SailNet Community banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does anyone know how I can find out how much lead (approx) is in the keel of a 36 ft C&C sailboat built in 1969. My sailboat needs to be disposed of and I'm hoping I can recoup some of my expenses by selling the lead. It is has a fin keel and I've been told there is less lead in it than a fixed keel. Is there anywhere online I can go online to get this kind of information?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,630 Posts
It's unusual that you don't know what your own keel is made of. How long have you owned this boat?

In any event, don't expect top dollar with bottom paint and adhesive stuck to it. There are different prices for clean and dirty scrap.

Physically separating it from the boat, lifting and transporting are going to be very difficult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,647 Posts
Are you sure about the size and year? No C&C 36 built until mid-70s. Closest to 1969 (year C&C started) is the Redwing 35. In any case, I would guess about 5000 lbs of lead in the keel.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,999 Posts
Does anyone know how I can find out how much lead (approx) is in the keel of a 36 ft C&C sailboat built in 1969. My sailboat needs to be disposed of and I'm hoping I can recoup some of my expenses by selling the lead. It is has a fin keel and I've been told there is less lead in it than a fixed keel. Is there anywhere online I can go online to get this kind of information?
C&C (the boat builder) did not build a 36 footer in 1969. C&C the designers had three designs in production that were between 34 and 36 feet: Invader (3,000 lbs lead ballast), Redwing 35/C&C 35-1 (5000 lbs lead ballast), and the Frigate (5200 lbs lead ballast but part of that was in the centerboard).

For the record, a fin keel is fixed keel. If this is a centerboard boat, (i.e. what you may be thinking is the fin keel is able to be moved) then it is likely that there will be a higher ballast weight, but some of that weight will be in the keel and some in the centerboard.

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
C&C (the boat builder) did not build a 36 footer in 1969. C&C the designers had three designs in production that were between 34 and 36 feet: Invader (3,000 lbs lead ballast), Redwing 35/C&C 35-1 (5000 lbs lead ballast), and the Frigate (5200 lbs lead ballast but part of that was in the centerboard).

For the record, a fin keel is fixed keel. If this is a centerboard boat, (i.e. what you may be thinking is the fin keel is able to be moved) then it is likely that there will be a higher ballast weight, but some of that weight will be in the keel and some in the centerboard.

Jeff
We read online about replacing keel bolts. I wonder how many sailors or actually doing this? And why? Is it a sort of routine thing... bolts need to be replaced after X years?

Are there signs that bolt(s) need to be replaced?

Are there catastrophic failures from bolt failures? How many?

Who has changed their keel bolts and what were the circumstances?



Is the keel bolt replacement thing more common for some manufacturers?
 

·
Learning the HARD way...
Joined
·
7,145 Posts
We read online about replacing keel bolts. I wonder how many sailors or actually doing this? And why? Is it a sort of routine thing... bolts need to be replaced after X years?

Are there signs that bolt(s) need to be replaced?

Are there catastrophic failures from bolt failures? How many?

Who has changed their keel bolts and what were the circumstances?



Is the keel bolt replacement thing more common for some manufacturers?
Thread drift alert!

I have replaced the keel bolts, or to be more accurate, the PO replaced the keel bolts on my boat immediately before I purchased it. I remove the keel nuts every other year and inspect/clean the threads of the nuts and bolts. Had the keel bolts not been replaced, the keel would wobble from side to side. This would affect sailing performance, cause the boat to heel excessively, and would allow water to enter the bilge.

There have been instances of the keel FALLING OFF O'day 302 and 322s because of an insufficient fiberglass layup in the keel stub. See this thread for some horrifying stories with pictures: https://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/55761-oday-302-lost-keel.html

Maine Sail started a thread on wet bilges that I weighed in on here; https://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/43505-wet-bilge-more-than-just-nuisance.html

Start another thread (so that we don't further derail this one) if you wish to get more info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,630 Posts
We read online about replacing keel bolts. I wonder how many sailors or actually doing this? And why? Is it a sort of routine thing... bolts need to be replaced after X years?

Are there signs that bolt(s) need to be replaced?

Are there catastrophic failures from bolt failures? How many?

Who has changed their keel bolts and what were the circumstances?

Is the keel bolt replacement thing more common for some manufacturers?
I’ve been away from internet for a bit and just catching up. If you started a new thread, let me know and I’ll move this post over.

As in all sailing related matters, this really depends. If you have stainless steel bolts and a lead keel, in theory, your bolts could outlast you. The risk is crevice corrosion, if they ever get wet in or below the bilge. We all know that stainless steel must be exposed to air to prevent rust. Submerged it corrodes quickly. They can get wet from a leaky bilge or through the keel joint, from below the waterline. Inspection makes sense. You can’t tell from above the nuts.

Galvanized bolts into an iron keel are a different kettle of fish. More likely to corrode, even inside the bilge, which can be seen. However, whether they are corroded below the bilge is still hard to tell. I just replaced mine, which looked very badly rusted in the bilge, but were perfectly good below the nuts and in the keel. It’s great peace of mind to know they are new now and I’ll do a better job keeping the bits in the bilge corrosion free. I’m probably going to paint them with cold galvanizing.

While inspection is called for, it’s actually tough to do. In our case, the keel adhesive sealant was pressed up the stud to the back of the nut, making it impossible to see below. I probably could have noted water seepage, or severely corroded studs, but would have no idea what was going in the portion mated to the keel itself.

Keeping one’s keel joint water tight is critical to the longevity of any form of bolt and hard to know if it’s the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,630 Posts
It's pretty difficult and an unrealistic expectation to keep that joint water tight.
Depends on the style. Ours mates to the hull directly, creating a 90 degree joint. I fair that joint with 4200, like I was caulk a bathtub.

If a keel is mated to a stub, I would consider reefing a groove to apply this kind of replaceable sealant.

Much better than running the risk (eventuality) of water getting to the studs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
I have always thought that this joint was secure because there is no sign of water seeping out when the boat is hauled. Do others consider this a fair assessment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
Depends on the style. Ours mates to the hull directly, creating a 90 degree joint. I fair that joint with 4200, like I was caulk a bathtub.

If a keel is mated to a stub, I would consider reefing a groove to apply this kind of replaceable sealant.

Much better than running the risk (eventuality) of water getting to the studs.
Considering the forces and the boat is heeled over and pounding the waves to expect no movement is unrealistic. 4200, 5200 are not strong enough nor elastic enough to not develop a crack... and it doesn't take much of a crack for water to penetrate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,630 Posts
Considering the forces and the boat is heeled over and pounding the waves to expect no movement is unrealistic. 4200, 5200 are not strong enough nor elastic enough to not develop a crack... and it doesn't take much of a crack for water to penetrate.
True for 5200, not 4200. It remains rubbery and it easy to replace every few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,630 Posts
I have always thought that this joint was secure because there is no sign of water seeping out when the boat is hauled. Do others consider this a fair assessment?
The water can be quite small, so I don’t think you’d see it seeping out. For an iron keel, you might see rust at the joint. However, that could be as simple as surface rust from the slight separation, or a penetration that reaches the bolts. No way to visually know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,630 Posts
dunno about the different coefficient of elasticity... but neither will keep that joint water proof if the boat is sailed upwind in heavy seas.

Where did you get the notion it would?
It’s not a notion, it’s been field tested for years. As you noted, the movement is slight. The elasticity of 4200 is fully sufficient to take it up. I check the joint each Fall and it’s never failed. On an iron keel, rust at the joint is a tell tale, even if it doesn’t get all the way into the bolts. I replace the 4200 every few years.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top