Glass Rozinante Keel Damage

Rozinante · Post by **Rozinante** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:37 am

I am a proud new owner of a 1966 Cheoy Lee Herreshoff Rozinante. I picked this boat up in Michigan last summer and dropped it right in the water down here on Cape Cod for the season. I now have it out in my barn and am in the process of gutting the cabin and repairing a crack in the keel. Throughout the season I experienced seawater on the cabin sole coming at a rate of about an inch a day. Upon hauling I noticed a small crack with water exiting just under the leading edge of the keel. As soon as I got it in the barn I ground out the crack to let it drain, flushed it with fresh water and am letting it dry out for as long as possible before I reseal it. Here's my question. It appears that the keel is filled with concrete and I'm assuming there's either iron or lead as well. When I opened up the keel I found that the concrete does not reach all the way down. There are open voids inside the keel, and more can be discovered by tapping around with a hammer. This seems like a problem. Does anyone know if this is a serious problem, and if so, what I can do to fix it. I have thought of injecting concrete or some sort of resin. Please let me know of your ideas, and thank you in advance for you help with this issue.

David · Post by **David** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:27 am

It was common at Cheoy Lee to use concrete and iron or steel in the keels; it would not have lead if there is concrete. The problem is that sea water getting into the internal ballast as you seem to have can eat up the metal in the concrete, which can leave voids and reduce the weight of the ballast. I would drill some experimental holes in your keel, holes large enough to accept a small diameter tube and lerge enough that you could probe inside with a opened coat hanger.

Since you have internal ballast, I am concerned about the crack in the leading edge of the keel--I would guess there must be a void there for it to be damaged that way.

You can fill the voids with polyester resin, but it will shrink. A better "filler" would be epoxy which, with the cool to cold weather this time of year could be more easily controlled for exotherming.

Good luck with it,

David

Richincident · Post by **Richincident** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:57 pm

Hmmm. I had an AMF Sunbird with a fiberglass C-board that was filled with a piece of flat iron. Over time the iron (not in my boat but in MANY of the Sunbirds) turned to rusty filings and fell out. OR worse, swelled up and pushed the centerboard out sufficiently so it could not be moved up or down.

Now the centerboard on a Sunbird only weighs about 50 pounds (maybe less) so the movable ballast is what keeps her up. BUT if there WAS a lot of iron in the keel, and it has rusted away, what is going to maintain the stability of this lovely boat? OR will the concrete be sufficient? In the Sunbird community folks have replaced the iron with lead birdshot, epoxied together. BUT on the Rozinanante that is a LOT of birdshot.

David wrote:It was common at Cheoy Lee to use concrete and iron or steel in the keels; it would not have lead if there is concrete. The problem is that sea water getting into the internal ballast as you seem to have can eat up the metal in the concrete, which can leave voids and reduce the weight of the ballast. I would drill some experimental holes in your keel, holes large enough to accept a small diameter tube and lerge enough that you could probe inside with a opened coat hanger.

Since you have internal ballast, I am concerned about the crack in the leading edge of the keel--I would guess there must be a void there for it to be damaged that way.

You can fill the voids with polyester resin, but it will shrink. A better "filler" would be epoxy which, with the cool to cold weather this time of year could be more easily controlled for exotherming.

Good luck with it,

David

David · Post by **David** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:51 pm

Actually, I believe lead shot and concrete have about the same weight per cubic ft--around 450 pounds. Solid lead is about 700 - 750 pounds. Who know how much, if any metal is gone from her keel or how tender she is now versus when there was more ballast. If the owner is rebuilding her interior, perhaps he can make some weight reductions that will offset any reductionn in ballast.

Rozinante · Post by **Rozinante** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:19 am

I will definitely try to inject something into the voided areas. Not sure what yet. I guess whatever is cheap, durable and heavy. I guess polyester resin is just that. Any idea what the average shrink percentage is? Thanks so much for all your advice.

David · Post by **David** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:37 am

There is not much shrinkage--I don't know what a calculation would be for it. The issue is more that the shrinkage will mean the encapsulation will shrink a little where it is injected and pull away from the inner walls of the keel, thus creating another void or air space between the ballast and the keel. I think you would be better served by using epoxy which does not shrink.

Quetzalsailor · Post by **Quetzalsailor** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:48 am

I seem to remember from Concrete 101 that it is 150 lbs/cu ft.

It's pretty worthless stuff long term, and like underwear, should never be used where it can be seen. I'm sure it's particularly bad when used out of sight for fill in boats. It'd be watered, sloppy loose, for easy pouring so it would be even more prone to micro-cracking as it cured and then dried. Means that the steel punchings and scrap metal used to bring the weight up would be more exposed to water intrusion than in exterior components of buildings and bridges. There certainly is shrinkage as the concrete cures; the idea for good concrete is that you mix just enough water into the cement-aggregate to replace the water that was driven out of the limestone when the cement was made. That's not very much water and the stuff won't pour. The compromise is to use more water or various liquifying agents and the result is, hopefully, an acceptable amount of cracking and shrinkage. Hoewever, all those spalled and crumbling bridges, highways, parking garages, exposed concrete frames, etc. tells you the truth of the issue.

You can read to your heart's content in the ACI (American Concrete Institute) Code, or ANSI, about mix ratios and additives but they're not going to be admitting how bad the stuff is.

JonnyBoats · Post by **JonnyBoats** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:52 am

Hoewever, all those spalled and crumbling bridges, highways, parking garages, exposed concrete frames, etc. tells you the truth of the issue.

I guess it's a good thing that the ancient Romans never heard of the American Concrete Institute;-)

JonnyBoats · Post by **JonnyBoats** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:01 am

Does anyone know if this is a serious problem, and if so, what I can do to fix it.

