Water under the bed

[Old PDQ Message Board]

Water under the bed

Posted by David west on May 28, 2003 at 06:42:00:

I have been repeatedly irretated from a leak causing water to accumulate under
the front starboard berth in my PDQ 36. I suspect the source is from rain water
entering from under the front baby stay base plate. I have dealt with it by
applying Life Caulk around this base plate but the protection does not last for
long and I suspect this is due to there being a small amount of play between the
deck and the plate under stress. Does anyone else have this problem and are they
more successful in dealing with it?
It beats me why PDQ did not attach the babystay to somewhere into the forward
center locker but that is another story.

Follow Ups:

Re: Water under the bed David West 20:30:56 05/28/03 (0)
Re: Water under the bed Marc Gershel 18:02:18 05/28/03 (0)
Re: Water under the bed sailors 17:00:17 05/28/03 (1)

--------
Re: Water under the bed

Posted by David West on May 28, 2003 at 20:30:00:
In Reply to: Re: Water under the bed posted by sailors on May 28, 2003 at
17:00:00:

I would like to thank all for the comments made. I would like to emphasise that
in my case the boat has been sailed very conservatively and despite this there
is a problem. To my mind it does not follow that the workmanship or dedication
of the manufacturers is at fault, and a conjecture that this was implied would
be mistaken

Now please help me with the term "rebed". I have had to rebed myself on one or
two occasions when the leak was bad but have never had to remove a chain plate

In this case I presume you mean that I have to unscrew the deck plate and then
in order to remove it, for it appears to be welded to the underlying chain
plate, I should somehow expose the the underlying structure by tearing away part
of the bulkhead between the two sleeping compartments. Then unscrew the lower
part from below before being able to lift up the deck plate and caulking its
under surface

Am I reading you correct? And if I am you can see why if possible, it might be
desirable to relocate the whole thing to be accessible through that locker.

Follow Ups:

Re: Water under the bed

Posted by Marc Gershel on May 28, 2003 at 18:02:00:
In Reply to: Water under the bed posted by David west on May 28, 2003 at
06:42:00:

Hi, I've been wrestling with this problem for a few years, and just last Fri. I
think I've located the source. I've re-bedded the baby stay chainplate, and that
helped some, but I sill had a leak. I found water dripping from the bolts that
secure the mast plate to the deck & running down the headliner where it joins
with the bulkhead that divides the cabins. I'm not sure how to repair this
yet,but I will try sealant around the bolt heads & the mast plate joint to make
sure I found the source, then try to come up with something more permanent,short
of pulling the mast & the plate
Marc

Follow Ups:

Re: Water under the bed

Posted by sailors on May 28, 2003 at 17:00:00:
In Reply to: Water under the bed posted by David west on May 28, 2003 at
06:42:00:

1) Like any leak, you can not repair it by simply caulking around the baby stay
plate. You need to REBED the plate by removing it, cleaning excess old caulk
away, and recaulking properly. Just running a bead around the edges is nothing
but a short term solution. It will leak again if not repaired properly

Guaranteed

2) I suspect that the baby stay attachment location was defined in the early
design stages of the 36, before the little front locker even existed (it has
only been included on boats of later vintage). The engineering of the rig would
probably have to change if the baby stay was moved forward. Furthermore, you
will note that the baby stay chain plate passes through the deck and is bolted
to a strong longitudinal bulkhead in the stateroom. There is no bulkhead in the
little forward locker to serve as a strong attachment point...is there?
On another note (in reference to a thread below) I am not trying to start a
flame war or anything, but I seriously question the prudence of sailing a
cruising catamaran in 30 knot winds without reefing. You can break ANY boat by
applying poor seamanship. Kudos to Simon for being diplomatic about that. He has
more will power than I do

