Missinginaction update

Well, much to the "delight" of my wife I now have a small block Ford V-8 on an engine stand in the shop. Once I removed the exhaust manifolds it looked much less intimidating.

I'm now down in the bilge areas of this 1973 Silverton and as noted in earlier posts by PAR, Alan White and CharmC the boat is in fairly good shape considering its vintage.

As I gain greater insight into how boats are designed and constructed I'm noticing that there is (in this boats case anyway) considerable variation between the design and the actual execution of the construction.

I think it was PAR who used the phrase "those were the dark days of boat building...". I can see his point as I go deeper into the hidden areas. While the engineering appears rational what happened on the shop floor sometimes actually makes me laugh!

I do have a comment and a question that perhaps one or many of you more senior members could answer. I've installed the v-berth assembly. Essentially this part of the boat was tied into the forward floor (this secured the aft v-berth supports) and tabbed into the bow which supports the horizontal plywood. In order to install this assembly as it was originally engineered I needed to shim the entire v-berth assembly up a couple of inches so that I could tab the horizontal plywood into the hull exactly where the originally assembly was positioned.

Now this caused me some confusion so I took my usual course of action and stopped what I was doing, got a coffee, sat down and looked at it for awhile. It occured to me that when underway the bow could hit a large wave and although it looks solid, the bow could flex. By engineering the v-berth as they did, it seemed that Silverton created essentially a "floating" berth that's not secured to the bottom of the bow, but rather to the sides of the bow (via the tabbing) and the forwardmost floor.

I'm confident that my logic is valid here, but just thought I'd get some input from those of you with more experience in this area.

As always, thanks for your interest and comments,

MIA

 

Hi, MIA,

Good to hear from you; glad the project is moving along.

I think I have a good visualization of the vee berth construction you are describing. Pacemaker (my former 3 boats) constructed an FRP locker across the lower portion of the forward compartment, with a recessed plywood hatch cover. The locker was glassed to the hull and was the base for the vee berth. The construction you describe certainly cost less. They might have left open space where the aft bunk supports met the cabin sole to allow any water which leaked in to drain easily ... or perhaps just more cost cutting. I'm not an authority, though, as my experience with Silvertons is mainly from observing those anchored or running nearby. The hull design, with a moderate deep vee, wasn't the fastest, but in the hands of a capable skipper, they handled well in choppy to rough seas.

BTW, I like your approach to problems and puzzles. Not as exciting, perhaps, as "Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes", but far more productive, as I've learned since I survived my impetuous youth.

 

In a 1973 boat there's a good chance what you are dealing with isn't original.

How can you tell "there is considerable variation between the design and the actual execution" anyway?

 

Hi Sam,

This boat was all original save a few cosmetic repairs. I'm the third owner, I knew the second owner and the original owner belonged to our club for decades. She was a local boat.

When I mentioned the "design vs. the execution" I was refering to the methods used to build the boat vs. what was clearly the marine architects intention.

A classic example of this is the cabin sole and sole stringers in this boat. The sole stringers could have easily been assembled using 2x4x10 southern yellow pine running fore & aft. Indeed a couple of the stringers are 2x4x10. Others are 2x4x about 8 1/2 or 9. Whoever built the sole stringer platform then proceeded to scarf a piece of scrap wood to the long stock to get out to 10 feet! He made gussets out of 1/2" plywood and used a simple butt joint. The joint didn't fail, but clearly this was not the way the stringer was designed.

The cabin sole was made of 5/8 ply, except for a section where they must have ran out of 5/8 on the shop floor. This one section of the sole was constructed of 1/2" ply. The carpenter added thin shims 1/8" ripped from 2 by stock. He screwed the shims to the top of the sole stringers under the area where he used the 1/2" plywood sole material. This raised the 1/2" ply to level with the 5/8" ply. Looking at the installed cabin sole, you'd never know. The only problem in doing this was that the 1/2" ply failed over time where the aft cabin bulkhead rested. I believe that the 1/2 inch plywood flexed and failed over time.

There are some pictures of the sole stringers on prevoius posts if you're interested.

Thanks for the reply,

MIA

 

You mean this wood is 34 years old? I have a very hard time believing that. Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Sure it is. 34 years old.

The photo that you attached is exactly what I was talking about. Keep in mind that when the boat is assembled the wood that you are looking at is inside the cabin and covered with the cabin sole and carpet. I noticed very little water infiltration in this area. There was much worse dry rot in exterior portions of the boat, especially around the windshield supports.

The reason I decided to restore this boat in particular was that I liked the design (at 6' i can stand up straight in the cabin and she has 18" wide, essentially flat side decks) and she was well cared for. The original owner had all kinds of documentation regarding the boat. He owned her for about 25 years. The second owner used her as a cocktail barge, but he didn't really hurt her any, just didn't put many hours on. I picked up the boat for a really good price when the second owner moved to Dallas in 2001. I carefully started disassembling the boat in 2002, but didn't really get started in earnest until 2005 after I retired. I hope to have the boat finished in 2008, but we'll just have to see. I found that these things always take much longer that I think they will.

 

I don't know, I still have a real hard time believing that's original. I googled "silverton boats" and a bunch of stuff came up. There's hundreds of them out there...
http://www.usedboats.com/list-Silverton------used-boats-p-43-0-limit-20.htm
and they seem to have a good reputation. You don't have a large operation making good boats and end up running out of 10' 2x4s and 5/8 ply to begin with, much less both at once, and then end up rigging like you describe and show to get by. #1, They don't cost but pennies more than what was used, lumberyards deliver the same day or the next, it would cost more in labor etc. to do it like was done than to do it right. #2, your reputation would suffer. #3, If you were that cheap and cut corners that bad it would carry through and be noticeable in numerous other places in the boat. #4, You have to be pretty unskilled to rig it that nasty.

