I would'nt touch such a builder with a barge pole.That goes against everything I have learnt as an engineer & someone that is interested in a good quality product!
Checking through hulls have not turned to copper
- Thread starter tudorsailor
- Start date
I would'nt touch such a builder with a barge pole.That goes against everything I have learnt as an engineer & someone that is interested in a good quality product!
"International Standards for Business, Government and Society."
.In my day as an engineer ISO used to stand for International Standards Organization as in limits & fits.I suppose that is what happens when you let Government & commerce get involved in anything as practical as building boats
The RCD is the EU Recreational Craft Directive of 1998, the one that defines classes A B C D etc. The standard for seacocks and through hull fittings is ISO 9093-1. All the info is in YM June edition
I don't suggest the use of brass, just that modern boat builders build to standards and ISO 9093-1 allows the use of brass sea cocks as it defines the "life" of the component as 5 years, and brass may just survive that long even if the boat is still in its infancy ( and just about to sink due to corroded sea cocks)
My boat is 30 years old and predates both RCD and ISO.
It sounds to me like someone (or body) that classifies boat sizes & uses should'nt stray into construction......& similarly the organization that arctic pilot highlights is not the appropriate body.....or somebody is confusing the two for the sake of a good story.
Anyway the original posters sea cocks don't look like they are made of brass to me but if they are then I would start to be suspicious about the quality of the whole rest of the boat!
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
"International Standards for Business, Government and Society."
In my day as an engineer ISO used to stand for International Standards Organization as in limits & fits.I suppose that is what happens when you let Government & commerce get involved in anything as practical as building boats
ISO is about standards in all areas that are suitable for the application of standards. Most are, as you suggest, in technical areas where it is indeed about specifications and methodology (I am involved in creating and maintaining ISO standards for Geographic Information, an IT related discipline; ISO 19111-2 is one I originated!). But, for example, the ISO 9000 series of standards about quality assurance are, I think, widely accepted as a valid (if widely misunderstood!) use of standards. And, of course, there are examples where the standards process has been subverted by a large vested interest. However, you are wrong to suggest that government is directly involved in the process; the voting members of ISO are the relevant National Standards bodies (BSI is the UK one). BSI is technically a self-funding non-governmental organization, although it obviously has a relationship with relevant government departments. The technical committees of BSI (and other similar national bodies) are recruited from interested bodies; for example, the committee I am on has members from commercial data suppliers, software vendors, government and academia. As well as working with the relevant ISO committee (TC211) it also handles things like address specification (BS7666!), which is of vital interest to many organizations - and is a can of worms!
I should say that the standards process is all about nit-picking attention to detail; think of threads about whether or not you need a registration document to go to France and you have the right idea! Toad would do well in the standards field
Last edited:
ISO is about standards in all areas that are suitable for the application of standards. Most are, as you suggest, in technical areas where it is indeed about specifications and methodology (I am involved in creating and maintaining ISO standards for Geographic Information, an IT related discipline; ISO 19111-2 is one I originated!). But, for example, the ISO 9000 series of standards about quality assurance are, I think, widely accepted as a valid (if widely misunderstood!) use of standards. And, of course, there are examples where the standards process has been subverted by a large vested interest. However, you are wrong to suggest that government is directly involved in the process; the voting members of ISO are the relevant National Standards bodies (BSI is the UK one). BSI is technically a self-funding non-governmental organization, although it obviously has a relationship with relevant government departments. The technical committees of BSI (and other similar national bodies) are recruited from interested bodies; for example, the committee I am on has members from commercial data suppliers, software vendors, government and academia. As well as working with the relevant ISO committee (TC211) it also handles things like address specification (BS7666!), which is of vital interest to many organizations - and is a can of worms!
I should say that the standards process is all about nit-picking attention to detail; think of threads about whether or not you need a registration document to go to France and you have the right idea! Toad would do well in the standards field
The more I think of it the more I realize that is the reason I go sailing......to get away from that type of mess.
I can't help wondering if at the heart of this particular controversy there lies one possibly dodgy surveyor & a load of journalists looking for a headline
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
The more I think of it the more I realize that is the reason I go sailing......to get away from that type of mess.
I can't help wondering if at the heart of this particular controversy there lies one possibly dodgy surveyor & a load of journalists looking for a headline
Here's the thread I mentioned earlier. It seems the source of the current interest may well be insurance companies. The YM article mentions several major builders who are using brass fittings.
Bilgediver
Well-Known Member
Why not do a proper job and use bronze.....It is not as expensive as some suggest.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
As an individual user that is so, although changing every fitting on a biggish boat could cost quite a lot. It appears that several of the big builders, Elan and Bavaria are mentioned by YM, find buying the good stuff to be too expensive. The problem of course, is that a buyer of a boat has no idea what he is getting and, unlike those in an earlier post who can recognise brass by looking at it
eek it is actually very difficult to tell brass from bronze and even more so from DZR.
