Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Just links to 1 person saying this without any other details, doesn't really change anything far as who/what/when. Heck that photo in the linked article could be from a 1970 boat.

You can argue for "better" till you run out of breath. I think the standard for seawater valves should be monel.

Brass is very good, lasts for a half a Century or more. Marelon for aluminium hulls!

Lagoons, Beneteaus, Jeanneau and propably much more. Just Google "boat manufacturer name, brass seacock" to find more..
Essential seacock checks - Yachting Monthly
Lagoon "Brass" seacocks &thru-hulls?
Seacocks disintegrate on 5 year old Bene [Archive] - Yachting and Boating World Forums
This one looks like bronze but breaks apart anyway
Eek! Quality Seacock fittings on a Jeanneau...

BR Teddy

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by avb3

Some more links. From professionals, not internet forum experts. Sometimes experts should be listened to.

Marine Survey 101, Do your own marine survey

Yes, the same fellow as in the article. Look at his examples and ask yourself if you want those in your boat.

Perhaps you want to discount his observations because he is "only one person". What is factually wrong with what he states?

I never said brass was good. I asked for links to modern boats using brass valves. This whole brass valve topic has been around a long time and I can find lots survey type sites saying they are bad.

What I asked was for specific manufacturers and models using brass valves.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

"Barely qualifies as bluewater experience"

Sometimes it is difficult to identify humor on posts. You are kidding right? or do you really believe we have to pass the horn to be on bluewater waters?

This is not a good example as these early boats were very well built compared to today's boats, nothing wrong with today's boats but this is just not a good comparison.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And.. imho you guys continue to misinterpret CE....

Existing in its present form since 1995, the CE marking indicates the compliance with EU legislation of a product, wherever in the world manufactured, and enables its free movement within the European market. By affixing the CE marking on a product, a manufacturer is declaring, at its sole responsibility, conformity with all of the legal requirements to achieve CE marking which allows free movement and sale of the product throughout the European Economic Area. CE marking is intended for national market surveillance enforcement authorities.
CE marking signifies that the product conforms with all EU directives or EU regulations that apply to it. For example, most electrical products must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the EMC Directive; toys must comply with the Toy Safety Directive. The marking does not indicate EEA manufacture.[4] The manufacturer of CE-marked goods has verified that the product complies with all applicable EU requirements, such as safety, health, and environmental protection, and, if stipulated in any EU product legislation, has had them examined by a Notified Body or produces according to a certified production quality system.
Not all products need CE marking to be traded in the EEA; only product categories subject to relevant directives or regulations are required (and allowed) to bear CE marking. Most CE-marked products can be placed on the market subject only to an internal production control by the manufacturer (Module A; see Self-certification, below), with no independent check of the conformity of the product with EU legislation; ANEC has cautioned that, amongst other things, CE marking cannot be considered a "safety mark" for consumers.[5]
CE marking is a self-certification scheme. Retailers sometimes refer to products as "CE approved", but the mark does not actually signify approval. Certain categories of products require type-testing by an independent body to ensure conformity with relevant technical standards, but CE marking in itself does not certify that this has been done.

Hey Boatie...OK so if the CE rating has really got nothing to do with safety and there is no one over looking the process, is it really more about trade than anything?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by avb3

I am surprised whereby you state that European boats have a mandatory requirement to be surveyed every four years. Does that apply to all boats? Or just commercial and charter ones? I could not readily find a Google link to that requirement. Could you provide one please?




.

Im surprise to, i know by fact that in Spain for example, to renovate your local navigation certificate you need to pass every 5 years a inspection but they dont mention seacocks, most likely liferaft and safety gear, boat paper work, radio and navigation systems etc... Wooden boats need to pass the inspection early , each 2 or 3 years..

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Keep reading here a lot about brass, but near as I can tell it is being written by 1 person about 1 boat. Even writing it 10 times it is still 1 boat.

How about providing details of this boat or others that are known to have brass valves? Things such has model, year built, year inspected, new or used.

Sailorboy and others,

We changed out all of our through hull fittings last summer, just to be on the safe side. Unless you know for sure who the manufacturer is and the metal composition of the bronze, you will never really know what was installed on your boat. The prudent sailboat owner will change all of them if the boat is older than 5 years, it's not enough just to have them inspected. A skin fitting can fail from the inside where you can't see the problem. Electrolysis eats away at the fitting like calcium leaving the bones in the human body during osteoporosis, just leaving a weak shell of a fitting waiting to fail.

