Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 18-05-2013, 12:47   #91
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,812
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utahsailor View Post
rwidman: I've been on a couple of standards committees and have a much lower opinion of their quality. They were heavily populated by industry engineers who pushed their company's points of view...
^^ Exactly the issue and prevalent pretty much industry wide.

Every material has issues.
Marelon does seem strong enough for seacocks. Much better impact resistance then PVC and not susceptible to galvanic "issues". Though an industrial CPVC valve would, in my mind, be adequate also. Oh sure it might not meet ABYC, but it will meet ASTM and if you look at the data sheets the properties might be superior. But I digress.

Watercolors information is correct. But even 7500 psi tensile strength is not bad when factored with impact resistance.

Manufacturer's in general present their products in the best possible light. Every one of them does it. Its why engineers throw in safety factors and sometimes even reject products as not meeting spec.

Marelon valves generally are adequate for seacocks. Oh high praise maybe. But then again I'm the girl who for a really long time read manufacturers datasheets for fun. Mainly for industrial and heavy commercial applications.
__________________

__________________
sailorchic34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2013, 14:55   #92
Senior Cruiser
 
Captain Bill's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat
Boat: Endeavourcat Sailcat 44
Posts: 2,313
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watercolor View Post

2. Why did Forespar make the 93 series thru-hull fittings oversized? And why didn't they do the same for the 849 series, the ones that you and I can buy?

3. The 93 series has 6 sizes, why did they make the thru-hulls non-standard so that if a boat owner wanted to replace the seacock/thru-hulls with bronze would have to re-glass the oversized holes for every odd sized (1,3,5) 93 series unit? By the way, the even sized units all have a diminished flow rate. For example, the 2" thru-hull only has the flow rate of the 1.5" unit.
I would note that the 93 series are sold as OEM equipment. I would assume that the boat builders would choose the appropriate size of series 93 seacock for the application for which it is being installed. The hole size will be manufactured for the fitting being used by the builder. Since it is OEM there should be no conflict. If you decide to change to bronze seacocks that is your choice, but you have created the problem for yourself with regards to hole size. As you note this material is not bronze, so why would one expect things like wall thickness and ODs appropriate for bronze would be appropriate for this material.

It would seem to me that ones that "you and I can buy" are intended as replacements for bronze so they have to fit where bronze used to fit. Is it the best choice for this material? It would appear not, but then again since you have chosen to educate yourself, you already know that they
are not apples to apples and would make an appropriate decision for your application. In some applications it may be adequate while bronze would be overkill. You know your application so again it's up to you to make an appropriate choice.
__________________

__________________
Captain Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2013, 17:37   #93
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,649
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
Well, I don't have Marelon seacocks, I have bronze and I don't believe I'll be replacing them in the near future, but it's always interesting when a private individual or two hold themselves out as knowing better than the International standards organizations, whether it be boating or some other subject.

I've learned that there's no point arguing with these people, they have already made up their minds, yet it's fun sometimes to stir them up.

We have boaters posting who have Marelon seacocks and valves and for the most part, they are satisfied with them. They do have the advantage of being non-metallic so that keeps the owner out of the "bond or not bond" argument.

You guys carry on, it's pretty entertaining to read.
What " international standards organisations " ABYC, don't make me laugh.

Dave
__________________
Check out my new blog on smart boat technology, networking and gadgets for the connected sailor! - http://smartboats.tumblr.com
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2013, 17:56   #94
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
....International standards organizations...

You're a funny guy, ABYC = international standards organizaton.
__________________
Efraim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2013, 21:34   #95
Registered User
 
Watercolor's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montpelier, VT
Boat: On the hard for now - 2 dinghies
Posts: 198
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Wakuu - My goal has in the material I've presented is simply to present the facts about seacocks and thru-hulls, in particular, non-metal (plastic) units. Forespar is the only company making them in the states. If you're aware of the issues you're better informed about what (seacocks and thru-hulls) I feel is probably the most critical component on a boat.

I’ve heard about Forerspar coming out with a “Carbon fiber” line of ball valves, didn’t know they made a seacock. From what I gathered they’re OEM, curious as to how you were able to obtain them?

Did you install them on Forespar’s thru-hulls or bronze thru-hulls? I’ve seen no reference for Forespar “carbon fiber” thru-hulls on the Forespar or any web sites.”

You state, “Its been in the water a year and I've lubed them every 6 months, from the outside with no issues.”

