General Info: Through Hull Warning!

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Another one who didn't see the MainSail Youtube channel

Actually I did see that and had forgotten about it. The Marelon thru hull s in my Lagoon 42 were black not white, not sure if there is a differnce. I had to remove one seacock as the handle shaft broke off. The thru hull was so tough I had to hack saw it out with a hand held saw blade and a chisel bit by bit. Not sure how that compares with the demo.... something doesnt add up..... I could deform the stuff slightly, but no way would it break... even with a 2# sledge and a cold chisel. go figure...

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

...The Same exact scenario in bronze handles DOUBLE what the Marelon thru-hull/valve combo did but in 3/4" still fails at 100 pounds below ABYC standards....

In addition to strength of materials, the small size is a problem.

In many chemical plant applications we like PVC, since often the only alternative is welded titanium, which is viciously expensive installed. Often I will intentionally specify 1" to 1 1/2" pipe where only 3/4" or less is truly required, because I know someone with bump it or step on it some day. you could install guards; I experienced a large (12,000 gallons) ferric chloride spill once because an technician removed the guard for access and then stumbled against the fitting (very similar to 3/4-inch seacock in size and assembly). In most areas I specify 1" minimum solely for mechanical strength, and 1 1/2 " if I can justify it.

In a plant situation, any pipe will be considered to be a step.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Caracal

I'm sorry, I don't take your "assurance" to heart after watching your embedded video in this thread. It's obvious that noone would install it without bedding, and very few with those sharp edges - at least in combination. Also, I have a problem with using soft builder's plywood for this.

I guess they cheat when they get their stuff approved and then subsequently lie.

As I said I have snapped them off by hand "installed" and I seriously doubt I am approaching 200 pounds of force. I broke one off in a head two years ago just trying to get the hose off it....

How do you explain the failure of the 3/4" Marelon valve threaded to the bronze flange at half the ABYC standards?? A marine sealant makes zero difference in that installation.

Let us also not forget that many, many, many builders installed these, in the real world with plywood backing plates, no different from my work bench except that my work bench is not soggy & wet and has a LOT LESS give than 90% of the wet mushy wood backing blocks I come across on a daily basis..

If we know the 3/4" Marelon valve fails at 253 pounds and duplicate valves on the 3/4" Marelon thru-hulls have not once failed before the thru-hull (installed and in testing).........

I have broken four or five 3/4" Marelon thru-hulls at least three of them were in 1/2" thick GPO-3 solid fiberglass.

Originally Posted by Caracal

I also guess that you won't be doing the same test with it properly bedded and in something a bit more substantial (i.e. a proper installation).

Seeing as I already know the answer you are questioning I would be more than happy to conduct the test for you. Heck I just blew 10 ANL fuses another CF member sent me using a 400Ah Lithium battery bank.

If you want to send me a 3/4" Marelon thru-hull & valve I will be 150% happy to install it with 5200 (I will supply that or you could send me a fresh tube). I will let it cure for at least two weeks, or what ever time you deem "fair". I will also mount it in solid extremely strong fiberglass for you....

I won't even ask you to pay for my time.... I will say it again that adding a marine sealant will not get a 3/4" Marelon thru-hull and 3/4" Marelon valve to pass ABYC minimum standards and I am more than happy to show you with another video.... You are also more than welcome to come see it first hand live...

Also no one "lied".. A Marelon valve /thru-hull combo in smaller sizes has never met the ABYC/UL standards but it did not stop thousands of boats from being built this way.. The only valves that carry the ABYC / Marine UL listing are the OEM/93 series and they exceed the standard by a few hundred pounds, at least when dry. They also do this "without sealant" in the same 3'4" size......

Would sealant have made a difference here? I will break as many fittings as you want to send me.....

Seacock Load Test #1 - YouTube

[shamrock]

Originally Posted by timbenner

I just had my 2002 Lagoon 380 toilet through hulls removed and they were in the corrosion danger zone!! Very corroded and not safe.

I blogged several sites and the predominant advise I got was to leave them alone. Glad I didn't. If your boat is comparable to mine (age, time in the water, etc.), you're on borrowed time!!

