Keel Retention 322

[GregL564]

View attachment 81009

Hi all,

Posting this on behalf of and at the request of Gary, who is now well underway with the reinforcements to the keel sump of his 322 that we’ve been discussing. Attached to this message are the “before” photos of the keel sump on his 322.

I’m sure that owners of 302’s and 322’s will be relieved to hear his report that his sump is at least ¾ of solid glass on bottom. From Gary:

“I think this was the first time ever that the keel sump was degreased
and scrubed. I'm very pleased that there are no cracks or any signs of
pervious damage. ALSO, the fact the bottom is at least 3/4 inch thick
gives me much more confidence.
I will make templates today and order the G-10.

The current plates are 3 inches by 4 inches except the aft 3/4 inch
bolt and that is just 2 washers under the bolt. Also looks like there
is only room to add one more cross member but having taken a good
look, I don't know if it would add much strength because the built
looks quite robust.”

Photos attached...

 

[GregL564]

More "before" photos from Gary

Some more "before" photos of the keel sump of Gary's 322

 

[GregL564]

More "before" photos from Gary

Page 3 of the photos from Gary

 

[GregL564]

The keel strap

Here is a photo of the keel strap Gary added as a further reinforcement.

 

[The Tanqueray]

Here is a photo of the keel strap Gary added as a further reinforcement.

my Last Keel post:
As the weeks pass (I've owned her for 8 weeks now), I continue to become more impressed with the build quality of the 322.
The finish inside "hidden" compartments is much better than expected. So what was hidden and no longer is?
Under the v-berth there are two areas that you can't access. I put access doors into them and found about 6 cubic feet of storage space on the starboard side and 2 ft on the port side. Both already very handy.

I will still replace the 3x4 SS plates under the keel bolts with much larger (foot print) 3/4 inch G-10 but that will do it for the keel.

Thank you so much for all your input. I was out sailing this morning and I think I found one of the problems that makes her really slam when coming off the waves. I'll start a new thread for that.

Gary
Freeport / Lucaya Bahamas

 

[jibes138]

Gary,
Have you looked at the shear strength of the G10 versus the stainless steel? If you are worried about the studs and nuts shearing through the material increasing the area won't do anything, only adding thickness and material shear strength will help that. You may find the current backing plates have more shear resistance than the G10. At the least you should make the effort to do the calculations. Increasing the area will improve shearing the entire backing plate through the bottom and that is a low probability already. From a quick check it looks like the G10 is 19000 PSI shear strength while 316 stainless is 46000 psi. You would be better off just adding a few 316 fender washers under the nuts to increase the cross sectional shear area than changing to a lower strength material.

 

[Maine Sail]

View attachment 81009

Hi all,

Posting this on behalf of and at the request of Gary, who is now well underway with the reinforcements to the keel sump of his 322 that we’ve been discussing. Attached to this message are the “before” photos of the keel sump on his 322.

I’m sure that owners of 302’s and 322’s will be relieved to hear his report that his sump is at least ¾ of solid glass on bottom. From Gary:

“I think this was the first time ever that the keel sump was degreased
and scrubed. I'm very pleased that there are no cracks or any signs of
pervious damage. ALSO, the fact the bottom is at least 3/4 inch thick
gives me much more confidence.
I will make templates today and order the G-10.

The current plates are 3 inches by 4 inches except the aft 3/4 inch
bolt and that is just 2 washers under the bolt. Also looks like there
is only room to add one more cross member but having taken a good
look, I don't know if it would add much strength because the built
looks quite robust.”

Photos attached...

I would still urge owners to use caution. The 322 I physically measured, that lost its keel, was approx 1/4" - 5/16" thick at the keel stub. This means guys on the factory floor either ignored lamination schedules or the specs changed. It is scary to me that there is/was this much variability in these boats... 3/4" is a LONG way from the 1/4" to 5/16" I touched, prodded and physically measured in person.......

Here are a few of the pics I took.. The boat was on blocks and pics were a tad difficult to grab but the bottom line is this particular O'day 322 had a VERY, VERY, VERY thin keel stub. I did not have a tripod and could not take pics with the clamp and tape measure I had. I did my best to physically measure it. I borrowed a long reach shop clamp and clamped it inside and out where the polyurethane was still intact. The keel stub on this particular O'day 322 was a approx 1/4" thick +/- perhaps 1/16"....


O'day 322 - The tiny black wire on the right is a small Datamarine depth cable.

O'Day 322 Keel Stub

O'day 322 Thickness:
I used a long shop clamp to clamp over the thickest remaining part of the stub. I then marked it with a Sharpie, loosened it slightly, and carefully removed it. I then found some scraps that would fit into the gap. What I found was a 1/4" piece of marine ply. The remaining gap is approx 1/16" thick making this keel stucb, where measured approx 5/16" thick but this was on-top of polyurethane sealant.. Safe to say this stub was 1/4" to 5/16" thick.

This was from the O'day 302:

 

[The Tanqueray]

I would still urge owners to use caution. The 322 I physically measured, that lost its keel, was approx 1/4" - 5/16" thick at the keel stub. This means guys on the factory floor either ignored lamination schedules or the specs changed. It is scary to me that there is/was this much variability in these boats... 3/4" is a LONG way from the 1/4" to 5/16" I touched, prodded and physically measured in person.......

Here are a few of the pics I took.. The boat was on blocks and pics were a tad difficult to grab but the bottom line is this particular O'day 322 had a VERY, VERY, VERY thin keel stub. I did not have a tripod and could not take pics with the clamp and tape measure I had. I did my best to physically measure it. I borrowed a long reach shop clamp and clamped it inside and out where the polyurethane was still intact. The keel stub on this particular O'day 322 was a approx 1/4" thick +/- perhaps 1/16"....


O'day 322 - The tiny black wire on the right is a small Datamarine depth cable.

O'Day 322 Keel Stub

O'day 322 Thickness:
I used a long shop clamp to clamp over the thickest remaining part of the stub. I then marked it with a Sharpie, loosened it slightly, and carefully removed it. I then found some scraps that would fit into the gap. What I found was a 1/4" piece of marine ply. The remaining gap is approx 1/16" thick making this keel stucb, where measured approx 5/16" thick but this was on-top of polyurethane sealant.. Safe to say this stub was 1/4" to 5/16" thick.

This was from the O'day 302:

It was these pictures that created my concern in the first place. It's why I started thinking about how to keep the keel on. Even if I'm only going a few hundred miles, I'd prefer a good book, good music and cheap Italian red wine to my thoughts drifting (pun intended) to the keel.

There must be a huge difference boat by boat in construction quality and layup thickness. I removed my rule bilge pump and it was screwed into the keel sump bottom by a 1 inch SS screw. I measured the thickness of the pump mount bottom and the washer under the screw so my layup is at least 5/8 to 3/4 think. I was considering drilling right down to the top of keel but decided to wait until I haul her late next spring.

I measured everything with a good quality swiss vernier caliper. jibes138 has also given some good and valid input regards shear strength. One of the issues is the aft 3/4 inch bolt.
It's in a spot where all that is under it is 2 washers. I want to use the G-10 to spread the load more evenly across the entire keel bottom (or as much as possible) It 's certain that a large SS plate would have more shear strength so I'll consider that but don't know if the shear is the most important thing. I want to spread the load of a 3500 pound keel across as much keel sump area as possible. I will still use the 3x4 SS plates on top of the G-10 BUT, I welcome, ask for and want input. This is a great boat with one issue BUT have you ever owned a boat with no issues. (OK, I have a NorSea 27)

 

[Jackdaw]

It was these pictures that created my concern in the first place. It's why I started thinking about how to keep the keel on.

Is is just me, but why would someone ever buy (or own) a boat that they were worried about how to keep the keel on??

