Installing Deck Hardware

[Warren Kaplan]

Most of us are familiar with the West System recommendations of drilling a pilot hole for thru bolting in the deck and using a bent nail to remove balsa core surrounding the hole. Then wetting out and then filling with thickened epoxy...let cure and redrill to correct size. I've done that and my question is not about that deck reinforcing technique. What I want to know is if there is anything "wrong" with this "modification". If a small diameter fastener is ultimately going to be used, can you take a much larger drill bit and just drill a much larger hole. That one procedure would take out the balsa core with it without the bent nail business. I've read in some articles on this that all you have to do is drill a much larger hole and fill it. Is there any real reason, if cosmetics is not a concern (everything hidden below the hardware) why that little bit of fiberglass deck skin must be maintained as in the bent nail technique? I'd just as soon take the one larger drill bit (after maybe a smaller pilot hole) and go right thru giving me the same diameter for the epoxy fill as the bent nail technique, and do away with the bent nail altogether. Seemed to work just fine last year when I had to replace a stanchion base. Any drawbacks to this?
Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27 #166
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY



Setsail728@aol.com

[Hobbster]

Warren:

If you are through bolting the hardware, it would be stronger to leave the top skin in place. When installing deck hardware, I will drill a piloit hole, then use a hole saw from the reverse side (most of what I do is new construction) and fill with thickened filler, fair and reglass the area. Then drill the mounting holes (1/16" larger then hole for less then 1/2", 1/8" larger for holes from 1/2" to 1") and use a good poly bedding compound and secure the item. Please do not forget the backing plate.

Glen
CD-10



glen@hobbymarine.com

[Joel]

That's the approach I took. I've read that you should bevel the hole at the top and bottom so that the epoxy plug you are creating will have a positive mechanical grip to both skins.

Joel Bondy
s/v Pokey II
'73 Ty #549
Bayside, NY

[Larry DeMers]

Not a bad way to do it, and for most applications, it would be fine. But the penultimate method would be to drill the pilot hole up top side, use the bent nail to create a cleared area under the top laminate, enlarge the hole to say 4x the eventual drill size (this all without going thru the lower laminate surface at all). Repeat the bent drill work if needed, then wet with epoxy, and fill with thickened epoxy.

The one thing I worry about a bit is that you have nothing but an epoxy core in your description Warren, and this could be a problem if the backing plate were a small washer for instance. It would be pulling essentially on itself, therefore little strength. The method where the area is over filled with thickened epoxy past the edge of the existing fiberglass top and bottom skins, then redrilled out is better because you are concentrating the pressure on a larger area, and the backing plate has something strong to work against. Loads that try to rip this up out of the deck will have the whole skin, top and bottom working for it too. The whole construction is stronger and interlocked together. Mucho better..

Just a thought..

Cheers,

Larry DeMers
s/v DeLaMer
Cape Dory 30
Lake Superior **Another 20in. of snow Saturday!** Freakin' Incredible!

Most of us are familiar with the West System recommendations of drilling a pilot hole for thru bolting in the deck and using a bent nail to remove balsa core surrounding the hole. Then wetting out and then filling with thickened epoxy...let cure and redrill to correct size. I've done that and my question is not about that deck reinforcing technique. What I want to know is if there is anything "wrong" with this "modification". If a small diameter fastener is ultimately going to be used, can you take a much larger drill bit and just drill a much larger hole. That one procedure would take out the balsa core with it without the bent nail business. I've read in some articles on this that all you have to do is drill a much larger hole and fill it. Is there any real reason, if cosmetics is not a concern (everything hidden below the hardware) why that little bit of fiberglass deck skin must be maintained as in the bent nail technique? I'd just as soon take the one larger drill bit (after maybe a smaller pilot hole) and go right thru giving me the same diameter for the epoxy fill as the bent nail technique, and do away with the bent nail altogether. Seemed to work just fine last year when I had to replace a stanchion base. Any drawbacks to this?
Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27 #166
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

demers@sgi.com

[John R.]

This is an interesting thread.

In an ideal world the epoxy plug between the skins is certainly a prudent way to go surely protecting the deck core if the technique is done properly.

In reality though it is very rare that hardware is ever installed this way. Before everybody that does the *nail/epoxy thing* starts reaching for the keyboard let me say that only in non production boat manufacturing will this be done to any degree. Even at that it will not be a common practice on most custom boats. It is way to much trouble and cost inefficient. Gougeon of course have been proponents of the method for years but if you speak with them they will tell you it is not necessary if bedding is done properly.

Some owners will take the time necessary to do this technique if they are convinced they should do it by what they have read or seen being done at a boat yard etc.,.

I would say it is not at all necessary for the average boat owner to bother with.

The only exception I can think of would be on very high performance boats that put their gear through tremendous loads and the sub structure is light weight in construction and susceptible to considerable flex which might cause bedding to fail prematurely.

I know this will cause a stir amongst those who practice the technique but for those that don't bother........just don't bother, just do a quality bedding job.