Your statement suggests that you’re checking and maintaining the valves. It’s very unlikely you’ll see anything from the outside or inside. I know of no visual aids to identify potential material failure with nylon, however, if you'd like there are a few "heads up" things you might find useful.

I can tell you that after a year in the water the carbon fiber reinforced nylon has reached maximum degradation.

Fair winds
__________________
Watercolor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2013, 22:06   #96
Registered User
 
Watercolor's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montpelier, VT
Boat: On the hard for now - 2 dinghies
Posts: 198
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Utah sailor I thank you for making the point about the ABYC and its priorities.

Several years ago I asked ABYC if there was any documentation regarding the DRY AS MOLDED materials standard. ABYC didn't know the answer, but said that Forespar would most likely have that information.

The standard Im referring to is the UL 1121 standard for tru-hulls and seacocks.

When I asked ABYC why there was no impact test, the response was effectively, the static load test was a surrogate for an impact test.

Seemed like a fox guarding the hen house scenario as you suggest.
__________________
Watercolor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2013, 06:54   #97
Senior Cruiser
 
Captain Bill's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat
Boat: Endeavourcat Sailcat 44
Posts: 2,313
Re: Marelon seacock failure

I just made a visit to the forespar web site and it looks like they have changed the formulation for Marelon. They now have "Now Carbon Reinforced" plastered all over their web site. Since Marelon is just a trademark I guess they have the right to change the formulation. When I looked at the tech data they are showing 27,000 PSI tensil strength and 1,300,000 mpa felxural modulus. These numbers are much higher than many of the detractors have been stating for the starting numbers for the old glass reinforced formulation. This new formulation seems to be implemented in all of their products advertised as Marelon. I guess all the products will have to be tested again. It would seem that one would have to repeat the tests done on the old glass reinforced formula to see if the new formula is actually an improvement.
__________________
Captain Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2013, 07:45   #98
Registered User
 
Watercolor's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montpelier, VT
Boat: On the hard for now - 2 dinghies
Posts: 198
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Captain Bill - Can you provide me with the actual site pages you were viewing.

I agree with you that Forespar can change their formulation any time they want.

http://www.forespar.com/pdf/930136-m...-standards.pdf
http://www.forespar.com/pdf/930136-m...comparison.pdf

Please note that these files are from the CURRENT Forespar site. The comparison chart uses the inflated numbers you're referencing. The standards chart is the actual numbers provided by Forespar to the ABYC (tensile strength = 17,500psi and flexural modulus of 700,000psi). And there are also a third set of numbers, for their thru-hulls (tensile strength = 12,900psi and flexural modulus of 530,000psi.)

And a forth, if you add the 3 carbon fiber ball valves.

This is one of the many issues I tried to present in my original comment. In fact I referenced those same sites.

The fact is I can give you 9 sets of tensile strength and flexural modulus numbers that are all what Forespar calls Marelon today.

And the only numbers that count are the tensile strength and flexural values of Marelon immersed in water, unless your boat is on the hard. And those are tensile strength of 5,800psi and flexural modulus of 320,000psi.

Captain Bill, I really appreciate your taking the time to check and see if my information is accurate. I think you'll find my information is accurate.

Thanks
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Forespar Marelon ABYC.pdf (87.8 KB, 36 views)
File Type: pdf 930136-marelon-vs-other-materials-comparison.pdf (12.5 KB, 35 views)
__________________
Watercolor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2013, 07:58   #99
Registered User
 
Watercolor's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montpelier, VT
Boat: On the hard for now - 2 dinghies
Posts: 198
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Captain Bill - In March of this year I asked Forespar about the conflict in the numbers for Marelon. I also asked which numbers reflected the current state of marelon.

I was sent the data sheet http://www.forespar.com/pdf/930136-m...-standards.pdf

Those are the same numbers I used in my original comment.
__________________
Watercolor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2013, 08:03   #100
Registered User
 
Watercolor's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montpelier, VT
Boat: On the hard for now - 2 dinghies
Posts: 198
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Check out any information I've provided. If you feel uncomfortable with the info, or like Captain Bill feel there's a conflict, etc. Please let me know.
__________________
Watercolor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2013, 09:15   #101
Registered User

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 461
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Strange,
Such an important subject, its been about 3 days now since the last post.
Such an unclear ending after 99 posts.... maybe its not such an important subject after all.

