Poor construction

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, just sticking to reality in what regards what they are using and their life expectancy. They are certified to resist 5 years but nobody change them after 5 years. They should be thoroughly inspected after that each year and they should be replaced after 10 years use even if they look good even if some keep them more time. Not a complicated or very expensive work.

And what they use is DZR valves that are pretty inexpensive and appropriated to marine use even if more durable and expensive valves can be used. Some keep calling them plain brass valves because they are not bronze.
https://marinestore.co.uk/Sea_cocks_and_valves.html

I am not defending anything, just against the hysteria regarding all those new boats going down due to defective valves..... because that is not happening neither new boats are changing valves in 5 years time.

There was a member of this forum, a cat owner that new a lot about valves and DZR and he said that DZR is better than bronze for marine use. He went away never understood why, but maybe you could find his posts about the subject. He was quite informed, technically speaking.

Polux, I don't know if you are willfully confusing DZR brass and plain brass or not, but in any case, we are not talking about DZR brass. Groupe Beneteau and some others have been using PLAIN BRASS -- that is, CW617N high zinc brass -- for underwater fittings. DZR brass (marked "CZ132" or "CR") may or may not be a decent choice for underwater fittings (opinions vary), but plain brass is not an acceptable material.

Failed underwater fittings is the leading cause of insurance claims resulting from flooding. This is not a joke.

Attachment 139818

More reading material on the subject:

http://michel-christen.com/2T-H.pdf

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ing-77960.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20140416...d/Seacocks.pdf


Regular "inspection" may not actually mitigate the risks -- because the corrosion typically occurs from the inside, and may not be visible at all.

[arsenelupiga]

thruhulls quality sounds like SD 50 clutch or water in saildrive hystyeria,

heard of more monos losing keel than seakock sinking the boat.

if anode usage is excessive, then one should be more careful i guess.

[robert sailor]

Polux has debated this in the past and only now with a big push back from others is he now relenting , which is good because many people on this site listen to him. Many people buying boats these days don't have a lot of personal boat construction knowledge and they will accept that the CE Class A rating means much more than it does.

[CalmSeasQuest]

Thanks everyone, I'm largely new to marine systems (Michigan/Great Lakes native) and this has been very educational. I wanted to learn more about the differences in the various brass alloys in use and DZR and found a great resource that includes photos of various marine-use failures that; to my eye at least are quite telling.

https://coxengineering.sharepoint.co...andbronze.aspx

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux has debated this in the past and only now with a big push back from others is he now relenting , which is good because many people on this site listen to him. Many people buying boats these days don't have a lot of personal boat construction knowledge and they will accept that the CE Class A rating means much more than it does.

Indeed.

And I actually LIKE Beneteaus and certain other high production boats, and I really appreciate how challenging it is, to engineer the production process, to create that much value for the money. I respect that.

I do think, however, that these are really serious mistakes in the design of the boat -- to cut the corners THAT far, where structural and watertight integrity are concerned. High production or not, cheap or not, any boat made to go to sea, ought to be designed so that underwater fittings just don't fail, rudders and keels just don't fall off.

I really reject the idea, that it's ok for an underwater fitting to last for "a while" before it fails -- 5 years, 10 years, whatever. When it can easily be made to last for the life of the hull with almost no risk of invisible failure. This is simply not "good enough", in my opinion, especially when you just can't tell from inspecting them, whether they are rotting out from the inside. It's even worse with some of the fittings put on Lagoons -- which are chrome plated, so you can't tell ANYTHING from external inspection.

Yes, I would replace them the first day, if I bought a boat with such fittings. There are enough things to worry about at sea, without worrying that underwater fittings are crumbling invisibly. That's one of the things on the boat you ought to have total confidence in.

It is just a boneheaded mistake to save 10 or 15 euros or whatever the cost difference is between a proper bronze fitting, or at least DZR brass, and plain brass, and give up any real confidence in the fitting over the long term.

Just like it is a mistake to support the top of the rudder shaft in a glued-together plywood box, as we've seen with some boats.