FWIW - If you are going to use the epoxy fill technique by all means use the bent nail method and leave the upper and lower glass skins intact, they act as reinforcing for the plug. It does no good to drill a hole completely through and just fill it with epoxy, the strength and integrity of your hardware installation will be very compromised as Larry already indicated unless you use very oversized washers or backing plates. In some areas of a deck you may not be able to use the bent nail anyway, many times typical hardware locations are cored with plywood, aluminum and sometimes steel.

Most of us are familiar with the West System recommendations of drilling a pilot hole for thru bolting in the deck and using a bent nail to remove balsa core surrounding the hole. Then wetting out and then filling with thickened epoxy...let cure and redrill to correct size. I've done that and my question is not about that deck reinforcing technique. What I want to know is if there is anything "wrong" with this "modification". If a small diameter fastener is ultimately going to be used, can you take a much larger drill bit and just drill a much larger hole. That one procedure would take out the balsa core with it without the bent nail business. I've read in some articles on this that all you have to do is drill a much larger hole and fill it. Is there any real reason, if cosmetics is not a concern (everything hidden below the hardware) why that little bit of fiberglass deck skin must be maintained as in the bent nail technique? I'd just as soon take the one larger drill bit (after maybe a smaller pilot hole) and go right thru giving me the same diameter for the epoxy fill as the bent nail technique, and do away with the bent nail altogether. Seemed to work just fine last year when I had to replace a stanchion base. Any drawbacks to this?
Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27 #166
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

[Warren Kaplan]

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long. 2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.
My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY



Setsail728@aol.com

[Larry DeMers]

John,

Well, I thoroughly disagree with you on this one. Fittings like stanchion bases receive tremendous torque loads when the top of the stanchion is grabbed accidently and the end moved a few inches as we get aboard from the dinghy or something. This movement moves the base slightly, and can break the seal, which will forever more allow water to get into the boat, if not the laminate. Now if that base had a sealed bolt hole..no problem except for some drips down inside on your books or tapes or something. But if that bolt hole was in a cored area, you have just opened up a lot of trouble in the future.
Additionally, there is the concept of just doing it right, for rights sake, which your philosophy is diametricaly opposed to. On a boat, the practice of doing it right every time pays you back with reliability and strength when you need it. Why use stainless hardware if you are going to own the boat a few years and then get on to something bigger or different? Nobody will know until you are out of the picture, right? Why use good quality ground tackle when Kmart has their blue-light special on and you can get a Chinese knockoff for $15. Why use the best of anything on your boat..it's inefficient use of your money it would seem, when just getting by will do.

Frankly, this is poor advice, and somewhat surprising, given the care with which I have seen you maintain your boat and equipment.

Larry DeMers
s/v DeLaMer
Cape Dory 30 Lake Superior

This is an interesting thread.

In an ideal world the epoxy plug between the skins is certainly a prudent way to go surely protecting the deck core if the technique is done properly.

In reality though it is very rare that hardware is ever installed this way. Before everybody that does the *nail/epoxy thing* starts reaching for the keyboard let me say that only in non production boat manufacturing will this be done to any degree. Even at that it will not be a common practice on most custom boats. It is way to much trouble and cost inefficient. Gougeon of course have been proponents of the method for years but if you speak with them they will tell you it is not necessary if bedding is done properly.

Some owners will take the time necessary to do this technique if they are convinced they should do it by what they have read or seen being done at a boat yard etc.,.

I would say it is not at all necessary for the average boat owner to bother with.

The only exception I can think of would be on very high performance boats that put their gear through tremendous loads and the sub structure is light weight in construction and susceptible to considerable flex which might cause bedding to fail prematurely.

I know this will cause a stir amongst those who practice the technique but for those that don't bother........just don't bother, just do a quality bedding job.

FWIW - If you are going to use the epoxy fill technique by all means use the bent nail method and leave the upper and lower glass skins intact, they act as reinforcing for the plug. It does no good to drill a hole completely through and just fill it with epoxy, the strength and integrity of your hardware installation will be very compromised as Larry already indicated unless you use very oversized washers or backing plates. In some areas of a deck you may not be able to use the bent nail anyway, many times typical hardware locations are cored with plywood, aluminum and sometimes steel.

Most of us are familiar with the West System recommendations of drilling a pilot hole for thru bolting in the deck and using a bent nail to remove balsa core surrounding the hole. Then wetting out and then filling with thickened epoxy...let cure and redrill to correct size. I've done that and my question is not about that deck reinforcing technique. What I want to know is if there is anything "wrong" with this "modification". If a small diameter fastener is ultimately going to be used, can you take a much larger drill bit and just drill a much larger hole. That one procedure would take out the balsa core with it without the bent nail business. I've read in some articles on this that all you have to do is drill a much larger hole and fill it. Is there any real reason, if cosmetics is not a concern (everything hidden below the hardware) why that little bit of fiberglass deck skin must be maintained as in the bent nail technique? I'd just as soon take the one larger drill bit (after maybe a smaller pilot hole) and go right thru giving me the same diameter for the epoxy fill as the bent nail technique, and do away with the bent nail altogether. Seemed to work just fine last year when I had to replace a stanchion base. Any drawbacks to this?
Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27 #166
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

demers@sgi.com

[Joe Sankey]

