[Board] FW: Mooring Float Information

Dick Blidberg blidberg at ausi.org
Fri Jan 15 18:35:28 MST 2016 

Sorry, forgot to mention that all of our deep water buoys Have 3/4" 
chain.  5/8" in some of the shallow locations.

On 1/15/2016 8:01 PM, Dick Blidberg wrote:
> Here are my thoughts on the buoys under discussion.  Currently we 
> have, relatively light buoys (easily pushed around) which are quite 
> soft.  The proposed buoys weigh a great deal more (220#s 
> approximately) and are relatively stiff/hard and have less buoyancy.
>
> The buoys in front of the club have a maximum length of chain of 
> 75".   This means that under many conditions the buoy will be holding 
> 400 # of chain (5.33 #s/ft), 2 pennants at (a guess) 25 #s a piece and 
> shackles/swivel etc of approx 10 - 15 + #s.  Therefore the buoy will 
> be supporting 450 or 460 #s.  The total displacement of the buoy is 
> approximately 14 cubic ft (Approx 830 #s).  The buoy weight should be 
> about 220#s.  The published net displacement is 610 #s.  This leaves a 
> remaining displacement/buoyancy of about 260 #s.  If we consider the 
> current in the river to add less than 200#s of drag, maximum, the buoy 
> should remain on the surface most of the time.  If we add the wind 
> loading, which can be much more than that, on to the force applied to 
> the buoy, we must realize that the additional forces will cause the 
> buoy to be submerged at times during windy days.  This is not 
> necessarily bad and actually will dampen the motion of a moored boat 
> but the buoy may be submerged beneath the water and may not be seen by 
> boaters entering the mooring field.  The current buoys have 750#s of 
> buoyancy (135" diameter) so we have not seen the same effect as they 
> remain on the surface.  I am not sure this is a serious fault and it 
> really remains to be seen how the proposed buoys act under real 
> conditions.  I do agree that it might be very valuable to place one 
> these buoys on a mooring and see what happens.  I do not think, 
> however that we should make a commitment to change all of the existing 
> buoys right now as there are a number of unanswered questions.  I do 
> agree with Bud in that I think the bow of a moored boat will ride over 
> these buoys on tide changes.  This may cause some scraping of the hull 
> since the buoy material is quite rigid or, in the worst case cause 
> damage from the hardware on the mooring pendants scraping the hull.  
> This rigidity can also cause some loud bumping on the hull which can 
> be an irritating nuisance at night since they can be clearly heard 
> inside the boat.  These issues have been what has helped make the 
> acceptance of this type of buoy very slow especially in waters where 
> the dynamics (waves, wind, and high currents) are significant.  We 
> should also realize that changing all of our moorings to this system 
> would be an $18000-20,000 expense.  I do, however, think we should 
> experiment with one to see how they act in our somewhat unique 
> environment. I can see both the pros and the cons of changing our 
> mooring buoys.
>
> Dick
>
> On 1/15/2016 6:58 PM, John Myles wrote:
>>
>> My two cents is that we have to go 5/8" minimum 3/4" will last longer 
>> and be more cost effective on the chain.  As for the pendent I have 
>> done both in the river and found one to be safer as two work against 
>> each other.  I have had the shackle back off with two.  If you are 
>> concerned about chafe you could go with a bridal but hard to do with 
>> block line preferred over braided.
>>
>> As for the winter test I don't see the need as lone as the math works 
>> on the chain weight, you really need a boat riding on it to truly 
>> test it.
>>
>> Bud
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Roy Briscoe <roysail at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have some more information about the top down approach of the 
>>> mooring proposed:
>>>
>>> Last year we switched from the underneath attachment to the top 
>>> attachment to resolve the issue of our pendents always wrapping 
>>> themselves around the bottom of the mooring and then being unable to 
>>> unwrap them easily and sometimes having to square them away from the 
>>> dinghy.
>>>
>>> Having them come out of the top fixed the wrapping issue. But dual 
>>> pendants still twist around themselves. I think the issue is the 
>>> weight of the pendents and the hardware prevents the swivel from 
>>> swiveling, see attached picture. This might be less of an issue with 
>>> the mooring float proposed, maybe, because all the hardware would be 
>>> on top and not hanging over the top. Also the current is much 
>>> stronger in front of the club so that might pull up on the hardware 
>>> so it can swivel and get it off the mooring ball.
>>>
