"Roll Call" For Gourmet Cruisers and Island Gypsies

[Nomad Willy]

Good Morning Walt,That's still strange. Looks like 90% of the load on that stern line is taken by the chock.
I don't think that's good. The chock is to position the line on the rail as it goes over the side. I'm positive it's not designed to take loads in excess of 10-15% of the mooring line load and then only mostly laterally not transversely. But Walt, I don't suppose you made the chock and cleat arrangement * * *.... Halvorsen must have installed them that way so maybe I'm dense and don't see the obvious. I must admit I'd rather replace a torn out chock that a torn out cleat but I see also that your mooring line has a looped end so the line passes over the chock in exactly the same spot every time it's used * *..not good. I'm sure there would be much less chafing using the cleat. Naw * ... I think your old salt may be old but maybe a little weak on the salt. BUT perhaps thre's something here for me to learn. However in answer to your "why not use it?" * * ..I'd say it's weak and not designed for direct loads.
Never heard of Force anchors. I'll search it and see what I get.
God your boat is beautiful. I see the rewards of being "anal" as you say.

 

[Codger2]

Eric:

I certainly see your point & have Googled "chock" for the best description and usage of the device that I can find. Most of the definitions (if not all) refer to chocking a plane, car, etc. but when one searches the nautical definitions, things like this surface.

They are* used for attaching an anchor bridle to to a sampson post, attaching a tow rope to the vessel's cleats, etc. I agree with your comment about my stern chocks look like the are accepting about 90% of the load. When towing a heavy boat and running the lines through the chocks before attaching them to stern cleats, don't you have the same effect?


-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Sunday 12th of September 2010 10:56:27 AM

 

[Codger2]

SeaHorse II wrote:

Eric:

My anchor is a SS Force* 20Kg....An old sailor on my dock said that by using the chocks,* the force from the boat moving is not taken up by just the cleat. It's distributed between the cleat and the chock. ( I have it...why not use it) What I really like about using "chocks" on my tie down lines at the slip is that they result in a better "angle" on the dock lines when attached to the dock cleat.

*

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:


Marin,
I see that guy w the packer is just like you * * * .....he leaves his fenders dangling.

*

Eric--- If you know what a buy-boat does, you'll know why they leave their fenders out.

*

 

[Marin]

SeaHorse II wrote:

An old sailor on my dock said that by using the chocks,* the force from the boat moving is not taken up by just the cleat. It's distributed between the cleat and the chock. ( I have it...why not use it)

We do the same thing as Walt does with our GB (as does every GB owner) but instead of a chock the line runs thourgh a hawse.* Different configuration of hardware but the function is the same as what Walt is doing.* We could just go from the deck or bulwark cleat right over the caprail and down to the bullrail or cleat on the dock but we don't, and I've never seen anyone with a boat like this that does.*

I added bow chocks to Malolo when we bought the boat new back in '87 to do exactly what Walt does with his boat.* It's hard to see in the photo below but the line goes from the bow cleat, though the chock, and down to the dock.* One of the advantages of this is that it keeps the line from sliding back and forth across the edge of the deck and potentially causing wear to both the line and the gel coat.* Another advantage is what Walt mentioned--- the use of a chock can let you set up a better angle for the docklines, particularly if you're mooring to individual cleats the marina or dock owner set in place as opposed to a full-length bullrail.

So Walt's setup can be a smart way to go in my opinion.* And the advice he was given--- that the chock takes some of the pressure off the cleat--- seems sound to me.* Not a big deal on the average day, but get a good storm through--- the highest recorded wind gust in our marina last winter was 86 mph---- and everything you can do to help keep your boat where you last left it is Good, I think.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 12th of September 2010 12:58:22 PM

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hey Guys,I'm not convinced. I have and use chocks for my bow lines as the center mounted samson post would put the line all over the cap rail causing trouble. But if there was a cleat on the cap rail near the bow I'd have absolutely no need for chocks * * ...and wouldn't use them if I did. I have small 4 bolt samson posts amidships on the cap rail and no chocks * *...fine. I have large 4 bolt cleats aft on the cap rail w no chocks and no need for them also.
The hawse hole is good. Usually they have nicely radiused edges and don't chaff but most importantly are much stronger than chocks w 2 small screws.
Marin your little boat w cleat and chock is a fine and proper use of the chock. A cleat on either side without chocks would be fine too. It's acceptable but not ideal to have a line take a sharp turn at a chock to accommodate an unusual tie up but I don't think it's good to normally take sharp turns through a chock and I question why a builder would design chocks to be used regularly w lines passing through chocks in the vicinity of 90 degrees.


