Belize 43: Glue for Keel to Hull Attachment

[SailFastTri]

I think you should discard the idea of using anti-fouling paint between the bonded parts. It would be much weaker than the sikaflex and defeat the bond.

Also, make sure you get the right grade of sikaflex -- sikaflex is a brand (like 3M) and they make many different formulations. Because it's part of an "engineered" system the strength of the bond is part of the equation so you should make sure to use exactly what FP recommends.

[AussieWayne]

Originally Posted by Dragon Lady

Good luck Wayne, I'm still waiting for an answer on what to do about my hull blisters.
All they will say is "it's not covered by warranty".

Personally I would be amazed if they bothered to seal the keels before they installed them.
2002 was the start of the osmosis epidemic and sealing the tops of the keels was unlikely to be a consideration.
They are very cagey about admitting any shortfalls in their manufacturing process even on older boats so I think we both will have a long wait for a reply.

Dragon Lady I would be amazed also if they actually went to the trouble of sealing the keels and the keel box but they should do it as eventually a lot of those seams will leak even if it is just a little. I wonder then what happens in that unsealed cavity with water sloshing around for maybe years on end. It is a possibility that rot or osmosis could start undetected.
Just a thought!
Do you think that FP are a little slow in answering the difficult questions??
My first simple email request received an answer in a very short space of time and I thought how good is this. But the second more in depth query seems to have vaporised somewhere in cyberspace as I have heard nothing.

Wayne

[AussieWayne]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

I think you should discard the idea of using anti-fouling paint between the bonded parts. It would be much weaker than the sikaflex and defeat the bond.

Also, make sure you get the right grade of sikaflex -- sikaflex is a brand (like 3M) and they make many different formulations. Because it's part of an "engineered" system the strength of the bond is part of the equation so you should make sure to use exactly what FP recommends.

Yes you probably make a good point but my original thought was that if water was able to get through the landing seam joint it was probably better to at least have the internal parts somewhat protected by epoxy and antifoul. I agree that the actual part where the bond is formed between the two parts is best not coated but generously covered with sikaflex.
Do you have any recommended sikaflex for a job like this one?
MacG suggested Sikaflex 292 in an earlier post.
Kind regards
Wayne

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by AussieWayne

DotDun do you know the timeline and the models involved for this change from vacuum bagged to infusion? Do you have any further info on this or possibly a link to further info.
If FP ever answer maybe we will have the answer to whether the keels and keel boxes were ever sealed in manufacture.
Thank you
Kind regards
Wayne

IIRC, the Athena, Belize, Bahia were the last of the vacuum-bagged process, the infusion started with the Levezzi in the 2002 timeframe.

Ah yes, a link:
Fountaine Pajot / Shipyard's History

[AussieWayne]

Originally Posted by DotDun

IIRC, the Athena, Belize, Bahia were the last of the vacuum-bagged process, the infusion started with the Levezzi in the 2002 timeframe.

Ah yes, a link:
Fountaine Pajot / Shipyard's History

DotDun I had a look at the link thanks for that. As you say the Lavezzi was the first model built via infusion and if I am correct that is when they started having the osmosis problems. So those problems are not necessarily linked to the year 2002 and beyond but are model specific ie the Lavezzi built with the infusion process. In other words the 2002 to 2006 Belize 43 were still continuing to be built via the vacuum bagged method whilst they built the Lavezzi with the new Infusion method.
Have I got that correct?
Wayne

[Cotemar]

AussieWayne,

If you did not hit any thing and the keels are not loose then all you need to do is fill the voids in the landing seam with Sikaflex 292, done.

Do not remove the keels for such a small issue.
The Sikaflex 292 is just on the front, back and sides up into the hull 6 to 8 inchs.

You can tell if there is water in the keel pocket if you haul out and see brown water stains lines down the keels after a few days. Those stains will help you find and fill the small holes that are leaking the retained water.

Thats all you do no more, no less.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by AussieWayne

DotDun I had a look at the link thanks for that. As you say the Lavezzi was the first model built via infusion and if I am correct that is when they started having the osmosis problems. So those problems are not necessarily linked to the year 2002 and beyond but are model specific ie the Lavezzi built with the infusion process. In other words the 2002 to 2006 Belize 43 were still continuing to be built via the vacuum bagged method whilst they built the Lavezzi with the new Infusion method.
Have I got that correct?
Wayne

Correct. They don't/won't change process mid-model, it's not economically feasible. Molds and equipment are expensive.

[AussieWayne]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

AussieWayne,

If you did not hit any thing and the keels are not loose then all you need to do is fill the voids in the landing seam with Sikaflex 292, done.

Do not remove the keels for such a small issue.
The Sikaflex 292 is just on the front, back and sides up into the hull 6 to 8 inchs.

You can tell if there is water in the keel pocket if you haul out and see brown water stains lines down the keels after a few days. Those stains will help you find and fill the small holes that are leaking the retained water.

