|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-26-2011 01:08 PM|
Yes, mitiempo, I thought 1/8 was thin too. Given that a Gulf 32 displaces about 16,000 lbs, and has 6,000 lbs of lead in the keel, it takes a hell of a lot of force to get her to heel over. Her rig is not too tall, but I have never ever been able to get her rail in the water even carrying full sails close hauled in winds to 25 knots. The forces on those chainplates, and the rigging, must be pretty large, and larger because of her mass.
For all these reasons and more I felt good about replacing them and increasing the thickness of the chainplates.
I hadn't thought about using the old ones as backing blocks but I like that idea. Gulf 32 chainplates are bolted to the large teak bulkheads that separate the main cabin from the head and vberth. They have teak backing blocks for the chainplates. When I install these new ones I will see if cutting down these old chainplates might work to replace or supplement the teak backing blocks. I like that idea.
|10-26-2011 08:50 AM|
|aa3jy||Our 1989 Cabo Rico 34 lost it's mast due to..what the original owner described as sub par stainless that was used in it's construction as per a metal analysis in order to have Cabo Rico replace all new standing rigging and mast...|
|10-26-2011 03:28 AM|
I just pulled my chainplates after 34 years and they also looked good externally. I had new ones made of 316 which I purchased myself and had machine shop cut finish and polish. They are the same thickness - 1/4" - but longer with one extra bolt through the bulkhead. The old ones are now the backing plates instead of the thin backers that were original.
Could I have re-used the originals - maybe but I didn't want to take a chance.
1/8" thick on a Gulf 32? That definitely seems too thin.
|10-25-2011 11:02 PM|
I had replaced all my standing rigging, piece by piece, a few years ago, and the chainplates were the last piece of metal in the system to have not been renewed since my ownership. The previous plates were 1/8 thick, and I ordered the new ones at 3/16. True, the old ones had lasted, but since I was replacing them and the cost difference was insignificant, I went larger.
The Hayn Hi-Mod fittings I use have 3/8 or 1/2" pins and so the 1/8" chainplate was quite thin on them. The depth of the pin is not affected by the width of the chainplate, and neither is it even close to being at the width of the fitting itself. I'm not being very clear here, but the bottom line is that it is no problem.
Just FYI, I paid about $250 for two chainplates, each about 20" long, 3" wide, and with the usual bolt holes.
It will give me immeasurable peace of mind to know that these chainplates are not remotely a weak link in my system! I've seen too many pictures of fractured chainplates and lost rigging to want to experience that in 35 knot SE winds in the Straits of Georgia!
|10-25-2011 09:20 PM|
Originally Posted by josrulz View Post
|10-25-2011 08:57 PM|
For what it's worth, I also got chainplates from Garhauer (they did a great job for a good price), but I didn't oversize. My chainplates had lasted 27 years--another 27 with these new ones will do just fine. Of course, this was not for a PSC, but rather a Sabre.
But my real point is that Garhauer did a great job, and I would recommend them for chainplates.
|10-25-2011 08:47 PM|
Originally Posted by bwindrope View Post
BTW how are you making the thicker chain-plates fit the forks on the turnbuckles?
|10-25-2011 08:30 PM|
Caution is advised
Given what we know, and what we don't know, most sailors err heavily on the side of caution with these things. I'm just now replacing my chainplates for this very reason. I pulled them out and expected to see crevice corrosion after them being in for 20 years, and was surprised to see that they looked like new even between the deck sections.
I pulled them out anyway, and ordered new, thicker chainplates from Garhauer to replace them. I didn't need a metal test or microscope to know that 20 year old chainplates should not be trusted for another 10-20 years. NO matter what they look like.
When in doubt, replace stuff!
|10-25-2011 07:21 PM|
Originally Posted by davidpm View Post
No one is stating that PSC built lousy boats ... ALL metals in cyclically loaded applications that exceed their 'endurance limits' will FAIL (sometimes catastrophically) by fatigue FAILURE.
|10-25-2011 04:04 PM|
I have read that too Rich but Pacific Seacraft is known for building a good blue water boat and I believe there hardware is oversized.
I'm not sure I can really explain or know what to do with this knowledge.
If you pull a chain plate and it looks like it is in perfect condition but it is junk and there is no non-destructive way to tell what do you do?
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|