably clear, so it is possible to
lie down on that side and reach, with only modest difficulty, the back side. (For serious
access to the flange, I have to dismount the compressor and fuel filter.)
Sig Baardsen has these ideas:
Mary T. like Astarte has the 3-cabin arrangement so we have simply to remove the chart
table, chart drawer and one door. I lay a folded blanket, for padding on top of the engine
and lay on top of that. For safety, I always have an assistant-tool holder in attendance
because with a little arthritis, I may not be able to get out again unassisted.
There is an opportunity to upgrade the boat here
Cockpit sole- the cockpit sole in Mary T is slightly dished (concave) so that the drains are
not at the lowest point and water collects in the center. This is both an annoyance and
safety hazard. I replaced the cockpit sole and restored it to original. That was a mistake.
Now I wish I had cut out the sole all around, 150mm from the edge leaving the cockpit
drains intact and leaving a 150 mm horizontal flange for stiffening and upon which to
fasten the new plywood cockpit sole. By cutting the new sole 25-mm undersize one
would have a gutter all around the cockpit to collect and drain away the water. Further a
removable cockpit sole would allow easier service of the steering gear. In my boat,
removing the center tank and cockpit sole would not in any significant way improve
access to the engine or transmission.
Engine inspection- I have installed a non-breakable, polycarbonate, mirror on the forward
side of the center fuel tank. It increases the available light in the engine compartment and
allows me to see the backside of the engine easily.
Reduced drive line maintenance- it is such a bother to reach the stuffing box and
103
transmission I've made a few simple modifications.
1/ I've installed flax packing. It is much more reliable and forgiving than Teflon, and
graphite is a no-no on a stainless shaft.
2/ A 'T' handle welded to the fill cap, on the transmission makes checking transmission
fluid level much easier. A petcock teed into the hydraulic lines makes it much easier to
drain the transmission fluid.
3/ A slinger ring installed on the tail shaft will keep seawater from traveling up the shaft
to damage the shaft coupling. I simply cut a large washer out of plastic, threaded it over
the shaft, between the coupling and the stuffing box and cemented it in place with
silicone.
4/ I have installed an eight-inch long piece of split exhaust hose over the stuffing
box/slinger ring area to keep seawater mist from being flung about the engine
compartment.
5/ A copper tube teed into the stuffing box admits grease to be fed directly into the
packing. It's much easier to seal grease than water. The grease cup is in a convenient
location, so that daily or after each engine use I can easily give it a couple of turns. That
allows a complete seal with reduced friction.
6/ The best solution I have found is to install a mechanical shaft seal. See discussion
below in the section on Stuffing Box.
Mike Doyle has took these steps to access his transmission area on HUNTRESS, a two
cabin layout, apparently with more difficult access than the three cabin layout:
I found that is was virtually impossible to service anything behind the engine and as a
result, never could tighten the steering quadrant, adjust the no drip shaft seal or service
the Hurth transmission. I started the process of trying to get to the shaft coupling on the
rear of the transmission. No deal. I do not pretend to be a teenage nymph with arms like
a gorilla, but there was simply no way I could reach anything that I needed to reach to
pull the engine and then repair the gear box.
The result was to decide to cut out the old fuel tank that sat under the cockpit, just behind
the engine. I determined that cutting it out with was the only way I could gain access
through the starboard cockpit locker. Before proceeding with the sawzall surgery, I
converted the stainless steel water tank under the quarter berth to a 40 gal diesel tank and
completed the necessary plumbing and other alterations for sea trials before proceeding.
What a task. 14 hours of incredibly hard work and 12 saw blades were required to cut
that 40 gal tank into pieces small enough to get them out of the cockpit locker. Not only
was it hard to cut, but it cut back. Every piece insisted on cutting an arm, leg or some
other personal appendage until it looked like I had been in a fight with a hundred rodents.
104
But out it came...and oddly enough, with the new 1/4 berth tank full...the stern came
above the water line and the bow dropped about an inch and a half. Something to be said
for bringing the weight forward.
At least two sisterships (FOLKSONG and SERENITY) have cut large hatches in the
cockpit floor to permit access to the back of the engine. In FOLKSONG, the hatch is a
large metal one; in SERENITY, it is made of wood, and has screws around the edges to
secure it. For this to work, the fuel tank under the cockpit must be removed. In
SERENITY (as in many Offshore 40's), there was a fuel tank under the aft starboard
quarter berth that seemed adequate. In FOLKSONG, new fuel tanks were built, under the
cabin settee and elsewhere.
Engine Re-Building
Before re-powering, it is worth considering rebuilding the old Perkins engine. Even
though it is an old design and perhaps a bit noisy, it is a very reliable engine. It was used
all over the world in boats, vehicles, tractors, compressors, pumps, generators in all sorts
of applications. Unfortunately, the engine is no longer manufactured, but parts for
rebuilding are easily available from Perkins.
When does rebuilding become an issue? John Paradis has over 3,200 hours on his 4-108,
and apart from replacing the injectors, has had no problems. At about that number of
hours, I found my engine using a lot of oil (1 qt / 15 hours). I thought it was time to
rebuild. Under the best of conditions (constant operation at full load), these engines go
15,000 hours between overhauls. Surprisingly, however, serving as a sailboat auxiliary is
very difficult service for these engines. They are run for short periods of time and at light
load (when charging batteries or refrigerating), so a lot of the hours are at sub-optimal
internal temperatures. If the cylinders are not hot, they are tight, and more wear occurs.
The case for rebuilding is put most effectively by Sig Baardsen:
To rebuild or to not rebuild, that is the question being faced by many of us. I would
encourage him to rebuilding. The new Yanmars and Perkins Primas are wonderful
engines. The owners love them and they have been in use long enough to establish
reliability. They are lighter, quieter faster and consume less fuel. .
I would like to rebut some of the popular arguments for changing engines. Fuel cost is a
negligible cost as a percentage of total yacht operating expense. Increased range is a
specious argument because it is after all a sailboat. The boat is designed to take the
weight of the older engine and might sail better with it in. While the new Prima is quieter,
any engine properly aligned and with a balanced propeller should not vibrate or thump.
Further you can install a lot of sound insulation for the price of a new engine.
Some people feel that a new engine might be more reliable. Because the new engines are
faster turning and lighter they are engineered "much closer to the bone". That means that
105
they may be a little delicate than the robust old engines based on mature technology. Also
field repair becomes more difficult as they require a high standard competence and
workmanship in both repair and maintenance. They are less tolerant of poor maintenance
and poor mechanics.
If there is any question of parts or service availability, just comparison-shop Perkins Vs.
Yanmar spare parts. The price difference is shocking. Also compare parts delivery time
of Perkins against Any other brand. You'll find they look pretty good. Some mechanics
refuse to work on Volvos because parts delivery is so bad.
For example I have been able, without much difficulty, to find injector parts in Salalah,
Oman, a vibration damper in Cyprus, bearings at Kampong Baru in Malaysia and Lineboring in Ciudad De constitution B.C.S. I am sure that there are places in the world
where these engines are not used, but none come to mind. They are used in tractors in
Mexico, Taxis in Yemen, Busses in Bombay and in 40-foot reefer containers all over the
world. If Perkins quit manufacturing parts tomorrow it still wouldn't be a problem
because the supply pipeline is full and the knock-off shops would continue to fill the
void. It would be many years before we could expect any problems. Parts and repair
should be no problem in U.S.
Before going cruising it is a good idea to establish an open account with a reliable parts
house and a back-up supplier as well. With so many dealers, drop-shipping and U.P.S.
you should never be more than a couple of days away from parts. We must look after our
supply lines just like the military.
If we can get the old engine out then surely we can get it back in again. That might not be
true of the new one, in spite of what the brochures promise. Do you recall the Pathfinder
diesel? It was advertised as a "DROP-IN" replacement for the Atomic Four. To their
sorrow, many friends found that it did not fit as advertised nor as shown in the catalogue
measurements.
When considering installing a new engine one must factor in the cost, difficulty and
uncertainty of designing and installing new; Engine beds, prop shaft, coupling, propeller,
fuel supply and filter location, instruments and controls, and wiring. If you have to
change the propeller you must be concerned with clearance in the aperture or with the
hull. Consider that Water inlet and exhaust diameters will have to increase. The waterlock will have to enlarged and be relocated. The anti-siphon loop height and location will
have to change. Consider also, will it be easy or even possible to reach the dip stick, oil
fill, transmission fill, lube oil filter, lift pump and perform routine maintenance? I was
once on a new Beneteau, where we had to cut a port through the shower bulkhead to
reach the lube-oil filter.
I am sure that I would be thrilled, like everyone else, to have a new Prima or Yanmar
installed. But I would do it only if somebody else did the work and it was for equal
dollars. The 4-107/8 is simple, reliable, robust, and difficult to damage and easy to
repair. I like to think of it as the Atomic Four of the diesel world. Can you name an
106
engine being built today that will still be running in another 30 years?
I agree. The engine is very nicely engineered and worth rebuilding.
The trick, however, is to find a very good, honest mechanic. I think the best way is to
contact your Perkins regional distributor and ask for a list of Perkins authorized service
shops. At the present, the Perkins authorized shops are few and small, but my experience
is that the one they found for me is very high quality. Contact Perkins at their website at:
http://www.perkins-sabre.com/
The shop Perkins found for me is in rural Maryland, where lots of engines are used in the
farm economy. The mechanic is superb and very familiar with the engine. His hourly
rates are very reasonable. He has done total rebuilds of engines for around $3,900 (not
including removing and installing the engine, and not including transmission work).
The engine rebuilding industry historically has been treacherous, with lots of rip-off
artists. Many people who claim to do work will simply send the engine to some other
shop. It is best to visit the shop first and then to be present when work is done to confirm
exactly what is being done.
Hansen Marine, the Westerbeke distributor in Marblehead Mass. (1-800-800-343-0480)
is also very experienced in rebuilding these engines. They tell me that a complete
overhaul averages roughly $5,500; there is a significant range more or less depending on
the precise condition of the engine. They have arrangements with truckers to make
shipping an engine to Marblehead surprisingly cost-effective ($150 round drip from
Philadelphia). Rebuilding the high pressure fuel pump runs around $500-$600.
