Deck & cockpit drains - through hull reduction plan

[Mitch C]

I'm a new owner of a Moody 54 and looking to reduce the ludicrous amount (16!!) of through hulls!!!
All 4 deck drains and the two cockpit drain go to separate through hulls/seacocks. The port deck drains are via the fridge/freezer heat exchangers so unless I change to keel cooler plates, I can't quickly/cheaply do much about those.
For the other four (deck drains and cockpit drains), is there any reason why I can't convert them to above the water line skin fittings?
Other option is to keep one of the through hulls, but manifold the drains together. This might bring up a possible volume/capacity through the manifold sea cock if things get a bit lively on deck....

Appreciate any comments (good or bad) on the above plan.

Thanks in advance

[Dockhead]

As an old owner (since 2009) of a Moody 54, this post begs the question -- don't you have several pages of jobs in your list more important than this?

You can of course convert under the waterline deck and cockpit drains to above the waterline, but the reason why it wasn't done that way in the first place is because such deck drains cause staining on your topsides.

I'm not sure 10 through hulls is that much safer than 16 of them.

Another, and to my mind far more serious matter, is that all of these drains are not that well designed and don't clear water from the deck (or even more so, out of the cockpit) very well. I was knocked down once in the North Sea and got a cockpit full of water from a huge breaking wave, and it took ages for the water to drain out of the two bathtub-drain sized outlets in the cockpit. This is not good. Among other things, it's not good for stability.

It doesn't bother me that much that these drains are below the waterline -- the fittings are very high quality (Maestrini bronze), and are easily replaced every couple of decades. If I were going to mess with them, I wouldn't be undertaking the fairly huge job of cutting new holes in the topsides (and don't forget this is a fully cored hull) and then adding scrubbing the topsides below all the new drains every week or two. I would be increasing the size of the cockpit drains.

[Mitch C]

Thanks Dockhead, hoped you would be able to reply. I've been reading all your other posts about the Moody - really useful.

The deck drains and especially the cockpit drains is one of the few concerns I've got about the design of the boat - why oh why didn't they put scuppers in the toe rails to aid with water evacuation - I suppose it's exactly as you say to stop the topsides getting water stained.
From your experience, do the side decks drain quickly of water (presumably over the stern) if a wave is taken over the side decks? Considering the size of the side deck drains, I consider they are more for draining rainwater than seawater?

Also agree about the cockpit drains being woefully inadequate, it’s another job on the list to try to understand if we can increase the drainage from that area. Possibly manifold the side drains into one and use the spare for another cockpit drain.

Yes, we’ve got a long list of jobs (holding tank, water maker, lithium & solar install, copper coat to name but a few of the major tasks) but as the boat is coming out of the water for the copper coat application, I was wondering if I should try to reduce the number of thru hulls. But as you say, in reality 16 to 10 is probably not worth the extra work that would be required to glass in the redundant holes.


By the way did you ever find a solution for the washing machine replacement….?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mitch C

Thanks Dockhead, hoped you would be able to reply. I've been reading all your other posts about the Moody - really useful.

The deck drains and especially the cockpit drains is one of the few concerns I've got about the design of the boat - why oh why didn't they put scuppers in the toe rails to aid with water evacuation - I suppose it's exactly as you say to stop the topsides getting water stained.
From your experience, do the side decks drain quickly of water (presumably over the stern) if a wave is taken over the side decks? Considering the size of the side deck drains, I consider they are more for draining rainwater than seawater?

Also agree about the cockpit drains being woefully inadequate, it’s another job on the list to try to understand if we can increase the drainage from that area. Possibly manifold the side drains into one and use the spare for another cockpit drain.

Yes, we’ve got a long list of jobs (holding tank, water maker, lithium & solar install, copper coat to name but a few of the major tasks) but as the boat is coming out of the water for the copper coat application, I was wondering if I should try to reduce the number of thru hulls. But as you say, in reality 16 to 10 is probably not worth the extra work that would be required to glass in the redundant holes.

By the way did you ever find a solution for the washing machine replacement….?

The best advice I can give you is to order your to-do list in order of importance and concentrate on the important jobs. Improving something which ain't broke is not an important job.


That said, Lithium power is a really worthwhile improvement, but it's a REALLY big job. I worked hard on this and finally decided it wasn't worth all the trouble. Despite the huge advantages of lithium power. And ended up modifying battery boxes and installing golf cart batteries, a big improvement over the original "leisure" batteries.


I wouldn't mess with manifolds. If you want to improve the cockpit drains then I would increase their size. I would get a good shipwright to look at it (and please share whatever you find out). I guess that the underwater part -- 1 1/2" Maestrini through hulls -- might not be the limiting factor, but rather than bathtub-drain type drains in the cockpit. If it's possible to improve those, then this might be solved without major surgery.


What concerns Lithium -- in case it might be of help to you, I can share what I came up with. There are diagrams somewhere in the Lithium Power subforum on Cruisers Forum.


I decided to put the Lithium cells under the salon floor in a new battery box -- there is space there for different sizes of battery boxes, and easy installation on top of the main beam, and good access.


According to my calculations, 300AH to 400AH of lithium could fit without too much trouble. 400AH would give nearly double the usable power of the original 420AH lead banks. I don't think you need more than that; in my case that would be a solid 24 hours of pretty power intensive use of the boat including electric cooking.



I decided to keep the other lead battery bank under the master cabin bunk. So powering domestic loads through that bank fed by a B2B charger from the lithium bank.


Then you need a good BMS and a charger/inverter which can talk to the BMS (e.g. Victron). High and low voltage cutoffs controlled by the BMS. An alternator protector to protect the diodes of the school bus alternator in case one of the cutoffs is activated. Then the old lead battery bank keeps systems working in case of a BMS-activated cutoff. And provides that much reserve power in case you need it.


This will require a good bit of rewiring including new heavy cabling and so best done by a professional electrician.


Another essential modification would be an external regulator for the school bus alternator which allows you to derate it. These alternators are very robust and are rated for continuous use at full power but I don't think you want to push them that hard, which Lithium will do. I would use a Balmar regulator, derate to 80% or so, and definitely with an alternator case temperature sensor. Lithium plus school bus alternator will dramatically reduce the need for generator running.



A big job but the results will be awesomely good. If I were in your position, with the engine out and the boat taken apart, I would definitely do this.



What generator do you have? I think most M54's came with either a Kohler 6.5kW EFOZ or a Cummins. I have the Kohler.


One other reason I decided not to invest heavily in changing over to Lithium is because with a heavy duty generator on board, you're not so dependent on your batteries. If you have little battery capacity (for example, your batteries are end of life) you just run the generator more, which is no big deal since you can't hear it. So I'm fairly happy with my Trojan golf cart batteries (I charge average twice a day when off the grid), but Lithium of course would be awesome.



Where are you planning to put solar? I loved solar on my previous boat (a Pearson 365) but the Moody sails so well I couldn't bring myself to spoiling that with solar, so I don't have any on this boat. A solar arch will really hurt your upwind performance. Maybe some of those flexible panels integrated with the spray hood would be OK. If you end up doing that, please share details of your install.

[Mitch C]

Thanks again Dockhead, we've got the “to do” list and it is categorised into the various safety critical/essential/nice to have etc groups.

Lithium - I'm an electro-mechanical charted engineer so have the knowledge to design & install myself (with support and advice from some of my work colleagues).
It's going to be 100% Victron install with 600AH of batteries (maybe 800AH if they fit) installed (hopefully) under the aft bed leaving the saloon battery box area for additional storage. I still need to measure the aft battery box area but If they don’t fit under the bed, they will definitely go under the saloon floor.
System will be based on the attached diagram from Victron.

Solar – it is going to be on a stern arch. I'm not too concerned about losing a little sailing performance to get the off-grid redundancy we are looking for.
Generator – it’s 6kVa Mastervolt
Alternator – we are going to try a Zeus external regulator with the existing 24v alternator modified as needed.
We are deleting the LPG gas cooking and will be installing a full electric induction hob & electric cooker fabricated to our design.

Agree it’s a big job, but we have the time to do it now whilst still working & earning before we start our big trip in 2025.
I’ll share some photo’s as the work progresses….

It’s still a very new boat to us so still learning our way around it, but so far apart from the deck drains I’m really pleased with the design & overall build quality.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mitch C

. . . It’s still a very new boat to us so still learning our way around it, but so far apart from the deck drains I’m really pleased with the design & overall build quality.

You'll be more and more pleased as the years go by. These are fantastic boats.

They do have a few weaknesses, however:

1. Inadequate cockpit drainage.
2. Inadequate limber holes in some area allowing water to build up. Ahead of the mast step (where the log and depth transducers live), and at the rudder quadrant.
3. Terrible teak rail which is made of some crap laminated teak instead of solid pieces. I've been repairing mine every year for years. I should have broken down and just replaced it all years ago.
4. Somewhat fussy hydraulic swim platform mechanism.
5. Inadequate deck storage (like virtually all cruising boats), no place for sails.
6. Somewhat subpar joinery, latches, etc.
7. Terrible engine room which is far too large to service by reaching in from outside, but just too small to comfortably insert your body inside. A very small statured person in your crew is very, very useful here.

But there are no perfect boats like there are no perfect people. And the strengths are too numerous to list. Just to name one, this boat has the best structure of any cruising boat I've ever seen, bar none. Look at your shroud chainplates some time. They look like something stolen off the Brooklyn Bridge. You'll find the boat to be absolutely rigid and quiet in the roughest sea conditions -- immensely confidence-inspiring. I would sail mine anywhere, and in fact, I've had her as far North as 72N -- in Northern Greenland.

The boat also sails very, very well. We've done some racing and have almost never met a cruising boat which could keep up with us (carbon laminate sails help here), and we smoke our share of racing boats in long distance regattas. I'm afraid when you discover this you will regret the stern arch with solar. I would really advise against that.

And by the same token I would advise finding a dinghy which you don't have to keep in the davits. We finally settled on an Avon 310 Lite folding RIB, the one with the folding transom, which can be folded up very flat in its bag and lashed down on the foredeck. This noticeably improves sailing performance compared to having a dinghy in davits.

Then of course you want good sails. These sails are too big for woven sails to be very satisfactory; laminate is highly recommended.

[Cheechako]

Keep your through fittings in good shape and dont worry about having them.

Been there done that and after all was said and done I felt that the boat was more at risk with a bunch of in hull hoses and extra fittings running to a heavy bronze log stressing a large fitting.
What's more a risk? Rubber or bronze?

Also, beware that running cockpit drains etc sideways can result in water in your cockpit on a heel, soaking wet feet , etc.

[sailingharry]

On my boat (also cored), every thru hull location had the core removed at the factory (so there is a 1' square depression in the inside skin). This ensures there is zero risk of water penetration into core. This does not exist at some randomly picked location for a new thru hull.
Skin fittings still need a valve if installed ABYC compliant (although none of mine are).
Thru hulls, especially with valves, take a LOT of room. You'll have to find locations that you can put that much crap -- where it was not designed from the beginning.
Shortening hose runs helps. But if you end up lengthening hoses, it increases risk and decreases flow rate.
My boat has all deck and cockpit drains above the water line. Deck and cockpit share a single penetration (per side). It is at the boot stripe, so Dockheads concern about staining is minimal.

[sailingunity]

I'm in the process of removing 4 deck scuppers that were going to 2 below the waterline thru-hulls.

For me, reducing the number of thru-hulls a bonus. The deck scuppers, at some point of another leaked badly causing the balsa coring to rot away. Also, the drains were placed incorrectly, allowing a pool of water to be constant on the deck (I have solid toe rails).

For the pros outweighed the cons.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

On my boat (also cored), every thru hull location had the core removed at the factory (so there is a 1' square depression in the inside skin). This ensures there is zero risk of water penetration into core. This does not exist at some randomly picked location for a new thru hull.
Skin fittings still need a valve if installed ABYC compliant (although none of mine are).
Thru hulls, especially with valves, take a LOT of room. You'll have to find locations that you can put that much crap -- where it was not designed from the beginning.
Shortening hose runs helps. But if you end up lengthening hoses, it increases risk and decreases flow rate.
My boat has all deck and cockpit drains above the water line. Deck and cockpit share a single penetration (per side). It is at the boot stripe, so Dockheads concern about staining is minimal.

The M54 has solid glass pads at all the through hull locations. I would never dream of cutting another hole in the boat. I know it's reasonably safe if done by an expert shipwright, and all the more since the Moody core is encapsulated balsa blocks, but I still just wouldn't do it.


That being said, I HAVE added through hulls above the waterline. I added bilge pumps which required new outlets.

[Mitch C]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Look at your shroud chainplates some time. They look like something stolen off the Brooklyn Bridge. .

Agree - we found them during the pre-sale survey. Our surveyor was amazed at the size (thats what she said) of them.


Again thans for all the input / suggestions. Will post some photos/info on some of the other projects we have planned.

[sailingharry]

Completely off topic, but I have to comment. The picture you posted up-thread shows 3 sails -- a reefed main, a full staysail, and a reefed jib. In my mind, reefed sails are almost always less effective than full sails (with the possible exception of slab reefing). I'd suggest that it would be beneficial to adjust sails to minimize reefs. Perhaps lose the staysail and unroll the genny. Or lose the geny and unroll the main.


My boat is a Solent rig, so sort of almost a cutter. When I had new headsails made, I specified NO foam/reefing support. I can adjust sails so there is never a reef in the headsails. The exception is the inside jib (95% self tacker) which was spec'd to structurally allow reefing but not address sail shape -- the idea is that if I am at just the 95% (and no main or 3rd reef main), and I need to reef the 95%, I no longer care about sail shape, just survival.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

... I'd suggest that it would be beneficial to adjust sails to minimize reefs. Perhaps lose the staysail and unroll the genny. Or lose the geny and unroll the main.

My boat is a Solent rig, so sort of almost a cutter. ...

Solent vs Cutter rigs ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...gs-209147.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Completely off topic, but I have to comment. The picture you posted up-thread shows 3 sails -- a reefed main, a full staysail, and a reefed jib. In my mind, reefed sails are almost always less effective than full sails (with the possible exception of slab reefing). I'd suggest that it would be beneficial to adjust sails to minimize reefs. Perhaps lose the staysail and unroll the genny. Or lose the geny and unroll the main.

My boat is a Solent rig, so sort of almost a cutter. When I had new headsails made, I specified NO foam/reefing support. I can adjust sails so there is never a reef in the headsails. The exception is the inside jib (95% self tacker) which was spec'd to structurally allow reefing but not address sail shape -- the idea is that if I am at just the 95% (and no main or 3rd reef main), and I need to reef the 95%, I no longer care about sail shape, just survival.

The OP can speak for himself, but I bet they were trimmed that way for the photo op. Looks cool, doesn't it?

Naturally, you wouldn't sail that way.

I'm with you on NEVER REEFING HEADSAILS. On a cutter rig with in-mast furling, you really don't need to ever do this.

One huge advantage of in-mast furling is that the mainsail for some reason loses hardly any efficiency when reefed, and it's a bit flatter than a slab reefed main to begin with.


So under full sail, an in-mast furling main is somewhat less efficient than a normal one (difference can be narrowed with a bit of roach and vertical battens), but as soon as you start reefing at all, the difference disappears. And -- active adjustment of the area of the mainsail really helps avoid ever reefing a headsail.

I have two alternative principal headsails available for my forestay -- a 120% yankee jib and a 95% blade. Both in carbon laminate. I use the blade most of the time, which is a remarkably versatile sail; some years I never put up the yankee.

Once the wind is too strong for the full blade jib, I furl it away completely and go to the staysail.

Very active adjustment of mainsail area ensures optimum sail area is up at all times, and headsails are always used in their optimum way.

The advantages of this outweigh the advantages of a full battened main in many situations. This works so well that we are surprisingly competitive racing, at least long distances.

I never liked Solent rigs much but these last years I'm spending a lot of time on a Discovery 67 which has a Solent rig. We crossed the Atlantic on this in 2022. It is a great advantage having a nice full-shaped light genoa on the furler ready to go, even if I do miss the staysail.

On my boat, we use an A2 assy on a long ("cheater") pole (stolen off a dead TP 52) for very light wind. This works well from about 80 apparent all the way to almost DDW (the pole helps with that) but it's quite a faff to get up and down.

[OS2Dude]

My 2¢.

If there is enough water that every drain is at capacity, a 'manifold' to combine them into one thruhull will need to be bigger. Area of 1" circle is 0.7854 in². To even begin to handle 4 of them you would need a 2" hose and thruhull (3.1416 in².) not even taking into consideration turbulence and friction since the hoses would likely be longer than they are now and not a perfectly straight, sloped run.