Cal 20's "dreaded beam"

Listmates: The beam talk got me to thinking about my Cal 20, the later version with compression posts to carry part of the load of the deck-stepped mast. The posts are under an athwartships deck beam of teak that runs out to the hull, where the ends are 'glassed in. On my boat, the beam has been sistered on both sides, the width of the span between the compression posts. If you look between the sisters, you can see a distinct crack through the original deck beam. The sister pieces are very nicely made of teak, and look like a factory component. They are glued and through-bolted. I'm wondering if this was a factory repair, addressing a design defect? Does anybody know? Chris Campbell

Ive wondered about that issue as well. In the book Blackfeathers, a 1960's something CAL 20 and a very early hull number complete with solid bulkheads, the PO had added a 4X4 across the top to take the loads, is how its described in the book. Btw...you should be getting it next week some time. I liked it so much (thanks Mike F) I read several chapters twice. What is interesting is that no modification were made to he hull or deck. Original mast and boom as well. The upgrades with stock rigging, good quality sails (4 in total) new standing and running rigging, electrical (which is a nice blueprint for the 29, fused switches not breakers each being uni functional)..anyways..not going to spoil if for you. Point is this particular boat complete with bulkheads, had a total of equivalent of a 4x4 across the top in the area that you are referring to. It was an upgrade that the first owner made, mostly likely as he added a club footed self tacking jib to the boat. I have the same setup. Two compression posts. And when I get around to refitting the boat, I'm going to beef up this area as well. I may even add partial bulkheads, that is from the hull to where the compression tubes are now located on both sides and then strengthen the upper crosspiece. All in all this is a question for Mike F. Best regards /ch

chris123 wrote: > > > > > I have the same setup. Two compression posts. And when I get around to > refitting the boat, I'm going to beef up this area as well. I may even > add partial bulkheads, that is from the hull to where the compression > tubes are now located on both sides and then strengthen the upper > crosspiece. > If I can remember, I'll take the digital camera to the boat and snap some pics of my beam. It's supposed to thunderstorm this afternoon so I may not go sailing today. Chris Campbell

It would be interesting to see, but this really is a question for Mike F as he has rebuild several boats. Ive just started to learn about the CAL 20, she's my first. Cal 29 came second and thats where Im currently spending most of my learning time and resources. Would be interesting picture to see however. Best regards /ch

I am rather familiar with Cal 20 construction. I have not seen what you describe. What could have caused such loading to have made the beam fail? It is 1.5" or so thick and well supported. I now sail hull 61. She had straps installed that pulled the ring bulkhead out and broke the bonding. I jacked the bulkhead back as far as I could get it and then reglassed it in. The deck came back within 1/2 inch of what it had been in 1962. Good nuff. In her first race in 35 or so years she got 2nd place. She is fast! Early 20's had F/G tubes instead of plywood. Lighter and faster! My Best, Mike ps. We are leading our Div. in YRA in a 1967 boat with 20 year old sails! Go figure. From: Chris Campbell <cl… [at] charterinternet.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 11:28:07 AM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" Listmates: The beam talk got me to thinking about my Cal 20, the later version with compression posts to carry part of the load of the deck-stepped mast. The posts are under an athwartships deck beam of teak that runs out to the hull, where the ends are 'glassed in. On my boat, the beam has been sistered on both sides, the width of the span between the compression posts. If you look between the sisters, you can see a distinct crack through the original deck beam. The sister pieces are very nicely made of teak, and look like a factory component. They are glued and through-bolted. I'm wondering if this was a factory repair, addressing a design defect? Does anybody know? Chris Campbell ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Show me the pix. My Best, Mike From: Chris Campbell <cl… [at] charterinternet.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 1:46:01 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" chris123 wrote: > > >I have the same setup. Two compression posts. And when I get around to refitting >the boat, I'm going to beef up this area as well. I may even add partial >bulkheads, that is from the hull to where the compression tubes are now located >on both sides and then strengthen the upper crosspiece. > > > If I can remember, I'll take the digital camera to the boat and snap some pics of my beam. It's supposed to thunderstorm this afternoon so I may not go sailing today. Chris Campbell

OK! I think that Jensen Marine did OK when they changed from ring bulkhead to beam and post. This is about hull 675. That said, the earlier boats were faster, perhaps lighter. The later boats had a better interior. So if you wish to race and win go for a boat earlier than hull 75. My best, Mike F From: chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 1:01:51 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" Ive wondered about that issue as well. In the book Blackfeathers, a 1960's something CAL 20 and a very early hull number complete with solid bulkheads, the PO had added a 4X4 across the top to take the loads, is how its described in the book. Btw...you should be getting it next week some time. I liked it so much (thanks Mike F) I read several chapters twice. What is interesting is that no modification were made to he hull or deck. Original mast and boom as well. The upgrades with stock rigging, good quality sails (4 in total) new standing and running rigging, electrical (which is a nice blueprint for the 29, fused switches not breakers each being uni functional)..anyways..not going to spoil if for you. Point is this particular boat complete with bulkheads, had a total of equivalent of a 4x4 across the top in the area that you are referring to. It was an upgrade that the first owner made, mostly likely as he added a club footed self tacking jib to the boat. I have the same setup. Two compression posts. And when I get around to refitting the boat, I'm going to beef up this area as well. I may even add partial bulkheads, that is from the hull to where the compression tubes are now located on both sides and then strengthen the upper crosspiece. All in all this is a question for Mike F. Best regards /ch

If the problem is anything like the CAL 25 (similar 1.5" overhead beam) it is not the beam itself, but the external mast pedestal. It transfers load out to the compression posts that are on either side of the entrance to the forward cabin. If the pedestal gets soggy inside and sinks down, the internal beam cannot take the load by itself. It is really a combo of the pedestal, the deck ply, and the beam that provide the support. These days, a CAL 25 beam replacement is done at the same time as cutting out and replacing the wood in the external mast pedestal. People used to run turning blocks and things into the external pedestal with wood screws (over the internal beam so hard to through-bolt). The wood screws would work loose and seepage into the pedestal would destroy the wood sandwich. I bet the wood sistering described for the CAL 20 was a repair for wood damaged by chainplate leakage. It was a substitute for replacing the whole beam. My humble (but not uneducated) opinion. Cheers Charlie From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike farrell Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:25 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" I am rather familiar with Cal 20 construction. I have not seen what you describe. What could have caused such loading to have made the beam fail? It is 1.5" or so thick and well supported. I now sail hull 61. She had straps installed that pulled the ring bulkhead out and broke the bonding. I jacked the bulkhead back as far as I could get it and then reglassed it in. The deck came back within 1/2 inch of what it had been in 1962. Good nuff. In her first race in 35 or so years she got 2nd place. She is fast! Early 20's had F/G tubes instead of plywood. Lighter and faster! My Best, Mike ps. We are leading our Div. in YRA in a 1967 boat with 20 year old sails! Go figure. From: Chris Campbell <cl… [at] charterinternet.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 11:28:07 AM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" Listmates: The beam talk got me to thinking about my Cal 20, the later version with compression posts to carry part of the load of the deck-stepped mast. The posts are under an athwartships deck beam of teak that runs out to the hull, where the ends are 'glassed in. On my boat, the beam has been sistered on both sides, the width of the span between the compression posts. If you look between the sisters, you can see a distinct crack through the original deck beam. The sister pieces are very nicely made of teak, and look like a factory component. They are glued and through-bolted. I'm wondering if this was a factory repair, addressing a design defect? Does anybody know? Chris Campbell ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links

