Originally Posted by PamlicoTraveler
With all due respect, this anecdotal comment just muddles the issue and dismisses the original question. If you are sure that no major builders use non DZR brass fittings please let us know.
It seems to me that we should know which builders do and do not use non DZR brass. The requirement for 5-year life is obviously a reduced standard and not good enough for a thru hull
in my opinion.
I was told by beneteau
in relation to my 393 that it was DZR.( it has the CR marking) it carries the correct markings whether these were done afterwards. I also know from several surveyors that they have found both DZR and 60/40 in the same models
Note that CW602n DZR is not really a Naval brass. The closest to that is CW702R, CW712R, CW706R. The old BS spec CZ112 being naval brass. All these have Tin added. Aluminium brass can also be used in seawater CW703R. All tend to harder to machine and cast then CW617N ( which is why its widely used).
Note it is misleading to place the blame at the door of IS0 9093-1 Nor the RCD adoption of it . In the opinion of most marine
surveyors and notified bodies and the MAIB the ISO standard does not allow 60/40 brass to be used. ( without protective coatings ) . What has been happening is the substitution of fittings over time in my opinion.
The other issue is that whatever is bring used its surviving a lot longer then 5 years. The RCD has been in effect since 96. Yet up and down the Atlantic and med seaboard you don't see zillions of boats hauled out for replacement fittings or sinking at the dock
Not arguing about bronze v DZR or 60/40. But this issue has been on the go for 2 years. IS0 9093-1 is being rewritten to make it clearer and to extend the service
life. The primary problem with ISO 9093-1 is the whole use of service
life as this allows all sorts of interpretations.
Note that compliance with the RCD does not require mandatory compliance with certain specific ISO standard. Manufacturers may show compliance with the " Essential Requirements" of the RCD by a number of methods, all which must be approved my the notified body.
Here's what the RCD says in relation to seacocks
Through-hull fittings designed to allow water passage
into the hull
or out of the hull
, below the waterline corresponding to the Manufacturer’s maximum recommended load according to clause 3.6, shall be fitted with shutoff means, which shall be readily accessible.
Most manufacturers have used the " harmonised standards" approach to show such compliance.
the RCD is not an exhaustive standards based marking it actually not like the ABYC. It's more like ISO 9000. Ie you can build any thing from crap to fantastic as long as you have a documented quality system. ( just like ISO 9000) the RCD is not an attempt to build boats to minimum standards rather an attempt to classify boats into a standardised set of build approaches , so as to prevent the need to recertified. Vessels in every European country.
Anyway blame the Brits for the RCD. They pushed for it. !!