I am interested in this also, particularly the response to Warren's inquiry. It seems to me that the need for this technique is quite site specific on a CD, as many installations would not have a core. Where, for instance, is the cabin top cored, if at all? I plan to eventually install some turnng blocks on the coach roof for reefing, and I wonder if there is any coring or simply a space between the inner liner and the "deck"?
Joe Sankey
CD 30 Slow Dance
Magnolia Sprins, AL

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long. 2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.
My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

sankey@gulftel.com

[Larry DeMers]

Joe, a lot of the boat is cored, including the coach roof. When I put in the 5in. hole for our fireplace flue, I found that they had used a rigid foam insulation in there, and I did find pockets of air too. So you better fill that core with rpoxy if you are going to drill and use the coach roof. The cockpit is cored too of course, as is the deck out to the margins, where it necks down to the bottom skin layer and top skin layer being brought together in a solid lip for about ~2 in. The deck has balsa coring on our boat as does the cockpit floor.

Cheers,

Larry DeMers
s/v DeLaMer
Cape Dory 30
Lake Superior

I am interested in this also, particularly the response to Warren's inquiry. It seems to me that the need for this technique is quite site specific on a CD, as many installations would not have a core. Where, for instance, is the cabin top cored, if at all? I plan to eventually install some turnng blocks on the coach roof for reefing, and I wonder if there is any coring or simply a space between the inner liner and the "deck"?
Joe Sankey
CD 30 Slow Dance
Magnolia Sprins, AL

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long. 2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.
My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

demers@sgi.com

[John R.]

Well, I knew I stuck my foot in it the second I made that previous post, I was reluctant but I thought it important the board represent different ideas and opinions so I made a knowingly controversial one. I fully expected the feedback I received. I appreciate your questions and comments Warren and I'll do my best to express a reply to your request for answers regarding your questions.

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long.

But yes, you can get a good idea when it is time to rebed by looking for telltale signs of aged bedding. Look for a deteriorated edge to the visible caulking under a given piece of hardware. Dried out looking, broken edge, lifting are signs of aged bedding. Several years to about ten should be about average service life for common bedding such as polysulfide where it can be trusted and relied upon to maintain a good seal. In many cases you can get far more time if the caulking was applied properly from day one.

At this point let me point out that there is not one piece of hardware on a Cape Dory that has been installed by the factory utilizing any kind of epoxy core technique to protect the decking core. It isn't necessary (with proper maintenance) or the builders would do it. Someone mentioned a stanchion base flexing and if thats the case the bases need to be reinstalled because they shouldn't move. The stanchion post may move in the base but the base itself should not. If it (the base) moves then you can expect some leaking eventually 9especially around the fasteners) or at the minimum some crevice corrosion of the stainless bolts from trapped moisture. A factory will normally never allow a boat to make it through final inspection with hardware that is not firmly secured without movement. Hardware is installed with only caulking and it is applied in a specific calculated manner. In essence it is applied very liberally creating much waste but assuring a leak proof installation. Particular attention is paid to fasteners.

2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.

Precisely....also the drill fill method can have the added insurance (like the suspender metaphor) if that is what a person wants to rely on. That is assuming of course that the drill fill method was done correctly. There is a time and place for that type of installation. I'm not saying it should never be done. It is not necessary on a Cape Dory in my opinion or in my experience. I would venture to say at this point that a new Robinhood will only have caulked hardware unless otherwise requested by a purchaser willing to pay for beyond the normal methods. I can not imagine Robinhood advising a buyer to go the drill fill route.

For those that are or have done the drill fill method on some hardware how are you going to retain the possible advantage of the drill fill if all the other hardware on the boat is installed only by traditional bedding methods? I simply can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would even entertain the idea of removing all the boats hardware to acheive a boat with 100 % drill fill hardware installation.

I think the drill fill is fine for those who are willing to go to the trouble and gain some peace of mind. I am only advocating the simple, effective, time tested and common method of hardware installation; used by manufacturers, boatyards, servicers and owners everywhere. Bedding alone is the tried and true method. Pick your poison as the saying goes.

My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Simply put, use backing plates which greatly spreads the loads over a broad surrounding area. Forget just washers, fender type or otherwise. Anything that is going to take loads must have a backing block. I have a deck mounted winch that handles the spinnaker halyard and the vang and the topping lift and it functions along with a multiple rope clutch assembly. These are mounted on the cabin top to starboard of the companionway. They have been there for at least ten years and have never leaked a drop, the deck shows no signs of stressing and the liner shows no signs either. The hardware is installed using .25" aluminum backing blocks. I have two winches on the port side of the companionway on the deck and they also have absolutely no problems and are mounted the same way. There is a deck organizer block, stand up turning blocks mounted in similar fashion. Two windlasses (talk about stress and loads) and they have no problems. I can make a considerable list of different hardware that I've installed and nothing has a leak except for two port holes! Now that is an area for discussion, how in the world would anyone do a drill fill technique on the tapping screws used to install portholes? Of course it could be done but it would be utterly ridiculous to do it. I think caulking being one year shy of 20 years old is damn good service life. Being that all other port holes are fine I imagine there will be a minimal amount of caulk behind the port hole trim when I remove them and that is where the problem lies. The installer is a big part of the equation when it comes to preventing leaks.

