Chainplates

[BS Smith]

As others have identified, chain plates are a NE38 weak point. Early on I disregarded Quetzalsailor’s good advice on this topic with assurance of “not to worry, they’re stainless.” Only later did I realize the above-deck portion of the chain plates is nice and shiny, but glassed-in carbon steel securing the stainless portion can be horrific. Thanks to fellow NE38 owner Philippe via Chris’s LeComte site, here’s what might be a picture:



At least I think that is what is being shown based on net translation of “L'ancienne contreplaque sous la colonne de barre,” though I don’t see how observable portions of #82’s chain plates would connect to this type of backing plate.

You can see more here http://beckerlaurent.free.fr/ucap/philippe/5/index.htm

The pre-purchase survey for #82 identified chain plates as a concern:

• Two bulges in the hull were observed on the port and starboard sides in the area where the forward chain plates are secured to the hull.
  
  The chain plates were only partially visible. Access should be provided to allow a thorough inspection of these crucial components.
  
  Remove encapsulating fiberglass from all chain plates to allow for a thorough inspection. Repair/replace as needed.
  
  Repair bulges in hull on the port and starboard sides near the forward chain plates.
  
  Upon completion of the survey the attending surveyor finds the vessel to be Suitable to her intended purpose after a thorough inspection of the vessel’s chain plates…
  

The hull bulges are difficult to capture on camera, but here’s an attempt:



The inverted Y-shape of the bulge is faintly observable in the picture and more obvious in person. While it didn't jump out at me initially, every knowledgeable observer seeing the boat out of water asks “what’s up with those bulges?”

As indicated in a long ago post here, after the survey when buying the boat in New Rochelle, one of the long-time yard workers explained away the bulges as “they all do that”--an unfortunate result of too quick LeComte hull layup--and “just don’t worry about.” Although comforting at the time, I now know it as hokum. The boat’s original owner has since confirmed that when new, there were no bulges.

A bit more history: twenty five years ago, when the previous owner purchased the boat, the original (40.83’) mast was found to be cracked or corroded and was replaced as a condition of sale with a taller (45’) mast from a later model NE38. In the process the old forward chain plates were abandoned (cut off at deck level) and new chain plates added a bit forward the previous.

Here’s a picture of the “new” port side main fwd chainplate:



The rust stains were what worried the surveyor. Note also the inverted half-a-Y shape.

Yesterday I began the chain plate attack. It was a day of firsts—first use of the new I don’t-want-to-pay-for-Fein Rockwell Sonicrafter, first use of new respirator, indeed first cutting of fiberglass (okay, now I don’t love it quite as much, but still am most respectful!).

Initially pleased with the Rockwell, but if any hate product documentation, this is your tool—a few teeny tiny drawings and after usual “don’t use in shower” level of warnings, a bare sentence or two on use. Amazingly skimpy, really.

Anyway, before cutting, the pretty hull covering cabin slates had to be removed. At their forward end, a couple slates themselves were covered by a nice shelf that turned out to be fastened to the forepeak bulkhead with a fastener whose screw head wasn’t accessible without removing the previously mentioned hard-edged plywood enclosing the anchor line locker. Yes, indeed, it is ALL connected!

After a bit of cutting at the chain plate glass, some clear liquid spilt out, presumably water (note the boat has been stored inside for the past year). With more cutting, the lower fwd portion of the encapsulated chain plate was uncovered. A poorly focused picture doesn’t tell much:



but the half inch of the fwd Y end is exposed and is shiny metal with no rust evident (some suspicious color in the picture is red something, but not rust). It’s interesting that there’s a quarter inch or so void between the chain plate end and the hull.

And that’s where yesterday ended. Today’s fun started with a nice letter from the IRS and I decided to follow that with this post before hacking further at the boat.

Previously I’d come to believe the hull bulges were result of original chain plates corroding and swelling the hull. Now I don’t think so. One, the shape of the bulges looks very similar to the “new” chain plates. Two, there are only two bulges, port and starboard, but the boat has 12 chain plates (14 if we count those abandoned).

