The fit of my stem fitting ...

[Scott T-Bird]

Catalina Direct supplies an upgraded stem fitting for Catalina 320. I was reading that the original design was acknowledged to be a little skimpy and I was alarmed by the rust I saw around mine. It turns out that the rust stains were probably unrelated, but I was alarmed by the lack of material and a weld that appeared it could fail. So I ordered a new stem fitting. I took the original off and sent it to them so they could fabricate an exact duplicate, except with thicker stainless steel material throughout.

The fitting basically has 2 bends and a weld. The front is made to bend with the profile of the bow. The weld is for the back leg attached to the deck. Here, I am holding the lower leg and you can see that the holes line up nicely. The problem (maybe it's not a problem) is that the legs don't fit perfectly. Holding the lower leg against the bow, the back leg sticks up. It actually fits best with the back leg held to the deck because the flat section at the front of the bow fits neatly in this case. I didn't take a picture of that condition unfortunately. The picture below shows the back leg sticking up. You can see the weld.

I am wondering if the fitting should be sent back to bend it or if it will bend on its own when I fasten it down. I'm thinking that the correct way to do this (if I am going to install as is) is to sit the back leg flush to the deck and secure it. That way the flat section in the front is seated flush on the bow (under the rub rail). Then, I would draw the lower leg back to the bow underneath the rub rail. It is more than 1" off at the very end. But this way, 2 surfaces are flush to the bow and the strain is put at the bend under the rub rail. This should also be easier on the weld, I think. The material is about 5/16" thick so it does not want to give, I'm sure.

What do y'all think? I will be asking CD about this tomorrow. Does it need to be sent back, or will it conform once I torque on it!

 

[rgranger]

That looks like a hefty piece of metal. How much strain will you have to induce on that weld to bend it a full inch. I’d send it back

 

[dlochner]

The purpose of the back leg (tack fitting) is to take the load of the jib halyard, which is much less than the load of the head stay. Thus the weld is probably not a big issue. However, I don't see any through bolts or bolt holes for the tack fitting to attach to the deck. If that is the case, then jib halyard load is transmitted to the weld with a lever arm. The weld seems kind of skimpy for that.

It is normal for bent metal to have some spring back. When you released the tension on the old stemmed did it spring back? If it did by how much? If there was no springbuck then an inch would seem to be a lot. On the other hand if there was a half to ¾" spring back it is probably nothing to worry about.

A call to CD would be in order.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Unfortunately, I didn't take a photo with the back leg flush to the deck. You can see the 2 bolt holes for the back leg (and you can see them in the reflection off the anchor roller). The 2 bolts are on either side of the tang. When the back leg is sitting flush, the front is also square and seated properly against the face. Again, my photo doesn't show it - but you can see how much it is offset at the top of the face of the bow only when I hold the bottom leg against the bow underneath the rub rail.

I thought the weld looks a little skimpy, too, except that welds are very often stronger than the plate. However, if I secure the bottom leg first, I think that I will cause the bending moment primarily on the weld, and I don't want to do that. If I secure the back leg first, I will have 2 faces seated solidly flush against fiberglass and the bending moment will be underneath the rub rail where there already is the bend. I think the weld will be more protected if I secure the back leg first.

When I got the new one, they also sent back the original. I don't have them in the same location right now to compare. They modified the back leg with the tang and the holes don't line up with the original. It's a longer leg now and the tang is now welded to the leg instead of the 2 flanges they used before. Actually, all of the load for the jib/genoa is on the head stay. I don't see any purpose for the tang with the 2 holes so no load on the back leg whatsoever. I think they are there to secure a block for some utility reason.

When we took off the old fitting, we didn't loosen the rub rail and we may have bent the fitting some to slip it out. It was only about 1/8" thick, thus my concern over the original fitting. It is at least twice the thickness now and there is no way in hell to bend that piece of metal without significant mechanical advantage. I agree that I am going no further until a call to CD.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

It's hard to describe without a picture ... The chainplate basically has 2 bends. There is a bend right where the weld is and directly underneath the weld the chainplate makes a 90 degree angle with the back leg. That seats nicely with the fiberglass at the deck, which is basically at a 90 degree angle. You can see the edge of the white tape that I placed on deck to temporarily cover the 2 holes. When the back leg is seated to the deck, the chainplate directly under the weld seats firmly against fiberglass right about at the edge of the tape. The chainplate bends again underneath the rub rail to follow the rake of the bow. I think that if I fasten the underside last, the bending moment will be at the bend that is about 4 inches underneath the weld, not at the weld.

