Rolling Chocks

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The #4 photo shows a very short flanged affair bolted to a planked wood hull. I can pretty much assure you that that unit and installation is much too small to effect much change. Can’t tell about location and relationship to hull design and length but certainly short on surface area. To the responder who relates installation of bilge keels at the chine and completed in “ one day “ I can’t imagine many vee bottom hulls with a chine deep enough to be effective. BTW chines are a feature of Vee hulls and I have no idea what soft or round chine is. Most all Vee hulls install bilge keels below the chine where there is clean water, at least from my experience and as designed by any of the NA’s I’ve worked with.

With a planked hull be it stripped, cold molded, carvel you need to be very careful constructing proper bilge keels. I’ve done quite a few over the years from 50’ knuckle stern converted fish to 1500 ton MCM USN minesweepers. There are a few hard and fast rules. One is wooden fins should be designed with a sacrificial cap section that will break off on hard impact leaving the root or foundation portion intact and watertight. Through bolting to frames is not advisable as it puts localized stress and compression on the frames and invites water migration and decay into the frame. Ive seen several commercial fish hulls where every bilge keel thru-bolt was loose. The frames gradually compressed or crushed resulting in not only loose bolts but washed out- enlarged holes with soft decayed frame material. Of course large washer plates under the nuts would help but these also create hard spots at edges that can encourage frame breakage unless shaped and fitted to the frame faces. Any butt joint found in way of the bilge keel footprint must be reworked and reinforced, another topic.

On larger hulls where my crews could work in frame bays we used the following technique. The hull skin in the frame bays is cleaned and prepped for epoxy laminated backing blocks using thin marine grade plywood. I preferred Okoume but there are others. Thickness of these pads depends on hull and service but .75” thick would be minimal. The pad should fit tight from frame to frame and face beveled on sides for drainage. I then construct a saddle that fits atop the inboard face of the backing block and is drilled to accept the bilge keel bolts. This saddle is normally SS plate or channel with side extensions that run over the frames. In essence using the block as a bolting foundation between the frames but tying to the frames. The objective is to take the bilge keel loads and disperse them into the hull fabric. It is unlikely that any bilge stringer will (1) be in the right location and (2) heavy enough to bolt to without problems similar to frame bolting. However if the location is correct heavier or thicker backing blocks could be fitted depth and the stringer used to bridge and consolidate the frames. Or fabricating and installing another stringer for this purpose

Photos show reef damage to a 225’ USN MCM in Yokosuka, Japan. This is a laminated Doug fir 82’ long bilge keel fully glassed with mat,roving epoxy resin. A view of a laminated backing block with saddle bracket. Shown as an example only.
 

Attachments

  • D62C927C-7FAB-4426-91E7-363940653834.jpg
    D62C927C-7FAB-4426-91E7-363940653834.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 29
  • 33DCE2DE-58AF-4D5C-9DFD-F8FCB1F723C9.jpg
    33DCE2DE-58AF-4D5C-9DFD-F8FCB1F723C9.jpg
    108.3 KB · Views: 29
  • E4630F88-8DA9-456C-91E2-683D80312284.jpg
    E4630F88-8DA9-456C-91E2-683D80312284.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 25
Lots of valuable information. thank you for your input!:thumb:


The #4 photo shows a very short flanged affair bolted to a planked wood hull. I can pretty much assure you that that unit and installation is much too small to effect much change. Can’t tell about location and relationship to hull design and length but certainly short on surface area. To the responder who relates installation of bilge keels at the chine and completed in “ one day “ I can’t imagine many vee bottom hulls with a chine deep enough to be effective. BTW chines are a feature of Vee hulls and I have no idea what soft or round chine is. Most all Vee hulls install bilge keels below the chine where there is clean water, at least from my experience and as designed by any of the NA’s I’ve worked with.

With a planked hull be it stripped, cold molded, carvel you need to be very careful constructing proper bilge keels. I’ve done quite a few over the years from 50’ knuckle stern converted fish to 1500 ton MCM USN minesweepers. There are a few hard and fast rules. One is wooden fins should be designed with a sacrificial cap section that will break off on hard impact leaving the root or foundation portion intact and watertight. Through bolting to frames is not advisable as it puts localized stress and compression on the frames and invites water migration and decay into the frame. Ive seen several commercial fish hulls where every bilge keel thru-bolt was loose. The frames gradually compressed or crushed resulting in not only loose bolts but washed out- enlarged holes with soft decayed frame material. Of course large washer plates under the nuts would help but these also create hard spots at edges that can encourage frame breakage unless shaped and fitted to the frame faces. Any butt joint found in way of the bilge keel footprint must be reworked and reinforced, another topic.

