I looked at one of these today and chainplates were totally different on port and starboard sides. Aluminium strap about 18 mil thick nearly 6 inches wide and nearly a metre long 1 side and triangulated angle iron brace less than a foot long the other. Totally weird if you ask me as no apparent reason for this

Hi. I looked at a couple of these earlier this year and spoke to a rigger as I wanted a price for replacing the standing rigging (about 9k). Looks the same as what you are looking at b
I thought the strap was stainless on the one I looked at on the starboard side. This looked solid to me but I can't remember what it was bolted to.
The strange triangle frame on the port side was a concern. It appears to be painted or maybe some glass. Had a crack in the paint. Looked more difficult to replace.

I believe the design was done to allow for the furniture. The triangle allowing you to sit under it in the U shaped seat.
lovely boats. I would love a carter 33 over my cavalier 32. Great engine access.
The one I looked at was tiller. keel bolts were not impressive. Sails needed replacing and more

Select to expand quote

jbarnes85 said..
Hi. I looked at a couple of these earlier this year and spoke to a rigger as I wanted a price for replacing the standing rigging (about 9k). Looks the same as what you are looking at b
I thought the strap was stainless on the one I looked at on the starboard side. This looked solid to me but I can't remember what it was bolted to.
The strange triangle frame on the port side was a concern. It appears to be painted or maybe some glass. Had a crack in the paint. Looked more difficult to replace.

I believe the design was done to allow for the furniture. The triangle allowing you to sit under it in the U shaped seat.
lovely boats. I would love a carter 33 over my cavalier 32. Great engine access.
The one I looked at was tiller. keel bolts were not impressive. Sails needed replacing and more

Some photos of the one I looked at

Another thing I didn't like was the mast sat on a step that was like a little bridge made from mild steel. It didn't sit directly on the keel or bilge.
again. Lovely boat.

Sorry the one I was looking at and what the photos above are was the standard version. Not the passage.
i did also look at one passage which you could probably buy for nothing it was in such a bad state.

Select to expand quote

jbarnes85 said..
Another thing I didn't like was the mast sat on a step that was like a little bridge made from mild steel. It didn't sit directly on the keel or bilge.
again. Lovely boat.

Thanks for that and interesting that they all seem to have a different solution on the port side. I can't really see why they couldn't have used a strap because there does seem to be a path for it down the seat backs and inside of the shelf. Your picture of the crack clearly shows that the port bracing is inadequate which was my decision about the one I saw as well. Yes I also didn't like the mast step at all which was severely rusted on mine also not to mention an exposed and saturated Engine bed. There also didn't seem to be a way to place a Bulkhead in front of the Rudder post just in case it fractured or sprung a leak. Shame really as the solid glass deck seemed extremely thick and presumably the hull would be as well. Despite the nice thick deck I was also appalled at the lack of any backing for the inner fore stay anchoring u-bolt. Oh well back to the drawing board

Sorry one of those last pictures shouldn't be there and the other three are the wrong way up and I can't figure out how to fix it

I have a Passage, the galvanised steel is glassed to the hull extremely well on mine and the mast is deck stepped with a compression post so the area under is the compression post isn't in that bad of condition. It is a pain to seal the big aluminium chain plates that go through the deck though. I suppose it all depends on how well the previous owner kept maintenance up on the boat. They are a breeze to sail though.

Interesting, thanks for the photos.
Not loving the corrosion on the long Al chainplate where it is bolted at the bottom. What was it attached to? looks like a glassed in steel bar, or is it also Al?

Select to expand quote

DrogueOne said..
Interesting, thanks for the photos.
Not loving the corrosion on the long Al chainplate where it is bolted at the bottom. What was it attached to? looks like a glassed in steel bar, or is it also Al?

I think you are correct glassed in steel bar so not good all around. It's hard to tell as everything was painted down there but I highly doubt it would be aluminum. I think the owner was blissfully ignorant and just used the boat to sail around the harbour for the last 5 or so years. He probably thinks everything is fine since he had the rigging done 5 years ago and the engine replaced more recently

Cripes that port side chain plate structure is designed to fail. Can't see why the both sides need to be different. Chain plate design is obviously way above furniture design in the scale of things. The stainless flat bar strap on the stbd side is the way to go, as long as it is connected to something suitably solid at its lower end, and the lateral support of the deck/cabin is sufficient. Looking on line indicates that these were built in Seven Hills back in the day - perhaps the chain plates went through design iterations.

There is a FB Carter Owners page as here - they might have information but probably on the Greek built 33s not Aust built ones.....

www.facebook.com/217217911822327/posts/via-tad-roberts/777490152461764/

Select to expand quote

r13 said..
Cripes that port side chain plate structure is designed to fail. Can't see why the both sides need to be different. Chain plate design is obviously way above furniture design in the scale of things. The stainless flat bar strap on the stbd side is the way to go, as long as it is connected to something suitably solid at its lower end, and the lateral support of the deck/cabin is sufficient. Looking on line indicates that these were built in Seven Hills back in the day - perhaps the chain plates went through design iterations.