There’s no question at least some of the original chain plates are badly corroded. Here’s the port side aft-most one for the mizzen:



but, again, no bulge in that vicinity.

(At this point, site administration may believe this post needs to migrate to “Ramblings,” but the conclusion is near after a few questions.)

One difficulty is that I’ve not precisely measured the location of the bulges and transferred those measurements to locate the spot inboard. An easy method would be simply to drill a reference point through the hull. Any downside?

What do you think is going on?

What needs to be done to remove the bulges?

How much of the chain plates needs to be uncovered to determine acceptability?

If the “new” chain plates really are causing the bulges, should the abandoned ones still be uncovered and removed completely? In addition to fiberglass fun, doing so likely will require more cabin disassembly.

Please, opine away!

Thanks,

BS

[Henk]

None of the chainplates in the pictures look healthy. I would like to say that a little WD40 and some duct tape should do the trick but my gut feeling is to check all chainplates and remove/repair/replace what you have to. If the discontinued ones are not the source of the bulges, and show no rust streaks, I would just leave them.
In my opinion the bulges on the hull need to be grinded down to a shallow 'dent'. Then fill, fare and paint. This of course after the source of the bulge has been fixed.
It'll be a lot of work, but you'll be glad you did it. No more worries if the rig is going to come down.
Just my humble opinion.

[Case]

Based on your descriptions, I think those chainplates are "printing thru". It happens. Its relatively common but most times the print thru that is seen is from the bulkheads. Look at many older sailboats, you can see a faint straight line which occurs when the bulkhead pressing against the hull hard.

The solution, I'm afraid to say it... is to remove the chainplates, glass in more fiberglass then reinstall the chainplates and make sure that the loads from that chainplate is spread much further around as compared to the past. If it was me, I would replace the chainplates, do a new one then hold off the outside bulges until its time to refinish the hull.

Most times chainplates are attached to the bulkheads. Its possible that the fiberglass skin on the boat was not thick enough to be able to handle the loads of the chainplates.

- Case

[BS Smith]

First off, thanks for the advice. It made resuming cutting away today much easier.

Today’s work was quite informative. Itchy and scratchy, but informative. And deafening—forgot to bring earplugs. Tonight bought a decent pair of earmuffs.

Took four hours of cutting to have the previously started forward portside main chain plate fully uncovered. Went an hour trying to work around the bonding strap, but finally decided “enough of that!”

Here’s what was uncovered:





It may not be fully apparent in the pictures, but the metal is beautiful—no rust anywhere. Some weld discoloration at the angled-off section, some goopy something just below the bonding wire screw, but zero corrosion. The scary weeping-through stain in yesterday’s post was from something other than rust.

Here’s a close-up of the void beneath the angled section:



It may be as much as ½” deep.

And here’s the wild part: The many threaded bolts sticking through the plate? There’s nothing on the backside of the thread! Slid a putty knife along the outboard side of the plate and found nothing. Even managed to slide a finger into the behind-plate void—the outboard side of the plate is smooth under the bolts. Perhaps the chain plates were a stock item and the bolts intended for another application.

Finally, it seems the hull was cut into in order to place the chain plate in it; at least that’s the way it appears in the portion over the void, and the horizontal section of the plate seems flush with the hull (i.e., fitted into a cut). Don’t know why the angled portion of plate is standing above rather than sitting in the void beneath it. Perhaps installation error?

Also spent ladder time looking at the portside bulge and now am certain the bulge is outboard the void under the angled section of the “new” chain plate.

So it’s clear the bulge wasn’t caused by rust. Also doubt it was caused by the “new” chain plate pushing through, as a bulkhead hard spot might—the load on the chain plate primarily is up, not out. Instead, here’s a new theory—rainwater trapped in the void froze and bulged out the hull. Recall some clear liquid ran out when the lower angled section of the plate first was opened. Don’t know if freezing forces would be sufficient—NE38 hulls are quite stout (perhaps someone has layup specs)—but if some of the thickness was removed to bed in the plate, maybe?

Whatever the explanation, it has to hold true for both sides of the boat.