Thats all you do no more, no less.

Yes that is exactly what is happening see attached photos. I realise that I could just reseal these seams but my concern was what damage might have been initiated with the sloshing of water through the unsealed/unprotected inner area between the two parts which could have been occurring for several years at least. Obviously the least that one would do would be to haul out and allow any trapped water to drain out over several days before re sealing. A potential problem here is that water has been trapped between the parts and settled into any voids or imperfectly formed pockets between foam and the fibreglass skin of the keels. In this case water could be accumulating in the bottom of the keel and possibly initiating some sort of rot as it would never drain out.
So am I overly concerned about a problem that may or may not exist or is it worthy of careful consideration.
Do I just haul, drip dry and reseal and keep my fingers crossed or bite the big bullet. I guess if no one has chimed in here with any personal knowledge or experience of this worst case scenario then maybe I shouldn't worry too much about it but that sort of goes against my careful nature???
Wayne

[AussieWayne]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Correct. They don't/won't change process mid-model, it's not economically feasible. Molds and equipment are expensive.

Thanks for that DotDun I now have a better understanding of the models and the timeline and the osmosis occurrence.
Kind regards
Wayne

[Cotemar]

AussieWayne,

Do not believe everything you think.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post974335

The keel is a separate sealed unit. Nothing gets into the foam core unless you have a hard grounding and break the keel fiber glass shell.

From the pictures you show and my previous post you have a simple problem with a simple solution.

Let the landing seam dry out for a few days.
You will see the brown stain lines showing you where to re-seal.
Fill the voids in the landing seam with Sikaflex 292. Just push the pointed part of the caulking gun into the joint and pump the Sikaflex 292 into the void.
You are done.
All is well.
Happy Sailing

[neilpride]

Aussie! if you can complety drain and dry the voids without removing the keels you are fine, but any traped water between foam, naked fiberglass or laminated for such a long time can weak and rot the area in a future.

If i am in your shoes, drop keels !! my 2 cents that the internal void is full of water, looking at the pictures.

[s/v Jedi]

Just haul, drill some holes and see where water comes out. Two or three little 1/4" holes in the keels will show if they are waterlogged or not and closing these is under a minute of work. Sometimes testing it makes more sense than speculating about it.

cheers,
Nick.

[Dragon Lady]

Originally Posted by AussieWayne

Dragon Lady I would be amazed also if they actually went to the trouble of sealing the keels and the keel box but they should do it as eventually a lot of those seams will leak even if it is just a little. I wonder then what happens in that unsealed cavity with water sloshing around for maybe years on end. It is a possibility that rot or osmosis could start undetected.
Just a thought!
Do you think that FP are a little slow in answering the difficult questions??
My first simple email request received an answer in a very short space of time and I thought how good is this. But the second more in depth query seems to have vaporised somewhere in cyberspace as I have heard nothing.

Wayne

Hi Wayne,

not answering difficult questions is a common trait amongst many companies and individuals.
My comment regarding the osmosis was to speculate that sealing concealed underwater areas was not a priority as they appear to have allowed inadequate sealing in the exposed areas.
Whilst the Lavezzi was made using a different layup technique I would expect that the same quality standards would be applied to all models.

As far as break away keels go, aircraft manufactures apply the same principle to landing gears and engines.
The philosophy is that it is better to have the component break off cleanly without rupturing the hull or wing. As these areas are used for fuel tanks it is a fire hazard to have them ruptured. Likewise you don't want water ingress into your hull.

[AussieWayne]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

AussieWayne,

Do not believe everything you think.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post974335

The keel is a separate sealed unit. Nothing gets into the foam core unless you have a hard grounding and break the keel fiber glass shell.

From the pictures you show and my previous post you have a simple problem with a simple solution.

Let the landing seam dry out for a few days.
You will see the brown stain lines showing you where to re-seal.
Fill the voids in the landing seam with Sikaflex 292. Just push the pointed part of the caulking gun into the joint and pump the Sikaflex 292 into the void.
You are done.
All is well.
Happy Sailing

It was actually the original photos that you very kindly posted showing the keels sitting seperated on the hard that got me thinking about this. I had seen them previously and they seem to show that the keel is not a fully encased fibreglass part. It seems to show that at the top of the keel it is open and is formed only by the foam which is moulded to the keel box cavity. Is that not so or am I somehow reading these photos wrong??

If I am correct in my reading of the photos then my original concerns are probably valid. If your statement ''The keel is a separate sealed unit'' means the top of the keel is a sealed fibreglass top then I am indeed concerned about something that is a non issue. But the photos do not seam to show that with the white foam sticking up proud of the keel??

I appreciate your input so thanks for your communications.
I do like your opening comment about not believing everything you think!!
Kindest regards
Wayne

[Dragon Lady]

I also agree with Cotemar, just seal it up you are spending a lot off money for little or no gain.
One the historians out there, when did FP introduce the break away keels?
Have any rotted off?