There is a FB Carter Owners page as here - they might have information but probably on the Greek built 33s not Aust built ones.....

www.facebook.com/217217911822327/posts/via-tad-roberts/777490152461764/

Thanks for that. If the chain plate was the only problem I reckon I could have fabricated something similar to the starboard side out of stainless and attached it to a metal stringer below albeit with a bit of difficult welding which would have satisfied me but the saturated engine bearer and rusted mast step and possibly keel bolts were all too much especially as the guy is asking absolute top dollar

Select to expand quote

julesmoto said..

r13 said..
Cripes that port side chain plate structure is designed to fail. Can't see why the both sides need to be different. Chain plate design is obviously way above furniture design in the scale of things. The stainless flat bar strap on the stbd side is the way to go, as long as it is connected to something suitably solid at its lower end, and the lateral support of the deck/cabin is sufficient. Looking on line indicates that these were built in Seven Hills back in the day - perhaps the chain plates went through design iterations.

There is a FB Carter Owners page as here - they might have information but probably on the Greek built 33s not Aust built ones.....

www.facebook.com/217217911822327/posts/via-tad-roberts/777490152461764/

Thanks for that. If the chain plate was the only problem I reckon I could have fabricated something similar to the starboard side out of stainless and attached it to a metal stringer below albeit with a bit of difficult welding which would have satisfied me but the saturated engine bearer and rusted mast step and possibly keel bolts were all too much especially as the guy is asking absolute top dollar

The previous owner of my cavalier 32 had the keel removed, the bilge reglassed and the keel rebedded 10 years ago. Cost was $20k.

Select to expand quote

nicke23 said..
I have a Passage, the galvanised steel is glassed to the hull extremely well on mine and the mast is deck stepped with a compression post so the area under is the compression post isn't in that bad of condition. It is a pain to seal the big aluminium chain plates that go through the deck though. I suppose it all depends on how well the previous owner kept maintenance up on the boat. They are a breeze to sail though.

Me too, they are very well built yachts but require maintenance just like any other, when someone says "designed to fail" on boats that have been out on the water with that arrangement for around 40 years and seen all sorts of seas that's a bit of a flippant remark. Have a look at this Facebook link with photos and comments on the Carter 33 Firetel in the 1986 S2H race.

www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10156557112115415&id=87532400414

Thanks.

The original Carter 33s were built by Bill Barry-Cotter. Kendall Barry-Cotter won 2 national 3/4 ton titles with his Ghost.

Nicke23 you state;

"It is a pain to seal the big aluminium chain plates that go through the deck"

From this text it is interpreted that the two chain plate components - one on each side - were made of flat plate with no welds - is this correct. The text includes "aluminium chain plates" - it is expected that they are stainless not aluminium - is it correct that they are stainless.

It is unknown what chain plate/s design Firetel had. It is probable that they were both flat plate stainless with no welds, suitably secured to the adjacent hull structure.

Wander66 are your chain plates each side the same design, and using a stainless flat plate type with no welds? If you had a photo of each side it would be useful.

My comments were directed at the below welded frame on the port side of the yacht jbarnes85 looked at. My comments were not directed at stainless flat plate chain plates with no welded frames associated with them.


The below photo is not a crack in the paint - it is a crack in the paint which has started in and propagated through the heat affected zone of the weld between the frame members, and into the parent material of the near vertical frame member which is on the inside skin of the topsides. This is a typical fatigue cracking event at a welded joint. Usually the first sign of the crack for the case of a painted weld joint is cracking in the paint, and associated rusting if the structure is out in the weather or subject to condensation.


There are Carter 33's on line with these type of chain plate supporting frames on each side - ie on both sides - whether from flat bars welded together or tube members welded together.

My comment about this type of welded frame design to secure chain plates on yachts is not flippant - it is totally factual and obviously backed up by the evidence above. If you have a yacht of any design type with this type of chain plate supporting welded frame structure, imho it would be prudent to inspect the whole frame by suitable means, and particularly this lower joint area. At the least this would need complete paint removal at the welded joints and visual inspection, but more ideally complete paint removal and a surface NDT examination by a NATA accredited company employing certified (to AINDT) personnel. eg see here;

www.nata.com.au/phocadownload/spec-criteria-guidance/infrastructure-assetintegrity/Infrastructure-and-Asset-Integrity-ISO-IEC-17025-Annex-Non-destructive-Testing.pdf

As a final note in the first photo attached immediately above the use of only two flat plate chain plate bolts securing the stub chain plate to the welded frame is very unexpected. They could be adequate depending on their size and other issues but more than two would be reasonably expected.

To clarify, the text

"this type of chain plate supporting welded frame structure"

Specifically includes the geometry of the frame - wherein the frame members along the hypotenuse of the triangles are at a too great an angle to the vertical, and too shallow an angle to the horizontal.

It is hard to estimate the angles from the photos but those hypotenuse members should be oriented at a lot lesser angle to the vertical, and a lot greater angle to the horizontal.

So (say) 20degrees to the vertical and 70degrees to the horizontal.

This would mean that the tension in these hypotenuse members oriented 20deg to the vertical, to react the near vertical load from the shrouds on the flat plate chain plate stubs, would not be as great as if they were oriented at (say ) 50deg to the vertical and 40deg to the horizontal.

Such a fully welded frame has more than tensile loads in the hypotenuse member - there are bending loads also. Both the tensile and bending loads (and resultant combined stresses) at that welded joint where the cracking is evidenced will be comprised of a steady state and alternating component. Both need to be accommodated in the design of the welded joint. In this case of clearly occurring alternating loadings which caused the fatigue failure, the frame and welded joint design has not been suitably designed under the inherent alternating loading criteria.

Also it may be that the members in some of the above photos are round bar not tube - the comments still stand.