Date   

Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

Dean Gillies
 

Bill,
For your records I can confirm that A54-154 has the reinforced mast, and the up-sized rigging.
best regards,
Dean


Re: Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

Mark Erdos
 

Hi David,

The biggest issue I have with specialty batteries is the fact you are getting ready to sail to areas of the world where a single replacement of a like battery would be a big issue. Should you have a failure of one battery, you may find yourself in a situation again where you need to replace the entire bank or eliminate a pair. As for the warranty, will they ship a replacement world-wide? If it were me, I would stick with what I know to be readily available throughout the world. Just my unsolicited 2¢ worth.


With best regards,

Mark

Skipper
Sailing Vessel - Cream Puff - SM2K - #275
Currently cruising - Panama
www.creampuff.us

-----Original Message-----
From: main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io [mailto:main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io] On Behalf Of David Vogel
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:27 AM
To: main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io
Subject: Re: [AmelYachtOwners] Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

Thanks Bill, for the double-barrel response,

Batteries: We are leaning towards replacing the whole lot with FIREFLYs, per Bill KINNEY on Harmonie. If this does not prove possible within a reasonable time frame, we will disconnect the pair containing the remaining single from the pair that contained the dud battery, and head on out, anticipating replacement in NZ late 2020 if we can keep things going for that long, otherwise Tahiti.

ONAN: In addition to replacing the Starter and –ve solenoid, I went through all the troubleshooting steps as suggested and per the Service Manual – all apparently OK and with no change – still a failure to crank. When I finally got the technicians on board, they poked around finding nothing and eventually plugged in an old Control-Board from an ONAN 21kVa Genset. This, apparently, has enough commonality with the 7MDKAV to enable our unit to crank, start and run (for 3 seconds before the protective mechanisms engaged and shut the unit down; this test repeated 3 times). Thereby indicating that all our switches, relays etc are OK, but the PCB itself is at fault. We’re n
ow trying to source one of these control boards.

Cheers,

David&Leanne, PERIGEE, SM#396, Panama
Bound for French Polynesia


From: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io> on behalf of Bill Rouse <brouse@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2019 at 1:30 pm
To: <main@amelyachtowners.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AmelYachtOwners] Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

I am not sure, and I believe you believe the same. With thousands of miles ahead of you and 3+ year old battery bank, I would consider changing the entire house bank, especially since getting 3-4 years is average for high-use Amels.

Good on the lead acid start battery.

When troubleshooting the Onan, I believe the weak point is the cable that runs inside from the negative connection post to the battery side of the Negative start solenoid. The connection post where cables from the battery switches connect is located on the left side, facing, about half way down. I believe you can easily bypass this undersized cable by connecting a jumper from that connection post to the battery side of the negative start solenoid. You could also test the negative start solenoid by connecting that jumper cable to the starter side of the negative solenoid. 1 jumper cable can be used to test two items. If the problem turns out to be the negative start solenoid, don't leave that jumper on the starter side of the solenoid permanently.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Sun, May 26, 2019, 11:24 AM David Vogel <david.vogel@westnet.com.au> wrote:
Greetings all,

Whilst trouble-shooting an unserviceable ONAN (failure to crank), I checked out the health of the 105Ah 800CCA AGM start battery (good), and house-bank (12x105Ah AGMs). Start and house batteries were all AGM, same model and date-of-install (Sep'16).

All tested OK, with the exception of one battery in the house bank, which failed the State-of-Charge test with an Open-Circuit-Voltage (OCV) of 11.00V (as measured, so no surprises here), unstable; and failed State-of-Health of CCA of 35.0A).
The other battery in the pair containing the failed battery surprisingly tested OK, with SoC 12.72V [92%] and SoH CCA of 642A [91%].

As an interim step, whilst considering broader options ...
... I replaced the good start-battery with a 100Ah/700CCA flooded lead-acid battery; removed the failed AGM battery from the house bank, and replaced it with the 'good' AGM start battery. The performance of the house battery bank immediately improved, I guess due to the absence of the parasitic load of the failed battery.

However, concerned about the remaining battery in the new pair contained the failed battery, I have been keeping a close eye on the charge volts, current, and temps of all batteries. 24 hours after the swap-out/in, during the second charge cycle, I noted high charging current to the new battery-pair containing the old-start battery.

