The front fell off - Bow pulpit broke

[Group9]

Have you thought about having one built out of aluminum and having it powder coated. Plenty strong

Ours is aluminum and it’s a beast! It has the brand name “Ideal” cast into it. It’s painted with Awlgrip. It houses the windless motor as well with a plate that bolts on over the compartment that holds it.

 

[jhall767]

Before pictures

Some before pictures.

 

[rslifkin]

That definitely doesn't look like an overly strong design. I'd say you could build something far stronger out of pretty much any available material (wood, fiberglass, metal) or a combination of the above.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Been there done that

My Sabreline 34 pre-purchase surveyor noted rotted core in the spurling pipe. After confirming core rot extended thru much of the sprit/pulpit, I decided to do what rslifkin suggests; i.e. remove the bottom like it was the lid of a sardine can, then rebuild.


Amazingly Lightweight Fiberglass Composite Boards | Coosa Composites is still not widely known despite having been adopted by many builders as a substitute for plywood or foam. Coosa board will never rot & weighs 1/2 as much as plywood. You can select thickness based on your knowledge of how plywood would perform; e.g. if 1/2" plywood would flex too much if used as a cover/bridge over the hole in your backyard (awaiting a new pump), then use 3/4" and fear not.


The fiberglass was structurally sound. I simply needed to thoroughly clean out the core and then cut pieces of Coosa board to fill the space. It's recommended that a 'bonding layer' of CSM or Cloth be used between layers of Coosa as they're stacked.


In my Sabreline's case, eight 3/8" bolts tie the sprit/pulpit to the hull, which are adequate for the loads it endures. I'll be happy to answer questions, as required.


Don
Semper Paratus

 

[Pete Meisinger]

The more modern look is to be without a big bow pulpit, the rounded look is "in" this season. The issue will be more with having new bow railing bent, especially if it is stainless.

pete

 

[Codger2]

unless your cost estimate is close to the deductible on your insurance, let them deal with it. Why are you paying high premiums, then avoiding them? You will get to approve what ever they do, so make sure they work with a knowledgible yard and you will get a good result. If not to your liking, you don't need to sign off.

 

[kthoennes]

Boy, an automotive fiberglass shop here in Sioux Falls -- a billion miles from the nearest salt water -- did a total reconstruction on mine for less than $1000. It's been about five years now but I think his bill was around $800. Ahlers Pro Body Shop. The owner was a master with fiberglass though, you don't find skills like that very often any more. I brought him the filthy pieces and he made a new one. This was on a Carver 3207. Over the years the bow pulpit had cracked completely in half, the plywood broke into little pieces and the heads of the bolts pulled through, and the whole thing started to fall off. I think the previous owner hit the pulpit too many times and cranked the windlass way too hard pulling up the anchor. Here's the link to the photo album:

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/members/7178-albums1004.html

 

[SoWhat]

Interesting that it fractured right at the roller assembly. Makes me think screws were installed without any sealant such as butyl rubber allowing water intrusion. The number of screws also may have setup a fracture line. I would not replicate the same design but it did last 20 years.

I noticed a dark inch long crack in photo #1. This would indicate the crack has been there long enough to fill with debris. Has another boat ever bounced off your anchor?

 

[auskiwi]

A guy in my Marina had the same fate, except he was trying to retrieve his anchor stuck on an artificial reef, after nearly having a heart attack when repair costs quoted he made his own, glassed section back on to look right then used 1/2 inch stainless on top like datenight Rob did, looks great, you would never know it had been broken.

 

[sunchaser]

There are some neat suggestions for repairs offered on this thread. The pulpit on a 57 Symbol is a very large structure and to be done right will not be cheap. Whatever repairs are made should pass the scrutiny of a good yard for obvious reasons, not forgetting the resale of this expensive vessel.

Why did the pulpit fail? Rot, poor design or excessive loads placed on pulpit during improper retrieval techniques. In a heaving seaway retrieval can place large loads on a undersized extension. Snubber use will lessen the loads on a pulpit, but not always used.

I've been baffled for years about why a pulpit at all on larger vessels. Many builders add them for bragging rights on length or to get that sexy look that was popular in the '90s. Marinas love them for OAL charges. Others because it simplifies a dual anchor setup.

All these musings aside, suggest the OP not take the easy cheap route but do it right. That 57 is a nice high end vessel and deserves TLC when moving repairs forward.

 

[Simi 60]

The more modern look is to be without a big bow pulpit, the rounded look is "in" this season. The issue will be more with having new bow railing bent, especially if it is stainless.

pete

Who cares about looks.
How it works and longevity should be all that matters in mission critical componentry.

