Checking through hulls have not turned to copper

[AntarcticPilot]

Its equally hard for surveyors to get info too. I wish there was an easy and comfortable answer to this issue but there is not.
I have in my possession failed components that prove brass is being used widely, its as simple as that. A situation has been allowed to develop that is so incredible that most folk believe it couldn't be true, but unfortunately it is.
Personally I think YM are to be commended for publishing this, it is going to upset a lot of powerful people. However they can only do so much, it is also up to boat owners to contact builders and lobby all and sundry for a change to this ridiculous ISO standard.

And please, I cannot emphasise enough, it is the spec of all 3 components in the modern "seacock" assembly that is required, ie the through hull, valve, and tailpipe. There are European designations for the materials, ie CW617N for brass, it is these numbers that are required, not vague statements like "the material is from the DZR family".
it is also the case that the vast majority of silver coloured ballvalves with red handles are ordinary brass and the majority of readers here will have those on their boats. Some may claim special treatments to make them corrosion resistant but none measure up to the standard for DZR. As I said in the article these may perform OK in the absence of electrolytic action but put bluntly there are much better materials available so who want to take the risk?

If you wish changes in the ISO standard, the proper way of getting the standard revised is through the relevant BSI technical committee. This should be findable on the BSI web-site. You will have to make a business case, and be prepared for the process to take several years - the revision cycle of ISO standards is usually 5 years. All standards are subject to public review; sadly one of the difficulties the standards world has is in getting useful comments back from people who may not realize that the standard applies to them!

 

[snooks]

I'll try to get a web page up today with the manufacturers we know about, and we can update as we know more.

Funnily enough it's turns out this isn't as easy as first thought, as we now know that some of the manufacturers who use DZR or bronze now, might not have always, so we're going to have to try to find some dates out before I can put up a page, otherwise the list will be very short.

As if that isn't bad enough, there's no way of telling whether a previous owner has unknowingly installed a brass seacock/skin fitting.

So if you've owned your yacht from new, you should be able to find out from your manufacturer, once you do, PM me and I'll add it to the list.

If you haven't, it might be a good time to have a thorough look at every one

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Can I point out that I have emailed Oyster and they assure me that all the hull fittings are bronze and not brass. Bronze should not dezincify so I wonder what it was that the surveyor found wrong.

I guess there is no harm is going round scraping off the anti-foul on all the through hull fittings to see what they look like. However if they are all bronze I should not find changes to copper. If I do I will start to worry.....

TudorSailor

I did'nt really think that Oyster would be using brass & I would'nt worry if you see the presence of copper......bronze is an alloy of mainly copper & with a little bit of tin added.
Personally I'd be happy to see copper present as it is very malleable....as apposed to brass which becomes brittle because of the zinc content.
Anyway knowing all these problems for a number of years now I have much preferred anything made of nylon.....& can't understand why they ar'nt mass producing these things what with the benefits of plastic injection molding

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Just to be clear I am not the surveyor who surveyed the OP's boat and of course would not expect Oyster to be using brass for their fittings below the waterline. I did however write the article in YM and it is not a load of journalists looking for a headline. This is a serious wide ranging issue and the yachting public have a right to expect better from the offending builders and suppliers. Some builders are quite clearly confused at best or lying at worst and I intend to see this put right.

Good for you.
I agree with you now I have heard that big builders are using brass.I can't see any excuse for it & think that you should name & shame.
It used to be that big manufacturers built their reputation on quality.Whatever happened to that?

 

[vyv_cox]

Personally I'd be happy to see copper present as it is very malleable....as apposed to brass which becomes brittle because of the zinc content.

Be careful you are not giving false information on this subject. There is loads of evidence that contradicts what you are saying. The copper that remains after dezincification is porous, because the zinc that was there has been leached away, and crumbles under very low loads.

In serious cases in propellers made from manganese bronze (another version of brass), copper remaining where dezincification has taken place is chipped off by water flow.

The Random Harvest case has already been mentioned several times in this thread. Failure of the fitting there was due to dezincification, leaving the copper with insufficient strength to sustain water pressure.

 

[KellysEye]

>Doesn't nylon absorb water and swell?

MARELON®, a glass reinforced nylon composite. It exceeds standards for use set by the U.L. (Underwriters Laboratory) and the American Boat and Yacht Council (A.B.Y.C.).

Our Marelons were fitted to the the boat in the early eighties, they have swollen yet.

 

[BlondeBimbo]

At the severe risk of being flamed…

What do you really believe the bout builders are doing wrong?

They are building boats to the latest mandatory standards which specify under the RCD to use through the hull fittings in accordance to a particular standard.