Next up is to dig into the other “new” chain plate on starboard:



We now know those ugly stains aren’t rust, whatever they are. Rather than uncover the entire starboard fwd main chain plate, I intend first to open only the lower angled portion. If it too has a void beneath and some liquid spills out, I’ll stop digging there.

The new plan then will be to epoxy fill the voids, glass over the plates, and grind and fill the bulges (yes, redoing topsides already is on the to-do list).

“Whoa, wait a minute!” some might say. Those “new” chain plates aren’t even screwed into the hull, much less the usual bolt-into-bulkhead. The response would be:

My chain plate concern primarily was triggered by the surveyor’s findings (and the plates’ years in saltwater service--+20 years for the “new”; near 50 the others). But the corrosion concern for the “new” chain plate has been demonstrated to be false—the metal is in fine shape. There has been no other concern for these plates—no cracks or other apparent stress in the encapsulating glass. That is, they have worked well without being screwed into the hull for +20 years of service. This seems good enough for me, particularly considering the difficulty of drilling through the stainless plates in order to install fasteners, and the understood minimal additional holding power the short screws could provide.

It’s also now clear I won’t be doing anything with the abandoned chain plates other than epoxying over their slot holes.

For certain, any badly corroded chain plates will be replaced, for example, the one for the mizzen shown in a previous post. But I no longer intend to dig out all fourteen of the rascals.

As always, comments welcomed.

Thanks,

BS

[Chris Campbell]

Hi Brian,

That's great news that the chainplate is in such good shape! Strange that they would have routered into the hull to install it, though - I would have thought it would have been mounted on the surface and glassed over. It makes me wonder about your plan for grinding off the bulge on the outside - if you're already dealing with a reduced thickness there (from the routered-out portion the chainplate is mounted in) and you further reduce it by grinding off the outside - will you have enough hull remaining? My NE 38 had roughly 3/8" thick solid glass at the gunwales (much thicker lower on hull, of course) - which is more or less where these are. Of course the area that I know about is around the end of the cabin/beginning of the cockpit, so it could easily be that the hull thickness at the chainplates is thicker, I don't know. I think if I were you I would go ahead with that idea you had to drill a hole through the bulge - that will tell you how thick it is, where exactly it is, and might even give a clue as to why it's happened. And it'll be plenty easy to repair before painting.

Thanks for continuing to share your experiences - great to be vicariously enjoying the work!

Cheers,

Chris

[Mark F]

I would guess the small bolt protrusion's are to provide some more "bite" for the glass to chainplate connection.

[Tim]

Finally, it seems the hull was cut into in order to place the chain plate in it; at least that’s the way it appears in the portion over the void, and the horizontal section of the plate seems flush with the hull (i.e., fitted into a cut).

What you are seeing as the chainplate appearing flush with the hull is actually the thick edge of the tabbing that remains after you cut away the portion directly over the chainplate to expose it. The chainplate is mounted directly on the inside of the finished hull and then encapsulated over the top of the surface with many layers of fiberglass that spread out over a wide area. When you removed the fiberglass directly over the chainplate, it created the appearance of a recessed area into which the chainplate is inserted, but really what you're seeing is the thickness of the extra material that is installed over the top of the hull laminate during the chainplate installation process.

The thickness of this tabbing may not be immediately apparent when viewing the area because the material covers a very wide area (for strength and to spread the chainplate loading over a large span of the hull), but that's why the chainplate appears to be "inset" into the hull. This will happen anytime you remove any structure that's been glassed inside the hull shell (bulkheads, etc).

Relax. No one routed out your hull to recess your chainplate. It's the tabbing on top of the hull that creates the appearance of this inset.

[BS Smith]

Mark, I first thought the short stubs too insignificant to make a difference, but one of my brothers, after reviewing the post, concluded the same as you. Now we three agree!

Tim, thanks for the reassurance. It was the void under the angled lower portion that made me wonder otherwise.