The 36 is a very well made boat, soundly engineered, overbuilt in many ways in
fact, and if sailed prudently, will stand up well in my opinion. Now to apply a
more positive spin, Simon, if you are reading this...how about offering up some
rig tension guidelines for the various rigs that have been used on the 36
(Isomat, tall rig, standard rig, etc.). I would love to set the rig tension with
my Loos meter, but do not have factory numbers to go by. And the riggers I have
met seem less than informed with respect to cats and spreaderless rigs. I have
always kind of felt that the cap stays on my 36 were not tight enough as
compared to the lowers. Your comments confirmed my suspicions. But I do not know
how to correct the problem with any degree of certainty

Finally, just a general comment in respect to the factory. I've been fortunate
to have spent more time there than most of you, and I do not believe that you
can find a better bunch of craftspeople than those at PDQ. They actually CARE
about the quality of the products that they build, and that is a rare commodity
in this day and age. If you get the craftspeople alone and have the chance to
chat candidly with them (out of earshot of others), the pride that they show in
their work and in the product that they build is remarkably evident. They are
quite a team. I've even met ex-employees who have nothing but positive things to
say about PDQ. No matter why they left PDQ (and none has ever said anything
negative to me in that regard either), they show pride in the work that they did
while there

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Lady of the Lake]

I also have a leak in the starboard cabin and it obiously traces to the baby stay. Unfortunately, it is obvious that much of the bulkhead is damaged since I can see about 1/4 inch of movement of the baby stay from its original position (based upon the location of the caulk line on the chainplate above the deck). After further inspection in the forward berths, it appears that water intrusion has damaged the bulkhead and it needs to be repaired. Has anyone done this? Do I need to cut out the bad section and reglass the whole area? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Sam and Gina

[Ed Ellis]

Here’s how I would proceed. It’s actually a reasonably simple job

The bulkhead is probably made of marine plywood covered by a laminate. It’s possible that not much of the actual bulkhead is water damaged, aside from the laminate. So the first thing I would do is determine the size of the damaged area.

1. Take a 1” hole saw and drill a test hole through the bulkhead near the top, not directly below where the baby stay is attached but rather three inches to the side.

2. Examine the hole for evidence of water intrusion. If there is any grey color other than in the laminate and the surface of the plywood, then that portion of the bulkhead should be removed.

3. Repeat this process moving downward until you’ve defined the area of damage (kepp cutting holes until you reach "good" wood).

4. Use a t-square to mark where you’ll cut the bad bulkhead out. The idea is to cut as square (or rectangle) a hole as possible. Use a jig saw to cut the bad portion out.

5. Use the removed portion of the bulkhead as a template for cutting a replacement piece. This will allow you to get the angle of the top perfect. Be sure the replacement is made of MARINE plywood that is the same thickness as the original.

6. Before installing the replacement piece, seal the edges of the new plywood using Westsystem Epoxy (this will deter future damage). The idea is to get a good seal on the wood, not to build strength.

7. Glass in the replacement piece. Again, you need not put several layers of glass on it because this is not where the strength will come from. You just need enough glass to hold the replacement in place.

8. Sand the glass areas so that the surface of the replacement piece is flush with the surface of the original bulkhead.

9. Cut two new pieces of marine plywood (should be at least .75” thick (the thicker, the better) that will be used to sandwich the replacement piece (one on each side of the bulkhead). These pieces should overlap the replacement piece by at least 10” on each side – more is better.

10. (optional) If you have a router, use a rounding bit around the edges of the sandwich boards so that later, after they have been installed, the edges are esthetically pleasing.

11. The sandwich pieces will be bolted through the portion of the original bulkhead that had no water damage and bolted to the replacement piece. Hold one of the one of the sandwich pieces in place, and using a quarter inch bit, drill two starter holes through the sandwich piece and original bulkhead.

12. Remove the sandwich piece from the boat and lay it over the other sandwich piece so that they overlap perfectly. Clamp the two pieces together tightly. Drill through the two starter holes so that the second piece now has two starter holes in the identical location.

13. Take the two sandwich pieces back on board and bolt them to the original bulkhead via the two starter holes. Then drill holes spaced about 4-6” apart all around the parameter of sandwich pieces. Drill a few holes in the area where the replacement piece is located, but don’t over do it. The number of holes needed depends on how large a replacement piece you used.

14. Take a pencil and outline on each side of the original bulkhead, where the sandwich boards lay.

15. Remove the two sandwich boards and using Westsystem Epoxy, coat both sides the original bulkhead (inside the area maked in pencil) and inside of each sandwich board.

16. While the epoxy is still wet, put the sandwich boards in place and install all of the bolts and tighten them down. Instead of the using nuts, you can use something called “nut caps” (West Marine carries them).. These screw on like nuts, but have a cap on top that looks like the top of a bolt, and thus leave a more flush surface and are esthetically more pleasing that bolts and nuts sticking out. If you decide to use the nut caps, your bolts should be slightly shorter that the thickness of the two sandwich boards and original bulkhead together.

The strength of the repair will come from the sandwich boards, the bolts, and boards epoxied together. Other that coating the surfaces with epoxy, you need not “glass them in.”

Hope this helps. Ed

[Lady of the Lake]

Sounds very strong but where does the chainplate go in this assembly? The rotted part is where the chainplate bolts go through the bulkhead.

[Ed Ellis]

Sam,

As luck would have it, it looks like I'll be following my own instructions since the identical problem has developed on my boat (hull #18 )

To answer your question, I plan on having a slot routed out on the board the will be bolted on to the starboard side of the bulkhead so that it will cover/overlap the chain plate. The chain plate bolts will go through (1) the new board on the starboard side, (2) the chain plate, (3) the original bulkhead that has been re-glassed, and finally, (4) the new board on the port side of the original bulkhead.

I'm also planning on having a new chainplate manufactored that will extend much further down the bulkhead so the strain from the babystay in heavy weather will be more effectively dispersed.

If needed, I can send you a sketch of how it will be put together.

Ed

[Lady of the Lake]

Ed, I would appreciate that sketch if you don't mind. I want to get this right. Thanks very much.

Have you ever measured the rake of your mast? The forum states that there should be 6-8 inches of rake aft. Mine is much greater and I am seeing some deformation at the base of the mast. I see the same deformation on Neshema also here in my marina. I was wondering if it was consistent in all of the earlier hull numbers.

[Ed Ellis]

I've only eye-balled mine and my rake is about 6 inches. I have no deformation in the bottom of my mask that I know of. I have noticed on another early model a lot of stress cracks in the deck at the base of the mast. The boat I was looking at had it's bows damaged in a hurricane ( and repaired) so I assumed that the cracks may have due to the storm. Is that what you mean by deformation? If not, please describe what you are seeing.

Some captains are hard on a boat -- that is, they put a lot of stress on the gear to squeeze as much speed out of it as possible (you can take a guy out of a race but you can't take the race out of the guy). Others are soft and avoid pushing the boat too hard (me) in order to prolong the life of the gear. You go slower, but you spend less $ in the long haul. Stress cracks, I think, can come from excessively hard sailing, incorrect tensioning, and/or less than adequate boat strength. I have noticed that the later models of PDQ 36s have been strenghtened in several ways, so it's not inconceiveable that the mast base in early models proved weak and has been beefed up as well. I really don't know. However, what we all like about PDQ is that the company is never satisfied with their product and are constantly refining it. For example, the babystay was completely redesigned in later models and is much stronger.

Send me your email address or snailmail address and I'll send a sketch. Remember, however that my advice may be worth less than you are paying for it!

[Guest]

Yes that hurricane boat was TechnoCat, now Lady of the Lake! We bought her last year. We love her, you need to see her now. Anyway, the stress at the base of the mast may have been from the hurricane damage but it is funny that I looked at Neshama (hull #3, I think) here in the same marina as me and she has the same exact stress cracks. Just wondering if the earlier hulls might be doing the same thing. Simon told me that they used a different mast base (wood) under the mast of the older hulls, through hull #24 I think he said, and now they use a stronger material. Oh well, since the mast is raked so far aft, we are in the process of shortening the bridal to bring the mast forward (there is no more play in the furling gear). Since the hurricane, she now has new bows with the new spar, bridal, and trampolines like the newer models.

My email is sdensler@mac.com

Thanks,
Sam

[Guest]

I'm just on the way back home from being rescued off my PDQ 36 in the Gulf of MExico after a massive failure which I believe is related to this very subject. Once I gather my thoughts about the experience I w ill be writing an extensive missive on the subject for all those who are interested.
Bob Johnson
Hull #32 BOB
ps. do a search on KRISTV Corpus Christi for news footage.

[Guest]

WOW Bob! You must really have a "war story" now. Very sorry about your boat, but glad you lived to get another.

Apparently, several other boats are having babystay problems, so those interested can email me and I'll send a drawing of how I'm not only repairing but also strengthening it quite a bit. Message me at edwinellis@charter.net.

Ed

[Bob]

I am at a slight disadvantage because I had not sailed on another PDQ prior to my ill fated one so some of my observations may not be relevent to the problem. I had about 6 hrs to contemplate and tie together individual issues to form a more or less complete picture.
1. Bridge deck slam- on the ICW with a light chop items on the table were being thrown in the air, not just moving around.
2. Fresh water tank dip tube was broken off evenly about 3/8" from tank fitting. Oddly it had a long spiral crack the length of the tube as well as another radial crack near the bottom.
3. Port outer hatch had a gap between frame and hatch. We inserted a piece of rubber inner tube to seal it but over time it worked out due to what I think is flexing of the deck tied back to the bulkhead.
4. We were doing about 4-5 kts in a 3-4' sea taken at an angle but both fwd occupants were thrown into the air each time the bridge deck slammed.
5. There was a bellows effect each time the bridge deck was hit. This could be felt at each cabin door way as well as the salon entrance.
Taken separately they may not be cause for concern but in retrospect tied together may be predictors for a larger structural problem. Again I don't know what is "normal" but if you experience any of the above look closely at the bulkhead separating the compartments forward.

[Bob]

I forgot to mention that the entire panel that comprised the forward p&s berth ( an area of 7' x 10' ) broke out. There was no water in the foam and the laminate was in excellent conditon where sections could be viewed. I will be looking for another PDQ when the insurance issue is settled as I'm still very impressed by the boat and the factory follow up that I had previously recieved. I have to say it was a sureal experience waiting for rescue heating food in the microwave and listening to Jimmy Buffett on the stereo.

[Allezcat]

I'd like to know the history of this boat (previous damage, storms, etc). It sounds like major structural damage was incurred sometime.
Glad your ok,
What happened to the boat after you were rescued?
Chet
Allezcat 36010

[Guest]

I was the 4th owner of record. The original was a retired Venesuelan admiral. The next 2 owners were from CO so I must assume the boat suffered under one or both of these owners. In the records I found a statement covering $10k worth of invoices. There were no outward signs of significant hull damage. The cumulative log of the vessel showed about 41,000 miles. I have to be somewhat carefull on a public forum of accusations hurled but you can feel free to call me at 207-968-3304 to discuss it further. The boat was left with power on turning in tight circles. I estimate about 1/2 tank of diesel left at the time. A Norther moved through about 36 hrs later based on the speed of the rescue ship. The Capt said seas were 10'+ with winds of 40-50 kts. So I would guess that when fuel ran out the boat went bow to waves and is swamped . The prevailing current would put it on a track for landfall at the US/Mexican border. We were about 170 miles off nearest land.
Bob

[Marc]

Something fishy here. I can't believe that much damage in those conditions.
Marc