I have recently purchased a new to me Cat 310, hull number 15. I would like to work my way around the mast and re bed all the chain plates. A surveyor suggested I could do the fore and aft plates with the mast up but I shouldn't try the uppers and lowers with the mast up. I've done that with a single spreader rig in the past using jib and spinnaker halyards to anchor the mast. Has anyone here re bedded the middle chain plates with the mast up?
Rebedding Upper & Lower Chain Plates
- Thread starter fruition
- Start date
Your surveyor was wrong. These chain plates have a cover. You rebed these by unscrewing the plate, clean out the old sealant (you will need picks and small needle nose pliers) and then rebed. You need to use a polysulfide, while my preference is butyl tape you can't use it with this setup. I am working on a mod to use butyl tape.
Good luck and fair winds,
Jesse
The guy was wrong. One at a time. Works just fine.
Here's how we do butyl on ours:
http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,7265.0.html
Here's how we do butyl on ours:
http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,7265.0.html
CY used a number of different configurations. The upper/mid Chainplate on Hull 147 is a 1 piece weldment that had one little dollop of sealant and the stbd side leaked badly over the 1st winter I owned the boat.
While the dealer's repair guy had them off, and was drying out the interior with 2 electric heaters, I countersunk the holes so it would at least form some sort of gasket where the bolts go through the deck. There is no way to re bed these without complete removal. I don't see why it couldn't be done one side at a time using halyards. If you were in a calm mooring you could probably do both given there could be 3 halyards and the topping lift available to secure t he mast.
The leak water stained the bulkhead badly and the dealer initially said they would replace the bulkhead... sounded great until you think about having to jack up the deck to jam the new one in and how they would manage to get it below in one piece. Cooler heads prevailed once they thought it through and the acceptable solution was covering the joint including the stained bulkhead with teak trim. This area at least looks like a custom built now.
The one good thing is that in the deck penetration area it is solid glass, not cored; or it would have been a disaster...
Peter
While the dealer's repair guy had them off, and was drying out the interior with 2 electric heaters, I countersunk the holes so it would at least form some sort of gasket where the bolts go through the deck. There is no way to re bed these without complete removal. I don't see why it couldn't be done one side at a time using halyards. If you were in a calm mooring you could probably do both given there could be 3 halyards and the topping lift available to secure t he mast.
The leak water stained the bulkhead badly and the dealer initially said they would replace the bulkhead... sounded great until you think about having to jack up the deck to jam the new one in and how they would manage to get it below in one piece. Cooler heads prevailed once they thought it through and the acceptable solution was covering the joint including the stained bulkhead with teak trim. This area at least looks like a custom built now.
The one good thing is that in the deck penetration area it is solid glass, not cored; or it would have been a disaster...
Peter
I don't know how this happened but I don't have any photos of the chainplates.
I will try to remember to fix this when I get home tonight.
But to try and explain it without a photo, the chainplate for the upper shroud and intermediate shroud is a piece of stainless steel that goes through a slit in the deck and bolts to the bulkhead. The slit is about an 1/8 inch or less larger all around than the chainplate. There is then a cover that goes over this chain plate from the top of the deck that screws into the hull. The cover is supposed to hold the bedding material in place.
Here are my problems with using this setup the way it is. First, the cover screwing down. I don't like the idea of trying to use butyl tape on something that is just screwed down. Especially on wholes that have already had the screws taken out and put back in the same spot. To me this is asking for the resistance of the butyl tape to cause the hole to strip out. Or you are not tightening the cover down enough and you need to compress butyl tape for it to really work.
Second, the slit for the chainplate is squared. This wouldn't allow for a nice packing of of butyl tape but instead just push out the butyl tape. If you look at Maine Sail's write up on Compass Marine he talks about the importance of counter sinking the holes. I think there is enough area to make a counter sink area by putting chamfer edge on the slit but that would involve completely removing the chain plate so you don't accidentally damage the chainplate while doing this.
Lastly, the chainplate cover also has a larger than necessary slit. This would allow the butyl tape to either get really dirty or ooze out on hot days or from movement inside of the cover. While this one isn't really a deal breaker for me, it's something that could be done better and avoid some issues.
Eventually I will make some changes to allow this to be bedded with butyl correctly. But that will involve removing the chainplate, converting the cover to through-bolted instead of wood screws. This will likely involve making a new cover that is a tighter fit. Ideally I would like to find a way to have the covers welded onto the chainplates.
For now I will continue to use polysulfide. With the mast up there is enough space to get in there with some dental picks and get all the old caulk up. Primer the area and then recaulk with polysulfide. This has to be redone every five years to avoid leaks. So at some point it will bother me enough to make the conversion.
Fair winds,
Jesse
Thanks Jesse: I just rebed the starboard chain plate with poly sulfide after noticing some water on the bulkhead. Good points about the screws and spacings. I will rebed the port side before haulout in October. You are correct about the five years.