Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 708 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Spinnaker rigging #21586
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Have a look at The Basic Boating Book (available in the Members’ Area of this site),  at the end of Simon Relph’s article on Fitting Out a GP14 Hull.   That article is many years old,  and to that extent is dated,  but Simon is a past World Champion of the class;  so it is excellent advice for its period.   http://old.gp14.org/members/members-2/all-about-your-gp14/

    For more modern set-ups,  see the album of Rigging Phots,  also in the Members’ Area;     https://get.google.com/albumarchive/108162080692365982718/album/AF1QipMebfTCFU1AN_OsGxovVkoCUKLjKdzKA0AgHWS_

     

    Oliver

     

    in reply to: Dust free Painting #21541
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I think you have done almost everything that anyone without a professional paint booth can reasonably do.

    Your proposed air filtration system seems a good next step.

    If you happen to be cursed with a concrete floor you could also spray the floor with water,  just enough to dampen it.

    Beyond that,  I would put some heat on,  to raise the temperature and reduce the setting time and also improve the flow rate of the varnish.    I think that is probably the most important single improvement to your present arrangements.   Use a thermometer on the shed wall to monitor what temperature you achieve,  and aim for at least 15 dec C.   I presume you are using Perfection Plus,  since I don’t recognise Perfection Pro  –  and neither does the manufacturer’s website;   10 deg C is the absolute bottom end of the range for which the data sheet gives drying data,  and the “Some Important Points” section says “Best applied in ambient temperatures from 15 to 20 deg C”.

    https://www.international-yachtpaint.com/s3/documents/TDS/Perfection_Plus_Varnish_eng_A4_20141215.pdf

    Reducing the setting time will of course reduce the time during which it is vulnerable to dust settling;  and the improvement in the flow characteristics will also help to give a perfect finish.

    Either use electric heater/s,  or if fuel-burning ensure that all combustion fumes are vented outside the building;   that is not just a matter of your personal safety  –  although it is that as well,  but also of not contaminating the varnish while it is still uncured.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Crew saver Mast Float #21540
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Has anyone ever fitted a Crew Saver mast  float? 

    Yes;   very strongly recommended.

    The 9-litre float is not sufficient to fully prevent inversion,  but it is ample to buy time  –  in which the competent helmsman and crew can take the necessary steps to right the boat.

    Do not leave it up permanently;  if you do,  it will chafe badly,  and within a season will become porous.   Instead fit it on a halliard,  and take it down each time you put the boat to bed.   I learned the hard way;  my first one was left up permanently,  and did not last a full season,  but the second one  –  which I took down at the end of each sail  –  is still going strong over a dozen years later.

    Ideally use a halliard system which also keeps it tucked tight in to the mast at both top and bottom.  One well-tried method of doing this is shown in the paper “Suitability for Cruising & Singlehanding”,  somewhere around page 6,  and this should be on this website.   Unfortunately that page currently seems to be down.   I will try to get it sorted,  but in the meantime if you like to email me (cruising@old.gp14.org) I can let you have an original.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: New Halyards for old boat #21533
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I very largely concur with Steve C’s comments,  but with two reservations.

    For the main halliard you don’t even need Spectra;   polyester is quite good enough for that application provided it is either the pre-stretched or low-stretch type.   There is not a great deal of load in the main halliard,  so stretch is not a problem if you use one of those two types.   But (of course) avoid nylon,  and if you use polyester it must be one of those two types.

    On my 1979 series 1 boat I used 5 mm pre-stretched polyester,  and even when  pulling down hard on the cascade-type kicker I never detected any stretch in the halliard.

    For the kicker,  I assume that your boom is also IYE and contemporary with your mast,  so a powerful cascade tackle may well be too much for your ageing boom and mast.  Neither of them,  and particularly the boom,  were built as strong as today’s spars,  and unlike today’s spars they were not designed for the kicker to bend the mast in normal use.    And in the fifty years since they were built,  corrosion is likely to have taken its toll,  plus perhaps weaknesses from additional holes drilled for various fittings over the years,  plus perhaps cracks;   so they won’t be even as strong as they were when new.   Using a modern kicker that is specifically designed to bend the mast is potentially asking for trouble.

