When I tightened my keel bolts 3 years ago, I  also found this discrepancy in 
torque values and went with the lower numbers rather than the C&C numbers. I 
figured it would do little harm having them lower than too high and also went 
with dry as opposed to lubricated. I haven’t checked them since as I don’t own 
the tools and was borrowing them from the yard. I haven’t noticed the smile 
since then, so I feel fairly confident in things. I also addressed the smile 
with G flex epoxy on the exterior at the time. 

On the 2 aft bolts, the original fibreglass and filler under it was 
crushed/depressed by the washer and nuts. I dug out the filler and replaced it 
with ren modelling board (dense waterproof urethane foam) and epoxy before 
reglassing over the whole area. I also made a level/perpendicular bed for the 
new backing plates with thickened epoxy. So the load from the nuts is 
distributed over a much larger area now. 

Derek McLeod 
1983 C&C 29-2, Aileron
Toronto

> On Jan 2, 2018, at 9:16 PM, Josh Muckley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Ok so now I'm confused and concerned.  Neil Schiller got me thinking about 
> the science and standardization of the torque specs.  Wet, dry, tension, 
> yield strength... So I did some investigating.  I expected that the specs on 
> the c&c photo album would loosely correlate to those in a standard 
> engineering document.  Boy was I wrong!
> 
> I don't know where the torque specs on the c&c photo album came from.  It 
> looks like the values for my largest 2 bolts consevatively correlate with the 
> wet/lubricated specs from a general online chart.  The rest of the smaller 
> bolts are progressively less conservative.  In fact the rating on the photo 
> album page is almost twice that of the online chart!  Wet or dry, 80 vs 45 - 
> Quite concerning.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/doityourself/torquebolts/torquebolts.htm
> 
> https://www.fastenal.com/content/feds/pdf/Torque%20of%20Stainless%20Steel,%20Non%20ferrous%20Torque.pdf
> 
> Josh
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 2, 2018 3:18 PM, "Josh Muckley via CnC-List" <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> Ok Guys,
>> Since I have the mast out, this provides the rare opportunity to access ALL 
>> of the keel bolts.  I've measured each of the bolt and nut diameters and 
>> checked the archives for torque specs.  I intend to buy a toque multiplier 
>> and the appropriate sized sockets.  I think I can do it for less than the 
>> yard is going to charge and I'll come out of it with some tools.  I'll also 
>> be able to tell myself that it was done correctly.
>> 
>> That being said it sounds like the best practices are are follows:
>> -  be on the hard
>> - loosen the bolts one at a time, clean, and lubricate with tef-gel
>> - reinstall and torque at progressively higher levels.
>> 
>> I was unable to find the torque spec for my 1.5" bolt in the website but Ken 
>> Heaton cited 600lbs in one of his past responses.
>> 
>> Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
>>          Nut                       stud               torque
>> 1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)    1 (25mm)          350
>> 2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)  600?
>> 3 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)  600?
>> 4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)  600?
>> 5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)   450
>> 6 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)  600?
>> 7 - 1 1/2 (38mm)    1 (25mm)          350
>> 8 - 3/4 (19.5mm)    1/2 (13mm)      80
>> 
>> 
>> Anything I'm missing?
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Josh Muckley
>> S/V Sea Hawk
>> 1989 C&C 37+
>> Solomons, MD 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
>> every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use 
>> PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>> 
>> 
_______________________________________________

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Reply via email to