Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI am not ignoring you; although I have something of a reputation for often responding to technical and workshop enquiries, I just don’t feel that I have the specialist knowledge of your particular model to answer authoritatively – beyond, of course, basic GRP / epoxy repair techniques which are very well established and well published elsewhere.
But I hope that others who may have expert knowledge of this particular model may come in on this request.
If you get stuck, it appears that you have some form of composite (foam or balsa core) construction, and one of the many universally recognised authorities on epoxy repair work in general is the Gougeon Brothers, who amongst much else offer some useful manuals: here.
Hope this may be at least some help.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorFor a boat of that period I strongly suspect that it is merely screwed on. Take off the metal track (aluminium if the previous owner was a cheapskate, stainless steel if you are lucky), which will be secured by small screws. Then expect that the wooden former is secured by large screws, whose heads will now be revealed, driven down into the transom.
I think it would be very unusual at that period for it to be glued or bonded in place.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
Moderator> (interestingly the boat has a raised arched track over the back of the boat to receive the mainsheet rigging so I’m keen to know a bit more about this as it certainly doesn’t feature on most GP’s)
That sounds like the full-width sheet horse arrangement, which became immensely popular in the sixties, and was was for a long time almost the standard arrangement.
Transom sheeting was normal at that time, and kickers of the day were relatively simple affairs – none of your modern powerful cascade tackles – of only about 2:1 or 3:1 purchase. So the kicker was used only to prevent the boom lifting unduly when off the wind, and particularly during gybing; spars were not expected to bend significantly, and all flattening of the sail was done by the mainsheet. Very different from today’s race rigs.
The full width sheet horse allowed the sheet to pull down on the sail more vertically when the boom was over the quarter, as would be the case primarily when off the wind, but also when close-hauled if it was necessary to ease sheets because of the wind strength; and thus it helped to flatten the sail.
It was an excellent system, but it became redundant when modern powerful kickers were introduced, and when racers’ preferences moved from full transom sheeting to either centre sheeting or the hybrid system which is almost ubiquitous today.
Hope this helps.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorAh!! … …
That is a Barton pattern self-bailer, which was popular in (I think) the sixties and seventies, or one of its clones. (What it is to have a long memory, but unfortunately what goes with that territory is a gradual erosion of physical prowess, as the ageing process takes its toll … …).
If it can be cleaned up, and if it works, you may wish to retain it. However it is a very early (and somewhat crude) design, and later designs work far better; they start working at lower speeds, and they shift water more rapidly. In particular the Elvstrom bailer, later marketed as the Andersen, is vastly more effective. A second factor is that the vertical underwater protrusion of the Barton risked hull damage if you happened to ground the boat on a hard surface – which could even be a sandy beach – while the bailers were down. However the Andersens – with their sloping protrusions hinged at the front – simply close themselves in those circumstances.
So you may alternatively wish to scrap the old Barton ones and do the necessary surgery – which is reasonably straightforward if you have mainstream DIY skills – and install a pair of Andersens to replace them. But that will involve surgery.
What it is to have a choice … …
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI see that Chris has (possibly) identified what you are trying to show us without the benefit of seeing a photo.
If you wish to load photos, which would be helpful, you would seem to need to reduce the filesize. There are various pieces of software which will do that; I use the photo-editing software that I have anyway for other reasons.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
Moderator> I like the extra pockets idea although these will probably be full of food
For what it is worth, my spinnaker bag had, on the port side, the spinnaker in a bucket, which also served as the emergency heavy-duty bailer (although never ever in fact needed in that role – but at least I had it onboard in case of need), and which also served as the emergency loo – (wash it thoroughly over the side after use before reinstating the spinnaker in it …).
On the starboard side, anchor and rode in a bucket, plus canvas bag containing multitude of spare ropes, including mooring lines.
Still plenty of space for an extra bag for picnic, including wine and plastic “glasses”.
With only two persons aboard – and often only one – there was also sufficient space forward, outside the spinnaker bags, for a coolbox, duly tied in (of course). (See photo; “Wine with you, sir”, ashore for picnic on Traeth Lligwy, Anglesey, summer 2007, after sailing from Traeth Bychan.)
On the latter topic, I had a substantial number of stainless steel strap eyes screwed into the underside of the deck, just inside the cockpit coaming; I bought a job lot cheap on eBay. Every last piece of loose kit was permanently attached to a lanyard, which terminated in a carbine hook (also stainless steel, and another job lot bought cheap off eBay), so everything was clipped on when stowed, and unclipped if necessary when actually in use.
That was a fairly reliable system for ensuring that in the unlikely event of a capsize no gear got lost.
