Check your seacocks!

[Adios]

I spent my working life in Safety Engineering, you will be surprised what people try and get away with.

not entirely surprised, old enough to get the gist of how people are. But still this is a mad one, I bet no one expects to have to change all the sea cocks on their 5 years from new yacht. If HR do it as well then yes I'm surprised because I'd have thought they'd do more to protect their reputation than a more "competitively priced" brand. Imagining the conversation with a charter company before taking my family on a practically new 6 year old boat "ok and have all the boats sea cocks been changed?" Will sound like an idiot but seems like its not a stupid question now.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Relative of mine did a day skipper on a brand new "Benjenbav" and was amazed at the poor build quality and numerous minor faults on the boat. That was a few years ago. I wonder if they are any better worse now.

 

[mjcoon]

Relative of mine did a day skipper on a brand new "Benjenbav" and was amazed at the poor build quality and numerous minor faults on the boat. That was a few years ago. I wonder if they are any better worse now.

I could refer you to my recent report (forums.ybw.com/threads/yacht-cabin-eats-property.584061/) of a strange feature of the furniture in a Beneteau Oceanis 41.1 .

 

[zoidberg]

This problem is a direct consequence of the Recreational Craft Directive. Back in the day when this abomination was being discussed and the UK's delegation of DoT civil servants sought some input from the boating industry, the British Marine Federation and the RYA involved themselves at a little-advertised meeting early one mid-week morning at the Earl's Court Boat Show. No representative of the UK buying/owning public was invited.

Wandering around the show early, I saw a little sign and wandered in. This embryo Directive was seen as a 'Trade Matter' so only trade interests were being considered and only 'trade representatives' were invited. The RYA lobbied for and graciously accepted the role of 'Approved Body'..... another little income stream!

I was able to persuade the civil servant leading the team that UK buyers/owners should have some input, and he agreed a form of consultation which saw the Cruising Association have a voice and designer Richard Woods subsequently appointed to an advisory group.

Unfortunately, the influence and interests of the big European boat manufacturers trumped other small voices, and many 'Design Requirements' that were - to users - retrogressive were incorporated. One of these was a requirement to fit 'escape hatches' into the hulls of large multihulls ( where they were already standard and no changes to existing moulds were needed ) but not to smaller multihulls, where a number of deaths by capsize ( mostly French ) had been recorded. Another was the requirement for through-hull fittings to last but 5 years.... this permitted the large boat manufacturers quietly to fit brass plumbing fittings instead of the expensive gunmetal/bronze that was traditional - which of course lasted a lifetime.

Of course, the buying customers were not told. It was several years later that the issue of dissolving seacocks - 'dezincification' - started to be discovered here and there, and it was in this very YBW forum that the dots were joined, owners and insurers' surveyors/claims adjusters woken up, and the small but potentially lethal scandal given the spotlight of publicity. It was several years later that the large American buying public found out about this 'cost saving' - essentially by a contributor here emailing the editors of two of the US' sailing magazines who, in archetypal 'Murricain style, refused to believe there was such a problem 'because we have not heard of it here before'.....

BTW, the DoT civil servant who led the UK team at the Brussels consultations was an electrical engineer, who had presided over the earlier introduction of the Electrical Safety Directive. He should certainly have spotted the issue of 'dezincification'.....

 

[Adios]

Another was the requirement for through-hull fittings to last 5 years.... this permitted the large boat manufacturers quietly to fit brass plumbing fittings instead of the expensive gunmetal/bronze that was traditional - which of course lasted a lifetime.

Very interesting but although I can see how an idiot might take a minimum to mean a maximum it doesn't really explain the situation. Its like having a 60mph national speed limit on a twisty narrow country lane doesn't make anyone think they actually should do 60mph on it, in all weather, they assess the risk and act accordingly. The analogy fails somewhat in that hull fittings won't give a designer the same educational soiled pants effect of trying to do 60 but still you'd think professional higher end HR type boat builders would know what is dangerously unwise and not to design to the bare minimum.

 

[Bobc]

Very interesting but although I can see how an idiot might take a minimum to mean a maximum it doesn't really explain the situation. Its like having a 60mph national speed limit on a twisty narrow country lane doesn't make anyone think they actually should do 60mph on it, in all weather, they assess the risk and act accordingly. The analogy fails somewhat in that hull fittings won't give a designer the same educational soiled pants effect of trying to do 60 but still you'd think professional higher end HR type boat builders would know what is dangerously unwise and not to design to the bare minimum.

You have to think of thru-hull fittings and seacocks as "service items" that need to be replaced every 5 years, just like the cambelt on your car. If you ignore the service interval on your cambelt, you are likely to wreck the engine and turn the car into scrap. It's no different really.

 

[Adios]

You have to think of thru-hull fittings and seacocks as "service items" that need to be replaced every 5 years, just like the cambelt on your car. If you ignore the service interval on your cambelt, you are likely to wreck the engine and turn the car into scrap. It's no different really.