Everyone, no matter the make or model of the boat should be 100% certain their fittings are naval bronze. Forget about arguing about the regulations... just do it.


Example: Today, Oysters are being fitted with naval bronze fittings according to the manufacturer, BUT.... 12 years ago, who knows what the shipyard installed on our boat? I can't ask the guy who installed them which bin they came from or which manufacturer they were using at the time... so we changed all of them.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Brass is very good, lasts for a half a Century or more. Marelon for aluminium hulls!

Lagoons, Beneteaus, Jeanneau and propably much more. Just Google "boat manufacturer name, brass seacock" to find more..
Essential seacock checks - Yachting Monthly
Lagoon "Brass" seacocks &thru-hulls?
Seacocks disintegrate on 5 year old Bene [Archive] - Yachting and Boating World Forums
This one looks like bronze but breaks apart anyway
Eek! Quality Seacock fittings on a Jeanneau...

BR Teddy

Did you actually mean to say bronze rather than brass?

That would then coincide with the thrust of the links you provided.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That definition is merely a summary. To meet cat A RCD is far more then merely that , an assessor examine the design of a day sailor is unlikely to agree that she is " largely self sufficient " and hence most day sailors will not be cat A..

Again , The RCD is not primarily about sea conditions or whether the boat can handle them. There actually no specific tests that the boat HAS to pass to be regarded as capable of handling these seas.. Much of this os down to the notified body and it's assessors..

Just to state it again, the RCD is not a method of judging which boat IS a capable sea boat. However it may be used to determine ones that are NOT likely to be so.

In motor boats for example, few are category A , merely because few carry enough fuel to be regarded as " largely self sufficient " , yet the class B boat may have all the necessary requirements ( strength , stability , etc) to handle a category A sea state.

One must be very careful in how one regards those definitions, you could live in a area. Where even for simple coastal cruising minimum cat A isnt sufficient.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I understand that there is a lot more to it than what's in the definition. However, this is the definition that is typically presented to the public. Therefore, it's the starting place for the conversation.

And my point was/is that the conditions are front-and-center in that definition...which is what Polux was referring to above, and which many US sailors base their notion of appropriateness for blue water on.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

Smack that was modified in 2013. Nothing changed in what concerns the conditions, except a better definition but vessels largely self-sufficient was taken out. The reason: you may want a boat with class A seaworthiness even if it is a daysailer and want to sail only coastly. Those conditions that refer to Class A may be found anywhere. Some of the worst conditions can be found near coasts, for instance on Biscay bay or South of Crete on the med, cape Hatteras an so on.

Now it is like this:

Design category

...

A. A recreational craft given design category A is considered to be designed for winds that may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave height of 4 m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves.
B. A recreational craft given design category B is considered to be designed for a wind force up to, and including, 8 and significant wave height up to, and including, 4 m .
C. A watercraft given design category C is considered to be designed for a wind force up to, and including, 6 and significant wave height up to, and including, 2 m .
D. A watercraft given design category D is considered to be designed for a wind force up to, and including, 4 and significant wave height up to, and including, 0,3 m , with occasional waves of 0,5 m maximum height"

The therm Storm refers not to gales but as storms as they are described on the Beaufort scale= F10

Beaufort scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class A refers to a minimum. Today practically all 36ft can pass Class A. It was not so some years ago where the border was 36ft. the boats are better designed and more seaworthy now and even with more difficult demands now most boats with over 33ft pass certification for class A boats.

In my opinion Class A gives you a warranty that a boat is well designed and can sustain some heavy weather but in what regards well designed modern boats is only useful in what regards very small boats, the ones that have to be extremely well designed and very seaworthy for the size to be certified as class A boat. Some only manage to certify them making then unsinkable, besides having a very good stability for the size (that give a bonus in what regards demands).

There is talks about another class with more demanding exigences than Class A that only boats with more stability and seaworthiness than 33ft could reach. Not diminishing the actual limits or the ability of those boats to cross Oceans, but defining for consumers another level of seaworthiness.

Cool. Thanks Paulo.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Polux

Kind of confusing your post. You are mixing CE "aproved" with RCD cerified.

Besides the actual present RCD form is from 2013, not 1995.

In what regards to be RCD certification all boat models are subjected to a detailed certification process with all relevant data regarding to scantlings, stability and other data submitted by the boat manufacturer and co signed by the boat designer that has to be a certified one.

