Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI think you may have difficulty removing the rubbing strake in one piece and without damage; it will all depend on how it is fastened, whether it is glued (and it probably will be), and how strong the glue now is. Best to assume that it is not going to come off without damage.
There is no need to remove it, unless you need to do so in order to carry out repairs, and I would leave it in place; but do all your sanding (both the hull and the rubbing strake) before you start painting and varnishing. Then varnish the rubbing strake at the same time as the decks, separately from painting the hull. If you are particularly conscientious in the matter you will use masking tape to ensure that you do not inadvertently paint the under side of the rubbing strake, but since that side is always hidden – at least so long as you manage to keep the boat the right way up – many people don’t worry all that much about getting paint on the under side of it.
By the same token, you could use masking tape to ensure that when you varnish the rubbing strake the varnish doesn’t also get onto the sides of the boat.
I strongly recommend that you use specialist paints and varnishes designed for marine use, or (even better) for use on yachts, and for an elderly wooden boat it is vitally important that you use conventional single-pot products. Modern two-pot products are absolutely marvellous when used on new construction, but they are not sufficiently flexible to allow for the wood moving underneath them, and so can be disastrous on a boat of this age. The products that I normally use for this age of boat are Toplac paint and Schooner varnish (NOT Schooner Gold, which I find much less satisfactory to apply), both by International Paints, which are top quality (and very high gloss) products; but in part that choice is because they are readily available here. However there are other manufacturers whose products are no doubt equally good, and on my other boat (trailer-sailer yacht, in GRP) I have recently used Mono-Urethane by Epiphanes and been very well pleased with it; however for an elderly wooden boat I would expect their conventional products to be more suitable. Unfortunately although Epiphanes – like International – has a first class reputation I have no personal experience of using their conventional product.
The attached photos show the GP14 which I owned at the time, a dozen years ago, finished in Toplac and Schooner. Although the boat was then around 25 years old people periodically used to ask me whether she was new …
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Oliver Shaw
ModeratorMoulder’s plate: some years ago I found one on a Bourne Plastics Mark 1 boat on the side of the boat, just under the foredeck, port side, high up.
Even though yours is not the same model, or builder, in default of better information that might be a good place to start the search. If not there, I would next look under the floorboards abaft the centreboard case; but try under the foredeck first, if only because that is more readily accessible.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorIf Dolphin in Gwynedd is indeed the same configuration as yours I am definitely going with Mark II; and in my view almost certainly not by Bourne Plastics. That does seem to confirm Thames Marine as the most likely builder.
However there are others around, perhaps most notably Steve White, who know far more about the early GRP boats of the class than I do.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorAs a further detail, amongst the Mark II boats those produced by Thames Marine were heavily outnumbered by the Bourne Plastics boats, and the McComb boats were even more heavily outnumbered. That is a likely reason why the Mark II boats with which I am most familiar have all been Bourne Plastics boats. I then noted the unusual features of your one, and thence made an educated guess; but it remains no more than an educated guess.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorRoy Nettleship’s article mentioned appears in 50 Years on the Water, which is an anthology published by the Association in year 2000 to mark our 50th anniversary. New copies are long since sold out, and of course it is out of print, but second-hand copies are sometimes still obtainable via the usual second-hand book dealers; there is one copy currently listed on Amazon, at a price, and not many years ago I found several copies offered, so more may yet appear again.
A scanned copy appears on this site, and also on the GP14 Owners Online Community site.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThe photos are a slight puzzle.
The presence of a moulding for a full width sheet horse (track) rules out her being a Mk III, and that feature would seem to suggest either Mk I or Mk II. I am fairly confident that she is NOT a Mk I, because I don’t see the alloy tubes which serve as frames in those boats; but a second identifying feature of the Mk I model is a single stern buoyancy tank right across the boat beneath the stern deck.
Thus far the presence of the moulding for a sheet horse would seem to suggest Mk II, in which case the sail number is incorrect (i.e. the sail is likely to be a second-hand one, and the number was not changed when the sail was used on this boat). The first of the Mk III boats was produced in 1977, with sail number 11487.
However the raised moulding beneath the side benches and also the centreboard case do not look quite like the Mk 2 boats that I remember having seen. Additionally, a common identifying feature of the Mk 2 boats is curved “vertical” boxed sections of GRP, of rectangular horizontal cross section, between the side buoyancy tanks and the underside of the deck; and your boat does not have these.
My best guess, but I am very willing to be corrected by anyone who knows their GRP GP14s better than I do, is that she may be a Mk 2 but built by Thames Marine, or just possibly by McComb Boats, rather than Bourne Plastics.
According to the definitive text, Roy Nettleship’s Brief History of the GP14 Hull, “Thames Marine supplied their boats fully fitted out and ready to sail and built about 260 boats with sail numbers between 8012 and 9314. About 50 hulls numbered between 10682 and 11325 were built in Northern Ireland by McComb Boats, at first using Thames Marine moulds and later a set acquired from Bourne Plastics.”