 

[Simi 60]

My Sabreline 34 pre-purchase surveyor noted rotted core in the spurling pipe. After confirming core rot extended thru much of the sprit/pulpit, I decided to do what rslifkin suggests; i.e. remove the bottom like it was the lid of a sardine can, then rebuild.


Amazingly Lightweight Fiberglass Composite Boards | Coosa Composites is still not widely known despite having been adopted by many builders as a substitute for plywood or foam. Coosa board will never rot & weighs 1/2 as much as plywood. You can select thickness based on your knowledge of how plywood would perform; e.g. if 1/2" plywood would flex too much if used as a cover/bridge over the hole in your backyard (awaiting a new pump), then use 3/4" and fear not.

Bad advise.

I spent a fair bit of my boatbuilding years building foam sandwich, kevlar, carbon epoxy cats and tri's.
Weight saving was the #1 priority
Except in areas that mattered
Anchoring hard point (amongst others) was not a place to save weight.

 

[Blissboat]

$15K sounds like an indirect way of saying "We don't have time for this job right now . . . come back after Christmas (if you still need it by then)."

It's rare to see an outright failure like this one, but I do often look at integrated pulpit platforms and wonder what the builder put into that assembly. That's because I hate it when the front falls off . . .

 

[rslifkin]

Bad advise.

I spent a fair bit of my boatbuilding years building foam sandwich, kevlar, carbon epoxy cats and tri's.
Weight saving was the #1 priority
Except in areas that mattered
Anchoring hard point (amongst others) was not a place to save weight.

With a pulpit built as a sandwich, you still need a lot of glass for strength. Not just thin skins, but on a large boat, 1/2" or more skins, plus thick sides as well. The sandwich is mostly to help make it thicker so you get more stiffness to go with the strength, not to save weight. Although if you manage to save a little weight while still achieving "something else will break first" kind of strength, that's just more weight you can put into the ground tackle.

On my pulpit, I added enough epoxy and glass during the recore that going from soaking wet plywood to 7.2 lb / cubic ft foam core didn't save any measurable amount of weight.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Bad advise.

I spent a fair bit of my boatbuilding years building foam sandwich, kevlar, carbon epoxy cats and tri's.
Weight saving was the #1 priority
Except in areas that mattered
Anchoring hard point (amongst others) was not a place to save weight.

? "Bad advise" (advice?)?


This comment is counterproductive to the ostensible purpose of spreading knowledge.

"Amazingly, Coosa Composites is still not widely known despite having been adopted by many builders as a substitute for plywood or foam. Coosa board will never rot & weighs 1/2 as much as plywood."
​

Declaring its light weight was obviously stated in the context of introducing a little known product line. Anyone pursuing the link can quickly learn that Coosa is offered in many thicknesses and different strengths, the choice of which is related to the job requirements.

Coosa is nearly a perfect product for re-coring transoms, which is why it's the go to product for repairing spongy Grady White transoms on the Chesapeake. The weight savings over plywood usually allows for heavier outboard motor(s). The pulpit repair should achieve the same structural rigidity & strength as a transom. When the job is replacing rotted 'foam' one might not be best off using foam again. Weight saved in the repair offsets heavier anchor(s) and chain. Obviously, good advice.


Don
Semper Paratus

 

[Simi 60]

Well, I would not be using plywood for that job either
Solid hardwood or metal would be my choice - not light foam core loaded up with enough glass
in the hope its up for the job.
Lot of labour for possibly dubious result.

All reminds me of a carbon fibre outboard bracket that was custom built for a racing trimaran.
Due to the labour content it cost a fortune compared to the aluminium one, it ended up being heavier and not long after it broke.

Replaced with the aluminium version and 10 yeas later still going strong.

 

[Peter B]

I'm with Simi in this. When you're talking anchoring gear you want strength, and that means solid hardwood, or metal of suitable thickness and bracing. However, I repeat one observation I think extra pertinent.

Why weaken any anchor support by putting a large slot in it, when a better arrangement, with an appropriate roller with retaining bolt set-up, is easier and better and stronger, and still lets the anchor, of whatever type, lie flat once retrieved and parked, while at the same time making sure the fluke tip never comes near the bow then swinging in a rough water retrieval. This would be my concern re the suggestion by someone that he wonders why large boats even need a pulpit. Unless you've got a bit enough boat to have ship-like anchor hawse pipes with large stainless steel protection plates, you want to get it out and away from the nice gel-coated bow, right..?

 

[wkearney99]

Why weaken any anchor support by putting a large slot in it, when a better arrangement, with an appropriate roller with retaining bolt set-up, is easier and better and stronger, and still lets the anchor, of whatever type, lie flat once retrieved and parked, while at the same time making sure the fluke tip never comes near the bow then swinging in a rough water retrieval. This would be my concern re the suggestion by someone that he wonders why large boats even need a pulpit. Unless you've got a bit enough boat to have ship-like anchor hawse pipes with large stainless steel protection plates, you want to get it out and away from the nice gel-coated bow, right..?