The boat is certified through the compliance of all the required data with the minimum established requirements. It is not a different process regarding the approval of buildings or cars or airplanes. If something goes wrong and it is find out that the builders or NA falsified data they will be done for life and subjected to law suits that will mean a boat builder or a NA out of business, not speaking of jail time due to criminal charges if someone is injured or dies as consequence of that falsification.

No... I'm referring to all who say CE A. is the mark to judge a boat by..
You can CE any seaworthy boat all you need is the £12000+ for the inspection and appropriate stickers after conforming the boat to EU requirements like gas locker sticker, through hull sticker.. toilet sticker.. etc
Don't even need to switch wiring if you've a transformer..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux those older DuFours were really good offshore boats but not built like todays breed.

Off course, building techniques and materials are always improving as well as sailboat design.

We have for instance that recent Bavaria 44 that after being used as charter boat on the med during the 5 or 6 years of his life was bought by Kathrin et Uwe Petraschek that without any significant modifications on the boat started from Greece a circumnavigation by the Northwest passage (2009). They had no special problems and returned to Greece two years and 38000nm later...and to their jobs.









Perithia
http://www.perithia.de/files/Tous24.02.2010.pdf

[neilpride]

So what requirements you need to Certf a boat in EU if is a old boat or new one coming from overseas out of the EU?

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I never said brass was good. I asked for links to modern boats using brass valves. This whole brass valve topic has been around a long time and I can find lots survey type sites saying they are bad.

What I asked was for specific manufacturers and models using brass valves.

According to my British surveyor he suggested that everyone of the newer boats he has surveyed did in fact use brass skin fittings etc. I accept that I was not well informed as to what regulation allowed this as I thought it was the CE rating but I find others suggesting that the CE rating is a sort of self enforced rating that actually has nothing to do with safety. In fact it is the ISO rating that allows it but some people have suggested that pretty soon that would be tightened up and brass won't be allowed. Then we find fender washers backing up sorts of basic structures where proper backing plates should have been installed.It still begs the question: Why would these boat builders use a very inferior quality product in their builds? If they don't in fact build down to a price what other reason could there be? Help me out here because manufacturers tend to follow a way of doing business, you expect a BMW to not use plastic hubcaps on their cars because its simply not the way they do business but an entry level car like a Skoda would in fact do exactly that.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

According to my British surveyor he suggested that everyone of the newer boats he has surveyed did in fact use brass skin fittings etc. I accept that I was not well informed as to what regulation allowed this as I thought it was the CE rating but I find others suggesting that the CE rating is a sort of self enforced rating that actually has nothing to do with safety. In fact it is the ISO rating that allows it but some people have suggested that pretty soon that would be tightened up and brass won't be allowed. Then we find fender washers backing up sorts of basic structures where proper backing plates should have been installed.It still begs the question: Why would these boat builders use a very inferior quality product in their builds? If they don't in fact build down to a price what other reason could there be? Help me out here because manufacturers tend to follow a way of doing business, you expect a BMW to not use plastic hubcaps on their cars because its simply not the way they do business but an entry level car like a Skoda would in fact do exactly that.

A couple of things...now that you've accepted the bolded part above, I would offer that you still continue to misinterpret things. For example, this statement in boatman's post that you're holding to:

CE marking cannot be considered a "safety mark" for consumers.

Understanding the legal implications, do you really expect ANY standard or regulation to guarantee safety? Even liferafts have warnings on how they can be misused.

Also, as Polux pointed out, that piece that boatman snipped is apparently 20 years old. Does that not make you curious whether certain things therein have changed in the interim?

Sometimes zeal in trying to prove a point can get in the way of logic.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I never said brass was good. I asked for links to modern boats using brass valves. This whole brass valve topic has been around a long time and I can find lots survey type sites saying they are bad.

What I asked was for specific manufacturers and models using brass valves.

The good news is that American manufacturers use bronze (or Marlon), not brass. Many European use brass, including the big three, Beneteau, Jeanneau and Bavaria.

Guess that is the difference between CE standards, which only require a through hull to last 5 years minimum, and ABYC standards. ABYC requires one to buy their spec (H-27), however, here is a good summary of it:

Attention to Detail April 1, 2010 - Professional BoatBuilder Magazine

Note, it specifically advises NOT to use brass of any kind. The European CE spec does allow it.

Great to see that some standards stick to real safety.