Mark Treat (WINDIGO) had his engine rebuilt at Oldport Marine in Newport RI in
around 1995. Mark reports his engine now runs great, with good compression and no
problems. Mark was very pleased with their service, quality of work, and price. He
recommends them highly. Contact Mike Mussel there and mention Mark's name.
Presumably there are other diesel engine shops with similar capabilities around the
country. SISKIWIT has also had her original 4.107 rebuilt.
Lennart Konigson had ROBUST’s 4-107 rebuilt in Sweden for around $3,500. Since the
engine is widely used in farm tractors there, he got a tractor rebuild kit, and presumably a
shop that services farm machinery.
MART T’s 4-107 has been rebuilt three times in various parts of the world.
The 4-107 and the 4-108 are basically the same engine, except they have different types
of cylinder liners. The 4-107 has wet sleeves and rubber O rings (which can deteriorate
over time). The 4-108 has dry liners and no seals. The strokes and connecting rods are a
little different, but the parts can, I think, be interchanged. The cylinder head nuts have
different torque specifications because of the different ways of sealing the cylinder liners.
107
To take out the valves, Sig has created a simple valve spring compression tool:
Most people remove valve-spring collets by placing a rag and then a socket over the end
of the valve stem. A smart blow with a hammer momentarily compresses the valve
springs and allows the collets to fall out. Hopefully the rag will keep them from flying
into the bilge. For reinstallation some people, with exceptionally strong hands depress the
spring with a pair of screwdrivers, and an assistant replaces the collets. There is a risk
here of both lost parts and lost fingers. Should the correct tool not be available, it is easy
to make a substitute, in the field, as follows.
I fabricated a tool by welding together some square stock. To use, place a large
combination, open end/ box wrench (1" or larger) transversely across the head. Rest the
box end on the exhaust manifold. Rest the open end on the valve spring cap, where you
would ordinarily press with a valve spring compressor. Slip the tool over two rocker arm
shaft studs so that rests across the wrench. Thread on washers and nuts and tighten to
press down upon the wrench. Tightening the nuts will compress the valves springs for
easy and safe removal. The procedure is a little slow but it is simple, safe and cheap.
Here is some very detailed information from the Cruising World Bulletin Board no. 28
about this engine:
With regard to Perkins 4-108 lifespan, these engines should last about 16,000 to 24,000
hours. The trouble is they are seldom properly operated -- at full load, or properly cared
fore--fed clean, clean fluids. 6,000 -- 10,000 hours is more like it when they are found in
sailboats. And the last hours will be smoky.
A healthy 4-108 sounds like a big sewing machine -- lots of clicky-clicky but no banging.
Banging is bad injectors. 4-108s puff grey smoke on start up but should run smoke free.
Some shift hard, because their owners shifted badly. A distinct "thunk" is NOT what you
want to hear. The 4-108 has a BIG damper plate and if you hear a thunk the chances are
the damper springs on the plate are shot. (I have heard that a rattling sound from the back
of the engine is also a sign of damper plate/spring problems.) This requires the bell
housing to come off the back of the engine, and in most boats that means the engine has
to come out. If the engine has a Hurth (125) transmission rather than Borg-warner, there
is a good chance the damper plate has been repaired (which is ok) and an owner replaced
the transmission in the process.
A 4-108 is not necessarily a 4-108 and some owners don't even know it (because the
builders didn't either). This is how to interpret Perkins Serial Numbers. When ordering
parts (even bolt-on accessories) you have to know these numbers because configurations
were tracked but configuration control was, well, was sorta ignored...
108
DATA CHARACTERS
1. Engine Family One Alphabetic Letter
2. Engine Type/Phase One Alphabetic Letter
3. Parts List (Or Standard Option Five Numerals (Or Letter Scheme Order)Reference*
"A"and Four Numerals)
4. Country of Origin One Alphabetic Letter
5. Production (Or Rebuild) Maximum of Six Numerals (Or Serial Number Letter "R" and
Maximum of Five Numerals)
6. Year of Manufacture One Alphabetic Letter
EXAMPLE: TE22282Nl256C
*Some engines may also have a secondary parts list reference stamped immediately
below the primary parts list reference.
EXAMPLE: TE20696U501376C NAP12N
Engine Family and Type/Phase Code Interpretations:
The first two characters of the identification code will always be letters. The first letter
represents the engine family and the second represents the enginetype/phase. These
below apply to the 4-108 family.
FAMILY TYPE CODE
4.108 E 4.99 EA 4.107 EB T4.107 EC 4.108 ED
Parts List References:
Following the first two characters (engine family and type/phase code letters) will be
either a group of five numerals or the letter "A" followed by a group of four numerals. If
five numerals are used, they will be the reference for the engine build parts list. When an
engine is built to a Standard Option Scheme (S.O.S.) order, the reference for the order is
comprised of the letter "A" and the last four digits of the order number. The following
are examples of both references:
PARTS LIST REFERENCE: 21376 ENGINE IDENTIFICATION CODE:
TR21376U500120C STANDARD OPTION SCHEME NUMBER: A018752
STANDARD OPTION SCHEME ORDER REFERENCE: A8752 ENGINE
IDENTIFICATION CODE: LDA8752U501234C
109
Country of Origin Code Interpretations:
The next character will be a one-letter code that represents the country where the basic
engine was produced. The following interpretations are applicable to engine
identification codes.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN A Argentine G Greece S India B Brazil J Japan T Turkey C
Australia L Italy U United Kingdom D Germany *M Mexico X Peru E Spain N U.S.A. Y
Yugoslav F France P Poland
*Motores Perkins S.A., Mexico, started using the new identification format in its infancy
and uses the letters "MX" vice "M" as the code for Mexico.
Engine Serial Numbers:
Each engine family (if produced at the specific manufacturing location) will have a
separate production serial number series initiated at each manufacturing location. To
distinguish the new engine serial numbering from that used previously, Peterborough,
United Kingdom will start numbering the first produced engine of each family with
500001. All other manufacturing operations will start with 251. Upon attaining serial
number 999999, each series will revert to 251. Serial numbers 1 through 250 will always
be reserved for prototype engines by each manufacturing operation.
Each manufacturing operation will group rebuilt engines as one type and serialize them
progressively regardless of their respective engine family. The serial numbering will start
with 251 and progress through 1000 (if necessary) ateach location. The letter"R" will be
used as a prefix to denote "Rebuilt Engine". For example:
R417
Year of Manufacture Code Interpretations:
The last character in the engine identification code will be a code letter that represents the
calendar year during which the engine was either produced or rebuilt. The following
interpretations are applicable to engine identification codes:
LETTER YEAR B 1975 c 1976 D 1977 E 1978 F 1979
NOTE: The letters I,O,Q,R, and Z will not be used to represent the year of manufacture.
The only problem with these engines is they are beasts to bleed if air gets in the fuel
system -- number of bleed points and accessibility. This is particulalry true if the engine
is equipped with a "Thermo-start device."
Another comment to the board reported:
110
A company I worked for many years ago use to rebuild the London police boat engines
after 18,000 to 25,000 hours running! The problem with yacht engines is not the amount
of running a day do but the amount of non-the running or short runs.
Here are some reference numbers for substitute filters and some other parts, from Sig
Baardsen:
Sistership engine perkins 4-107
USEFUL NUMBERS
Perkins E-mail
HYPERLINK mailto:post@sabre-engines.co.uk
post@sabre-engines.co.uk
.
Phone 0044 1202 893720
FAX 0044 1202 851700
Following is a partial table of U.S. and international Part numbers for Filters. These are
exact interchanges or reasonable substitutes. I have used most of them. Trusted friends
provided a few.
The following is not a recommendation or endorsement, but a list
of substitutes I have used in the past.
Lubeoil filters;
NAPA 1305, or
CH 836,
or
AC/V
Osaka F-500
CHL 836
FRAM PH-3, or PH-8, or PH-19, or PH-2802, or PG-2815, or PH8A
PL-1
AC
70V, or
AC PF-2
Knecht FO371
WIX 51305
Fleetguard
LF3313, or LF 3487
Groehner
G 836
Crossland
532
MANN
W-9.40/10
LEE LF-1
MOPAR
L72
MOTORCRAFT
LF-1, or
FL-1A,
or
FL-1DP
Purolater
MF 45700,
or
FCO-1,
or
PER-1, or
or
PER-100A, or
HOT-L
Quakerstate
QS8A
WIL 51305
FIL ZP502 or
FIL ZP 502-T
PER-1A
111
FUEL FILTERS
Perkins 11816 BPL
FRAM 611816
WIX 33194
ALEX 12600
Fleetguard FF144
FIL ZP 540
Dynamo Belt This size may vary with alternator installations.
Gates Industrial (not automotive) XL 9412
12.5/13mm X 1050mm
Temporary Substitue only Dayco automotive Top-Cog 15395 11A1005
Fuel oil injection pump C.A.V. Parts source; Ask for parts list; FL152/4
Lucas Aftermarket Operations
Diesel Systems
Thames Road
Haddenham
Aylesbury
Bucks HP 17 8JB
England
Telephone 0844 292121
Telex 83185
FAX 0844 291653
Heat Exchanger;
E.J. Bowman (Birmingham)
Chester Street
Birmingham B6 4AP
England
Phone 021 359 5401 Telex 339 239 FAX 00 44 121 359 97495
Raw Water pump
JABSCO England Model No. 3270-200
3273 or
JABSCO U.S. 3270-0003
or Johnson Model FB 89
Shaft seal substitute standard industrial lip seal 1 ¼” x 5/8” x 5/16”
Ball bearing substitute standard industrial bearing No. 5202A2Z7NG 1 3/8” x 5/8”n x
5/8” (35mm 15.9mm x 15.9mm) Double sealed.
Corrections and revisions to this list would be much appreciated
Sigmund
Engine Re-powering
112
Richard Cask (CARINA) has re-powered with Yanmar 4JH2BE, and says it works
wonderfully well, with a little more power. He says it fits the space, but just barely.
Reed Simons (TIRANTE) is also replacing his engine with almost the same engine
(Yanmar 4JH2E), with a 2.17 reduction gear. (The "B" in the second model number
means that the output shaft points down at 7 degrees.) Neither engine is turbo-charged.
