E33 Chainplates
Date: February 11, 2003
From: Steve Witzel WITZ1@aol.com
I've got a 1984 E-33 and when putting it in storage last fall, the yard noticed that the starboard main chainplate had moved upward a centimeter. When the rig was removed, I took off the chainplate and found that the teak bulkhead behind it was completely dry-rotted. I'm lucky that the chainplate didn't pull out all the way.
Now, I'm faced with the choice of either replacing the bulkhead to which the chainplate was anchored(an enormous task), or remanufacturing the starboard chainplate to attach to the same bulkhead lower down, where the wood is still just fine. I've currently opted for the latter choice since I can have the part made and machined for about $100.00 from a standard sized stainless bar(although the original part looks to have been a casting). The new chainplate will be about eight inches longer than the original, but will use the original bolts and backing plate, just placed lower down. The rotted area in the bulkhead will be epoxied and maybe veneered. I guess I just want to know how this sounds to y'all, and if anyone knows exactly what type of stainless the original part was cast from.
Date: February 14, 2003
From: Carol and Bruce McMahon LBMcMahon@northropgrumman.com
Paul and the E33 owner.
Cu Mara is also a 1984 E33 and when I had her surveyed bedore I bought her in 2000, there was an area of dry rot high up on the starboard bulkhead. What you intend doing sounds reasonable. But if the plate moved because the holes elongated, the the epoxy should be done extensiively above and below the existing hole pattern-- just to be sure you get it all and this doesn't repeat in the future.
Date: February 15, 2003
From: John Roil mckenroi@roadrunner.nf.net
Steve,
I have an '83 E33 Hull #4, which is in good shape generally, purchased last year in upstate NY.
I have also noticed a small amount of upward movement in both main chainplates. I thought it was simply an age thing - the bulkheads seem to be still solid....but then, I haven't looked closely either. I will this spring. They have clearly leaked before, so rot may be an issue for me, too.
I've always thought, however, that a small piece of stainless steel with a bunch of bolts in it "perforating" the plywood was not much support for such a powerful force as is generated by the heeling pressures. I have fantasized about spreading the load downward with another chainplate attached to the original one but about 18 inches longer. That fantasy may have to become a reality. The aft lowers go right to the hull, which in my view is a better arrangement. However, bulkhead support alone seems to be the norm with many sailboats, so who am I to argue?
The port one is somewhere in the head area and less accessible, but I will have a look again once the spring thaw sets in. I live in Newfoundland, Canada and it's currently -14C outside with blowing snow....so I think I'll pass for today!!
Date: February 15, 2003
From: Bill Fuller wh_fuller@yahoo.com
I suggest biting the bullet and replacing the bulkhead. This is no area in which to cheap out. This chainplate and bulkhead supports your whole rig. I've personally witnessed a 33 that experienced a failed chainplate/bulkhead. It wasn't pretty and the yard bill for replacement was quoted over $12,000.
Also, if one bulkhead is bad, then the other one is suspect. This rot was probably caused by water leaking through the deck at the chainplate aperture. One should probably recaulk these areas once a yearfor good measure.
Date: February 15, 2003
From: Tom Prince odyssea1@hotmail.com
As a long-range offshore cruiser with yacht design experience, I offer this as a possible solution to your problem:
Your plan to repair the bulkhead and increase the length of the chainplate seems a good idea. However, when increasing the length of the chainplate and change the anchor point, you change the fulcrum point which increases the leverage point between the angle between the shroud and chainplate thereby, increasing the load on both the chainplate and the bulkhead. This may not be significant enough to matter, but I would strengthen rather than diminish the strength of the rigging. You may want to obtain engineering calcs.
One way to compensate for the increased force acting on the chainplate is to increase the thickness or width of the chainplate. This would necessitate increasing the deck hole and deck trim plate for the enlarged chainplate. To avoid this I would suggest you increase the length of the chainplate as planned with the same width, thickness and anchor holes as the original plate and add new anchor holes at the lower end making sure there are enough anchoring holes with enough spread between them as not to create a pivot point. Add a stainless steel backing plate wider and of the same length as the new chainplate. The bulkhead should be reinforced with layers of fiberglass mat and/or SS plate sufficiently overlapping the patched area to maintain structural and waterproof integrity.
The center chainplates on my E42 is SS316. A way to determine the grade of your stainless steel is with a magnet. SS316 has no magnetic attraction and SS304/305 has a slight magnetic attraction as compared to carbon steel with a strong magnetic attraction.
The cause of the dry rot must be addressed. Also, check the port shroud, fore and aft stays. Also, where there is cored deck check for dry rot at holes, thru bolts or screws. There are books such as Sailboat Hull and Deck Repair by Don Casey on this subject.
Your problem is a prime example why water ingress must be addressed before serious damage can occur.
I hope this helps. Please keep me informed of your outcome and good luck.
Date: February 17, 2003
From: Robert Redmond Redmonds64@msn.com
Steve,
Been there, done that on my 1985 E35 around 1992. I opted to remove the bulkhead to double its lenght along the top to increase the overall strenght of the member. The new aesthetics are fine, maybe better.I also doubled the lenght of the stainless steel chainplate. You do have to remove all the starboard shelving, 3 drawer cabinet et.al. Lots of hard sailing since '92 without a problem.
I also installed a new matching chain plate on the port side at the same time to forestall a dulpicate problem in the future. In 1992 I did not have dry-rot. The failure was solely structural; not enough "bulk" in the bulkhead at the plate.
More recently, about one square foot of the deck at the starboard chainplate was found rotted and had to be replaced. The lesson for me was the need to rebed the chainplate deck fitting more often. My schedule is now every other year.
Date: February 18, 2003
From: Ed Mahoney ed.mahoney@us.abb.com
Steve,
I am not sure about the 33, but I had a bulkhead rot on my E42, and thought about a similar approach.
My decision was to replace a part of the Bulkhead, not the complete piece, I was fortunate in that I caught it before the rot extended all the way through.
I was able to remove two of the three layers of Plywood. I removed it in steps, with the outer layer having the most removed, and removing just enough of the inner layer to remove the rotted wood. I was also be able to make the lower part of the removed area larger, so that when I made the fill pieces, they looked like plugs with the sides like this /__\.
I used slightly thinner wood on the inner layer, and routed some of the original wood, I then filled the space with layers of Fiberglass Mat and West System. I was able to obtain some Teak Veneer Marine plywood, andwith the proper filler, the repair is almost unnoticeable. My total cost was about $150, and it took me a couple of afternoons.
