[Board] FW: Mooring Float Information

Sat Jan 16 05:59:51 MST 2016

That means the mooring report we have from them is totally fiction!!

They really need to correct this.

From: Dick Blidberg [mailto:blidberg at ausi.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:01 PM
To: dan at dangingras.net; Board of Directors <board at portsmouthyc.org>
Subject: Re: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information

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  <mailto:board at portsmouthyc.org> <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>

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160116/6227abaf/attachment.htm>