Thanks, Martin – very Interesting. Do you have the “I-beam” fix drawing in pdf format? If so, may I have a copy?
It has always been troubling to me that, unlike car manufacturers, boat manufacturers do not alert boat owners about potentially dangerous issues upon discovery. Case in point: my Dad’s Cal 33 suffered a crack in the aft end of the keel (where it meets the hull) while being lifted from the cradle in the early 80s. That boat has a proper bilge, and a crack at that location allowed a significant amount of water in without being noticed. I crossed Lake Erie with some college buddies shortly after the boat launched when the water temp was about 55 degrees. We were in the middle of the Lake when we discovered water above the floorboards. Had we gone down, we would have perished in about a half hour (no boats around; no lifeboat on board). We were able to catch up to the water infiltration and stay ahead of it using every pump on board until we reached port. When we got the boat back to home port and hauled the boat for repair, we learned that Bill Lapworth (the designer) already had a plan for the fix. Evidently, our Cal 33 was not the first to experience this problem. In my view, every Cal 33 owner should have been alerted to the issue once it became known. Matt From: Martin DeYoung <martin.deyo...@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:48 PM To: Matthew Wolford <wolf...@erie.net>; 'Stus-List' <cnc-list@cnc-list.com>; j...@dellabarba.com Subject: Re: Stus-List Re: C&C 35 MK I interior Matt, Calypso also had some issues in the mast step area. Back in 1998 when we brought her to Seattle we found some failed filler and reinforcement glass just forward of the mast step. We ground out all the old polyester "bog" and rebuilt the area with epoxy and glass cloth. We then designed and had manufactured a new mast step. Fast forward to around 2015 we purchased all the C&^C 43 "as built" drawings available from the C&C archives at the Maritime Museum. One of those drawings documented how the C&C/Bruckmann team discovered both the early 61's and 43's had a weak point just forward of the mast step. A fix was designed for the 61's and 43's built after hull #1 or #2. The 61 SORCERY was retro fitted with an "I" beam that went forward from the mast step about 10'. During Calypso's restoration project we added "I" beams starting on each side of the mast step running forward about 5' to reinforce the repairs we did back in 98/99. I expect that the C&C design team, Bruckmann's, and the owners paying the bills, on occasion, pushed the design/build envelope in pursuit of that elusive extra 1/10 of a knot. I also expect that is why some of the survivors from the 70's occasionally need some extra repair/restoration. Martin Calypso 1971 C&C 43 Port Ludlow/Seattle _____ From: Matthew Wolford <wolf...@erie.net <mailto:wolf...@erie.net> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 2:58 PM To: 'Stus-List' <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> >; j...@dellabarba.com <mailto:j...@dellabarba.com> <j...@dellabarba.com <mailto:j...@dellabarba.com> > Cc: 'Martin DeYoung' <martin.deyo...@outlook.com <mailto:martin.deyo...@outlook.com> > Subject: RE: Stus-List Re: C&C 35 MK I interior My 42 Custom is also a Bruckmann “stick built” boat. In my case, certain aspects of the boat were well constructed, others not so much. For example, the recent project I commented on concerns the mast step. It was constructed of aluminum and designed to span three stringers. Given the apparent load on the middle stringer right under the mast, the step should have been constructed of stainless to reduce the chance of bending. It also would have been handy to provide access to the two keel bolts underneath. When we recently removed the mast step to gain access to these keel boats – possibly for the first time since the boat was built – we discovered the mast step was bent by about 3/8”. Fortunately, this did not break the welds. However, this much compression on the middle stringer did break the fiberglass exterior of the stringer directly under the mast step, which, in turn, allowed water entry if the bilge filled that high (admittedly a rare event). While affecting repairs, we decided against the “best fix” of replacing the mast step and spreading the load as originally intended. Instead, we implemented a “good enough” fix of modifying and reinstalling the original mast step and repairing/fortifying the damaged middle stringer. This project and many others revealed that the Bruckmann shop did a lot of things “on the fly,” like incorrectly positioning the rudder and compensating with two different sized bronze rollers, installing drainage in hull compartments that allows standing water, or using wrong size bolts that were probably laying around the shop. It’s been a fun boat, but I’ve done many repairs that revealed construction issues. From: Martin DeYoung via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 5:18 PM To: 'Stus-List' <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> >; j...@dellabarba.com <mailto:j...@dellabarba.com> Cc: Martin DeYoung <martin.deyo...@outlook.com <mailto:martin.deyo...@outlook.com> > Subject: Stus-List Re: C&C 35 MK I interior I have experience with two 1970's era Bruckmann built boats, our 43 commissioned in January 1971 and a 1974 C&C 39. I also owned a 1980 C&C 36 which was not a Bruckmann built boat. Both Bruckmann boats had a "stick built" interior and a balsa core deck. My experience with the 39 was making two Seattle/LA/Hawaii/Seattle round trips and being involved with the 39's maintenance and upgrades over 4 years. We have owned the 43 for 25 years and completed a 10 year restoration project last year. On the two Bruckmann built boats I have experience with I found the build quality to be quite good. After touching almost every square foot of the 43 during the restoration the fit and finish seemed to be better than many similarly marketed boats. The 43's issues that needed attention during our restoration project were not so bad given it was raced and sailed hard for 40 years. Even the British Navy, back in +-1800 expected their ships to require significant work after only 18 - 24 months of service. Martin Calypso 1971 C&C 43 Port Ludlow/Seattle (To see pictures of a Bruckmann interior, search 1971 C&C 43-1 on Boat Trader's website.) _____ From: j...@dellabarba.com <mailto:j...@dellabarba.com> <j...@dellabarba.com <mailto:j...@dellabarba.com> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 6:56 PM To: 'Stus-List' <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Cc: 'Martin DeYoung' <martin.deyo...@outlook.com <mailto:martin.deyo...@outlook.com> > Subject: RE: Stus-List Re: C&C 35 MK I interior Bruckman would be a good thing, right? I can’t believe someone hauled that boat to a lake about 12 miles long, but they did. Joe From: Martin DeYoung via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 6:29 PM To: Stus-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Cc: Martin DeYoung <martin.deyo...@outlook.com <mailto:martin.deyo...@outlook.com> > Subject: Stus-List Re: C&C 35 MK I interior Any chance this 1970 35 was built at the Bruckmann custom shop? Some of the details appear similar to the 70's era 43s. The 43s were built with a teak veneer over the plywood bulkhead. Calypso's (nee Arieto) original owner ordered the bulkheads to have white paint added over the teak veneer. (one rumor held it was to better see mosquitoes) Martin Calypso 1971 C&C 43-1 Port Ludlow/Seattle _____ From: Dennis C. via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 3:18 PM To: Stus-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > Cc: Dennis C. <capt...@gmail.com <mailto:capt...@gmail.com> > Subject: Stus-List Re: C&C 35 MK I interior Joe, This must be a very early 35. It's listed as a 1970. I found what may be it in the USCG vessel search under Vessel Number 527443 but no hull number is shown. It is quite different from any 35 I've ever seen. The cabinetry is very different. There are no frames around the above seat storages or hanging locker accesses. The bulkhead under the seats is wood, not fiberglass. The port above the hanging locker is unusual. The one in the head is not. (Hull 61 has one of those.) Dorades? Go figure. No wrap around seat backs. The V-berth bureau drawers lack finger holes. The fiddles on the bureaus are different. The engine compartment appears to be wood. The inboard navstation bulkhead is curved. The 45 angle on the inboard end of the navstation lift up is different. The galley sink is rotated 90 degrees from Touche's. The head sink is rectangular. Most are round. No fiberglass step under the V-berth filler piece. Might have been removed? Most of these differences look factory. I don't think they were owner modifications. I'm guessing this boat was one or two steps removed from the C&C 35 prototype. -- Dennis C. Touche' 35-1 #83 Mandeville, LA On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:13 AM Joe Della Barba via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > wrote: Was this stock? I cannot recall seeing any other 35 with this much teak: https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/1970-c$c-35-mk-i-9350708/ Joe Della Barba Coquina C&C 35 MK I Kent Island MD USA
Please show your appreciation for this list and the Photo Album site and help me pay the associated bills. Make a contribution at: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray Thanks for your help. Stu
