[Board] FW: Mooring Float Information
Dick Blidberg
blidberg at ausi.org
Fri Jan 15 21:00:35 MST 2016
They have the wrong mooring numbers.
The moorings in front of the PYC are:
4267 - 60 ft of 3/4,
2296 - 75 ft 0f 3/4,
1716 - 75 ft of 3/4,
140 - 50 ft of 5/8,
2259 - 75 ft of 3/4,
203 - 50 ft of 3/4
On 1/15/2016 9:49 PM, Dan Gingras wrote:
>
> I agree we should try one. One correction. Here are the lengths of
> chain according to the mooring report from Pepperell cove mooring:
>
> Mooring 203 – 50 ft of ¾
>
> Mooring 319 32 ft of ¾
>
> Mooring 151 60ft of ¾
>
> Mooring 2487 15ft of 5/8
>
> Mooring 3167 40 ft of 5/8 chain
>
> Dan
>
> *From:*Board [mailto:board-bounces at portsmouthyc.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Dick Blidberg
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 8:02 PM
> *To:* Board of Directors <board at portsmouthyc.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/20160115/5f3cf637/attachment.htm>
More information about the Board
mailing list