On larger hulls where my crews could work in frame bays we used the following technique. The hull skin in the frame bays is cleaned and prepped for epoxy laminated backing blocks using thin marine grade plywood. I preferred Okoume but there are others. Thickness of these pads depends on hull and service but .75” thick would be minimal. The pad should fit tight from frame to frame and face beveled on sides for drainage. I then construct a saddle that fits atop the inboard face of the backing block and is drilled to accept the bilge keel bolts. This saddle is normally SS plate or channel with side extensions that run over the frames. In essence using the block as a bolting foundation between the frames but tying to the frames. The objective is to take the bilge keel loads and disperse them into the hull fabric. It is unlikely that any bilge stringer will (1) be in the right location and (2) heavy enough to bolt to without problems similar to frame bolting. However if the location is correct heavier or thicker backing blocks could be fitted depth and the stringer used to bridge and consolidate the frames. Or fabricating and installing another stringer for this purpose

Photos show reef damage to a 225’ USN MCM in Yokosuka, Japan. This is a laminated Doug fir 82’ long bilge keel fully glassed with mat,roving epoxy resin. A view of a laminated backing block with saddle bracket. Shown as an example only.
 
To the responder who relates installation of bilge keels at the chine and completed in “ one day “ I can’t imagine many vee bottom hulls with a chine deep enough to be effective. BTW chines are a feature of Vee hulls and I have no idea what soft or round chine is. Most all Vee hulls install bilge keels below the chine where there is clean water, at least from my experience and as designed by any of the NA’s I’ve worked with.

From personal experience I can only tell you about my boat. They do something on my boat, even though at the chine, which is not deeply submerged (< 1'). The effectiveness of the chock would depend on its distance from the roll center, not how clean or deep the water is. The guy who did them has done many hundreds, mostly on chined hulls similar to mine, always at the chine. He offered this guarantee: if you don't like the result he will remove them, restore the bottom, and give your money back. He said he has had to do this only once, the owner did not like the noise they made when running on plane in a seaway. BTW, "hard", "soft" and "rounded" chines are common NA terminology, characterizing the radius of the chine.

There is a lot of art and very little scientific study of rolling chocks on small trawlers, and opinions run the range. This is my 34' boat, chocks are about 10" wide on a chine about 10" deep.

4WQv8Od.jpg
 
this is what most of the commercial fishing is Homer Alaska do with their 30-60' fiberglass vessels. if the commercials do it in numbers i assume it works great. for me with a rounded bottom timber vessel the options are not as clear.

4WQv8Od.jpg
 
Driving through the Homer Alaska boat yards the other day I was struck by how many of the work boats had roll chocks. I also noted how different they were from boat to boat. Length, width, and angle all seems to be different.
 
^^ Yeah, I think that is the art in it. If there was science, they'd all look more alike. It'd probably be discoverably with a tank testing effort, not sure if CFD simulations are good enough yet. You can find some university papers as applied to ships, but I doubt that is transferable to yachts. One thing I can guess with confidence, bigger is probably better. I'd agree on a round bilge timber yacht there are a lot more questions.
 
Seems to me that "they" came up with paravanes as a way to improve on the effectiveness of rolling chocks.

The idea being to move the point of force further away from the pivot point.
They did! As a greenhorn on a 72 Oregon Shrimper I had to deploy and retrieve paravanes. It was pretty tough. I never like them after that...but maybe I am a better deck and now than 1976..:)
 
They did! As a greenhorn on a 72 Oregon Shrimper I had to deploy and retrieve paravanes. It was pretty tough. I never like them after that...but maybe I am a better deck and now than 1976..:)


I'd expect effort to deploy / retrieve also depends on the setup and a bit on the boat deck layout as well.
 
Roling Chocks on the 123' I drove for many years in the Bering Sea, all the boats have them.
Picture 410.jpg
 
Ofer, looking at your photo it seems that you may be able to fit a passive flume tank on top of your deckhouse, just abaft your flybridge, at the step down. If you’re open to exploring this you’d find them to be far superior to chocks, with about 65% roll reduction.

I heard very little on these, but I had a Capt friend on a 200 footer brag about his flume tanks?
 