I hope these comments were of some help.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

[Joe Sankey]

John, thanks for your comments. I have been under the (perhaps erroneous) impression that the pad eyes and upright blocks on our 30 were mounted in an area that was "solid", not cored. Also, the winches that were factory installed. I installed an aft cabin hatch in our previous 28 and used the larger size which required enlarging the existing hole. The entire area I cut into was solid; perhaps a mixture of resin and chopped glass, or some other filler. I have also placed blocks, etc. on a previous 22 and found a space between the liner and the coach roof; no filler and no coring. In cases like that I would assume you'd need to cut away the liner, or provide some fill to make the structure a single layer. Any thoughts? Your experience having already done some of this on a 30 would be helpful.
Joe Sankey
CD 30 Slow Dance
Magnolia Springs, AL

Well, I knew I stuck my foot in it the second I made that previous post, I was reluctant but I thought it important the board represent different ideas and opinions so I made a knowingly controversial one. I fully expected the feedback I received. I appreciate your questions and comments Warren and I'll do my best to express a reply to your request for answers regarding your questions.

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long.

But yes, you can get a good idea when it is time to rebed by looking for telltale signs of aged bedding. Look for a deteriorated edge to the visible caulking under a given piece of hardware. Dried out looking, broken edge, lifting are signs of aged bedding. Several years to about ten should be about average service life for common bedding such as polysulfide where it can be trusted and relied upon to maintain a good seal. In many cases you can get far more time if the caulking was applied properly from day one.

At this point let me point out that there is not one piece of hardware on a Cape Dory that has been installed by the factory utilizing any kind of epoxy core technique to protect the decking core. It isn't necessary (with proper maintenance) or the builders would do it. Someone mentioned a stanchion base flexing and if thats the case the bases need to be reinstalled because they shouldn't move. The stanchion post may move in the base but the base itself should not. If it (the base) moves then you can expect some leaking eventually 9especially around the fasteners) or at the minimum some crevice corrosion of the stainless bolts from trapped moisture. A factory will normally never allow a boat to make it through final inspection with hardware that is not firmly secured without movement. Hardware is installed with only caulking and it is applied in a specific calculated manner. In essence it is applied very liberally creating much waste but assuring a leak proof installation. Particular attention is paid to fasteners.

2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.

Precisely....also the drill fill method can have the added insurance (like the suspender metaphor) if that is what a person wants to rely on. That is assuming of course that the drill fill method was done correctly. There is a time and place for that type of installation. I'm not saying it should never be done. It is not necessary on a Cape Dory in my opinion or in my experience. I would venture to say at this point that a new Robinhood will only have caulked hardware unless otherwise requested by a purchaser willing to pay for beyond the normal methods. I can not imagine Robinhood advising a buyer to go the drill fill route.

For those that are or have done the drill fill method on some hardware how are you going to retain the possible advantage of the drill fill if all the other hardware on the boat is installed only by traditional bedding methods? I simply can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would even entertain the idea of removing all the boats hardware to acheive a boat with 100 % drill fill hardware installation.

I think the drill fill is fine for those who are willing to go to the trouble and gain some peace of mind. I am only advocating the simple, effective, time tested and common method of hardware installation; used by manufacturers, boatyards, servicers and owners everywhere. Bedding alone is the tried and true method. Pick your poison as the saying goes.

My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Simply put, use backing plates which greatly spreads the loads over a broad surrounding area. Forget just washers, fender type or otherwise. Anything that is going to take loads must have a backing block. I have a deck mounted winch that handles the spinnaker halyard and the vang and the topping lift and it functions along with a multiple rope clutch assembly. These are mounted on the cabin top to starboard of the companionway. They have been there for at least ten years and have never leaked a drop, the deck shows no signs of stressing and the liner shows no signs either. The hardware is installed using .25" aluminum backing blocks. I have two winches on the port side of the companionway on the deck and they also have absolutely no problems and are mounted the same way. There is a deck organizer block, stand up turning blocks mounted in similar fashion. Two windlasses (talk about stress and loads) and they have no problems. I can make a considerable list of different hardware that I've installed and nothing has a leak except for two port holes! Now that is an area for discussion, how in the world would anyone do a drill fill technique on the tapping screws used to install portholes? Of course it could be done but it would be utterly ridiculous to do it. I think caulking being one year shy of 20 years old is damn good service life. Being that all other port holes are fine I imagine there will be a minimal amount of caulk behind the port hole trim when I remove them and that is where the problem lies. The installer is a big part of the equation when it comes to preventing leaks.