I'm not against cutting corners -- that's what makes the world go round, and it gets more people into boats who could not otherwise afford them. But you have to pick the right places to do it! And anyway, with some ingenuity and engineering work, I'm sure a cheaper way can be found to build these parts of the boat, which are truly strong enough and reliable enough. Just slapping on Chinese ball valves made for domestic plumbing installations is -- inexcusable, in my book.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Is that true? I thought that many charter programs cycle the boats after 5 years, especially those programs that use boats purchased by outside owners and returned to them after their charter "lives" were done. Or pass them down to "second tier" charter groups for additional usage. Do you suppose that those operators change the seacocks?

Jim

Yes , they inspect seacocks in the maintenance Schedule, im not sure in any UK or USA based chárter comp but the frenchs change their fleets every 6 or 7 years, new models come and they attract the attention,some of this boats are sold to low cost chárter comps and a bunch to private buyers, is not hard to found a low cost chárter comps offering a old Harmony with 8 or 9 years under the keel for a really cheap week.
They replace seacocks in a regular basis but hey they put the same crap,,, i tell you what,, a médium size Groco bronze seacock cost around 80 or 90 bucks , the same seacock in brass or DZR cost 30$$... so obviously the Bronze is out of the game...

Pólux claim that a brass or DZR valve can last 10 years, pure BS unless is fitted in the fresh wáter system , they start to corrode very bad and freeze in few years after they are new, most of this crap is caught in time so many sunks are avoided in time, haulouts and regular inspection,, most multihulls dont use brass or bronze , instead they use marelon, multihulls have a deep curve angle in the hull and the soft marelon can suit this angle without goops of Syka or worst 5200 around the gap like in a metal thruhull.

The only stuff worth the money is pure Bronze, Marelon...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Polux, I don't know if you are willfully confusing DZR brass and plain brass or not, but in any case, we are not talking about DZR brass. Groupe Beneteau and some others have been using PLAIN BRASS -- that is, CW617N high zinc brass -- for underwater fittings. DZR brass (marked "CZ132" or "CR") may or may not be a decent choice for underwater fittings (opinions vary), but plain brass is not an acceptable material.

Failed underwater fittings is the leading cause of insurance claims resulting from flooding. This is not a joke.

Attachment 139818

More reading material on the subject:

http://michel-christen.com/2T-H.pdf

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ing-77960.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20140416...d/Seacocks.pdf


Regular "inspection" may not actually mitigate the risks -- because the corrosion typically occurs from the inside, and may not be visible at all.

PLAIN BRASS:There is plenty qualities of brass and talking about plain brass means very little:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass
The cheap ones many builders use are made of what is called on the wikipedia article naval brass. Not a very good material but different from other brass suited for many other ends.

The diference to Naval brass to DZR brass is only 2% or arsenic and is not seen without a chemical test. Some of the DZR brass have it stamped but not necessarily specially if they are made in big quantities from a supplier to particularly only a single Naval Group, a big one the groupe Beneteau that makes Jeanneau, Beneteau and Lagoon, among others. The supplier is plastimo.

Here is the report I had quoted from First choice marine technical group. They make maintenance and provide advise for Moorings and Sunsail.
https://mymoorings.com/Notes/Data/Do...L/SA192007.pdf

There it is said that in 2006 Beneteau group changed the material from naval brass to DZR brass: "The new material spec is CuZn36Pb2As. That means it has 2% arsenic. "

Note that the main problem with naval brass is not the corrosion in sea water but Dezincification that has to do mostly (on the yacht case) with anodic dissolution of brass due to galvanic process and the lack of sufficient anodes.

That does not mean that I think that everything is right, quite the opposite, and I had said already that a further clarification should be made in what regards "corrosion resistant" materials and the easiest way would be to increase those 5 years of liability regarding the boat builders.

Again what I said was that the normal duration of the seacocks that they put on mass production boats far exceeds the 5 years and that most are changed only when the boat has 10 years (or even more) and that there is not a significant problem with the boats with 10 year old seacocks, providing they are inspected regularly.