Ofer,

What would you be attaching it to?
That’s the question you ask.
This would need some oak inbd hull stringers and the bilge keel through bolted. This would act as a clamp. The steam bent ribs may not be strong enough.
William Garden drew small rolling chocks for my boat in 1950(I’ll find the drawing) and the drawing notes say “do not attach to frames”
 
If rolling chocks are such a "sure thing".......why don't pleasure boats come with them from the factory ?? I have a hard time thinking that the original designer of a hull didn't include something so simple if it made that big of a difference. The usual answer of course is cost, but the cost of installing them during the construction can't be that significant when you are talking about boats that costs 3/4 of a million dollars or more when new. Especially since it would give you a selling point over a competitor.

So.....why do you guys know more than the naval architects employed by Mainship, Selene, Grand Banks etc ?
 
If rolling chocks are such a "sure thing".......why don't pleasure boats come with them from the factory ?? I have a hard time thinking that the original designer of a hull didn't include something so simple if it made that big of a difference. The usual answer of course is cost, but the cost of installing them during the construction can't be that significant when you are talking about boats that costs 3/4 of a million dollars or more when new. Especially since it would give you a selling point over a competitor.

So.....why do you guys know more than the naval architects employed by Mainship, Selene, Grand Banks etc ?


As you move into faster boats, I'd expect the drag penalty to become significant.
 
If rolling chocks are such a "sure thing".......why don't pleasure boats come with them from the factory ?? I have a hard time thinking that the original designer of a hull didn't include something so simple if it made that big of a difference. The usual answer of course is cost, but the cost of installing them during the construction can't be that significant when you are talking about boats that costs 3/4 of a million dollars or more when new. Especially since it would give you a selling point over a competitor.

So.....why do you guys know more than the naval architects employed by Mainship, Selene, Grand Banks etc ?

Cost...my $3 million 123 foot boat came with rolling chocks brand new. The boats you point out all have paravane options. Maybe they designed boats that don’t need them...better yet maybe the $150k for an electronic stabilizer has a better ROI? Using a big boatbuilders (who design to marketing plans) might not be best for your boat.
 
Last edited:
William Garden drew small rolling chocks for my boat in 1950(I’ll find the drawing) and the drawing notes say “do not attach to frames”

“do not attach to frames”

I agree completely. part of the design should allow for recovery from an impact and not sink the boat.
 
If rolling chocks are such a "sure thing".......why don't pleasure boats come with them from the factory ??

One issue is they are difficult to mold into the hull and must be added on. This does not fit in well with the flow of a typical gel coat female mold process. As you get into the Selene, Fleming, Nordhavn class, another $50K for more effective active stabilization makes more sense.

Yacht design is much more influenced by fashion and the marketing department than any practical consideration. At least in the PNW, you will find a high percentage of small work boats with them.
 
One issue is they are difficult to mold into the hull and must be added on. This does not fit in well with the flow of a typical gel coat female mold process. As you get into the Selene, Fleming, Nordhavn class, another $50K for more effective active stabilization makes more sense.

Yacht design is much more influenced by fashion and the marketing department than any practical consideration. At least in the PNW, you will find a high percentage of small work boats with them.
So well said, I agree 100%. If I ever read Passegemaker magazine I would never have to my boat.
Fashon and current trends make for the desire to trade up&#55357;&#56834; notice the next Range Rover outfitted for the Serengeti at Safeway, hauling kids to the soccer game. The current line of rugged deep sea trawlers are similar. They may be able to voyage to Japan, but will do weekends instead. Nothing wrong with it, is just the way we are marketed to.
 
Last edited:
So well said, I agree 100%. If I ever read Passegemaker magazine I would never have to my boat.
Fashon and current trends make for the desire to trade up�� notice the next Range Rover outfitted for the Serengeti at Safeway, hauling kids to the soccer game. The current line of rugged deep sea trawlers are similar. They may be able to voyage to Japan, but will do weekends instead. Nothing wrong with it, is just the way we are marketed to.

Hey Cap,
Still hoping to run into you out there or catch you at PH.