Here's the replacement plan I'm leaning towards:

Seacock Backing Plates / Alternate Method / No Through Bolts Photo Gallery by Compass Marine at pbase.com

I'm looking for the pros and cons of Marelon polymer composite versus Groco Bronze hardware for replacement. Here's a few:

1) The breaking strength of Bronze is over double that of Marelon.
2) Marelon doesn't corrode.

Thoughts??

Tim

I'm just about to start this job and completed one last spring as well.

I did almost exactly what the link showed with one, I believe improved, difference.

Instead of taping the holes in the backing plate, why not just get flat head bronze bolts, countersink the bottom of the G10 backing plate and epoxy the bolts securely in place to the G10?

This accomplishes the same thing without depending on the threads to hold it all in place

If there something wrong with this, I'd love to hear before I do mine this way.

[shamrock]

To try and extend the life of through hulls, I only install Spartan though hulls. They are at least twice as thick as the Groco or Apollo.

I have original Wilcox Critendon through hulls over 30 years old and they are still several times thicker than what I could buy new from anything but Spartan.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by shamrock

I'm just about to start this job and completed one last spring as well.

I did almost exactly what the link showed with one, I believe improved, difference.

Instead of taping the holes in the backing plate, why not just get flat head bronze bolts, countersink the bottom of the G10 backing plate and epoxy the bolts securely in place to the G10?

This accomplishes the same thing without depending on the threads to hold it all in place

If there something wrong with this, I'd love to hear before I do mine this way.

When it comes time to remove the seacock the suds will be there and they can get damaged during seacock removal when trying to break the seal of the marine sealant. You would need to lift straight up in order to break the seal which will be very, very difficult. If you damage them you now have captive damaged bolts. I much prefer removable studs because I have had to remove lots of seacocks.....

If you don't feel comfortable with drilling & tapping (it is very strong and exceeds ABYC standards) you can embed a bronze nut, but you'll want 5/8" thick G-10 or GPO-3, at a minimum, to do so... When drilling & tapping backers I use 5/8" but as you'll see below even 1/2" exceeds the ABYC standard easily..

Here's a video showing just 1/2" polyester resin fiberglass sheet. G-10 in 5/8" would be even stronger.

Drill & Tap Groco Tri-Flange Valve Strength Test - YouTube

Here is a 5/16 X 18 threaded rod in home made 1/2" polyester resin sheet. This is NOT poltruded GPO-3 or G-10 but home made home laminated fiberglass sheet... Drilled & tapped in a direct line pull..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZclHN...Qsuu3RpGnxVwFw

[Caracal]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

As I said I have snapped them off by hand "installed" and I seriously doubt I am approaching 200 pounds of force. I broke one off in a head two years ago just trying to get the hose off it....

Nope, still hearsay to me, and it doesn't address the flaws I see in your experiment.

How do you explain the failure of the 3/4" Marelon valve threaded to the bronze flange at half the ABYC standards?? A marine sealant makes zero difference in that installation.

See above. I'm not the one testing things to show how some products are inferior and making bold statements about it.

Let us also not forget that many, many, many builders installed these, in the real world with plywood backing plates, no different from my work bench except that my work bench is not soggy & wet and has a LOT LESS give than 90% of the wet mushy wood backing blocks I come across on a daily basis..

Really? You know of boat builders who use builder's plywood without having glass over it? And even if you did, that doesn't address my point about point pressure at the edge, and how the through-hull in the video is pulled against that edge.

If we know the 3/4" Marelon valve fails at 253 pounds and duplicate valves on the 3/4" Marelon thru-hulls have not once failed before the thru-hull (installed and in testing).........

Well, considering that I find your testing flawed, that "knowledge" is worth very, very little.

I have broken four or five 3/4" Marelon thru-hulls at least three of them were in 1/2" thick GPO-3 solid fiberglass.

Yes, so you say. From where I'm standing, it's just more backstory to support a test that is flawed from the get-go.

Seeing as I already know the answer you are questioning I would be more than happy to conduct the test for you. Heck I just blew 10 ANL fuses another CF member sent me using a 400Ah Lithium battery bank.