    The contemporary kickers when your spars were new were intended only to prevent the boom lifting when off the wind,  and were typically only 2:1 or 3:1  –  a very few were 4:1.    Flattening the sail was achieved by the mainsheet,  which is why the full-width sheet horse was developed,  as this allowed the sheet to pull vertically down on the boom even when it was out over the quarter.   Agreed not as effective as today’s rig with 16:1 or 18:1 kickers,  but not bad nonetheless.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: New Halyards for old boat #21529
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Kicker:   I don’t know,  because I have not priced it,  but my guess is that the major cost of the wire part of the kicker will be the (professionally done) splices rather than the wire.   Unless of course you have a contact who will do them for free;  a club member with the necessary kit,  or whatever;   but few private individuals have such kit.

    So if you are having the splices done professionally,  and if (as I suspect) they are the major part of the cost,  it would be sensible to go for brand new wire rather than re-use fairly ancient wire cut out of the discarded genoa halliard.

    But this all depends on my guess about where the costs are incurred,  and you will have to check that detail for yourself.

    Good luck,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: New Halyards for old boat #21520
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    In view of the age of your shrouds inspect the ends of them very carefully indeed,  looking for broken strands in particular.

    If in any doubt,  replace them.

    If you do decide to replace,  have the new ones made to match the originals,  rather than buying “off the shelf”;   they may well not be the modern “standard” length,  since there is no real standardisation as to the height at which the chainplates are mounted.   The “standard” length is for modern boats,  which are all much the same in this respect,  but early ones may differ.

     

    Oliver

     

    in reply to: New Halyards for old boat #21514
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    You don’t actually need to do an eye splice (although for 3-strand rope it is easy,  and a skill well worth learning).

    Just pass the end of the rope through a “bobble”,   and put an overhand knot into the end and pull it into the recess in the “bobble”.   Then  proceed as in the photos.

    That actually takes up less space than the traditional eyesplice and shackle  –  although with the IYE mast you have plenty of spare height anyway.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: New Halyards for old boat #21511
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Cleaning:

    If the mast is seriously dirty I think I might be inclined to try spray-on kitchen cleaner,  and gentle use of a scrubbing brush.

    Or a car shampoo.

    Or a pressure washer.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: New Halyards for old boat #21510
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    You are happy that the jib (or genoa) halliard is straightforward,  and your query really concerns only the main halliard.

    First point,  the smaller diameter for the main halliard will be because the load is far less.   The role of the main halliard is only to haul the sail up,  and tension the luff,  for which the tension required is only relatively modest.  The genoa (or jib) halliard has to effectively provide serious rig tension,  in order to keep the genoa luff as straight as can be achieved despite the distributed lateral loads on it;  that is why you have a Highfield lever to tension that halliard,  but not the main halliard.

    Second point,  that upper sheave looks to me to be sized for a rope halliard,  which would have been standard at the time the mast was built.   Most probably 3/4-inch (circumference) pre-stretched terylene at that time,  equivalent to 6 mm (diameter) pre-stretched polyester today;   however you may find that 5 mm renders through the sheaves more readily,  and particularly so if any of the sheaves have been replaced by more modern ones.   If you do choose to go for rope you may prefer 6 mm for comfort in hauling it up,  but there is not much to choose in that regard,  and if you were thinking of 6 mm it would be wise to try a test piece first to be certain whether it will render through the sheaves.

    While you are about the job it is also worth checking that the sheaves still rotate freely;   if they do rotate,  lubricate them;   if they don’t,  then unless you can free them off you will need to replace them.

    That apart,  you have three options for the main halliard,  of which I personally would not choose the second option (the type you currently have):

