[Rhodes22-list] adding keel weight

Sun Oct 19 07:45:51 EDT 2003

Peter,

Rhodes 22's have been getting heavier over the years.  The 2800 lb figure
was originally for boats built in the 1970's.  GBI has been steadily adding
fancy interior cabinetry & hard bulkheads vs. bins & sliding curtains, a
real marine head with holding tank vs. a porta-potti, IMF mainsail + furling
gear in the mast, two batteries vs. one, electric motor mount, stereo, VHF
radio + instruments, & other "luxury features".  In addition, I think the
GBI-built boats are constructed to a more HD standard than the earlier boats
like my 1976 Rhodes 22, which were built by subcontractors.  It's all very
fancy & plush & nice; but, it all adds weight.

I think the 2800 lb published figure was for the bare hull, mast, boom, &
standing rigging; but, without any outboard motor, fuel tank, empty water
tank, empty holding tank or no porta-potti, no batteries, empty lockers, no
interior or cockpit cushions, etc.  You didn't say what condition your 1984
Rhodes 22 was in when it was weighed.  But, if you had the normal compliment
of gear on board; then, 3360 lbs is not at all unreasonable.

My 1976 Rhodes 22 has the keel cavity filled with ballast right up to the
top.  I think the ballast on all the boats is that way.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Thorn" <pthorn at nc.rr.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] adding keel weight

> Roger,
>
> Thanks for your response.  Without being condescending or dismissive, you
> always just try to help and answer the question -- I like that about you!
>
> About 10 days ago, I returned to Chapel Hill from Naples, FL with a 1984
R22
> that weighs 3,360 pounds.  Since all the reading I've done about R22s from
> that era suggests the boat should weigh about 2,800, and since I removed
the
> floor and have a good view of the keel area from the inside, and since
there
> is concrete (as you described) filled around the keel well, I thought
> perhaps someone other than GBI modified this particular hull by adding
> ADDITIONAL concrete and lead.  Is this how a standard, unmodified '84
should
> look?
>
> My other keel/CB boat, a Jim Taylor designed Starwind 19, built by
> Wellcraft,  has an open 10" deep keel well, but 395 pounds of lead shot
> fiberglassed into the bottom base of keel by the builder - way down low.
> The Starwind 19 keel/CB is 10 feet long and has lots of space on either
side
> of the CB well where some Starwind owners like to add yet more ballast.
> Since I'd never seen an uncovered R22 keel/CB well before, I though
perhaps
> the extra 560 pounds on the R22 came from a similar owner's modification.
> However, I don't think it's a good idea to add more "heavier than water"
> ballast to any boat designed to float when swamped, like the R22.
>
> If all R22s have their keel/CB wells filled to the top with concrete and
> lead, what could account for my boat being 560 pounds heavier?  20% seems
> like a huge variance.
>
> There is a small amount of bilge water in my R22 resulting from rain
getting
> in through the portlights, I think.  Since winter is coming, I am
concerned
> about getting all the water out.  I don't want concrete spalling or FG
> blistering.  Are these caused by the expansion of water ice?  Is it
> important to dry out the bilge before a hard freeze?
>
> Thanks again, Roger, for your thoughts on this.
>
> PT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Pihlaja" <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] adding keel weight
>
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > All Rhodes 22's have a shoal draft keel with centerboard.  All Rhodes
22's
> > have their ballast in the shoal draft keel.  The GBI factory literature
> > lists the ballast weight at 700 lbs.  It is my understanding that this
> > ballast is in the form of lead shot encapsulated in concrete.  This
> ballast
> > is absolutely essential to giving the boat a sufficiently large righting
> > moment to enable it to stay upright under full sail in a 12-15 knot
> breeeze
> > while beating to windward.  The GBI factory claims it has test data to
> show
> > the Rhodes 22 will float with the decks awash with a hole drilled thru
the
> > bottom with the standard amount of ballast and overall hull weight.
> >
> > Given the above data, I don't understand your question.  Do you think
your
> > Rhodes 22 has an extra 500 lbs of ballast?  I doubt there is sufficient
> > volume in the keel cavity for an extra 500 lbs of ballast.  Or, did you
> > think your Rhodes 22 was originally designed as an unballasted sailing
> dingy
> > like a Laser or Sunfish?  This would require the crew to always be
hiking
> > out to keep the boat upright while under sail, which is completely
> > unrealistic for a cruising boat.
> >
> > As long as the concrete has no visible flaws, like cracks or porosity &
is
> > not pulled away from the sides of the keel cavity, there is very little
> > chance that water is seeping down into the bottom of the keel cavity.
> > Portland cement has the unusual characteristic of actually incorporating
> > water into its microstructure & slightly expanding when exposed to
water.
> > Thus, any incidental water that found its way into the cement would
> actually
> > be taken up into the microstructure.  This would cause the
microstructure
> to
> > slightly expand.  The rigid sides of the FRP keel cavity and the lead
shot
> > oppose this expansion, which puts the cement into compression, which
> > actually makes the cement less permeable to further water intrusion.
This
> > material property makes Portland cement an almost ideal material for
this
> > application.  Pretty cool, eh?
> >
> > Installing a keel cavity sump would short circuit this process by
> > introducing a direct path for water to get to the bottom of the keel
> cavity.
> > The void space introduced by the sump cavity would subtract from the OEM
> > ballast weight.  Not only would this ballast reduction make the boat
more
> > tender; but, depending upon where in the ballast you bored the keel
> cavity,
> > you could also affect the fore/aft trim of the boat as well.  Bottom
> line -
> > BAD IDEA!!!
> >
> > The one scenario wherein there might be water in the bottom of the keel
> > cavity is if the exterior FRP skin of the keel has been damaged in a
> > collision.  If the FRP skin has been compromised; then, water might seep
> > into the keel cavity from the outside while the boat is in the water.
All
> > interior ballasted boats are subject to this problem.  Water intrusion
> into
> > an internal ballast cavity can be very serious from an osmotic
blistering
> > point of view and especially if there are freeze/thaw temperature
cycles.
> > There are nondestructive test methods to determine the water content of
> the
> > FRP composite.  If such a test, run by a boatyard or boat surveyer,
showed
> a
> > greater water content in the FRP composite near the bottom of the keel
vs.
> > higher up; then, you might have water intrusion.  The solution would be
to
> > drill a series of small holes in the bottom of the keel cavity, let the
> > water drain out, thoughly dry out the FRP composite, repair the damage
> that
> > allowed the water intrusion, apply a moisture barrier coat on the
outside
> of
> > the FRP skin, and finally apply a couple of coats of bottom paint to UV
> > protect the moisture barrier coating.
> >
> > Hope this answers your original question.
> >
> > Roger Pihlaja
> > S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Thorn" <pthorn at nc.rr.com>
> > To: "Rhodes 22 List Members" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:27 PM
> > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] adding keel weight
> >
> >
> > > Hello Rhodies,
> > >
> > > My 84 R22 has it's keel cavity filled with about 500 pounds of
concrete
> > and lead.  At first, this seemed OK --seems likely to make her a bit
> > stiffer.  But after some worry and pondering, I have a few concerns:
> > >
> > > -  Is this boat still "unsinkable"?  Does anyone know the amount of
> > flotation built into the R22  in excess of the hull weight?  In other
> words,
> > can she still float swamped with the extra 500#?
> > >
> > > -  Is osmotic blistering of the structural fiberglass in the keel at
> > increased risk?  Now that there's concrete in the way, it's impossible
to
> > completely dry out the lowest parts of the bilge.  I was considering
core
> > drilling a cavity to the lowest point to obtain access for pumped
> drainage.
> > Is this a good idea?
> > >
> > > As always, thank you Rhodies, for your experienced opinions.  I
welcome
> > all suggestions on this topic you have to offer.
> > >
> > > PT
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> Name: CHESAPEAKE,  West River Tana at helm.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size:
294679 bytes Desc: not available
> Url:
http://www.rhodes22.org/pipermail/rhodes22-list/attch/200310/18/CHESAPEAKEWe
stRiverTanaathelm.jpg
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list