ABYC Standards on new boats

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

You have a much better +20 year perspective on systems installation than I do . . . .but I have two reactions to this comment:

(1) Most uninformed buyer would likely assume that if they spent say $300k on a modest size new boat, that it would be built 'properly'. And they would mostly be wrong. That is still somewhat astonishing to me. It's like (but worse than) american made cars back in the '70's. You drove a new one off the lot and it would have a dozen defects. Yea, I know the unit volume of boats is low, but I consider that an 'excuse' for poor practices.

(2) I would say that (very generally) the design/structures are built 'less safe' than they were 20 years ago. They are more vulnerable to both manufacturing errors and to operator errors (rudders, keels, and the basic laminate). And they will 'age' less well (liners and cores). After 10 years of 'normal use' (which can predictably include a couple groundings and a couple hard docking impacts) the boat structure (detached liner, sheared or debonded core, detached bulkheads) could well be a 'write off' (because it costs more to fix than the boat is worth). Now much of this is 'buyer choice' and I can't say the mfg's are necessarily making bad decisions here. But it is a change, which the boating market has not really fully understood.

+100 on both comments. IMHO the CE standards, which are law for European boats, have set some of the standard well below where many builders actually built boats to before compliance was a mandatory law. The 5 year seacock standard is a good example. These builders can now point a finger and say "Hey we built it to the standard." shrug, shrug.

That still does not make it right for builders to build boats claiming or suggesting compliance and then pick and choose which part of it they want to comply with........

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

You never will. Recreational vessels are not required to adhere to any standards. The EU is a little more pedantic.

That is not quite correct.
There are legally required standards in Canada and the US.

Transport Canada Construction Standards for Small Vessels TP1332 are a legal requirement and this standard includes many ABYC Standards including E-11.

United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 33 and Title 46 are also legally required standards.

It is illegal to import vessels into Canada that do not meet TP1332 however, I have never seen a boat that meets that requirement in Canada. Unlike the automotive industry .... no one is watching the boat builders.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

+100 on both comments. IMHO the CE standards, which are law for European boats, have set some of the standard well below where many builders actually built boats to before compliance was a mandatory law. The 5 year seacock standard is a good example. These builders can now point a finger and say "Hey we built it to the standard....

As I have pointed out in earlier discussions about this particular standard. It says that a seacock must not show ANY marks of corrosion in a time period of 5 years, not that it just have to hold together 5 years. So IMO some builders are just cheap and cheating for their profit..

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

As I have pointed out in earlier discussions about this particular standard. It says that a seacock must not show ANY marks of corrosion in a time period of 5 years, not that it just have to hold together 5 years. So IMO some builders are just cheap and cheating for their profit..

That is not what it says, it says;

"display any defect that will impair tightness, strength or function."

It says nothing about "must not show ANY marks of corrosion in a time period of 5 years."...

IS0 9093-1: 1994 stipulates: "Materials used shall be corrosion resistant."

Unfortunately it then defines corrosion resistant as:

"a material which, within a service time of five years, does not display any defect that will impair tightness, strength or function."

A visible display of corrosion does not impair tightness, strength or function and if that was the standard most of these seacocks would not make beyond the first boat show. It sets the bar at any defect that impairs tightness, strength or function not for displaying corrosion marks.

Interestingly enough ISO 9093-1: 1994 also states:

“Materials that have no adequate corrosion resistance in the environment they are used in, or that will act galvanically with others used in the system, may be used if they are isolated.”

It also states that if using these materials you need to protect it in some sort of "anti-corrosive shield", perhaps a barrier coat......?????Someone try that and get back to me... The absurdity of saying it is okay to use materials that are not corrosion resistant is just, well....

Scary stuff for sure and the builders only need to build to the law....There is also this from MAIB:

The guidance offered on the selection of corrosion-resistant material in ISO 9093-1: 1994, Small craft - Seacocks and through-hull fittings, is vague and of little practical help. While it specifies the desired outcome, a five-year resistance to the effects of corrosion, it does not specify a procedure for testing compliance. The MCA should make representations to the European Committee for Standardization to improve the utility of this standard.

Not my words, the words of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch a government organization... As I mentioned before some parts of the standards now "technically" allow builders to use materials they would have likely never used prior to the law that made it okay to do so.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

That is not what it says, it says;

"display any defect that will impair tightness, strength or function."

Isn't corrosion a defect anymore?
And sorry not recalling it excactly right but it's been several years since my last reading of the ISO standards.
The rest of your post is not relevant considering seacocks.

BR Teddy

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Isn't corrosion a defect anymore?
And sorry not recalling it excactly right but it's been several years since my last reading of the ISO standards.


BR Teddy

Teddy,

The question is "what is corrosion"?

The problem is that the ISO standard does not outline any testing, specific metallurgy or corrosion resistance testing parameters. They also don't define corrosion other than a seacock lasting 5 years without a "defect" that would impair tightness, strength or function.

Many boat owners might consider verdigris corrosion, but for bronze, copper & most brasses it is not a corrosion that would harm the metal.

As the MAIB said in one of their investigations into a seacock failure:

"The guidance offered on the selection of corrosion-resistant material in ISO 9093-1: 1994, Small craft - Seacocks and Through-Hull Fittings, is vague and of little practical help."

If the MAIB finds it vague and of little practical help what is a boat builder or layman to make of it...?? Again those are not my words but the words of a Government organization that has directly challenged & called into question the ISO seacock standards.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The rest of your post is not relevant considering seacocks.

How is post #34, which is about seacocks, not relevant to seacocks???

My main point here was that when you move from voluntary standards to mandatory laws the standards are in some cases lowered so as to be inclusive enough so as not to impact business in a negative manner..

Sadly you create situations where some builders, certainly not all, will then build to the lowest letter of the law. That has happened with seacocks.. Currently the ABYC standards are mostly voluntary but the seacock standard is much more stringent in specifying materials and installation practices than the RCD is.

[boatpoker]

Corrosion begins the instant any metal is created.
Is that a defect ?

[model 10]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Corrosion begins the instant any metal is created.

And then in the case of stainless, stops a second later when the oxide coating forms.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Guy

And then in the case of stainless, stops a second later when the oxide coating forms.

No it does not, it just slows down, dramatically but the process continues.

There is no such thing as "stainless steel". It should be more properly referred to as "stains less steel".

[model 10]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

No it does not, it just slows down, dramatically but the process continues.
.

If you don't have intergranular or some process caused corrosion on the inside and you have an oxide coating which means it can't corrode on the outside, where is there corrosion from the very creation?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Guy

If you don't have intergranular or some process caused corrosion on the inside and you have an oxide coating which means it can't corrode on the outside, where is there corrosion from the very creation?

Few things on earth do not corrode/degrade over time. Just take a look at stainless steel rigging (less so with 316 than 304 but still evident) on a sailboat that has spent significant time in salt water.

From "Passivation Chemistry"

Passivation refers to the spontaneous formation of an ultrathin film of corrosion products, known as a passive film, on the metal's surface that act as a barrier to further oxidation. The chemical composition and microstructure of a passive film are different from the underlying metal. Typical passive film thickness on aluminium, stainless steels, and alloys is within 10 nanometers. The passive film is different from oxide layers that are formed upon heating and are in the micrometer thickness range – the passive film recovers if removed or damaged whereas the oxide layer does not. Passivation in natural environments such as air, water and soil at moderate pH is seen in such materials as aluminium, stainless steel, titanium, and silicon.

[model 10]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

. Just take a look at stainless steel rigging (less so with 316 than 304 but still evident) on a sailboat that has spent significant time in salt water..[/I]

I thought the reason 316 rigging corroded was the salts and acids etc. attacked the oxide surface and then you got corrosion? You wipe the salt off you don't get corrosion.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Guy

I thought the reason 316 rigging corroded was the salts and acids etc. attacked the oxide surface and then you got corrosion? You wipe the salt off you don't get corrosion.

Removing all the salt is virtually impossible whether by wiping or hosing down. Salt is abrasive, wiping it will scratch through the oxide layer and expose the surface.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

How is post #34, which is about seacocks, not relevant to seacocks???

Becouse it's about dissimilar materials, not about inferior materials. It applies if you are connecting SS parts with bronze, but it doesn't give the right to install a brass seacock. That of course is IMHO.

BR Teddy

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Becouse it's about dissimilar materials, not about inferior materials. It applies if you are connecting SS parts with bronze, but it doesn't give the right to install a brass seacock. That of course is IMHO.

BR Teddy

And here lies the problem.. The standards allow builders the abiliy to install brass and some European builders are doing just that. So long as it lasts for 5 years, without corrosion defects, they met the standard.....