This is not the same as saying that the quality of the material should not be improved or even that it is adequate in what regards duration but certainly means that it makes no sense to say that a new boat has problems with the seacocks and that those should be changed immediately, even before the 5 year time they are warranted for.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

PLAIN BRASS:There is plenty qualities of brass and talking about plain brass means very little:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass
The cheap ones many builders use are made of what is called on the wikipedia article naval brass. Not a very good material but different from other brass suited for many other ends.

The diference to Naval brass to DZR brass is only 2% or arsenic and is not seen without a chemical test. Some of the DZR brass have it stamped but not necessarily specially if they are made in big quantities from a supplier to particularly only a single Naval Group, a big one the groupe Beneteau that makes Jeanneau, Beneteau and Lagoon, among others. The supplier is plastimo.

Here is the report I had quoted from First choice marine technical group. They make maintenance and provide advise for Moorings and Sunsail.
https://mymoorings.com/Notes/Data/Do...L/SA192007.pdf

There it is said that in 2006 Beneteau group changed the material from naval brass to DZR brass: "The new material spec is CuZn36Pb2As. That means it has 2% arsenic. "

Note that the main problem with naval brass is not the corrosion in sea water but Dezincification that has to do mostly (on the yacht case) with anodic dissolution of brass due to galvanic process and the lack of sufficient anodes.

That does not mean that I think that everything is right, quite the opposite, and I had said already that a further clarification should be made in what regards "corrosion resistant" materials and the easiest way would be to increase those 5 years of liability regarding the boat builders.

Again what I said was that the normal duration of the seacocks that they put on mass production boats far exceeds the 5 years and that most are changed only when the boat has 10 years (or even more) and that there is not a significant problem with the boats with 10 year old seacocks, providing they are inspected regularly.

This is not the same as saying that the quality of the material should not be improved or even that it is adequate in what regards duration but certainly means that it makes no sense to say that a new boat has problems with the seacocks and that those should be changed immediately, even before the 5 year time they are warranted for.

Polux in English when someone says a brass thru-hull is corroded they mean that the metal is breaking down, in this case it's loosing it's zinc and over time will fail. You seem to feel there are different definitions...anodes are usually put on props to protect them or on drive shafts but with sail drives you will have zinc on the bottom leg and usually no other zincs on the boat. A proper bronze thru hull doesn't need to be protected by a special zinc although British builders for years bonded their thru hulls and attached a large zinc on the hull. French boats have zincs on the sail drive legs, no other zincs. As Dock head clearly pointed out the use of these cheap thru hulls should not be debated, you know better. We all know the builders throw nickels around like manhole covers but certain aspects of boat construction should be off limits to the accountants who make these decisions.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux in English when someone says a brass thru-hull is corroded they mean that the metal is breaking down, in this case it's loosing it's zinc and over time will fail. You seem to feel there are different definitions...anodes are usually put on props to protect them or on drive shafts but with sail drives you will have zinc on the bottom leg and usually no other zincs on the boat. A proper bronze thru hull doesn't need to be protected by a special zinc although British builders for years bonded their thru hulls and attached a large zinc on the hull. French boats have zincs on the sail drive legs, no other zincs. As Dock head clearly pointed out the use of these cheap thru hulls should not be debated, you know better. We all know the builders throw nickels around like manhole covers but certain aspects of boat construction should be off limits to the accountants who make these decisions.

Again, the only thing I said it was that they last more than 5 years and most owners change them with 10 years of age, others even more. I am not debating anything just put facts straight.

I had already said that I agree that the RCD requirements should be changed regarding the number of years that make builders liable (5 years) increasing them and that way make the use of nautical brass not suitable and that way obliging all builders to use DZR brass (or high quality plastic), as it seems some are doing already.

In a way, those 5 years, make sense for the builders and to most owners that buy new boats: On average the ones that buy new boats buy a new one after 3 to 5 years so the use of that material translates on a cheaper boat, that will work perfectly while they own it and transfer the cost of the changing the valves to the ones that are going to buy it used. As they have all the same policy and most of the ones that buy used boats don't know that they have to change valves, that does not translate itself in a bigger depreciation on the used market.