Can you just imagine the press and public response if they decided not to comply with the RCD in various areas?

On can just see the headline “Luxury boat sank causing the deaths of 5 recreational sailors due to substandard fittings” with the sub-line “xxx yachts decided to use bronze fittings rather than fittings to the ISO standard ………”

(the standard contains more than just the material in use)

The issue is that fundamentally we have all been used to having through the hull fitting which are expected to last a lifetime – whereas the recently introduced standards are expecting these to be replaceable parts.

Either the underlying standards need to be changed to ensure that these are lifetime fitments, or we need to change our approach and treat them as replaceable parts, the standard assumes the latter, as consumers we haven’t caught up with the change!

We are all familiar with replacing the brakes on our cars because they have a limited lifespan - as do the sails, engine filters, batteries………on our boats.

Ultimately the problem to me is that we have unwittingly become the victims of not being up to date with industry changes, the industry should have publicised the change of critical components from lifetime to consumable parts.

Once we all know that these should be replaced – it should become part of our routine - as individuals we can then choose the type of fitting and the associated life expectancy.

The problem of course was/is we all assumed there had been no change to the lifetime philosophy for these parts.

So what other areas have similar changes in philosophy?

BB

 

[BlondeBimbo]

I forgot to say, I would also guess “we” as consumers have ultimately driven this change.

Since "we" have pushed suppliers to provide cheaper replacement parts, accepting the use of brass (we would just change it after ~ 4 years).

Thus it has become the norm, sufficiently so that when the standards were drafted, it was considered acceptable to have these parts as replaceable and not lifetime.

Perhaps not everyone of course, but sufficient to lead the industry towards this.

BB

 

[vyv_cox]

critical components

This is surely the whole point. There are few critical parts on a boat and the expectation is that they will last a reasonable length of time between inspections. Few of us are surprised when our impellers fail twice per season, little is lost and we just change it. Failure of a brass skin fitting could conceivably occur in less than two years in some circumstances, stray electric currents for example, causing the boat to sink. The MAIB made strong recommendations in the Random Harvest case: they are totally ignored by the current standard.

 

[BlondeBimbo]

This is surely the whole point. There are few critical parts on a boat and the expectation is that they will last a reasonable length of time between inspections. Few of us are surprised when our impellers fail twice per season, little is lost and we just change it. Failure of a brass skin fitting could conceivably occur in less than two years in some circumstances, stray electric currents for example, causing the boat to sink. The MAIB made strong recommendations in the Random Harvest case: they are totally ignored by the current standard.

Whilst I agree to an extent - this is my whole point, we have an expectation that "critical components" should last a lifetime when it comes to boats, yet car brakes, tyres etc are also critical components, which we expect to replace (and check) in a reasonable length of time (10k miles or 1 year....).

It is our expectation that differs from the standards - either could be at fault!

In answer to my own question above "What do you really believe the bout builders are doing wrong?" it wouldn't be around the fittings used, but that they haven't notified us (the consumer) of the need to inspect.

- Perhaps they have in their "maintenance instructions" - I have never bought a new boat (other than a tender) - perhaps it is clear in there that "This yacht is supplied in accordance with the RCD, as such it is essential that all through the hull fittings are checked at the start and end of each season by a competent person/surveyor as their life expectancy would be no longer than 5 years and could be considerably shorter"..

As second-hand buyers perhaps we don't receive this and continue in blind ignorance (until this report - thanks IPC)

BB

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Be careful you are not giving false information on this subject. There is loads of evidence that contradicts what you are saying. The copper that remains after dezincification is porous, because the zinc that was there has been leached away, and crumbles under very low loads.

In serious cases in propellers made from manganese bronze (another version of brass), copper remaining where dezincification has taken place is chipped off by water flow.

The Random Harvest case has already been mentioned several times in this thread. Failure of the fitting there was due to dezincification, leaving the copper with insufficient strength to sustain water pressure.

I was talking about bronze.Bronze does not contain zinc.It is an alloy of copper & tin.Manganese Bronze has nothing in common with brass as far as I know.

 

[vyv_cox]

I was talking about bronze.Bronze does not contain zinc.It is an alloy of copper & tin.Manganese Bronze has nothing in common with brass as far as I know.

Manganese Bronze is brass. 58 Cu, 1 Sn, 38 Zn, 1 Fe, 1 Al, 2 Mn in one version, although you may find others. That's why propellers suffer from dezincification. See http://coxengineering.co.uk/BandB.aspx for an article on the subject.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Whilst I agree to an extent - this is my whole point, we have an expectation that "critical components" should last a lifetime when it comes to boats, yet car brakes, tyres etc are also critical components, which we expect to replace (and check) in a reasonable length of time (10k miles or 1 year....).