Sad really, even the threads
"Shall I keep my sunglasses around my neck after sunset" "At which lattitudes can I switch the fridge off" have more posts.

Anybody had their boat safety seriously compromised by a Marelon fitting???

I mean a real Marelon fitting that is, not a nylon one that they thought was Marelon.

Also, we've heard enough about the handles breaking, I dont understand why they dont just admit there is a weakness and change the design to make them stronger, this surely would be the simplest solution.

I hope this lucky post 100 brings some clarity!!!
__________________
Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2013, 09:34   #102
Do or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 9,198
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuss View Post
Strange,
Such an important subject, its been about 3 days now since the last post.
Such an unclear ending after 99 posts.... maybe its not such an important subject after all.

Sad really, even the threads
"Shall I keep my sunglasses around my neck after sunset" "At which lattitudes can I switch the fridge off" have more posts.

Anybody had their boat safety seriously compromised by a Marelon fitting???

I mean a real Marelon fitting that is, not a nylon one that they thought was Marelon.

Also, we've heard enough about the handles breaking, I dont understand why they dont just admit there is a weakness and change the design to make them stronger, this surely would be the simplest solution.

I hope this lucky post 100 brings some clarity!!!
To be honest, I got sick of arguing when people declare a valve on a thru-hull same strength as the flanged adapter. I feel there is no reason to continue that. I have both Groco bronze and Forespar Marelon seacocks and thru-hull fittings and never had a problem with any of them. After watching the tests on Youtube from MaineSail, I have ordered Groco flanged adapters and thru-hull fittings and fleet elbows and ball valves and safety-converter thinghies to flush the engines etc. I am even replacing sea strainers with the nice Groco bronze/lexan versions. I will be replacing all Marelon and I will not be bonding it.

My reasoning is that although I never had trouble, with the Forespar seacocks from the chandlery I can feel the handle bend when I turn it. I can believe something will break when a barnacle grows big enough in the wrong place.

I also have some fittings and seacocks (yes I used the Forespar Marelon seacocks there) above the waterline, like for discharge of A/C cooling raw water, and I will keep that Marelon.

I think this makes me one of the few willing to admit having inferior gear installed. May be it is because I don't mind to put some money and effort in to replace it, or I don't mind to criticize my own boat.
__________________
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2013, 10:59   #103
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Boat: C&C 39
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watercolor View Post
Captain Bill - Can you provide me with the actual site pages you were viewing.

I agree with you that Forespar can change their formulation any time they want.

http://www.forespar.com/pdf/930136-m...-standards.pdf
http://www.forespar.com/pdf/930136-m...comparison.pdf

Please note that these files are from the CURRENT Forespar site. The comparison chart uses the inflated numbers you're referencing. The standards chart is the actual numbers provided by Forespar to the ABYC (tensile strength = 17,500psi and flexural modulus of 700,000psi). And there are also a third set of numbers, for their thru-hulls (tensile strength = 12,900psi and flexural modulus of 530,000psi.)

And a forth, if you add the 3 carbon fiber ball valves.

This is one of the many issues I tried to present in my original comment. In fact I referenced those same sites.

The fact is I can give you 9 sets of tensile strength and flexural modulus numbers that are all what Forespar calls Marelon today.

And the only numbers that count are the tensile strength and flexural values of Marelon immersed in water, unless your boat is on the hard. And those are tensile strength of 5,800psi and flexural modulus of 320,000psi.

Captain Bill, I really appreciate your taking the time to check and see if my information is accurate. I think you'll find my information is accurate.

Thanks
I also saw this - the specs for new carbon Marelon. Looks like they are signif stronger, not sure if this is DAM test or in water.

Here is the link

http://www.forespar.com/pdf/techTips...bing-chart.pdf

Interesting discussion, hope it continues.

R
__________________
epistosaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2013, 11:01   #104
Registered User

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 461
But Jedi,

What about us aluminium boats........ .... I guess we all have to weld in standpipes!!!
__________________
Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2013, 11:08   #105
Senior Cruiser
 
Cheechako's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Skagit City, WA
Posts: 19,334
Re: Marelon seacock failure

Wow... this thread "takes a licking and keeps on ticking"! I would take the words "ABYC" or "Coast Guard" Approved with a grain of salt. Alot of crap is approved, doesnt mean it's any good.
__________________

__________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted" - Elmore Leonard











Cheechako is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.