By the way you did not tell me who many years has the "newish" Beneteau of your friends

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Polux

By the way you did not tell me who many years has the "newish" Beneteau of your friends

Maybe he didn't but I did mention the model years that I have seen the issue.
5yrs out of a Euro brass ball valve is, I think a little optimistic. 10yrs is cruisin' for a bruisin. Throw in a little galvanic or stray current corrosion (which is not uncommon) and those time frames are dramatically shortened. Most of these boats are fitted with Yanmar engines and Yanmar strongly recommends bonding. I have yet to see a bonded Euroboat.

You have also neglected to consider or respond to the issue of mixing NPS and NPT threads

Sure lets pass the problem on the the next owner 3yrs down the road ... Sad if that's considered an ethical practice.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

Again, the only thing I said it was that they last more than 5 years and most owners change them with 10 years of age, others even more. I am not debating anything just put facts straight.

I had already said that I agree that the RCD requirements should be changed regarding the number of years that make builders liable (5 years) increasing them and that way make the use of nautical brass not suitable and that way obliging all builders to use DZR brass (or high quality plastic), as it seems some are doing already.

In a way, those 5 years, make sense for the builders and to most owners that buy new boats: On average the ones that buy new boats buy a new one after 3 to 5 years so the use of that material translates on a cheaper boat, that will work perfectly while they own it and transfer the cost of the changing the valves to the ones that are going to buy it used. As they have all the same policy and most of the ones that buy used boats don't know that they have to change valves, that does not translate itself in a bigger depreciation on the used market.

By the way you did not tell me who many years has the "newish" Beneteau of your friends

Sure I did but I miss lots of stuff too they changed them after 7 years, most looked ok but they had one really bad one and they didn't want to take any chances.

[SV DestinyAscen]

I think it needs to be said again that CE standards are minimums. Not intended to be best practices that gives you a great boat, but are like housing codes. Minimum.


If a builder goes with the minimum, they'll be priced appropriately. Nothing stops a builder from aiming high.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

. . . In a way, those 5 years, make sense for the builders and to most owners that buy new boats: On average the ones that buy new boats buy a new one after 3 to 5 years so the use of that material translates on a cheaper boat, that will work perfectly while they own it and transfer the cost of the changing the valves to the ones that are going to buy it used. As they have all the same policy and most of the ones that buy used boats don't know that they have to change valves, that does not translate itself in a bigger depreciation on the used market.. . .

Yikes, how cynical!

That is not only dumping the COST onto the subsequent buyer, but the RISK is well.

A pox on the house which thinks like that.

However, I don't believe it. I think it was simply a brain fart -- compulsive cost cutting on the part of the makers, without thinking that deeply. If they had thought that far, they would have realized the backlash they would get, to reputation, from creating this problem for future buyers.

[SV DestinyAscen]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yikes, how cynical!

That is not only dumping the COST onto the subsequent buyer, but the RISK is well.

A pox on the house which thinks like that.

However, I don't believe it. I think it was simply a brain fart -- compulsive cost cutting on the part of the makers, without thinking that deeply. If they had thought that far, they would have realized the backlash they would get, to reputation, from creating this problem for future buyers.

I don't think it is a brainfart - it's the same thought process one goes though to use polyester resin when vinylester has matured and the materials cost not substantially higher but high enough for some to risk improper barrier/osmosis issues down the road. It's like the CEO/production engineer who'll rather take the cost saving bonus now and pass future expense in warranty and PR goodwill repairs costs to future ppl.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Maybe he didn't but I did mention the model years that I have seen the issue.
5yrs out of a Euro brass ball valve is, I think a little optimistic. 10yrs is cruisin' for a bruisin. ....

Fact is that as I said, nobody that does maintenance of boats here is changing them in 5 years. 10 years is the time they start to change them unless there is a particular problem that will appear on a proper inspection, that should be made every year after the 5....and 10 year old boats are not sinking due to defective valves.

The problems that were alarming were found on older boas, boats that by American standards are still considered newish, from 10 years on to 20 year's old boats.