Marin,
Just pok'in funn at you. I assume you pull up the fenders when you get underway.


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 12th of September 2010 10:32:54 PM

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

The hawse hole is good. Usually they have nicely radiused edges and don't chaff but most importantly are much stronger than chocks w 2 small screws.
Marin your little boat w cleat and chock is a fine and proper use of the chock. A cleat on either side without chocks would be fine too.

Depends on the design of the chock.* Some of them don't have much radius on the "ears."* Others have a lot of radius.* The other variable is the chock installation itself.* On Malolo, even though I didn't think it* warranted it, I went ahead and through-bolted the chocks with stanless backing plates.* So they're probably not going anywhere soon.

The four stern cleats on Malolo are mounted on the outside of the "gunwale"* (two are* somewhat visible in the photo) and I did not install chocks for them.


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 13th of September 2010 02:12:31 AM

 

[Codger2]

nomadwilly wrote:Hey Guys, I'm not convinced.
______________________________________________________________
What can I say Eric. Took these on a 3 minute stroll on my dock. If I had hawse pipes, that would be better. (42 GB for sale and it's a beauty!)

-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Tuesday 14th of September 2010 09:54:05 PM

 

[Marin]

A rather telling detail in Walt's first photo is the location of the stainless rub strip. It's not in front of the cleat, it's in front of the chock.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I see guys I see.*Photo 1 is bad. Chock serves has no benefit. Serves no purpose. Take it out, move the strip aft alongside the cleat and tie to same.
Photo 2 is bad. The chock is designed to have the line going the other direction. To that boat owner I'd say mount more chocks (2 on boat) about 12" aft of existing chocks to accommodate (gracefully) lines running aft.
Photo 3 Good use of chocks but bad hull design. One more rub strip is needed.
Photo 4 Roof line is bad. Should mimic the lines of the FB and go straight from the outbd
edges of the FB to the outbd edge of the side deck roof. The notched roofline looks awkward and gives the side deck roof a tacked on look. Not good. Obviously if that boat were to come my way I'd forgive it for that crude roofline. NICE boat Walt.
Good point Marin. That dosn't indicate it's good but it does show it was probably designed that way. I think some people (obviously quite a few) including NAs don't realize the cleat is auxiliary equipment. If you need it use it or install it. If you don't * *...omit it. The Chock is not a load carrying device. It is a boat anti-chafing device or a device to route the line over the rail at one spot that is prefered over others.

 

[Codger2]

nomadwilly wrote:"The Chock is not a load carrying device. It is a boat anti-chafing device or a device to route the line over the rail at one spot that is prefered over others."

(LOL) I agree, Eric!

Just wanted to see how firm you are in your beliefs.
Should the chock pull loose, however, the cleat does back it up. In the meanwhile,
until* those 100+ knot winds come up, it gives me a better angle on my dock lines.

*

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

Photo 4 Roof line is bad. Should mimic the lines of the FB and go straight from the outbd
edges of the FB to the outbd edge of the side deck roof. The notched roofline looks awkward and gives the side deck roof a tacked on look.

*

Eric--- I'm not defending the design of the Europa's side deck cover even if the boat is a GB, but I might have an explanation.* As all GB Europa's have this overhang design, I wonder if starting the side deck cover aft of the lower helm station was done to not block the helmsman's view up (such as it is).* Not that those of us who prefer driving from down below are concerned about keeping a lookout for strafing aircraft but being able to see up is nice.

Another possible explanation is to keep the balance of the boat where they want it.* Running the side deck cover all the way to the front of the flying bridge would add some weight.* You wouldn't think it would be enough to make any difference, though.

Or perhaps it was done purely from a sense of aesthetics.* Perhaps running the side deck overhead all the way to the front of the flying bridge would give the boat a more blocky look, where what they did gives it (in their eyes) a sleeker look.

All speculation of course.

Walt--- whats the thing on your bow spring line, the bright rectangular thing?* Is it a float to keep the line from sinking if it falls in the water?

