Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41957Re: [SabreSailboat] Re: Rebed chainplates with mast up

Expand Messages
  • Scott
    Mar 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I've got to echo Dave's thoughts here. I am in the camp that thinks 5200 is a poor choice for 99% of the uses some people use it for. This application might be one of those rare good uses. (I'd still be hesitant to use it).

      With that said, I just hope no one reads Glen's recommendation and thinks it applies to any of the other chainplates! Using 5200 where the chainplates go thru the deck would be a disaster. 

      After Midnight

      Sent from my iPad

      On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Dave Lochner <davelochner@...> wrote:



      That was my first reaction, no 5200. Then I realized that Alan was talking about the chainplate at the stem. and it began to make more sense. The forces on the forestay chainplate are not the same as the other chainplates and the chainplate does not penetrate the deck. So using an adhesive/sealant to bond the chainplate to the stem and through bolting it made sense.

      Parts adhered with 5200 can be separated using wedges and Marine Debond or one of those oscillating tools with a scraper blade. That is doable on the forestay chainplate, but not on the other chainplates.


      On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:43 PM, sailor11767 wrote:


      Glen is a great resource. But do NOT use 5200! Those chainplates will be in for ever if you do. I like butyl from MainSail, but LifeCaulk or even 4200 would be OK.


      --- In Sabresailboat@yahoogroups.com, Alan Pressman wrote:
      > Just exchanged email with Glen C at Sabre about bedding for my forward
      > chainplate. *He says to use 3m 5200*.
      > FYI there is a need to inspect chainplates, etc.; I am getting new
      > insurance so I can be covered more than 125 miles from US for my Bahamas
      > trip on my boat next month. 4 yrs ago my surveyor pointed out a small bit
      > of rust on the forward chainplate attached to the forestay. He told me to
      > keep an eye on it, which I thought I had been doing (collinite rust
      > remover, inspection, etc.).
      > This time as part of an insurance survey he told me to replace it. I
      > pulled it off (much easier than I thought once I got the tension off the
      > forestay-which was the time consuming part) by loosening lower aft shrouds
      > and back stay. My friend and I kept looking at the plate and could not
      > believe that it needs to be replaced nor could I see the "crevice crack
      > corrosion" my surveyor identified.
      > Off to Gulfport to JTR machine shop. They do lots of stainless and lots of
      > chainplates in our area. I asked the owner if he could see any crack and in
      > about 2 seconds he pointed to the spot. I asked him if it needs to be
      > replaced and he says if it is older than 15 or 20 years old it should be.
      > When I asked him if this particular bar of chainplate looked like an
      > imminent failure, he hit the chainplate--not all that hard- on a nearby
      > wooden workbench and crack! The plate fractured along the almost invisible
      > crack line about 3/4's of the way across the steel bar. I was floored!
      > The surveyor says the other six shrouds and the backstay look good, but the
      > stainless guy says, not to worry, I'll be back to his place to make new
      > ones soon!
      > Pretty amazing that I've been this lucky with this crack for so long. And
      > now I now why "they" say you should have a surveyor inspect your boat every
      > three years. The rest of the list is not too bad, with about 4 -5 items I
      > can easily do.
      > Boat maintenance is fun. Can't wait to start sailing again.
      > Alan
      > Windswept S 34 #430
      > Sarasota, FL
      > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Sid wrote:
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi all:
      > >
      > > I need to get my chainplates rebedded on my Sabre 28 (deck-stepped mast).
      > > I have been putting it off because I did not want to take the mast down,
      > > and was afraid to disconnect the shrouds with the mast up, but I am getting
      > > some water intrusion, so rebedding is drastically needed to avoid
      > > structural damage to the bulkhead.
      > >
      > > My thought was to support the side of the mast with the halyards attached
      > > to the stanchion bases while I release the shrouds (and then maybe tying
      > > the shrouds down to the stanchion bases as well). Has anyone done this,
      > > and/or see any significant danger of things going wrong?
      > >
      > > I do intend to leave the forward lower attached whil I do the main part of
      > > the work, but I can't see that that would hold much of the load.
      > >
      > > Also, what is the currently recommended method for doing the bedding?
      > >
      > > Sid Wax
      > > S28-II #318
      > > Passing Fancy
      > >
      > >
      > >

    • Show all 14 messages in this topic