As I discuss in another post, the conventional wisdom is that external
keels are better than internal keels. Statistics may show otherwise
but it is hard to tell. With the exception of that Woods Hole boat,
all the keel failures I could find involve external keels. Basically,
if your external keel fails, you die.
This just seems like bad engineering to me. You hang thousands of
pounds waaaaaaay down from a few bolts in a way that it is subject to
tremendous repeated changes in torque in a seriously corrosive
environment and you then bet your life on it? Uhhhhhhhhh, does this
make sense? Is anybody surprised at the deaths that have occurred
from these things?
Now, an encapsulated keel is supported over its entire surface via
glass cloth that is stronger than steel and does not corrode. Even in
the one case in Woods Hole where one was ruptured, the damage was such
that nobody died and it did not sink (or not fast enough to matter).
In my 28' internal keeled S2, I once hit a truck with my keel going 6
kts, yes, a truck. Following the so-called Storm of the Century, I was
motor sailing into Steinhatchee, FL when WHAM, we stopped dead with
the rigging shaking like crazy and we all fell over. I recovered mmy
balance and went below to check for damage and found none. A little
while later a coast guard boat came out and told us to watch out for a
truck that had washed out to sea in the storm, we told him we had
found it for him. I dove under her the next day and found the impact
area but there was no real damage.
Conventional wisdom is simply WRONG in this case.

wrote in message
...
As I discuss in another post, the conventional wisdom is that external
keels are better than internal keels. Statistics may show otherwise
but it is hard to tell. With the exception of that Woods Hole boat,
all the keel failures I could find involve external keels. Basically,
if your external keel fails, you die.
This just seems like bad engineering to me. You hang thousands of
pounds waaaaaaay down from a few bolts in a way that it is subject to
tremendous repeated changes in torque in a seriously corrosive
environment and you then bet your life on it? Uhhhhhhhhh, does this
make sense? Is anybody surprised at the deaths that have occurred
from these things?
Now, an encapsulated keel is supported over its entire surface via
glass cloth that is stronger than steel and does not corrode. Even in
the one case in Woods Hole where one was ruptured, the damage was such
that nobody died and it did not sink (or not fast enough to matter).
In my 28' internal keeled S2, I once hit a truck with my keel going 6
kts, yes, a truck. Following the so-called Storm of the Century, I was
motor sailing into Steinhatchee, FL when WHAM, we stopped dead with
the rigging shaking like crazy and we all fell over. I recovered mmy
balance and went below to check for damage and found none. A little
while later a coast guard boat came out and told us to watch out for a
truck that had washed out to sea in the storm, we told him we had
found it for him. I dove under her the next day and found the impact
area but there was no real damage.
Conventional wisdom is simply WRONG in this case.


You assume all external keels are built the same.

I guess its time to repost this page:

http://www.cliffisland.com/boat.html

BTW, the boat is an early J-35 (fully cored), and apparently it had
grounded previously.

On Jun 10, 3:31 am, jeff wrote:
I guess its time to repost this page:

http://www.cliffisland.com/boat.html

BTW, the boat is an early J-35 (fully cored), and apparently it had
grounded previously.

Yuck. It looks like the hull failed, not the ballast keel/sump
joint. I suspect the "outsideness" of the ballast was not a
contributing factor.

-- Tom.

The probably chief cause of keel bolt failure is: they are not
removable for inspection.
Stainless steels are 'very' subject to 'crevice corrosion' and fatigue
failure, mostly a combination of the two modes of failure. Worse, the
maximum stres on a keel boat is 'cantilever stress' ... very hard to
predict since the loads and actions are 'variable to unforseen'.
Aiarcraft have the almost same problem with cantilever stress ... but
those wing root bolts are REMOVEABLE and thus are able to be
periodically inspected.
So, keel bolt failure is a functional design failure due to the bolts
not being able to be removed and periodically inspected.

Encapsulated (iron) keels are not a panacea, as if the cavity is
penetrated and water enters, the rust (ferric) that forms is less
dense than the original metal (iron) and the encapsulated keel will
'push' itself apart ... then the balllast will simply fall out if the
rust formation is that great.

So, from the above it seems that a encapsulated keel with solid lead
internal ballast would probably be the 'best'.

"RichH" wrote in message
...
The probably chief cause of keel bolt failure is: they are not
removable for inspection.
Stainless steels are 'very' subject to 'crevice corrosion' and fatigue
failure, mostly a combination of the two modes of failure. Worse, the
maximum stres on a keel boat is 'cantilever stress' ... very hard to
predict since the loads and actions are 'variable to unforseen'.
Aiarcraft have the almost same problem with cantilever stress ... but
those wing root bolts are REMOVEABLE and thus are able to be
periodically inspected.
So, keel bolt failure is a functional design failure due to the bolts
not being able to be removed and periodically inspected.

Encapsulated (iron) keels are not a panacea, as if the cavity is
penetrated and water enters, the rust (ferric) that forms is less
dense than the original metal (iron) and the encapsulated keel will
'push' itself apart ... then the balllast will simply fall out if the
rust formation is that great.

So, from the above it seems that a encapsulated keel with solid lead
internal ballast would probably be the 'best'.


I think the best keel is a drop keel and water ballast just like that which
the Macgregor 26 series of fine and respected sailboats uses. You have NEVER
heard of one single solitary Mac26 with a keel falling off of it, have you?

--
Gregory Hall

On Jun 10, 7:50 am, RichH wrote:
The probably chief cause of keel bolt failure is: they are not
removable for inspection.

