Bavaria seacocks

B

brians

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
505
Visit site
Boat is a 2000 Bavaria yacht just coming up to 15 years old. Should I replace the seacocks as a matter of course?

Has anyone done this on a Bavaria of this vintage and what did they find?

Any advice appreciated.
 
I wouldn't. Check them for visible dezinking and give them a tap with a light hammer (best ashore). If no sign of pinkiness or weakness they're alright for another year.
 
The lack of response would suggest that Bavaria owners have few, if any, problems with their seacocks. Reassuring.
 
I looked in to this a year ago, when I was looking at new boats. All the major manufacturers, Ben/Jen/Bav/Han/etc, currently use brass seacocks in line with CE specs. I could find no horror stories of seacocks falling off within 5 years. Surveyors generally haven't found any more problems with seacocks on volume boats than with other boats. My new Bavaria only has 2 underwater seacocks (heads inlet and outlet), all the others are just above the waterline. I'm not worrying about them!
 
pvb said:
I looked in to this a year ago, when I was looking at new boats. All the major manufacturers, Ben/Jen/Bav/Han/etc, currently use brass seacocks in line with CE specs. I could find no horror stories of seacocks falling off within 5 years. Surveyors generally haven't found any more problems with seacocks on volume boats than with other boats. My new Bavaria only has 2 underwater seacocks (heads inlet and outlet), all the others are just above the waterline. I'm not worrying about them!
Click to expand...

Really?:disgust:
 
On my Bavaria 38 (2000) I had to replace the aft head discharge seacock assembly as the valve had seized, leading to a snapped shaft (nothing to do with poor quality valves and everything to do with not bothering to 'exercise' a difficult to get at valve for too long). When I removed the assembly by cutting through the outer flange on the hull fitting, I examined the internal condition of the fitting and the valve. I found no signs of pitting or loss thickness in the walls of the fitting and no signs of dezincification. The hull fitting was sealed to the outside of the hull by means of a butyl seal and the outer flange was considerably wider than the replacement fitting. That was in 2013 when the fitting was 13 years old, so I really don't think there's much cause for concern.
However, at the same time as I was changing the hull fitting, a friend who owns a Jeannau found that most of his underwater fittings were badly affected by dezincification. I helped him replace them and found that they were almost paper thin in places. This was on a five year old boat. So what? I think the problem with poor quality through hull fittings is mostly confined to later built boats and my be only affects the French boats which used brass non DZR fittings.
 
I have a 2001 Bav 37 from new. As pvb says only 2 seacocks are underwater.I replaced the toilet outlet after 9 years when installing a holding tank. Was still OK but as I had already bought a new DZR one I fitted it as it is a pig to do when all the tank and piping is in place. I would've more concerned about the fittings as that is where dezincification is more likely. Scrape the outside for signs of pinkness and heave on the fittings inside to check security. Best done oiut of the water.
 
duncan99210 said:
I think the problem with poor quality through hull fittings is mostly confined to later built boats and my be only affects the French boats which used brass non DZR fittings.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not true. Surprisingly some of the most upmarket boats are the ones who fit Guidi-made leaded brass seacocks that comply with the EU directive requiring them to last for five years. HR (as macd has said), Malo, Sweden, X-yachts, Naiad are just some of them.

Jeanneau are well known for using the lowest metal grades thay can get away with.
 
To put this into some perspective, the OPs boat is a 2000 build (so 15 years old). Back in the 2000-2005 era, Bav were making about 5,000 boats/yr. I bet that out of the 25,000 boats built over that period, you could probably count the number of failures in your fingers.
 
Graham_Wright said:
Really?:disgust:
Click to expand...

Yes. The RCD only specifies a minimum 5 year life. At the time this simply reflected European practice where plain bras valves were common and not seen as an issue. Just think about the vast number in use across Europe and then ask how many boats have sunk.
The situation in UK was different because bronze and DZR were commonly used and freely available. Of course relatively few mass market boats have been built in the UK since the RCD came in so most modern boats will have brass valves and fittings.

There are proposals to revise the standard now DZR valves and fittings are more widely available and the price differential has narrowed.
 
Vyv, perhaps you could you clarify something?
Apart from the bonding issues which cropped up recently in another thread, the MAIB came down very heavily on the Tonval (= plain brass) fittings on Random Harvest. Would this mean that it's not possible for a vessel so fitted to be coded? Or does it have no direct bearing on coding criteria?
 
My boat is twenty years old and I've decided to replace all through hull fittings, ball valves and hosetails with bronze and DZR. I've no idea if I am wasting my money or not but I'm in to prophylactic maintenance so here we go. The existing fittings are brass, as confirmed by Nauticat and Hogfors (the valve manufacturer) and maybe I'm one of natures worriers, but I will rest easier in the knowledge that it's done. I intend destructively examining the old fittings when they are out of the boat, I will report back my findings.
 
pvb said:
OK, it's a saildrive, so not a through-hull as such.
Click to expand...
Would it let water in if it failed ... yes or no ...

The answer is obviously yes - so should be reviewed as frequently as the others!
I only say this as I had a Bav - 3 seacocks "under water" ... I checked them but never had to replace. The only slightly dodgy bit was the engine intake as we didn't operate it too often as it was a bit inconvenient to lean across the engine to access it - especially if the engine had been running for any length of time. Stupid design! The other stupid design was the heads inlet valve being just below the surface - so any heal to starboard and you couldn't flush the heads ... great thinking!! I was going to relocate the seacock & thru-hull to lower down the hull in the wet locker but never got around to it before we sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

M
Newer Generation Bav 34 anodes
Replies
4
Views
165
macca499
M
S
Removing Seacocks/through hulls that have been glassed in
Replies
15
Views
603
Tranona
T
Y
Quick Aries 1000 anchor windless noisy
Replies
0
Views
101
yotter
Y

Share this page

Top