I hope these comments were of some help.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

sankey@gulftel.com

[Warren Kaplan]

John,
You decidedly did not "stick your foot in it" with your remarks. The strength of this board is that everyone comes with THEIR experience with a particular problem. Its up to the reader to do his homework and decide which solution(s) is the one he can live with. I do ALOT of research from MANY sources before I ever pick up a screwdriver or a paint brush. I'll decide what I want to do and right or wrong (for me). I either take the credit or the blame. Nobody else.
You mentioned that standard boat builders do not do anything more than proper bedding around their installation and perhaps a backing plate if required. Cost savings and the bottom line, etc, of course, crosses the mind although that may not have anything to do with it. Do you know if the premium or custom boat builders,(Hinckley, Morris and others) where cost may not be as big an issue, build the same way, as far as installations go, as the standard builders do?

Warren



Setsail728@aol.com

[Larry DeMers]

John,

The problem that your method does not respond to is when the fitting and deck are subject to thermal cycling, such as we are on Superior. The deck shrinks in the winter and expands in the summer. Think this doesn't break the seal of some fittings? I believe, in fact I know it has for us on some occasions. That means that the "Belt and Suspenders" approach is the only thing saving you from having several months worth of weather getting into your laminate.

I am concerned also, by the impression that you create, that not using epoxy to reinforce a thru-deck or thru-laminate hole is normal practice with marinas. It certainly is not up here. The marinas we deal with and have dealt with would not consider doing this unless requested by the owner.
Think of it once John. You are counting on pure stupid luck to keep a problem from happening. You are saying that the eye should pick out bedding that is failing or about to fail before it actually does. That seems to be a pretty strong requirement of my eye..seeing thru metal and all, for if you did a good job and a neat job, there will be no telltale remnants of the bedding compound to see around the base of the fitting being gazed at. That is a silly metric anyway. The damage will have already begun if you finally DO notice the caulking drying out..hell it takes years for this to happen. Do you really treat your boat this way???
Do you have only one Emergency Flare? No, you probably have the required 3, plus several from previous years too. Why? Because, they take up no room really, and they may be needed to save your butt sometime. So do you caulk and bed your fittings for today, or for the future too?
Think also..you bought a new Cape Dory-the one you wanted all your sailing life. Found it on Sailnet, you did, and for a great price. Understand that it was sitting in the marina for a few years, before you stumbled upon it, and unknown to you, the owner believed in your idea of minimally installed fittings. Also unknown to you is the fact that he did notice that the caulking that he applied to the turning blocks for the main halyard was dry and flaking off, so he takes his screwdriver and clears it away. Now you come along and see no problem, assume it is as it should be and buy the boat.
Would you rather have had the previous owner use your techniques on those fittings or the drill and fill technique (I will not call this "my" technique since I am simply repeating what mariners for many years have found to be the better method of doing this, folks like Nigel Caulder and Don Casey..heck Good Old Boat magazine even), which guarantees no problem even if the fitting is looser than it should be, and the caulking should fail?

This board is about improving the techniques and practices of maintaining our boats. The style of maintenance you are promoting is contrary to this ideal that we seem to be interested in here, or am I wrong about this boards purpose and directions and should we stop then, talking about the proper way to do things??

Instead should we pursue the most expediant methods, that work today, but may fail tomorrow? I know how I will continue to maintain DLM, and any other boat I end up with in the future..like my life depended on it...which it does. Can your method say the same thing?

I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that you and I have some unresolved issues, and if so would you please write to me off line so that we can discuss them. I am trying to avoid a board wide argument over every article I publish -and which you seem to be challenging. If it takes my withdrawing from this group to do so, then so be it.

Larry DeMers
demers@sgi.com

Well, I knew I stuck my foot in it the second I made that previous post,

But you continued with the publishing of the post and several other posts to push a lazy, "aw, nothing will happen" attitude about maintenance, advocating what a marina might do for expediance and profit, but not for performance or longevity. I would not frequent a marina that practiced this type of work. Therefore, I do my own and know it is done to the best of my ability.


I was reluctant but I thought it important the board represent different ideas and opinions so I made a knowingly controversial one. I fully expected the feedback I received. I appreciate your questions and comments Warren and I'll do my best to express a reply to your request for answers regarding your questions.

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long.

But yes, you can get a good idea when it is time to rebed by looking for telltale signs of aged bedding. Look for a deteriorated edge to the visible caulking under a given piece of hardware. Dried out looking, broken edge, lifting are signs of aged bedding. Several years to about ten should be about average service life for common bedding such as polysulfide where it can be trusted and relied upon to maintain a good seal. In many cases you can get far more time if the caulking was applied properly from day one.

At this point let me point out that there is not one piece of hardware on a Cape Dory that has been installed by the factory utilizing any kind of epoxy core technique to protect the decking core. It isn't necessary (with proper maintenance) or the builders would do it. Someone mentioned a stanchion base flexing and if thats the case the bases need to be reinstalled because they shouldn't move. The stanchion post may move in the base but the base itself should not. If it (the base) moves then you can expect some leaking eventually 9especially around the fasteners) or at the minimum some crevice corrosion of the stainless bolts from trapped moisture. A factory will normally never allow a boat to make it through final inspection with hardware that is not firmly secured without movement. Hardware is installed with only caulking and it is applied in a specific calculated manner. In essence it is applied very liberally creating much waste but assuring a leak proof installation. Particular attention is paid to fasteners.

2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.

Precisely....also the drill fill method can have the added insurance (like the suspender metaphor) if that is what a person wants to rely on. That is assuming of course that the drill fill method was done correctly. There is a time and place for that type of installation. I'm not saying it should never be done. It is not necessary on a Cape Dory in my opinion or in my experience. I would venture to say at this point that a new Robinhood will only have caulked hardware unless otherwise requested by a purchaser willing to pay for beyond the normal methods. I can not imagine Robinhood advising a buyer to go the drill fill route.

For those that are or have done the drill fill method on some hardware how are you going to retain the possible advantage of the drill fill if all the other hardware on the boat is installed only by traditional bedding methods? I simply can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would even entertain the idea of removing all the boats hardware to acheive a boat with 100 % drill fill hardware installation.

I think the drill fill is fine for those who are willing to go to the trouble and gain some peace of mind. I am only advocating the simple, effective, time tested and common method of hardware installation; used by manufacturers, boatyards, servicers and owners everywhere. Bedding alone is the tried and true method. Pick your poison as the saying goes.

My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Simply put, use backing plates which greatly spreads the loads over a broad surrounding area. Forget just washers, fender type or otherwise. Anything that is going to take loads must have a backing block. I have a deck mounted winch that handles the spinnaker halyard and the vang and the topping lift and it functions along with a multiple rope clutch assembly. These are mounted on the cabin top to starboard of the companionway. They have been there for at least ten years and have never leaked a drop, the deck shows no signs of stressing and the liner shows no signs either. The hardware is installed using .25" aluminum backing blocks. I have two winches on the port side of the companionway on the deck and they also have absolutely no problems and are mounted the same way. There is a deck organizer block, stand up turning blocks mounted in similar fashion. Two windlasses (talk about stress and loads) and they have no problems. I can make a considerable list of different hardware that I've installed and nothing has a leak except for two port holes! Now that is an area for discussion, how in the world would anyone do a drill fill technique on the tapping screws used to install portholes? Of course it could be done but it would be utterly ridiculous to do it. I think caulking being one year shy of 20 years old is damn good service life. Being that all other port holes are fine I imagine there will be a minimal amount of caulk behind the port hole trim when I remove them and that is where the problem lies. The installer is a big part of the equation when it comes to preventing leaks.

I hope these comments were of some help.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY

demers@sgi.com

[John R.]

Warren,

Honestly I do not know for a fact what the manufacturers you mention do on hardware installations. They are all high end custom builders and so by making some assumptions I would say they use high density core reinforcement (marine ply, glass filler, aluminum, steel, stainless, carbon fiber, etc)and may not use the drill / fill method but I surely don't know. I'm just making a guess.

I can only comment with some fact on production boats that I have personal experience building......Morgan, Endeavour, Gulfstar, Irwin, Catalina, others and service work on many, many others. These are basically cookie cutter production boats with the exception of some high end Morgans. Cape Dory is built in basically the same production manner. To be absolutely honest there are areas on some of these other boats that are built better than a Cape Dory but to the contrary there are some better areas on the Cape Dories as well. None of these production boats have non issues. They all have problems and construction faults. The production problems that occur on a line are almost always installer caused such as the *caulking issue* we have been discussing.

Back to your question.......some things on a custom vessel are certainly installed in a better fashion than on a production boat. It is not necessarily because they know better than the mass producer but it is more a factor of *time*. The extended amount of labor required in a custom boat can be recovered in it's selling price. The production boat falls victim to marketability to the masses and so labor time is a huge issue. Methods are always improved in production building to result in a better product at the same or lower cost. Caulk quality has the same sort of history of improvement and is always performing better than the previous product or formula. I like you would be interested in knowing more of the manufacturing details used by the custom builders.

John,
You decidedly did not "stick your foot in it" with your remarks. The strength of this board is that everyone comes with THEIR experience with a particular problem. Its up to the reader to do his homework and decide which solution(s) is the one he can live with. I do ALOT of research from MANY sources before I ever pick up a screwdriver or a paint brush. I'll decide what I want to do and right or wrong (for me). I either take the credit or the blame. Nobody else.
You mentioned that standard boat builders do not do anything more than proper bedding around their installation and perhaps a backing plate if required. Cost savings and the bottom line, etc, of course, crosses the mind although that may not have anything to do with it. Do you know if the premium or custom boat builders,(Hinckley, Morris and others) where cost may not be as big an issue, build the same way, as far as installations go, as the standard builders do?

Warren

[John R.]

