Solid GRP and encapsulated lead ballast

Fr J Hackett said:
Vancouver 27, 28,32 and 34 although I think the 27, 28 and 32 were encapsulated cast iron and the first 34s were also the later ones were lead. I have never heard of any structural problems with the internal cast iron keels although the first 34s were slightly stern heavy and dragged the stern noticeably under power that was corrected by a lead keel and the ability to move the ballast forwards slightly.
Click to expand...
Do you know what number van 34 got the lead keel? (re iron then lead)
 
dulls said:
Do you know what number van 34 got the lead keel? (re iron then lead)
Click to expand...

It would be about the 3rd in the series my old one was the first and I don't have access to her details at the moment and can't remember her number off hand 7 years ago she was named Amoret, I think the second boat was Inti.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
It would be about the 3rd in the series my old one was the first and I don't have access to her details at the moment and can't remember her number off hand 7 years ago she was named Amoret, I think the second boat was Inti.
Click to expand...
Thanks we disagree on other posts so it is nice to chat normally and get help from you. Your answer leads to more questions. What hull numbers were the 3rd series? I have searched the internet and will search now armed with the phrase 3rd series. Thanks again
 
Fr J Hackett said:
It would be about the 3rd in the series my old one was the first and I don't have access to her details at the moment and can't remember her number off hand 7 years ago she was named Amoret, I think the second boat was Inti.
Click to expand...
Ah i misunderstood you. So the 3rd boat ie hull no 3 was lead and those after it?
 
dulls said:
Ah i misunderstood you. So the 3rd boat ie hull no 3 was lead and those after it?
Click to expand...

Yes it was about that point in the series and the numbers didn't start at 1 they may have carried on from the V32 the last of which Islander 11 owned by Kevin Seymour (sp) a former director was built alongside of the 1st V34 in 1990.
When I get back to civilisation I should be able to find the hull numbers but there was a post a while back where I discussed this with others and posted the 1st V34 hull number. If you search you may find it.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
Yes it was about that point in the series and the numbers didn't start at 1 they may have carried on from the V32 the last of which Islander 11 owned by Kevin Seymour (sp) a former director was built alongside of the 1st V34 in 1990.
When I get back to civilisation I should be able to find the hull numbers but there was a post a while back where I discussed this with others and posted the 1st V34 hull number. If you search you may find it.
Click to expand...
If you find them let me know. I am trying to avoid paying 15 pounds to join the Vancouver club. If i buy one i will join but till then 15 pounds goes towards next boat.
 
dulls said:
If you find them let me know. I am trying to avoid paying 15 pounds to join the Vancouver club. If i buy one i will join but till then 15 pounds goes towards next boat.
Click to expand...

Vancouver 34C Amoret, 1st V34 built registered year of build 1991,hull number 64 I think it was 67 or 68 onwards that had the lead encapsulated keel.
I wouldn't get fixated on it though apart from dragging the stern when under full power I never noticed any adverse problems and I sailed on a few Vancouvers including several 34s. Of all of them the ones to avoid are the 34 pilot house and the 38 and the one to grab and keep would be the 36 but there is not a lot wrong with the V34C.
If you need any info PM me.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
Vancouver 34C Amoret, 1st V34 built registered year of build 1991,hull number 64 I think it was 67 or 68 onwards that had the lead encapsulated keel.
I wouldn't get fixated on it though apart from dragging the stern when under full power I never noticed any adverse problems and I sailed on a few Vancouvers including several 34s. Of all of them the ones to avoid are the 34 pilot house and the 38 and the one to grab and keep would be the 36 but there is not a lot wrong with the V34C.
If you need any info PM me.
Click to expand...
I will pm later as i am stuck on something else
 
Dulls, sorry, my memory must be failing, I was sure the legend was a long keel, similar to Van decStadts Invicta, but looking back in my files, found she wasn't long keel, but I'm still sure it was encapsulated.
 
Praxinoscope said:
Dulls, sorry, my memory must be failing, I was sure the legend was a long keel, similar to Van decStadts Invicta, but looking back in my files, found she wasn't long keel, but I'm still sure it was encapsulated.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I dont mind an external iron keel but am not sure i want an internal iron one. Lead encapsulated or external bolt on is fine.
 
dulls said:
Thanks for that. I dont mind an external iron keel but am not sure i want an internal iron one. Lead encapsulated or external bolt on is fine.
Click to expand...

The only problem with internal iron ballast is if their is water ingress and you get expansive corrosion of the iron which will then cause the GRP to fail. I have never heard of this happening in a Vancouver and the layup over the keel is sufficiently thick to protect the internal iron from exposure should one be unfortunate enough to knock a lump out of it by hitting an underwater object, charted or otherwise. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with internal iron ballast and in the case of the few V34s that had it the problem of dragging the stern when under power can be corrected by some weight redistribution if it bothers you.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
The only problem with internal iron ballast is if their is water ingress and you get expansive corrosion of the iron which will then cause the GRP to fail. I have never heard of this happening in a Vancouver and the layup over the keel is sufficiently thick to protect the internal iron from exposure should one be unfortunate enough to knock a lump out of it by hitting an underwater object, charted or otherwise. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with internal iron ballast and in the case of the few V34s that had it the problem of dragging the stern when under power can be corrected by some weight redistribution if it bothers you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I am not ruling it out for that reason but i suppose i have preference the other way. It will also come down to accommodation and head room.
 
dulls said:
Thanks for that. I am not ruling it out for that reason but i suppose i have preference the other way. It will also come down to accommodation and head room.
Click to expand...

See PM but the accommodation is very good with 3 ( 2 depending on tack) good sea berths and the forepeak is good for harbour use. Stowage is excellent.
Whilst the icebox / fridge under the chart table seat is good look at cutting it out from the top and re-insulating if it hasn't been done the original was just an inch or so of polystyrene slab with room for more and better insulation which improved the fridge enormously and it can be used as part freezer then.
 
Well I'm busy molding lead "ingots" right at the moment. I'll be placing most of it inside the keel shortly so I'll go back to comment #1 and start going though the thread. I just did a tally and I have 2350 kg (I need 2500 kg) but I suppose I should take the weight of the resin (or bitumen) into account (but I'll read the thread)

One thing I have noticed is that silastic attached to the lead doesn't melt. I wonder if it retains its' other properties when hot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top