The smart-charger was ordering ~150Amps from the 175A/24V Leece-Neville (normal for the start-of-charge-cycle) - 5 battery-pairs were accepting about 20Amps each (OK and as expected, at ~20% of the '20-hour rate' of 105Ah), but the 'at risk' pair was accepting 40 to 50Amps. Temps for the 5 'good' pairs were about 1ºC above ambient and stable; but the temp of the questionable pair was ambient +2ºC and rising. I stopped the charge cycle after 30 minutes; and isolated the questionable pair from the house-bank by removing the bridging strap between the batteries in the pair. Shortly after the cessation of the interrupted charge cycle, the temperature of the high-current pair peaked at 36.5ºC (ambient other batteries +2.5ºC).

I am seeking clarification regarding: Is is likely that the remaining battery from the 'old pair' had already suffered irreversible damage (such as an internal short), thereby reducing internal resistance, thereby accepting a higher charge (than the other 'good' battery pairs).

On the basis of temperature alone , I do not think I have suffered temperature-related damage to the old start battery. However:

Question - is it likely that 30-minutes of charge at twice the maximum recommend bulk/absorption current charge-rate has resulted in permanent damage to the previously 'good' start-battery?

This discussion shared for the learning, and also for the benefit of trouble-shooting by other unfortunates who may in future find themselves in a similar predicament.

Thanks in anticipation ...

David
SM#396/Perigee
On anchor, Brisas, Pacific side of Panama
Departure for the Marquesas pending the
return of the ONAN to service

Diagnostic tools: Magneti Marelli BT002 Battery Tester; FLIR TG165 Spot Thermal Camera; Voltcraft VC-595OLED Digital Clamp Multimeter.
Note: the OLED display on the Voltcraft multimeter is impossible to read in direct sunlight, so next time I would choose a model with a different type of display. Otherwise, this is a great tool, although I do not use the BlueTooth functionality.


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

 

Arno, yes, I also would think that Amel should have notified owners, but apparently did not issue anything to the owners. However, apparently Amel did change the specification with ACMO. And, yes, I would have expected SAV to give me some guidance when I specifically asked, but, maybe I will eventually receive that.

I am sure that there is a lot that I do not know about this, and if known, might answer your questions.

Best,

Bill Rouse
720 Winnie St.
Galveston, Texas 77550
832-380-4970



On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:52 AM Peter Forbes <ppsforbes@...> wrote:
Bill,

OK if Rudi had them changed ‘up-spec’ then I’m not surprised - lucky for me and any new owner of Carango.

Thanks 

Peter

Peter Forbes
The Old Rectory
Farnham
Blandford
Dorset
DT11 8DE




On 30 May 2019, at 14:39, CW Bill Rouse <brouse@...> wrote:

Peter,

Probably not. Rudi probably changed them before you bought her. Amel 54 #46 was made several months after #35 and had 10mm Lower Shrouds. 

#46 reported to this group a failure of both lower shrouds which caused rig failure near Easter Island. You can search topics in this group for "Lower Shrouds Main Mast" to see that report. 

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Thu, May 30, 2019, 7:59 AM Peter Forbes <ppsforbes@...> wrote:
My Main Aft Lowers are 12mm- on AMEL 54 #035 - I imagine these are the original.

Peter Forbes
Amel 54
Carango
La Rochelle

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 13:40, CW Bill Rouse <brouse@...> wrote:
Arno,

I think we can assume that ACMO did this on instructions from Amel because the larger rigging wire was installed on later production 54s, and obviously ordered that way by Amel.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Thu, May 30, 2019, 6:45 AM Arno Luijten <arno.luijten@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,

On hull 121 the sizes are still the original ones so 8 intermediate, 10 lower.
I have not noticed any issues with these shrouds.
I have more concern with the lower shroud on the mizzen as it is 7 mm and seems to be a bit too stretchy when sailing. 
Did the OEM rigger give any reason why they beefed up the main mast rigging?

Arno Luijten
SV Luna,
A54-121




-- 
Best wishes
Peter Forbes
+44 (0) 7836 209730




Re: Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

 


On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:51 AM David Vogel <david.vogel@...> wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

Done.  Thanks.

 

David

 

 

 

From: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io> on behalf of Mark McGovern <mfmcgovern@...>
Reply-To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 30 May 2019 at 10:39 am
To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AmelYachtOwners] Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

 

David,

I was going to suggest the following but you beat me to it: 

"we will disconnect the pair containing the remaining single from the pair that contained the dud battery"

However, I would suggest that you do this immediately so as to not risk damaging the other pairs. Especially if you want to wring a little more life out out of the remaining batteries in the bank.

