Ahoy! I've been enjoying the posts on this forum for some time now. The information offered by all you sailors here has been of great benefit to me in understanding how to proceed with the repairs and refitting of my little ship, and how to sail her. I tried to join several times over the past year and finally got in about a week ago.
Last year, in the winter of 08, I became the proud new owner of a not so new Com-pac 16, a 1978 model, which I was lucky to find for a good price in the nearby city of Maryville, TN. She had been neglected and was desperately in need of attention. I paid her ransom, then took her home and began giving her the care she so richly deserves. She, in turn, has rewarded me with many faithful miles of excellent sailing adventure, and has taught me more of the art and skill of sailing in just a few months than I could ever have learned in a life time of reading.
I've been doing most of my sailing on a beautiful, 30,000 acre, 43 mile long, 140 foot deep lake nestled in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains. Douglas Lake in East Tennessee is a man-made lake, but you could never tell by looking at it or sailing on it, unless you happened to be sailing within sight of the dam. The panorama of the Appalachian mountain chain fills the southern horizon from east to west as far as the eye can see, and the foothills of the Smokies roll away to the north. There are countless secluded coves to poke around in and numerous tree covered islands to explore. The Tennessee Valley Authority maintains several good public boat ramps on Douglas, and there are a number of marinas offering slips, moorings, and other services to boaters. A few of the marinas even offer live music on weekends and holidays throughout the summer months. There are at least three restaurants I know of on the lake that you can sail right up to. Come see! I have pictures posted at http://picasaweb.google.com/adifferentdrummer
I'm looking forward to a healthy exchange of ideas and sailing tales. Thanks for letting me come aboard.
Milt CP16 #635
Milt, welcome aboard........I have CP16, hull no.650, which makes her your boats younger sister........Phil
Welcome aboard Milt, good to have you here.
Beautiful sailing area.
Frank 2
Milt, great pictures and sailing area............Phil
welcome aboard milt..............
Looks like a nice lake to sail on............
Glenn B.
Thanks to all for the hardy welcome. I've read many of your posts in the past and feel almost as if I already know you, but was never able to speak to you until now. It's good to have the gag removed and finally have a voice.
I see Phil's boat is almost as old as mine, just fifteen hulls more recent, and Frank is a neighbor somewhere here in the hills of East Tennessee. I'd like to see how many Com-pacs we could get together for a little cruise on one of the local area lakes sometime in the upcoming season. That would be a sight to see!
Douglas is, indeed, a beautiful lake, and large, and fun to sail on, but I would like to sail on as many of the other area lakes as I can find the time for. Perhaps some others on here can offer some advice as to where to put in on some of the other East TN lakes. I also hope to be able to make a trip to the coast for a saltier sailing adventure at some point in the not too distant future and would welcome any advice along those lines, as well. In the mean time, if anyone would like any information on Douglas lake, I sailed the larger part of it many times this season, from the head of Flat Creek where I live to the dam, and from the dam to the bridge at highway 92 and points beyond, and know all the best places and every place in between.
I guess our sailing season is pretty much done for this year, although I'm still living in denial. I keep the boat ready just in case I get a chance to steal one more from Old Man Winter before he set his icy grip firmly upon the land. At least, the lack of good sailing weather will afford more time to spend on boat chores to get her in top shape for next season.
Best Regards To All,
Milt CP16 #635
Milt, it's great what you have done with her. I believe I saw some pics of her on the yahoo? I've been bit by the refurb bug, and hope to fix-up my '76 CP-16.
It took me a few months to get into this site, but you definitely had a bit of wait. Thanks for hanging in there. Looking forward to more pics.
Milt, welcome aboard, and fair winds!
cajun
Welcome Milt. Love the pictures. It looks like a beautiful lake to sail and what I think I like most about it is that you seem to have it all to yourself!
Welcome aboard Milt. Your sailing area looks great for sailing. Even though the sailing season is over, I'm not in denial any more because I am much further north, it is also a lot of fun to fix up the boat over the winter. I know it is not as nearly as fun as sailing but it helps pass the time til you can sail again. Again welcome, its always nice to have more people on the board to pool information, experiences, and ideas.
Thanks Brian. Yes, it is cold here now, and the weather forecast is for snow this weekend. Looks like winter has finally grabbed us by the ballast. My last sail this season was November 17th. It was a very windy day and a bit chilly, but still a great day to be on the water. I tried again one week later, but that day was blowing a gale when I arrived at the lake, and I decided not to put in. I somewhat regret that decision now, but I'm afraid I would have regretted it more if I had put in. I was hoping for one more nice, relaxing sail; not to pit myself against the forces of nature. Additionally, the water is very low in the lake now due to the seasonal draw-down of the reservoir, and there are many rocky shoals that could reduce a boat to splinters in minutes if things went bad. I'm sure I made the right call.
One good thing about winter; it sort of forces us to go ahead and get started on those boat chores we had been putting off all season. My list has grown long, and I have already started on one project. I'm cutting hatches into the berths. I found that a little water had sneaked in under the starboard berth and caused some of the plywood to delaminate. I needed to open it up a bit to repair it and air it out, so I cut an 8 x 12 inch hatch and made a flush fitting lid. I liked it so much that I've decided to do the same on the port side. It's not really deep enough for any serious storage, just a hidey-hole, but I like having access to the area, and a way to air it out.
There is a special bond between sailor and boat. Working on it is a labor of love. It may not be quite as fun as sailing it, but it still brings you back into the Zen, and it's good to know that everything is fit and shipshape for when fair weather comes round again.
Milt
Welcome milt, I agree theres nothing like the bond between a captain and their boat! I bought my 16 in a state of disrepair and was amazed how good of shape she actually was, a testament to how well they are built. Hope to hear of your sailing and repair adventures. BILL
Bill,
How cool! I thought mine was an old girl, but yours predates mine by three years and almost 600 hulls! Apparently, Hutchins was turning out about 200 hulls a year in their heyday. I've heard that they used more resin in the early days, before they figured out how strong the composite actually was. I'll bet yours is a particularly stout build. Do you have any pictures posted, or sailing adventures to share? How long have you owned her and what have you done to improve her?
Thanks, Milt
Welcome to the forum, Milt! Good choice on the 16, too!
Hey there Milt:
I'm not a 16er but rather a 23er. Bob23 here at your service. Glad you are here. You are sure to find (and hopefully add to) wisdom, wit, opinions and much friendly help and camaraderie from your fellow Compac-tors!
Bob23 in NJ & s/v "Koinonia" 1985 23/2
Thanks Salty19,
It really is a great little boat, and I don't think I could have done much better for a first sailboat. She's been a great learning platform.