With Chris’s encouragement, today I stuck a drill through the bulge on port. The hole was 16 ¾” below top of deck and 2 ¼” forward the fwd edge of the forward chain plate. The drill went in 7/8” easily—and stopped. Figured it must have hit the chainplate. Just to be sure, shined a light from outside in and from inside out, but couldn’t detect the hole. From outside, poked through a drill bit by hand as far as it would go, but didn’t see it in the void under the angled portion of the chain plate.

Then transferred the outside measurements to the interior:



What sense does that make?! It’s possible I’m sloppy with a tape measure (and if so, this doesn’t augur well for future cutting tasks…), but I took reasonable care and would hope to have been reasonably accurate.

Didn't spend much time trying to continue to drill through the hull, perhaps 20 seconds. Could epoxy encapsulation be THAT much more difficult to drill through than original layup?

So, didn’t learn much from the exercise and while remaining curious what caused the bulges, really am more interested in remedying them. Currently thinking to fill the under plate void with epoxy and take down the bulge with a belt-sander. Henk’s suggested going further—making a “dent” in the hull, then filling it. But perhaps the indentation can be avoided?

After not learning much more about the bulge, I wasn’t eager to tear open the same design and vintage fwd main chain plate on starboard, and instead shifted to the mid main chain plate on port:



This one’s located behind a cabinet in the head so at least there was a comfortable seat to work from! You might notice it’s a different style than the forward chain plate—not surprising as the fwd is known to have been replaced. The mid chain plate also clearly looked rusted.

But today I also noticed something else—the area around the mid chain plate is painted gray. The area around the forward chain plate also was painted gray. Other areas of the inner hull are unpainted. Hmmm... Perhaps this chain plate has been replaced at some point as well?

Here’s how the mid chain plate looks after some uncovering:



In short, not bad at all. The rust stains were only surface corrosion—no scale or loose metal. I see no reason to dig further.

The surveyor, based on very cursory review, recommended “inspect all chain plates.” But it seems some sampling is justified. Fifty percent of the “new” chain plates have been inspected and found satisfactory. I’d like to assume with a reasonable degree of confidence that the other same vintage, same design, same boat fwd main chain plate also is satisfactory.

About thirty percent of the port mid chain plate has been inspected and found satisfactory. I’d like to assume this entire chain plate is satisfactory. Similarly, I’d like to assume the starboard mid chain plate also is satisfactory. This chain plate is the same design as the one on port. It too has its encapsulating glass painted gray; I assume therefore it’s of the same vintage as on port.

Finally, as the mid and fwd main chain plates have been determined satisfactory, I’d like to assume the aft main chain plates are as well. (Yes, I spent too much time working with economists…).

But seriously, further chain plate inspection will require yet more interior disassembly, not to mention un- and then re- glassing. I just don’t have the stomach for it—too much pain, too little apparent gain. I consider myself risk adverse, and based on inspection to date, don’t believe there’s risk.

And certainly there is plenty else to do—including crawling way back there to check mizzen chain plates.

Any disagreement?--welcomed; any agreement?--no implied liability!

BS

[BS Smith]

A couple points omitted in the previous post:

Dimensions of the port side bulge are roughly 5”x2.5”. Not easy to estimate height, but a 5 digit human micrometer indicates perhaps ¼”.

When the mid chain plate was opened, it too wept clear liquid (though now I suspect “they all do that.”).

BS

[Chris Campbell]

Hi Brian,

I'm glad Tim chimed in regarding the routered-out portion under the chainplate - I feel silly for not thinking of that, and it's certainly a relief to know that the hull thickness wasn't compromised there. It's odd, though, that the chainplate doesn't lie flat to the hull - is it possible to push it into the void without a superhuman effort? One would think that it would have laid there against the hull nicely - at least while the layup was being done over it on installation. Maybe they got the angle wrong where it bends at the deck (or somewhere - the hull angle isn't the same as the shroud angle) and it pulled itself away under tension over the years. And the void also presents a perfectly reasonable explanation for the bump - which you've already suggested - that it was water between the chainplate and hull freezing and thawing that created it. That seems like a good working theory to me.

