Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Home-made stuff is great - until it fails. Again, the chainplates/knees might or might not have been the problem. But in analyzing a failure, one of the best places to start is by asking the questions "What changed?" These definitely changed. And something in that area failed (though I'm still unclear how if the damage was on the leeward side like RH says - strange).

???

Your technique of analyzing a failure leaves a bit to be desired.

First, we don't know if the failure was anywhere near the chainplates that were replaced. I've never heard of a boat with chainplates near the starboard quarter.

Second, the knees were not replaced and the chainplates didn't fail.

Third, if you are to use the "what did I change last" theory of trouble shooting (which is a good one), then you have to know that the system was working before you changed something. This is great for engine diagnostics, but completely irrelevant for structural failure during an overload event at sea.

[Azul]

Does anyone ever rely on a 12 V water maker for their sole water supply? That would seem to be semi-suicidal. I had read that RH was conserving his electricity to run his radios and the water maker, but I assumed it was because it was making better quality drinking water than what was in the tankage.

However, if someone were to rely solely on a 12 V water maker, it would be good to have lots of fuel to charge the batteries, a small generator or an extra solar panel somewhere with a backup cheap charge regulator in case you decide to tie off your boom to the rail as a make shift preventer during a routine short squall while you are in the salon instead of at the helm because you can't sleep due to not having a crew you trust at the wheel. I'm not saying this actually happened- it would seem outlandishly improbable, but it would be one way to lose your stanchions and/or rails with attached solar panels during benign (ie not survival) conditions and also cause some significant leak inducing deck damage that is not easily explainable by dipping a boom.

Stanchions and rails are through bolted, I am still trying to figure out how RH lost his during the described event even if the solar panel acted as a diving plane as the frame of the panel would let go first. When I run into something like this that seems implausible, sometimes it is because important information is being withheld or disinformation is being dispersed. What actually pulled the stanchions or cockpit railings out?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

???

Your technique of analyzing a failure leaves a bit to be desired.

First, we don't know if the failure was anywhere near the chainplates that were replaced. I've never heard of a boat with chainplates near the starboard quarter.

Hey, you gotta start somewhere bro.

So, where exactly is the "starboard quarter". I assume it's between the beam and bow? If so, what's behind the fender in this port-side photo of an HC36?



Granted, these are external and RH says his were internal - but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by cwyckham

?Second, the knees were not replaced and the chainplates didn't fail.

Okay the knees were not replaced. Were they confirmed to be sound - especially since there were cracks, leaks, and corrosion detected? And what evidence do you have that a chainplate didn't fail?

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Third, if you are to use the "what did I change last" theory of trouble shooting (which is a good one), then you have to know that the system was working before you changed something. This is great for engine diagnostics, but completely irrelevant for structural failure during an overload event at sea.

What? Are you saying that if you'd been sailing along with a degrading rig (it was "working") - then you replaced part of the rig but didn't inspect/repair another part of it - this is irrelevant information in a structural failure?

As you say...

Originally Posted by cwyckham

???

Your technique of analyzing a failure leaves a bit to be desired. .

The bottom line is there is a lot we don't know. There is a lot that RH himself doesn't seem to know. So the chainplate thing may be totally off-base. Even so, without reliable info, you just have to run down possibilities.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Azul

Does anyone ever rely on a 12 V water maker for their sole water supply? That would seem to be semi-suicidal. I had read that RH was conserving his electricity to run his radios and the water maker, but I assumed it was because it was making better quality drinking water than what was in the tankage.

However, if someone were to rely solely on a 12 V water maker, it would be good to have lots of fuel to charge the batteries, a small generator or an extra solar panel somewhere with a backup cheap charge regulator in case you decide to tie off your boom to the rail as a make shift preventer during a routine short squall while you are in the salon instead of at the helm because you can't sleep due to not having a crew you trust at the wheel. I'm not saying this actually happened- it would seem outlandishly improbable, but it would be one way to lose your stanchions and/or rails with attached solar panels during benign (ie not survival) conditions and also cause some significant leak inducing deck damage that is not easily explainable by dipping a boom.

Stanchions and rails are through bolted, I am still trying to figure out how RH lost his during the described event even if the solar panel acted as a diving plane as the frame of the panel would let go first. When I run into something like this that seems implausible, sometimes it is because important information is being withheld or disinformation is being dispersed. What actually pulled the stanchions or cockpit railings out?

Bingo.

[avb3]

Let's try sticking with the topic and not get into personalities.

Consider this a moderator comment.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[smackdaddy]

Here is another detail that's not making sense. From the RH blog - here is the description of the deck construction:

Rebel Heart - History of HC 36's
(You should read this whole thing. Interesting stuff.)

When the deck/coachroof section is removed from the mold, it has in place a nicely designed, slightly raised nonskid pattern embossed in the weather decks and the coach roof, complete with colored gelcoat.

But then RH says this in a post a couple of pages ago:

Originally Posted by rebel heart

That Practical Sailor is incorrect. Our deck was teak over plywood over wood beams. There was no fiberglass in the cabintop either; it was plywood as well. The only fiberglass was in the hull itself; the rudder, spars, cockpit, and everything but the hull itself was wood.

I've seen a few official-sounding write up of boats that are a bit different from what you see when you're standing there looking at the material yourself.

So what happened to the glass/gelcoat layer on RH's boat? If it was indeed just screwed/caulked teak directly on plywood - that definitely sounds like rot heaven.

Was RH's particular boat not built to the same standards of the rest of these boats in his blog post? Did someone strip off this glass/gelcoat layer in the past? Etc. If this was indeed how his decks and house were constructed and finished, that was definitely a disaster waiting to happen.

This is important in since there was significant damage to the side-deck, hull-joint area in conditions that didn't seem to be epic. Rot would explain some of that I think.

[captain58sailin]

On my vessel the starboard quarter is near the stern on the starboard side.

[sailorboy1]

How do some of you keep track of all the posts on this thread in order to come up some petty comeback post????????????? I can not even separate key takeaways from crap on the thread anymore.

[LakeSuperior]

The other question I had beside the SIM card situation was related to logistics. From earlier posts there seemed to be not much fuel carried, 30 or 40 gallons I thought I read as you had taken a tank out of commission. Since you were going slow, 900 miles in 11 days with 2000 miles remaining how was your fuel margin to run the water maker for the remaining 22 days? Did you have backup water tankage?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

On my vessel the starboard quarter is near the stern on the starboard side.

Yeah - my bad there. I mistakenly referred to the starboard bow. Even so, isn't there a chainplate also in the approximate area of the starboard quarter in that photo? It's not really a precise description, right?

[colemj]

I can't imagine a deck made from teak screwed into plywood which is screwed onto wood beams. There is no way RH could have lasted that long without the deck rotting into the cabin. Even in San Diego. However, I have seem many boats with only an outer skin of fiberglass, while the underneath (inside) of the deck is not glassed. Perhaps Eric was just mistaken on this point because he can see the inside? The outside glass wouldn't be visible without tearing up the teak.

If not, that would have to be mighty high-quality plywood that has seen almost no rain or salt water in its life.

Mark

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Yeah - my bad there. I mistakenly referred to the starboard bow. Even so, isn't there a chainplate also in the approximate area of the starboard quarter in that photo? It's not really a precise measurement, right?

The chainplates are nowhere near the port or starboard qtr.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This is important in since there was significant damage to the side-deck, hull-joint area in conditions that didn't seem to be epic. Rot would explain some of that I think.

From you earlier post quoted from RBs blog:

There are a few deck cracks that will leak once the rain starts, which is really only about two and a half months away. I might put it off until we get back to San Diego and just enjoy the summer, but I'm a little nervous about it.

Cause and effect?

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

The chainplates are nowhere near the port or starboard qtr.

What about the backstay? What does that attach to?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

The chainplates are nowhere near the port or starboard qtr.

Sure they are. Look at that photo I posted and look at this diagram:



The aft-most chainplate falls right at the area where the beam/quarter arrows fall in the diagram (e.g. - the forward part of the starboard quarter). Unless RH provides more definitive information how can you be so certain of things?