>>> So we probably will want to think about using the two pendent 
>>> approach, they are going to twist and it is going to cost twice an 
>>> much to maintain. I'm not sure I'd go with double pendents at the 
>>> IOS and Pepperrell Cove, though I can see using them in front of the 
>>> Club.
>>>
>>> I like the proposed float because there is room to store the 
>>> pendents on top, but the users will need to remember to place them 
>>> there when they drop them because they don't automatically spring 
>>> back and coil themselves up, unless that is an option. Bottom line, 
>>> I think they will still end up in the water.
>>>
>>> When we upgraded last year we were told that the mooring hardware 
>>> rules were changing for 2016 and everything was going to scale up in 
>>> size. We opted to meet the 2016 rules even though we didn't have 
>>> too, so the chain and pendent size went up one level, which of 
>>> course meant it was going to cost a little more. So we may have to 
>>> use heavier chain and larger pendents this year if we do any work on 
>>> the moorings.
>>>
>>> If we put one of these out front for the winter, would we put 
>>> pendents on it or just the float?
>>>
>>> Roy
>>>
>>> > From: dan at dangingras.net <mailto:dan at dangingras.net>
>>> > To: JohnC at Myles.com <mailto:JohnC at myles.com>; board at portsmouthyc.org
>>> > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:19:20 -0500
>>> > Subject: Re: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information
>>> >
>>> > The reasons to move to these floats from the large balls are
>>> >
>>> > 1- Allow for the use of double pennants (which would have 
>>> prevented the
>>> > Osprey accident last year)
>>> > 2- Move the swivel to the top of the chain and out of the water,
>>> > preventing potential of the pennant against the swivel if it jams 
>>> (which may
>>> > have been the cause of the osprey accident)
>>> > 3- Move the pennants out of the water to eliminate growth and prevent
>>> > them from being run over (which happened a couple of times last year)
>>> >
>>> > Dan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: John Myles [mailto:JohnC at Myles.com]
>>> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:47 AM
>>> > To: dan at dangingras.net <mailto:dan at dangingras.net>; 'Board of 
>>> Directors' <board at portsmouthyc.org <mailto:board at portsmouthyc.org>>
>>> > Subject: RE: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information
>>> >
>>> > At $550.00 it's about the same as the big mooring balls to replace.
>>> > Bud
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Board [mailto:board-bounces at portsmouthyc.org] On Behalf Of 
>>> Dan Gingras
>>> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:40 AM
>>> > To: 'Board of Directors' <board at portsmouthyc.org>
>>> > Subject: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information
>>> >
>>> > Attached is what Nancy and I were discussing.
>>> >
>>> > Dan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Paul Roy [mailto:proy at proconinc.com]
>>> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
>>> > To: 'Dan Gingras (dan at dangingras.net <mailto:dan at dangingras.net>)' 
>>> <dan at dangingras.net <mailto:dan at dangingras.net>>
>>> > Subject: FW: Mooring Float Information
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Paul W. Roy
>>> > Director of Business Development | Client Services
>>> > 603.623.8811 ext 243
>>> > 603.396.2352 cell
>>> > proy at proconinc.com 
>>> <mailto:proy at proconinc.com><mailto:proy at proconinc.com>
>>> >
>>> > [Description: PROCON Logo email signatuure 2]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Scott Dawes [mailto:sdawes at gilmancorp.com]
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:29 PM
>>> > To: Paul Roy
>>> > Cc: Liz Gilman
>>> > Subject: Mooring Float Information
>>> >
>>> > Mr. Roy,
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for your interest in our mooring floats. As requested, I've
>>> > attached some information to this e-mail in PDF format for your 
>>> review.
>>> >
>>> > All of our mooring floats come with the non-marring fender deck 
>>> ring and
>>> > have a twelve-year warranty for net buoyancy and color.
>>> >
>>> > If you have any questions or if I can be of any further 
>>> assistance, please
>>> > do not hesitate to contact me.
>>> >
>>> > Respectfully,
>>> >
>>> > Scott Dawes
>>> > VP of Aids to Navigation
>>> > (860) 887-7080, Ext 14
>>> > (860) 861-6623 (cell)
>>> > (860) 886-5402 (fax)
>>> > www.gilmancorp.com 
>>> <http://www.gilmancorp.com><http://www.gilmancorp.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> <Kittery new mooring 1.jpg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160115/c2ab42a3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Board mailing list