Finding myself choosing between bronze or marelon seacocks I decided to go with Forespar’s marelon, mostly because I am just done with corrosion
I don’t want to downplay bronze. It has stood the test of time and I believe it is because of this why many people find it hard to change over to composite seacocks. Wooden boats have also stood the test of time, though I’m not about to get another one of those….at least not as long as fiberglass
Bronze may have the higher tensile strength, but exactly how strong does it have to be? After all, it is a composite hull
I consistently hear about why no one should use them, but have never heard from anyone that their boat sank because their seacock was made of a composite and not of bronze (well not yet anyway...this is where someone proves me wrong). I also find that many people nitpick over why bronze seacocks should be used under the waterline, though right after those seacocks are the usual hose clamps, rubber hose, etc…that are prone to disaster just the same.
There are cases in which Marelon valve handles break, which seems (so far) to be under pressure from the user (because the valve wasn’t moved monthly as requested by the manufactures at Forespar). In retrospect, I’ve also seen bronze handles break under force as well when they seized from corrosion
In my quest to find the ultimate composite seacock, I stumbled across TruDesign from New Zealand
. They make a below the waterline ball valve/seacock
with removable handle you can service/replace.
Has anyone ever used their ball valve for a below the waterline seacock?
I’ve talked to their dealer here in the States and have been emailing with TruDesign in NZ. Apparently, they are quite popular abroad. They have an impressive video showing its strength. They try unsuccessfully to light one on fire with a blowtorch, froze one in ice and even submerged one in salt water
for a year (completely barnacle encrusted) and all the while their Teflon ball valve not once gets stuck.
The only issue I see with them is that there is no flange on their seacocks. I was ensured this was not a problem. In an email
from their support team they wrote:
“Yes our skin fittings (dome head/threaded, dome head/tail end, and recessed) from the ¾" size up to 2" all meet the IMCI requirement of a 155 kg static load applied to the end of the skin fitting thread. There have been no issues to date.
Our 1 ¼", 1 ½" and 2" size fittings also meet the stricter ABYC / UL1121 requirement of a 227 kg (500 lb) static load applied to an assembly of: skin fitting, ball valve, and tail where the load is applied at the end of the tail fitting (which is attached to the ball valve).
We are currently developing a 'collar' which goes over the skin fitting nut, and supports the ball valve and skin fitting, for our ¾" and 1" sizes so they too can meet the ABYC requirement. The collar basically turns our ball valve into a flanged type one where the load is spread over a great surface area. So to answer your question, yes we are developing a flange for our smaller sizes, but we don't believe it is necessary for the 3 largest sizes in our range as they already meet ABYC.
Regarding your comment on them cracking - Our glass filled nylon 6 composite has very good impact resistance, much better than bronze or brass which is prone to cracking especially at lower temperatures or if electrolysis has occurred.”
Anyways, sorry for the lengthy post I’m just really looking to hear from anyone that has any experience with these seacocks. Right now it's a dual between Forespar's Marelon and TruDesign...