My comments regarding Warrens remarks are an *opinion* based on my experience and are not presented to be interpreted as some sort of building *law* for every boat owner. Warren or anyone else has the option and/or personal responsibility of deciding for themselves what is right for them and their situation. I have simply offered a different view on the topic placed in the public domain of this board within the rules of its use.

This is a database of information and opinion. When any of us submit writings of opinion we place ourselves in an enviroment subject to contestable replies and challenge. Larry, I appreciate your advocacy of the technique you employ but I simply have a different approach and tried to express it as response to Warrens (not directly your) issue for others to review and evaluate for their needs. Nothing more, nothing less.

In my opinion the health and value of this board has been outlined quite clearly and simply in the FAQ section of the board and I always keep those rules foremost in mind (until now I guess). Never would I take any issue to a personal level on this board. I don't believe anything I have ever posted even approaches that sort of behavior. I do everything I can to stay focused on the topic at hand and not stray into personal areas.

You've mentioned that I seem to challenge your commentary too frequently. Any responses I've made to your posts and anyone elses are not personal challenges. They are just a differing opinion on a given topic such as those that are posted by you and others. No different then when people respond to my posts. You know that is the way this board functions and it is the sole purpose of it along with creating a general communication base about these boats. I can state that if I review a post by anyone (yourself included) that I'm interested in and I think poses an opportunity to offer additional information or opinion which may be of value or enrichen this database in some small manner then I feel I have the right to do so as a participant in the dialog. You certainly always have the right to disagree with me. Sometimes posts may seem to take on an air that seem personally combative when people become overly sensitive to having a view challenged but the focus on *discussion* must be maintained.

I have absolutely no unresolved issues that you have referred to, but by all means if you do feel free to contact me anytime. Happy posting.

John,

The problem that your method does not respond to is when the fitting and deck are subject to thermal cycling, such as we are on Superior. The deck shrinks in the winter and expands in the summer. Think this doesn't break the seal of some fittings? I believe, in fact I know it has for us on some occasions. That means that the "Belt and Suspenders" approach is the only thing saving you from having several months worth of weather getting into your laminate.

I am concerned also, by the impression that you create, that not using epoxy to reinforce a thru-deck or thru-laminate hole is normal practice with marinas. It certainly is not up here. The marinas we deal with and have dealt with would not consider doing this unless requested by the owner.
Think of it once John. You are counting on pure stupid luck to keep a problem from happening. You are saying that the eye should pick out bedding that is failing or about to fail before it actually does. That seems to be a pretty strong requirement of my eye..seeing thru metal and all, for if you did a good job and a neat job, there will be no telltale remnants of the bedding compound to see around the base of the fitting being gazed at. That is a silly metric anyway. The damage will have already begun if you finally DO notice the caulking drying out..hell it takes years for this to happen. Do you really treat your boat this way???
Do you have only one Emergency Flare? No, you probably have the required 3, plus several from previous years too. Why? Because, they take up no room really, and they may be needed to save your butt sometime. So do you caulk and bed your fittings for today, or for the future too?
Think also..you bought a new Cape Dory-the one you wanted all your sailing life. Found it on Sailnet, you did, and for a great price. Understand that it was sitting in the marina for a few years, before you stumbled upon it, and unknown to you, the owner believed in your idea of minimally installed fittings. Also unknown to you is the fact that he did notice that the caulking that he applied to the turning blocks for the main halyard was dry and flaking off, so he takes his screwdriver and clears it away. Now you come along and see no problem, assume it is as it should be and buy the boat.
Would you rather have had the previous owner use your techniques on those fittings or the drill and fill technique (I will not call this "my" technique since I am simply repeating what mariners for many years have found to be the better method of doing this, folks like Nigel Caulder and Don Casey..heck Good Old Boat magazine even), which guarantees no problem even if the fitting is looser than it should be, and the caulking should fail?

This board is about improving the techniques and practices of maintaining our boats. The style of maintenance you are promoting is contrary to this ideal that we seem to be interested in here, or am I wrong about this boards purpose and directions and should we stop then, talking about the proper way to do things??

Instead should we pursue the most expediant methods, that work today, but may fail tomorrow? I know how I will continue to maintain DLM, and any other boat I end up with in the future..like my life depended on it...which it does. Can your method say the same thing?

I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that you and I have some unresolved issues, and if so would you please write to me off line so that we can discuss them. I am trying to avoid a board wide argument over every article I publish -and which you seem to be challenging. If it takes my withdrawing from this group to do so, then so be it.

Larry DeMers
demers@sgi.com

Well, I knew I stuck my foot in it the second I made that previous post,

But you continued with the publishing of the post and several other posts to push a lazy, "aw, nothing will happen" attitude about maintenance, advocating what a marina might do for expediance and profit, but not for performance or longevity. I would not frequent a marina that practiced this type of work. Therefore, I do my own and know it is done to the best of my ability.


I was reluctant but I thought it important the board represent different ideas and opinions so I made a knowingly controversial one. I fully expected the feedback I received. I appreciate your questions and comments Warren and I'll do my best to express a reply to your request for answers regarding your questions.