I hate to admit it, but once I decided I wanted to buy a boat, it took me two years to narrow my choices down and finally make a purchase. I wanted a bigger boat with a head and a galley and lots of storage, etc., but when reality finally set in, I realized I needed something small and light-weight enough to haul with my current vehicle, and something that I could set up and break down in about half an hour by myself. Other considerations were that it must be safe and stable (unlikely to capsize, self-righting, and able to take a blow); it should have a cabin at least large enough for two to sleep in (and a place for a porta-pot); it should have a shallow draft to allow for gunk-holing and getting close to the beach; it should be low maintenance (minimal moving parts); it should have a good resale value in case I ever decided to trade for something else later on; it should have good support in the form of active internet based owners groups. These requirements pushed quite a number of boats off my shopping list.
The boat I ended up buying was not at the top of my list, but it was only a short drive from where I lived, it fit the prescribed criteria fairly well, and the price was good. I offered half the asking price and after only the briefest pause, the seller shook my hand and said, "deal," and for $700, I became the proud new owner of a 1978 Com-Pac 16. True, she's an old girl, but she's a fine looking little ship and still has the spirit of many half her age. In retrospect, I probably should have had the Com-Pac 16 at the top of my list.
Milt
Milt, you should be ashamed of taking advantage of that guy, $700, after reading your posts about the boat, I think you should send another check out of gratitude to him for putting you in the finest pocket cruiser in the world, or at least a xmas card.........Phil
Ahoy there, captain Bob, and thanks for the welcome. This is a great group, and I'll be happy to contribute whatever I can that may be of interest or use, and I'll try not to disappoint. Such a fine line of yachts deserves to have a fine support group or two, and, like I said, that was one of my primary considerations in deciding which boat to buy. I've had her out in all kinds of weather, and I've done quite a long list of repairs and a few minor improvements, so hopefully I will have something to offer when someone asks the right questions.
I like your personal text, "All men die; few men really live." It says a lot. It reminds me of some of the sayings of my favorite poet, e. e. cummings, who said, among other things, "Unbeing dead isn't being alive."; "I imagine that yes is the only living thing."; and, "I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."
Best Regards,
Milt
You got me on that one, Phil. I think a Christmas card is definitely in order; with a picture of my little pride and joy on the front! I don't think he really needed the money so much, but he probably would appreciate knowing that the boat is being enjoyed and well cared for.
Milt
Milt, you are really a good guy, glad you found the forum ........Phil
Hi milt, I got my 16 about 5 years ago and had to replace the half the stbd bunk the po had removed. I also rebuilt the cabin house roof and mast step(from the inside) had to re-glass the ballast, buff, wax, new bottom paint, etc.... I fell in love with the 16 in the 80's and always wanted one, then found one in the local paper. Great deal on your 16, Iknow it will give you many years of service. Central Florida has thousands of lakes but very few sailboats, they are mostly on the coast. BILL
Bill,
Sounds like you had to do some extensive refurbing to put your little girl right. It never is really finished, is it?... sort of a never ending labor of love. I have quite a few projects on my list for this winter, but that's all part of the joy of it. What's that saying?... "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats."
I just noticed Romei had posted that one thing he liked about my sailing area is that it looks like I have it all to myself. That's probably due to the fact that my days off this season were falling on Monday and Tuesday rather than on the weekend. The lake is a very popular fishing spot and gets a lot of traffic on weekends. It can be pretty busy on weekdays in peak season, but it is large and there is plenty of water for everybody. Unfortunately though, there are many power boats and only a few sailboats. There are a few sailboats slipped in marinas that I've never seen leave the dock, and there are only two others I have actually seen out sailing. This is hard for me to understand, because it really is a beautiful lake to sail on.
I appreciate all your responses and apologize for not replying to each one. Between my job, family, cats, boat, etcetera, time has a tendency to get away from me. Maybe I'll find a balance once I settle into the rhythm of things here. Again, I thank you all for welcoming me aboard your fine forum.
Milt
Quote from: OkieBob on December 02, 2009, 12:25:32 PM
Milt, it's great what you have done with her. I believe I saw some pics of her on the yahoo? I've been bit by the refurb bug, and hope to fix-up my '76 CP-16.
It took me a few months to get into this site, but you definitely had a bit of wait. Thanks for hanging in there. Looking forward to more pics.
OkieBob,
I've added pictures of some more of my refurb projects. Maybe you'll find some inspiration there. http://picasaweb.google.com/adifferentdrummer
Milt
Milt,
Great pics. I particularly like when members have exposed the mysterious hidden areas of their boats. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks David,
I bought her last winter about this time and set right into working on her. I finally got her wet in April of this year and sailed her all season, and sailed her pretty hard a few times. Most of the summer the winds were light, but I had some terrific winds on a few outings, got caught in a few storms, and even got knocked down on one occasion. No damage done, and big lesson learned.
Now that the winter weather has settled in and she's covered over with a tarp, the boat chores on my list will start getting ticked off one by one, until she's all fit and trim and ready for a new season to begin. Maybe I'll even make a trip to the coast for a bit of sailing next season. If I do, I'll be asking for advice on where to put in and do a little cruising.
Milt
Quote from: OkieBob on December 08, 2009, 02:05:19 PM
Milt,
Great pics. I particularly like when members have exposed the mysterious hidden areas of their boats. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, those mysterious hidden areas leave a lot to the imagination. If I keep this boat long enough (and I can't imagine ever letting her go), I may end up doing what CaptK did; separate the deck from the hull and rip out and rebuild everything.
I did a little more work today, and took some more pictures, but haven't had a chance to post them yet. I'm still working on the water damage under the starboard berth. I put the winter cover on this afternoon, and it's a good thing. It has been pouring rain all evening. They are calling for sleet and snow and teeny temps by the end of the week.
Milt
Milt,
Keep on sharing the photos. I'm considering removing the deck myself, my only fear is that I won't get it back on as good as it currently is; lollygagger is in pretty good shape, although when I get to doing the serious digging, I may findout otherwise.
For some reason my mind seems intent on replacing the concrete ballast with lead. We'll see. First off I need to obtain the lead.
OkieBob, Dad favorite "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"......he had a son who was always fixing "it".......Phil
Milt:
You need to tell your mind to forget the lead and leave the concrete alone. I don't think the boat cares if it's lead or concrete as long as it weighs the same. I agree with Phil. Don't try to fix what ain't broke....it's just gonna get broker.
Bob23
Phil,
You said it. But 'where the mind goes the body will follow.'
Milt, nice restoration! Hey, is that a Balinese cat I see in your photo album? We have one; it's the best cat I've ever had.
Right, 'don't fix it if it ain't broke', and I do agree with the wisdom of those words, but we got to have something to occupy our time on these non-sail-able winter days. In the last rain storm we had a few days a go, I laid inside the cabin with a drop light and was able to identify about a half dozen tiny drips coming from deck hardware fasteners. Those drips add up over time, and because where I keep the boat parked gives it a little list to starboard, the drips have been accumulating under the starboard berth. I think I need to just start at the bow and work my way back, re-bedding each piece of hardware and every fastener without skipping over anything. That should keep me busy for a while.
