That does seem more sensible, on the whole. Would probably be an expensive mod, though.

Mine was originally that way, but I was chastised by a couple of boating friends. The through-hull itself is 1-1/4, while the whalegusher hose is 1-1/2. Already, I'm constraining flow. If I add the 1 inch hose from the electric bilge pump, I'm driving more water through there than it can handle. Of course, that's not a huge deal....except when both are running at the same time, which will only be during a crisis, which is precisely when I want it to flow as quickly as possible. Hence, the one pump/one through-hull policy.

How about all the cockpit/deck drains? Do other Contessas have four subwaterline through-hulls thanks to that alone?

So, I'm refitting a 1975 J.J. Taylor Contessa to bluewater shape. As a result, I've put seacocks on all through-hulls, and added one more through-hull for the cockpit bilge pump (a one through-hull per bilge pump policy).

So now I've got 11(!) through-hulls in my boat. The count:
2 x cockpit scuppers
2 x deck scuppers
2 x engine  in/out (the exhaust is above the waterline)
2 x head in/out
1 x sink drain
2 x bilge pump  (one for the electric, and the other for the mechanical pumps, both slightly above the waterline)

I'm simply amazed that such a small boat can have so many holes in its hull.

For starters, I'm tempted to drain the deck scuppers, which are a thin hose anyhow, via a y-joint into the cockpit scupper hoses (which are a thick hose).

That still leaves 9, which is a huge number to me. Anyone else think so?

For example, the people on Bika have no through-hulls. Of course, they don't have an engine or head...

Thanks.

Seeadler,

I'll keep that pointer in mind. I'm sure I'll need it in the future.

For the time being, I built up the hose section with epoxy plus filler, and clamped it back into place. I'll find a long-term fix later after I've knocked a few more near-term problems off the to-do list.


Thanks all,

A.

I recently removed the stuffing box on my 1975 Co26 to repack it, when I noticed the end the hose clamps on is somewhat pitted and corroded. Not hugely, but probably enough to prevent a good seal.

The shaft size is 7/8". The hose side is 1-1/4", as is the stub it clamps onto in the Contessa. Looking to replace it,  I found that no one makes stuffing boxes in size 7/8", 1-1/4". Surely someone must have had this issue before and had to replace their box. Any ideas where to find a replacement, or potential workarounds that don't involve replacing the shaft tube?

If I don't find a replacement, I'll likely fill the pits with epoxy and sand it down flush with the bronze and go with that, but that's just postponing the inevitable as this piece of bronze will go sometime, and I'm keeping the boat for the long haul.

Many thanks,
Antonio.

6

(12 replies, posted in Sails & Rigging)

Yeah, the chainplates are an issue. Don't think I want to do such major surgery right now. Although, in the case of the Contessa, assuming the bulkhead is sound, doesn't look like it would be too hard just bolt in sturdier ones.

I'll do 3/16 for everything, but try to beef up the forestay. The deck fitting for the forestay is two rather dinky-looking tangs, which go to a crossbolt, which goes through the stemhead fitting. The tang won't accept a 3/8 inch pin, so I'll likely have to replace them. Strangely, a previous owner fit a small bowsprit and anchor roller over the stemhead, so I'll have to take all that off to get to it. More wrenching...

Thanks for the information.

7

(12 replies, posted in Sails & Rigging)

Finally got the rigging all measured.

Looks like it's mostly 3/16" actually, with 1/4" pins. Seems kind of light to me, but the rigger indicated that upgrading to 7/32 would necessarily require larger pins, and hence larger chainplates (he dismissed drilling out the current ones, as it would thin out the tang too much).

Everyone here seems to indicate a size up in rigging. Did you also change the chainplates? Is 3/16" the production rigging size the Contessa shipped with?

Thanks, A.

Update:

Glassed over the garboard drain, and replacing everything below the waterline with bronze through-hulls and seacocks.

Thanks for all the comments.

Update:

Glassed over the garboard drain, and replacing everything below the waterline with bronze through-hulls and seacocks.

Thanks for all the comments.

11

(12 replies, posted in Sails & Rigging)

Asked the rigger at Svendsen's, a big boat yard in Alameda. He says stay with the old sized rigging. Bigger wire implies bigger forces for the same tension, which might put unexpected stress on other parts of the boat. The margins the designer built in should be way over kill already. I think I'll follow his advice. Thanks for all the comments.

Ian,

The previous owner put hatches in the cockpit sole, which are easily opened. So the seacocks could be reached in a pinch (now, whether one should have loosely-gasketed plastic hatches in the cabin sole is another matter). When I haul it, I'll strategize about where to run the things instead. Hard to picture where they could go in the water.


Stefan, bronze elbows and ball valves is what I had in mind.

As for the bilge plug....I misspoke. It is indeed a garboard plug, not really on the bottom. I have no idea about its integrity. It looks bronze and well-corroded. Probably hasn't been opened in ages. I understand this boat was on the hard for years, and not sailed much. As a result, not much wear, but crates of documents on owner projects over the years...

Yeah, I thought about the elbow thing. I believe I've seen such a setup on some boats, but even with a tight elbow, it's a tight fit indeed (not to mention there's an additional point of failure in the through-hull->elbow/elbow->seacock joints. Still better than nylon and hoses though. I think I'm going to haul the boat next week and see what the local boatyard says. I get the feeling I'll be writing big checks soon unfortunately.

And speaking of filling holes, I was dismayed to discover the boat also has a bilge drain plug at the bottom of the keel, which ideally wouldn't be there either.

15

(12 replies, posted in Sails & Rigging)

Christopher,

The current rig on the boat is exactly what you describe, down to the snap shackle holding up the boom. It's probably less failure prone than a bridle.

I'll go to my local rigging shop and see what they think about the idea(s). Still plowing through The Rigger's Apprentice so I won't sound like an ignoramus...

16

(12 replies, posted in Sails & Rigging)

The twin backstay idea is an interesting thought.

Stefan, that's interesting that heavier rigging (which I would assume stretches or yields less) has to be tightened more to provide the same tension. But perhaps I shouldn't think of steel cable as rope.

17

(12 replies, posted in Sails & Rigging)

Completely replacing the standing rigging on a 1975 Co26.

Previous posts recommended 7/32, with 1/4 for the forestay. Considering doing all at 1/4. Is there any downside to going up two sizes? Is the weight factor noticeable?

For the backstay, what defines the optimal placement for the bridal? Seems like the stern chainplates would admit a range of lengths on the lower strands.


Thanks,
Antonio

PS Anyone who can recommend a good discount rigging supplier, would be happy to hear from you.