jimmy_the_builder
Well-Known Member
Correct. With a standard VP outdrive installation there is no way to close off the raw water intake or outlet.
Can you tell off the top of your head...
- Thread starter MapisM
- Start date
Correct. With a standard VP outdrive installation there is no way to close off the raw water intake or outlet.
markc
Well-Known Member
M, I apologize beforehand for pretending to know your boat, which I've never seen, better than yourself (!), also because I might as well be wrong!
But unless I'm confusing the F165 with some other boats, I believe you missed 3.
1) doesn't the genset have u/w outlet?
2) don't the BPM V-drives have sea water intakes for cooling?
Besides, one F165 I've seen had sea water cooled shaft seals, which would mean another couple of seacocks...
But IIRC they were retrofitted, original installation being with stern glands - so, if that's what you've got, I guess you're correct in not having included them?
PS: didn't you possibly miss also the crew toilet? Or does your boat have the layout with just one bathroom for the two guest cabins?
You are quite right, I was just sitting here thinking that I'd missed the shaft intakes, but now realise I have missed the V drives. I think the genset shares the port exhaust though and is above the WL. Glad I didn't select the 'I know them all absolutely' in the poll!
The boat has a total of 3 toilets, 2 seacocks each. We have the layout with the huge en-suite and another bathroom for the guest cabins to share, plus the crew
Last edited:
BruceK
Well-Known Member
I only have 4 so it's easy not to forget them :encouragement:
snowbird30ds
Well-Known Member
4, 2xengine 2xheads, turned off when leaving the boat at it's mooring and left on when using it.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Interesting question.
There is of course a size problem to start with, since it doesn't take a large boat/engine to go well above a 100mm diameter.
In fact, I can't think of any boat I've ever seen with seacocks on exhaust outlets.
But I did see one (Ferretti 175) whose original installation included large flaps under the hull, inside the u/w exhaust outlets.
The idea was to avoid water reversal into the engines in some peculiar conditions, like with the boat moored in a channel with current going backwards, or rolling a lot while anchored.
In fact, the very low profile e/r didn't allow for exhausts raised enough to positively avoid water reversal.
Trouble is, sometimes those flaps got stuck, and indeed there were a few cases of engines completely wrecked due to water reversal.
So, when I was evaluating that model (considering the scary cost of rebuilding a 12V MTU engine!), I got in touch with CoFeMe, a builder of exhaust system, who confirmed me that they could build exhausts with an incorporated flap, either manually or electrically operated, allowing to seal the exhaust completely while not in use.
Which is clever, when you think about it, because even in boats where water reversal ain't a problem, it's nice to limit the salty air/humidity going backwards to exhaust valves and eventually inside cylinders, during long periods while the boat sits unused.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Aha, I see.
Just in case my previous "just one bathroom" sounded diminishing, actually I very much prefer that type of layout, both on the 165 and on the 57 (which was the evolution based on the same hull).
In fact, both were also available with 3 heads in the cabins area (plus the crew one), but with that layout both the third head and the master en-suite were awfully small.
So, the layout you've got if definitely the best for the boat! :encouragement:
Last edited:
markc
Well-Known Member
Wasn't perceived as diminishing in the slightest! I can see that the master en-suite could make 2 small heads, but they would be very compact. One of the selling features of the boat to me was the near domestic size (small apartment style, obviously) en-suite.
CLB
Well-Known Member
Don't you have a toilet in and a toilet out?
KevB
Well-Known Member
3 in total
toilet in
holding tank out
Genny in
toilet in
holding tank out
Genny in
Hurricane
Well-Known Member
Agreed
Too frightening to be thinking about this.
More importantly, do people close them when the boat is not in use?
KevB
Well-Known Member
With only three to worry about, I do.
sorabain
Well-Known Member
I do, despite the number there are only two access points where I can get to them all, and I should be checking those places before/after going anywhere anyway.
Although necessity could be argued it makes me feel happier: they certainly get well exercised, I might be able to detect some kind of budding problem (feels different, obstructed?), and always aware of their current condition.
Jonmendez
Well-Known Member
Jimmy I have always found this a very scary Volvo idea, and judging by the number of corroded away transom shields I see in my local Volvo dealers rubbish bin, it does always make me look very closely at how well maintained any boats (yours excepted!) that I move with outdrives as there is no way to stop water ingress if any of that fails at sea as the access is rubbish to the inside of the transom shield and with no easy way to get a bung in.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Yes
Boats built to Italian RINA classification,there’s a seacock on every through the hull skin fitting irrespective of WL
There’s also water tight bulk heads too ( unlike that Pershing that whacked a buoy of The CI) + much more a lot of this stuff is hidden / subtle detail - not immediately apparent at 1 st glance .
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Are Pershings not built to RINA classification then? Ferretti claim that their boats are and of course Pershing is part of the Ferretti group
jimmy_the_builder
Well-Known Member
Yep. When I was doing the refit there was some debate about whether to change the plumbing arrangements in order to add valves and a couple of tees, although in truth this was more about providing a facility to make it easier to run a descaler through the coolers than as a prime safety feature. Didn't do it in the end - ran out of time and wanted to just get boating again.
Firefly625
Well-Known Member
no, cutlass bearing and stuffing box. no seacock
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
Deduct two from my total (there's no sea-cocks on the bilge pumps outlets!) But add one as I confess I've got a seacock on the exhaust. (Forgive me mentioning white flappy propulsion, but when sailing in rough seas, I've had water getting all the way back past the swan neck and past the water trap and back into the engine. One engine rebuild is quite enough...)
Portofino
Well-Known Member
“also water tight bulkheads “
For clarity as well as RINA
I was not inferring Pershings were built or not to any classification .
I suspect with bigger more likely charterable or any size for commercial there’s a tendency to build it to a classification.
Water tight bulkheads and sinkabilty If one is breached depend on the boat layout I guess .
A large open plan lower living area inc mid cabin - fwd of a relatively small engine room shoved as aft as they dare , tiny aft cabin layout with connecting bilges or even sealed bilges probably is not gonna float if the fwd part is breached like that Pershing 62 .
Of course the stern gear may have been ripped off - in which case the ER as well as the whole living would flood .
How effective the survival depends on the number and postition of the watertight bulkheadsdown stairs ,If the builder has gone down that route .
The more smaller compartments evenly distributed the better .
But that from a design and indeed sales POV compromises living spaces layout .Large spacious open plan is in .
There arn,t many boats these days with true mid engine room cutting the living in 1/2 ( and reducing the shaft angle )
Straight shaft - no power sapping and extra Kgs V drives .
Even Ferretti s Itama 62 a 1400 Hp 40 knot boat is on V drives and all the “Living “ inc the obligatory mid cabin is one large space Fwds .So like the Pershing 62 hole that huge fwd section - hmm
For clarity I,am not counting saloon / bedroom / head doors as water tight in the true sense of a water tight bulkhead .
A true water tight bulkheads has glands for services to pass , not just a hole gobbled up with mastic , all the bilge compartment s are separate there’s no way water can run about under the sole(s) .
So water tight bulkheads are less effective in a whack a buoy scenario with say a 10/20 /65/ 5 - split .
If the 3rd -65 % living is breached .
How ever in a 25 / 35 / 35 /5 split the 3rd living is 35 % as opposed to 65 %
So here it’s worth doing .
The 4 th - 5 % is the anchor locker on my boat but I realise it may be tiny on most increasing the 3rd living more .
MapisM
Well-Known Member
I'd be curious to learn more about those criterias, if by chance you've got any evidence which you can either link or send me via email, because I've always been puzzled about the exact content of RINA requirements.
My old lady was RINA certified (pre-CE, 1996 vintage) for unrestricted navigation, which in a sense was even less restrictive than CE-A, because in theory she had no cruise limits at all - neither in terms of distance from the coast, nor in terms of sea conditions.
But actually, she had no valves on any skin fittings above the w/l, and she only had 2 w/t compartments - whose usefulness is debatable btw, because neither is capable to keep the boat afloat with the other one flooded... :ambivalence:
Otoh, back in those days, the first owner had to fork out the cost of an SSB radio installation (which he didn't even know how to turn on!) because allegedly RINA required that for boats above 16m LOA. BartW used to have a similar radio on BA, I think for the same reason.
Fast forward to 2004, the DP was also certified by RINA, but "only" for CE/RCD compliance.
Otoh, she has valves on all skin fittings, and four fully w/t compartments - something which I haven't seen on any other P boat of similar size, though I'd be interested to hear if anyone can suggest another.
I believe neither were RINA requirements, just builder's choice.
Other threads that may be of interest