I've got no explanation for the fact that the drill stopped traveling, unless your measurements are off by just enough for it to be under the chainplate, or there is another piece of metal buried in that pile of epoxy and glass. But the fact that it travelled 7/8" before stopping is reassuring - sounds like you've got plenty of hull to support grinding down the bump, doesn't it!

Neither of the two port-side chainplates that you've shown us look like the ones that I had in Weatherbird, which makes me tend to agree with you that the upper shroud chainplates (in the head and hanging locker) were replaced also. Weatherbird had two styles of chainplate - one (the main shrouds) was conventional, bolted through a glassed-in knee. The other two (fore and aft lowers) were stainless above and through the deck, then welded to a steel web which was glassed into the hull. The steel web is what Art Karpf described to me as the norm. It doesn't seem to jive with what you've got, does it? And what you've got is clearly identical to what was installed later, further forward - which makes me suspect that the upper shroud chainplates were replaced at the same time as the forward lowers - as you've already suggested. I would email Art with photos also and see if he knows of any factory chainplates like the ones you're seeing, that could eliminate the mystery right there.

And remembering that you have abandoned unused chainplates somewhere near the new ones - any chance that your measuring (sorry to impugn it) is off by enough that you hit them with the drill?

Cheers,

Chris

[Quetzalsailor]

I believe that Quetzal's lowers are bolted to stainless webs glassed onto the interior of the hull, and that the uppers are bolted to stainless plates incorporated within hollow 'glass channels glassed onto the interior of the hull. But Quetzal's much newer than your boat.

I could not translate Philippe's captions either. His photo, that you pasted above, is part of his rudder and steering components; I don't think he messed with his chainplates. His boat had carbon steel components where Quetzal's are all stainless.

[Rachel]

I could not translate Philippe's captions either. His photo, that you pasted above, is part of his rudder and steering components; I don't think he messed with his chainplates.

L'ancienne contreplaque sous la colonne de barre...

My french is pretty rusty, and it never did include technical marine terms, but I would also think it would have something to do with a backing or strengthening plate for a tiller/helm/steering post or structure.

Rachel

[BS Smith]

Rachel and Quetzalsailor, go to the head of French class.

Received today from Philippe in Marseilles:

La colonne de barre



La nouvelle contreplaque en place sous la colonne de barre



That is, it’s the plate under the pedestal that holds the emergency tiller shaft, and in #82 was replaced by a previous owner. Ugly “chain plate” photos prompting bad dreams and motivating chain plate inspection in fact were a completely different part and not an issue for me. Yes, I’m feeling wise today…

BS

[BS Smith]

After that admission, will slink back for one more post. Lest any think I never met a chain plate I didn’t like, here’s one:





This mizzen chain plate is shown in the first post above, and lived all the way in the back of boat, port side. Had not been eager to crawl in to dig it out. Although lying down, arms needed to be lifted up. Plenty of glass and rust dust; not much light. The bonding strap was tough to cut, but the glass, not so bad. Different composition—chalky white stuff rather than the frozen dog urine up forward. Perhaps original? Spent much time in there thinking how long the half tame badger of a saw would keep running if it jumped out of hand and onto me. Perhaps would chew through the light cord first? Thought we exported all jobs like this to China. Not fun, but done.

BS

[JonnyBoats]

Thank you so much for this thread and posting all these photos and details!

I have not yet exposed the chainplates on my NE 38 sloop for inspection, but this is definately the time to check them as the mast is out.

Some advice as the the appropriateness of glassing in chainplates would be appreciated. It would seem that it is impossible to do non-destructive inspection of glassed in chainplates, and regular inspection of chainplates would seem like a best practice.

If I do grind out all the glass over the inside of my chainplates to inspect them, are their any other options other than simply glassing over them again?

[Rachel]

I'm sure wiser sages will chip in their thoughts, but I don't think I would ever encapsulate chainplates - especially stainless steel ones. If I had to glass them in for some reason, I would go back in with bronze, because, as I understand it, bronze does not have the crevice corrosion problem that stainless steel does (especially in an unoxygenated environment.