*


-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 15th of September 2010 12:03:46 PM

 

[jethrobd]

I have the same side deck overhang design on my IG.* On my boat, it's done because there are a couple of steps up to the foredeck just forward of there. If the side deck wasn't cut-out, you'd have to duck as you went up / down to the foredeck or risk whacking yourself unconscious.

-- Edited by jethrobd on Wednesday 15th of September 2010 12:14:39 PM

-- Edited by jethrobd on Wednesday 15th of September 2010 02:47:47 PM

 

[Codger2]

Marin wrote:Walt--- whats the thing on your bow spring line, the bright rectangular thing?

My* diver always leaves his card when he does my bottom. I forgot to take it off.***

(Man, I could have had some fun cooking up a story for that!)

*

 

[Codger2]

jethrobd wrote:

" On my boat, it's done because there are a couple of steps up to the foredeck just forward of there. If the side deck wasn't cut-out, you'd have to duck as you went up / down..........."

That's pretty typical for Europa style boats with a stepped shear. I have to admit
that I love these* Europa style boats. They make soo much sense to me.

*

 

[Codger2]

Marin wrote:"Eric--- I'm not defending the design of the Europa's side deck cover even if the boat is a GB..."

I'll defend it!* Not all design criteria is based on how the boat will look but rather how it
will function. In my opinion, GB does a teriffic job (if not the best) on their boat deigns. The whole damn line! If I were 20 years younger I would definitely be driving a GB.



*

 

[Marin]

FWIW with the possible exception of the new GB41, GB's Europas do not have a step up to the foredeck. The main deck is all one level except for the older GB46s that have a small step-down aft cockpit. So the setback of the side deck covers is not for head clearance.

 

[Nomad Willy]

This is fly stuff but if a designer corrects lots and lots of fly stuff one winds up w a beautiful boat if the designer has enough knowledge about art in terms of mass, line, form ect and engineering, marketing and a bunch of other things. Many yachts are not blessed with that kind of talent in their roots and the boats show it. The industry is just too small to support real professionalism. Most often an individual (a chief engineer in many cases) is responsible for everything except the grunt work like drafting. Art/design and hard engineering is frequently required from the same individual and very few people can deliver top notch skill and knowledge at both ends. It's not uncommon for small aluminum boats to be designed by welders. When I made the comment about the roof line marriage on the GB I hadn't considered a step up side deck. Form follows function sometimes at the expense of art and sometimes at the expense of engineering. There is, of course many other elements of design like egronomics, activities and people flow, interior design, intergration of all the things manufactured out of contex (in other places). Chris Craft was once big enough to be able to bring experts in many areas together to produce a boat that was truly beautiful and very well engineered too. By the way a good definition of the word design is "an organized solution to a problem".

 

[Codger2]

Marin wrote:" GB's Europas do not have a step up to the foredeck......So the setback of* the side deck covers is not for head clearance."

Sorry buddy, but in the case of this particular GB, it does have steps going
forward on the side decks. (right at the rise in shear, ) The top on the side
decks stops about 18" before the steps, thus preventing you from hitting your head.

This particular boat is a 2007. I'm not sure as to her length but is 18 big steps from
bow to the aft end of the swim platform. It's either a 42 or a 47.

( A further check on YachtWorld indicates she's a 47. I've also noticed that the 36 & 42 both have steps up to the foredeck.) It stands to reason why they do as JethroBD pointed out, not only does this keep you from pranging you head, the stepped shear allows 5-6" more head room down below and more bow height off the water. My own boat has this stepped shear feature but not the "wonderful" side decks of the GB.)








-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Thursday 16th of September 2010 04:39:44 PM

 

[Nomad Willy]

OK Walt I withdraw my criticism. I assumed the side decks were flush.

Walt * *..I was about to say what a nice picture of you in your avitar but it disappeared.
I know we've seen it before and I suspect your'e really not that good looking.



-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 17th of September 2010 10:11:55 AM

 

[Codger2]

Eric:
I really am that good looking but have received some unwanted e-mails that went beyond your very kind remarks.

New photo


-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Friday 17th of September 2010 10:40:05 AM

 

[Baker]

nomadwilly wrote:

The Chock is not a load carrying device. It is a boat anti-chafing device or a device to route the line over the rail at one spot that is prefered over others.