Didn't used to be the case did it? So then this is shrinkflation and part of the crappification of everything

 

[Sandy]

Very interesting but although I can see how an idiot might take a minimum to mean a maximum it doesn't really explain the situation. Its like having a 60mph national speed limit on a twisty narrow country lane doesn't make anyone think they actually should do 60mph on it, in all weather, they assess the risk and act accordingly. The analogy fails somewhat in that hull fittings won't give a designer the same educational soiled pants effect of trying to do 60 but still you'd think professional higher end HR type boat builders would know what is dangerously unwise and not to design to the bare minimum.

Once a 'standard' has been agreed then manufacturers work to that standard as it is seen as 'best practice'. Having worked in the background of a new ISO standard it was rather eye opening how many organisations work for them to be 'watered down'.

Your national speed limit is just a default rather than having to put signs up on every road.

 

[Bobc]

Didn't used to be the case did it? So then this is shrinkflation and part of the crappification of everything

No different from when cars changed from cam chains to cam belts really. It's called progress allegedly.

In reality, it reduces the cost of manufacture, and also gives the dealers a guaranteed recurring revenue stream.

 

[Biggles Wader]

You have to think of thru-hull fittings and seacocks as "service items" that need to be replaced every 5 years, just like the cambelt on your car. If you ignore the service interval on your cambelt, you are likely to wreck the engine and turn the car into scrap. It's no different really.

I wonder if Bavaria mention this in their sales blurb to new owners or is it in the handbook under routine maintenance? And if they don't bother to mention it would they be liable for failures?

 

[benjenbav]

Perhaps new boats should come with a service schedule as cars do, with indications of what needs to be checked/replaced after X months/Y hours of use?

Maybe they already do. (So far) I haven't ever bought a brand new boat.

 

[Adios]

Once a 'standard' has been agreed then manufacturers work to that standard as it is seen as 'best practice'.

I work in health and there is also a scourge of best practice and resulting protocols which are slavishly followed as its seen as less liable to blame if can point at the followed protocol while risky to do better methods off protocols based on experience. We are doomed to never improve through trying alternatives now. Protocols teach us specifically to not think about what is in front of us. And best practice is often based on a comparison between 2 shit methods, the slightly less shit being then trumpeted as "evidence based best practice". We're going to the dogs fast in all sectors.

it was rather eye opening how many organisations work for them to be 'watered down'.

Its only my hopelessly determined persistence to have a little faith in humanity that brings on the ever so slight surprise when I hear this

 

[RivalRedwing]

lots about this matter in the yachting press a few years back, a surveyor highlighting the matter as I recall. Trouble is that on a pre-purchase survey it is unlikely that the seller will agree to the surveyor hitting his seacocks with a mallet to test them (and should one fail on survey - who is paying for it?) put me right off buying a nearly new or new boat.

 

[DJE]

Could insurers refuse a claim as this is a "gradually operating cause" or some such wording?

 

[mjcoon]

You have to think of thru-hull fittings and seacocks as "service items" that need to be replaced every 5 years, just like the cambelt on your car. If you ignore the service interval on your cambelt, you are likely to wreck the engine and turn the car into scrap. It's no different really.

A few decades ago my employer had a sticky patch and saved money on company cars. I got an upgrade as compensation for getting a hand-me-down instead of new replacement. So of course maintenance had been down to the leasing company and I had the embarrassment of a cambelt breakage on a busy dual-carriageway roundabout in the rush hour. Took a month to fix, then they said would I bring my spare key to collect it as they had lost the original. I said I only ever had the one key (hand-me-down, remember?). Took another month to get a new key. All the while I had hire cars! That's how companies save money...

 

[sailaboutvic]

If you win the lottery, best cross HR off your list as well then

And many more

 

[Tomaret]

Does anybody routinely replace the seacocks on their boat every five years?

 

[dankilb]

Does anybody routinely replace the seacocks on their boat every five years?

The issue with production skin fittings is quite well known though (since the 2000s?). There've been plenty of posts on her advising on / enquiring about / describing replacement.

We did all of ours (Jen 41’) as part of a major refit, inc. deleting 5 redundant through hulls, and went for TruDesign which we’ve been very happy with since afloat and I’d consider an ‘upgrade’ anyway.

Not diminishing the fear and/or shock factor of it… incidentally, the brass ones fitted to ours in 2002 were fine on the outside but very pink between the valve and hull, with one shearing off in that area after a light whack from the hammer.

 

[DJE]

Does anybody routinely replace the seacocks on their boat every five years?

Only of you replace with the same brass rubbish that the builders installed.

 

[SaltyC]

really they all do this?! thats amazing. Is it built in obsolesce? When the boat sinks after 5 years they expect us to buy another one?

Welcome to the disposable society, I understand certain manufacturers feel life expectancy of a yacht should be 10 years.
To Keep GDP up you need to keep buying,
Hamster and wheel come to mind.