Sean Madian Portland, OR
Boat Name: Time Out
Model/Year: 1973
Hull No. CL 3839 FX
Hailing Port: Portland |
11/25/2005 5:22 AM Pacific Time
Help! I'm replacing my standing rigging and just noticed that the PO set (hopefully not intentionally) all of the chainplate eyebolts facing different directions. It seems likely that this is wrong.
Should they all be facing a particular direction? For example should the holes all be directly perpendicular to the mast to provide for the greatest/easiest degree of swing in the turnbuckle? Or does it not really matter? |
Peter South Daytona, Florida
Boat Name: (Working On A Name)
Model/Year: C-22, 1974
Hull No. 2679
Hailing Port: South Daytona, Florida |
11/25/2005 7:33 AM Pacific Time
Hi Sean,
It does matter. Each of the eye bolts need to be in line with the shroud to the mast. So they are at different angles to each other. This helps to minimize fatigue. Also, since you have to move (turn) them, they need to be rebedded so water does not seep into the plywood core. It will also give you the opportunity to inspect each eye bolt for crevise corrision. If you find corrison, replace them with 1/2 inch eye bolts, instead of the 3/8 inch (actually, it would be a good idea regardless if the budget allows). See CDs online store.
Peter |
Al Gearing Burleson, Texas
Boat Name: Torch of Freedom
Model/Year: C-22 '76
Hull No. 6448
Hailing Port: Arlington YC |
11/26/2005 6:20 AM Pacific Time
I think that the eye bolts on the aft lowers and the uppers, should have bolts holes athwartships (so the bolt hole is sideways to the boat) because I find the shrouds will laydown and go up easier that way. I don't think that the slight angle difference is that determental because of the toggle action afforded by the Tee bolt.
For what it's worth,
Al Ge |
Sean Madian Portland, OR
Boat Name: Time Out
Model/Year: 1973
Hull No. CL 3839 FX
Hailing Port: Portland |
11/26/2005 6:52 AM Pacific Time
Peter/Al: I'm sorry to put this like a 5 year old, but Peter, if I drew a line from the mast to the eye bolt the bolt would want to be parallel to or perpendicular to the line? Al, I thought about the raising/lowering issue but figured that there was so much slack at that point that it didn't matter. I was more concerned about action on the bolts while under sail. |
Dick King Melbourne, FL
Boat Name: Twilight Zone
Model/Year: Sport/2005
Hull No. 15546
Hailing Port: Melbourne, FL |
11/26/2005 7:07 AM Pacific Time
There has always been some disagreement about positioning the shroud eyebolts. The recommended way to align them is to sight across the heads of the bolts and align them so that the line of sight is toward the mast. While I do that with all the bolts, an argument could be made to align the upper bolts so that the head aligns fore and aft. Since the upper shroud pulls vertically on the eye bolt, the bolts position is not critical. However, the fore and aft positioning will provide the best orientation for raising and lowering the mast. |
Peter South Daytona, Florida
Boat Name: (Working On A Name)
Model/Year: C-22, 1974
Hull No. 2679
Hailing Port: South Daytona, Florida |
11/26/2005 9:20 AM Pacific Time
Sean, I consider Al and Dick to have way more experience than I do. But to answer your question as to parallel or perpendicular. It should be parallel to that line.
Peter |
Bilbo Youngstown, Ohio
Boat Name: Sea Dog
Model/Year: Catalina 22 1987
Hull No. 13971
Hailing Port: Andover, Ohio |
11/26/2005 3:05 PM Pacific Time
As other's have far more knowledge but I may be able to help, The question, "should the holes all be directly perpendicular to the mast to provide for the greatest/easiest degree of swing in the turnbuckle?"
Shoud be answered, Yes!
Orient the chainplates so that the swing of the turnbuckle when attached to the chainplates shoud be towards or away from the mast. Not sideways to the mast. The holes would be perpindicular to alignment with the mast. If located the wrong way, the T bolts will bend and need replacing. Also be carefull steping the mast, the T bolts can still be bent if not careful.