If yours are oriented in the "flat to the hull" orientation that we saw above, I would think another option would be to bolt them through the hull keeping them exposed on the inside of the hull (reinforcing the hull as necessary).

It seems as though using other orientations -where there are options with knees and the like that do not require bolts through the hull would necessitate a change in the chainplates' position somehow. That said, I have seen plates on the Rhodes Ranger that were flat to the hull like yours but not bolted through to the outside. They sat on small, squared off, fiberglass built up areas - something like the shape of a 2" x 3" glassed to the hull (they may have had a wood core, I don't know.) I can only guess that there were either bolts embedded in these "mini-knees" or that perhaps they were bolted through the outside and then filled and faired like seacock bolts.

Okay, those are my thoughts. Sorry if I rambled.

Rachel

[BS Smith]

John, will take your thanks with pleasure but more knowledgeable parties need to provide real advice. The little I know:

From Don Casey—“if you have 20-year-old chainplates, they must be removed and carefully examined… For those chainplates that pass through the deck, the critical area is that hidden by the thickness of the deck. The only way to inspect this area of the chainplate is to extract it. Some manufacturers have fabricated chainplates in the shape of a T and fiberglassed them in place. I don’t think they chose this method because it is better than bolting. To inspect such chainplates you will have to grind away the capturing fiberglass. If you have this type of chainplate, I strongly recommend you fabricate new chainplates and bolt them in place.”

Hmmm… Don isn’t specific about what inspection cycle is prudent, only that 20 years is too long. The survey for #82 also wasn’t specific, including only boilerplate that “With a lightly used cruising vessel at least 10 or 15 years of service from its standing rigging can be expected if maintained properly. With a heavily raced vessel the standing rigging may require replacement after only one or two years of service.” This survey comment was made immediately after chain plate discussion, but it’s arguable whether “standing rigging” should be assumed to include chain plates. In any event, quick net review indicates one surveyor (http://www.rjwsurvey.com) suggests “chain plates be pulled for inspection every 10-12 years.” In sum, regular inspection is in order, with “regular” understood to be somewhere between 10-20 years (a period of time one might imagine coincides with the period of boat ownership for many).

And Don also recommends more than uncovering the backside of encapsulated chain plates and instead wants the dang things fully extracted for inspection. I’m diverting from this advice, but he’s the fellow that’s been doing and writing about this for decades, not me.

Finally, it’s not clear to me how on a NE38 one would glass in something sufficiently beefy to bolt a chain plate to, at least for the lowers where there’s little clearance between hull and slats.

So I trust my in-place inspection will be sufficient and perhaps yield some benefit by having a residual glass “home” for the chain plates when they are recovered.

Rachel, thanks too for your thoughts. Perhaps with a clean slate I could be persuaded to switch to bronze. But with stainless already in there, and it having already lasted +20 years, it seems a hard sell.

BS

[Tim]

As always, the key to any installation is how well and effectively it was done at the initial build stage--not necessarily the actual method. Perhaps just as importantly, the boat's maintenance history over her 20-50 year lifespan has significant bearing on how well any original installation may have held up.

That said, it seems critical to have a boat constructed in a way that encourages ongoing maintenance, rather than hiding away the ugly parts. I believe chainplates should be accessible for inspection and maintenance, along with other things, unless they're specifically engineered and constructed for some other means of permanent installation.

Unfortunately, the market has always demanded affordable price points, which means builders have been forced into cost-saving methods of production (or chosen them willingly with an eye to higher profits)--which often means that attention to detail, quality, and access for future maintenance suffer the consequences.

It's very time-consuming (and therefore expensive) to do every task involved in a boat's construction with meticulous attention to detail and future accessibility and maintenance. Most buyers can't and aren't willing to afford this level of detail, but there are certainly boats out there that offer it if one is willing to pay the price. One doesn't get something for nothing, so it's the trade-off the average buyer chooses in return for an affordable boat.

Few things are more instructive--and often frightening--than taking apart any old structure. Sometimes, perhaps, ignorance is bliss. I'm not condoning bad construction or maintenance, but considering the hullabaloo over how horrible this or that installation is, there are awfully few real failures of boats or rigs going on out there.