It is our expectation that differs from the standards - either could be at fault!

In answer to my own question above "What do you really believe the bout builders are doing wrong?" it wouldn't be around the fittings used, but that they haven't notified us (the consumer) of the need to inspect.

- Perhaps they have in their "maintenance instructions" - I have never bought a new boat (other than a tender) - perhaps it is clear in there that "This yacht is supplied in accordance with the RCD, as such it is essential that all through the hull fittings are checked at the start and end of each season by a competent person/surveyor as their life expectancy would be no longer than 5 years and could be considerably shorter"..

As second-hand buyers perhaps we don't receive this and continue in blind ignorance (until this report - thanks IPC)

BB

With respect I think your argument is complete tripe.My bronze through hull fittings are probably the age of the boat.....about fifty years.My rigging wires are probably the same as is my mast.There is a lot of playing on peoples fears here.....
You can change your skin fittings every five minutes if you want but the comparison with brake linings is'nt valid.....they are designed to wear out.That is the function of brakes.....Quality in boats.QUALITY that is what we pay for.They are cheap skates & they are putting peoples lives at risk.

Built in obsolescence is not new but I wonder how many Bavaria owners know that not only have they got the possibility of their keels dropping off but that that pales into insignificance alongside the potential for them to loose their lives because they flush the loo to vigorously?

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Manganese Bronze is brass. 58 Cu, 1 Sn, 38 Zn, 1 Fe, 1 Al, 2 Mn in one version, although you may find others. That's why propellers suffer from dezincification. See http://coxengineering.co.uk/BandB.aspx for an article on the subject.

I simply don't believe that manganese bronze is brass or they would call it manganese brass.(never heard that in aircraft engineering or across my very varied career).Sure you can vary the constituents & they do that all the time with most alloys to suite various tasks but this sounds like thread drift........propellers with zinc in them.More dodgy bronze & probably electrolytic action & incorrectly placed anodes thrown in to boot.I can see this out living the anchoring threads

 

[paulstevens]

I simply don't believe that manganese bronze is brass or they would call it manganese brass.(never heard that in aircraft engineering or across my very varied career).Sure you can vary the constituents & they do that all the time with most alloys to suite various tasks but this sounds like thread drift........propellers with zinc in them.More dodgy bronze & probably electrolytic action & incorrectly placed anodes thrown in to boot.I can see this out living the anchoring threads

Good grief! You owe it to all the people here to go away and do some basic research please.

Or are you just trying to wind well meaning folk up?

 

[vyv_cox]

I simply don't believe that manganese bronze is brass or they would call it manganese brass.(never heard that in aircraft engineering or across my very varied career).Sure you can vary the constituents & they do that all the time with most alloys to suite various tasks but this sounds like thread drift........propellers with zinc in them.More dodgy bronze & probably electrolytic action & incorrectly placed anodes thrown in to boot.I can see this out living the anchoring threads

Look it up. While you are at it, look up Admiralty bronze. 70 Cu, 39 Zn, 1 Sn.

 

[Chrissie]

Little example, not all bronzes are bronzes,

 

[VicS]

I simply don't believe that manganese bronze is brass or they would call it manganese brass.

Some suppliers do call it manganese brass!
CZ114:-
57% Cu, 1.2% Pb, 0.75% Sn, 0.75% Fe, 0.8% Al, 1.5% Mn remainder (about 38%) Zn

 

[Tranona]

Built in obsolescence is not new but I wonder how many Bavaria owners know that not only have they got the possibility of their keels dropping off but that that pales into insignificance alongside the potential for them to loose their lives because they flush the loo to vigorously?

Why do you go on repeating this rubbish! Bavaria keels do not regularly fall off (like Jeanneau keels don't - even though one did last year).

All the through hulls on my Bavaria are DZR. I believe the change to brass is recent and from what I have seen is only the ball valves - but can't be sure as it is difficult to tell. I don't condone the use of brass, and the builder always has the choice of exceeding the standard. Interesting that it is only the toilet inlet(s) that are below the waterline. All oulets are on the waterline and the engine inlet is through the leg and none of them are connected to anything else metal.

 

[vyv_cox]

All the through hulls on my Bavaria are DZR. I believe the change to brass is recent and from what I have seen is only the ball valves - but can't be sure as it is difficult to tell. I don't condone the use of brass, and the builder always has the choice of exceeding the standard. Interesting that it is only the toilet inlet(s) that are below the waterline. All oulets are on the waterline and the engine inlet is through the leg and none of them are connected to anything else metal.

Bavaria was one of the companies questioned in the small YM survey. Word from them was that their fittings are not 60/40 brass.