Chainplates

[flyingscampi]

My surveyor recommended that the chainplates on my 1987 Westerly Storm were lifted and inspected.

It looks straightforward to remove them (famous last words perhaps) but would anyone advise me against tackling this job myself?

Also, would it be obvious if the chainplates were corroded or weakened or would I need to take them to be inspected by an expert?

 

[Tranona]

Ask him why he thinks they should be removed. Are there signs of water getting in that could lead to corrosion?
You might join the Westerly owners association. Very active and good on technical advice.

 

[oldsaltoz]

He may have spotted some light rusty brown around the edge or at the bottom, indicating some possible corrosion behind the plate, good advice I would have thought.

If ypu see the same rust indication it would be best to investigate. A visual inspection is all that is required in most cases, just look for cracks.

Andavagoodweekend......

 

[William_H]

Much depends on how the chain plates transfer the load to the hull and eventually to the keel. Don't discount the possibility of doubling up the chain plates ie add more metal in parallel if it is easier than removing the existing plates. However chain plates are usually much larger in cross section than the rigging so not normally a weak point even if deterited somewhat. good luck olewill

 

[BAtoo]

Wouldn't contemplate it without a good reason from him so ask him to justify the statement - he is wroking for you don't forget!!!

 

[john_morris_uk]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't contemplate it without a good reason from him so ask him to justify the statement - he is wroking for you don't forget!!!

[/ QUOTE ]Each to their own.

The chain plates on our Westerly SeaLord are straightforward to remove and check. I know because they allleaked when we go the boat and I have had them all off to be rebedded. If the Storm ones are fitted the same way (and from the best of my memory they are) there shouldn't be a problem in having them off and refitting them.

I had to do one of ours twice as I made the mistake of squeezing all the sikaflex out the first time by tightening the bolts up too soon. Nip them up when the Sikaflex has cured is the answer.

 

[BAtoo]

"" Each to their own. ""

OK let me comment...

If they leak or have water stains inside around them, are obviously damaged, loose, cracked or rusted etc then sort them out - but you don't need a surveyor to tell you that...

If they are water-tight and look sound THEN I would ask for a reason... I was presuming they looked OK!!

 

[john_morris_uk]

[ QUOTE ]
"" Each to their own. ""

OK let me comment...

If they leak or have water stains inside around them, are obviously damaged, loose, cracked or rusted etc then sort them out - but you don't need a surveyor to tell you that...

If they are water-tight and look sound THEN I would ask for a reason... I was presuming they looked OK!!

[/ QUOTE ]Fair comment. Somehow I had read into your post that you suggested not touching the chain plates as if they were high tech devices that need special treatment.

I agree that if its not broke and there's no warning signs (rust stains/cracks etc) then leave well alone. The only other possibility is that the surveyor has some inside knowledge that a particular batch of chain plates suffer cracking, and he is suggesting checking them out as a precaution. Whatever the reasons he should be able to explain or justify his suggestion in his report.

 

[FrancisRutter]

I had to have my teak toe rail replaced a couple of years ago which involved removing and replacing all the through fittings. I worked as 'boy' with the shipwright and I noticed that he used a countersink bit on the deck where every fitting went through. He told me that this allows the sikaflex to make more of a collar around the fitting and helps to prevent further leaks.

 

[minkysailing]

I agree with BAtoo...so many surveyors these days make throw away comments to cover their backs and where there is uncertainty or a tenious indication of something maybe out of the ordinary they revert to destructive intervention at significant cost sometimes. In most cases where I have been involved in such work there is no problem found and the job as such was a waste of time and money. Offcourse the response from a surveyor on this is 'its better being safe than sorry'...easier said when he isn't paying the bill..!!! If their is significant cost or you are concerned at the destructive impact that this could have I would suggest that you get a second opinion.

 

[vyv_cox]

On the other hand, we are talking about a relatively straightforward job to inspect fittings on a 20 year-old boat, whose failure would be catastrophic and whose lesser problems allow water into the boat. My boat suffered for the first two years of my ownership from persistent leakage into lockers on both port and starboard sides. After a lot of messing about needlessly rebedding other fittings I finally got around to the lower chainplates, which fixed the problem. Perhaps if I had received the same advice from a knowledgeable surveyor it would have saved me needless work.

Inspecting the chainplates seems like a good investment of a morning to me but it will only take one phone call to the surveyor to find the reason for his recommendation.

 

[Tranona]

What I find interesting is that your boat (and the Storm and other Westerlys) are often held up on here as examples of quality boats and by implication - or often direct comparison as superior to modern boats. But having to remove and rebed ALL chainplates because of leaks that could do damage on such a recent boat does not seem like either a quality build or longevity.

Perhaps there is something that I am missing.

And maybe the surveyor made the recommendation because he is so used to seeing the problem on that age and type of boat it becomes a standard recommendation.

 

[KenMcCulloch]

[ QUOTE ]
What I find interesting is that your boat (and the Storm and other Westerlys) are often held up on here as examples of quality boats and by implication - or often direct comparison as superior to modern boats. But having to remove and rebed ALL chainplates because of leaks that could do damage on such a recent boat does not seem like either a quality build or longevity.

Perhaps there is something that I am missing.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that 21 years old is a recent boat is missing something. I don't find it at all surprising that chainplates on a boat of that age might leak.