Charlie, I have a tabernackle support for me mast. The last time I worked on it I dug out as much of the white crud that had formed under it that I could, maybe a quarter of its thickness, and squooshed in West Systems thickened with colloidal silicon, or silicone. I didn't attempt to remove the wood screws as they were frozen solid. Since then it appears the epoxy filler and the aluminum may have separated again, and of course, I'm worried about moisture migrating into the beam, which cracked a bit, tearing the fiberglass laminate under it, shortly after I bought it and I think, during my maiden sail after I'd had her worked over at the boatyard. I discovered that the turnbuckles of the shrouds seemed overtightened by the P.O. If I take the mast down again (go to do something about my tricolor and deck lights, and maybe get rid of it and it's heavy romex power line, or just put in an LED replacement bulb and a smaller gauge wire?) To get those wood screws out, do I need to drill them out, or pound the living daylights out of it with an impact wrench (I think I tried that and it didn't work, the last time) then maybe bite the bullet and find a new tabernackle fitting, or just reseal it, squish in more epoxy, and fuggetabout it? I'm assuming those big wood screws are stainless, but, being a kit built boat, I can not depend on that, as the owner was quite electic about some of the screws he used, including in some places, plain steel dry wall screws! Also, what is the easiest way to fix the cracked fiberglass laminate around the support beam? Grind it down and re-fiberglass? Contact cement? Elmer's glue? Ignore and hope it goes away? I also found a bit of ^%$#@ dry rot at the base of the verticle beam that supports my very own quarterberth. I'm thinking of killing it with borax and or antifreeze and making a special prayer to the Fungus God. Of course I should probably amputate some of the wood, but I hate to make a mess. And then there's the tabbing that has torn away from the hull around some of the bulkheads here and there. There I'm thinking of a combination of dabs of industrial contact cement, industrial super glue, and thickened West Systems, vs. grinding off the tabbing and re doing it. The tabbing seems well fastened to the bulkhead still, and otherwise intact. The worst tabbing problem is alongside my V berth, on one side of the hull. There I'm thinking of removing the paint, and epoxying a new strip of tabbing right over the old stuff vs. grinding the old stuff off, it seems still well fastened to both the hull and plywood, just completely fractured along the V berth deck to hull joint. Jerry --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Husar, Charlie [USA] <hu… [at] bah.com> wrote: From: Husar, Charlie [USA] <hu… [at] bah.com> Subject: RE: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" To: "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 4:45 PM If the problem is anything like the CAL 25 (similar 1.5" overhead beam) it is not the beam itself, but the external mast pedestal. It transfers load out to the compression posts that are on either side of the entrance to the forward cabin. If the pedestal gets soggy inside and sinks down, the internal beam cannot take the load by itself. It is really a combo of the pedestal, the deck ply, and the beam that provide the support. These days, a CAL 25 beam replacement is done at the same time as cutting out and replacing the wood in the external mast pedestal. People used to run turning blocks and things into the external pedestal with wood screws (over the internal beam so hard to through-bolt) . The wood screws would work loose and seepage into the pedestal would destroy the wood sandwich. I bet the wood sistering described for the CAL 20 was a repair for wood damaged by chainplate leakage. It was a substitute for replacing the whole beam. My humble (but not uneducated) opinion. Cheers Charlie

The early boats such as Black Feathers hull 14 and Coyote hull 61 had ring bulkheads which were not as good a support as the later beam and post development. If the bulkhead warped and curved out of column as was the case on Coyote, the fiberglas bulkhead bonding failed and the mast compression caused a very noticeable depression at the mast step. I have gone to a "looser" tuning as Dave Ullman and North sails employ. Not as loose as Southern Cal boats. This puts less loading on all components and allows the mast to fall off to leward which eases the mainsail leech particularly in the upper 1/3 where it does the most good. I load the adjustable backstay to put 6-7 inches of bend(curve) into the spar in wind speed over 25k in the Sparcraft mast. 5 to 6 inches in the Jensen section mast. It was a lot of work but the damage to 61 was repaired by jacking the curve out of the bulkhead and rebonding everything. The core plywood is minimal in boats under hull 75 and 61's is still ok. The 1.5 inch plus depression disappeared and the last 1/4 could be shimmed away the area around the arch was reinforced and the beam, much smaller in the earlier boats was sistered. I sailed 61 in 27k with puffs to 34 Tuesday with a full main and she did well so this repair is a success at least for now. I will take 1 turn off the aft lowers and 1.5 to 2 turns off the uppers. I tune from tighter toward loose to too loose and then come a little back to a bit tighter. When you tune, remember that increasing backstay tension will have the effect of releasing upper stay tension as backstay pressure is applied, This works to allow less rig loading in the upper spar which is a desired effect, once tuned the only adjustment called for is to use the backstay to add pressure to keep headstay sag in the 2-4 inch range and to bend the mast to pull draft and keep the depth of maximum camber where it belongs. Happy Sailing, My Best, Mike F From: chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 1:01:51 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" Ive wondered about that issue as well. In the book Blackfeathers, a 1960's something CAL 20 and a very early hull number complete with solid bulkheads, the PO had added a 4X4 across the top to take the loads, is how its described in the book. Btw...you should be getting it next week some time. I liked it so much (thanks Mike F) I read several chapters twice. What is interesting is that no modification were made to he hull or deck. Original mast and boom as well. The upgrades with stock rigging, good quality sails (4 in total) new standing and running rigging, electrical (which is a nice blueprint for the 29, fused switches not breakers each being uni functional)..anyways..not going to spoil if for you. Point is this particular boat complete with bulkheads, had a total of equivalent of a 4x4 across the top in the area that you are referring to. It was an upgrade that the first owner made, mostly likely as he added a club footed self tacking jib to the boat. I have the same setup. Two compression posts. And when I get around to refitting the boat, I'm going to beef up this area as well. I may even add partial bulkheads, that is from the hull to where the compression tubes are now located on both sides and then strengthen the upper crosspiece. All in all this is a question for Mike F. Best regards /ch

Hi Chris, Cal 20 production ceased in 1973 at about hull 1953. I sailed ASAGAO, hull 1709 built in 71. I don't believe that Jensen Marine did any supplemental work after delivery. This is based on conversations with Steve Seal who worked for Jack Jensen in Cost Mesa. Most likely this was done or commissioned to be done by a former owner. My Best, Mike F From: Chris Campbell <cl… [at] charterinternet.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 11:28:07 AM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Cal 20's "dreaded beam" Listmates: The beam talk got me to thinking about my Cal 20, the later version with compression posts to carry part of the load of the deck-stepped mast. The posts are under an athwartships deck beam of teak that runs out to the hull, where the ends are 'glassed in. On my boat, the beam has been sistered on both sides, the width of the span between the compression posts. If you look between the sisters, you can see a distinct crack through the original deck beam. The sister pieces are very nicely made of teak, and look like a factory component. They are glued and through-bolted. I'm wondering if this was a factory repair, addressing a design defect? Does anybody know? Chris Campbell ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Husar, Charlie [USA] wrote: > > > > I bet the wood sistering described for the CAL 20 was a repair for > wood damaged by chainplate leakage. It was a substitute for replacing > the whole beam. My humble (but not uneducated) opinion. Nice try, Charlie, but uh-uh, not so. My boat's deck core is original and intact. The deck beam is still there between the sisters, undamaged by rot. There is no external wooden pedestal on the 20. It's purely a problem of point loading between the compression posts. Maybe the original owner, who was a winning racer in his younger days, overtightened the rig at some point. In any event, the repair has the look of a factory job. The sister beams are exact duplicates, the edges are all perfectly radiused. I picture in my mind the deck beak developing that big crack, and the unhappy owner calling the factory and saying "WTF, my new boat has a cracked beam under the mast step," and then the factory sending out a guy with a pre-made repair. There were big storm clouds yesterday evening so I stayed home and cut the lawn (or perhaps "lawn," my collection of interesting weeds) for the first time in about 6 weeks. Of course, it did not rain. But tonight promises to be nice, especially if the north wind rises above the 5-10 knots forecast or at least hits the upper end of the range. I'll try to remember the camera so I can photograph the repair. Chris Campbell Cal 20 #1220 (1967) >