Is Catalina Smile a structural defect?

[Capt.Jim]

Ron,
My 87 sits in the water all year in San Diego, never gets hauled and improperly blocked for the winter and still developed the "smile".
There goes another theory.................

Ralph

My exact sentiments...

Everybody has a "theory" about an issue like this and nobody can claim theirs is the "absolute truth" about the issue since they are all "theories" and "personal experiences" that involves so many variables to effect the outcome!

BTW Maybe you have too much of a gravitational force in San Diego? 

Just one thought!

[tgsail1]

There is nothing unique about the CY keel joint design. I recommend googling "keel joint" and you will find all kinds of information on "smiles" in bolted on fin keels from virtually every manufacturer.

So why does it happen? My hypothesis after reading the search results (not enough evidence to anoint this idea with the weighty title of "theory" ) is that even with the high bolt torque, there is a little bit of flex in the hull and maybe even the lead. After enough time, the bedding compound, which is really just a gasket in this case, will eventually break down. At that point, water enters the joint, the keel loosens even more as the gasket breaks down further. I suspect that owners who regularly torque their keel bolts have fewer problems, but eventually every bolted on lead keel will show this problem. I think there are other contributing factors: groundings can place enormous forces on the joint; 3M5200 adheres much better to fiberglass than it does to lead (700 vs 100 psi); freezing of whatever water might have found its way into the joint; and of the use of wood in the core of the stub, which was common in the 70's and 80's (like lead paint was common in 1950's homes).

My first seagoing sailboat was a 1973 Coronado 27, when purchased in 1986, the iron, flanged keel joint had a crack and the bolts each took torque. Our old 1987 C34 (in So Cal) exhibited a small crack at one haulout, the bilge was dry and we torqued the bolts then glassed and faired the joint and no crack ever appeared again while we owned the boat. My newer C380 has not had the problem at all- but I'm sure at some haulout in the future it will (we torque the bolts every couple of years per my surveyor's recommendation).

Why did Catalina get the unfortunate moniker? I would have to believe it has something to do with being the first production boat manufacturer with lead fin keels with production numbers in the thousands. When you do the google search you will find manufacturers such as Tartan, Beneteau, Ericson are all mentioned. Could CY have done things better? Sure, and as they responded to their owner's experiences, they modified their techniques, improving the situation. That said, it is just a matter of time until EVERY bolted-on fin keel will exhibit this problem. The surveyor of my newer boat wrote in the notes, that while it is almost never done, on any boat with a bolted-on keel, it is advisable to occasionally drop the keel ,inspect and replace the bolt as needed, rebed and reset.

I'll hand off the soapbox...

[Noah]

Well done!

[KWKloeber]

Just curious...

When Honda Goldwings in the early 2000s found out that mainframe cracks were appearing they were recalled.
Is there such a thing happened with Catalina @ Woodlands Hill ever?

I mean after all isn't this a production/engineering defect ?

Jim, 

while I oftentimes lament about instances of poor engineering (the sherwood pump, putting wood into a keel stub, exploding alternator brackets, gummy bear harness plugs) I wouldn't say the smile is an engineering or manufacturing defect.  Rather it was using the state if the art materials at the time -- polyester bedding of the keel to the stub, which is hydrophilic and deteriorates -- and CONTRIBUTES TO the instances (but not the sole cause) of the smile.  Epoxy and 5200 really wasn't the norm then.

When alternate materials are used, there is no smile.  For instance, my C30 smile and keel joint deterioration showed up in less than 9 years (9 yrs old when I got her, and crack already developed.)   I fixed it "permanently" over 20 years ago and not even a hint of a smile since then.  I don't see that as a defect and haven't ever felt CTY was responsible for fixing it, especially if something appears after 10 years. 

However I say (JTSO) it's VERY different with something that is obviously designed or manufactured incorrectly (Universal's exploding alternator bracket or Universal pumping high charge current through a corrosion- and high-resistance-prone plug ), or was done out of the norm (Catalina fabricating its own poorly manufactured substitute for the plug on the Universal harness.)  Note out of the norm, because the material used with CTY's poor attempt at the plug deteriorates and is a fire hazard, while Universal's plug does not deteriorate (excepting for "scorching" due to the poor decision to push the charge current thru the plug.) 

Anyway, I hope you see my (JTSO) differentiation between examples of a "defect" and a "non defect"?

-Ken

[KWKloeber]

Once water intrudes, the wood rots and the keel starts drop enough to separate.

I think what you're trying to say is that having the back part of the keel bear too much weight can torque the keel in a way that encourages separation at the front edge.

