Actual Terms and Conditions stipulating Rigging replacement.

[Refueler]

I don't think an insurance company would make that a general policy requirement as to do so may create the implication that rigging in their view is good for 10 years when clearly that is not always the case. What they will ask is that the craft is maintained in a condition to suit its requirements and then the onus is on the owner whether the rigging is hard worked and 5 years old or lightly worked and 20 years old.....

Valid point

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I don't think an insurance company would make that a general policy requirement as to do so may create the implication that rigging in their view is good for 10 years when clearly that is not always the case. What they will ask is that the craft is maintained in a condition to suit its requirements and then the onus is on the owner whether the rigging is hard worked and 5 years old or lightly worked and 20 years old.....

When I read the policy I noted that there was a point that covers the issue:
"Section 4 - Exclusions which apply to the whole of this policy.
We do not cover loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly caused by, contributed to or arising
from: • Wear and tear, lack of maintenance"

It's the first exclusion on page 13. Now, given that there is a general and long-standing understanding (it was well understood in 2007 when I bought Capricious) that rigging has a finite life, and that 10 years is widely regarded as a safe life for rigging, then a rigging failure after 10 years COULD fall under that exclusion.

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the 10 year span, merely noting that it is a widely accepted measure of the life of stainless rigging. There have been long discussions about the effect of metal fatigue on rigging, even when it is not subject to sailing loads (the cyclic loads resulting from the boat's motion, wind stresses and vibration are almost certainly more significant than loads from sailing, which tend to be constant, and such loads don't go away when the boat is moored or berthed). So the "10 year" rule does have some basis.

I don't think any non-destructive testing that is available to a rigger or a yacht owner would detect metal fatigue prior to failure; the stranding etc. that others have mentioned will happen only shortly before the wire breaks.

 

[Refueler]

Its not like a cambelt on the 1600cc Ford Cortina / Capri which if not changed at stipulated mileage, lead to dropped valves and holed pistons - that was based on actual evidence and fact. Basically whether driven every day or once a week - the stipulation was agregate mileage.

Here we have an item - rigging - that suffers a varied life depending on what owner does with the boat.

 

[Daydream believer]

Here we have an item - rigging - that suffers a varied life depending on what owner does with the boat.

Do you think that wind on rigging of different tension may cause vibration & thus have some effect on its life? That being regardless of actual miles sailed. I have often had to deal with a backstay humming like a guitar in winds of 12kts & above. The tension is just the weight of the boom hanging on it. ( I have a 150mm line with a hook, which retains the movement of the boom when in the berth)

 

[Refueler]

Of course vibration and any other physical affects life of not only the rigging itself - but fastenings and any other part it resonates through.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Do you think that wind on rigging of different tension may cause vibration & thus have some effect on its life? That being regardless of actual miles sailed. I have often had to deal with a backstay humming like a guitar in winds of 12kts & above. The tension is just the weight of the boom hanging on it. ( I have a 150mm line with a hook, which retains the movement of the boom when in the berth)

There was a long discussion on here involving people like @vyv_cox and @JumbleDuck - both experts in metallurgy and materials science - and the consensus was that the incidental motion from wind and waves was a far greater contributor to metal fatigue in rigging than the stresses of sailing. Metal fatigue results from cyclic stresses; steady stresses don't contribute. As an example, imagine trying to break a thin copper wire. If you pull on it, you probably won't be able to break it. But if you bend it backward and forwards a few times, it will soon fracture. That's effectively how metal fatigue works . There was also general agreement that no practicable method of non-destructive testing could detect metal fatigue until it got to the point where the rigging was already seriously compromised. If you can see broken strands, then you've already lost at least 5% of the strength of the wire; how many more strands are on the point of letting go?

 

[Daydream believer]

So the point is, that it "could" be another reason to limit the replacement cycle of the rig.

 

[Refueler]

Its interesting to consider what can cause rig failure - but that pulls the thread away from intent.

The thread is to find out if any Insurance Co actually states how many years / miles for replacement of rigging.

 

[Daydream believer]

Its interesting to consider what can cause rig failure - but that pulls the thread away from intent.

The thread is to find out if any Insurance Co actually states how many years / miles for replacement of rigging.

You might like it to be like that, but conversations evolve if they are to remain interesting to the participants. Then someone gets another round in & we talk about something totally different

 

[Pye_End]

It's the first exclusion on page 13. Now, given that there is a general and long-standing understanding (it was well understood in 2007 when I bought Capricious) that rigging has a finite life, and that 10 years is widely regarded as a safe life for rigging, then a rigging failure after 10 years COULD fall under that exclusion.

I contacted my insurance company after an insurance survey said to change the rig as it was 10 years old. The insurance company said that this was not necessary for cover to be in place, only that it should be kept in good condition - ie. age was not recognised as a prerequisite for good condition. Might not be the same for other insurance companies. Perhaps there is no real data to support the '10 year rule' hypothesis - nobody has ever come up with empirical evidence as far as I can see?

 

[Jon magowan]

It is easy for an insurance company to stipulate an arbitrary limit on the life of rigging. It costs them nothing and reduces their risk.
The fault is with us, who puts business in the direction of these people.
Surely we should only use companies like mine (GJW) who told me that so long as the boat is properly maintained then they were happy with that.
Perhaps as a community we should be pushing back against this ridiculous notion that rigging has a fixed life of 10 years.

 

[Daydream believer]

If one keeps the rigging for, say, 15 years and it were to fail, how does one prove it has been properly maintained, without documentation from a professional rigger to support the claim

 

[Jon magowan]

Ok, well then let’s get a rigger to check it annually after 10 years. That actually makes reasonable sense. Of course the rigger can’t guarantee anything but it could appease the insurance company to some extent and would be an awful lot less expensive.

 

[ean_p]

Ok, well then let’s get a rigger to check it annually after 10 years. That actually makes reasonable sense. Of course the rigger can’t guarantee anything but it could appease the insurance company to some extent and would be an awful lot less expensive.

Isn't that exactly what is required as a counter should the insurance company be resistant, indeed it doesn't even need to be a rigger what ever one of those is, it just needs to be a competent person......now what makes someone competent...?

 

[Pye_End]

Ok, well then let’s get a rigger to check it annually after 10 years. That actually makes reasonable sense. Of course the rigger can’t guarantee anything but it could appease the insurance company to some extent and would be an awful lot less expensive.

Don't know anyone who feels this need for this reason, or heard of any pressure from insurance companies to require it.

However, to get the rig checked before going off adventuring and wanting the rig to stay up is another matter.

The pressure seems to be coming from users rather than from 'above'?