If you want to send me a 3/4" Marelon thru-hull & valve I will be 150% happy to install it with 5200 (I will supply that or you could send me a fresh tube). I will let it cure for at least two weeks, or what ever time you deem "fair". I will also mount it in solid extremely strong fiberglass for you....

I don't need to send you anything at all to point out obvious flaws in your "testing". I'm sorry that you are unable to see that.

I won't even ask you to pay for my time.... I will say it again that adding a marine sealant will not get a 3/4" Marelon thru-hull and 3/4" Marelon valve to pass ABYC minimum standards and I am more than happy to show you with another video....

So you say. However, to me, it has reached a stage where when confronted with flaws in the testing which supposedly supports your claims, you simply assert that no matter what, the results would be the exact same. So much for trying to be objective when testing.

Also no one "lied".. A Marelon valve /thru-hull combo in smaller sizes has never met the ABYC/UL standards but it did not stop thousands of boats from being built this way.. The only valves that carry the ABYC / Marine UL listing are the OEM/93 series and they exceed the standard by a few hundred pounds, at least when dry. They also do this "without sealant" in the same 3'4" size......

Sorry, I was wrong to assume that your supporters in this thread was correct, and that your claim that the through-hull should meet certain standards were actually applicable to the tested product in question.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Caracal

Nope, still hearsay to me, and it doesn't address the flaws I see in your experiment.

I offered for you to come physically see this in person and do it to your standards to eliminate any "hearsay"...

Originally Posted by Caracal

See above. I'm not the one testing things to show how some products are inferior and making bold statements about it.

My testing was and is done to compare different types of fittings and installations against the ABYC standards. This is the same exact method used by the manufacturers to test these products. Forespar even saw my original testing and had no issue with it. They even went so far as to send me some more OEM/93 series valves for testing, which pass with flying colors BTW.. I think they were quite happy to see how well the OEM/93 series performed.

Originally Posted by Caracal

Really? You know of boat builders who use builder's plywood without having glass over it?

Yes quite a few. How about this one taken at a 2011 boat show. Just bare plywood.
So yes there have been and still are builders who use un-coated plywood.. There are also many who use sealed marine ply and sometimes even that eventually gets wet.

And another shot of a factory installation with uncoated ply and this is 2012 boat:

Originally Posted by Caracal

And even if you did, that doesn't address my point about point pressure at the edge, and how the through-hull in the video is pulled against that edge.

I have offered to do it your way but you don't seem to want to see your way tested. You seem content to pick apart my method, which is the same method used by manufacturers in testing. Groco does not use a sealant when they do their factory testing.

Originally Posted by Caracal

Well, considering that I find your testing flawed, that "knowledge" is worth very, very little.

It is funny that at least two manufacturers did not find my testing "flawed" and they actually went so far as to send me more products to test, namely Groco and Forespar....

Groco finds the same thing I did with the thru-hull / ball valve combo in their factory testing and the do not claim that combo meets ABYC standards. Their flanged adapters and flanged seacocks both pass with flying colors.

Originally Posted by Caracal

Yes, so you say. From where I'm standing, it's just more backstory to support a test that is flawed from the get-go.

I am more than willing to conduct your non-flawed test, what more could you ask for? How much stronger do you think the sealant will make that thru-hull fitting? Do you think it will add 300+ pounds?

Originally Posted by Caracal

I don't need to send you anything at all to point out obvious flaws in your "testing". I'm sorry that you are unable to see that.

Well if you are going to assert that my testing is flawed then the least you could do is send me some product to test so we can all see the difference the sealant would make. I am kind of curious...

Originally Posted by Caracal

So you say. However, to me, it has reached a stage where when confronted with flaws in the testing which supposedly supports your claims, you simply assert that no matter what, the results would be the exact same. So much for trying to be objective when testing.

I never said the results would be the "same". This is exactly what I said. I am quoting myself:

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

I can assure you bedding these would have made little to no difference in regards to these meeting the minimum ABYC strength standards..

Are you asserting that some marine sealant is going to get these to hold 500 pounds for 30 seconds..?