Mind you, there is no accounting for carrying a phone loose in a jacket pocket, at an Aberdovey Vintage GP14 event, and then forgetting all about it when wading in deep to help recover other boats in mild surf. Phones do not take well to being drowned! But the enforced replacement was at least an upgrade!
Oliver
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by
Oliver Shaw.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThere is no single right answer, so devise a system which works for yourself.
Simon has described his system. I had a fabric “spinnaker bag” made up stretching right across the boat, so two compartments, one either side of mast. I had two pockets sewn on each side, one for a halliard (main to starboard, genoa to port, if I remember correctly), and one each side for the reefing lines.
Mind you, when single-handed, so no problem of clumsy feet in the fore part of the cockpit churning everything into a mess, I sometimes just dropped them on the cockpit sole.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by
Oliver Shaw. Reason: Technical issues; original post entirely failed to display while I was typing, so I was working blind. The "edit" was the first opportunity to see what I was typing, and there were occasional typos!
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThat sounds a good start, then see how you get on with it. Make future changes if and when you personally feel that you need them for the sort of sailing that you do.
Hope this helps.
Oliver
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by
Oliver Shaw.
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorTom,
Thank you for posting that image; and I agree that it does appear that there was once a (stainless steel?) vertical carrier comprising two straps, one each side, with a pivot between them at the bottom of the straps.
I have the very vague impression that I have very occasionally seen that arrangement on some early GRP boats, but only as a fully assembled system, and I confess that I had forgotten it. Could this be the Thames Marine version??
What follows is my strictly theoretical suggestions for how that could replicated now, starting from scratch, but I stress that I am not familiar with the detail of how this was fabricated originally.
It should be possible to make up a replacement, out of stainless steel strip. One supplier of strip is Just Stainless, https://juststainless.co.uk/product-category/strips/ Alternatively, if you are going to ask your friendly local stainless steel fabricator to do the metalwork, they would probably have suitable strip in stock, and all they would need would be a sketch, with dimensions, and a description.
I do not know how the pin was originally placed and secured; but if starting from scratch now there would seem to be (at least) three options to consider, all three for a semi-permanent pivot pin, which would effectively be installed before the centreboard is fitted, and then left in place. The centreboard could then have a slot between the pivot hole and the leading edge, as with the series 2 centreboard, so the board could then be slotted into place, and the slot then closed with a fillet, again as per the series 2 board. That may well not be original, but I would confidently expect it to work.
The pin itself could in theory be fitted by machining a spigot at each end, so that the holes drilled in the two strips are smaller diameter than the main body of the pin. That would then give a guaranteed spacing between the two strips. Then either the ends could be peened over, or tack-welded (your local stainless steel fabricating firm would be happy to do this for you, and also to machine the spigots), or – somewhat questionably – bonded with Araldite.
A fourth option would seem to be to cut screw threads in both spigot and holes, but because of the very small thickness of the strips this would need to be a very fine thread, and I would think that each of the other alternatives is probably easier. However the screw thread approach would enable the assembly to be disassembled later; but I doubt whether that facility would ever be needed.
Whatever method is used for securing the pin, it would seem to be a requirement of the construction that there should be no surplus weld or adhesive rounding off the inside corners, i.e. the pin should have a constant diameter right up to the side carriers. And there is probably little tolerance for excess material on the outside face of the carriers either. Your fabricator may need to be briefed about those two constraints.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorSteve also makes some very good points; but the first thing is to identify whether your boat is or is not actually a Mk 2.
Can you upload some photos, please, showing the interior layout (including the buoyancy arrangements), and the aft deck and the transom.
UPDATE, 0610 21 April: I apologise that, 10 hours after asking for photos, I will not now be able to respond for some time if they do now appear. I go into hospital for planned surgery on my right hand in an hour’s time, and I will then be unable to do any typing for perhaps the next three weeks. Didn’t think of that when I requested the photos!
Oliver
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by
Oliver Shaw. Reason: Update
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorTom,
There is some confusion, because I believe you may be using the term Mk 2 incorrectly; the Mk 2 boat is an early GRP boat, built from 1969, and I am not clear whether any were built after the Mk 3 appeared in 1977. To the best of my knowledge it uses the same centreboard as the Series 1 wooden boat, and no modification is needed.
If however you mean that your replacement boat is a Holt Speed, or later, model, with underfloor buoyancy, the pivot is permanently bonded into the case, and the board has a slot extending from the pivot hole to the leading edge; and once the board has been fitted the open end of the slot is blocked off by an infill piece which (I think) is screwed in place.