It just seems to me to be an aftermarket thing and not what would come out of a reputable factory.

Other than that, there'a few forums on them, the post below is from "Iboats",
and I direct linked the club at the bottom.

http://www.silvertonclub.com/

 

Hi Sam,

I agree with everything you said in your last post. I've spent many hours disassembling this boat. The interior carpentry and joinery was (in my opinion as an amateur) skillfully constructed. The electrical system was pretty shaky, but I believe the first owner did most of the assessory work so I wouldn't blame Silverton for that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Silverton (although the Silvertons built today are certainly nothing like this old boat) and I really like the design.

Having said all the above though a picture is worth a thousand words. Does it make any sense to scarf framing lumber and shim plywood? I agree with you that it doesn't. It was done though. I've thought about what you said and went back to when I was disassembling the cabin, thinking about what I saw. The only conclusion that I can draw is that this work was done on the Silverton shop floor, in New Jersey in 1973. Why? Well your guess is as good as anyones.

In order to even see the wood in that photo you must remove the entire cabin, or at least the entire rear portion. You could not see those scarfed joints from the engine compartment because a floor blocks the view. You couldn't see them from the bilge access hatch in the cabin sole (from the front of the boat) because there was another floor there blocking any view or access. I ended up working in that area because there was a fresh water holding tank that was buried in the center of the bilge right underneath the sole stringers. The tank was leaking and I needed to take the sole out to remove the tank. There was no access provided in the original design.

One last comment. Those scarfed joints never failed, which is something to think about. I believe that the 1/2" plywood sole material failed because the rear cabin bulkheads rested on it and it wasn't quite up to the task. Based on what I saw however I think that if there had been some fiberglass laid up as additional support for the 1/2 " ply it might have done just fine. I'm doing the whole thing over in 3/4". It'll be OK long after I'm gone!

Have a great day and thanks for your interest,

MIA

 

I think quality in boats can vary a bunch over the short term and the long term. Companies change hands, beancounters become more important than builders. Companies cash in on the name while cutting quality and upping profits. Back in 1973, that crew could have been drunk or stoned. Or affected by plant conditions, fumes, etc. Or drunk, stoned, affected by fumes and to top it off, didn't know what they were doing and didn't care anyway! And it was Friday!

It doesn't really matter much, it seems like your going to put it back together right, that's what counts. It's not the worst rigging I've seen, but it sure doesn't look like expert, professional rigging.

 

I have been listening to you guys for a while. Even though I'm a sailboat person I have spent a lot of time climbing through lots of old boats at the local "U Pullit" salvage yard. I have never seen a Silverton look like those posted pictures. At the least the stringers were CDX or exterior grade and I never saw a scabbed piece. Be that as it may, You are doing the right thing in the right way. All you need is Patience.

 

Hi Kaptin Jer,

Just ducked in here for a minute and saw your post.

In respect to you and SamSam I have to agree that the build of that aft sole stringer section is unusual and suspect. I keep trying to convince myself that someone must have rebuilt that section over the past 34 years. At least the aft part where the stringers are scarfed together. Regardless of who did the work it's really academic as it's all in the process of coming out of there anyway.

Yesterday I was in the bilge taking some measurements. I've removed the plywood cabin sole (just plain old a/c exterior grade ps-66 standard) so that I could expose all the stringers. I'm looking at the floor that supports the aft cabin bulkhead and the aft cabin sole. Something looks out of sorts, but I just can't put my finger on it. As usual, I get a coffee and keep looking at the area. All of a sudden it becomes clear. I get a tape measure. Wouldn't you know it, the floor is not square to the hull. It's OK vertically, the out of square is in the horizontal plane. Near as I can tell it's about 2 1/2 inches out of square over a roughly 8' width and completely glassed in that way. I'll be going back down tommorrow with my handy rotary laser to get a more accurate measurement.

Not a real problem as I'm replacing the floor anyway. I'll just reposition it when I have the assembly ready.

Interesting though.....I'm wondering if the out of square situation could have caused the cabin sole to fail?

I suppose the more you look and think the more you learn.

Regards,

MIA

 

MIA,
You got to get off the Java and geterdone Take a bunch of pictures, get a bunch of measurments then get a BIG hammer! No, don't listen to me. Work at your own pace. Lord knows we are not doing instant projects.

 

Kaptin-Jer,

One thing I forgot to mention......even though the Silverton is all apart, I'm still able to "get out there".

In my younger days I was an avid waterskier, so I've had a runabout since I was in my early twenties. Matter of fact it was the first big purchase I made after starting a career in the late seventies. In order to keep peace in the family while I do this restoration my wife and I agreed to buy a new runabout early this year. We purchased a Caravelle 187. This keeps us out on the water (and my 10 year old son likes a faster boat anyway) while I keep working on the old boat.

The best part about this situation is that my wife never gets upset about my work on the "old boat". I've reminded her a few times about the paltry sum I'm spending on epoxy, marine ply and supplies. When she compares this to the relatively large sum we spent on the new boat she realizes that my hobby really isn't very expensive. Plus, as you know, we'll have a nice small cruiser when she's done.

Regards,

MIA

 

MIA,
Messi'n around with boats is what we are all about. Glade to see you can enjoy the water as you work.. Most of us can't. Unless we take down the dingy and row around the boat. Have fun.