That valve / thru-hull combo will not meet ABYC standards, it never has, and Forespar never claimed that combination would. Still, that did not stop thousands of boats from being built with this combination.

I never said the results would be the "same" I said it would not meet the minimum ABYC standards there is a HUGE difference. Even if the sealant adds 100 pounds it still fails at 200 pounds less than the bare minimum which it would need to hold for 30 seconds.

Originally Posted by Caracal

Sorry, I was wrong to assume that your supporters in this thread was correct, and that your claim that the through-hull should meet certain standards were actually applicable to the tested product in question.

No you would only be incorrect if you thought Forespar ever said that valve combo would meet ABYC standards. Any seacock assembly installed on a boat, built to ABYC standards, should meet the minimum strength standards. There are thousands of boats out there that have seacock assemblies exactly like I tested, a Marelon valve on a Marelon thru-hull, that simply do not meet the minimum strength standards. I feel people who own these boats should at lest know roughly how strong their assemblies are when compared to ABYC strength standards.


The Marelon tri-flange and the OEM/93 DO meet the standards (without any sealant) but a Marelon valve on a Marelon thru-hull, in smaller sizes, does not and the manufacturer has never claimed they would. Still, that did not stop builders from shipping boats this way...

Again I am more than happy to add the sealant, fiberglass etc. but you seem to just want to critique rather than do some actual testing to see if any differences can be found.. The ball is in your court. You have an open invitation to witness this in-person and I have fully agreed to test it your way non-"flawed"...

[Caracal]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

And yet I offered for you to come physically see this in person and do it to your standards to eliminate any "hearsay"..

I have already explained to you why it's not necessary to send your anything at all, to point out where your testing is flawed.

My testing was and is done to compare different types of fittings and installations against the ABYC standards. This is the same exact method used by the manufacturers to test these products. Forespar even saw my original testing and had no issue with it. They even went so far as to send me some more OEM/93 series valves for testing, which pass with flying colors BTW.. I think they were quite happy to see how well the OEM/93 series performed.

I really don't care. They send you some better ones to pass your test. That doesn't mean its anything like what it would be if it was installed properly.

Yes quite a few. How about this one taken at a 2011 boat show. Just bare plywood.
So yes there have been and still are builders who use un-coated plywood.. There are also many who use sealed marine ply and sometimes even that eventually gets wet.

And another shot of a factory installation with uncoated ply:

Granted, I see plywood. But I also see just how tight those "ring nuts" are set into the wood, and how the outer part is by virtue of being on an actual hull, outside the hull.

I have offered to do it your way but you don't seem to want to see your way tested just to pick apart my method, which is the same method used by manufacturers in testing.

So you claim. I don't have "a way". As I already explained, I don't need to send you anything to point out where your testing is flawed. You're just a bit too eager to push that offer, all to make it seem like if I don't send you things to test, your past testing must be absolutely flawless. I consider that to be quite a dishonest strategy.

It is funny that at least two manufacturers did not find my testing "flawed" and they actually sent me more products to test, namely Groco and Forespar.... Groco finds the same thing I did with the thru-hull ball valve combo in their factory testing and the do not claim that combo meets ABYC standards.. Their flanged adapters and flanged seacocks both pass with flying colors.

See above. You're making bold-assed assertions about the reasoning behind Forespar sending you stronger gear to test, without realising, that even if the test was even more flawed, it would still matter to them, since it is out in public.

I am more than willing to conduct your non-flawed test, what more could you ask for? How much stronger do you think the sealant will make that thru-hull fitting? Do you think it will add 300+ pounds?

There you go again with the dishonest strategy. I have no idea how much more it would add. Surely it will depend on how much the edge in your previous test was putting point pressure on the fitting. And another bit of dishonest strategy:
I don't have to make "bets" on how much more a properly fitted through-hull can take in order for me to point out flaws in testing. That is what testing is for.


And here we go again - My bold:

Well if you are going to assert that my testing is flawed then the least you could do is psend me some product to test so we can all see the difference the sealant would make.