 

[jibes138]

The 302 and 322 were the later vintage years of the O'Day line when the company was changing hands about once a month. The company was bought by Bangor Punta in 1966. I think these later boats were around when Lier Sigler bought out Bangor Punta in the mid 1980's. Who knows what kind of "synergy" savings they forced on the company to justify their purchase and show increased margins? Seems like when they drilled the holes for the keel some genius would have noticed the drill broke through pretty fast?

MaineSails pictures would suggest you need to lay up additional laminate to the entire bilge to be safe. Adding some plates of G10 bonded on with 5200 I can't see helping at all if the keel stub is too thin. Seems like you want to lay in some layers of glass to the floor of the bilge and bring the glass well up the sides of the sump and over the radius of the bilge turn? If you assumed 1/4 inch thick and added 3/4 to the bottom and sides it would do a lot more to help your concern than the G10 idea. Not sure what the strength of the secondary bond would be between the new glass and original but it would be a very large surface area.

 

[The Tanqueray]

Is is just me, but why would someone ever buy (or own) a boat that they were worried about how to keep the keel on??

Jackdaw,
This isn't a problem just for this boat. Many Many boats are now pushing 30 years and have been run aground more that once. I don't think these keels just feel off one day.
Do a google search for Beneteau keel issues - because they aren't exempt.

Why did I buy this boat? It really is a great design - at some point during the private equity buyout and restructure, Wall Street loaded the company with debt so maybe they saved on glass. I knew about this issue and was and am going to drop the keel late next spring. I will then judge what I'll do BUT I DID PRICE THIS into the boat. I'm in the Bahamas and we have a decent trade wind. When Hunters and Beneteus's come here they often slam a piling or crash a coral-head and expose a cored hull. All boats have a weak point and I'm lucky to know exactly what it is. As a side point... I think this is my 20th boat and don't get me going on planes

 

[The Tanqueray]

The 302 and 322 were the later vintage years of the O'Day line when the company was changing hands about once a month. The company was bought by Bangor Punta in 1966. I think these later boats were around when Lier Sigler bought out Bangor Punta in the mid 1980's. Who knows what kind of "synergy" savings they forced on the company to justify their purchase and show increased margins? Seems like when they drilled the holes for the keel some genius would have noticed the drill broke through pretty fast?

MaineSails pictures would suggest you need to lay up additional laminate to the entire bilge to be safe. Adding some plates of G10 bonded on with 5200 I can't see helping at all if the keel stub is too thin. Seems like you want to lay in some layers of glass to the floor of the bilge and bring the glass well up the sides of the sump and over the radius of the bilge turn? If you assumed 1/4 inch thick and added 3/4 to the bottom and sides it would do a lot more to help your concern than the G10 idea. Not sure what the strength of the secondary bond would be between the new glass and original but it would be a very large surface area.

Jibes138
When I drop the keel, I'll measure the layup. You already convinced me that the 5200 wouldn't do much. I know my keel sump is thicker 5/8 to 3/4 at least so I have some comfort for this season in Abaco and Georgetown.

 

[Jackdaw]

Jackdaw,
This isn't a problem just for this boat. Many Many boats are now pushing 30 years and have been run aground more that once. I don't think these keels just feel off one day.
Do a google search for Beneteau keel issues - because they aren't exempt.

Trust me I get that. Fin keel joints on ANY boat are highly stressed and are specifiable to failure when abused, damaged or tired.

And I know the people that owned/chartered Cheeky Raffiki.

You explained your reasons for buying adequately. So we are different. I would never have bought a boat where I wondered about the basic engineering, built program, or quality control. Deal with it ex-post-facto yes, but buy into that, no.

 

[The Tanqueray]

Jackdaw,
You brought up a great point. I don't think the issue is engineering. C. Raymond Hunt isn't the problem. It seems to be an inconsistency in build quality.

Thanks for your comments - all valid and appreciated. I guess in reality, I worry much more about the Keynesians at the FED than about my keel sump.

 

[Tally Ho]

I will still replace the 3x4 SS plates under the keel bolts with much larger (foot print) 3/4 inch G-10 but that will do it for the keel. Gary Freeport / Lucaya Bahamas

Gary, how do you deal with the extra thickness of the G-10 and still having enough threads on the keel bolts to get the nuts engaged? Will this require changing out the keel bolts to longer ones?

