Bend in chainplates?

[Joe]

Attached are photographs of the chainplates taken from an E25 CB boat. On the port side the RC logo faces the bulkhead while on starboard side the RC logo faces the cabin (in other words, the chainplate side with two bulkhead holes face the hull while the side with three bulkhead holes face cabin on either side of the boat).

So far so good: BUT the chainplates have a slight bend in them near the RC logos (seen from the side in the second photograph) -- both bends are concave at the logo and slightly diagonal where they exit the deck. This means that the starboard chainplate will be bent slightly aft at the deck while the port chainplate will be bent slightly forward.

This makes no sense to me and I'm assuming that the chainplates should be flat and that stresses from the standing rigging caused these bends over the last 30 years.

Following Guy Stevens' advice elsewhere on this board, I'm having new chainplates made in electro-polished 316L SS and need to verify that the chainplates should be flat before I proceed.

Any comments will be appreciated.

 

[jkenan]

It is normal for chainplates to have a bend in them, so the point where the stay attaches is a fair to the stay itself. Basically, you want the whole stay assembly, including toggles, turnbuckles, swages, etc to be linear, and not be tensioned askew anywhere in the assembly, which can lead to premature failure. Having a bend in the plate accomplishes this, and is typically the norm. As to how to bend the new plates (and how the old plates are bent which is causing you some concern), you should consult a local rigger, or at least a knowledgeable person in a boatyard who can look at your rigging first hand.

Good luck.

 

[Joe]

Thanks: I'm glad I asked. My problem is access to a knowledgeable rigger. The nearest one is at least 1.5 hours away from where I'm repairing the boat. I guess I'll just have to take the chainplates themselves.

 

[sleather]

I'm not so sure I concur w/ the "bent" theory(IMHO) I had to do port bulkhead repairs on my E23 & both of mine were absolutely straight.

I helped a fellow E23'r repair his stbd. chainplate anchor. He picked the boat up really cheap because the PO had forgotten to "back off" the turnbuckles before dropping the mast, partially ripping out the chainplate. His were bent, and we just straightened them out. If you calculate the amount of metal in the chainplate vs the section of the turnbuckle pins, the chainplates are overkill.

Do you know the history on your boat??? My theory is that there have been "mast raising" issues in the past, seeing how they're bent in different directions, IE kinked turnbuckles. After all they are bent differently.

If I may ask, why are you replacing them??? (Oh, I guess that stbd. one doesn't look too good!)

How did you do that COOL dimension overlay??? With that data you could Fed-Ex the old ones and e-mail the photos and detail you've got posted, Good Luck!!

 

[Joe]

By the condition of the turnbuckles I would agree that there were mast raising issues in the past. Unfortunately, I don't have much history about the boat other than that the PO owned it for at least 25 years (from some found paperwork).

I was just going to have them pressed flat as there is no obvious damage or cracks to the chainplates. However, there are so many warnings about flaws in old chainplates on this board, that I thought I should probably take the opportunity to replace them.

Thanks!

 

[sleather]

See the post #4"edit" above

I think most of the issues relate to "saltwater".

 

[Joe]

The dimension overlay was done by hand using Paint Shop Pro - originally produced by JASC Software but now owned by Corel, I believe.

 

[Guy Stevens]

I don't think these are supposed to be bent.

I would have to find a 3-25 to look at, but the key thing here is that one was bent forward and the other back. That does not make sense if they were bent to be fair leads. I would like to see a photo of them in the boat with the standing rigging connected to them if you have one.

Much more likely is a mast raising incident or two, or using them as an attachment point for spring lines.

Guy

 

[jkenan]

These guys are more than likely correct about the chainplates on an E-25 being straight (by design). I think on larger boats (and also depending on design), the plates are more likely to have a design bend in them in maintain perpindicular clevis pin attachement to the shroud . On smaller boats, the lead is more likely to be straight from the plate to the tang, so no bend is necessary. I'm not a rigger, so this is only MHO.

 

[davisr]

Thought I would revive this thread to see if, in the past two years, there has been a definitive answer as to whether the tops of chainplates are supposed to be bent or straight. My starboard chainplate has a bend that turns aftward. My portside chainplate, on the other hand is straight. The rig has been down ever since I had her hauled at the time of purchase in October, so I have no way of knowing whether the straight shape or the bent shape is normal.

My next door neighbor is a professional metalworker and is going to make me some new ones as a favor. That sure is nice, isn't it? Only problem is that we are unable to determine which chainplate of the two is the pattern that should be followed. My guess is that it is the straight one. Interestingly, though, the bent chainplate is thicker at 3/16 inch than the straight one, which appears to be 5/32 inch. Both appear to be original, since they have the anchor stamp with the RC initials.

Attached are pictures of the bent one being pulled from the deck.

Thanks for any suggestions,
Roscoe

E25, cb, Hull 226

 

[Joe]

Roscoe:

All the above comments led me to postpone having new chainplates manufactured. We used a penetrating dye to ensure that the old chainplates had no surface defects or cracks, and then simply pressed them flat in a hydraulic press.

My two chainplates also have slightly different thicknesses.

If I had my druthers I'd also have new ones made.

 

[davisr]

chainplates of different sizes

Thanks Joe. Yea, my neighbor is going to go ahead and make some new ones for me. I'm going to go with my hunch that they were originally straight.

That's really strange that one of your chainplates is slightly thinner than the other - just like mine. I can see what you are saying in the photo at the top of the thread. If I recall, your hull number is 218. Mine is 226. My guess has been that maybe someone in production wrongly picked up a thin one to go with the thicker one. I guess this mistake happened twice. I can't imagine that there would be a purpose in having chainplates of two different sizes. Anyone else?

Thanks,
Roscoe