I said the valve / thru-hull combo will not meet ABYC standards, it never has and Forespar never claimed that combination would. Still that did not stop thousands of boats from being built with this combination. I never said the results would be the "same" I said it would not meet the minimum ABYC standards. Even if the sealant adds 100 pounds it still fails at 200 pounds less than the bare minimum which it would need to hold for 30 seconds..





Any seacock assembly installed on a boat, built to ABYC standards, should meet the minimum strength standards. There are thousands of boats out there that have seacock assemblies exactly like I tested, a Marelon valve on a Marelon thru-hull, that simply do not meet the minimum strength standards. I feel people who own these boats should at lest know roughly how strong their assemblies are when compared to ABYC strength standards.

The Marelon tri-flange and the OEM/93 DO meet the standards (without any sealant) but a Marelon valve on a Marelon thru-hull, in smaller sizes, does not and the manufacturer has never claimed they would. Still, that did not stop builders from shipping boats this way...

Again I am more than happy to add the sealant, fiberglass etc. but you seem to just want to critique rather than do some actual testing to see if any differences can be found.. The ball is in your court. You have an open invitation to witness this in-person and I have fully agreed to test it your way non-"flawed"...

If you repeat it enough, some will definately fall for that strategy (i.e. either I send you stuff to test, or your previous tests are flawless).

I really dislike intellectual dishonesty, and with this, your latest post, you have shown yourself to enjoy wallowing in it, despite having had it been pointed out to you before.

It's good to know you will only listen to critique if people send you products. So much for integrity.

[Factor]

Wow - who would have thought that seacocks would behave like anchors?

FWIW I have found Mainesails information valuable over time - May or may not agree on every occasion , but always valuable and always makes me look at things differently

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Caracal

It's good to know you will only listen to critique if people send you products. So much for integrity.

I have spent thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to get an idea of what is what, what meets a standard, what may not meet a standard. I have shared much of that with the general, boating public at my cost.

So no I don't only do this only if people send me product.. Forespar sent me two OEM/93 series valves and Groco sent me a flanged adapter. The first one, that I purchased, I had not pressed hard enough when hitting the record button on my camera and ruined it without capturing the video. Seeing as they cost $40.00 each I was not in a huge hurry to buy another and destroy it. Every other valve tested came out of my own pocket and was purchased at Hamilton Marine. Before doing any of this testing I consulted with the ABYC, Groco, and Chad G. of Forespar.

The only real question out of that particular video should be "does that assembly meet the minimum ABYC strength safety standards?".

If you feel that by not having a sealant there is me being "intellectually dishonest" about that assembly meeting or not meeting the minimum safety standard then this is an open ended circular argument..

[jgbrown]

Caracal: you're awfully rude for somebody who isn't contributing anything helpful to a discussion.

Nobody said the test is a flawless scientific study.
Didn't need to be to show a potential issue.


It is a helpful video to watch for someone who might wander into a west marine and see these valves as appropriate and economical solution for below waterline installation.

[bobconnie]

Gee what a mess !! I don't know a damn thing about Marlon, whatever that is ! But then the only type sea cocks, and thru hulls ihave ever had, have been bronze! mostly groco, but a couple of others also. Never had a problem YET in 40 + years of useing bronze on my boats !! Same with my Ole Daddy! before me ! But then I service my stuff! both at sea and when hauled out ! Don't even have plastic pipe of any type aboard my boats ! But then Im Old and set in my ways ! but then somebodys gotta show me something better for me to even think about changing to anything but bronze! Just my 2 cents

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by jgbrown

Caracal: you're awfully rude for somebody who isn't contributing anything helpful to a discussion.

He's just a troll, sent from some competing forum or may be paid by Dupont or whoever makes Marelon

[downunder]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

He's just a troll, sent from some competing forum or may be paid by Dupont or whoever makes Marelon

+1 There must be a reason to be so negative. It is simply not viable to totally eliminate through-hulls on many vessels.

I certainly consider Mainsail's posts thoughtful and very useful and from someone who is actually working in the industry. Minaret is another regular professional who post certainly are helpful for thous of us who must be considered amateurs.