Salty, my cats are of a breed called Ragdoll. They are sweet kitties; not sure if they might be related to Balinese, but I think they did come originally from mixing Persian and Burmese. There are more pictures and info in my Katz album, or you can google 'ragdoll' and find a 'boatload' of information on this exceptional breed. I've got a bunch, and one has even set up camp under the winter cover on my boat. I think she wants to be a sailor, too.
Milt
Milt:
We also have a ragdoll...black. He wandered into our yard some years ago and adopted us. He's just about the friendliest cat we've ever had...unless you're a bird. He, and our Siberian Husky have a love/hate relationship. He doesn't know he's supposed to be afraid of dogs and "Scarlet" doesn't know she's supposed to kill cats. Interesting. Our dog used to love sailing on the old SeaPearl 21 but I haven't had her out on the CP23 yet. The cat? forget it...hate's water, as to be expected.
Bob23
Milt, When re caulking , be sure and check each item that the bolts have large enough backing washers or plates where necessary, that should keep you busy for a while and out of trouble..........I use GE Silicone II, great sealent.......remember "Idle hands are the devils work shop" as ma used to say......As you might have guessed we were a family raised on QUOTES of varying usefullness............Phil
Bob23,
They are remarkably loving and friendly cats, to a fault. Because they expect every other creature they meet to be of the same temperament, they usually don't last long living outdoors. It seems the darker colored ones are hardier, whereas the white ones and seal-point ones are very fragile. I've been raising them for almost 20 years and they have been a constant source of entertainment and joy. I do have one that I'm grooming to be my first mate, but we'll have to wait till next season to see how that works out. As long as it doesn't involve getting wet, I think he'll do alright.
Milt
Quote from: Bob23 on December 11, 2009, 04:58:22 AM
Milt:
We also have a ragdoll...black. He wandered into our yard some years ago and adopted us. He's just about the friendliest cat we've ever had...unless you're a bird. He, and our Siberian Husky have a love/hate relationship. He doesn't know he's supposed to be afraid of dogs and "Scarlet" doesn't know she's supposed to kill cats. Interesting. Our dog used to love sailing on the old SeaPearl 21 but I haven't had her out on the CP23 yet. The cat? forget it...hate's water, as to be expected.
Bob23
Quote from: nies on December 11, 2009, 05:15:16 AM
Milt, When re caulking , be sure and check each item that the bolts have large enough backing washers or plates where necessary, that should keep you busy for a while and out of trouble..........I use GE Silicone II, great sealent.......remember "Idle hands are the devils work shop" as ma used to say......As you might have guessed we were a family raised on QUOTES of varying usefullness............Phil
Phil,
I have noticed that the backing washers Hutchins used on my boat seem very undersized. I guess they knew what they were doing, seeing that the boat has held together for more than thirty years. Perhaps they intended for the washers to pull through the deck rather than result in major damage if such high loads were encountered. Nevertheless, I've been replacing them with larger SS washers, and backing plates where higher loads might be a concern. I'm using 3M4200 for my sealant, and if I want it to stick like glue, 3M5200.
Quotes to live by are handy words of wisdom, and a good help in keeping on the right track. My elders, also, had one for every occasion and every circumstance in life. I seemed to do well to keep them in mind and practice their simple wisdom. It was when I thought I knew better that I created problems for myself. Some lessons I've had to learn multiple times. Now it's my turn to try and pass it on to my grandchildren. I'm a lucky man.
Milt
Milt, when I replaced the washers, I also noted they seemed rather small and some had sunk into the glass over time ,by replacing with larger size this problem has been solved. I don't believe Hutchins ever dreamed their boats would still be sailing with a little TLC after nearly 40 years.....the standard wisdom is 3/8's bolt..3/8's washer......bigger is better except when it comes to CP16. I went from 12 foot boat to 16 foot to 22 footer and back to a CP16 pocket yacht...........Phil
I acquired some lead.
OakieBob, I hope your not going to make sinkers out of that lead......lead sinkers biggest killer of loons in Wi, If not for sinkers, what are going to do with that lead?........Phil
Phil,
I consider myself to be environmentally friendly, so no I don't intend to let the 'lead out' (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.).
I'm planning a major overhaul from the bottom up; which includes removing 3 cubic feet of concrete and replacing it with less than a cubic foot of lead (actually about 3/5ths of a cubic foot).
Bob, just wondering if lowering the center of gravity that much will change the performance of the boat in any way? I am a old worry wart, might not hurt talking to Hutchins first.........I know as I have gotten older my center of gravity has lowered and no good has come from it.......Phil
Seems to me the lower the center of gravity, the better. You might even be able to shave off some weight and still have the same stability as before!
Phil, I seem to be experiencing that same 'low center of gravity' problem myself. It can be a problem for a sailor, but I would think a lower center of gravity on a sailboat would be a good thing. Even if the weight of the ballast remains the same, having it lower in the boat seems it would make the boat stiffer and quicker to right itself.
Bob, the ballast question is interesting to me. I believe concrete was used instead of lead mainly for the reason of economy. Concrete is cheaper than lead. As you noted, a much smaller volume of lead would be required to achive the same ballast weight as concrete. In examining my 16 while working on her over the past couple of weeks, the idea came to me that if all the concrete was removed and replaced with an equal weight of lead lower down in the keel, there would be a large open area in the upper portion of the keel which could serve as a bilge sump. That might be an advantage. A portion of this area might be partitioned off for a battery storage compartment. Another partition might contain a fresh water tank, or be utilized for some other purpose.
Even if the concrete was removed from the upper part of the keel and the lead was glassed in on top of the concrete remaining in the lower part, it would still open up a considerable space inside the keel for other purposes. There are possibilities. I'd like to hear more of your thinking on this.
milt
Bob, Milt, all this sounds great, but a call to Hutchins will get all of us the right answer. If you don't want to call I would be happy to.....Phil
Nies writes, "Bob, just wondering if lowering the center of gravity that much will change the performance of the boat in any way? "
skip says she ain't going float any lower in the water. Waterline won't change unless the lead is too far fwd or backward. Bow heavy or stern heavy.
Phil replies,
"I consider myself to be environmentally friendly, so no I don't intend to let the 'lead out' (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.).
I'm planning a major overhaul from the bottom up; which includes removing 3 cubic feet of concrete and replacing it with less than a cubic foot of lead (actually about 3/5ths of a cubic foot)."
What? Why would the center of gravity change? Let's say on a CP-19 you take out 2 foot vertical of cement and pig iron. That's what is in the keels of our Com Pac boats. And the keel is about two foot deep.