Thatcher Lord (TRINKA) has been working nearby the boatyard doing TIRANTE's
installation and has been a close observer of the process. He agrees that this Yanmar
engine is the sensible choice for re-powering the Reliant.
Park Shorthose suspects that the Yanmar 3JH2-TE would be a good choice. This is a
similar engine, minus one cylinder, plus turbocharging. It has almost the same power and
is a bit smaller in all dimensions, including price. I wonder if turbocharging adds to
maintenance and might require a larger exhaust system. Has anyone tried this? Certainly
if Park ever goes in this direction, those facing re-powering will be interested in his
conclusion.
I have reports that SKYLARK has a 27 hp Yanmar (3GM3OF ?), and that THALASSA
has a 62 hp Yanmar turbo (4JH2-TE ?), which required a new and enlarged 3" exhaust
system. I do not have contact with the owners of these boats, so I am not yet able to get
their first-hand impressions.
HP
Length
Width
Height
Weight
Price
3GM3OF
27.3
29.33
17.91
22.32
304
3JH2TE
47.6
31.00
20.14
23.13
423
8,350
4JH2TE
113
51.0
35.37
22.09
24.98
498
8,519
4JH2-TE
63.2
35.37
22.09
24.98
513
OWL has re-powered with an Isuzu 3 cyl diesel engine, and RAVEN and
SHENANDOAH have the Westerbeke 46 (with a Mitsubishi block). HUNTRESS has a
Universal 50. TALARA has a Volvo MD22A and DESTINY is planning to install a
Volvo also.
I presume that any of these engines require a lot of work to adjust the attachments to the
boat -- engine mount -- sea water plumbing, exhaust, refrigerator compressor mounting
and hoses, electrical wires, controls, instruments, etc.
Propeller
Rhodes’s specifications for the propeller was 17”D x 10” pitch, assuming a 2:1 reduction
gear on the Westerbeke/Perkins 4.107 engine. ASTARTE has the Perkins 4:108 with a
reduction gear that is nominally 2:1, but when I took it off and counted the gear teeth, it is
actually is 2.18:1. For many years we had a 17” D x 9” P two (Maybe the pitch flattened
a bit with fatigue.) We had no trouble getting engine rpms over 2500 and boat speeds
above 6 kn. (I don't think I have tried to run the engine faster; it seems noisy enough at
2700.) When I switched to a Luke feathering prop, Frank Luke recommended a 16 x 12
three-bladed prop. (Later in this handbook is a lengthy discussion of the upgrade to a
feathering propeller.) (The original 17 inch diameter does not leave the clearance at
edges of the aperture that is recommended to avoid turbulence.) I was worried with such
a substantial increase in pitch, but the engine can turn it, and we easily get into the low 6
kn. and as engine speed approaches 2500, we get over 6.5 kn. (These speeds are at the
beginning of the season, with a clean propeller and clean bottom. End-of-season speeds
are lower by about .5 kn, even with propeller cleaning -- but no hull cleaning.) As we get
over 6.5, the boat is making a deep enough wake that higher speeds would require way
more power and fuel.
I think that some sisterships without reduction gears have propellers more like 13"
114
diameter to keep blade tip speed lower and to reduce/avoid cavitation. Presumably since
such a propeller has roughly double the shaft speed as mine, it could do with a flatter
pitch. Frank Hamilton has direct drive and uses a 14 X 8 three bladed propeller. It looks
like it will be easier for Frank to fit in a feathering propeller in the smaller diameter.
If you have a big propeller and no reduction gear, it might make sense and be possible to
have a propeller shop trim off the tips of the blades (which may well be very worn from
cavitation and electrolysis) and make the pitch flatter.
It is worth noting that having a reduction gear raises the engine, making the chart table
higher. Without a reduction gear, the engine sits lower.
Stuffing Box
Last year, in conjunction with putting in a new propeller shaft and feathering (Luke)
propeller, I reviewed options concerning the box. I need not tell you about the very
limited space available for a stuffing box. It turns out that the dripless ones require more
space than the original. Moreover, I realized that any failure of a modern type would
require hauling the boat and pulling out the shaft. For these reasons, I retained the
original stuffing box. It is possible, however difficult and uncomfortable, for me to reach
back there and put new packing in. A recent discussion of this matter in PRACTICAL
SAILOR (Jan 1, 1998, p. 4) reaches the same judgment.
The original stuffing box is has a peculiar feature. It incorporates a bushing (probably of
babbit metal). I think this is good, as it holds the shaft in position, reducing the variables
as you try to align the motor. On my shaft there has been no sign of electrolysis at the
point of the bushing. The stuffing box is deep, and hold 8 or 9 rings of 5/16" packing (if
my memory is correct). When you changing the packing, pull it all out. (There is a
special tool -- a spring mounted cork screw which will help do this.)
However, Park Shorthose has been pleased with dusty bilge in SHIBUI since he installed
a Lasdrop seal some ten years ago. He thinks it also may reduce electrolysis problems he
had been having with propeller shafts. GANNET also has a dripless stuffing box.
Years ago, we took off the grease cup on the stuffing box and installed a metal tube that
comes to a big grease gun near the front of the engine compartment. This makes it very
easy to squirt grease into the stuffing box, and we have used this to stop dripping when
we leave the boat for a week. I am sure that many other boats have their grease cup
mounted remotely; on TRINKA it is accessible from the cockpit, so grease can be added
without going below and opening the engine compartment.
I experimented with "Drip Free" Teflon packing, which was promised to eliminate the
dripping normally associated with stuffing boxes. It did not stop the dripping; dripped as
normal. The marketeers told me to tighten it more. It still dripped. I gave up on it and
went back to flax.
115
John Paradis (FEMME) similarly tried teflon packing without success, and is back to
flax.
Incidentally, I drilled some holes in the plywood panel below the shaft and made a small
dam on it, so that the drips from the stuffing box go directly to the bilge and not into the
engine drip pan.
Robert Heidrich (HO'OHOLO) discovered that the propeller shaft can corrode so badly
that the packing will not hold back the water. The solution was to haul and replace the
shaft.
Sig Baardsen's suggestion is to install an industrial shaft seal:
The best solution I have found is to install a mechanical shaft seal. In its failure mode a
mechanical shafts seal is better than packing. For lubrication on cooling, packing must
drip at least 10 drops per minute per inch of shaft diameter. This is an industrial shaft
seal, that actually fits into the stuffing box, replacing some of the flax (but not all of it)
with a mechanical seal. I used a U.S. seal model No P.S. 185 Size 1 ¼" Type T-21
Description; Crane Basic assembly. Materials Carbon/Ceramic/Viton. This simple,
single spring, O-ring seal is highly reliable and cheap. Price about $140 U.S.D. (back in
1987). (Shaft seals of this type are listed in the McMaster-Carr catalog.
This approach is much better than the PSS/LASTDROP type because it will fit in the
short space between the coupling and stuffing box. It is much cheaper. The marine
products like LASTDROP use a rubber bellows seal so when it fails, it fails
catastrophically. Not so an O-ring seal. It leaves in place some of the original flax
packing, which will still work if the mechanical seal fails.
Stern Tube
The stern tube is invisible but important. It is a brass (?) pipe that is screwed into the
back of the stuffing box, goes through the deadwood, and is screwed into the stern
bearing (that holds the cutlass bearing) on the back side. You can't see it, but it is there.
It is part of the system that supports the propeller shaft and prevents water from entering
the boat. Like everything else, failure is possible, from corrosion, electrolysis, or
mechanical damage. We have at least five reports of failure. When the stern tube fails,
water can get into the deadwood and almost certainly through that into the bilge. I guess
it would be a serious leak.
If you have the propeller shaft out, it is not a bad idea to extract this pipe and check it out.
I had mine out in 1995 and it was in excellent condition, but remember that my boat is
out of the water for more than half of each year. When I took mine out, it came out easily.
I took off the stern bearing, and the stern tube just came out with it attached. I was lucky,
for once. Alternatively, it could have been removed by taking off the stuffing box (since
116
the engine and fuel tank were out, that area was easy to access) and pulling the stuffing
box forward with the stern tube attached.
Here are experiences and insights of other sistership owners:
Henry Young reported:
In talking with Parkers Boat Yard, it was their observation that the exterior bolt-on unit
was a wooden boat construction technique. They suggested that we remove it, bore out
the old stern tube and replace it with a product called stern tube. It's a fiberglass tube,
which is glassed into the hull. The stern tube accepts the cutlass bearing by sliding it in,
and then its held in place by set screws. The entire unit is then fiberglassed over creating
quite beautiful continuity of the hull, should actually reduce some drag. Inside the stern
tube projects into the hull and a rubber hose sleeve is clamped onto the tube with the
other end being a traditional stuffing box. I got rid of the greasing device.
Al Roosov reported:
I replaced my stern tube 5 years ago after it corroded in half and tried to sink my boat. I
would not consider this a bolt on unit since it is held firmly in place by the threaded inner
and outer hull fittings. I had the new stern tube machined from bronze tubing twice as
thick as the original and if old performance is any indication the new one should last
more than 50 years, longer than I expect to last.
Bob Sundman has these observations:
I agree with Al Roosov's comment on stern tube repair. When I removed the stern tube
the threaded connector pipe was broken, permitting seawater to reach the wooden block
that is molded into the hull. I also replaced this connector pipe with a much thicker pipe
so I would not
have to re-visit this problem for a long time. Of course everything was gobbed in place
with 5200. I like the robust design of the stern tube arrangement. A heavy stuffing box
casting attached by a threaded connector pipe to a heavy cutlass support casting. In
addition the stuffing box and cutlass support castings are attached to the hull with sibronze screws. This arrangement results in a very stiff strong assembly and will not be
adversely affected by propeller vibrations, shaft thrust loads or side loads if you happen
to catch a lobster pot line.
Here is some detailed information form Sig Baardsen concerning its removal:
In Papeete, coming off a grounding, I contrived to back into a coral head and break the
propeller, rudder, rudder tube and the stern tube. A stern tube or rudder tube broken off,
deep inside the deadwood, can be a real problem to remove. Fortunately Cheoy Lee
installed ours with white lead paste as a bedding compound. After 25 years under water
mine came out just fine.
117
The simplest way to extract the broken halves of the stern tube is to haul the boat, and
remove the stern bearing and half the broken portion with it. The inboard portion is a
little more difficult and requires lifting the engine, so you can draw the stuffing box and
broken tube inside.
Because hauling out was expensive and difficult in Tahiti, I chose to do it in the water.
It's quite simple, really.
1/ Remove the propeller
2/ Withdraw the shaft.
3/ Remove the stern bearing
4/ Insert into the tube, a 1"x1"x36" Cold rolled steel bar. I used a ship's propeller shaft
key, borrowed from a French navy ship. Square tube and mild steel were not strong
enough. Use the largest size bar that will fit inside the tube.
5/ Slip 2 rattail files (3/8" dia.) into the tube, in the space between the tube wall and the
flat side of the cold rolled bar. Place one rattail file above and one file below the bar.
6/ Apply a wrench to the protruding portion of the bar and unscrew slowly. As you turn
the bar the files will roll outward and jam against the inside diameter of the tube. Also the
sharp edges of the bar will bite into the inside diameter of the tube providing a secure
grip to unscrew the tube.
7/ You never have to disturb the stuffing box, which can be difficult to reseal.
8/ if you are quick, with two tapered wooden plugs the operation can be done with less
than a cup of water entering the boat.
10/ The most difficult part is to find white lead paste or equal for bedding compound.
You certainly don't want to use Epoxy or Sikaflex or similar.
Fuel Tank, Vent
On our Reliant and at least on some of the sisterships, the original fuel tank was iron and
located under the cockpit floor. At least one Offshore 40 (PEGASUS) has a stainless
steel fuel tank. I replaced my fuel tank in 1995 with aluminum because I knew that
several sister ships had leaky fuel tanks. I have no idea when my tank would have started
to leak; there was a lot of metal intact, but it takes only a pinhole in one corner to leak.
On the stainless tanks, the rivets holding the internal baffles are weak points and can
118
weep, as Gary Stephens is discovering on PEGASUS. To remove the fuel tank, the
engine must be lifted and moved to the aft cabin floor (or pulled out), and cockpit
scupper plumbing needs to be removed. I did not have to remove the actual sea cocks.
Gary Stephens reports there is product called aviation fuel tank sealer, used to seal leaks
in airplane fuel tanks, that might be helpful for short term (1-2 year) repairs. Pat Zajac
has found MarineTex helpful:
I cleaned off the tank in the area that was supposedly leaking, sanded it and smothered it
with Marine Tex!
The original tank had a clean-out plate on top. Many sister ships have an access plate on
the cockpit floor, but I had to cut a hole in the cockpit floor so that I could access the
tank’s clean-cut plate. I was impressed by how much sludge was in the bottom of the
tank. I can see how fuel lines/filters get clogged when motoring under stormy conditions.
To close up the hole in the cockpit, I got a disk of stainless steel at a sheet metal shop,
drilled and countersunk lots of holes in the disk, got some neoprene gasket material, and
fastened the disk down with machine screws.
Bryan Johnson had a similar experience in WINDRESS:
After cruising from San Francisco through Mexico, the Cannel and to Florida, then sitting
in Florida for about 8 months, there was a LOT of crud in WINDRESS's tanks. I had
Clean Fuels come with there system to filter the fuel. They go in through the clean out
place with two tubes. One is the suction and one a return with compressed air to churn up
anything on the bottom. It worked very well and as I remember, the cost for the first tank
was $200 and $100 for each additional tank. Access to the clean out ports is needed and
the tanks should be at least half full.
I think that cleaning fuel tanks is important before an ocean trip. I have read numerous
accounts of how the shaking of the boat loosens crud in the tank and results in fuel
blockage.
Brian is very clear about this:
You are really best to hire someone such as Clean Fuels here in Annapolis to do the
industrial strength filtering/polishing/cleaning of tanks. An interesting sidelight is that the
local "Clean Fuels" company's biggest customer is Giant Foods where they "polish" the
fuel in the tanks of the hundreds of semi's used to deliver food... and they don't have any
of our low fuel usage problems!!!
This leads me to believe that the cost of outside services for fuel maintenance is well
justified, given reliability and maintenance costs. It's not cheap but the maintenance pros
buy into such a program in the industrial setting.
John Paradis is considering installing a supplementary electric fuel pump so he can filter
119
(polish) his fuel periodically. Al Roosov has a different approach to keeping the fuel tank
clean:
For years I had problems with fuel algae and sludge formation which quickly clogged the
filters and shut me down. It evolved that this was due to not using very much fuel in a
season sailing around the Chesapeake--maybe 20 gallons per season. I solve this by
installing a separate six gallon plastic fuel tank piped into the supply and vent system
with valves. This is the only tank I use for normal cruising around the Chesapeake. My
main 44 gallon tank has been totally dry for the last 5 years. It is easier to keep fresh fuel
in a small tank and plastic does not seem to promote algae growth. I only fill the main
tank when an extended cruise out of the Chesapeake is planned.
When I replaced the fuel tank, a lot of issues concerning the design of the tank and fuel
system arose. I’ll recount the experience in some detail, not to provide perfect solutions,
but at least to raise some issues.
Fuel tanks are "regulated." I got the American Boat and Yacht Council specifications for
diesel tanks (1990). I tried to follow the rules closely, so that in the future I would not
have a surveyor coming on the boat and saying that the fuel system failed to conform to
some standards. There are also insurance company guidelines/standards and Coast Guard
regulations (particularly for boats for hire). The regulatory problems of fuel tanks are so
complicated that only a few, specialized shops make them, and they know a great deal
about the design of tanks.
I ended up having a fuel tank fabricated of aluminum. There is debate about the best
material, and none is perfect. If you use aluminum, the trick is to have brackets welded
to the tank in a way so that the tank itself doesn't touch anything at all, only air, and the
tank is supported only on brackets, webs, etc. If the tank touches anything, at least glue
some small pieces of neoprene sheet to it (with 3 M 5200) , so that the tank has air around
it in most places and otherwise is isolated. The tank builder recommended painting the
tank with Interlux TriLux, a bottom paint for aluminum.
As for the fuel pick-up lines, gasoline tanks require the pickup on the top, diesel allows it
on the bottom. I felt it was safer to put it on the top. I made the pickup tube in the tank
with a large diameter so that the fuel would come more slowly up the pickup tube, and
would drop more sediment along the way. Also, a larger diameter is less likely to clog.
No filter on the bottom end; I've read of those filter clogging. To be doubly safe, I had
two pickup tubes put in the tank; the second one goes down a little deeper, and I use that
for cleaning out the bottom of the tank. It is a backup, in case the primary pickup tube
either clogs or leaks air and breaks the siphon action. The builder put a bracket inside the
tank to support the bottoms of the pickup tubes and minimize potential vibration.
All fittings going into the tank are stainless steel reducing bushings, and brass fittings go
into the stainless steel bushings. Coming out of the pickup tubes I have right angles and
pipes about 15” so that shutoff valves and connections to hoses are located forward of the
cockpit floor, where there is more accessibility for servicing the parts.
120
Along the fuel line, I have a brass petcock at the top of the tank if there is need to prevent
fuel from coming out. The fuel line then comes down to a Racor, and I have a second
petcock just before the Racor. This way, when I open the Racor, as long as the tank is
more than half full, I won't lose vacuum in the siphon line. Right between the Racor and
the petcock, I have a tee with a plug. I can take out the plug and put in a hose barb, tube,
and pump, so I can suck out the air and establish a siphon, if necessary.
If you are using an aluminum tank, it is best to use all and only stainless steel pipe
fittings. You can get these easily from the McMaster Carr catalog (web site on the
Reliant maintenance page).
For fittings on the rubber fuel lines, wherever lines are likely to be disassembled (e.g.
near the Racor), I use hydraulic line fittings. They seal tightly and come apart easily.
One has to find a special distributor that serves the hydraulics industry to find these
fittings. They are well worth the extra bother. All hoses (fill, air vent, diesel overflow)
must be made of the proper, fuel resistant hose (Coast Guard standards).
I had the new tank made with an inspection/clean out port matching the original tank.
For a gauge, I put in a tank tender system (discussed in a separate section below), for fuel
and water tanks. The system has a tiny air pump, and then measures the pressure at the
bottom of tanks and expresses it in terms of inches of fluid. There is no electricity, no
movement of anything in the tank; just a small tube that senses air pressure. It is very
accurate and reliable. Now, when I fuel up, I check the tank tender, determine how many
gallons of fuel I can load, and then take that amount. Actually, I stop a gallon or two
before I am full, let the foam settle for a minute or two, and then fill to the limit slowly. I
fill the tanks with no spillage out the vent.
Since so many fuel problems are linked to dirt in the fuel, it makes sense to be careful in
taking on fuel. Sig Baardsen has thoughtful insights in this regard in response to my
discovery of sand-like substance in the sediment bowl of my fuel filter:
Dear Ben, you are surprised to find a gray sandlike material in your fuel system?
It IS sand. We always use a Baja filter. The fuel vendors don't like it because it is too
slow. If they complain too much, we fill into jerry jugs and pour into the tanks later with
the Baja filter. NOTHING GOES INTO THE TANKS UNFILTERED. When you buy
fuel in a barrel, on the beach, always leave the bottom 10%, as it is surely contaminated.
The dirtiest fuel we ever got was from Chevron, in San Diego. Calif. All fuel dealers, all
over the world, say the same thing; "My fuel is clean. It is triple filtered." That's like "The
check is in the mail," "I can get you into movies," "I can't make you pregnant," "It's
only a fever blister."
121
For a while, we had great difficulty and embarrassment filling the fuel tank. Fuel would
go in very, very slowly. Boats would be circling around the dock, while we tediously
took our few gallons, a cup at a time. Finally I determined that the problem was in the
fuel tank vent. There were three problems with it. First, it is under-dimensioned.
Current standards call for 5/8" hose. Second, where the tube follows the underside of the
deck to come inboard, it goes slightly uphill, leaving a depression that collects fuel that
impedes the air flow. Third (and probably most important), while varnishing the
coaming we got varnish on the screen that is at the bottom end of the goose-neck vent
fitting.
I replaced the whole vent with 5/8" hose, being careful to avoid any low points that could
collect fuel. I made a new goose-neck by finding a suitable goose-neck type spigot in a
plumbing supply store, cutting off its pipe threads, machining the original through-deck
fitting to accept the new spigot, and silver soldering the new goose-neck onto it. One
advantage of the new plumbing fitting is that its screen is slightly recessed, so that it is
less likely to get varnished. Also, it can be removed easily for cleaning.
When I replaced the fuel tank, I had the fill located properly so that the new fill hose
could come directly to the tank without the sharp bends to take it to the forward end of
the tank. In addition, I replaced the deck fitting with a larger one. With these
improvements, I can take fuel from any sized fuel hose very quickly.
One doesn't normally think of the fuel tank vent as needing a major upgrade; but this
change really was needed, and I really appreciate the results.
DC Electrical System
By and large, my experience is that the original wiring of the boat has held up fine, with
the exception of the mast wires, the wiring in some of the interior lights, and navigation
lights. However, the original distribution panel/circuit breakers was very rudimentary.
On RAVEN, DESTINY, maybe SELENE (at least), all the wiring has been removed and
is being replaced.
Around 1989, my father built a very nice panel with circuit breakers and meters.
However, some of the wiring and methods of making connections were "innovative" (I
couldn't possibly say that my father actually made a mistake!) and have caused problems.
Each year, I add buss bars and replace some of the wires in the panel system. I have also
made improvements in the wiring and terminals where they connect to batteries. I like
the Ancor materials from the West catalog.
Last winter I upgraded the battery system by putting four Trojan deep cycle batteries
under the forward bunk, to yield two auxiliary banks, each with 217 amp hours. I also
bought "Hydro-caps," which re-catalyze the hydrogen and oxygen given off when
charging back into water, so that batteries need far less water. They seem to function
nicely, as advertised, and I think will eliminate the need for mid-season adding of water
122
to the batteries.
The photo section shows the installation. In addition, the starting battery is aft, under the
aft starboard bunk.
By way of contrast, Frank Hamilton (HEART STRING), Doug Wintermute (RAVEN),
and Brian Johnson (WINDRESS) have moved all the batteries aft under the berths, to
avoid the long wires going forward and to get weight out of the bow.
WINDRESS’s house batteries are two 8D's, one under each rear quarter berth. The
starting battery is on a shelf in the starboard lazzerette. There is a high output alternator
with a three-stage regulator. A Heart charger/2800 watt ac inverter is mounted on the side
bulkhead toward the back of the starboard rear quarter berth, with the control panel in the
aft hanging locker aft bulkhead, largely in the closet. There were two solar panels, one
mounted on the covers for each. There is a controller to keep the solar panel from over
charging the batteries.
On ROBUST, Lennart Konigson has taken this approach:
With the bottom of the boat opened up I also decided to move the batteries from their
location under the forward bunks to a box located under the floorboards of the main cabin
in front of the forward tank. Here I could fit a box for two 6 volt deep cycle 110 Ah
batteries (they are much higher than regular batteries) and a 110 Ah 12v starter battery. I
am now in the process of replacing the old battery cables that run along side the port side
of the boat to new multistrand cables that run straight aft under the floorboards to a new
main switch which I will install in the engine room. This will reduce the length of the
cables by over 50 percent and concentrate the weight to the center of the boat. (A
complete overhaul of the electrical system is on the agenda for this winter).
On ASTARTE, my alternator has been the most demanding component in terms of
perfect electrical contacts. Sometimes the alternator output would pulsate. I worked for
years on his problem, continually cleaning and tightening all terminal fittings, connectors
on switch/circuit breakers, etc. I also disassembled the main power switch and cleaned
its contacts to insure they do not contribute to instabilities in voltage supply. Finally I
solved the mystery. I had led the wire that senses voltage to the voltage regulator
alongside the alternator output wire. Changes in alternator output were inducing changes
in the voltage sensing wire and in the field; and changes in the field created changes in
the output line, which induced more changes in the sensing wire. There was a perfectly
looped feedback system. I moved the sensing wire away from the output wire, and
solved a maddening seven year mystery!
AC Electrical system
As for the AC distribution system, I installed a small distribution panel in the bulkhead
inboard of the aft starboard bunk. I took out the input plug on the aft cabin trunk,
123
because I had too much trouble preventing leaks on the bunk below. Now I just lead a
wire through the aft cabin dorade ventilator to a socket inside the boat near my new
distribution panel. In practice, the AC system is used almost exclusively when the boat is
out of the water, for maintenance purposes.
WINDRESS has a very powerful 2,000+ inverter, to make enough AC electricity for
every conceivable need, including her electric refrigerator/freezer.
Doug Wintermute similarly moved the AC plug away from the cabin top. He notched the
forward frame of the lazaret, and put in a removable piece with a rubber bushing, so the
power cord can be brought into the lazaret. He has his socket on the bulkhead inside at
the forward side of the lazaret.
Grounding/Bonding
This is a controversial area of discussion that goes far beyond the specifics of our
sisterships. At our March 1998 maintenance rendezvous, it seemed clear that boats that
live at moorings, away from docks and boats with stray currents in the water, have far
fewer problems with electrolysis and have done well without bonding. (This certainly is
my experience.) I have read pretty persuasive arguments that bonding underwater
hardware makes more electrolysis problems in waters near docks with stray currents.
However, bonding may be helpful to protect metal seacocks from lightning. Shifting to
Marelon fittings may reduce this risk.
Propeller Fouling
Last year and this year, I have been very impressed by the debilitating impact of
barnacles on the propeller. This year, ASTARTE sat unused for three weeks in mid
summer. In this time the propeller collected enough barnacles to make her sluggish
under power. Last year, after sitting four weeks unused in August/September, she was
virtually disabled and could make no progress against a head wind.
Apparently many people feel that the fouling problems (at least in Western Long Island
Sound) are worse now than in the past. Some say this is because the water is cleaner, or
dirtier with nutrient-laced runoff. Others think the water is warmer; and others think it is
less (or maybe more) salty.
One theory is that it takes a few days or maybe a week for juvenile barnacles to attach
securely to a propeller. If you use the boat every day, they will be dislodged and can not
stick. Maybe if you use the engine once a week, most of the barnacles will be dislodged.
If the boat sits for longer than that, the propeller will be fouled.
Bryan Johnson shares this question:
124
The propeller fouling thing is interesting in that I have had it happen several times. I don't
know what the combinations conditions that cause it but you can go all summer with no
problem but then in a two-week period everyone has a blob of shells where there was
once a prop and shaft.
Other theories analyze the propeller rather than the water. I have read that using a zinc
collar or nut on the propeller shaft changes the electrical potential of the surfaces and
makes a more favorable environment for barnacles. A letter to PRACTICAL SAILOR
(Feb 15, 2001) argues that copper per se is not offensive to barnacles, but copper oxide
is. The zinc prevents the copper from corroding, so the copper fails to develop its
potential toxicity. So we suffer because we are being more careful about electrolysis!
When the water is calm and warm, I have no difficulty cleaning the propeller. I like to
pull a rope through the propeller aperture and tie it tightly to the spinnaker winches. This
makes it easier to get down and up. I use a paint scraper. However, when the water is
cold, I have sought services of professional divers.
Is there any way to prevent propeller fouling?
Park Shorthose reports, "We spray the propeller with Teflon (frying pan repair) It has no
anti-fouling properties but makes it very easy to clean."
I have seen recommendations to put STP oil treatment or waterproof grease on the
propeller. Also Vaseline, desitin, and anhydrous lanolin. The grease can be smeared on
while the boat is in the water; I'm not sure if STP can. Maybe it would help for a few
weeks.
One person wrote in to PRACTICAL SAILOR reporting a reasonably successful
experiment coating his propeller with West epoxy laced with copper powder (from M-D
Both Industries, Box 306, Nickerson Rd., Ashland MA 01721).
I might try some of these ideas next year.
For diving, a "pressurized snorkel" has a 12 volt air compressor to provide breathing air
to a swimmer up to 10 feet below the surface. This could be very helpful for cleaning the
propeller, the bottom, changing zincs, and other underwater tasks. Priced around $600
from the Rocky Mountain Diving Center, Boulder CO, 1-800-303-449-2538. The wet
suit is extra.
Any other ideas?
Hatch Covers
125
Hatch covers seem to need rebuilding roughly every ten years. The last time I rebuilt
hatch covers, which was the third rebuilding, I used lexan, which is supposed to be
stronger and more resistant to UV. I figured out how to use modern adhesives without
having screws coming through the plastic into the wood. It is very hard to get the holes
in the right place each time you replace the plastic. Moreover, thermal expansion and
contraction of the plastic creates great stress on the screw holes in the lexan, resulting in
stress cracks in the plastic near the holes, as well as stress on and damage to the wooden
frame. For the forward hatch and skylight, I used the ends of the hinges to secure the
plastic down. For the companionways, I had heavy gauge stainless steel sheet metal bent
into an "L," so that there is a lip coming up and around the side over the top of the plastic
holding it down. The screws are on the side and not on top through the plastic. These
have held up without leaking or cracking for about four years now, and if the seals start to
leak, I hope I can re-seal the plastic pieces without having to replace them.
If the wooden joints seem a little loose, I drill a small hole into the joint and inject epoxy
resin.
We have also rebuilt the lazaret hatch cover a few times. In the last rebuilt, I made the
plywood a bit thicker and epoxied the plywood to seal it; then I epoxied teak boards to it,
without screws and screw holes.
The photo of SERENDIPITY appears to show a commercial metal framed skylight.
SISKIWIT has shifted to Lewmar Ocean hatches.
If you take off the bottoms of the hatch hinges for re-chroming, Ernie Croan (BRIES)
warns that each one has a slightly different shape to deal with the changing curvature of
the cabin top. He urges you to mark each one carefully so you can put them back in the
right places.
To take a sliding companionway hatch off, you first have to take off the fiberglass hood
on the front of the hatches. Then, take off the wood trim on one side of the hatch cover,
and take off the metal angle piece that is screwed into the side. Maybe the hatch will
come off, or maybe you will have to do the same on the other side. Alternatively, you
can unscrew the tracks on which the hatch slides. Slide the hatch forward, and unscrew
the back sides; then slide the hatch back and unscrew the front sides.
Brightwork
One of the distinctive features of Reliants and Offshore 40s was the extensive use of teak
in construction -- decks, cabin sides, dorade ventilators, rail, etc. The boats were built to
give the appearance of beautiful, classic wooden boats. As we all know, the result is a
stunningly beautiful boat that draws comments everywhere. We also all know that this
comes with a cost -- the maintenance of brightwork.
We have all struggled with the challenge of varnishing, myself included. I want it to be
126
clear that I have not found the perfect answer, I am no great guru on this topic. I can only
share my own limited insights and draw your attention to what more knowledgeable
people have said.
The underlying problems are clear and simple. Varnish is damaged by sunlight, water,
and abrasion; and those are three things that boats have in abundance. I have a friend
who is a physicist who bombards molecules with laser beams. His comment was that the
energy in sunlight includes every frequency, so it can break apart every molecular bond
know to science. He recognized immediately the inherent problem with any varnish, and
convinced me that in trying to have varnish out doors, we are challenging fundamental
laws of nature. I have been impressed by comments of boat owners who sail in the
tropics. They can't believe how rapidly a dozen coats of varnish disintegrate. Very
frequent re-coating is needed.
Moreover, we are dealing with wood, and wood expands and contracts with changes in
moisture and temperature. If the varnish film is brittle and inflexible (which may be
especially true of polyurethane finishes), the film is stressed and eventually cracks
microscopically and then visibly. The expansion and contraction of wood gets magnified
at the joints, and the various seals and glues holding wood together may have begun to
deteriorate. Also the wood itself checks from drying out. Where the wood moves, it
cracks the varnish, letting water in, and water loosens the varnish and stains the wood.
We have all been searching for an elusive holy Grail: a way of applying and maintaining
brightwork that is beautiful, requires low maintenance, and is reasonably priced. So far,
no one has discovered an ideal solution. We only turn up different options and different
trade-offs.
- pay boatyards to do brightwork. This can be very costly, going from four into five
digits. In a couple of cases, owners ultimately put their boats up for sale (not sail)
because they wanted to maintain brightwork this way but ultimately found it too
expensive.
- do it yourself. While I suspect we would all like to do this, who has the time? Our
boats also have engines, electric wiring, plumbing, decks, etc., and there are a few other
things in life in addition (family, jobs, etc.) Hatches and ventilators can be taken home
(if the boat is covered) and re-finished carefully and given 5-10 coats of varnish, but not
cabin sides, coamings, and toe rails.
-find some low-input/high durability teak treatment. At present, penetrating stains (Cetol,
Armada) and epoxy based sealers under varnish seem to be the most promising choice,
but the long-term suitability has not been demonstrated yet. (more below)
- ignore brightwork and let the teak go gray. My father adopted this strategy for many
years. At least he could afford the boat and was able to launch her early and sail a lot. I
currently "treat" the rails this way.
127
- selectively reduce the amount of brightwork, by removing wood and painting it. Some
of us have done this for the cabin sides. I am thinking about this, but my daughter was
very upset and promised to help me sand and varnish instead.
(Let me say that I am focusing here on the teak brightwork around the deck. For spars,
our spars come off each year and are easily varnished. A single coat of varnish works
well for the summer season; in winter our spars are covered. Moreover, it is extremely
useful to be able to see through the coating to inspect the joints in the wood. If one did
not want to take the mast out each year, the trade-offs on mast maintenance might be
different. Similarly, the varnish below decks seems very durable, and upkeep is not a big
problem.)
At present, owners of sisterships have these ideas and experiences on managing the teak
bright work:
Mark Treat (WINDIGO) has an interesting approach, which I will summarize:
1. Strip and sand the wood.
2. Sealing. Use two coats of Smith Clear Penetrating Epoxy Sealer, a two-part system
that penetrates the wood and makes a very stable, moisture-proof foundation for the
varnish. (Call Smith & Co 800-234-0330.)
3. Varnishing. Many varnishes are possible. The main thing is that it needs to filter or
reflect out the UV from the sunlight. Mark is experimenting with Coma Bernice. So far,
it seems to hold up very well.
Pat Zajac (RUSALKA) is also using Smith Clear Penetrating Epoxy as a base but is
covering it with Interlux Clipper clear varnish. Needless to say, it looks great now, and
we will be interested in the long-term evaluation.
Tim Litvin (SALA-MA-SOND) is trying the Smith full system, including both the
penetrating epoxy and 2-part polyurethane.
John Paradis has an approach which similarly stresses the initial sealing of the wood:
1. strip old varnish (heat gun recommended), sand.
2. make a seal coat of 1/3 maple oil stain, 1/3 oak floor filler, 1/3 mineral spirits. Apply
and wipe off within several minutes. It can be varnished in 30 minutes.
3. Varnish with Flagship varnish. First coat well thinned, full strength for the next 3.
4. in fall, touch up scratches with light sanding, wipe spot with filler stain
5. in spring, light sanding, one coat varnish.
128
I'll report on Epifanes system, which is being used on a beautiful Cherubini 48, that
spends a lot of time in southern waters. The varnish looks great, and the owner says it is
not so hard to put on or maintain:
a. For base: Epifanes Gloss Wood Finish (west # 371056) base coating with UV
protection: This enables buildup of several coats without sanding if used within 72 hours.
b. For top coat: Epifanes Clear High Gloss Varnish (west #351023)
Al Roosov, tired of varnishing, has been satisfied with Permateak Gold for many
surfaces. He warns against Cetol because it turns orange in a year or two.
Phil Norgaard is using Cetol on JOHN TROUT and David Epstein is trying Armada on
CALYPSO. I visited his boat, at it looks very nice, although it does not have the
smoothness of varnish. I look forward to hearing their evaluations after a few years.
On ASTARTE, over the decades we have tried many of the oils and other preparations
that promised beautiful teak and low maintenance. We never found anything that worked
well for more than a season or two. Sometimes, the work required to clean off the
material exceeded the work saved in putting it on. While I am intrigued by the CetolArmada coatings, I am worried that if, after some more years, they darken or yellow, it
will prove necessary but difficult to remove all traces of them from the wood before the
next experiment. So I am still using traditional soft, U-V loaded Z-Spar Flagship varnish.
On surfaces that are angled to the sun, they don't make it through a season, but touching
up is pretty easy.
Needless to say, we are not alone is searching for a solution to the brightwork challenge.
PRACTICAL SAILOR has been running tests on alternative varnishes and other coating
systems. May 15, 1998, March 1997, March 1996. The latest tests are beginning to
show products that may be more durable than traditional varnish.
(a) penetrating stains
Cetol Marine (800-833-7288) so far has held up in their tests for 30 months. It is not
very transparent, and looks a bit like paint. Cetol makes a new product Cetol Gloss,
which is glossier but not as durable as the semi-gloss product.
Armada Teak (orders: 800-336-0320; tech: 800-890-7723) a bit more transparent than
Cetol, a little brown-orange, perhaps not quite as durable as Cetol but still viable after 30
months.
(b) finishes involving special two-part sealing materials. By using chemicals other than
oxygen in the air to catalyze varnish, the varnish can include desirable anti-oxidants
129
which increase durability.
Smith Clear Epoxy Penetrating Sealer (CEPS) and 5 Year Clear.
http://www.fiveyearclear.com
Steve Smith, 510-237-6842
Requires 2 coats of epoxy sealer and about 6 coats of 2-part polyurethane. Takes several
days to do the coating, under ideal conditions (no rain). This will be problematic for
parts that can not be removed. Repair processes unclear. Looks great after 30 months.
Useful information about the Smith CEPS and other specialized products for wood care
and restoration are available at: http://www.rotdoctor.com. cost around $100 for 25
square feet.
Honey Teak
http://honeyteak.com Tom Fabula, 561-287-6077
Uses 2-part base and topcoating system, fast drying, can be applied on tacky under coat,
so all 3 base coats and 2 or more topcoats can be applied done in a day. Can be buffed
and/or compounded. System uses acrylic urethane enamel, with color and UV protection
in base; top coat is also acrylic urethane enamel but clear. Manufacturer claims it is
flexible enough so that it can go over joints sealed with 5200 and that it is easy to touch
up damaged areas. Should get one or two clear topcoats annually. Cost is around $1.502.00 per sq. ft. Practical Sailor says it looks great after 30 months.
Bristol Finish
C Tech Marine 407-752-7533, ctmarine@bellsouth.net
is a 2-part Acrylic Urethane resin, somewhat similar to Honey Teak. It is said to be very
strong and durable. It can be reapplied without sanding between 1 and 24 hours; it is
possible to accomplish a full buildup (6 coats) in one day. cost around $50 for 40 square
feet.
Tim Litvin applied the full Smith epoxy/polyurehane system in fall 1998. We look
forward to his evaluation. I am now (summer 2000) experimenting with the Smith
system on my Dorade boxes and grab rails. It is tricky to apply, partly because it cures so
hard that it is difficult to sand off the runs, curtains, etc. One coat is applied per day
(without sanding between coats), so it takes over a week (or close to two weeks, leaving
time for bad weather), to get the required buildup. It looks excellent, and if it holds up as
promised, it is will be wonderful.
The fundamental problems with any of these new systems are (a) the new systems require
full stripping of the old finish and elaborate coatings with new products and (b) the risk
that if after 4-6 years the new products do not hold up well that they have left a resilient
mess in the wood that will be difficult to remove for the next coating system. We have
been through several experiments that looked promising for a year or two, but ended up
leaving a mess. Nevertheless, I am starting experiments with CEPS and may try Bristol
Finish.
130
The alternative, which I am still following until we know more about the durability of
these new approaches, is optimizing traditional varnishing, in hopes that a more durable
varnish can be applied. Rebecca Wittman's book, Brightwork, the Art of Finishing Wood
(McGraw-Hill) is highly recommended. Tim Litvin (SALA-MA-SOND) comments,
"aside from the visual delight of the gorgeous photography, and apart from her engaging
and educational stories, and even not-withstanding her packing a lot of hard-won
experience-based knowledge into the book, she really manages to convey the spirit of the
activity. I'd call this one a `must read' for anybody who owns or dreams of owning a boat
with any wood on it." Her main message is that varnish simply requires maintenance,
touchup coats during the season. It sounds simple, but in practice I have had difficulty
living up to this requirement.
Henry Hinckley's excellent new book, THE HINKLEY GUIDE TO YACHT CARE has a
thoughtful discussion of varnish. In a nutshell, he recommends:
1. Varnishes - Hinkley uses Epifanes for durable buildup; Stoppani for final two coats
because of superior gloss retention and durability.
2. clean bare teak with special solvent or acetone. Use alcohol to clean pre-varnished
surfaces.
3. No special sealer, use varnished thinned 50% first coat, 25 percent second coat.
4. sanding between coats: 220 paper and then finer; after 4th coat, uses 150 paper to get a
smooth surface.
5. Then build up film thickness with 5-10 coats of varnish, sanded with finer and finer
(280, 320, 400) paper.
brushes: 1 1/2 - 2" china bristle, foam brushes OK. Clean brushes with thinner and use a
hand-operated spinner. Keep brushes wrapped in a small rag rinsed in thinner, then
encased in aluminum foil to stay moist. Motor oil can be used also and washed out with
thinner.
masking tape: If outdoors, use Scotch #471 blue or #225 silver.
tack rags: Gerson or Red Devil. Special U.S. Paint or Sterling tack rags for polyurethane
finishes.
Hinkley has lots of other tips. Be sure you have good weather, not too hot or too cold,
not too humid or windy, no bugs.
I put a note on Cruising World's internet chat page and got this advice from "Masto:"
When using thinner to wipe the surface make sure it's the same thinner as what's
recommended to thin the varnish (read the label!). (Also remember that the cheaper the
thinner is, the less pure it is and more likely to contain oil and water contamination). If
131
you soak the rag too liberally you may in some cases risk just smearing any surface
contaminants around, rather than removing them.
When wiping sanded varnish I prefer a clean rag moderately soaked with denatured
alcohol, changing the rag surface often.
Make sure the tack-rags you get are for varnish (often yellow in color) and not the white
ones intended for LP. Never put solvent on the tack-rag and yes, wipe lightly.
By the way, if you have A LOT of varnish to do, you may want to consider to spring for
the extra expense of "gold" paper. It costs a bit more but lasts about four times as long,
i.e. it doesn't clog up as soon and keeps on cutting.
Personally I wipe four (yes, 4) times liberally with acetone on bare teak; I lightly sand the
surface the morning of applying the "sealer" coat to remove invisible surface oxidization
(it's kinda like flash rust on freshly sandblasted steel, you don't see it but it will affect the
adhesion of the entire coating system) even if I sanded it perfectly the day before.
Then as soon as I'm done sanding I wipe liberally with acetone four times just before the
first "sealer" coat, changing rag surface often. Tack-ragging bare teak is less important
than for the final gloss coat - doesn't matter so much if you get a little dust in it, it's gonna
get sanded again anyway...
I found that this prep procedure made the varnish (any brand) last about twice as long in
the Caribbean sun. With last I don't mean how long the gloss lasts, but rather how long it
would take until the varnish starts to loose its adhesion to the substrate. If you look very
closely at a varnish surface as it ages you can often see tiny whitish lines forming in the
wood grain. These are the precursors to where it will start to let go and eventually grow
larger whitish spots (or dark, black if moisture enters). All that acetone wiping seems to
remove most of the oil in the bottom of the sanded woodgrain, improving longtime
adhesion.
Re-coat time for the varnish is another matter. It's usually time to re-do the surface when
it starts to loose it's water beading ability (the old Turtle wax test), then all you need to do
is scuff the surface and apply two new coats.
Two part varnishes have the benefit of extending the re-coat time. They can make
varnishing life much easier (especially if you own a "varnish-farm" i.e. boat with lots of
varnish), but if the underlying foundation coats are not applied properly using two parts
often creates more work than it saves. Besides two parts are a pain to maintain on a
sailboat which gets banged around a lot more than say a powerboat.
To an inquiry about using a jet-speed varnish to build a foundation layer more quickly,
Masto replied:
Personally I have never liked using quick drying "varnishes" like Jet-Speed or the
132
"sealer" type coatings available from most manufacturers. I think they exist just so they
can sell you another can of stuff. Most such products are for the greater part solvent,
some of them over 90% thinner - read the label!
I've had much better result using the varnish itself as a "sealer", thinning it out with about
75% thinner for the first 2 coats (for Epifanes or Detco's Crystal), then two coats at 50%,
two at 25%, and then onto straight stuff for building coats. I do like using accelerator
(read the label for the right one) for building coats, but never use it for the final gloss
coats.
The ultimate varnish in my opinion is Detco's Crystal. It's very similar to Epifanes, but
not as finicky to work with. It is also a tung oil based varnish but cures faster without
any risk of losing the gloss. Unlike Epifanes you can put on one good coat at 4 pm and
come back to sand it next morning. It also sprays great.
If you get that gray, smeary stuff when you're sanding it's usually a sign of partially
cured, or improperly cured varnish. Depending on the type/brand of varnish this can
have several reasons (in no particular order):
1) Too thick a coat (common problem with Epifanes). Easy to do with foam brush...
2) Applied in too hot temp. The surface skins over and dries, trapping the solvents below
(applies to 1) as well).
3) Wrong thinner used.
4) Weather too humid.
5) Applied too late in the day.
I am impressed by how many different varnishes there are, and the enthusiasm for
different ones. Rebecca Wittman uses Interlux products, Schooner (#96) for the bulk of
exterior varnishing, and other Interlux varnishes for interior use or for high wear areas
where polyurethanes are needed. I noticed the professionals at Dodson's Boatyard
(Stonington CT) using Schooner varnish too. Hinkley mentioned Epifanes and Stoppani.
Musto referred to Detco's Crystal. I shifted from Interlux Schooner to Z Spar Flagship on
the basis on PRACTICAL SAILOR durability tests. The Schooner varnish goes on easily
and is soft and easy to sand and recoat. My impression is that it is not quite as good in
terms of durability.
Mark Treat is enthusiastic about Coma Bernice. It is a one-part varnish made with long
chained cross linked resins and microscopic filaments of metal to help reflect away UV
light. It comes in clear, amber, and mahogany. It is manufactured in England by the
company that supplies coatings to Rolls Royce. Marketing and distribution systems have
not been set up yet, but it is supplied by Larry Buck, who has a boat yard and claims to
have been varnishing boats all his life. He can be reached at 1308 Harrison Lane, Hurst
Texas, tel 817-577-2656, beeper 817-604-1441. At present, it is available only by the
case, which has 10 liters, at $36 per liter (so $360 per case). If you use this varnish,
Larry emphasizes that it must NOT be thinned out more than 5 percent, and if you do thin
it, use only white mineral spirits. (I guess if it is thinned out more, the molecules won't
be able to find each other to cross link.)
133
While all these techniques and tactics are helpful, I really have to think more strategically
about varnish.
a. I have to rebed the window and their frames so no water is trapped where it will affect
varnish. I must cut out the cracks in the cabin sides and fit in some new pieces of teak,
and perhaps spline some checks in the coamings. No varnish can look good if the wood
is cracked and letting water in.
b. I have to schedule my varnish work so I complete the preparation work on one day,
and start varnishing early the next day, so I can varnish in the 7:00 to 10:00 time slot,
before the sun is high and the air is hot. I realize that varnishing in the middle of the day
results in a skin forming too fast, trapping solvents which produces rough surfaces and
which soften the old varnish and cause blisters.
c. The new 2-part products (Smith's polyurethane, Teak Honey) may well be more than a
marginal breakthroughs. They merit some experimentation. Maybe someday, the
complex techniques of varnishing will go the way of Morse code and carbon paper.
Bryan Johnson has these tricks for his interior Refinishing Program:
Windress had been cruised from San Francisco to Florida over about 2 years and than sat
on the block for 9 to 12 months in Florida before we bought her in Fort Lauderdale. She
was trucked to Annapolis in late September (I am convinced that every week in Florida
something was stolen off the boat) and the winter project started. The interior was overall
solid but the wood was dull to in need of help near the entrances.
The key to getting a lot of bright work done is to plan, get a lot prepared and varnish a lot
at once. I really don't like opening the varnish can unless I have at least 2 hours of varnish
work prepped and ready to go. In my mind, setting up to do a large volume at a shot is the
only way to effectively have an outstanding finish and still have time to sail!
Step one: Un-screw everything that you can take home and remove, along with all the
drawers and such so you have an at home varnishing project. Finishing attached doors is
a disaster and with all the removable parts off the boat, finishing the frames and
bulkheads is MUCH easier.
Step Two: Better Living Through Chemicals!!! Acetone does wonderful things in taking
off weak varnish and preparing the surface for a new finish with very little effort
compared to the sanding option. OUTSIDE, with a nice breeze, scrub all the wood work
with a course steel wool liberally dripping with acetone. (buy the acetone by the gallon
and wear RUBBER GLOVES!!!!!}. All the thick, weak varnish will be scrubbed away
real quick. A gray residue will be left. Use denatured alcohol and a bunch of rags to clean
this off. (Denatured alcohol does the some thing as acetone but is not nearly as aggressive
as a solvent). Sand as needed and wipe again with denatured alcohol before varnishing.
Step Three: Epithanes Rub Effect Varnish was used on Windress. It was very forgiving
134
and looks great. Two to four coats were used with a light sanding ( and alcohol rub) was
used on everything. West System Epoxy was used to stabilize some spots where veneer
was coming off (note: West System does not stick to wax paper, so you can get the West
System under the veneer and clamp down with boards and wax paper for a good finish.
The West System sands just like varnish and can be covered with varnish for the final
finish. If you use West System on the exterior, cover with a UV varnish, West System is
not UV stabilized and will yellow.
Step Four: The Interior.. Use the same acetone and alcohol prep as with the stuff you
took home but be sure there is a LOT of ventilation and that the power is OFF> I had a
short across a 110v outlet wiping down with alcohol,,, wakes you up quickly!!! Big
spaces such as bulkheads can be prepared and varnished very quickly using this process.
The key is to prepare a LOT at one time or at lest have a LOT ready to finish at one time.
If you are prepping, you will have sanding and grit in the air. I suggest you prep the entire
interior, clean up/wipe down, and varnish all at once.
The chemicals I use do wonders on getting a lot of wood ready for refinishing very
quickly. BUT!!! Do not underestimate the dangers with working with denatured alcohol
and acetone! ALLWAY use rubber gloves and have tons of ventilation! Used carefully,
this is a great program. Use great care. I did a two hour varnish session in the basement
and ended up with a headache. Although it was winter, I started opening a basement
window when varnishing and that was really needed.
Gel Coats
Park Shorthose has these observations on the gel coat:
The original gelcoats by Cheoy Lee were very poor. I buffed and waxed the hull when
new and achieved nothing. Then came linear polyurethane coatings! SHIBUI has just
had her third Imron job in 23 years and looks good. Imron has better UV resistance than
the others and sunshine is our problem in Hawaii. Brushing Algrip is fine for cabin top
and cockpit where masking for spraying is horrendous.
Gary Stephens apparently has had better luck with the gel coat. He has gotten good
results by wet sanding at 1500 and then waxing.
On ASTARTE, the decks were masked and spray painted with the Interlux Interspray 900
series linear polyurethane system. So far, it has held up nicely for three summers,
although it does chip when metal objects (winch handles, etc.) are dropped on it. I hope I
have time this winter/spring to re-finish the cabin top.
Bottom Paint
Many owners find that an ablative type of bottom paint (Interlux Micron CSC Xtra, Pettit
135
ACP50) is sensible not only because it works well as an anti-fouling paint, but also
because it does not build up and require sanding and scraping. Ablative paints wear off
(like soap) and therefore do not build up over the years. We have used Interlux Micron
for years with success. It ablades very well, and we haven't scraped the bottom for
decades. It ablades too well around the propeller, and I am trying to find a harder paint
on the metal parts of the rudder in that area. I tried TriLux II for two years and want to
find something better. This year I am tried Vinylast, which we used to use years ago;
maybe it was marginally better, but I got barnacles again. With an ablative paint, it is
nice to have the innermost coat a different color so that it will be obvious when and
where the paint is getting thin.
Interlux Micron is so soft that if you try to wash any slime off the bottom, much paint
will come off also. Especially in the tropics, the Micron seems too soft. Harder ablative
paints include:
Pettit ACP-50 was used by Nick Nicholson, reported in Practical Sailor.
Nautical Coating SeaHawk Cukote, is recommended by Masto on Cruising World's
bulletin board. It is hard enough to be scrubbed hard many times. Nautical Coatings (in
Florida) can be reached at 800-528-0997, fax 813-527-0359.
Pettit Trinidad paint is a non-ablative recommend by Hinkley for durable performance in
the tropics.
Summer Cover
Summer covers are used by many owners to protect the bright work and decks from the
elements. They report it helps greatly in reducing maintenance of the bright-work.
Park Shorthose (SHIBUI) has one made of sunbrella that fits over the boom and
incorporates several pieces of wood or tubing to keep them spread out. BRET ASHLEY
has a large summer cover to protect her from the tropical sun in Antigua. This cover
appears to be soft, without battens, but has sides dropping down for extra protection.
Both of these covers can be seen in the photo book.
Kurt Karstan (MISTRESS) has a summer cover that hooks on to the bottom of the sail
covers, and protects the bright-work and decks. Doug Wintermute has an elaborate
summer cover for RAVEN, with sides and with a section that goes forward of the mast.
Similarly, Tom Lynch has a five part sunbrella cover for WINDSPRINT III, which he
uses both summer and winter to protect the brightwork.
I have a simple awning without poles, that goes above the boom and attaches to the main
and mizzen shrouds and is pulled down to the lifelines. This is simply to cool the cabin
and reduce sun (and rain) in the cockpit when at anchor. It does not offer the same
protection to the brightwork the more elaborate covers do. It can be stuffed in a small
136
bag when not in use.
Winter Cover
I find that a good winter cover is necessary. It protects the brightwork and deck from the
winter elements. To the extent it keeps the rain and melting snow off the deck, it reduces
or eliminates damage caused by water freezing under fittings. It also means that I can
leave the boat more or less open in the winter, with hatches open, etc. I can take out my
chainplates this winter without concern about water entering the boat. I can leave sail
traps apart and leave interior equipment and parts on deck. In short, I would not be able
to do the kind of maintenance I need to do without a good cover.
When my father bought ASTARTE in 1964, he ordered a winter cover from Fairclough.
I still am using the original pipe framework. It is made from 1" thin wall electrical
conduit. Fairclough has some neat proprietary fittings to connect a ridge pole with pipes
that come down over the lifelines and are then bent to come to the deck. A canvas cover
fits over this. I am now on the third canvas cover, I think. For a couple of seasons I tried
to use the blue plastic tarps. The price was right, but by the end of a season, they were
leaking and tearing.
Fairclough is still in business and still makes these covers. I think they made several for
Reliants and still have patterns, so they could provide you the cover and/or the frame
without having to measure. They also sell the fittings that connect the 1" conduit, so you
can make your own frame using their system. Part of the trick is figuring out from whom
you can borrow a 1" conduit bender; I borrowed one from my university's maintenance
shop.
Fairclough sails
620 Ella Grasso Blvd,
New Haven CT 06519
203-787-2322
My current canvas cover was made to fit the old frame by a local canvas shop, Skip
Lippincott, next door to the boatyard in Delran New Jersey, at a price of around $2,000.
Brian Johnson got prices on a full winter cover and they were in the $5,000 to $5,500
range. A "boom tent" cover that went down to the toe rail was $2,500. He bought three
canvas tarps from West Marine (15X24, 12X20 and 8X12) for about $300 and cut and
sewed with a standard sewing machine and the results are very good.
I attach a small, flexible solar charger on the south side of the cover (Uni-Solar 11 watts).
This goes through a current divider (with a .6 volt drop) but has no other controller. It
doesn't really charge the batteries but it keeps them from discharging over the winter, and
makes it unnecessary for me to take off the batteries.
137
I have also made a cover for the spars. I have about seven saw horses with 3/4" holes
drilled on the cross members. I then bent 3/4" conduit to create a little tent over the
spars. I stretch and tie docking lines, jib sheets, and other lines over these conduit frames
and then put a canvass cover over it, made roughly 50' x 6'.
John Paradis leaves FEMME's wooden mast up during the winter, but has a small canvas
cover over the top of the mast/stays for about 3 feet, to protect the sheave area.
His winter cover ridge pole rides about a foot above the boom, so that he can varnish the
boom before taking off the cover.
Winterizing
After winterizing our boat roughly 30 times, I realized that I could simplify the annoying,
time-consuming tasks of taking hoses off hose barbs to suck in anti-freeze. I have put in
Tees, pipe reducers, and plugs in the head intake line, the fresh water intake line, and the
bilge pump intake line. Now, it is a simple job to take out the plugs, put in a temporary
pipe barb, slip on a two foot piece of tubing, put the other end in a bottle of anti-freeze,
and then turn off the valves behind the hose barb. Then it is very quick and easy to pump
anti-freeze into the head, fresh water plumbing system, pump, etc. (For the engine, I still
take off hoses on both sides of the seawater pump and pour/blow antifreeze through the
plumbing both ways. This enables me to winterize without starting the engine, and to
minimize the use of anti-freeze.)
The joys of winterizing not withstanding, I am beginning to think about sailing south
instead. But I still have a job, house, kids in school, etc., here in the Philadelphia area for
several years.
I just got the hull lines, and I just realized (after maintaining this boat for 33 years) that
on the Reliant the bottom of the keel is NOT parallel with the water line. The aft end of
the keel is about 1 3/4" lower than the forward end of the keel. This is why it is
necessary when the boat is hauled out to block up the front end of the keel about 1 1/2" or
2" to get the boat level and have water drain properly.
Maintenance Tools
Needless to say, maintaining these boats, especially in the do-it-yourself mode, requires
tools. I have been surprised how my tool collection has grown in recent years. I thought
I would mention the hand tools that I have found pretty essential:
3/8 drill-used all the time.
1/2 drill-we have an old, slow, powerful one that is great for drilling large holes in
stainless steel, and for using large hole saws.
138
saber saw-quite useful
high speed grinder-extremely useful for shaping stainless steel, and for shaping
fiberglass.
dremel-necessary for shaping fiberglass and very useful in many other contexts
large disk sander-good for sanding off bottom paint, cleaning painted fiberglass surfaces
for more fiberglass, shaping pieces of wood
random orbital sander-great for making smooth surfaces on fiberglass
palm sander-great for surface preparation for varnishing and painting
belt sander-very useful for shaping wood, striping large surfaces
a good scraper (like the Proprep, shown in catalogs)-is extremely useful for shaping
fiberglass and wood. It also is used to clean off old varnish. Part of a scraper is a new,
sharp file, so you can keep the scraper sharp.
router-very useful sometimes. I borrow my brothers, when needed.
heat gun-helps applying heat-shrink insulation on electrical cables.
spinner to clean brushes-wonderful to maintain nice varnish brushes.
If you get into serious deck reconstruction, long-boards are necessary for sanding. On
my deck job, I should have used a long-board earlier. It is a wonderful tool -- simple but
very powerful and effective.
I have not gotten into the next higher level of technology, namely using compressed air
tools. I understand that these are the tools of the real pros.
Regrettably, I don't have my own shop with a power saw. I try to get the lumber yard to
plane and cut wood to my precise needs. Sometimes I go to my brother's house. Other
times I have taken a sheet of plywood to a kitchen cabinet shop to cut into pieces for me.
I have found helpful machine shops, welding shops, and sheet metal shops to supply
special materials and to help me fix old parts and to fabricate special items. A machine
shop that specializes in fixing sheet metal machines has a very deep understanding of
shafts, bushings, bearings, etc., which transfers very easily into many repairs on the boat.
When faced with the question of whether or not to buy a tool, I just think about whether
every $50 spent on tools will enable me to do something that over the course of years
might require one hour of boatyard time. Almost always, I come down in favor of buying
139
the tool.
When the boat is hauled and I set up for the "maintenance season," I put a board or
platform over two saw horses adjacent to my boat. I have a small vice that can be
clamped on. It is a crude work bench but extremely useful.
There is one other "tool" that took me an embarrassing long time to figure out, namely
plywood covers for the table and galley for the winter time to protect those surfaces. I
have also made simple plywood floorboards for the winter maintenance season. The
beautiful teak and holly boards are taken up and put in the hanging lockers to ensure they
will not suffer damage.