 

[jon hansen]

i would want it angled correctly. no bending, zero.

no one gets it right every time. it can be re-welded. you will feel better, i will feel better.

just a slight setback.

you are doing such a great job tuning up your vessel. it has been fun to watch.

i vote a do-over.

 

[Ward H]

@Scott T-Bird
We did have to bend the bottom tang out a little to pull it out but not an inch. And if they copied your old one I could see the bottom tang being off a 1/4" but not an 1". They also should have put the back tang the same so you don't have to drill new holes. They missed it being a copy in to areas.

If you do have to bend it into place, seating the back tang first gives you 5 bolts to pull it into place and as you said, you won't be bending the weld.

But I agree, that is a beefy bit of steel, CD should have made a better copy so you don't have to drill and bend. Will be interesting to see how it compares to the old one.

 

[jssailem]

It looks a bit ,much of a gap to me. I would want it to sit flush in boat directions. With the force to bend the chainplate flat it will be working on the deck fiberglass to unbend. Or it will be working o the weld to Break it. Both are undesirable traits in my thinking.
I would send it back with a better angle measurement to have them manufacture. If you do not want to go through the hassle of shipping back and forth, then I would find a local welder with experience and have them do that locally.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

It looks a bit ,much of a gap to me. I would want it to sit flush in boat directions. With the force to bend the chainplate flat it will be working on the deck fiberglass to unbend. Or it will be working o the weld to Break it. Both are undesirable traits in my thinking.
I would send it back with a better angle measurement to have them manufacture. If you do not want to go through the hassle of shipping back and forth, then I would find a local welder with experience and have them do that locally.

I was thinking about the uplift on the deck as well. There would be considerable uplift on the deck. Originally, there were only washers under the two deck bolts. I was already planning on beefing that up. It isn't actually the weld that is off. The weld actually makes the correct angle with the face of the fitting. The way I took the photo only makes it look like the weld is at the wrong angle. The correction really only needs to be made at the bend just under the rub rail. That could be something that I could have done locally. I agree, the uplift could be serious and that would also place stress on the weld when there shouldn't be any stress on it.

 

[jssailem]

Be sure you give the metal shop the radius of the bend at the bow.
I would also ask the shop to passivate the stainless after working it.
Oils and metal fragments from the shop could create opportunities for rust and corrosion.

 

[mdidomenico]

for what it's worth, the one i ordered from catalinadirect for my c34 is off like that too. i'm waiting for mariners to wrangle a fiberglass guy to fix my steam first, but i suspect i'll have to tackle the same problem shortly.

 

[DaveJ]

I would not attempt to bend this bracket by using the mounting bolts, this 'could' cause structural issues with the boat. To me, this bracket is not acceptable. Even the weld, although it may be OK, does not look like it was done correctly. The inside radius should have been filled and ground out. I'm not sure why the welder could not copy the bracket that you supplied, welders know that metal will 'move' when it cools, and they should compensate for that.
This coming from someone with an electrical background....
Cheers
dj

 

[Hayden Watson]

Have you tried connecting the bolts to the deck and seeing how far you can bend the bottom back to the bow by hand. Flat bending of steel does not take a huge force. If it springs back far enough to get your bolts started, then just tighten them sequentially a little bit at a time so that each is helping to pull it back.

 

[JRT]

I'd double check the angle to the old one to ensure that is correct to the forestay originally too.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Just an update to this small problem. As it turns out, because we didn't remove the rub rail at the bow, we basically bent the old stem fitting as we pulled it out. Because the thickness was so thin, we actually were able to bend it more than I would think possible. Without thinking about this process, I sent the fitting to Catalina Direct, as they request, for replacement fabrication. They matched the shape exactly. The problem was that I had flattened the bar during removal. (I thought they just needed the fitting to match the holes). So the new fitting matched the old fitting, only the old fitting had been flattened before they matched it. Lesson Learned!!

As suggested, I found a local machine shop to increase the bend at the correct location. It wasn't easy finding the right guy ... I contacted at least 4 whom said they didn't have anything to bend the metal. It appears that most have a lot of complicated machines for cutting and drilling. Not everyone has a press for bending. Finally, the last place I contacted gave me a reference to the guy who could help. In 5 minutes, he pressed it into the shape I need. I haven't been back to see how well it fits, but my prediction is that it will be a near perfect fit ...