Throuh hull valve type

[pr2501]

Hello
I have attached my sailing boat through hull picture.
Pleas I need info what kind/brand of valve it is.
I need this info because I want do remove it to reseal all.

Thank you

[s/v Jedi]

It’s a seacock. The brand will be somewhere on the bronze casting as well as on the yellow plastic of the handle.

[HopCar]

Like Jedi said the picture shows a seacock. The brand name should be on it somewhere.
It looks like a Groco FBV series seacock to me.
https://www.groco.net/products/valve...ves/fbv-valves

[Dockhead]

Isn't that the Groco flange adapter, attached to a standard ball valve?

To the OP: The maker should be identified by marks in the casting and in the plastic handle cover. In any case, to remove for resealing, just take it all apart. There is a mushroom head fitting screwed into the flanged base. Take the bolts out and screw the flanged base off. You may need to hold the inside of the mushroom fitting to keep it from turning. There are special tools available for that, or usually you can wedge something in which will work.

Or if it's not leaking there, but rather at the joint between the adapter and ball valve, then just screw the ball valve off and reseal the threads.

If what you have is indeed the Groco flange adapter, it looks like this:



See: https://www.groco.net/ibvf-1500


Thread drift, but I don't like those things. I know Jedi disagrees with me here. They do add some strength, but the normal installation without the flange is plenty strong enough in my opinion. I've helped a friend replace the mushroom fittings in an installation like that, and it's a nightmare. It's about 10x as much work as replacing the mushroom fittings in a standard installation. Plus it's one additional joint to leak.


One problem the flange adapter solves is mismatch of threads. But this problem doesn't exist with BSP, used all over the world except the U.S., instead of NPS/NPT standard fittings, and may not exist even with NPS/NPT fittings (there is some controversy). On the plus side, with the flanges, it's a cinch to change the ball valves -- no risk of turning the mushroom head fitting when you remove them. But that plus is also a minus -- it's so easy to change the ball valves and so hard to change the mushroom head fittings that you will be tempted to never change the mushroom head fittings, which is dangerous. That was exactly the case with my friend's boat -- valves had been changed a couple of times but mushroom head fittings never, and he's lucky the boat didn't sink.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Isn't that the Groco flange adapter, attached to a standard ball valve?

To the OP: The maker should be identified by marks in the casting and in the plastic handle cover. In any case, to remove for resealing, just take it all apart. There is a mushroom head fitting screwed into the flanged base. Take the bolts out and screw the flanged base off. You may need to hold the inside of the mushroom fitting to keep it from turning. There are special tools available for that, or usually you can wedge something in which will work.

Or if it's not leaking there, but rather at the joint between the adapter and ball valve, then just screw the ball valve off and reseal the threads.

If what you have is indeed the Groco flange adapter, it looks like this:

Attachment 258615

See: https://www.groco.net/ibvf-1500


Thread drift, but I don't like those things. I know Jedi disagrees with me here. They do add some strength, but the normal installation without the flange is plenty strong enough in my opinion. I've helped a friend replace the mushroom fittings in an installation like that, and it's a nightmare. It's about 10x as much work as replacing the mushroom fittings in a standard installation. Plus it's one additional joint to leak.


One problem the flange adapter solves is mismatch of threads. But this problem doesn't exist with BSP, used all over the world except the U.S., instead of NPS/NPT standard fittings, and may not exist even with NPS/NPT fittings (there is some controversy). On the plus side, with the flanges, it's a cinch to change the ball valves -- no risk of turning the mushroom head fitting when you remove them. But that plus is also a minus -- it's so easy to change the ball valves and so hard to change the mushroom head fittings that you will be tempted to never change the mushroom head fittings, which is dangerous. That was exactly the case with my friend's boat -- valves had been changed a couple of times but mushroom head fittings never, and he's lucky the boat didn't sink.

Jedi disagrees because he is right

Rod Collins did a bunch of testing, as did ABYC and the non flanged fittings with a valve screwed on fail the tests. Some of the plastic types, which are listed as compliant, also fail the tests.
Rod posted some videos on YouTube but it must also be on his wiki site Marinehowto.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Jedi disagrees because he is right

Rod Collins did a bunch of testing, as did ABYC and the non flanged fittings with a valve screwed on fail the tests. Some of the plastic types, which are listed as compliant, also fail the tests.
Rod posted some videos on YouTube but it must also be on his wiki site Marinehowto.

Again, there is no question that a flanged through hull is stronger -- it's obvious.


The question is not that -- the question is what is "strong enough for purpose", and what is OPTIMAL, balancing strength against other factors. You could double the wing spar size in a Boeing 777 and it would be stronger. That doesn't make that optimum. Likewise with through hulls.



Flanged vs. unflanged through-hulls is a U.S. vs. Europe difference of opinion. The higher end U.S. yacht builders often used flanged ones, whereas Swan, Oyster, Halberg-Rassey, DIscovery, and all of the high end European yacht builders use plain unflanged ones, not to mention great Dutch yards like KM Yachts and Contest. I think the only European boat made in the last 50 years with flanged through hulls I ever saw was a Rustler, and they make what, 5 or 6 of those a year?


Speaking of Rustlers -- they still have full keels, and full keels are undoubtedly stronger than fin keels. Does that make them better? I think this is a question just like with flanged through hulls. Some people think they do.