--
Mark McGovern
SM #440 Cara
Deale, MD USA


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

Peter Forbes
 

Bill,

OK if Rudi had them changed ‘up-spec’ then I’m not surprised - lucky for me and any new owner of Carango.

Thanks 

Peter

Peter Forbes
The Old Rectory
Farnham
Blandford
Dorset
DT11 8DE




On 30 May 2019, at 14:39, CW Bill Rouse <brouse@...> wrote:

Peter,

Probably not. Rudi probably changed them before you bought her. Amel 54 #46 was made several months after #35 and had 10mm Lower Shrouds. 

#46 reported to this group a failure of both lower shrouds which caused rig failure near Easter Island. You can search topics in this group for "Lower Shrouds Main Mast" to see that report. 

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Thu, May 30, 2019, 7:59 AM Peter Forbes <ppsforbes@...> wrote:
My Main Aft Lowers are 12mm- on AMEL 54 #035 - I imagine these are the original.

Peter Forbes
Amel 54
Carango
La Rochelle

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 13:40, CW Bill Rouse <brouse@...> wrote:
Arno,

I think we can assume that ACMO did this on instructions from Amel because the larger rigging wire was installed on later production 54s, and obviously ordered that way by Amel.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Thu, May 30, 2019, 6:45 AM Arno Luijten <arno.luijten@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,

On hull 121 the sizes are still the original ones so 8 intermediate, 10 lower.
I have not noticed any issues with these shrouds.
I have more concern with the lower shroud on the mizzen as it is 7 mm and seems to be a bit too stretchy when sailing. 
Did the OEM rigger give any reason why they beefed up the main mast rigging?

Arno Luijten
SV Luna,
A54-121




-- 
Best wishes
Peter Forbes
+44 (0) 7836 209730




Re: Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

David Vogel
 

Hi Mark,

 

Done.  Thanks.

 

David

 

 

 

From: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io> on behalf of Mark McGovern <mfmcgovern@...>
Reply-To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 30 May 2019 at 10:39 am
To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AmelYachtOwners] Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

 

David,

I was going to suggest the following but you beat me to it: 

"we will disconnect the pair containing the remaining single from the pair that contained the dud battery"

However, I would suggest that you do this immediately so as to not risk damaging the other pairs. Especially if you want to wring a little more life out out of the remaining batteries in the bank.

--
Mark McGovern
SM #440 Cara
Deale, MD USA


Re: Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

Mark McGovern
 

David,

I was going to suggest the following but you beat me to it

"we will disconnect the pair containing the remaining single from the pair that contained the dud battery"

However, I would suggest that you do this immediately so as to not risk damaging the other pairs. Especially if you want to wring a little more life out out of the remaining batteries in the bank.


--
Mark McGovern
SM #440 Cara
Deale, MD USA


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

Arno Luijten
 

Hi Bill,

I get that, but it does not reveal the real cause for the increase. I would imagine Amel would issue a safety bulletin if they found out the original sizes too small. Loosing your rig seems a bit much to find out the shrouds were not beefy enough.

Arno
SV Luna,
A54-121


Re: Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

David Vogel
 

Thanks Alan,

The old start battery seems to be OOK in service. However, it appears that the battery that was paired with the failed one is also on the way out (if not already failed, just showing signs of life).

We are leaning towards replacing the whole lot with Fireflies, but this is introducing scheduling issues – namely, the clock it already ticking on our French Long-Stay visas, and if we don’t get away soon, the VISAs wil time-expire. Naming that we will have to move on (to NZ), where we might well have otherwise done the replacement anyway (if the current remaining batteries do not fail in the meantime).

Which Battery Balancer to you use (&/or recommend)?

Best,

David&Leanne, PERIGEE, SM#396, Panama
Bound for French Poly

From: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io> on behalf of Alan Leslie <s.v.elyse@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Date: Monday, 27 May 2019 at 2:14 am
To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AmelYachtOwners] Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

David.
I think it highly likely that the AGM start battery is not in the same state of charge as the house bank AGMs that have been charged quite differently. 
All house bank batteries should be the same brand, type and age to minimise differences in charging. Further I believe that if you have batteries in series parallel, the in between links should be connected in parallel banks and also with a battery balancer to ensure equal charging to each individual battery.
I'm afraid I agree with Bill, you should replace the complete house bank.
Cheers
Alan
Elyse SM 437


Re: Vetus Flexi coupling

 

Gary,

I think you identified two big issues. The heat will reach the operating temperature of the engine, which is 80C. 