Greg

 

[Tally Ho]

Jackdaw, You brought up a great point. I don't think the issue is engineering. C. Raymond Hunt isn't the problem. It seems to be an inconsistency in build quality. Thanks for your comments - all valid and appreciated. I guess in reality, I worry much more about the Keynesians at the FED than about my keel sump.

What hull number is your 322? I have hull 149. If the layup inconsistencies vary, would be curious what you find and what hull # you have.

Very good information, in this thread, for all of us 322 owners.

Thanks,

Greg

 

[The Tanqueray]

Gary, how do you deal with the extra thickness of the G-10 and still having enough threads on the keel bolts to get the nuts engaged? Will this require changing out the keel bolts to longer ones?

Greg

My studs extend 2 inches above the nut. I have lots of extra thread. There are a couple of posts in this thread with pictures and it's shown.
Don't forget that the G-10 doesn't add layup thickness it's just to spread the load over a greater surface area. You can make a template and get an SS plate made - I'm just trying to go beyond three 3 inch by 4 inch SS plates and especially the aft stud that just uses 2 washers.

 

[The Tanqueray]

What hull number is your 322? I have hull 149. If the layup inconsistencies vary, would be curious what you find and what hull # you have.

Very good information, in this thread, for all of us 322 owners.

Thanks,

Greg

My hull number is STRSG035J687 so that makes her boat number 35.

It's important for people that read this thread that don't have a 302 / 322 that this is a fabulous boat and I'm simply addressing an issue that is becoming more common on many types of boats as they age, I think that the majority of boats in the market are now over 20-years old. I will drop the keel next year and have a good look. If needed, I will add to the keel sump layup. I don't think it's an engineering issue but a builder that failed to follow the layup schedules in the keel sump. In some of the pictures it looks almost like the keel sump is the same thickness as the hull and that no extra material was added.
I have crawled through every inch of this boat. The deck is well bolted to the hull. The cockpit is a roomy and safe layout. The interior a real delight and the first thing that caused me to have a better look at the boat. Tanqueray has sailed 5,000 miles over the past three winters and been as far as the Dominican Republic.

I thank all group members for their input. If you read the entire thread you'll see that the ideas shared by other members changed my plans.
Cheers,
Gary
Freeport / Lucaya Bahamas

 

[The Tanqueray]

From comments made earlier it seems there are production inconsistencies and the sale of the company (from Lear Siegler) may provide some production date guidance.

This is copied from a 2010 thread here in the O'Day forum:
June 30, 1987, “The O'Day Corporation” stands alone as its own entity, as The Lance Funston group pays $12,066,000 to Bangor Punta Marine Products Corp. (Lear Siegler Marine) for O'Day/Cal and Prindle.
September 27, 1989, The intangible assets, including the molds, designs, name and goodwill of O'Day, were sold for $620,000.

Back to my comments - O'day built about 80,000 boats. The 322 I just bought is a joy to sail and own. It's a shame what many of these Private Equity deals have done to some fine companies and products. If the Japanese Yen keeps dropping in value, I may just buy a new 322 in Japan - http://www.geocities.jp/odayjapan/AI12.htm

 

[Jackdaw]

Back to my comments - O'day built about 80,000 boats. The 322 I just bought is a joy to sail and own. It's a shame what many of these Private Equity deals have done to some fine companies and products. If the Japanese Yen keeps dropping in value, I may just buy a new 322 in Japan - http://www.geocities.jp/odayjapan/AI12.htm

Tanq,

I admire your enthusiasm but I don't see the leap of logic you attempt here.

The underbuilt sump areas in some but not all of these boats would amount to a few bucks of resin, cloth, and time. Beyond the money guys, designers, managers, builders, and QA people would have to be complicit in weakening the single most important part of the entire hull of SOME of the boats. If someone would have died of a result it would be manslaughter. Is that really what you are saying?

I think Hanlon's razor fits better here.