• Untitled Document

    Join us on March 29rd, 7pm EST

    for the CBEC Virtual Meeting

    All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the guest speaker!

    See the link below for login credentials and join us!

    March Meeting Info

    (dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)

35-2 Aft Glassed in Chainplate - Risk of Failure?

adam

Member III
Anyone else nervous about their glassed in chainplate for the backstay?

My boat was seemingly raced pretty hard back in the day and I'm worried that it could fail on me someday.

Have any 35-2s lost their masts due to that aft chainplate failing?
 

adam

Member III
I'll give Ericson credit for this. It was very well glassed in and survived 40+ years including a bunch of hard sailing. There's about an inch of fiberglass covering that chainplate.

The only part you can inspect at all is the tiny bit at the top.

The issue though of course is if water ran down into there, it would have moisture, and no air, and presumably rust away terribly.
 

gadangit

Member III
I'll give Ericson credit for this. It was very well glassed in and survived 40+ years including a bunch of hard sailing. There's about an inch of fiberglass covering that chainplate.

The only part you can inspect at all is the tiny bit at the top.

The issue though of course is if water ran down into there, it would have moisture, and no air, and presumably rust away terribly.

It was precisely that reason that I cut mine off at the transom and put in an external chainplate replacement. We drilled through the existing chainplate to through bolt the new one and water poured out.

Chris
 

gadangit

Member III
Sounds easy enough. Was it? Any photos?
Super easy. Nice and slow drill through the old plate, lots of cutting oil. As you can see, I chose to beg for forgiveness and put it right over our name. We never see it, so I never hear about it.
Chris

External Backstay Chainplate.jpg

I see our sun is in the middle of an eclipse.
 
Last edited:

p.gazibara

Member III
I have thought about it as well. It's the only piece of my standing rigging that is original. I'm going to replace it when I replace my rod. After speaking to Buzz, the rigging alone should be around 4k. Deep down I'm envisioning a long stay in NZ where we will pick up jobs and have a bit of income to put into the old gal.

I think we will appreciate the peace of mind before setting off into the Indian Ocean.

I'd love to hear what you come up with.

-p
 

adam

Member III
It was precisely that reason that I cut mine off at the transom and put in an external chainplate replacement. We drilled through the existing chainplate to through bolt the new one and water poured out.

Chris

Wow. I'm tempted to drill into the fiberglass covering mine and see if water pours out too. If it does, I'll certainly bump up the prioritization of replacing the chainplate.

I think I'd keep mine internal though.
 

garryh

Member III
well this is another job I did not know about : |
along with the stemhead fitting that apparently can break at the welds : |
but at least that will give me the opportunity to have an integral bow roller designed into the replacement... a bow roller with the current narrow front forks is virtually impossible.
Back to the aft chainplate... one must assume that the boat was built and then the chainplate added, the point being that the glass covering the chainplate is not structural. Is that a fair assumption..? and if so, can it not simply be ground away..?
 

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
I believe that the layers of roving that were glassed over the ss piece on the inside are very structural.
Given that most boats with a steering station located in the back of the boat could always use a bit more headroom at times where the backstay approaches the transom, I would opt to "go external" for the new one. Then it would be easy to inspect in the future, be styled like later boats, and you could even line up all the slots or bolt flats to make it look really neat.:nerd:
Bonus: you would already have the perfect "backing plate" on the inside, that being the lower part of the old plate. Just grind off the top of the old plate down about a quarter inch.
(Before you attach that new plate, fill the top of the old slot with resin and then gel coat it.)

Also, nice chance to have the new one fab'd up in Ti. No more worries about corrosion stress cracking.

Aside: Our backstay plate is external, like the other 80's EY boats, and we will change to Ti if we ever find a crack in the existing one.
 

garryh

Member III
I suppose that might be true Loren but for a 'quality builder', Ericson sure did some weird things. Encasing a SSchainplate with an obvious crevice corrosion issue is one of them. Why not lay in the glass and THEN install the chainplate..??
But yes... a perfect backing plate. I am replacing my main bulkhead chainplates as I replace the bulkheads themselves... they look fine but I just think it would be a good practice. I will use the old ones as backing plates.
 

garryh

Member III
I do wonder how difficult it would be to line up the bolt holes however. Probably horrendous.
And to be a proper backing plate, it really should be removed from the glass casing which would be a huge job. I do not want to think about this right now : |
Any experience obtaining Ti materail/fabrication..? can normal mortals afford it?
 

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
Fashion vs Utility

I suppose that might be true Loren but for a 'quality builder', Ericson sure did some weird things. Encasing a SS chainplate with an obvious crevice corrosion issue is one of them. Why not lay in the glass and THEN install the chainplate..??
But yes... a perfect backing plate. I am replacing my main bulkhead chainplates as I replace the bulkheads themselves... they look fine but I just think it would be a good practice. I will use the old ones as backing plates.

Good observation, but most production builders in the 60's and 70''s did this. Blame fashion (i.e. the buyers in that era). :)

Back in earlier decades, all boats would carry their stay loads to external plates bolted thru the hull. Simple and strong.

Then, customers liked the "faster look" of having them go thru the deck even though it added some cost to manufacturing. As production boats were becoming styled after the 70's IOR "look" with wider and wider midsections, there was a great need to move those shroud bases inward to allow decent genoa sheeting angles.
Backstay terminations migrated from the outside of the transom to complete the "modern" look. Remember, all this styling had to please customers attending winter boat shows inside heated buildings -- far from practical stuff like actual sailing. :rolleyes:

Soon, only slower-looking cruisers like Westsail (to name only one) kept them external and for them it became like a badge of honor.

Here in PDX, Cascade used the inside-the-hull shroud attachment, altho in their case it was also because it was cheaper than beefing up the cabin sides (original design concept) on the 36 to take the rigging loads. Later when everyone was building wide boats and bringing shroud loads thru the deck, any design without a designed-in bulkhead to tie it to would have to design in extra structure to carry those loads down, like the tie rods in the later EY and Olson designs.
And.... those symmetrical port and starboard bulkheads dictated the interior layout to quite a degree. It takes more engineering and changes in scantlings to bring shroud loads thru an "unsupported" deck to other moldings. But then, you can move interior cabin amenities around much more freely.

Again, the overall "look" of the backstay termination followed right along.
This bit of fashion faded in the 80's.

I do not know, but suspect that buyers started liking the beefier appearance of the external backstay plate, and it was also symmetrical with the external ss forestay plate, too.

Fad and Fashion! I threw away my wide ties (and bell bottom trousers) many decades ago. No more long sideburns, either... :)

Random observations, from looking at a lot of boats. Deposit one cent, no refunds.
 

garryh

Member III
all good points Loren. In boats and so many other facets of our lives, it is marketing and form over substance. A pity sometimes... can create almost intractable problems
 

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
I do wonder how difficult it would be to line up the bolt holes however. Probably horrendous.
And to be a proper backing plate, it really should be removed from the glass casing which would be a huge job. I do not want to think about this right now : |
Any experience obtaining Ti materail/fabrication..? can normal mortals afford it?

One of our site members has considerable rigging experience. Guy S. will probably be checking in. I believe I recall reading that Ti is about 20% more expensive than a good grade of SS.
OTOH, now that my cable/internet bill has reached $150./month, the relative meaning of the word "expensive" is changing, also. :rolleyes:

ps: interesting area you boat in. My previous boat, a Niagara 26, was said to be built in St Catharines, @ Hinterhoeller Yachts.
 
Last edited:

garryh

Member III
Georgian Bay and especially the east side with the 30,000 Islands and then the North Channel are some of the finest cruising grounds and some of the most challenging sailing anywhere. But like all 'lake sailors', I would love to do some blue water sailing. A coupe of guys on here mentioned 'racing to Hawaii'... only in my deams!
The Niagaras are great solid boats... the Niagara 35 was near the top of my wishlist but I came across this (somewhat derelict) 35-2 and it was love at first sight. Gorgeous lines.
And yes... 'expensive' truly is relative and I think we can all be 'penny wise pound foolish' sometimes. At least the starboard bulkhead is rotted on this boat and I have decided to replace vs repair. I took the chainplate off and took it to the local metal fabricators... the foreman there said it was just fine and could be reused. That made no sense to me, what's maybe $200 when you have gone to this much work and expense already. The chainplates are over 40 years old... it is time.
 

gadangit

Member III
well this is another job I did not know about : |
along with the stemhead fitting that apparently can break at the welds : |
but at least that will give me the opportunity to have an integral bow roller designed into the replacement... a bow roller with the current narrow front forks is virtually impossible.
Back to the aft chainplate... one must assume that the boat was built and then the chainplate added, the point being that the glass covering the chainplate is not structural. Is that a fair assumption..? and if so, can it not simply be ground away..?
I had considered trying to grind away the glass for about 2 minutes while I was jammed in under the cockpit staring at the buried chainplate. I've got plenty of experience grinding fiberglass and I'm kinda tired of it, especially in such a tight confined space.
The second consideration is glassing in a replacement. A tight confined space working against gravity means getting a perfect layup is going to be difficult. Way too important to risk.
So I opted for the easy solution. I'm learning.

I did a integrated bow roller for our stemhead fitting. Here is a picture.Anchor roller with tack.jpg

I would go with Titanium if I had to do it all over again for all these pieces.

Chris
 

Hanktoo

Member III
this is not something i ever considered. in order for water to get in there has to be a void. Are we saying the chainplate was inserted in a slot and then glassed over and there is potentially a void in there. If it is truly glassed in, shouldn't it be solid all around the chainplate?
 

gadangit

Member III
this is not something i ever considered. in order for water to get in there has to be a void. Are we saying the chainplate was inserted in a slot and then glassed over and there is potentially a void in there. If it is truly glassed in, shouldn't it be solid all around the chainplate?
Good question. They used a pretty heavy roving in the layup so perhaps a void opens up when trying to conform to the shape of the chainplate. Wouldn't take much for a leaking joint at the transom to let water start working it's way down.

Chris
 

garryh

Member III
and IF the roving was properly wetted out which often it was not. Given the constant working of the stays and torsion of the hull, it is almost inconceivable that the stainless and fiberglass are 100% adhered. It is only an adhesion/mechanical bond to begin with vs a chemical/molecular bond. And several points of water intrusion... the opening where it exits the transom and all the bolt holes. Definitely something to think about. Which I have not thought about : |
 
Top