I just did a search of nylocs. The temperature range is all over the place, but 80 degrees seems within the range of all I checked that specify a temperature range. And 10-15 used seems to be the range of those that claimed multiple use. 

The fact is that most of us would not think of these things and grab nylocs from a bin without any verification of material used, or specifications. That fact, along with the fact that Chinese manufacturers probably make most of these, spells problems.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Thu, May 30, 2019, 9:17 AM Gary Silver via Groups.Io <garysilver=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Kent:

You are correct that Nylock nuts a single use items (at least in aircraft applications and I assume in other critical applications).  They are also low heat suitable as nylon deforms at temperature.  I don't know how hot this area gets but perhaps metal locking nuts would be better.  In the aircraft industry metal locking nuts are used in virtually all engine compartment applications.  There are specially coated metal locking nuts that are suitable even on exhaust components. 
Various types such as  https://jlanfranco.com/products/all-metal-locknuts/    or  for aircraft https://catalog.continental-aero.com/viewitems/all-metal-lock-nuts/all-categories-all-metal-lock-nuts-aero-flex

You will have to do some research to find the metric size and grade you need. 

All the best, 

Gary S. Silver
s/v Liahona
Amel SM 2000 # 335
Puerto Del Rey Marina, Puerto Rico 


Re: Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

David Vogel
 

Thanks Bill, for the double-barrel response,

Batteries: We are leaning towards replacing the whole lot with FIREFLYs, per Bill KINNEY on Harmonie. If this does not prove possible within a reasonable time frame, we will disconnect the pair containing the remaining single from the pair that contained the dud battery, and head on out, anticipating replacement in NZ late 2020 if we can keep things going for that long, otherwise Tahiti.

ONAN: In addition to replacing the Starter and –ve solenoid, I went through all the troubleshooting steps as suggested and per the Service Manual – all apparently OK and with no change – still a failure to crank. When I finally got the technicians on board, they poked around finding nothing and eventually plugged in an old Control-Board from an ONAN 21kVa Genset. This, apparently, has enough commonality with the 7MDKAV to enable our unit to crank, start and run (for 3 seconds before the protective mechanisms engaged and shut the unit down; this test repeated 3 times). Thereby indicating that all our switches, relays etc are OK, but the PCB itself is at fault. We’re n
ow trying to source one of these control boards.

Cheers,

David&Leanne, PERIGEE, SM#396, Panama
Bound for French Polynesia


From: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io> on behalf of Bill Rouse <brouse@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <main@AmelYachtOwners.groups.io>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2019 at 1:30 pm
To: <main@amelyachtowners.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AmelYachtOwners] Batteries: single failed battery in the house bank, impact for other batteries

I am not sure, and I believe you believe the same. With thousands of miles ahead of you and 3+ year old battery bank, I would consider changing the entire house bank, especially since getting 3-4 years is average for high-use Amels. 

Good on the lead acid start battery. 

When troubleshooting the Onan, I believe the weak point is the cable that runs inside from the negative connection post to the battery side of the Negative start solenoid.  The connection post where cables from the battery switches connect is located on the left side, facing, about half way down. I believe you can easily bypass this undersized cable by connecting a jumper from that connection post to the battery side of the negative start solenoid. You could also test the negative start solenoid by connecting that jumper cable to the starter side of the negative solenoid. 1 jumper cable can be used to test two items. If the problem turns out to be the negative start solenoid, don't leave that jumper on the starter side of the solenoid permanently.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Sun, May 26, 2019, 11:24 AM David Vogel <david.vogel@westnet.com.au> wrote:
Greetings all,

Whilst trouble-shooting an unserviceable ONAN (failure to crank), I checked out the health of the 105Ah 800CCA AGM start battery (good), and house-bank (12x105Ah AGMs).  Start and house batteries were all AGM, same model and date-of-install (Sep'16).

All tested OK, with the exception of one battery in the house bank, which failed the State-of-Charge test with an Open-Circuit-Voltage (OCV) of 11.00V (as measured, so no surprises here), unstable; and failed State-of-Health of CCA of 35.0A).
The other battery in the pair containing the failed battery surprisingly tested OK, with SoC 12.72V [92%] and SoH CCA of 642A [91%].