And then you pour in the equal weight of lead into the same size and height keel. So?? Now you got 800 lbs of lead at 3/5ths of two foot vertical. What ever that is in height, it still weighs 800 lbs. Same as before into the keel which is the same length, width and height as before. Or are you planning on shorting the keel's depth before the pour? That will roll your boat over. Cut the bottom of the fiberglass keel off and re glassing on the bottom to a shorter depth?
And what are you going to do with that extra void of 'now air above the lead' in the keel's top? Don't you believe that this new void filled with air will stress the keel, as I assume that the poured lead bottom will break off the 800 lb keel somewhere within this air filled void.
The full length of cement carries the stress the full length of the whole keel. And it's firmly attached to the hull's shape. Which by the way on a Com Pac-19 was designed by NASA and tank tested. These boats don't slow down when gliding up to the dock and sail fastst when standing straight up.
Here, take a hammer and smack it into the keel where the cement is. Now do the same where the air filled void is. Want to bet I can put a hole in the air? But not the cement?
Look; say I have a 9" straw that is filled with cement.
Now say I have a second 9" straw just filled with 5.4 inches of lead [3/5 of 9"] the rest of this straw is hollow.
And now you hold both straws horizontal.
Hold the fully filled one and the heavy tipped one by the hollow and solid end and snap both up and down a few times.
Which straw is going to fail, bend and kink?
If I'm building something out of rectangular tube, say a weed puller and I tire of bending that thin walled rectangle tubing, I'd fill that tube with 'GREAT STUFF' limited expanding foam, that gives about 1700% more resistance to bending then with a hollow tube.
You have not addressed the hard part yet. If one reads Wood Boat magazine a lot of stories continually pop up about the danger of pouring molten lead into a damp mold.
Usually the mold is fired up with a fire inside the void to drive out the moisture so the molten lead won't explode and kill the fellow pouring. So plan on making a fire in the fiberglassed hollow keel. I don't think that will work too well. Why do you suppose cement and pigiron was used in out keels in the first place?
skip
Skip if all the lead weight would be lower in the hull-quite a bit actually, creating a more efficient lever to counteract leaning force, the fulcrum (center of gravity) moves down towards the water.
Check out the link
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/levers-d_1304.html
Really the calculation for us is pretty difficult because the weight is distributed over a longer area of d1. We would look like the example near the bottom with many weights hanging from different lenghts along d1.
That is provided the lead weight equals the concrete. She should sail flatter if the weight is distributed lower.
Physics aside, you are wise beyond your years...this would probably cause unwanted keel flexing issues. Something to brace and support from oil canning seems critical in this area.
"Junior, it ain't gonna happen."
"Skip if all the lead weight would be lower [HOW IS THE WEIGHT GOING TO BE LOWER?. THE KEEL IS THE SAME DEPTH] in the hull-quite a bit actually, creating a more efficient lever to counteract leaning force, the fulcrum (center of gravity) moves down towards the water."
[BOAT IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY HEAVIER, NOR KEEL ANY LONGER. NOR WEIGHT ANY FURTHER DOWN. NOW IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THE WEIGHT WERE RAISED TO THE TOP OF THE KEEL WITH AN AIR SPACE UNDER, THEN THE BOAT WOULD BE MORE TENDER. MAY EVEN ROLL OVER.]
Only if you stick that keel further down into the water by making it longer, regardless of where within the keel the weight is, full height vs a little bit in the bottom assuming down. Keeping the weight the same.
The keel has not changed nor has the displacement within the water. It's still the same size hole in the water. You do know these boats will stand up by themselves on the grass, right?
skip.
The central axis of rotation does not change, nor does the displacement. What actually changes in the suggested modification is the centroid of F1. It moves out on the moment arm and is concentrated in a smaller area. Forces can be point loaded or uniformly loaded on a moment arm or anything in between, but they all have a centroid of force, that point which is equidistant from the outside of a mass with a constant specific gravity. If the force is long, like a keel the centroid is not a point it is a centerline, in most design cases parallel to the axis of rotation between F1 and F2.
The characteristic that can change with the moving of the centroid is motion comfort or tenderness with change of F2. The reaction between F1 and F2 might be initially delayed and F1 might have a higher tendency to overcome quickly upon reduction of F2, returning to steady state in a more rapid manner.
The ability of a Com-Pac to sit on its keel represents compressive strength of the design, maybe aided by the filled keel chamber. The ability of the boat to have the ballast mass supported on the moment arm as it rotates represents tensile strength of the design, also possibly aided by the filled keel.
Not saying there is any inherent problem with the modification, may be better in some ways, just saying it does change things. If I were going to void the keel I would consider glassing in some cross braces above the lead, or at least bounce the idea off Hutchins.
My$.02 worth and probably worth exactly that.
Frank 2
Call Hutchins.....my 2 cents......Phil
Skip the keel of course does not change lenghts. The *concentration* of ballast vertically is what changes. In other words more weight further out on the lever, less weight closer to the fulcrum. I'll put together some calculations to show you a real life example in a day or two.
skip gives it up. Go ahead. Put the weight where ever you want to. Happy sailing.
skip.
Quote from: nies on December 13, 2009, 11:43:53 PM
a call to Hutchins will get all of us the right answer. If you don't want to call I would be happy to.....Phil
Phil, If you call them; I'd be curious to hear what they say. I really suspect it was a cost analysis choice for them. Not just the cost of the lead, but all the additional handling costs and liability exposure that goes with it. The real downside would be if the concrete is providing needed support at the upper section of the keel.
For me, I live in a fairly windy area and suspect lowering the weight would create more force on the fulcrum when needed. Plus the added space is an attractive bonus. I've done an informal cost benefit analysis for myself, and it isn't worth the effort (since the weight is only being dropped about a foot). This isn't a business decision for me though; it's part of the pimp-my-ride playground, similar to adding brass cleats.
Milt, After I free up some space, I intend to change the floor plan down there a little. Probably to focus on the sleeping arrangements. At the very least, I'll get that storage space above the upper the keel.
Quote from: adifferentdrummer on December 11, 2009, 01:55:49 AM
Salty, my cats are of a breed called Ragdoll. They are sweet kitties; not sure if they might be related to Balinese, but I think they did come originally from mixing Persian and Burmese. There are more pictures and info in my Katz album, or you can google 'ragdoll' and find a 'boatload' of information on this exceptional breed. I've got a bunch, and one has even set up camp under the winter cover on my boat. I think she wants to be a sailor, too.
Milt
Thanks for clarifying. Looks like a beautiful cat to be proud of! Enjoyed your pics...
Skip,
I like your strength analysis, and suspect you are right on the money regarding the hollow space. I'll need to take that into account, and appreciate everybody's comments. This brain tank probably just saved me from cracking my keel.
Thanks!!!!!
