CD27 chainplate condition, maintaining/replacement, example

[Frenchy]

Good attitude, J.D. - on money and life. - Jean

[Carl Thunberg]

Let me offer a contrary view on the chainplates. It took almost 40 years to get to the point where you see them now. Why not replace them with mild steel again? If you got 40 years out of these, you should expect to get another 40 years out of a new set.

[JD-MDR]

I hate that ugly rusty look

[SVFayaway]

Let me offer a contrary view on the chainplates. It took almost 40 years to get to the point where you see them now. Why not replace them with mild steel again? If you got 40 years out of these, you should expect to get another 40 years out of a new set.

I think for most people it's easier to work with fiberglass than to weld steel and fiberglass will never have to replaced. G10 is every bit as strong as the original structure and most of the labor is in removing the old steel supports. Ask me how I know. While the principle is sound in this case there are just much better alternatives.

[fmueller]

Brandon,

Here are pix of my 27 chain plates. Port and starboard and then a view of two new drill bit impressions into the port side plate ... as you can see healthy mild steel is just under the rusted surface.

I have to say, it's incredibly messy and slip shod looking work on the part of Cape Dory - even though it may be strong enough - does not inspire confidence. More over, on my starboard side they seem to have glassed over the steel (and it is one long steel flat bar) On the port side the steel is in several pieces and is painted with some kind of goop and bedded in some kind of mastic. Maybe the port side was "repaired" by a previous owner? When I removed and re-bedded all my deck fittings I replaced the stainless thru bolts and nuts and they are still shiny/new.

I've never observed leaking (before or after) the re-bedding so I decided that the "as from factory" strength was likely intact. I guess if I was thinking of ocean crossings I might revisit that judgement, but in fact, if I was considering ocean crossings, I'd pick another boat anyway (bigger).

[atcowboy]

Brandon,

Here are pix of my 27 chain plates. Port and starboard and then a view of two new drill bit impressions into the port side plate ... as you can see healthy mild steel is just under the rusted surface.

I have to say, it's incredibly messy and slip shod looking work on the part of Cape Dory - even though it may be strong enough - does not inspire confidence. More over, on my starboard side they seem to have glassed over the steel (and it is one long steel flat bar) On the port side the steel is in several pieces and is painted with some kind of goop and bedded in some kind of mastic. Maybe the port side was "repaired" by a previous owner? When I removed and re-bedded all my deck fittings I replaced the stainless thru bolts and nuts and they are still shiny/new.

I've never observed leaking (before or after) the re-bedding so I decided that the "as from factory" strength was likely intact. I guess if I was thinking of ocean crossings I might revisit that judgement, but in fact, if I was considering ocean crossings, I'd pick another boat anyway (bigger).

Mr. Muller,
Do you have a record of what size the screws were on your 27? I would like to rebed my chainplate deck fittings as I believe they have started to leak. Reading through a few past posts and other sites, it looks like 1/4" flat head, 3" (for less exposed thread) to 3 1/2" (factory length). This however seems small to memory. Looking at Spartan's website, it looks like the hardware is probably 3/8" or 1/2" for these chain plates (of course no length is given there).

Thanks,
AT

[Jim Walsh]

There are two different sized chain plates. If your clevis pin is 3/8” the fasteners are 1/2”. If your clevis pin is 5/16” your fasteners are 3/8”.

https://www.spartanmarine.com/chainplates-stemheads

[John Stone]

I have dug into a Cape Dory about as deep as one can go. So I’d like to offer a couple observations based on what I have learned.

I don’t know why Cape Dory and Andy V chose steel for chainplates weldments (I don’t know what they are really called). It couldn’t have been as simple as money—because it just wouldn’t have saved much. Pearson built the fabulous Alberg 30 with steel for ballast (only one was reportedly built with lead ballast). Clearly money played a part but it was terribly short sighted at the time. But Cape Dorys and Alberg 30s are still out there getting it done when so many others are in the landfill.

Cape Dory switched to aluminum backing plates/weldments in the CD 36 sometime in 1982 right after my boat, hull #61 was built. My bowsprit backer was steel. I removed it. The back stay backing plate was composite though (from the factory). So now I just have the shroud backing plate weldments in steel. And fortunately they are in good shape.

G10 was not available then. Fiberglass is not as near as strong as steel. I understand this is about compression. My backing plate weldments have long arms welded on and glasses to the vertical insides of the hull. I know some of the boats have rebar.