If you move the chainplates, they'd also need re-seating with proper sealant to prevent leaks into the cabin. -one of my off-season fixes for this year.
~Bilbo |
Sean Madian Portland, OR
Boat Name: Time Out
Model/Year: 1973
Hull No. CL 3839 FX
Hailing Port: Portland |
11/27/2005 7:09 AM Pacific Time
Thank you all. I find it interesting that so much, forgive the non PC term, tribal knowledge exists on things like this. I'll realign the bolts this weekend and reseal them. As it stands, of the six, all of them are aligned in different directions! I guess the PO couldn't make up his mind and decided that at least one of them would likely be right. |
Dick King Melbourne, FL
Boat Name: Twilight Zone
Model/Year: Sport/2005
Hull No. 15546
Hailing Port: Melbourne, FL |
11/27/2005 7:43 AM Pacific Time
Sean - If you have the old 3/8 inch eyebolts, hold off on "realigning" until you order and receive a set of 1/2 inch eyebolts from Catalina Direct. While you are at it, order a set of backing plates to go with the new eyebolts. This is one upgrade your mast, sails, crew and insurance company will thank you for. |
Bilgeboy Carrboro, NC
Boat Name: Kosher Cannoli, Northern Light
Model/Year: C22 Swing 1988, C34 Wing 2003
Hull No. 14447, 1632
Hailing Port: Kerr Lake, NC |
05/07/2012 8:34 PM Pacific Time
I've not been able to get the second generation upper chainplates to not leak. Every season they get sealed but still end up leaking in a few months.
During the first attempt, I widened the deck slot to clean out debris and sealed the core with epoxy. Now the slots are ~1/4 inch wide. Could this be excessive and allow too much movement and cause the 4200 to fail?
Also, has anyone used the third gen chainplates on a second gen boat? The deck plate is welded to the chainplate. However, the above deck turnbuckle hole is rotated 90 degrees compared to the second gen cp. It doesn't seem like this would transfer force cleanly.
Thoughts?
Thanks |
Lynn Buchanan Nevada City, CA
Boat Name: SAILYNN
Model/Year: SWING 1984
Hull No. 11994
Hailing Port: SCOTTS FLAT LAKE, CA |
05/08/2012 11:43 AM Pacific Time
Try sealing the bolts/hole with butyl tape instead of 4200 sealant on the deck and in inside between the plate. Don't over torque, but tape residue should squish out.. As for the directiions of the bolts, there is a diagram in the C22 Tech Manual and I believe if you check with the engineering dept. at Catalina Yachts in Florida they can send you a picture and description of the alingment. What you will find is they are not horizontal to the mast, but at a angle. |
Peter South Daytona, Florida
Boat Name: (Working On A Name)
Model/Year: C-22, 1974
Hull No. 2679
Hailing Port: South Daytona, Florida |
05/08/2012 3:43 PM Pacific Time
Which type of chain plate are you referring too? Is it this one?
http://www.catalinadirect.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=585&ParentCat=28
or
http://www.catalinadirect.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=265&ParentCat=28
If it's the latter, you might want to see if this one will work for you.
http://www.catalinadirect.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=1812&ParentCat=28 |
Bilgeboy Carrboro, NC
Boat Name: Kosher Cannoli, Northern Light
Model/Year: C22 Swing 1988, C34 Wing 2003
Hull No. 14447, 1632
Hailing Port: Kerr Lake, NC |
05/08/2012 7:58 PM Pacific Time
I should have been more specific. It's the upper shroud CP - the second one mentioned above. The third gen CPs (third one mentioned above) have the bolt hole rotated 90 degrees relative to the second gen CPs. Other than that (and a welded deck plate) the dimensions are the same. Since the upper shroud is held outward by the spreaders, it should leave the CP at ~80 degrees (a guess). This might be close enough so the turnbuckle still gets a clean pull. I just don't want to spend $100 to find out differently :-) |