Phil, I sent Hutchins an email. I'll let you know what I findout. I bet Skip is right about the upper part of an empty keel being about as strong as the empty part of a straw. That makes complete since, considering the abuse a keel takes. Now I need to decide how to work through that. But as everyone can see, the cost vs benefit is just not there. Only a fool (like myself, and possibly some others) would bother messing with this.
I may not of mentioned it earlier, but I plan on encapsulating a combination of scrap lead and lead shot, most likely in concrete. But now I will probably need to recalculate to ensure the concrete fills the keel.
How do I move this feedback to the proper area (e.g. boat modifications)? It has gotten technical. I've seen where people have moved posts, but I don't know how it is done.
Cement is so easy. Why mess with lead. Or change the shape of the keel?
I worked in a department that made cement lined water booster heating tanks for Hatco Foodmachine Company.
And we dealt with cement turning to concreate over it's 88 year* drying process using Portland non-shrinking cement.
Which is actually cement that shrinks less then regular cement. But it's not non-shrinking.
It's the cement used in highway bridges too. Four bags screened #60 sand and two bags Portland cement.
Mix it up dry in a huge covered mixer. That's about 600 lbs of dry. Dump all this into 5 gallon pails. Dump the 5 gal pail into the wet mixer.
Then smaller wet batches for about 8 pales per batch/ five gallon in a normal cement wet mixer.
A portion of a wet pale for each tank...so we were always making wet mix to dump and spin or pour in to the tanks.
Starting at 6:00 am usually everybody finished their tanks about 2:30 pm but we had to wait our ten hours before going home. So we hung out till 4:30. We made two 600# dry mixes a day.
This cement was used in the tanks so water would not rust out the inside of the 16ga sheet steel tanks from the inside. We rolled our own tin and punched the heating element holes first and machine welded the tops and bottoms to make a tubular tank.
A hundred other coatings were tried and this works best. No rot for 50+ years.
Pour in the cement, spin the tank making a side wall, pour in a bottom & pound down, pour in a top & pound down, paint the outside shells and send it to the next department for the electric heaters and controls. Six lines each made 88 tanks of three different sizes each day in a four~10 hour day. To make one tank was a four day process. Cement lined tanks were between 79 lb small to 147 lb large Imperials. We hand loaded our own tanks by hand to a monorail overhead conveyor for air dry paint.
Anyway, fill the keel void with cement, dump in the lead, insert the rented vibrator [a donkey dick in the trade] and shake out the air. Women love this job. The lead or pig iron will sink to the bottom of the cement, in the keel void and DISPLACING the cement. So scoop out this extra cement overflowing the top of the keel into the hull. That's about it.
If you think about it, the fiberglass keel could technically be peeled away exposing 100% of the cement and the damn boat would still float for years. The cement will not pass water. Don't panic if you find a little chip in the glass and see cement looking at you. So go ahead and mess with success if you want to.
* Portland Cement Company estimates that cement turning to concreate will not reach it's full hardness for 88 years.
I loved the stuff. skip.
I just got on tonight, but read you post for the first time the other night. I've been wanting to come over and check out Douglas lake for a couple of years now. Maybe we could get together for a sail when the weather gets warmer. I've got a CP 16 1978 #592. Haven't got it on the water yet, but looking for the day..............
Bob
Skip, don't be so quick to confuse fact with your opinion. Your opinions are just that...opinions. Obviously you don't like the idea of replacing the concrete in the keel with lead and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, the fact is replacing concrete with a smaller volume of lead of equal mass will change the vertical center of gravity. Think of it in terms of an aircraft. An aircraft has a given usefull load. For this instance, let's just call the load "ballast". The aircraft will fly just fine if you load this ballast taking into consideration the aircraft's center of gravity. Load it all in the back and you've just move the CG too far aft and the plane will not fly...for long. You didn't change the length of the fuselage or the amount of ballast, just redistributed it. The same applies for our keels. Load all the ballast in one (vertical) end and you've changed the CG, not the displacement nor the length of the keel, just the CG.
Now for my opinion...this would be a positive change. A lower vertical center of gravity will make the boat stiffer, allow you to trim the sails a little more while lessening the amount of heel, or will allow more power to the hull from the sails for a given degree of heel. A big change? Again, in my opinion, not enough to warrant the cost or effort involved. As most of us know, once you've approached hull speed, the amount of power required to move the boat just a little faster is an exponential relationship. However, if one did decide to go this route, will the keel break off? Certainly not (once again...opinion). Assuming the keel layup is the same as the hull, the additional torque or moment acting on where the keel becomes the hull would be increased, but, in my opinion, not enough to cause the fiberglass to fail. The highest stress will be at the fillet where the keel transitions to the hull. The torque arm at this point is what...12" or 18", whatever the length of the keel is. Moving a bit of ballast within an arm this short shouldn't be too dramatic an increase in moment (...I think). Will Hutchins give something like this their "OK"? Why would they? Increase their liability for no realized benefit...I don't think so.
Here's where you insert some inappropriate comment about opinions being like certain body parts.
Oh, and if you do chip the keel enough to see cement looking at you, the fact is you've got a problem. I agree, don't panic, but you've certainly got a problem that needs fixed.
--Greg
This has been some very interesting and useful information and opinion from the collective consciousness of CPYOA, and thanks to all for the input. I expected the subject would get a rise, but I didn't expect such a tidal wave of comment. Perhaps, as OkieBob suggested, we could move these posts to 'Boat Modifications' or some other more appropriate heading, for future reference.
One further observation I would like to offer: when working on a water problem on my 16 (water trapped under starboard berth), upon cutting a hole in the berth and ripping out some water-soaked, de-laminated plywood (that 4" strip that supports the edge of the berth along the foot-well), I noticed that the concrete ballast appeared to be poured in two stages; first the keel was poured full to the top, then a second pour creating a roughly 2 inch thick slab of cement on top of the keel pour which seems to be for the purpose of creating a level surface for the foot-well pan. The fiberglass foot-well pan was formed on top of this slab and run up the plywood stiffeners that support the outer edges of the berths. I have a pretty clear picture of this at http://picasaweb.google.com/adifferentdrummer/Hatches. judging from the extent of the water damage under this berth, I believe it was a long term problem and not something that occurred over just the one season that I have sailed the boat.
I don't expect to ever have a need to disturb the concrete ballast, as it appears to be solid and in excellent shape on hull #635. I just find what others have done and are doing, or are planning to do to their boats, very interesting, and helpful in understanding and planning my own modification projects and repairs, and hope that some of what I have encountered working on #635 might be of help to some others.
I will also be looking forward to hearing what Hutchins has to say on the matter.
Thanks to All,
Milt
Quote from: rwdsr on December 14, 2009, 10:01:28 PM
I just got on tonight, but read you post for the first time the other night. I've been wanting to come over and check out Douglas lake for a couple of years now. Maybe we could get together for a sail when the weather gets warmer. I've got a CP 16 1978 #592. Haven't got it on the water yet, but looking for the day..............