I am of the same sentiment with simple (elegant) design and systems. I think it is possible that chocks are discussed less in the pleasure boat arena because not everyone gets it right. I think chocks must be well thought through and they must be a part of the overall stability designed into the vessel. I am not sure they can stop very much a hull that really wants to roll due to a harshly chined hull, poorly located metacenter which can be based on either design compromises or poor judgment in loading even after a decent design, or other characteristics that result in the need for high force mechanically active stabilization equipment added to a hull after a build
Both of my steelers have chocks. On KLEE WYCK they are long but shallow in depth. The boat has a very pleasant roll on its completely round bilge, but it does roll.
LIBRA has appendages that serve at least a couple of roles. They serve as the keel coolant reservoir and I believe they contribute as chocks to reduce roll as well. They are a much deeper box type keel and much more vertical than those on KLEE WYCK. They are combined with a hull with just a small bit of chine and one which has a very low metacenter and massive ballast. Besides 10 mm steel build in her substantial center keel and the bilge keels, she has a double bottom with a total of 1700 gallons (17000#?) of liquid laying in her bottom. The very heavy 10 cylinder diesel motor and 2200# gear have their tops 2.5' below sea level. And, she is packed full of poured cement to boot.
This boat was conceived in order to be comfortable in the North Sea and without paravanes, fins, or Magnus moving parts.
She does not roll much and what she does, you can barely perceive in terms of comfort.
I think this whole package is what results in that.
KLEE WYCK has chocks but still rolls a bit though comfortably so. I have yet to send a pax to the rail.
LIBRA has chocks and does not roll.

So, if you decide to go with chocks.....hire someone very smart to think about what they should look like and where they should go on your hull.

Both pictured here.
 

Attachments

  • klee wyck stern 2.jpg
    klee wyck stern 2.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 20
  • keels1.jpg
    keels1.jpg
    140.2 KB · Views: 16
  • Keels2.jpg
    Keels2.jpg
    153.4 KB · Views: 17
I had them put on my 38' trawler by Independent Marine of Vancouver Island, BC. Three techs arrived with pre-fab fins (about 10" wide) and installed on the chines in less than a day. Made a big difference to the corkscrew action when going over wakes, or slop/roll when at anchor. Only on the stern quarter did the vessel rock as it had before installation. Very pleased with the result. Since then that 13 ton boat has been in slings many times and the fins have not dented due to the straps. No issue at docks - they don't protrude beyond the fender diameter. And there was no change to fuel consumption. A no brainer upgrade.
 
There is a reason they don't dent in the slings: they are probably thicker than the hull. I had to cut some vent ports in mine (installed by the same guys) because the underwater exhaust was getting trapped. They are around 1/2" thick glass, not dainty.
 
We use to own a 50' canoe stern wooden boat that came with batwings as they are called. They were plates 1/2" thick that were on struts bolted straight out from the bottom of the keel. They worked great. I took them off one year...just to see the difference and it was quite remarkable. Put them back on the following year. Close to 3000 lbs total weight. We lost 1/2 knot of speed but well worth the increase in comfort. You could also put the boat onto a beach with no fear of it rolling over if the need came up. I can send you pictures if you're interested.
Bill
 
We use to own a 50' canoe stern wooden boat that came with batwings as they are called. They were plates 1/2" thick that were on struts bolted straight out from the bottom of the keel. They worked great. I took them off one year...just to see the difference and it was quite remarkable. Put them back on the following year. Close to 3000 lbs total weight. We lost 1/2 knot of speed but well worth the increase in comfort. You could also put the boat onto a beach with no fear of it rolling over if the need came up. I can send you pictures if you're interested.
Bill

Would love to have a picture :)
 
We use to own a 50' canoe stern wooden boat that came with batwings as they are called. They were plates 1/2" thick that were on struts bolted straight out from the bottom of the keel. They worked great. I took them off one year...just to see the difference and it was quite remarkable. Put them back on the following year. Close to 3000 lbs total weight. We lost 1/2 knot of speed but well worth the increase in comfort. You could also put the boat onto a beach with no fear of it rolling over if the need came up. I can send you pictures if you're interested.
Bill

I would love to see pics. Sounds similar to our 58' canoe stern..:)
 
We use to own a 50' canoe stern wooden boat that came with batwings as they are called. They were plates 1/2" thick that were on struts bolted straight out from the bottom of the keel. They worked great. I took them off one year...just to see the difference and it was quite remarkable. Put them back on the following year. Close to 3000 lbs total weight. We lost 1/2 knot of speed but well worth the increase in comfort. You could also put the boat onto a beach with no fear of it rolling over if the need came up. I can send you pictures if you're interested.
Bill

I to would love to see a pic
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom