Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Without mention Smack wiring hehe... now thats funy!!!

Obvious lesson: never trust a yard guy.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

If someone let a seacock reach that clear visible state of corrosion it deserves anything bad it happens to his boat. All seacocs need to be changed from time to time, brass ones more frequently but as I said I know of 13 old boats with DZR brass seacocks in good shape. Seacocks has any other metal part on a boat needs to be changed from time to time as regular maintenance.

Honestly can you say from what year was that Bene 50?

Honestly no, but i can guarante to you that here in the yard we see 6 or 7 years old boats with seacocks and truhulls in dangerous conditions, OEM DZR stuff, the problem is not if you need to change it or not from time to time, they are horrible because they fail in the worst moment, i see DZR valves looking really good external and completely rotten inside, they dont have a place in a boat, the reason why builders choose this stuff is to save cost, to be clear, a good bronze Groco setup is expensive ...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Not as funny as your fender washer being a "Fuse" for a deck cleat remark...now that was funny!!!

Can you please post the quote where I said "a fender washer being a 'Fuse' for a deck cleat"? I think you'll have a good deal of trouble finding it.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Obvious lesson: never trust a yard guy.

Obvious lesson, dont pay in advance any job in your boat...
Obvious lesson 2: always be present during the job.
Obvious lesson 3: get references and ask for warranty work.

[Kenomac]

Maybe a few more pictures will convince some to replace their DZR brass fittings. You know.... those brass fittings which are A-OK with the certification process. Here's one I have personal knowledge of. See how the corrosion takes place from within the elbow. The connector coupling is what failed and has broken off. No evidence of any corrosion issue was ever seen from the outside and the same boat was surveyed only 12 months prior to the fitting failure. There's basically nothing left of the elbow to hose coupling. The elbow and through hull showed no signs of dezincification. The boat had spend only 6 years in the water when the failure took place.


Do you still think it's a good idea to place one's trust in some certification process???

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Isn't this getting at the real heart of the argument/discussion? There are certain things that the prudent owner does as part of regular maintenance or preparing for a long cruise. On a custom or semi-custom boat the manufacturer probably considered how you would do that work and built in proper access. On production boats, they didn't care. It's up to the owner to figure that out. It doesn't mean it can't be or shouldn't be done but you might need to put in more effort.

For example on my Catalina, I need to make access to get to the back of the stanchions so I can properly rebed them. I am sure you can just open up an access point on an Oyster to do this, but I actually need to cut away part of the fiberglass liner. This means a bigger mess, more forethought and a plan to repair the area.

Much has been made about the fender washers for backing on cleats. Probably fine for light use, dock queens. But if you plan to anchor during a storm or attach a sea anchor to that same cleat, a prudent owner will add additional backing plates to make that more secure. Might even change the type of cleat that is there. Doesn't mean you can't do it on a production boat and someone already did it for you on a semi-custom.

A lot was made of the early example of a Hunter rudder that had water intrusion. Right in that individual's description they said they saw the water weeping out and they ignored it. Never mind taking the prudent steps to sound your hull and rudder when out of water for a bottom job. That's the sign of a bad owner, not a bat boat (don't mean any offense to the person who posted that). A good owner, taking prudent steps probably would have noticed the issue much sooner. They also would have know that if you have water intrusion you need to open up the rudder to thoroughly inspect it to ensure the rudder is still safe. Not just drill some holes and let the water drain out.

I have said this too many times in boat discussion but I will repeat it again. Boats are a series of compromises. Going with a production boat over a semi-custom or custom boat is just another compromise. You are saying that I will take the time and effort the make necessary upgrades to the boat to make sure it is fit for my use, while going with a semi-custom or custom boat is saying I will trade money to have someone else think or do that for me.

Can you name one aspect to a production boat that can't be upgraded or made stronger for use as a "blue water" boat, if needed?

The hull to deck joint on almost all boats are the same, overlay glued with 5200 and bolted every few inches (with a minor exception for newer Hunters but I don't want to get sidetracked by that discussion). There are pros and cons to all aspects that get debated in these type of threads (e.g. spade rudders are more hydraulically efficient but more exposed but skeg hung and keel hung have hardware that can fail more readily if not properly maintained and put a lot more force on the boat and rudder due to their poor hydraulic properties). Some may argue that thicker hulls are stronger but as has already been pointed out on this thread the strength to weight (i.e. thickness) ratio of a vacuum bagged hull is higher than that of a hand laid. It's also less likely to suffer from applicator error.

Production boats are generally fit for purpose by the builder. Sticking with Catalina, they call their smaller boats "sport series" those are under 27 feet, the mid sized boats "cruiser series" 31-35 feet and their larger boats "ocean series". Cruiser series could be made into more "blue water" with some upgrades if the owner so intended. But most don't so Catalina builds them to that market.

But I would challenge anyone to name a single aspect of of a boat like the Catalina 445 that would make it unfit to sail anywhere you would take an Oyster or any other high end boat. I would put that boat up against any traditional "blue water" boat including many semi-custom and custom boats.

Someone earlier made a statement about the lack of statistical data on what makes a blue water boat. I think this is false. The insurance companies have tons of statistical data they use to determine how much to charge you or if they should even cover you in certain areas. If there were a particular boat that had more issues, they would charge you more to insure that boat. But there are not any "uninsurable" boats when it comes to particular designs or manufactures. Instead they base the insurance on the condition of the boat and the ability of the crew. Thus the need for updated surveys for insurance. Insurance companies are also smart enough to require a separate inspection by a rigger if the standing rig is over a certain age. When it comes to crew capabilities, a fair number of insurance companies want a licensed captain for delivery to the Caribbean but have no problem insuring the boat once there for use by your average skipper or proof of the crews experience. Bottom line, if production boats were unfit for blue water it would cost so much to insure them for that use it would be cost prohibitive, but it is not.

Just thought I would weigh in on the topic.

Fair winds,

Jesse
s/v Smitty

Bingo.

Most people understand the compromises. If Keno is changing out all his thru-hulls/seacocks on his Oyster because he doesn't trust the builder - there is an owner taking care of something he feels was compromised...yet he still bought the boat to begin with.

If AVB has his way with "how boats should be equipped" (from seacocks to watermakers, etc.), the purchase price of every new production boat will be going up astronomically.

This brings us back to the point no one seems to acknowledge...that is the "shelf-life" of a new production boat. Virtually ever poster here is talking about USED boats and what goes into maintaining them. And I'm pretty sure all of us understand that production boats can definitly have maintenance issues that "blue water" brands may not. That's part of the price/value comparison and compromise we all make.

It's really no big deal.

BUT, the bottom line is that if I'm going to spend $300K+ on a boat - I will ABSOLUTLEY go for a new production boat over an older "blue water" brand in a heartbeat. This for many reasons. But one of the main ones is that I don't plan to ever keep a particular boat 40 years. And these new production boats are incredible boats for the value.

It's that simple.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Obvious lesson: never trust a yard guy.

Obvious lesson is educate yourself so that you know the difference between a good job and a lousy one "Before you pay" It really is your boat and your responsibility so blaming someone else is not a good way to view the world. Having said that all of us got nicked when we knew very little. As time goes on it will be harder to nick you to.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Most people understand the compromises. If Keno is changing out all his thru-hulls/seacocks on his Oyster because he doesn't trust the builder - there is an owner taking care of something he feels was compromised...yet he still bought the boat to begin with.

.

Trusting my builder had nothing to do with my decision to replace all the through hulls and connection fittings. Don't assume you know why I did something just to make your post more inflammatory.

How do you know that I didn't experience a failure on my Hunter and then didn't want the same thing to happen on my Oyster? My point is... that it can happen on any boat at any price point.

Ken

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

You and your requeirements I am telling you that on most EC countries private boats have to be inspected regularly and my word on that is enough. It is not only boats, cars are also subjected to regular mandatory inspections in Europe. That is common knowledge.

This is an international forum, so what you think is common knowledge may in fact just apply to a small geographic area.

And no, your word is not enough. I asked for some place to read and learn, and you come back with the "trust me" thing. Remember what Reagan said to Gorbachev, "Trust, but verify".

As example, the only think I could find about the British system is that they do not require ongoing compliance or inspection:

"Unlike the MoT for cars, compliance is not an on-going requirement. Evidence of compliance will be found on the plaque provided by the boat builder which will, amongst other things, give a HIN/CIN (Hull/Craft Identification Number). This is a 14-digit number containing the manufacturer's code, year of build and model year. There should be a paper document as well - often found in the back of the owner's manual - whose details should agree with the plaque -and a list of the standards or equivalences used to achieve compliance. The builder's invoice and/or certificate may also give the HIN. The CE mark must be on the plaque as well."

Source


In Ireland, only boats carrying more than 12 passengers are required to have an annual inspection.

Source

In an attempt to trust what you said, I tried to verify your statements. I could not.

Perhaps you can help out in that regard?

You were saying that all should be bronze, what I said is that does not make sense since there are other adequate materials and the RCD demands a minimum of 5 years without any sign of corrosion.

I do not defend brass or any other material. Brass is an alloy made of copper and zinc and a generic therm. Many call brass to any alloy that contains cooper and zinc even if with more metals involved. There are alloys containing cooper and zinc suitable for seacocks and resistant to corrosion and are those that are used by some boat brands:

DZR Ball Valves

"The so-called dezincification resistant (DZR or DR) brasses, sometimes referred to as CR (corrosion resistant) brasses, are used where there is a large corrosion risk and where normal brasses do not meet the standards. "
Brass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brass alloys with more than 15% zinc,.. naval brass, .. were susceptible to a specific form of corrosion in seawater termed dezincification (or parting corrosion). A porous, spongy layer or plug of copper devoid of zinc developed on the metal surface when in seawater service or stagnant environments. In some cases, the layer was superficial in depth; in others, it extended completely through the wall.

Dezincification is rarely encountered today except in the case of yellow brass, which is not normally produced with an inhibitor. The addition of 1% tin to Admiralty, naval brass, .. reduces the tendency toward dezincification. The further addition of a few hundredths of a percent of arsenic effectively prevents dezincification in high-zinc alloys, such as C44300, C68700, C36600, and C46500. Antimony and phosphorus are also effective as dezincification inhibitors but are less commonly used.

Marine: Guidelines For the Use of Copper Alloys In Seawater

Seems European boat manufacturers have played loose with the standard of using at least DZR.

See this post make over 2 years ago by Estarzinger.

Concerns are expressed in BoatUS magazine from 2014 in this article. It is worthwhile reading.

Another, from UK article concerned that European manufacturers are using brass.

"We are not talking about a few budget-price boats here, some of Europe's largest and best-known builders have been named," Brady said.

"In the UK they have found total failure in fittings as little as four years old, which could have led to the boat sinking."

Hanse is caught fudging what material they use for seacocks.

This IS an issue. It is not adequately addressed by the manufacturers, in fact, it seems that they have not complied with even the minimal 5 year corrosion standard.

I as a consumer would be concerned.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by neilpride

This is a DZR valve from a bene 50 ,

DZR Advice.

IMPORTANT: It is extremely important to check the material suitability and bonding requirements for below waterline components. Action must be taken to prevent galvanic action. If in doubt, please contact a qualified and competent marine engineer.

So, yes Paulo they are called brass stuff around, no matter if they have a alloy mixed in the composition to resist corrosión, DZR is junk ...

I doubt that is a DZR brass, as well as Kenomac's example, and I think some of the posters here are confusing DZR with other brass types.

Anything DZR should have "DZR" cast right into it. If the parts being shown in pictures do not have this, it is not DZR.

Among other high end stuff, DZR is used in Blakes seacocks and specified by Lloyds.

Mark

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by SwissMocha

This really depends on the country you are living in and under which flag you want to register the boat. There is no EU standard for this, as far as I know.

In Finland there aren't any except voluntary inspections by yacht clubs if you want to fly the club ensign (not a burgee!). Thou you get an insurance discount too..

[JK n Smitty]

Since the subject of seacocks came up, here are some videos I found very useful in evaluating my options for my boat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLvLKnzop-0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lunGDY2pdEc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbuCZ1Xd1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKTKQUcvU9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOg7WoeyKIk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf2Duh8k7AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzKb0rm56Zk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

This is an international forum, so what you think is common knowledge may in fact just apply to a small geographic area.

And no, your word is not enough. I asked for some place to read and learn, and you come back with the "trust me" thing. Remember what Reagan said to Gorbachev, "Trust, but verify".

As example, the only think I could find about the British system is that they do not require ongoing compliance or inspection:

"Unlike the MoT for cars, compliance is not an on-going requirement. Evidence of compliance will be found on the plaque provided by the boat builder which will, amongst other things, give a HIN/CIN (Hull/Craft Identification Number). This is a 14-digit number containing the manufacturer's code, year of build and model year. There should be a paper document as well - often found in the back of the owner's manual - whose details should agree with the plaque -and a list of the standards or equivalences used to achieve compliance. The builder's invoice and/or certificate may also give the HIN. The CE mark must be on the plaque as well."

Source


In Ireland, only boats carrying more than 12 passengers are required to have an annual inspection.

Source

In an attempt to trust what you said, I tried to verify your statements. I could not.

Perhaps you can help out in that regard?

...d.

I could but I don't want. I am feed up with you asking about confirmation regarding what I say. You should know UK is not properly EC, I mean they are in but they have a foot in other out and may probably go out as a result of a referendum they plan to make. Contrary to other EC countries they also don't need boat licences to sail so that goes with liberty package that some other European countries see as irresponsibility.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Since the subject of seacocks came up, here are some videos I found very useful in evaluating my options for my boat.

...

But that says nothing about corrosion, except that plastic does not corrode

[Polux]

Another circumnavigationn another Bavaria 44, a 2002 boat, made in three years by a Dutch Family of four (2 kids), the Cantor on Senang.
zeilboot senang