Mast step preventative maintenanace

I sail about 60 races per year and my current boat is five years old. Should I be thinking about installing an inspection port and reinforcing the base of the mast step?

Does anyone have any info on how much usage a typical Laser can withstand before the mast step is likely to fail? The reinforcing job is quite tedious and messy, so I would like to postpone it as long as possible consistent with not having a failure on the water.

From my observation, it's not necessary to do this type of preventative maintenance on boats since the 13**** series. The builders changed how the maststep was installed aound then and it's been virtually a non existant problem since then.

Wavedancer said:

I read on this Forum (so it must be true) that high-speed death rolls are often the cause of mast step failures. Hence, if you haven't done too many of those, I wouldn't worry.

Click to expand...

The actual cause of a mast step failure, or the final act of an already weakened mast step?

From my observation, it's not necessary to do this type of preventative maintenance on boats since the 13**** series. The builders changed how the maststep was installed aound then and it's been virtually a non existant problem since then.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this assertion and provide technical information? If not, can you provide a source at Laser Performance? I have a friend who has a 139xxx vintage boat and we have been debating whether to put a port in for just this purpose.

Bungo Pete said:

Can you elaborate on this assertion and provide technical information? If not, can you provide a source at Laser Performance? I have a friend who has a 139xxx vintage boat and we have been debating whether to put a port in for just this purpose.

Click to expand...

Do the water test - full the step up with water and see if it stays full. If it isn't leaking, I would see no reason to mess with it.

Do the water test - full the step up with water and see if it stays full. If it isn't leaking, I would see no reason to mess with it.

Click to expand...

The water test does one thing and one thing only - it tells you if the tube is leaking. It does not give you any indication as to the material condition of the wad of Bondo that was placed in the plywood piece that received the tube when the boat was assembled. It is a machanical joint which is subjected to a large amount of shear stress over time. In my limited experience, most boats that don't have at least one port are quite damp inside. The Bondo "donut" on the first boat I opened was soaked and felt like a hard wet sponge. It dried out over time and when I decided to reinforce the joint, I was shocked to find that I was able to pop it out quite easily with a screw driver. Now, with the tube firmly bonded to the inner hull with overlapping layers of epoxy and woven cloth that go out about 5" , I am far more confident in a blow because it is one less thing to worry about. FWIW, you can do what you want, but that's my 2 cents.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. . .

The water test is a pretty good test because if the bottom of the tube is moving at all then there will most likely be some cracking on the wall of the tube. For a 5 year old boat that isn't showing any signs of damage I think installing ports isn't worth it. I've known a number boats that have lasted as much as 20 years or so without the mast step blowing out (and in their later years they were used in a learn to sail program so they were really used hard and put away wet). It depends on the boat, how much it has been used and abused over the years and so on.

Cuting holes in your boat and installing ports might help. might be a waste of time or, since ports are likely to leak, might make the problem slightly worse. My guess is, a 5 year old boat with ports cut in it and repairs done to the mast step is likely to be worth less than a 5 year old boat with no ports cut in it. If you want to postpone it as long as possible then wait until you have solid evidence that your mast step has a problem.

AlanD said:

From my observation, it's not necessary to do this type of preventative maintenance on boats since the 13**** series. The builders changed how the maststep was installed aound then and it's been virtually a non existant problem since then.

Click to expand...

Curious as to what you have observed that has changed, below is the maststep on a 179xxx series (built in 2004 by Vanguard in the US), to my eye it looks like the same method of installation, the bog slightly different perhaps ?

Curious as to what you have observed that has changed, below is the maststep on a 179xxx series (built in 2004 by Vanguard in the US), to my eye it looks like the same method of installation, the bog slightly different perhaps ?

Click to expand...

Aside from the lack of mildew, it looks like the traditional run-of-the-mill Bondo donut to me.

Bungo Pete said:

The water test does one thing and one thing only - it tells you if the tube is leaking. It does not give you any indication as to the material condition of the wad of Bondo that was placed in the plywood piece that received the tube when the boat was assembled. It is a machanical joint which is subjected to a large amount of shear stress over time. In my limited experience, most boats that don't have at least one port are quite damp inside. The Bondo "donut" on the first boat I opened was soaked and felt like a hard wet sponge. It dried out over time and when I decided to reinforce the joint, I was shocked to find that I was able to pop it out quite easily with a screw driver. Now, with the tube firmly bonded to the inner hull with overlapping layers of epoxy and woven cloth that go out about 5" , I am far more confident in a blow because it is one less thing to worry about. FWIW, you can do what you want, but that's my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

Pete nailed it here. I have two buddies who had unworn dry mast tubes that over time had degraded bondo doughnuts. They were out sailing one day in a good breeze and the tube hops out if it's spot in the bottom of the hull then the mast step and deck have catastrophic failure.

Come to think of it I haven't encountered a blown out maststep as a result of a worn out or leaking tube. I'm not saying maststeps don't fail in that manner, I just haven't seen one.

