Messages

I'm having a hard time finding Rotella T 15-40. I found a couple quart bottles in stock, but so far not enough of them to fill the motor. Can't find gallons, except at West Marine ($27/gallon, more than double the commodity retailers).

I am finding lots of gallon bottles of Rotella T4 (but can't find quart bottles of it  ). T4 seems to be a "new and improved" version. No sign that it's synthetic.

There is no sign of Rotella T on Shell's website, just T1 (straight grade, not multi grade), T4, T5 (synthetic), and T6 (synthetic):

http://rotella.shell.com/products.html

Searching here on "Rotella T4" generates no hits, so this would appear to be a new topic, and thus worthy of discussion.

It looks to me like Shell has realigned their product line to eliminate Rotella T and replaced it with "new and improved" T4.

How does this match up with your guys' experience? Do I really need to go out and get fleeced for an oil that I won't be able to top off next summer after the supply chain has exhausted its inventory?

You over filled it.  Remember cars before the reservoir s?

That was my first suspicion, but I can't find any evidence of that. Where would it overflow from? How would it work its way to the keel sump?

Actually I don't remember cars before the reservoirs.

All of the coolant leaks from our boat have been the connections at the back of the hot water tank.  Very hard to get at!!!

Jack

Great clue! Thanks.

That's one path of leakage that I didn't trace. I'll have to check and see whether the potential leakage path leads to the center or aft section of the keel sump. (I found the coolant in the aft section.)

My hot water tank was replaced about 3 years ago by the prior owner, but that doesn't mean that the fittings are immune.

Over the weekend I moved the boat 75 miles to our winter storage location on the hard. After we were underway I noticed that the coolant reservoir was down from the top line by about 1/4" so I topped it off to the maximum line while underway. A couple hours after we were stopped for the evening (after about 6 hours of motoring) I checked in the bilge and found a surprise (and perhaps a hint) -- a few ounces of green coolant in the bilge! I looked at the reservoir, and it was still topped off. I opened the motor from top, front, starboard side, and under the aft berth and could find no trace of a leak or path of coolant flow along the bilge. At this point the motor was warm, not hot, so I cracked the coolant cap, heard a little hissing, so immediately closed it again with out opening it. (Could this have just been an air pocket leaking out under the pressure head from the elevated reservoir?)

We decided to proceed to our final destination the next morning. I checked the motor while underway and saw no leakage or any other signs of issues. Coolant reservoir maintained its level throughout, and no coolant in the bilge or anywhere in the engine compartment.

Does anyone have any hints of what could have caused a few ounces of coolant in the bilge?

(By the way, I did replace the zinc pencil as mentioned in an earlier post. Thanks for the help with that.)

1.  Those conditions were what we normally got on SF Bay.  While racing, the skippers used the max allowable 130s, I ran my "big" (for me, my other one is an 85%) 110 during the summer and sometimes that was a handful.  A stock 110 working jib for those conditions would suit just fine, IMHO.  The 10% difference would be negligible.  But I'm sure there are many Chesapeake sailors who will add to this based on their personal experiences right where you sail.

Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'll plan on a 110 for early spring/late fall.

My C250 came with an original 110 and I was very happy with it. It got shredded a bit when a 35 kt cloudless front came through, so when I went to replace it I got another 110 rather than go larger. I was sailing in a narrow river and tacking every 10-15 minutes, so the smaller jib came across very nicely. Even though I'm now sailing where I can go 2 hours or more without tacking, I think a 110 will perform nicely for me without the need to partially furl except in the most severe conditions where all I want is a postage stamp to balance the helm.

On a partially related note, my TR mainsail (fixed food) only has one reef point. I'm thinking of adding a second reef point. Any suggestions on how/where it should be done?

This is my first season (actually only a half-season) on the Chesapeake Bay, so I really do not have enough experience to know exactly how much the seasons differ. From what little I've seen so far (and heard from others), we get 0-10 kts in the dog days of summer (150 works really well) and often 15-20 kts in fall with frequent gusts to 25 or higher.

So my guess is that a 120 would be very comfortable in the fall...unless someone has a better idea.

I think that this question is consistent with the purpose of this entire thread. Let me know if you think I should post it somewhere else.

Wow, please let us know how it fits next spring. Based on my hull number, the same guy must have done my canvas too. I'm awaiting a quote for restitching and replacement of the clear vinyl on my dodger. I didn't even think of doing an OEM replacement using the original pattern. At that price it is worth considering, especially if I have a guinea pig going first. Obviously I may have to wait another year before I have it done if I wait for your results first.

Time to wake up this old thread again.

My C34 came with a 150 furling genoa. It was nice during the dead summer months, but now that winds have gotten livelier on the Chesapeake I find myself keeping it partially furled. This leads to sub-optimal shape, even when I adjust the cars.

Does a luff pad (foam or rope) work well with this boat? Or should I be looking at a new smaller headsail for early spring/late fall sailing? If so, what size?

I am not sure whether this is the original headsail or not. It's in pretty good shape. Based on the tag on the bag, it looks like it has been refurbished or replaced by Quantum. FWIW, I believe that the mainsail is original, though it also appears to have been worked over by Quantum.

I am going to take my time with this. It needs to be fixed before renewal. USCG rep was pushing me to do it before things get too busy in the spring.