I have long been under the impression that the Thames Marine boats had a thumb wheel stainless steel adjuster for the centreboard friction device, on the side of the centreboard case (starboard side?). However I am not 100% sure about this, nor about how definitive it is even if I am right.
Hope this is of some help.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorWell done; now enjoy!
Very tentatively, the mahogany parts suggest that she might be a Mk. III GRP boat, and if the sail number is correct it seems to be consistent with that.
Some photos, particularly of the internal arrangement, would be helpful.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorNo; its own dedicated halliard. That way the buoyancy stays at the top of the mast, where it is needed, even when the mainsail is either reefed or lowered.
See my paper entitled “Suitability for Cruising & Single-handing” in the Members’ Library on this side. One section of that deals with masthead buoyancy, and includes a page of photos showing the carefully designed halliard arrangement.
http://old.gp14.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Suitability-for-Cruising-Single-handing.pdf
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI also vaguely recollect that, and I have the impression that it was either an article or a letter which appeared in an electronic (emailed) Newsletter rather than in Mainsail, and tantalisingly it was only the first part – and the second part which would have given all the details never appeared.
I also vaguely recollect that I replied to it.
Even more vaguely I think the writer may perhaps have been Teddy Taylor.
My own solution, with a modern boat, is to use the fairly standard 9-litre masthead float, on a suitable halliard, rigged so as to keep the bottom as well as the top tight against the mast. Crewsaver is one make, but not the only one. It is not intended to be sufficient to prevent inversion, but it does buy time, to allow the competent helmsman to take the necessary action to right the boat before inversion occurs.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThe Traditional Small Craft Association may be of some interest to you, and I see they have many chapters in eastern USA. https://tsca.net
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThe Seagull and Seamew sloops, designed by Ian Proctor for Bell Woodworking and built either from Bell Kits or by Bells themselves are things of beauty, when maintained in good condition, and contemporary reviews suggest that for their size (and period) they were very seaworthy and with a surprisingly sprightly performance. However because they are all now quite elderly boats, and perhaps (I am guessing) a bit light for their size, not many still survive.
There is a website dedicated to them, at http://www.seagull-seamew-yachts.org. There is also some information on them on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Seagull_and_Seamew .
I note that you say that “appreciation for wooden boats here in the states isn’t that high”. If someone from “across the pond” may have the utter temerity to hazard a view on a country he has never visited, my impression is that although there appears to be little appreciation for wooden boats in the mass market the other side of the coin is that you have some legendary wooden boat festivals and a thriving restoration and new building scene for wooden boats; it is just that this is a niche market rather than mass market.
Amongst the places where I periodically read about such events is the online Openboat forum, some of whose members are enthusiastic protagonists. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/openboat/info. You might find it worth joining that forum and enquiring there of your fellow USA members, who can probably advise you on the situation there better than I can. All I can do is to point you in that direction, and hope that it helps.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorSorry; I failed to refer back to your original post, which indeed made clear that you are referring to the rubbing strips on the bottom.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI am not clear whether you mean the rubbing strakes (often referred to as the gunwales) at deck level, or the two rubbing strips (sometimes called bilge rubbers) on each side of the bottom of the boat.
In either case, if they are in good condition and not coming apart from the hull you can leave them in place. In that case, treat the rubbing strips on the bottom as an integral part of the hull; sand them and paint over them. Treat the rubbing strakes (gunwales) as an integral part of the deck, and sand them and varnish them with the deck; for a thoroughly classy job you could of course mask them off, but since the line between paint and varnish is underneath the rubbing strake it will always be hidden except when capsized or when the hull is turned over most people don’t bother masking it!
In either case, if these parts are coming adrift from the hull it would be sensible to remove them, clean up, deal with any rot, and then refit them, securing with fasteners and also bonding with epoxy. If securely attached but in poor condition it will depend on just how badly damaged they are, but these parts can properly be regarded as sacrificial (to prevent or at least reduce damage to the hull itself), and if necessary either the whole part or the damaged section can be replaced.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorPainting and varnishing vintage boats; I recommend most strongly that for any boat of that age you avoid the temptation to use polyurethane paints and varnishes, and especially two-part ones. They are absolutely marvellous on new construction, but they have poor tolerance for the underlying wood flexing, so if used on a vintage boat they have a marked tendency for the paint or varnish film to crack at joints in the ply. Then water gets in through those cracks, gets under the finish (particularly in the case of varnish), and starts to lift it off. That is not a problem for new construction, but it is a very real problem for vintage boats.
One-pot polyurethane is a half-way house, and modern ones seem to be much improved over what was on offer when the technology first came out, but I still wouldn’t take the risk on a vintage boat.
So my recommendation is two-pot polyurethane for new construction, and for other modern boats in good condition, but conventional finishes (strictly not polyurethane) for vintage boats.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorHave you looked at the GP14 Owners Online Community? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GP14_Community/info
And our archive site at http://gp14building.wordpress.com/
The Online Community is free to join, and has probably the largest collection anywhere of photos and information and expertise relating specifically to older GP14s. And we enjoy a very warm reciprocal relationship with the Class Association.
Oliver
-
AuthorPosts