As an interim step, whilst considering broader options ...
... I replaced the good start-battery with a 100Ah/700CCA flooded lead-acid battery; removed the failed AGM battery from the house bank, and replaced it with the 'good' AGM start battery.  The performance of the house battery bank immediately improved, I guess due to the absence of the parasitic load of the failed battery.

However, concerned about the remaining battery in the new pair contained the failed battery, I have been keeping a close eye on the charge volts, current, and temps of all batteries.  24 hours after the swap-out/in, during the second charge cycle, I noted high charging current to the new battery-pair containing the old-start battery.

The smart-charger was ordering ~150Amps from the 175A/24V Leece-Neville (normal for the start-of-charge-cycle) - 5 battery-pairs were accepting about 20Amps each (OK and as expected, at ~20% of the '20-hour rate' of 105Ah), but the 'at risk' pair was accepting 40 to 50Amps.  Temps for the 5 'good' pairs were about 1ºC above ambient and stable; but the temp of the questionable pair was ambient +2ºC and rising.  I stopped the charge cycle after 30 minutes; and isolated the questionable pair from the house-bank by removing the bridging strap between the batteries in the pair.  Shortly after the cessation of the interrupted charge cycle, the temperature of the high-current pair peaked at 36.5ºC (ambient other batteries +2.5ºC).

I am seeking clarification regarding: Is is likely that the remaining battery from the 'old pair' had already suffered irreversible damage (such as an internal short), thereby reducing internal resistance, thereby accepting a higher charge (than the other 'good' battery pairs).

On the basis of temperature alone , I do not think I have suffered temperature-related damage to the old start battery.  However:

Question - is it likely that 30-minutes of charge at twice the maximum recommend bulk/absorption current charge-rate has resulted in permanent damage to the previously 'good' start-battery?

This discussion shared for the learning, and also for the benefit of trouble-shooting by other unfortunates who may in future find themselves in a similar predicament.

Thanks in anticipation ...

David
SM#396/Perigee
On anchor, Brisas, Pacific side of Panama
  Departure for the Marquesas pending the
    return of the ONAN to service

Diagnostic tools: Magneti Marelli BT002 Battery Tester; FLIR TG165 Spot Thermal Camera; Voltcraft VC-595OLED Digital Clamp Multimeter.
Note: the OLED display on the Voltcraft multimeter is impossible to read in direct sunlight, so next time I would choose a model with a different type of display.  Otherwise, this is a great tool, although I do not use the BlueTooth functionality.


Re: Vetus Flexi coupling

Gary Silver
 

Hi Kent:

You are correct that Nylock nuts a single use items (at least in aircraft applications and I assume in other critical applications).  They are also low heat suitable as nylon deforms at temperature.  I don't know how hot this area gets but perhaps metal locking nuts would be better.  In the aircraft industry metal locking nuts are used in virtually all engine compartment applications.  There are specially coated metal locking nuts that are suitable even on exhaust components. 
Various types such as  https://jlanfranco.com/products/all-metal-locknuts/    or  for aircraft https://catalog.continental-aero.com/viewitems/all-metal-lock-nuts/all-categories-all-metal-lock-nuts-aero-flex

You will have to do some research to find the metric size and grade you need. 

All the best, 

Gary S. Silver
s/v Liahona
Amel SM 2000 # 335
Puerto Del Rey Marina, Puerto Rico 


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

 

Peter,

Probably not. Rudi probably changed them before you bought her. Amel 54 #46 was made several months after #35 and had 10mm Lower Shrouds. 

#46 reported to this group a failure of both lower shrouds which caused rig failure near Easter Island. You can search topics in this group for "Lower Shrouds Main Mast" to see that report. 

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Thu, May 30, 2019, 7:59 AM Peter Forbes <ppsforbes@...> wrote:
My Main Aft Lowers are 12mm- on AMEL 54 #035 - I imagine these are the original.

Peter Forbes
Amel 54
Carango
La Rochelle

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 13:40, CW Bill Rouse <brouse@...> wrote:
Arno,

I think we can assume that ACMO did this on instructions from Amel because the larger rigging wire was installed on later production 54s, and obviously ordered that way by Amel.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Thu, May 30, 2019, 6:45 AM Arno Luijten <arno.luijten@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,

On hull 121 the sizes are still the original ones so 8 intermediate, 10 lower.
I have not noticed any issues with these shrouds.
I have more concern with the lower shroud on the mizzen as it is 7 mm and seems to be a bit too stretchy when sailing.
Did the OEM rigger give any reason why they beefed up the main mast rigging?