Just to add some personal experience -- there was no "drop" of the lead causing the smile on my C30 and while the wood plank was wet, it wasn't rotten.  "Disconnecting" the keel from the keel stub was BEAR, so there was no looseness due the plank.

And the "smile" started at the aft edge of the fin keel, not at the leading edge.  So, I maintain (JTSO) that blocking isn't the cause, or main cause -- it's water getting to the incompatible material (hydrophilic polyester bedding) and attacking it.  Mine started at the aft edge, most start at the forward edge.  Coincidently?? my aft bolt -- under the engine sump (which was continuously wet) was about finger tight -- I loosened it with only a 1" swing and virtually no torque on a box-end wrench.  The cause of the smile or a symptom?  I dunno, but suspect it contributed to the cause.

-ken

[Capt.Jim]

Just curious...

When Honda Goldwings in the early 2000s found out that mainframe cracks were appearing they were recalled.
Is there such a thing happened with Catalina @ Woodlands Hill ever?

I mean after all isn't this a production/engineering defect ?

Jim, 

while I oftentimes lament about instances of poor engineering (the sherwood pump, putting wood into a keel stub, exploding alternator brackets, gummy bear harness plugs) I wouldn't say the smile is an engineering or manufacturing defect.  Rather it was using the state if the art materials at the time -- polyester bedding of the keel to the stub, which is hydrophilic and deteriorates -- and CONTRIBUTES TO the instances (but not the sole cause) of the smile.  Epoxy and 5200 really wasn't the norm then.

When alternate materials are used, there is no smile.  For instance, my C30 smile and keel joint deterioration showed up in less than 9 years (9 yrs old when I got her, and crack already developed.)   I fixed it "permanently" over 20 years ago and not even a hint of a smile since then.  I don't see that as a defect and haven't ever felt CTY was responsible for fixing it, especially if something appears after 10 years. 

However I say (JTSO) it's VERY different with something that is obviously designed or manufactured incorrectly (Universal's exploding alternator bracket or Universal pumping high charge current through a corrosion- and high-resistance-prone plug ), or was done out of the norm (Catalina fabricating its own poorly manufactured substitute for the plug on the Universal harness.)  Note out of the norm, because the material used with CTY's poor attempt at the plug deteriorates and is a fire hazard, while Universal's plug does not deteriorate (excepting for "scorching" due to the poor decision to push the charge current thru the plug.) 

Anyway, I hope you see my (JTSO) differentiation between examples of a "defect" and a "non defect"?

-Ken

Absolutely I see your point Ken. Thanks for detailed explanation.

[Ralph Masters]

I know our gravitational pull here in San Diego flexs, since Thanksgiving its increased as pointed out by my bathroom scale this morning.

[mark_53]

Just curious...

When Honda Goldwings in the early 2000s found out that mainframe cracks were appearing they were recalled.
Is there such a thing happened with Catalina @ Woodlands Hill ever?

I mean after all isn't this a production/engineering defect ?

Excellent question for a judge to decide.  Hire a lawyer, pay him/her big$$$$ and take it to court and let us know. On the other hand you can fix it and move on.
Another option would be to call Catalina Yachts and ask them to fix the defect on your 30 year old boat.  Hang up if the chuckling lasts more than a minute.

[Indian Falls]

I'm not onboard with the improper blocking theory either.  I attribute the instance of cracking of the joint at the bow to be from several things happening over time:  loose keel bolts from no maintenance, possible very high back-stay tension, bumping into sandbars or other strata on the bottom, and the very brittle material used to bed the keel stub to the top of the keel. That's my two cents.  The "smile" shows no sign of reappearing 5 years after re-bedding the keel stub with 5200.

[KWKloeber]

I'm not onboard with the improper blocking theory either.  I attribute the instance of cracking of the joint at the bow to be from several things happening over time:  loose keel bolts from no maintenance, possible very high back-stay tension, bumping into sandbars or other strata on the bottom, and the very brittle material used to bed the keel stub to the top of the keel. That's my two cents.  The "smile" shows no sign of reappearing 5 years after re-bedding the keel stub with 5200.

My keel joint crack appeared toward the aft edge, where I found the aft keel bolt nut was merely hand tight.  Upon grinding off the fairing, this is where the polyester joint-bedding material had disintegrated and turned to mush.  This location, I theorize, is where water seeped down the thread  -- but was the loose nut DUE TO the deteriorated joint material, or is it what CAUSED the deteriorated joint?   I believe the latter, but.... 

ken