*

I will add to your definition or clarify it as the case may be. *There is a reason why you may want to "route the line over the rail at one spot that is prefered over others." *That reason is to redirect the load. *If you did not have the chock in that first pic, you would have a torsional load on the cleat in which the strength of the cleat mounting is only as strong as ONE of the fasteners. *By putting that chock on there, you have re routed the load into a shear load....in which all fasteners come into play as to the strength of the installation. *IOW, the strength of the cleat is maximized.....granted, you are putting load on the chock.

Chocks cause chafe...not prevent it. *So I disagree with the first part of your statement. *Their only purpose is to reroute the line...for whatever reason.

*

 

[Marin]

SeaHorse II wrote:

*
Marin wrote:" GB's Europas do not have a step up to the foredeck......So the setback of* the side deck covers is not for head clearance."

( A further check on YachtWorld indicates she's a 47. I've also noticed that the 36 & 42 both have steps up to the foredeck.)


Well, that shows how observant I am.* I've been on a bunch of GB Europas from 36' up to 52' and never even noticed the deck step up to the foredeck.* But you're correct, they all have them.* So the setback for head clearance makes all sorts of sense.

*

 

[Codger2]

Steps up or not....notch is for head clearance or not....I've been retired for approx 19 years and have done little else but "mess around" in boats" and going to evey boat show I can. (almost all of them in my area.) Having owned 8 different kinds of boats (since I wasn't honest with myself about the actual mission) I have arrived at the "opinion" that if the mission is coastal cruising, mixed with a little fishing and social cruising, and you have the resources, you can't beat a Grand Banks Europa yacht!* I know that there are a lot of boats out there that will fit the mission I have outlined,* but every time I'm onboard a 36-47 GB, I get goose bumps. They are well built, perform exceedingly well and don't depreciate nearly as much as most other boats you can name.

And for the new people on this forum, no, I don't own one but my next boat will be a late model GB 42.***** GB 42 Test

Sorry for the thead drift.

 

[dwhatty]

Walt: Like the 300SL in the background of the GB model. Had any of those as well as your myriad of boats?

 

[Codger2]

Dave:

No 300SL in my background but I did have a nice 500SL I bought from a "down and out" actor in Hollywood. I later sold it because the seats* didn't allow me to bend my knees as much as I wanted and it was murder on my back. I then had 2 Mercedes sedans after that. I'm not much of a car buff, so I blame them on a mid life crisis that I eventually survived. (My first wife died of cancer 18 years ago and I tried to recapture the era of the 60's that had passed me by) This lasted about a year and a half before I returned to my senses, (and my health

) such as they are. Too much info?

Incidentally, that model of a GB 42 is not mine. I pulled it off the web because I love the lines of that boat.


-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Sunday 19th of September 2010 10:12:57 PM

 

[Baker]

Right there with ya Walt. There are very few boats prettier than the GB 42 Europa. I think it is the proportions that are absolutely perfect....kinda like a 757. The 46 is close!!!...but maybe slightly long in the nose....but still insanely beautiful!!!

PS...a Gullwing 300SL is worth 7 figures today!!!!


-- Edited by Baker on Monday 20th of September 2010 07:52:23 AM

 

[Andy G]

 

[Andy G]

OOOPS, that's us above, have not quite got the hang of uploading/downloading any dam loading! Well hello from our 36' quad cabin circa 1981.We have just spent 4 grueling weeks taking up the old teak deck, cutting out the glass removing what was optimistically called the wood core, replacing it with a composite product and then adding about 45kg of resin to bed it down and replacing the glass and finish off with a new 9mm teak deck, well not quite finished as it has been raining for the last couple of days in our*bit of paradise.

Not that we had planned any of this, but you know one thing leads to another. Nice to know that there is a community of fellow IG's out there.

A little Bit of trivia we bought Sarawana from the old Halvorsen yard at Bobbin Head, lovely spot.

 

[Peter B]

Walt, I have to admit I also lust after a GB 40ish, either the 41 EU, or, if they start making a 36 Europa I'd maybe prefer that as a size more suited to our short-handed crew, (and my marina berth). I gather you would not have the pod drives, but stay with shafted drives with skeg(s)?