Arno Luijten
SV Luna,
A54-121


--
Best wishes
Peter Forbes
+44 (0) 7836 209730


Re: The two "sticks" on the genoa top swivel

Gary Wells
 

Mike, take a look at the photos Bill has posted.  There appears to me to be something missing from your swivel where the shackle is attached.  Mine, like the one in the photo, has a spacer fitted to keep that shackle away from the foil.  It would seem to me that if that shackle got pinched or caught sideways it could cause some scratching/damage to the foil up there.



Secondarily, I've tried a soft shackle at that point and even after polishing the pass-through point as best I could, it chafed very quickly so I think the metal shackle is the better idea. 

Gary W.
SM 209, Adagio
Galesville, MD USA


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

Peter Forbes
 

My Main Aft Lowers are 12mm- on AMEL 54 #035 - I imagine these are the original.

Peter Forbes
Amel 54
Carango
La Rochelle

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 13:40, CW Bill Rouse <brouse@...> wrote:
Arno,

I think we can assume that ACMO did this on instructions from Amel because the larger rigging wire was installed on later production 54s, and obviously ordered that way by Amel.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Thu, May 30, 2019, 6:45 AM Arno Luijten <arno.luijten@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,

On hull 121 the sizes are still the original ones so 8 intermediate, 10 lower.
I have not noticed any issues with these shrouds.
I have more concern with the lower shroud on the mizzen as it is 7 mm and seems to be a bit too stretchy when sailing.
Did the OEM rigger give any reason why they beefed up the main mast rigging?

Arno Luijten
SV Luna,
A54-121


--
Best wishes
Peter Forbes
+44 (0) 7836 209730


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

 

Arno,

I think we can assume that ACMO did this on instructions from Amel because the larger rigging wire was installed on later production 54s, and obviously ordered that way by Amel.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Yacht School - Supporting Amel Owners
www.YachtSchool.us
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Thu, May 30, 2019, 6:45 AM Arno Luijten <arno.luijten@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,

On hull 121 the sizes are still the original ones so 8 intermediate, 10 lower.
I have not noticed any issues with these shrouds.
I have more concern with the lower shroud on the mizzen as it is 7 mm and seems to be a bit too stretchy when sailing.
Did the OEM rigger give any reason why they beefed up the main mast rigging?

Arno Luijten
SV Luna,
A54-121



Re: Vetus Flexi coupling

Craig Briggs
 

"Unlocks" may be the right name for Paul's nylocks, though!


Re: Amel 54 Standing Rigging and changes to the Mainmast Lower and Intermediate Shrouds

Arno Luijten
 

Hi Bill,

On hull 121 the sizes are still the original ones so 8 intermediate, 10 lower.
I have not noticed any issues with these shrouds.
I have more concern with the lower shroud on the mizzen as it is 7 mm and seems to be a bit too stretchy when sailing.
Did the OEM rigger give any reason why they beefed up the main mast rigging?

Arno Luijten
SV Luna,
A54-121


Re: Vetus Flexi coupling

karkauai
 

Darn spellcheck...I guess unlocks is a bad name for nylocks.

Kent Robertson
S/V Kristy
USA cell: 828-234-6819

On May 30, 2019, at 6:25 AM, karkauai via Groups.Io <karkauai@...> wrote:

I understand that unlocks should be replaced every time you remove them...at least on critical applications.

Kent Robertson
S/V Kristy
SM243
USA cell: 828-234-6819

On May 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Paul Osterberg <osterberg.paul.l@...> wrote:

Might be, no vibration though, I guess the nylock have been on and off a few times and the locking capability get reduced. time to replace the nuts maybe
Paul


Re: Vetus Flexi coupling

karkauai
 

I understand that unlocks should be replaced every time you remove them...at least on critical applications.

Kent Robertson
S/V Kristy
SM243
USA cell: 828-234-6819

On May 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Paul Osterberg <osterberg.paul.l@...> wrote:

Might be, no vibration though, I guess the nylock have been on and off a few times and the locking capability get reduced. time to replace the nuts maybe
Paul

12501 - 12520 of 58465