Bob
Ahoy, Bob, and Welcome Aboard!
I just got on here a few weeks ago myself. I was hoping I might meet some other CP16 owners who live in the East Tennessee area. How far are you from Douglas, and what other lakes in the area are you close to? I want to sail on all of them next season.
I think it would be great fun to get our little sister ships out on the water together. As much of a head-turner as one CP16 is, we'll be giving folks whiplash! They'll be thinking they are seeing double! Imagine if we could get 3 or 4, or maybe even a half dozen or more together.
Do you have any pictures of your boat posted? I'd love to check her out. Is she in good shape and ready to sail? I guess you've noticed my Picasa link at the bottom of my posts. I've got loads of pictures of my repairs and mods on there as well as many from my outings on Douglas this past season.
Great to hear from you, Bob, and do keep in touch. We'll definitely have to get our little ladies together some time.
Milt
Geeee Cap't. kchunk; thanks for the smack down. It's displacement. Displacement had not changed. Shape had not changed. Speed had not changed. Ability to resist a list had not changed. And sailing characteristics had not changed.
So let me ask all..
"Is the hole in the water made by the hull one iota different with 6" and 800 lb of lead in the keel? And 18" of air above?" mating to the hull.
Or...
"Is the hole in the water made by the hull different with 24" and 800 lb of concrete in the keel? And 0" of air above?" mating to the hull?
It would make a difference if the keel was longer. Then the ballast would be further away from the waterline. But it is not in these examples.
So I still think that the resistance to leaning over remains the same with or without a hollow keel or a full keel...as long as the bottom of the keel has the 800 lb in it. Just don't move the weight up or you'll get wet sooner.
skip.
I'm just an English major but here's what I think: With the concrete you ARE moving the weight up. Your center of gravity is higher. The thing to remember is the "lever" isn't just the keel, it's the entire height of the boat from the bottom of the keel to the top of the mast. The more wind in the tops of your sails, the more you want weight at the bottom of your keel. As you move that weight up (toward the center of the lever), righting power is reduced. That's why concrete that spreads the weight all the way up to the sole of the boat is not as effective as lead at the extremity. If two Skips are on a teeter-totter and one moves toward the center, the other falls toward the ground. The one that moved has less leverage.
Your too funny. skippies...
Oh, somebody's commit about the aeroplane and the center of gravity reminds me that in Jackson, Michigan a 727 jet cargo plane banking to get into the landing pattern splattered all over the woods because a heavy pallet broke loose and slammed fwd. It was a few miles from my house.
Yep move one skippy fwd and the other skippy falls to the ground. That is correct. Wordsmith...WORDSMITH!!
Ohhhh SNAP!! I got it. The key is that word fulcrum, which is the same point as waterline. Your bending the teeter tauter at the waterline. And this does not change between lead or cement. The moment of bend [folcrum] with a hollow lead tipped keel or a full solid keel remains the same as long as the waterline is constant...I think [?] this is why were having this problem. The word fulcrum. So lets make a model.
~Take two beer bottles and fill one with lead till about 2/3 is above water. Might be two inches of lead.
~Mark the waterline.
~Take the second beer bottle and fill it to the top with something that also pulls the bottle down to the same marked waterline.
~Glue on two balsa wood caps to both bottles.
~Glue on two balsa wood sticks to both caps. Standing straight up.
~Glue on a few foot of thread to the top-o-each stick.
~Float both bottles side by side up against a fixed yard stick laying down [floating] on the water's surface.
~Set the threads to pull at the same angle with your fingers.
~Pull both threads till each stick is 4" above the water.
~Let me know which bottle pulls hardest. [I honestly don't know]
~Let go the strings.
~See which bottle rights [rites?] fastest.
~See which bottle rocks back and forth and undulates the most times.
I don't know the answer. But I'd like to learn the answer.
My uneducated guess is both bottles will act the same.
Kind of remember that science class thing about a pound of lead and a pound of feathers dropped together and both hitting the ground at the same time [baring wind resistance] from the Tower of Pizza..
A sniper knows that his bullet leaving the muzzle at three foot horizontal to the ground will hit the ground exactly at the same time a bullet also at three foot above the ground falls off the shelf. Both bullets will hit at exactly the same time as the spent bullet. The only difference is the spent bullet will travel three miles in the same time as the bullet falling hits the ground. [assuming the ground is equally flat to the fallen bullet.]
skip.
Yes, the waterline is the fulcrum. The further weight is away from the fulcrum, the more leverage it has.
I have this worked out in a spreadsheet and graph to show you. Also have computed the total righting force (at the masthead) in both scenarios. I think you'll be shocked at the difference this makes. Will post tonight, need to format them...
All this sounds good, but waiting for Hutchins comments....Phil
(http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh299/1930fordroadster/teetertaughter001-1.jpg)
I received a response from Gerry Hutchins.
My email: Hi, I am refurbishing a '76 Com-Pac 16' and will be removing the concrete ballast. I intend to replace most of the ballast weight with lead, either encapsulated in concrete or an epoxy. By increasing the density of the ballast I will be reducing the volume, and will create additional storage space; possibly space in the upper keel. My question is this, "Is the concrete in the upper section of the keel, providing critical structural support?" My second question is this, "Why was it necessary to add the two additional concrete ballasts on opposite sides of the bottom of the hull, above the keel?" Did the builder initially plan to use the keel for ballast with a denser material, and then the plans were changed? I'm confused why it wasn't just one big pour. Respectfully, Bobby, a huge Com-Pac fan.
His reply: Bobby – first, the concrete adds no structural support. It is there only for the weight. Second, I do not understand about the two additional concrete ballasts on the opposite side of the bottom of the hull. We have never done anything but pour concrete directly into the keel. As you say, it was just one big pour. Perhaps you could send me a photo of it. Gerry (G.L. Hutchins, Hutchins Co., Inc./Com-Pac Yachts).
My follow-up: Gerry, First off, thanks for responding personally, and so fast. I've atttached a photo and a link to a series of photo's from the source http://cpyoa.geekworkshosting.com/forum/index.php?topic=1168.0. Please note, this is not my boat, but when I saw the photo's I decided I would have more room if I removed those extra two ballasts and replaced part of the keel with lead. The pictures sure looks like a Com-Pac 16. Do you think a previous owner could have added extra ballast? Also, I rough measured my keel and it appears to be about 2 cubic feet; two cubic feet of concrete only weights 300 pounds. Most Respectfully, Bobby.
I'm curious to hear what he thinks about the extra ballasts. I'm also, surprised there was no structural intent; Skip's hammer scenario noted above makes since to me, but I'm no Einstein.
Now somebody please tell me how to move these posts to a more appropriate topic area (e.g. CP-16s or Boat Modifications), so adifferentdrummer can have his post back.
Cool the O'man speaks.
I am also surprised to here that cement adds no structural intent [ ? intent ].
So apparently the fiberglass is only to act as a mold for the concreate which adds no structural support. In so many words.
So yea go ahead and figure out how to add 6" of lead and keep the top open for storage. I'm no Einstein either but this makes no seance to me.
You didn't ask about the weight lower business. Nor about how to pour lead into a fiberglass mold. Snicker, snicker.
"I'm curious to hear what he thinks about the extra ballasts. Skip is also, surprised there was no structural intent; Skip's hammer scenario noted above makes since to me, but I'm no Einstein."
Nice to hear from Rich.
Now somebody please tell me how to move these posts to a more appropriate topic area (e.g. CP-16s or Boat Modifications), so adifferentdrummer can have his post back.
Sure open up the Com-Pac 16 main thread. Find the reply area you want to post these into and cut and paste. Come back here and highlite and click delete.
skip. Like this highlight. edit-copy-place the cursor where you want this post to go. right click and right click paste.
Skip, I know nothing about computers, as I am sure you guessed, but wouldn't it be easier to rename than move and start a new"....swabb on deck.....",you have noticed no more " CAPS " Skip, was not easy but figured a way to do it.......Phil
To move the posts a moderator will have to do it. He can cleanly cut the off-topic posts and move them to a new thread in an appropriate forum.
Regarding pouring the lead. All it will take is lead shot and epoxy. No need to fire up the backyard foundry nor flame dry the inside of the mold. You guys do know that this has been done before (not on a Com-Pac) and discussed here? http://cpyoa.geekworkshosting.com/forum/index.php?topic=2314.msg12866#msg12866 (http://cpyoa.geekworkshosting.com/forum/index.php?topic=2314.msg12866#msg12866)
Here's the link to the Montgomery 23 with lead keel: http://havasumontgomerys.piczo.com/?g=23004804&cr=1 (http://havasumontgomerys.piczo.com/?g=23004804&cr=1)
--Greg
OkieBob,
That was a very interesting reply from Gerry Hutchins, and I am also surprised. I thought Skip's hammer and straw analogies made perfectly good sense. Already, a couple of my questions have been answered. One note, though, I think the two additional concrete ballasts you referred to are actually pillows of poured polyurethane foam. I cut into these and removed a small portion when opening up my starboard berth for repair. I'm not sure what their intended purpose is, and I'm looking forward to finding out when Gerry writes back.
And, I don't mind a bit that this discussion is taking place here. I've been following it with great interest. I have puzzled over these questions ever since I started working on my boat and anxiously await the answers.
Thanks for getting it going with your simple statement, "I acquired some lead."
And thanks for contacting Hutchins.
Regards,
Milt
Well, here she goes...Excel can be your friend if you let it...
CONCRETE BALLAST Notes:
Assumes 18 equal segments of the keel exist. Each segment is equal to 1" (horizontally) of concrete ballast or air on a CP16
Assumes due to \_/ shape of keep, more mass exists at higher points in the keel if material is evenly distributed. +3.5% assumption for each inch
above midpoint, 3.5% reduction below the midpoint
Assumes the waterline is the fulcrum of the lever and bouyancy keeps the fulcrum fixed (for our sake here, I'm not going to add an inch when on board).
Assumes top of concrete is 4" below the waterline. Better information is needed for accuracy, it's just a guess having owned one comparing the cabin
sole, which appeared to be the top of the concrete, to the waterline. If someone can try to measure this, we can put in the real values.
Inches from masthead to waterline (de in the formula is shown, but is not taken into account right now. The reason is the effort of force
Assumes height of mast is 21 feet AWL
LEAD BALLAST Notes: Assumes the same hull is divided into 18 segments as above. Each segment is equal to 1" horizontal slice
Since lead weighs more and takes up less space, the top segments are air (no ballast). Table below assumes all 450lbs of
lead are within the lower 5" of the keel, per comment that 3/5 of a cubic foot of lead are needed vs. 3 cubic feet
So this is approximately 3.3" of lead vs 18" of concrete, thus why there is zero F1 values in segments above 4 (I rounded way up)
Assumes all else is the same
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z290/yamaholic_mcarp/CP16concretedata.jpg)
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z290/yamaholic_mcarp/CP16leaddata.jpg)
And graphs to see the trends...
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z290/yamaholic_mcarp/Cp16concrete.jpg)
Heres's the same with lead
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z290/yamaholic_mcarp/CP16lead.jpg)
Notice the 54% change in force applied to the masthead. Big difference!
Edit, a keen eye may notice I forgot to decrease the lower weight and increase the higher weight (due to keel shape) on the lead chart. Applying a 2.5% "gradiente" only changes the total force of the keel leverage by .02lbs. (from 26.07 as shown to 26.09).So basically the same.
Another edit. Take skips diagram and imagine 14 separate skips and weight on that lever at different lenghts along the teeter. . The lenght is what compounds the force., each sucessive outer skip and weight adds more lever force than prior skips and weights.
So if the hull had zero lateral resistance, which is of course has a lot of, a 16.966lbs weight at the masthead will knock the boat over.
wow, need exec summary......there is dumber then there is dumber, I am the latter, will the lead change the performance of the boat?........and in what way?..............Phil
Way to go Salty!!! I caught less than half of that, but very impressive.
Keep staring at it, it will sink in.
The table represents what each inch of ballast material weighs as you go from waterline to bottom of keel.
Then it shows the data you need for the lever formula with correct data (with the exception of the distance from the waterline to top of concrete, which I guessed at.
I just followed the compound lever formula and made some good guesses and forced formulas to determine what each 1 inch "slice" of ballast weighs. You have to think about this not as 1 piece of concrete or lead that is all weighted at 18" . You have to think about it in terms that the weight is *distributed* across several layers. As the weight moves away from the fulcrum (waterline), the ballast/lever force goes up.
Nies, not a matter of dumb and dumber. It's called "Used Excel for the last 19 years and getting pretty good at".
Actually this was fairly easy if you know your way around the program. Wait to you see the electrical use/charge calculator I'm working on where you can input your electrical load and charge capacity, how many hours a day they be in use, what guage your wiring is..then it tells you what amperage charging rate you need or what surplus/deficit your charging system has.
Exec Summary is the last sentence: Notice the 54% change in force applied to the masthead.
Per Milt [though, I think the two additional concrete ballasts you referred to are actually pillows of poured polyurethane foam. I cut into these and removed a small portion when opening up my starboard berth for repair.]
Milt, those things are just foam? Well, I may have to completely reassess my desire to mess with the ballast. I thought those things were concrete --- Oops. Thanks for the heads up. Although I feel stupid now, I'm pretty sure I would have felt much more foolish had I found out on my own (after taking the whole freaking boat apart). Well it's all water under the bridge now.