Bungo Pete said:

The water test does one thing and one thing only - it tells you if the tube is leaking. It does not give you any indication as to the material condition of the wad of Bondo that was placed in the plywood piece that received the tube when the boat was assembled. It is a machanical joint which is subjected to a large amount of shear stress over time.

Click to expand...

Agreed with one caveat. My boat's mast step leaked but only under pressure (initially). So I would fill it with water, no leak. Go sailing, leak. With the help of the folks on this forum I did an excellent repair and I know for a fact it will never, ever break or leak again. I value my boat a great deal more because of the repair to the extent that if I replaced the hull with one that's not been repaired I would certainly do the job again, whether or not the step leaked or showed signs of wear.

I never wanted an inspection port on my boat but when my step leaked I got one. Now, I would gladly drill a hole in a brand new hull. It's that important to me to be able to look at the step from the inside. Either way, if I'm out in 35 knots I know it's not going to be my mast step that fails me - unless it manages to rip a large section of the bottom of the hull out with it (not going to happen).

Here's a nice shot showing how thin the bottom of the tube can get from wear.....check out my sig file for the thread.

What this really boils down to is a cost benefit analysis and I think there's two categories people fall into, racers and cruisers.

If you're a cruiser and aren't racing competitively I'd 100% recommend this preventative maintenance if there's the slightest indication the mast tube bondo material is degrading . I'd also say the same for a practice boat for the serious racer or campaigner.

For individuals racing competitively the whole issue is more murky and requires more introspection. I'll contend if a maststep is to the point where the bondo material holding in the mast tube is degrading then there's a good chance that there's other issues with the boat. In particular I'd suspect such a boat would be soft and thus not very competitive. So my recommendation to a person in that position is not necessarily repair the maststep, but get a newer boat.

Some of the more serous racers in here could chime in on the following statement as I've been out of the Laser racing game for over 15 years. But I think at 60 races per year over 5 years is close to getting a boat past the ideal stiffness. The boat is probably still in good shape and could still fetch a good amount of money, I'd then save up the difference for a brand new boat and upgrade. My $.02

glexpress said:

What this really boils down to is a cost benefit analysis and I think there's two categories people fall into, racers and cruisers.

If you're a cruiser and aren't racing competitively I'd 100% recommend this preventative maintenance if there's the slightest indication the mast tube bondo material is degrading . I'd also say the same for a practice boat for the serious racer or campaigner.

For individuals racing competitively the whole issue is more murky and requires more introspection. I'll contend if a maststep is to the point where the bondo material holding in the mast tube is degrading then there's a good chance that there's other issues with the boat. In particular I'd suspect such a boat would be soft and thus not very competitive. So my recommendation to a person in that position is not necessarily repair the maststep, but get a newer boat.

Some of the more serous racers in here could chime in on the following statement as I've been out of the Laser racing game for over 15 years. But I think at 60 races per year over 5 years is close to getting a boat past the ideal stiffness. The boat is probably still in good shape and could still fetch a good amount of money, I'd then save up the difference for a brand new boat and upgrade. My $.02

Click to expand...

Reading this thread it would appear that Laser did not make design/process changes to address the mast step failure> comments appreciated.

As well can someone provide some pictures of some example inspection ports.
Thxs

chuckcoffe said:

Reading this thread it would appear that Laser did not make design/process changes to address the mast step failure> comments appreciated.

As well can someone provide some pictures of some example inspection ports.
Thxs

Click to expand...

Well I'd say it's more of a factor of Laser not being able to produce new boats with maststeps that are as sturdy as the ones that have been repaired.

When built new the maststep and the rest of the deck and cockpit are attached (or sandwiched) to the hull with the bondo material. When this is done there's no port access to the interior of the boat to do anything beyond that.

When a maststep repair is properly undertaken we're talking about a sanded, fiberglassed structure with a mechanical bond. There's also now a hole in the deck to accommodate this, thus the trade off discussed in this thread.

I'd say that's an unfair statement to say that the builders haven't been able to address the issue. The whole issue of the maststep is a function of how the hull and deck are put together. There's no reason to think that a brand new Laser that's well taken care of can't have a maststep that lasts a decade or more. Also like I said there's other things about a boat that would start to wear out sooner, like hull stiffness.

As for inspection port placement there's many threads in here on the issue. The quick and dirty statement on that is a good place is 45 degrees off centerline and aft. At least 12" from the maststep, without measuring I'd say I'm about 18" from the maststep, a little farther than 12"

49208 said:

Curious as to what you have observed that has changed, below is the maststep on a 179xxx series (built in 2004 by Vanguard in the US), to my eye it looks like the same method of installation, the bog slightly different perhaps ?
View attachment 7239

Click to expand...

I haven't really observed, just my understanding from discussions with the builder / dealers, that they made the whole thing far more secure making it unlikely that the more modern boats would ever fail. Think about how often the mast steps used to fail even in relatively new boats built more than 20 years ago compared to how often the boats built in the last 20 years mast steps fail, at least in my region I haven't heard of a single mast step failure in a boat built in the last 20 years.