Although the underwater profile of both centreboards is the same, my understanding (from Tim Harper, when he built A Capella for me, and advised me that the Series 1 centreboard which I had acquired would not fit) is that the upper parts of the centreboards are not identical, and that the earlier type of board will not fit the later boat.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorIf your new genoa is cut with a higher clew I would hope that you shouldn’t need those extra control lines; I developed those when I was using a standard genoa on a modern boat with through-deck sheeting, but once I bought my new genoa with a higher clew I never used them again.
Incidentally I had never needed them with that same standard sail on my previous boat which had on-deck sheeting; I just moved the genoa cleat forward a little as necessary.
But if you do find that you need them, I had a single line right across the boat, via turning blocks below the deck, and I had cam-type jamcleats on the underside of the cockpit coaming.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThere is no single standard for any GP14, whatever the model.
What most owners use is a single control line system – and I have known precisely one GP14 owner (and also one Cornish Shrimper owner) use a twin-line (endless loop) system, and I strongly suggest that you lead the control line to a camcleat on the foredeck close alongside the mast. Necessarily that will be not quite the centre of the boat, but it will be near enough not to matter.
In passing, the endless loop system worked well on the Shrimper when I borrowed her, but I have no first-hand experience of using it on a GP14.
If you have washboards fitted you will need to either drill (and preferably bush) a hole in one of the washboards to allow the line to pass through, or alternatively pass the line across the top of the washboard. Personally I would not recommend the latter, for reasons of chafe, and of inevitable wear on your wood and on your varnish. A hole drilled in the right place, and bushed (with epoxy, or otherwise) seems a far better approach.
However I have known occasional owners with GRP boats get round the problem of drilling the (hollow or foam-cored GRP moulding) washboard by instead leading the control line to one end of the washboard. They claim that it works well; but inevitably that means that it is led to one side of the boat – and if that happens to be the lee side when you are unexpectedly caught out and urgently need to reduce sail in a hurry that could compromise your safety.
I note that you reference Wayfarers in which the control line is led down the side of the centreboard case, and cleated abaft the thwart. That strikes me as an unnecessary complication in a GP14, but the Wayfarer is a larger boat, and it may be of benefit there when single-handing. In my extensive single-handing in a GP14 I have never found any problems with having the control line cleated on the foredeck alongside the mast, as far aft as possible.
I can reach it easily when single-handing; indeed if one cannot reach it one is sitting too far aft, which is a very common fault when sailing GP14s. When single-handing and sailing to windward one should be sitting either astride or abeam of the thwart or forward of it, in order to keep the transom out of the water.
When sailing two-up my crew can reach a cleat on the aft part of the foredeck easily.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorYes, and yes.
Two more hatches forward; but I have no photos that show them clearly, and I no longer have that boat.
Self-bailers in the two pockets beside the centreboard case. My understanding that that this is normal in Series 2 boats except for certain ones pioneered by Alistair Duffin (sometimes referred to – unofficially – as Series 2A) which instead of self-bailers have permanent drain slots direct into the centreboard case. The latter modification is reputedly fine for racing, but can be a problem if sailing with three adults aboard, or with two adults plus cruising kit such as camping gear, when the boat sits a bit lower in the water; it has been reported that the permanent drain slots can sometimes then flood the cockpit floor.
If you don’t have self-bailers fitted I would recommend that you consider fitting them. They do a different job from the transom scuppers, and in ten years of extensively cruising A Capella (and very occasionally racing her) I found that I used both. The self-bailers were routinely used, almost every time I sailed, provided there was enough wind, for getting rid of small quantities of water (spray, waves breaking aboard, water brought aboard on the feet, etc); the transom scuppers were used just three times in ten years, to get rid of serious quantities of water following capsize (two of the capsizes were my own, and one was by a friend who had borrowed the boat).
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorYes, it is normal. It always used to be regarded as good practice to periodically ventilate the buoyancy tanks, although I am not totally sure that it is so necessary when all interior surfaces are coated with epoxy, and when there are absolutely no leaks from any cause. I confess to having become lazy about doing it; I must remind my godson, the present custodian of the boat, to do it … …
The jury may perhaps be out on whether they are indeed strictly necessary, but if there is any doubt at all about the integrity and continuity of the internal epoxy coating they are certainly then necessary. And if you get any water into the tanks via the drain bungs, or via damage, ventilation then becomes important.
I suppose also that it is difficult to be certain that your buoyancy remains totally dry if you are unable to inspect it.
Certainly hatches are normal.
I did find with mine that in the early days the hatches tended to leak, but I solved this problem by sealing the threads before screwing them tight. On some occasions I used heavy outboard grease to seal them, and one other occasions I used PTFE tape; both methods appeared to work, and to produce a watertight seal.
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files. -
This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts



