Graham376
Well-known member
I've always found insurers to accept a written inspection report as alternative to renewal when age is unknown.
assessing age of standing rigging
- Thread starter syscode
- Start date
I've always found insurers to accept a written inspection report as alternative to renewal when age is unknown.
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
Euromarine for last two boats some other company for previous boat, both wanted rigging replaced if of unknown status. In view of the evidence of long term slack maintenance and lack of skill in maintenance by previous owners, we agreed. I believe Euromarine suggested 10 yearly replacement. Our cruising range is Cornwall to Ireland Scotland or France at least in the long summer break
Pye_End
Well-known member
And that is another bugbear - if there is information on rig failure v's age, why isn't it shared? Does this 10 year theory have any knowledge base, or it a guess?
Tranona
Well-known member
Closer to a guess. Hardly surprising as there are so many variables. Same ambiguity as I implied earlier, one can only make a judgement based on the information available.
Why do people want certainty when there is none? Not a criticism, just an observation.
Even if you could collect data on failures I doubt you would see anything more than general patterns such as the failures more common in older rigging, or failures due to racing, or common in overloaded long distance cruisers. The numbers of failures is small, the causes variable (if known) the design variable, maintenance unknown and so on. Add to that little relevance of lab testing other than ultimate breaking strain to act as a base - and most wire size is over specified anyway.
A statisticians nightmare hence the "judgement in the circumstances" approach. The desire for certainty then changes a judgement into a certainty (10 year life) which gets repeated over and over again until it becomes established fact. All the qualifying provisos get lost on the way.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
The 10 year figure is based on statistical evidence although I suspect they take a pessimistic view as it is not so long ago that the figure was 15. The statistic will include every rig failure, from poor workmanship to lightning strikes, no differentiation between them.
RivalRedwing
Well-known member
How old is the boat?Wow! Many thanks.
Not what I hoped for, but seems like what needed to hear and listen to
---
Will look for a better documented boat
Pye_End
Well-known member
That's interesting. Do you know if this is published? It is often useful to understand the 'detail behind the numbers'. Is it a straight line graph, or is there a point where the risks take off?
Seems to me not unreasonable to ask on what basis these recommendations or even requirements are made, particularly with the cost and hassle involved sometimes. I have changed my rigs 10 to 15 years, but know others who have 20 years or longer, and often find their attitude 'thought provoking'.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
Failures almost always follow the 'bathtub curve', high at low hours as cockups are weeded out, reducing to a fairly straight line parallel to X axis, then rising as age takes over. The curve assumes constant running but with boats this can be anything but true with many rarely going to sea. I guess this means the straight line is fairly high.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
I have never seen published data but insurance companies rely on this sort of information for everything, so it must be quite big business, kept very quiet!
BabaYaga
Well-known member
Instead of a time based replacement schedule, sparsmaker Seldén advises replacement after 20 000 miles sailed (provided that the rig has been correctly tensioned).
Makes a lot more sense IMHO.
Makes a lot more sense IMHO.
Tranona
Well-known member
On that basis most boats would never need to change rigging. That is presumably based on failure of the wire whereas it seems failures of fittings are more common. Suspect the data insurers use is based on patterns of claims rather than any attempt at determining life in the conventional sense. The tendency now seems to be setting conditions at times such as change of ownership or boat reaching a certain age irrespective of ownership pattern when a survey is required. Not unreasonable to suggest critical items like rigging are replaced as failure usually results in a claim that is high in relation to insured value. Particularly pertinent when the boat's value may be low.
Don't think any insurer demands regular replacement, nor rejects claims because rig was over 10 years old. May be wrong on this, but never heard of a rejected claim. The condition seems only to relate to either taking on new risk, or continuing cover on older boats.
Don't think any insurer demands regular replacement, nor rejects claims because rig was over 10 years old. May be wrong on this, but never heard of a rejected claim. The condition seems only to relate to either taking on new risk, or continuing cover on older boats.
RivalRedwing
Well-known member
A nice, convenient round number '10' ...... numbers like that always make me suspicious of the data underlying them
BabaYaga
Well-known member
Not sure of which type of fitting failures you are referring to, but if these fittings (chain plates, mast tangs...?) remain in place, then the 10 years standing rigging renewal requirement appears to be even more pointless and wasteful.
To me this issue seems to be a parallel to your recent post about skin fitting renewals.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
I assumed he was referring to the 20,000 miles sailed statement. There must be many boats that never reach that figure.
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
Failure of swaging is the issue I suspect
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
Unfortunately, the "data" will be claims data held by insurers, and that will be regarded as commercially sensitive. Remember, this isn't about engineering, it's about risk. The only data on which insurers base premiums is their assessment of the risk - and the data they use to assess risk is the historical record of claims. There is also reason to think that the age of rigging - irrespective of miles sailed - is a more important factor than miles sailed. The stresses imposed by sailing, though large, are generally steady. Small but repetitive stresses such as those caused by the wind in the rigging (think of rigging "humming" in a breeze) might well be as important, or even more important - and such small stresses happen no matter where the boat is unless the mast is off.
I wouldn't be surprised if the data insurers use includes data from times when the high tensions advocated for rigging these days weren't general. In the 60s, the usual rule for setting up the tension of rigging was that the lee shrouds should JUST have no tension on them - which is far less tension than modern standards follow. So in those days, there was far more motion in a rig, and so fatigue would accumulate more quickly
WoodyP
Well-known member
GJW required a survey which mentioned the age of rigging which I replaced in 200r4. I had to replace it in 2019 to comply with insurance.
Pye_End
Well-known member
Went through exactly the same with GJW some years ago. GJW said they required everything from the survey to be completed, but when pressed regarding the rig age they backtracked and said this item was not an insurance requirement, so I did not need to do. My rig was just over 10 and not yet 15 at the time. As a matter of interest, what interaction did you have with GJW over this issue? Was this a surveyor telling you to change it or GJW?
chriscallender
Active member
The problem is that the current number truncates the underlying data. Their actuaries have a wealth of information about how much they are likely to have to pay out for rig failures with <10 year old rigging because they just need to look in their past few years of claims in their own company, but no data at all (or much less anyway) about older rigging to be able to answer "how old is really too old?". So we end up at round numbers just because that is is the level of risk they know and are comfortable with. It sort of makes sense from their perspective even if we don't like it.
justanothersailboat
Active member
It all just seems so wasteful. Parts of my standing rigging are 43 and they're fine. Parts are newer. Nothing has stress cracks or corrosion or loose strands and my insurance accepts it on this basis. If a part shows any of those I'll replace it promptly. It's all building up age- and wear-related work-hardening even left on the mooring, but apparently not very quickly even when used. I don't race. The only circumstances in which it would make sense for me to bin the lot and buy new would be if several pieces showed signs of problems in a short time, or if I wanted to change the kind of sailing I do - but if I were planning to go seriously offshore I would buy a different boat anyway. There must be a lot of boatowners with similar circumstances - and some very different; if I were a regular all-weather ocean racer I would be looking at regular replacement. The only solution is to stop wasting giant piles of good steel and move to insurers who don't implement this daft bin-it-whether-good-or-not rule.