Unflanged through-hulls have other advantages -- simpler, fewer holes in the boat, far easier to get the mushroom fitting off, far easier to inspect. They are somewhat less strong than flanged ones. But are they strong enough? Well, you can stand on them without breaking them. Swan, Oyster, Halberg Rassey, Discovery, KM Yachts, and Contest all think they are strong enough. That's good enough for me. But then again, I also sail a fin keel boat which some people think is dangerously weak, so don't listen to me

[Cheechako]

That appears to be a ball valve type of seacock, but does NOT look like a Groco flange adaptor type. Likely a Groco FBV.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

That appears to be a ball valve type of seacock, but does NOT look like a Groco flange adaptor type. Likely a Groco FBV.

You are correct.
If one wishes to install the "flange adaptor" type their is something to think about before bolting the adaptor into/onto the hull.
Murphy's Law assumes that when the ball valve is screwed onto the adaptor and when it reaches the proper tightness that the handle will never be in the orientation that you wish.
Screw the parts together before installation to determine where the valve handle will end-up and mark the flange so that when installed the handle will be where you want it.
It's a small thing, but groping around/behind hoses to operate a seacock handle is sometimes not so easy, and Murphy says that you will always suffer cuts from the hose clamps.
A replacement valve might not end-up in the same orientation, but that will, (or should,) be years down the road.

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Unflanged through-hulls have other advantages -- simpler, fewer holes in the boat, far easier to get the mushroom fitting off, far easier to inspect. They are somewhat less strong than flanged ones. But are they strong enough? Well, you can stand on them without breaking them. Swan, Oyster, Halberg Rassey, Discovery, KM Yachts, and Contest all think they are strong enough. That's good enough for me. But then again, I also sail a fin keel boat which some people think is dangerously weak, so don't listen to me

This of course is completely incorrect. On a non-flanged thruhull/valve arrangement it is more difficult to remove the thruhull to inspect. You have to disassemble the assembly. Valve, inner nut and then push the thruhull out. On a Flanged seacock, all you have to do is insert the thruhull tool from the outside and unscfrew it, done.

Also flanged Seacocks require no more holes in the hull that unflanged thruhull/valve arrangments

Also any North American builder that list ABYC cert will be using flanged seacocks.

Not a fan of the EU idea that the lifespan of a seacock is just 5 years! They should be far more robust than that!

[HopCar]

“- the question is what is "strong enough for purpose"”

Most of the time it is strong enough. The only time I ever heard of a thru-hull failure was with a ball valve screwed directly onto a thru-hull. Something bumped the valve and snapped off the thru-hull. The boat needed an emergency haul out.

I would have thought the mismatched threads would have failed but the thru-hull just snapped off.

Just curious, has anybody ever heard of a bronze thru-hull failure that let water into the boat? In my fifty years in the business I’ve only heard of the one?

[ItDepends]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Isn't that the Groco flange adapter, attached to a standard ball valve?

First: Seacocks are NOT "standard ball valves." The difference is standard ball valves have tapered thread, seacocks have straight thread. The reason is that straight thread fittings ALWAYS bottom out and fully engage the thread for maximum strength.

Second: Flanges are a good idea because they make the whole installation stronger. Nothing too strong ever broke. Things that "are strong enough, I think" break all the time. When I am 1000 miles offshore, on the parts of the boat that keep the water out, I much prefer too strong over "strong enough."

[bcboomer]

"Also any North American builder that list ABYC cert will be using flanged seacocks".

What North American builders list ABYC certification? I can't find any and AFIK there is no such thing as an ABYC certified boat builder.

Trudesign ball valves comply with ABYC and don't have flanges.

[dfelsent]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

"Also any North American builder that list ABYC cert will be using flanged seacocks".



What North American builders list ABYC certification? I can't find any and AFIK there is no such thing as an ABYC certified boat builder.



Trudesign ball valves comply with ABYC and don't have flanges.

Trudesign does not have flanges. But to comply with ABYC they have a collar which has the effect of increasing the bearing surface.

https://www.trudesign.nz/marine/prod...earing-collars

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by ItDepends

First: Seacocks are NOT "standard ball valves." The difference is standard ball valves have tapered thread, seacocks have straight thread. The reason is that straight thread fittings ALWAYS bottom out and fully engage the thread for maximum strength.

Second: Flanges are a good idea because they make the whole installation stronger. Nothing too strong ever broke. Things that "are strong enough, I think" break all the time. When I am 1000 miles offshore, on the parts of the boat that keep the water out, I much prefer too strong over "strong enough."

Amazing, I am able to purchase ball valves in a variety of materials and sizes, either tapered or straight threads, and locally from a number of suppliers, NOT just marine suppliers. Perhaps I reside in a more flexible and adaptive region of the world.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by dfelsent

Trudesign does not have flanges. But to comply with ABYC they have a collar which has the effect of increasing the bearing surface.

https://www.trudesign.nz/marine/prod...earing-collars

And I believe these are available in Europe and Australia. It’s sad and insulting to buyers to use skin fittings with a valve when these are available. Rod Collins measured wall thickness in the threads of those fittings and it’s madness to have that little material to keep you afloat. I don’t remember the number but it’s scary.