    • All rope.   That should work perfectly well,  and if you decide to use the boat for cruising and wish to fit a reefing facility that is probably the best choice.   If you use either pre-stretched or low-stretch polyester,  stretch is very unlikely to be a problem,  especially as the load is only fairly modest,   but if you were nonetheless concerned about that you could opt for rope with a dyneema core.     You can make this off to the same cleat that you are currently using.
    • A fully spliced composite,  as you currently have.  That requires a rope to wire splice,  which is a fairly skilled bit of ropework,  but there are professionals who will do it.    However I suspect that this would be more expensive than all-rope (but I have not checked the point),  and with modern rope materials I don’t see any advantage in this type of composite;   its historical justification was as a low-stretch alternative to the limited choice of all-rope halliards that were available fifty years ago.   I also feel that a splice of that nature is inherently likely to be the weakest part of the halliard,  but because the load on the main halliard is not particularly large this should still be good enough.    This type of composite halliard (unlike the type you have for your genoa halliard) is a valid alternative if you wish to fit a reefing facility.
    • A wire halliard terminating in a long “soft” eye-splice (i.e. non-rigid,  not using a thimble) with then a rope tail attached by an interlocking soft eyesplice,  just like you have for the genoa halliard.   The wire loop then hooks over a toothed rack,  in place of your existing cleat.   You would need to obtain and fit the toothed rack,   and it is most usually fitted to the side of the mast.   This type of halliard should not be used if you intend to fit a reefing facility,  as it would then require the wire-to-rope join to come under working load,  which it is not designed to do,  and which would be an unfair load for this construction.

    For wire halliards,  in either case,  go for the most flexible type,  7 x 19 construction.    (By contrast,  use 1 x 19 for standing rigging;   it is stronger,  but much less flexible.)   The original material when this mast was new may well have been galvanised;   that was a popular option at the time,  but has largely fallen out of favour today,  although a few owners still prefer it.   Personally I would go for stainless,  because it lasts longer and requires less maintenance,  but its lifespan is still not indefinite;   expect 10 years maximum,  and periodically inspect for broken strands at the splices and also anywhere the wire becomes kinked.   If you find any broken strands at all expect others to follow,  so replace the wire.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Mainsheet block #21460
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    For what it is worth,  it is getting on for 15 years since I last had centre sheeting,  and that was a free-running block with a jammer,  rather than a ratchet block.   But 75 mm is 3 inches in old money,  which seems fairly enormous;   I would expect 57 mm to be more usual,  and just looking at 57 mm on a ruler it seems compatible with the sort of size that I remember.

    Arguably the rope will run more freely round the larger sheave,  but I was never conscious of any impediment with the one I had.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: VHF Licence Changes #21458
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    UPDATE FROM RYA:

     

    • For the purposes of enforcement, OFCOM has included family and friends to be members of the public.   The owner, skipper, radio operator and any paid crew of a vessel are covered by alternate legislation and are excluded from these provisions.   So, if you are carrying family and friends on-board you will need to comply.   (This is most likely to affect powerboaters.   But if your yacht antenna is at the top of the mast none of your family and friends aboard are going to be within range.    OLS.)
    • Fit equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and keep a copy of it on-board.  …     …    EMF calculator tool.   …   the calculator will provide you with a safe separation distance between the base of the antenna and members of the public. You should keep a copy of this calculation onboard.
    • Emergency communications are exempt from the regulations. Communications relating to the safety of lives at sea, when there is grave and imminent danger to a vessel or person and assistance is required are not affected by these regulations. However, whilst you do not need to comply during an emergency situation, the equipment does have to comply during routine transmissions, including radio checks.
    • The regulations only apply to equipment that can transmit in excess of 6.1W Effective Radiated Power (ERF). ERF is the total power radiated by an antenna, in the case of a typical 25W marine VHF radio set up, the ERF at the antenna is likely to be less than the 25W transmitter power due to the line loss caused by the length of the coaxial cable between the radio and antenna. VHF handheld radios transmit at a maximum of 5W and therefore are exempt from these regulations.  (Some of the latest ones are stated to transmit at 6W,  and that is quoted to only 1 significant figure;   so we don’t know what the first decimal figure is,  and therefore it is not immediately clear whether this is or is not less than the 6.1 W limit (which is quoted to 2 significant figures.)

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Wooden boat repair help needed. #21446
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Nooks and crannies;  a detail sander may be helpful for those.

    While I think to mention it,  I have very occasionally dealt with very small chips in varnish by using a very small chisel or even just a sharpened screwdriver to scrape just the area of bare wood exposed,  then use an artist’s paintbrush or similar to dab in varnish in the hole,  and repeat for subsequent coats until the level is flush the with surrounding varnish.   Then (and it doesn’t have to be immediate) sand down the entire deck (or whatever) and apply one or two coats over the lot.

    If you do at some point go to a professional,  see my later edit;   those were my purely personal recommendations,  not official recommendations from the Association!