There are a lot of moving parts  to come together, so it's going to be a pain. One key part is getting the mortgage company's consent to make changes. If they demand that I use the same agent I will be really upset. I've been very unsatisfied with her service.

Ah ha.   Check online for the fee to revise that; <$100 I think.

You can see if Judy Pyles is still with the West Virginia NVDC and ck with her on the change.
(800) 799-8362
Judy.M.Pyles@uscg.mil

-kk

I called today, though I ended up speaking to someone else. The wrong formulas were applied in the calculation, leading to a number of errors. The biggest error was using a K-factor for an integral keel. This factor is used when a full keel is faired with the hull in a way that you can't tell where the keel-hull joint is. So you use the depth of the hull+keel, and multiply by 0.75. My documentation agent used the depth of the hull alone, but still applied the K-factor of 0.75, resulting a significant error. There were other mistakes made too, and if I'm going to redo the documentation I should have them all fixed.

These are the kinds of mistakes that are made when a 3rd party agent who is not familiar with the vessel does the work. My mortgage company required me to use her. Of course, she wants another $250 to redo it for me. Needless to say, I'm rather upset about paying twice for the help of someone who did not make the effort to familiarize herself with my vessel in the beginning. I plan to call the mortgage company and ask them to let me do it myself, since that's the only way I am confident that it will be done right.

As part of this process, I want to request a "facts of build" letter from Catalina. That is the best way to ensure that the correct numbers are used. Do any of you know who the contact person would be for this?

Why do you care what the gross tonnage is listed at? 
It's irrelevant to anything do do with sailing or hauling or berthing the boat.
I've found that getting the USCG to change anything is like pulling nail out of concrete, plus you pay to revise the documentation.

-k

In the future, it may affect the tonnage of the captain's license that I will qualify for. IIRC, if the tonnage of the boat on which I accumulate my days of experience is over 11 GT, then I qualify for a higher level license.

My boat's dimensions are in the USCG registry also, and when you apply the formula to those dimensions, the number comes out way higher than 7 GT.

[12. GROSS TONNAGE FORMULATION (MONOHULL VESSELS)]

My C34MkII was documented by the prior owner as 7 gross tons. I am almost certain that this is an error. Like many, he probably mistakenly entered the displacement (in tons) of a fully provisioned vessel.

I would like to have the documentation corrected for a variety of reasons including licensing. 13 tons gross falls into a higher category for experience.

My question is: What is the gross tonnage of the C34MkII? Does the broader transom translate into a higher gross tonnage than the original C34?

EDIT: I found the formula on USCG website. Looks like the transom width does not affect it, because it's based on beam at widest point. I'd still like to hear if someone has "the answer" because it could allow me to make the correction before hauling out:

https://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/tonnage/docs/TG-1_Current.pdf

12. GROSS TONNAGE FORMULATION (MONOHULL VESSELS)
The basic Simplified tonnage formula for gross register tons of a monohull vessel is:
GRT = (Hull Volume + Deckhouse Volume)/100
Where:
Hull Volume = S x K x L x B x D
Deck Structure Volume = Ls x Bs x Ds
Note: For vessels with small deckhouses and other deck structures, the deck structure volume is
ignored (treated as "zero" value). Deck structure volume is accounted for only if the
volume of the principal deck structure is equal to or greater than the hull volume.
The overall dimensions of the hull are as follows:
L = Overall Length
B = Overall Breadth
D = Overall Depth
Note: D is normally measured from the deck edge down to where the hull meets the keel, except
for vessels designed for sailing where the interface between the "keel" and the "bottom
skin of the hull" is not clearly defined (as is the case with an "integral" or "faired" keel),
for which the depth is measured to the bottom of the keel.
The shape factor (S) is as follows:
S = 0.5 for hulls designed for sailing (finest hull form)
S = 0.67 for powerboats, ship-shape and circular hulls
S = 0.84 for barges and boxed-shaped hulls (fullest hull form)
The keel factor (K) is as follows:
K = 1.0 for all hull configurations except those designed for sailing wherein the Overall Depth
includes the keel.
K = 0.75 for hulls designed for sailing wherein the Overall Depth includes the keel. 

Oh, I forgot about the escape hatch (not at the boat now). That makes it all a lot more convenient.

I like the strainer idea, so long as you have a mate to handle the engine part. But I would have been concerned that the strainer gives too little margin for error in matching the rate. I do have a ball valve termination for the garden hose, but it doesn't control rate that precisely. Sounds like it's simpler than I thought.

Why would you have overflow from a bucket you're drawing down, unless you're not paying attention.  Put a plastic garden hose quarter turn shutoff on the hose to modulate the supply. 

You access the seawater pump at the front of the engine (cover), just pull off the hose and replace with another length of cheap vinyl hose.

I'm just going off what I saw on his video. I guess more than spill control, the main benefit seems to be the comfort of working in the cockpit instead of in the cramped aft berth. And being in the cockpit allows quicker access to the kill valve if anything goes wrong or you reach the end of the antifreeze.

I'll look closer at the raw water pump when I'm down there, but I seem to recall that it's a particularly bad design for replacing the impeller, because you have to remove the whole pump to do it, and the screws or nuts are on the back side. Hopefully the hose fitting is more accessible than that.