I'm with you on this. I've never liked the pulpit arrangement that tucks the anchor under it. It often prevents you from using a different anchor, one that might be better suited for your cruising grounds. That and you can't usually get a good look at the rode and anchor as you're retrieving it. That just adds to the hassle hosing off the mud. And then there's the EXTRA added hassle of trying to get a snubber onto the rode while it's deploying out through the slot.

It's one thing to keep a certain look. But if you're not overly concerned about that I'd consider a roller arrangement.

 

[rslifkin]

Thru pulpit rollers with a slot do have their downsides. If it's all well designed, strength shouldn't be a concern though. There's no reason it can't be just as strong as a roller that goes over the top. And as long as there's enough clearance in the slot forward of the roller and the roller height is reasonable, most anchor types will fit fine.

I'll agree that snubber attachment can be a pain unless you want the snubber run over the roller with the chain. For rinsing mud, I usually just set the washdown nozzle to a narrow cone and blast it right at the roller in the slot. That knocks most of the mud off before it ever hits the top of the pulpit and it runs a good bit of water down the chain as well.

Picture below is an example of a 73 lb Vulcan in a slot on my boat. I did have to notch the front of the slot for clearance, but doing that also gave the shank a surface to snug up tightly against, so even though the roller is a bit low and the anchor doesn't touch the bottom of the pulpit, it sits solidly and doesn't wobble.

 

[sunchaser]

I'm with Simi in this. When you're talking anchoring gear you want strength, and that means solid hardwood, or metal of suitable thickness and bracing. However, I repeat one observation I think extra pertinent.

Why weaken any anchor support by putting a large slot in it, when a better arrangement, with an appropriate roller with retaining bolt set-up, is easier and better and stronger, and still lets the anchor, of whatever type, lie flat once retrieved and parked, while at the same time making sure the fluke tip never comes near the bow then swinging in a rough water retrieval. This would be my concern re the suggestion by someone that he wonders why large boats even need a pulpit. Unless you've got a bit enough boat to have ship-like anchor hawse pipes with large stainless steel protection plates, you want to get it out and away from the nice gel-coated bow, right..?

As you note, Simi says a sturdy arrangement. What sort of a pulpit does he have? Or the thousands of no pulpit DeFevers out there? Or tens of thousands of sail boats?

I'm not against a sturdy well thought out pulpit. The bow design plays a huge role. The more plumb the bow the greater the need for a functional and well designed extension arrangement for the bow roller.

Plenty of vessels have pulpits and plenty don't. Our pulpit less vessel has made more than a few heaving seas retrievals. I'm glad we have a stainless plate up front though.

All this boat design 101 aside, the OP needs to get a good understanding as to his vessel's foredeck strength. I've seen more than a few vessels where a saturated foredeck leads to structural difficulties in the windlass and pulpit area.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Perspective

Let's not miss the forest for the trees as we ponder super strength fabrications. If an I-beam was fitted as a sprit/pulpit it would still be a sub-optimal anchor point.

When I sailed a double headsail ketch in the seventies, I was always overly anxious as storm rollers bounced my bow up & down, up & down because the strain on the bow sprit was ominous! Then one day I noticed an old schooner captain used a snubber to tether his rode to his bobstay chain plate near the waterline. Shazaam! I immediately adopted the concept and it has paid off handsomely over many years and boats (see 42' sloop in Marsh Harbor).

Consider that if the bow roller is, say 10 feet, above the water and you elect a 7:1 scope, Your swing radius is 70 feet wider than it would be if the tether point was near the waterline. Using 316L bar stock to make a chainplate that is bolted to a 'knee' glassed into the keel is far superior to anything discussed above. Moreover, you can easily replace the chainplate after 20~25 years just like sailboats do.

This technique eliminates noise of the rode over a roller, making for better sleep. It is also an opportunity to eliminate disastrous chafe. I employ 2 sacrificial nylon snubbers during a storm. The concept being that one can break after much cyclic stretching thus allowing the slightly longer snubber to take over. The lazy rode only takes over after both snubbers fail.

Also of great importance is minimizing the lead angle on the anchor!!

Sorry I don't have a decent photo of the 1/2" U-Bolt I've installed on my Sabreline 34, but the enclosure reveals its' presence. Do it right.



Don
Semper Paratus

 

[jhall767]

Fixed it!

Just kidding

But I think this was the original design from the factory. I'm considering having only one anchor mounted. I could keep the fortress 85 stowed as a spare.

 

[FlyWright]

My boat came with a deck-mounted Powerwinch and a pulpit. When it came time to install a proper windlass on a self-deploying roller, I chose to stick with the solid teak pulpit reinforced with stainless steel plate above the pulpit and below the deck. (Yes, those long bolts were cut to length.)

IMO, sandwiching the structure in SS plate gives it much greater strength and longevity. YMMV

 

[sunchaser]

Just kidding

But I think this was the original design from the factory. I'm considering having only one anchor mounted. I could keep the fortress 85 stowed as a spare.

That should work just fine. The SS hawse pipe extension and roller assembly should be securely mounted with a conforming backing plate as Flywright pictured. Consider adding a pre formed SS hull protector. Our spare anchor, a fortress as well, has never been used.

 

[jhall767]

Let's not miss the forest for the trees as we ponder super strength fabrications. If an I-beam was fitted as a sprit/pulpit it would still be a sub-optimal anchor point.

When I sailed a double headsail ketch in the seventies, I was always overly anxious as storm rollers bounced my bow up & down, up & down because the strain on the bow sprit was ominous! Then one day I noticed an old schooner captain used a snubber to tether his rode to his bobstay chain plate near the waterline. Shazaam! I immediately adopted the concept and it has paid off handsomely over many years and boats (see 42' sloop in Marsh Harbor).

Consider that if the bow roller is, say 10 feet, above the water and you elect a 7:1 scope, Your swing radius is 70 feet wider than it would be if the tether point was near the waterline. Using 316L bar stock to make a chainplate that is bolted to a 'knee' glassed into the keel is far superior to anything discussed above. Moreover, you can easily replace the chainplate after 20~25 years just like sailboats do.

This technique eliminates noise of the rode over a roller, making for better sleep. It is also an opportunity to eliminate disastrous chafe. I employ 2 sacrificial nylon snubbers during a storm. The concept being that one can break after much cyclic stretching thus allowing the slightly longer snubber to take over. The lazy rode only takes over after both snubbers fail.

Also of great importance is minimizing the lead angle on the anchor!!

Sorry I don't have a decent photo of the 1/2" U-Bolt I've installed on my Sabreline 34, but the enclosure reveals its' presence. Do it right.



Don
Semper Paratus

I use a mantus anchor bridle. Tied on the bow cleats it effectively does the same thing as it moves the rode to the waterline at the bow. It definitely shortens your swing at a given scope. It also minimizes "Tacking" in a strong wind as the two lines always want to keep the boat pointed at the anchor. The nylon lines also act as the snubber.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

My explanation must have been unclear. Let me try again.

I use a mantus anchor bridle. Tied on the bow cleats it effectively does the same thing as it moves the rode to the waterline at the bow. It definitely shortens your swing at a given scope. It also minimizes "Tacking" in a strong wind as the two lines always want to keep the boat pointed at the anchor. The nylon lines also act as the snubber.

Imagine trying to move a 10' x 10' x 10' storage cube in your yard using your Jeep. You might attach a towline to a shackle point near the ground, or, at the top of the container. The angle the tow line forms with the ground would be very different. The enclosed drawing portrays this if you consider the rode angle to the "hawsehole" versus the "substantial bobstay fitting" You cannot achieve the improvements I described when the snubber, or rode, is attached at deck level.



Perhaps John Kettlewell's tutorial will be more clear: Benefits of a bow eye - Ocean Navigator - October 2011


Don
Semper Paratus

 

[jhall767]

Except the bridle does exactly that. The attachment point is not at the bow.
Sorry for the crude drawing but the blue line is where the bridle lines are. Not at the bow. Maybe a little lower in the water or higher but pretty close.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Except the bridle does exactly that. The attachment point is not at the bow.
Sorry for the crude drawing but the blue line is where the bridle lines are. Not at the bow. Maybe a little lower in the water or higher but pretty close.

OK, then.

 

[Peter B]

Except the bridle does exactly that. The attachment point is not at the bow.
Sorry for the crude drawing but the blue line is where the bridle lines are. Not at the bow. Maybe a little lower in the water or higher but pretty close.

Actually, I never bothered with a bridle, because setting up just one snubber, which I used to run out over the roller, was so much simpler and quicker. However, I can see the benefit of both of your ideas, jhall, and AUXOPdwp, in that both approaches achieve pretty much the same thing, but more importantly remove the downward forces from the end of the pulpit that inevitably occur when you just run a snubber out over the roller. If I had not had such a seriously strong pulpit plank, or ever had to anchor in places where the weather could get a lot wilder I would have adopted a bridle, as clearly that is easier to set up than mounting a chainplate down at the bow waterline.

 

[sunchaser]

Waterline mounted chain plates are popular on many high bowed vessels, like Nordhavn, larger KKs and Northern Marine. On larger yachts the "lowering" effect is gained by the hawse holes with hull protection provided by steel plates.