Okay for my next project, I was considering making a removable bowsprit, seriously. And before anybody replies to the Okie regarding the bowsprit, I'm going to start a new post; It will be called something like, "Okie Engineering" I'll put it in CP-16, since it is just untried theory for now, vs an actual working modification. I hope the non 16ers provide commentary.
OkieBob
Yes, they are foam; polyurethane, I think. One thing of interest to report here is that, even though water had been trapped under this berth long enough to ruin that strip of plywood supporting the outer (foot-well) edge of the berth, the foam had not absorbed any water; it was perfectly dry inside when I cut into it. I have read reports on other boat forums (Siren17, DS16) of a similar poured-in foam becoming water-logged, so that's good news for Com-pac owners.
I'm still not sure what the purpose of the foam is. There is not enough of it to offer any significant additional buoyancy. It might be to add some stiffness to the hull in that area, or might just be for sound dampening. It would offer some support to the plywood of the berth and I suspect that may be why it was put there. Perhaps Gerry's email will shed some light.
I have been considering adding a bowsprit to #635, as well, mainly to have a place to attach an anchor roller and a better place to stow the anchor. I have fashioned a nice mast crutch with a roller in it which slips over and clamps onto the rudder casting. It's very handy. I'm trying to imagine a way to integrate the mast crutch into a bowsprit, so that when I get the mast raised and remove the crutch, I can stow it in the bowsprit and use the roller in it for my anchor roller. I like to get double duty out of as much of the onboard equipment as I can, it being such a small boat and all. I'll look for your heading, "Okie Engineering," and continue this thread over there.
Milt
adifferentdrummer, the closed cell foam [foam that can not absorb water] is only to make the hull quieter when pounding into the seas.
Not for much structure. OK, just a little structure. But mostly for oil canning in the slings and in the cradel sitting on the hard. Not for floatation. You fill her up, she goes down.
When my buddies Com Pac 19 [Wind Rover. The CP-19 I added the bow sprit to] had a battery tray floor failure I shot some Great Stuff under the tray's floor to hold up the battery after he dropped the battery and battery box onto the tray, crushing it. The foam made her all better.
skip.
Reply from Gerry Hutchins: Those photos are of a Com-Pac 16. However, I still do not see what you refer to as two extra ballasts. Perhaps you are referring to the rounded puffy things that were under the bunk tops? That is foam that was added to provide strength to the hull in a situation where someone wanted to use a fork lift to pick it up. Without something in there the hull would flex when lifted there. Gerry
So it is not concrete, like some fool thought (that would be me), and it provides support.
You have to admit it is really cool how Mr. Hutchins is willing to reply to some bum who bought an old boat.
"You have to admit it is really cool how Mr. Hutchins is willing to reply to some bum who bought an old boat."
Very cool...those guys run a solid customer friendly business..no question.
Well, now we know 'the rest of the story,' and how good it is to have the mystery explained. I suppose it would be safe to remove that foam if there was a need to, as long as you don't ever intend to lift your boat with slings on a forklift. In looking at mine, I can see that those foam reinforcements are right in the area where the hull rests on the trailer bunks, so that is probably another good reason to have them in there.
It is remarkable that a company would still offer customer support for a product sold over thirty years ago. That is outstanding customer service, above and beyond.
Thanks again for all the info. This is such a great group!
Milt
Hey Milt,
Haven't heard too much from you lately. How have you handled the winter weather we've had here lately? It finally got into the mid 60's on this side of the state and gto to work on the boat a little this weekend. Still have a long way to go, but plan to get the inside liveable and the cosmetics done on the outside and then work on the rest a little at a time. Hoping to get a barn built where she can spend her winters and I can put a little heat and work on her when the weather is bad. Well, I'm gonna get off here and go to bed but was reading all the latest posts and remembered I hadn't heard from you in a while. Sprin gs a comin!!!!!
Bob D
Hey Bob,
Thanks for thinking about me. Yeah, it's been a real nasty patch of weather we've had. Maybe the worst is over now. The days are getting longer and now we've finally had a few days of comfortable temps. I even saw the sun the other day for the first time in I don't know when. I got in a few boat chores on some of the warmer days, but still have a bunch to do. Although, my little princess is ready to go at a moments notice, always, and if the weather improves just a tad bit more, I may have to take a sail day from work.
Yeah man, a barn sure would be nice. I just have a big tarp rigged up to keep the weather off her. Whenever it warms up enough to work on her, I unhook one side of it and stretch it out like a huge awning with ropes tied into the trees she's parked under. Works for now, but a barn would be great.
The lakes around here are still suffering a major low tide due to the annual flood control draw down. They (TVA) usually put the plugs back in sometime around mid March. I did get out for a few hours one afternoon about the middle of January, but there wasn't much wind that day, which was probably a good thing, because, man, it was cold!
Spring's a comin', and ifn the wind blows, we'll be a sailin' soon!
Thanks for shakin' my tree!
Milt
Sometimes I swear, I can't see the forrest for the trees. My buddy at work today was telling me about a friend of his who got a trailer with a removable tongue and could put his boat in the garage. Well, I ame home and wheeled mine in the garage and was going to work on it for a little bit and then pull it back out. I got to looking at it and found it was only one large bolt to pull the tongue off! So I did and then dropped the garage door! I blocked up the rest of the trailer so it's good and stable and went to work on it. Now it can just get cold and nasty, I'll put the heater out there and keep on working. Boy, to think how far along I could have been.
Bob:
Coulda been worse...you could have discovered it on launch day!
Bob23
LOL, yer right about that! Speaking of misplaced things, did you find your mooring chain? When I came in from the sail in January I pulled everything out of the boat so I could start working on it, and discovered I was missing an anchor and chain. Saurday when I pulled the boat back up in the driveway so I could work on it, I found the anchor and chain where it had been buried in the snow.
It won't be long now. The sun actually shined here again, today. Spring's a comin'... Spring's a comin'!
And on a further note, I've noticed over at the Yahoo group that some have reported having problems accessing this site. It got me to thinking of all the contacts I would loose if this site should go down again as it did not so very long ago. So, at the risk of inviting spam but in the interest of not loosing touch with anyone who wants to keep in touch, I'm going to post my address in here and ask that you add me to your contacts list. I can be reached at adifferent_drummer (you know, at yahoo dot com). Spring's a comin'...
Milt CP16 #635
I have not gone out again to look for it although tomorrow here in NJ is forecast to be sunny and 50 degrees. Might be nice day to take the old Alden Ocean Shell out for her inaugural row. I may just wait till warmer water and go for a dive.
Here, the snow is just about gone and not a minute too soon. I like snow, and I like beer, but with either, excess is no fun!
Bob23
Milt,
I'm going to send you mine direct to your site. Didn't we just put all that info on a form here a while back when we sent the numbers of out boats in? I think there's a list here somewhere with all that infor on it.