John,
Interesting observation. I have a few questions (not arguments). As I read your remarks the main consideration was with adequate bedding. If bedded adequately there is no need for the technique. I would agree but have just two comments. 1) Bedding doesn't last forever and usually you find out about that when you discover a leak or the deck around the fitting is getting a little soft. Even if properly bedded orginally, and even if rebedded periodically, one cannot predict with any accuracy how "effective" that bedding will be and for how long.

But yes, you can get a good idea when it is time to rebed by looking for telltale signs of aged bedding. Look for a deteriorated edge to the visible caulking under a given piece of hardware. Dried out looking, broken edge, lifting are signs of aged bedding. Several years to about ten should be about average service life for common bedding such as polysulfide where it can be trusted and relied upon to maintain a good seal. In many cases you can get far more time if the caulking was applied properly from day one.

At this point let me point out that there is not one piece of hardware on a Cape Dory that has been installed by the factory utilizing any kind of epoxy core technique to protect the decking core. It isn't necessary (with proper maintenance) or the builders would do it. Someone mentioned a stanchion base flexing and if thats the case the bases need to be reinstalled because they shouldn't move. The stanchion post may move in the base but the base itself should not. If it (the base) moves then you can expect some leaking eventually 9especially around the fasteners) or at the minimum some crevice corrosion of the stainless bolts from trapped moisture. A factory will normally never allow a boat to make it through final inspection with hardware that is not firmly secured without movement. Hardware is installed with only caulking and it is applied in a specific calculated manner. In essence it is applied very liberally creating much waste but assuring a leak proof installation. Particular attention is paid to fasteners.

2) The "drill and fill" technique, along with good bedding, is like a "belt and suspenders" approach, where if the belt (bedding) fails the suspenders (epoxy fill) will keep your pants up. But again, you are right, good bedding and good attention to the maintenance of that bedding would make the epoxy unnecessary.

Precisely....also the drill fill method can have the added insurance (like the suspender metaphor) if that is what a person wants to rely on. That is assuming of course that the drill fill method was done correctly. There is a time and place for that type of installation. I'm not saying it should never be done. It is not necessary on a Cape Dory in my opinion or in my experience. I would venture to say at this point that a new Robinhood will only have caulked hardware unless otherwise requested by a purchaser willing to pay for beyond the normal methods. I can not imagine Robinhood advising a buyer to go the drill fill route.

For those that are or have done the drill fill method on some hardware how are you going to retain the possible advantage of the drill fill if all the other hardware on the boat is installed only by traditional bedding methods? I simply can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would even entertain the idea of removing all the boats hardware to acheive a boat with 100 % drill fill hardware installation.

I think the drill fill is fine for those who are willing to go to the trouble and gain some peace of mind. I am only advocating the simple, effective, time tested and common method of hardware installation; used by manufacturers, boatyards, servicers and owners everywhere. Bedding alone is the tried and true method. Pick your poison as the saying goes.

My main concern, however, is with deck strength around a high load fitting like a winch or a cleat. You addressed that with high performance boats that might have light weight "flexible" decks. So the main question that I expect everyone would want to ask is..do you think a standard balsa cored deck, like a cabin top on a CD27, is sufficiently strong AS IS, to install a winch which will be subject to loads with just proper bedding, large fender washers and/or a backing plate? Do you think tightening up on the bolts and then subjecting the winch to tensile forces would not distort or otherwise weaken the balsa cored deck? Certain fittings that are primarily subjected to shearing forces (deck organizers and rope clutches) as opposed to tensile forces (winches, cleats and padeyes) might not need all that deck reinforcement but the ones subject to tensile forces, I would think, do. I'm interested in your take on this.

Simply put, use backing plates which greatly spreads the loads over a broad surrounding area. Forget just washers, fender type or otherwise. Anything that is going to take loads must have a backing block. I have a deck mounted winch that handles the spinnaker halyard and the vang and the topping lift and it functions along with a multiple rope clutch assembly. These are mounted on the cabin top to starboard of the companionway. They have been there for at least ten years and have never leaked a drop, the deck shows no signs of stressing and the liner shows no signs either. The hardware is installed using .25" aluminum backing blocks. I have two winches on the port side of the companionway on the deck and they also have absolutely no problems and are mounted the same way. There is a deck organizer block, stand up turning blocks mounted in similar fashion. Two windlasses (talk about stress and loads) and they have no problems. I can make a considerable list of different hardware that I've installed and nothing has a leak except for two port holes! Now that is an area for discussion, how in the world would anyone do a drill fill technique on the tapping screws used to install portholes? Of course it could be done but it would be utterly ridiculous to do it. I think caulking being one year shy of 20 years old is damn good service life. Being that all other port holes are fine I imagine there will be a minimal amount of caulk behind the port hole trim when I remove them and that is where the problem lies. The installer is a big part of the equation when it comes to preventing leaks.

I hope these comments were of some help.

Thanks,
Warren Kaplan
Sine Qua Non
CD27
Oyster Bay Harbor, NY