Visit our Popular Forums

**s/v Jedi** · 23-04-2009, 21:40

Bob,

Installation depends on your hull material and lay-up. Make sure you buy the Forespar seacocks, not the valves. While you are at it, buy the forespar thread-to-hose adapters as these are also glass reinforced.

Don't use you old bronze seacocks or valves as I am sure they are severely damaged too.

I must admit that I use 5200 for installing under the waterline although I know a poly-sulfate would be better (3M 101 or Life-caulk).

Let me know any specific question you have.

cheers,
Nick.

**GordMay** · 24-04-2009, 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

... I must admit that I use 5200 for installing under the waterline although I know a poly-sulfate would be better (3M 101 or Life-caulk).
Nick.

Why would polysulfide be preferred to polyurethane, in this application?

**s/v Jedi** · 24-04-2009, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Why would polysulfide be preferred to polyurethane, in this application?

Because you don't need the adhesive power when using mechanical fasteners. I don't think that you can find anything among the sealants regularly used by boaters that beats a polysulfide for bedding parts that use mechanical fasteners... above or under water. Another plus is when you want to disassemble it...

ciao!
Nick.

bobfnbw · 25-04-2009, 16:37

Thanks Nick.
Still waiting on the insurance surveyor, but once the work gets started I will talk to my installer about that.
Yeah, I figure all the thru hulls need to be replaced now. Can't chance it now.
That would be 12..... ouch.

The port side seems ok, but while the boat is out of the water might as well get rid of them all.
My seacocks are all in pretty well protected places, so I have no fear that someting might dislodge and ruin the seacock. Except for possible the engine room where I have 4 cockpit drains and if the engine comes loose, or a future genset, I will have enough problems. The forespar marelon are almost as strong as the traditional bronze according to what I have read. If they don't work out, i'll replace them in 5-10 years. If I was living aboard full time, I would/might go with bronze, perko or groco. But since I am not, plastic it is.

CarlF · 25-04-2009, 16:59

Can anyone shed some light on the Forespar "OEM 93 Series" seacocks. See picture. These seem to have a much sturdier handle design and apparently can be disassembled by removing four screws. While they don't thru-bolt, their wide base seems to make them very sturdy.

Why does forespar have these two designs - one with a trouble prone handle - and then suggest one is for OEM sales only?

Carl

Oceansandmts · 25-04-2009, 18:38

I am installing mostly Forespar OEM 93 seacocks. They do seem to have a better handle and updated design and it looks like you can drill the base to use screws as well as the thru-hull to hold them in place. They come in a lot of configurations, you can check them out in the on-line Forespar catalog.

I had some I had bought on Ebay but needed a few more, so I called Forespar and talked like a boatbuilder/repairer (which I am/was) and asked how to buy them. The Forespar rep said to tell him what I needed and give him a credit card number and they would be on the way.

cal40john · 25-04-2009, 18:48

Not sure that I have the answer, but I have looked at their catalog before trying to figure this out. The 93 series meets I.S.O. standards, but if I understand the ABYC codes that they posted at the bottom, the 93 series would not meet ABYC as a flanged seacock has to be securely fastened to the hull. I'm taking that as screwed or bolted not 5200'ed to the boat, but I could be wrong. So their 849 series meets the flanged fastened requirement. Since they claim their thru hulls and ball valves (850 series non-flanged) meet the ABYC force requirements, those seem to also be ABYC acceptable.

http://www.forespar.com/onlineCatalo...lonCatalog.pdf

Willing to be educated by someone that has done more than read Forespar's pdf on this topic.

John

**GordMay** · 26-04-2009, 02:54

[quote=cal40john;277394... the 93 series would not meet ABYC as a flanged seacock has to be securely fastened to the hull. I'm taking that as screwed or bolted not 5200'ed to the boat, but I could be wrong...[/quote]

ABYC H-27 requires that the seacock assembly shall be securely mounted so that it will withstand a 500-pound static force, applied for 30 seconds (in the most vulnerable direction), to the inboard end of its connection fitting without failure of the fitting assembly.
If a flanged seacock is used, it’s flange shall be securely mounted to the hull.

As you can see, the ABYC standard is non-prescriptive (tells you what performance to achieve, but not exactly how to).

Oceansandmts · 26-04-2009, 04:34

Again, it appears to me that the flanges of the 93 series are big enough to be drilled for bolts or screws. In fact, if you look at the underside, there are molded-in round holes in the hollow flange that need only to be drilled through to be used. This is my plan. Sorry, no pic.

CarlF · 26-04-2009, 06:29

Gordmay,

To make sure I understand,

You're saying that because the 93 seacocks do meet the 500lb test (or at least Forespar says they do if properly installed) then they can meet ABYC standards without thrubolts?

Perhaps the "OEM" restriction is a way for Forespar to "cover" themselves against incorrect installations that would not meet the 500lb test? (looking at the diagramn they seem very concerned that the mounting area be reinforced and the thru hull be just the right length)

Carl

colemj · 26-04-2009, 06:44

We have the OEM Forespar seacocks throughout our boat (as originally installed by the manufacturer). It is strange that they list them as OEM, but when I wanted one I called them up and they just sold me one directly without questions. They are a much stronger design than the consumer ones sold in chandleries.

Mark

CarlF · 26-04-2009, 07:09

Have those of you who have used the 93 seacocks had serious problems with stiffness?

I have some of the regular flanged seacocks and I am very careful to cycle them once a month. Even so, they seem to be getting slowly stiffer. I try to grease them on haulout but this seems to help only a little.

Is there something about the 93 design that makes this less of a problem?

Carl

cal40john · 26-04-2009, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

ABYC H-27 requires that the seacock assembly shall be securely mounted so that it will withstand a 500-pound static force, applied for 30 seconds (in the most vulnerable direction), to the inboard end of its connection fitting without failure of the fitting assembly.
If a flanged seacock is used, it’s flange shall be securely mounted to the hull.

As you can see, the ABYC standard is non-prescriptive (tells you what performance to achieve, but not exactly how to).

I understood that whatever you use it has to withstand the static force test. Since the Forepar products pass that part (according to their lit.), now if you use a flanged seacock you have to additionally meet the non-prescriptive, non-defined securely mounted part. Now I will say that since securely mounted is not defined, I have decided that since 5200 can achieve bonds that pulls up part of the boat with it when you remove it, I say that meets securely mounted. The installation would have passed the static force test with or without the 5200. Now I take the boat to be surveyed, what call is the surveyor going to make on my seacock install?

John

cal40john · 26-04-2009, 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceansandmts

Again, it appears to me that the flanges of the 93 series are big enough to be drilled for bolts or screws. In fact, if you look at the underside, there are molded-in round holes in the hollow flange that need only to be drilled through to be used. This is my plan. Sorry, no pic.

I was working on my post when you posted, so I hadn't seen it. So the flange is hollow? As in the flanged part is a (relatively) thin L shaped cross section?

John