Early in in the multi year rebuild I was annoyed and aggravated at times by what I found. But in retrospect, to include much of what I have learned and observed about production boat building, I am pleased at all the things they did right. The rudder is magnificently robust. The rig is over built. we have lead in the keel. There is a lot of bronze hardware where nearly all boat builders went to SS to include Hinckley.

I have never heard of a Cape Dory being dismasted because of a steel weldment failure, although some of the pictures of the advanced rust looks horrible. Freighters and warships are build out of steel. They are always chipping paint and applying more primer and paint.

For me, the bigger issue is not the steel, aluminum has its own issues. It’s access to the parts for maintenance, repair, replacement. Many boat owners never rebedded the chainplates. The bedding under the toe rail dried out and hardened over time and began to leak water on to the steel. They did not use 5200 in the hull deck joint like they do now. Most of our boats are 40 years old and a few are older than that. I would suggest that most of the harm that has been done to our boats is the result of a lack of quality and timely maintenance by previous owners. That is to say, more harm has been done to our boats by owners than ever was caused by Cape Dory the builder.

Clearly composite is the way to go in 2021. But it takes time, expertise, and money to make them. We can repair this flaw. It’s painful but very doable. The actual replacement parts are not that expensive—it’s the labor.

I guess the real question is would they do it that way again in 1980 knowing what we know now. I don’t know. I think we have great boats. We have a lot of interesting experienced owners. We have a great forum fillled with helpful sailors to guide us as we seek to make our boats last. That seems to me far more important than the very few questionable decisions made by the builder.

I don’t know if those thoughts are useful. But, that’s what occurred to me as I read through the thread.

[atcowboy]

I don’t know if those thoughts are useful. But, that’s what occurred to me as I read through the thread.

I was able to make it to the boat today to do some interior finish work and took a peek at the hardware of my 1979 CD27. The cap shrouds are 1/2" and the lower shrouds are 3/8". However, I still have no idea what length is appropriate.

Inspecting my plates and the deck today, I think my starboard plate is fine but I think the port has been leaking for a while. The deck is definitely bulging around the plates on the port side. Before launch this year I'll replace all the bolts and re-bed the chain plates with butyl tape. On the off chance that the leak is from the hull deck joint (or that joint also), I think I am going to segment the toe rail near the shrouds and maybe once more between the shrouds and the genoa track. Water always pools on deck on my boat and I don't find the tiny little factory holes/slots to be large enough or in the proper place to be effective for rain or for green water. I think one or two complete, top to bottom, 1"-2" gap(s) in the toe rail will be much more effective and remove some "stress" from the hull deck joint regarding keeping water out by removing the pooling water. Hopefully that will significantly slow or stop water ingress, because removing the toe and rub rail to seal the joint sounds 110% miserable and will definitely not happen this year.

- AT

[Jim Walsh]

I don’t know if those thoughts are useful. But, that’s what occurred to me as I read through the thread.

I was able to make it to the boat today to do some interior finish work and took a peek at the hardware of my 1979 CD27. The cap shrouds are 1/2" and the lower shrouds are 3/8". However, I still have no idea what length is appropriate.

Inspecting my plates and the deck today, I think my starboard plate is fine but I think the port has been leaking for a while. The deck is definitely bulging around the plates on the port side. Before launch this year I'll replace all the bolts and re-bed the chain plates with butyl tape. On the off chance that the leak is from the hull deck joint (or that joint also), I think I am going to segment the toe rail near the shrouds and maybe once more between the shrouds and the genoa track. Water always pools on deck on my boat and I don't find the tiny little factory holes/slots to be large enough or in the proper place to be effective for rain or for green water. I think one or two complete, top to bottom, 1"-2" gap(s) in the toe rail will be much more effective and remove some "stress" from the hull deck joint regarding keeping water out by removing the pooling water. Hopefully that will significantly slow or stop water ingress, because removing the toe and rub rail to seal the joint sounds 110% miserable and will definitely not happen this year.

- AT

I fully agree with your sentiments regarding the minuscule scuppers milled into the toerails. I just used a 3/8”(?) drill to route out the existing holes as none of mine were of a uniform size. Now they function well for rain or light spray. The motion of the boat in those times when heavy spray is flying takes care of expelling the big stuff. Luckily I don’t have any pooling issues or water ingress.