It'd be nice if everything was readily accessible for future removal and inspection, but sometimes they're just not. Make it so, learn from it, and improve it going forward--and remember it the next time you wonder why something costs more or less than something else.

[Quetzalsailor]

Obviously, it's much happier if the chainplates were bolted to sufficiently robust fiberglass in ways that can be inspected, unbolted and removed. I would prefer to not have them through-bolted to the hull. Some Morgan OIs had exterior-through-bolted plates and they used carriage bolts which required square holes. While you would not risk having a divot taken out of your person on an exposed bolthead, the square holes attracted cracking.

Considerations include, beyond how bad they might be now on our old boats, how much service one would get simply replacing them 'in kind'. It's just as much a potential problem for arrangements like our NE38's uppers. They're bolted onto a concealed stainless backup plate.

That being written, I think that glassed-in chain plates could be replaced with glassed in reinforcements which include an inward-turned fin of 'glass. New chainplates could be made to be bolted to the inward turned fin (bulkhead, knee, etc) and twisted/welded assembly/wired/clevised back to the existing fore-and-aft orientation. For those of you who've taken on major rebuilds, this is quite possible: I added a great-long upstanding 'glass fin onto the inside of the M 27s hull. I added stainless plates to either side of the fin and dropped a wire extension of the original deck-mounted chainplates between the plates. I picked up the uppers and the aft lowers on the same fin and I picked up the forward lowers on the head bulkhead. The boat no longer creaked, and the deck no longer lifted, when the wind blew.

[okawbow]

I hate to hijack a thread, but since it is already titled "chainplates".......

I recently removed the port chainplates from my 40 year old, Cheoy Lee offshore 31. I've read of problems with Cheoy Lee stainless being brittle. A couple of the bolts holding the chainplates on, were corroded, and twisted off. However, the chainplates were not corroded, and do not seem brittle. The metal is soft enough for vise grips to leave marks, and there are no cracks or other damage visible with a magnifing glass.

Should I re-install them? Is there any reason to believe they may fail? I will use new stainless bolts regardless of replacing with new, or re-using the old.

[Triton 336]

Chuck your chainplates look good. I think the problem w/ far east SS is crevice corrosion, low grade non 316L alloy.

[Ceasar Choppy]

Unless they look like this, you shouldn't worry. Note the crack at the bolt hole.

[Quetzalsailor]

Anybody else curious about the evident lack of pairs of chainplates from the Cheoy Lee 31? Anybody else curious about the way that none of 'em are bolted in line with the load?

Those chainplates look 'homemade'. If they were mine I'd look into the reasonableness of cleaning up the shape on the inside-of-the-bend side. I think I see where the saw cuts end on 1, 4, 5, and maybe 7, and I'd be happier if there were no stress concentration or corrosion opportunity caused by such sharp changes of shape. I'd prefer the smooth shape of 3 and 6, not withstanding the deep-looking scratch on 3. Additionally, is 6 pitted from corrosion? Similarly, the bolt and pin holes should be neat, clean, and free of nicks and milling scratches. They should be the 'right' size for the bolt or pin so that the bearing area is more than a tiny line through the bore.

[okawbow]

Anybody else curious about the evident lack of pairs of chainplates from the Cheoy Lee 31? Anybody else curious about the way that none of 'em are bolted in line with the load?

Those are the port side chainplates. I haven't removed the starboard side yet. As for the shape; they are similar to chainplates from other Cheoy Lees. I'm not sure if there is any difference in stress from a straight chainplate that has the shroud attached at an angle, to a chainplate that is already angled?

I'm open to suggestions. None of the chainplates so far have had any pitting or corrosion.

[Zach]

Time saving advice... Use a metal cutoff wheel to cut the fiberglass around the chainplate. If it sparks, you are hitting metal... move along.

Grind down the tabbing with a flap disc. Lowes carries them, they go on a 4 1/2 inch angle grinder... They are intended for polishing stainless steel.

Cheers,

Zach