I used to have a Cheoy Lee Bermuda 30 ketch. These older Cheoy Lees are frustrating in that some aspects of the boats, the teak work for example, are of extremely high quality while other aspects (e.g. the ballast) are enough to make you pull your hair out.

And then just when you are ready to give up somebody walks by and compliments you on how nice your boat looks (and they do look great!)

If you love the boat and are planning on keeping it long term, have you considered removing entirely what is now in the keel and replacing it with lead?

Hirilondë · Post by **Hirilondë** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:09 am

It sounds like you have 2 issues. One is that you may have lost some of your ballast. The other is that you have a crack in the shell of your keel. The two problems can be addressed separately.

On a Renegade the keel is a fiberglass shell. Part of the volume is filled with lead. Part of it is a complete void. The shell of mine is almost 3/4" near the bottom of the void section. I know this from drilling out for a drain plug.

If you have lost ballast, almost anything can be used to replace it. As long as you can get it into the voids and secure what ever you use it will work. Some materials will last better than others. The greater the specific gravity of the material, the greater the ballast you can fit into any given void.

Once this is done you need to repair the shell. The needed strength of this shell can be achieved even if there is a void in some places provided you use good materials (cloth, mat, resin, etc), make a proper scarf, and achieve a thickness necessary for the appropriate structural integrity.

My point is that both parts of your problem can be addressed independently. Your choices for each do not have to be related.

It is better if some portion of the bottom of your keel is solid, and that you know where this section is. This is for the sake of blocking when your boat is on the hard. This can be accomplished by grinding in until a solid base is found and laying up a lot of glass and resin. But some voids isn't the end of the world.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:21 pm

Congrates on the Roz - very few of these were ever built. Of all the fiberglass versions the Cheoy Lee was my favorite as it was closer to the original design then the Kenner - and I heard was one of the few fiberglass/modified designs the LFH himself was OK with.

I'm not convinced you have lost any ballast - voids were quite common with inside ballast keels. I would do as David states and drill holes and inject epoxy. The bigger concern is the crack - which may have nothing to do with the ballast issue.

Have you been over to the Cheoy Lee owner’s site? They may be able to help as well.

BTW, I think I know your boat - I had been talking to a broker about purchasing her myself last year. The distance /cost to move made it impossible for me. I have some pics of her on my Flickr site, and some the broker sent me.

Rozinante · Post by **Rozinante** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:17 pm

It sounds to me that the general consensus is to fill what I can and then build up a good thick layer of glass over the crack. The cost of epoxy makes it seem a bit crazy to just dump a bunch of it into my keel. Maybe it's not such a big deal if I use polyester and live with it shrinking a bit. Thanks so much for all your advice / ideas.

David · Post by **David** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:51 pm

<<I seem to remember from Concrete 101 that it is 150 lbs/cu ft. >>

Yes you're right. I was thinking of cast iron at about the same weight as lead shot. In looking up these weights I came across an interesting factoid. That of C&C actually using spent uranium as ballast in a Canada's Cup contender two toner named Mirage. Uranium weighs a good bit more than lead at almost 1200 pounds per CF which allowed the same weight ballast in a slimmer keel. Plus the boat was easy to find in a dark harbor.

David

Case · Post by **Case** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:28 am

David wrote:<<I seem to remember from Concrete 101 that it is 150 lbs/cu ft. >>

Yes you're right. I was thinking of cast iron at about the same weight as lead shot. In looking up these weights I came across an interesting factoid. That of C&C actually using spent uranium as ballast in a Canada's Cup contender two toner named Mirage. Uranium weighs a good bit more than lead at almost 1200 pounds per CF which allowed the same weight ballast in a slimmer keel. Plus the boat was easy to find in a dark harbor.

David

That's interesting. Did not know C&C used spent uranium. I have known about spent uranium being used in the bulbs in some custom-built racers. Nowadays, tungsten is the more popular exotic ballast material for high end racers - more environmentally friendly...

C&C certainly was willing to try new things, that much I know from researching in C&C - more than other sailboat manufacturers of the same era (1960s-1970s).

- Case

Post by **Tim** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:02 am

I think he was talking about a custom racer built by C&C, not any of their production boats.

I also believe it didn't take long for the rule makers to outlaw uranium in keels, too!

Quetzalsailor · Post by **Quetzalsailor** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:13 am

Drying and filling voids around an 'encapsulated' keel has got to be a good thing, even if really difficult to do. Lots of chatter about that issue on the Morgan List some years ago. Some of the risks include freeze damage and better opportunity for blistering and osmotic damage to the 'glass. Difficulties include determining the extent of the problem. I recall that the Morgans were encapsulated by dropping the ballast keel into a puddle of polyester filler and pouring more filler over the top. (A M 27 sole was a puddle of marble dust-filled polyester with a sheet of 3/4" plywood laid onto it, which was then tabbed in.)

As for the longevity of old concrete, it's true that if the particular batch or component makes it for some reasonable time, then it's going to last far longer. A good indication is to look at the concrete surface when it's begun to dry after wetting: if you see a maze of cracks, that area will spall sooner. The Roman stuff was massive, unreinforced, made with natural cements (as opposed to Portland cements which were natural when they came from Portland, England, but are manufactured today anywhere there is limestone, grinding mills, and heat). One can hardly say that the typical Roman buildings are in good shape; it just has taken some centuries for the marble facings and roofing to disappear and more centuries for the remaining lumps of concrete to go. Fiberglass boats will dissolve sooner.

There was an adventure novel featuring a sailing yacht delivered from Algeria to a marina in DC. Its ballast had been replaced with a nuclear bomb. Not much uranium in a bomb, though; its weight is mostly the steel enclosure.