 

[Tranona]

Glad I don't have your standards then.

The chain plates on my 44 year old boat have never leaked, but perhaps that is because it was built before the non boat builders got into boat building.

And I was actually referring to John Morris's Oceanlord which I guess, but he will correct me if I am wrong, was a lot younger than 21 years when he had to do the job.

 

[alahol2]

I think, if the boat has any sort of age, that a removal and inspection is probably sensible. My own boat uses U-bolts to connect to the shrouds. At the end of last season, one of the legs of one of the U-bolts sheared. On inspection, there were no outward signs of any problem either on deck or inside. It looks like crevice corrosion inside the deck was the culprit. I have since removed, inspected and rebedded all the other U-bolts without any sign of a problem.

 

[Tranona]

Think your experience may be a good illustration of what I am trying to say. There were some very poor "design" practices as builders were learning how to use the new materials. Chain plates (or more broadly shroud attachment) is one of the weak areas.
Making holes in otherwise monolithic decks seems to me to be something to avoid, particularly a big hole to allow a chain plate through to be bolted to the upper end of a structural ply bulkhead for example is vulnerable to water coming in and rotting the bulkhead with little outward sign of damage.

If it is just a question of unbolting and resealing with a more effective sealer thats fine, but if it is hidden behind furniture then it can be a major job - and these are the ones more likely to be ignored.

The more modern method of using tensioned tie bars to webs well down in the boat, and not through a bulkhead seems to me to be superior - but maybe in 20 or 30 years time we will find otherwise!

 

[neil_s]

I am replacing the chainplate fastenings on my Seal 28 for the same reason. You could see rusty staining around the plates - which was what the surveyor remarked upon. Having removed all the fastenings I found that the majority of the bolts were sound, but one or two were quite seriously corroded. One other thing I noticed was a lot of condensation on the stainless steel - so it seems to me that rusty marks around stainless steel fittings close up under the deck can be caused both by leaks in the deck around the chainplate hole and by condensation. But how do you tell without taking it all apart and having a look? I think you've got to do it!

Neil

 

[john_morris_uk]

[ QUOTE ]
Glad I don't have your standards then.

The chain plates on my 44 year old boat have never leaked, but perhaps that is because it was built before the non boat builders got into boat building.

And I was actually referring to John Morris's Oceanlord which I guess, but he will correct me if I am wrong, was a lot younger than 21 years when he had to do the job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall making any claims about the build quality of my boat. (If I could afford a Malo or Najad or Oyster or Halberg Rassey I might go shopping...)

However, I have friends who sail some of the above and they have had to sort out leaks and niggles on their boats so I am still not sure what point you are making.

Our Westerly is not a Mercedes of a boat, but she is not a Trabbant either. Westerly's are fairly solidly built and I would argue that they have a better layup, hull design, and sailing qualities than some modern mass produced boats.

Regarding the leaks: our boat was lived on in the Med' for several years. The sealant on most of the deck fittings failed through the heat of the sun and generally being 'cooked'. I suspect that the expansion and contraction of the heat might have had something to do with it. However the fact that I had to rebed most of the deckfittings after 17 years doesn't strike me as significant at all. I don't think that its any reflection on the original build quality.

I once sailed on a 30 year old Nicholson that had had £250,000 spent on its refit. The deck leaked like a seive.

My own hand built Nicholson leaked all over the place, despite being built of the highest quality materials and workmanship. (However it was 50 years old and didn't leak at all when I had rebuilt her...)

 

[Tranona]

Sorry, I know you were not making any claims, but there has just been one of the Moody vs Bavaria type threads where peeps knock modern Boats as being lower quality/ less well built/ inferior in design etc than "proper" boats, by which they mean usually boats like yours (it was a Moody 31 this time around).

There is often a lot of rose tinted specs stuff going on as there are many points of bad design and construction from that era and shroud attachment is one, where the apparent solidity can be misleading. I am not sure about better lay up. This is probably more to do with lack of understanding of the properties of the material and the "thicker the better" approach than anything. I have seen some pretty poor laminations from that period - indeed worked for a builder producing some, although did not realise it at the time. And of course the dreaded osmosis.

You are absloutely right about "higher quality" boats also giving trouble. Reminds me a story my brother told me when he was making lots of money rebuilding blown Mercedes van engines. MB did not want to know - after all it is a Mercedes so it must be the operators fault!

The only leaks on my 8 year old Bavaria, (in the Med from new and it is wet in Corfu in the winter) were from the deck hatches supplied by a well known Swedish manufacturer and replaced with Lewmars courtesy of Bavaria. One of the things I like about the boat is that it has virtually no through bolted fittings on the deck. Could of course be a problem if one does ever need to get the fittings off - but how often do you need to do that except to reseal them!

 

[flyingscampi]

Thanks for all the helpful replies, the recommendation was made by a surveyor who used to work for Westerly when I bought the boat.

From these pictures, it looks like only the bolts pass through the deck. As you can see they're easy to get to inside. In fact, everything is easy to get to on the Storm apart from the sea cocks in the head!

The chainplates are not leaking. I've unstepped the mast this winter so it's tempting to check the chainplates for peace of mind.

I am a member of the WOA but I prefer this forum as I haven't yet wrapped my head around the ruddy awful Yahoo group thing they use..