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Wooden boat repair help needed. #21444
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I think it likely that this will be a reasonably simple repair,  but it is difficult to be certain from the photos.   However it looks to be a case only of water lifting the varnish;   I cannot see any evidence of water penetrating between different pieces of wood.

    In any scenario a good first step would seem to be to remove the lifted varnish and allow the underlying wood to dry out thoroughly.   If you can arrange indoor storage,  even if only temporarily while you are working on her,  that will be an immense help.

    First use a heat gun and a tungsten carbide scraper to remove the varnish;   then dry the boat out;    then,  when you start sanding the wood,  also sand the surrounding varnish to a feather edge.

    I would confidently expect the boat to have been built using epoxy as the adhesive,  so I would expect that once the wood is exposed and thoroughly dried out you will find that both the wood and the joints are still perfectly sound;   but you do of course need to check this.

    Provided the wood is sound it is then a case of sanding it smooth and then making good the finish.   It is worth using epoxy first as a sealer;   possibly choose Smith’s CPES,  which appears to be formulated specifically for this role (unlike other epoxies,  which are designed more as adhesives and which do this as an incidental feature,  and perhaps penetrate less well).   However I have never used CPES myself,  but it is extensively advertised in Classic Boat,  and from what I have read I am impressed  –  and expect to use it in the future.   The one drawback is that the smallest pack size is 1 litre,  which is probably far more than you need for this one repair.  https://www.makewoodgood.co.uk/product/cpes-clear-penetrating-epoxy-sealer/

    Then build up your varnish on top of the epoxy once it has cured.   If your existing finish is two-pot,  which I would expect on a series 2 boat,  stay with 2-pot.

    Build up successive coats extending progressively further and further over your sanded feather edge of the surrounding sound varnish.   Once you have built up the damaged area  –  I suggest a minimum of six coats on top of the epoxy  –  it would be worth then sanding down the entire brightwork and giving her a further two coats overall.   That is for reasons of both beauty and protection;   if the varnish has already failed in one area it is fair to assume that other areas will follow unless you pre-empt that by preventative maintenance.

    If you do find that more extensive work is needed much will depend on your woodworking skills and facilities;   but I think it likely that the above will be sufficient.

    If you want a professional boatbuilder/repairer in the north-west,  although he is not in Manchester,  I can warmly recommend Tim Harper for actual structural work;   although I think it fair to say that his speciality is the woodwork rather than the painting and varnishing.   He built my last GP14 for me,  heavily bespoke as a cruising boat,  and I went to him because I was impressed with another boat he had built.

    For the best available paintwork and varnishwork I can recommend Paintcraft,  of Nottingham,  having also seen some of their work.   They are the headline name,  and they also do repairs,  although I have never seen any of their repairs at first hand.

    Just to make absolutely clear,  the above are my purely personal recommendations,  based on having seen some of their work;   I do not think the Association would wish to recommend any one of our registered boatbuilders as against any others!

    There are several other boatbuilders registered with the Association,  who advertise on the website or in Mainsail,  and who I gather are all highly respected;   but I happen not to have had any dealings with them.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

     

    in reply to: Speed 13954 more problems #21399
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Not my specialism,  but I would tentatively suggest that you consider epoxy rather than a penetrating wood preservative.

    Or even a penetrating epoxy sealer.   Although Gougeon Bros (WEST System) recommend warming the epoxy and using a slow hardener (to have the benefit of lower viscosity but avoiding the unduly short pot life that would otherwise arise from warming it) there are alternatives on the market which are specifically designed to penetrate some depth into the wood rather than merely coat the surface.   One that I see regularly advertised in Classic Boat,  although I have not yet used it myself (but I do intend to try it next time I have a need) is Smiths CPES and FILL-IT,  from http://www.makewoodgood.co.uk     This is not a recommendation,  since I have not yet used either product,  so make your own enquiries and use your own judgement;   but I am impressed thus far with the modest amount that I have read.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: The history of 7358 mk1 GRP “Aguamenti” #21388
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Excellent.

    Have a look inside the forepeak,  high up on the port side,  just beneath the deck and just forward of the cockpit;    on one Mk 1 boat that I was involved with many years ago I found an identification plate bonded there.    I can’t be certain now whether the info on it was the hull number or the moulding number;   but I have heard claims that at that period they were related,  although I cannot vouch for that,  and the moulding number probably also included the year.

     

    Oliver

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 708 total)