As I said before, just looking at the pictures in the link I think the
failure was of the hull bottom (or structural keel of the vessel) and
not the keel bolts. Hull failure is not uncommon in hard groundings
on lightly built, fin keeled boats but I think that is a separate
topic.

Stainless steels are 'very' subject to 'crevice corrosion' and fatigue
failure, mostly a combination of the two modes of failure. Worse, the
maximum stres on a keel boat is 'cantilever stress' ... very hard to
predict since the loads and actions are 'variable to unforseen'.

The "Received Wisdom" is that stainless is not the best choice for
keel bolts because it is subject to crevice corrosion and wasting in
an wet, low oxygen environment. Fatigue failure can be engineered
around. I haven't looked into it but my guess is that the time to
ductility exhaustion of the typical set of ss keel bolts would be on
the order of forever and a day. Cantilevers and sheer stress are
pretty well understood for bolts and beams. And, in the case of keels
where weight isn't generally a concern designers can be, and generally
are, very conservative.

... So, keel bolt failure is a functional design failure due to the bolts
not being able to be removed and periodically inspected.

Kinda Zen statistics, but my feeling is that most keel bolt failures,
as opposed to keel failures, are on fairly new racing boats and
probably result from over aggressive designs or constructions errors.
In any case, keel bolt failure is very rare. Yes, it would be good if
the bolts were easy to inspect and yes, stainless isn't the best
choice for them, but in practice, the fleet is holding up very well.

... So, from the above it seems that a encapsulated keel with solid lead
internal ballast would probably be the 'best'.

Well, you haven't sold me yet. Keel bolts can be made of things other
than stainless. Even stainless bolts seem to be holding up well. If
the bottom of the boat fails the point is moot anyway.

-- Tom.

On Jun 10, 3:01 pm, " wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:50 am, RichH wrote:

The probably chief cause of keel bolt failure is: they are not
removable for inspection.

As I said before, just looking at the pictures in the link I think the
failure was of the hull bottom (or structural keel of the vessel) and
not the keel bolts. Hull failure is not uncommon in hard groundings
on lightly built, fin keeled boats but I think that is a separate
topic.

Stainless steels are 'very' subject to 'crevice corrosion' and fatigue
failure, mostly a combination of the two modes of failure. Worse, the
maximum stres on a keel boat is 'cantilever stress' ... very hard to
predict since the loads and actions are 'variable to unforseen'.

The "Received Wisdom" is that stainless is not the best choice for
keel bolts because it is subject to crevice corrosion and wasting in
an wet, low oxygen environment. Fatigue failure can be engineered
around. I haven't looked into it but my guess is that the time to
ductility exhaustion of the typical set of ss keel bolts would be on
the order of forever and a day. Cantilevers and sheer stress are
pretty well understood for bolts and beams. And, in the case of keels
where weight isn't generally a concern designers can be, and generally
are, very conservative.

... So, keel bolt failure is a functional design failure due to the bolts
not being able to be removed and periodically inspected.

Kinda Zen statistics, but my feeling is that most keel bolt failures,
as opposed to keel failures, are on fairly new racing boats and
probably result from over aggressive designs or constructions errors.
In any case, keel bolt failure is very rare. Yes, it would be good if
the bolts were easy to inspect and yes, stainless isn't the best
choice for them, but in practice, the fleet is holding up very well.

... So, from the above it seems that a encapsulated keel with solid lead
internal ballast would probably be the 'best'.

Well, you haven't sold me yet. Keel bolts can be made of things other
than stainless. Even stainless bolts seem to be holding up well. If
the bottom of the boat fails the point is moot anyway.

-- Tom.

In spite of the beliefs of most people here, the Mac 26 really is a
much safer boat than most heavily built cruising boats. If one
integrates safety over the life of the boat, I think you would find
the Mac 26 to be far safer than a heavily built boat with a deep
keel. The deep keeled boat may be safer in a certain unusual
situation (being out in a hurricane in deep water) but the Mac 26 can
more easily avoid such weather by going into a shallow entrance that
the deep keeled boat cannot.

On 2008-06-10 11:59:06 -0400, " said:

On Jun 10, 3:31 am, jeff wrote:
I guess its time to repost this page:

http://www.cliffisland.com/boat.html

BTW, the boat is an early J-35 (fully cored), and apparently it had
grounded previously.

Yuck. It looks like the hull failed, not the ballast keel/sump joint.
I suspect the "outsideness" of the ballast was not a contributing
factor.

Internal or external, with construction that looks that light, repeated
groundings would have torn any keel off. The strips of glass look SO
thin!

We have bolted-on cast iron -- not my favorite material, but what we
have. The reinforced area that I can identify looks to be about 4-6
times that J's. It's about 8' long and an nearly 2' across. We've got
at least an inch of solid hand-laid glass in the three spots around the
keel I've drilled holes, and a good inch-plus of reinforcement that the
bolts go through. (Not sure of the material as it's at least
encapsulated and no one I know has had reason to investigate.)

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On 2008-06-10 20:43:07 -0400, Dave said:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:06:06 GMT, Jere Lull said:

We have bolted-on cast iron -- not my favorite material, but what we
have.

That reminds me, Jere--thanks for the suggestion of putting Interprotect on
my boat's iron keel. Preparation was a bit of effort, but now touching it up
for the season is a job of just a few minutes. A great relief.

Hopefully, I also suggested and you used POR-15 first. After 15
seasons, our Interprotect is beginning to fail and I had to spend a day
on the keel. Maybe will blast and re-do Xan this winter.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/