I've worked with metal all my life & this problem is nothing new but to hear that big manufacturers like Bavaria & Elan use brass in such a safety conscious area is shocking.
Good for the Yachting Press naming & shaming.Maybe it is time for the re-emergence of British manufacturing!
Good for the Yachting Press naming & shaming.Maybe it is time for the re-emergence of British manufacturing!
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>If you want to stop the problem replace bronze with Marelon throughulls. They are made of very hard nylon and are used on metal boats.
>>However, as the YM article points out, they may not have the fire resistance for use in engine rooms.
Interesting point. We have two in the engine room are they are approved by surveyors so I wouldn't worry about it.
>>However, as the YM article points out, they may not have the fire resistance for use in engine rooms.
Interesting point. We have two in the engine room are they are approved by surveyors so I wouldn't worry about it.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
However as Paul Stevens pointed out MCA coding does not allow it. So I guess like many things in this debate there are differences of opinion.
tudorsailor
Well-Known Member
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 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
paulstevens
Well-Known Member
The more I think of it the more I realize that is the reason I go sailing......to get away from that type of mess.
I can't help wondering if at the heart of this particular controversy there lies one possibly dodgy surveyor & a load of journalists looking for a headline
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.
Chrissie
Well-Known Member
As a surveyor I have found brass below the waterline, and fairly frequently, also found de- zinc'ed, usually when surveying older boats that have had skin fittings replaced at least once.
As a chandler it was sometimes difficult to establish the metal content of what I was ordering. I used to get stick from some of my customers because I would only stock the dearer better quality stuff, and refused to have chinease imports in the shop.
Looked at a clients packaging of a new skin fitting yesterday to establish that it wasnt brass, ecs packaging described it as gun metal, and that description doesnt mean a thing to a lot of boat owners, perhaps even ecs dont really know the detailed content of their goods.
As a chandler it was sometimes difficult to establish the metal content of what I was ordering. I used to get stick from some of my customers because I would only stock the dearer better quality stuff, and refused to have chinease imports in the shop.
Looked at a clients packaging of a new skin fitting yesterday to establish that it wasnt brass, ecs packaging described it as gun metal, and that description doesnt mean a thing to a lot of boat owners, perhaps even ecs dont really know the detailed content of their goods.
PeterR
Well-Known Member
The YM article horrified me as I had naively assumed all manufacturers would be using bronze for below water fittings. On my 2008 Dufour I find the actual skin fittings and the tail pipes are some form of plastic. The angled pipes are bronze coloured but unmarked and the ball valves have a silver plating but are again unmarked which the article says means they are almost certainly brass. I cannot test them as the article describes because the only bit you can get at externally is plastic. Short of dismantling each one there is no way to tell what condition they are in.
I called in at Foxes in Ipswich to check prices of DRZ brass/Bronze fittings to find they have very limited stock. They can order it but 90% of the stuff on display is brass.
As I say I find this particularly disturbing because one evening many years ago when I was moored up I watched a yacht close by me sink when one of its seacocks failed.
I called in at Foxes in Ipswich to check prices of DRZ brass/Bronze fittings to find they have very limited stock. They can order it but 90% of the stuff on display is brass.
As I say I find this particularly disturbing because one evening many years ago when I was moored up I watched a yacht close by me sink when one of its seacocks failed.
adam2b
New Member
PeterR, Like you I have a 2008 Dufour and I would quite like to know what the fittings/sea cocks are made with having read 'the article' I know Dufour like to consider that they have slightly higher build standards than many of the main stream production builders but I would still put them among the prime candidates for using the cheaper alternative. Can't find anything on the website, anybody able to enlighten a few paranoid boat owners?????
In fact to be honest if YM are going to publish that sort of article I think they also have a duty to tell us which manufacturers use what, Otherwise how is it helpful? I know there was a mention from Elan and Rustler but that was it.
In fact to be honest if YM are going to publish that sort of article I think they also have a duty to tell us which manufacturers use what, Otherwise how is it helpful? I know there was a mention from Elan and Rustler but that was it.
snooks
Well-Known Member
How many boat manufactures are out there? And you want YM to contact and list them all?
We do have a magazine to put together you know
It's your boat, how about you contact your manufacturer and ask them?
Do you know how hard it was for Dick to get that information out of Beneteau, Rustler, Bavaria, Elan and Cornish Crabber? Surprisingly some came back quicker than others, and would it come to a surprise to learn that not all the boat builders Dick contacted, were in a hurry to get back to us by our deadlines?
Last edited:
paulstevens
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
adam2b
New Member
Fair point. Its Your article in Your magazine, we just read it!
I just thought it would have been more helpful if you finished it by telling us which manufactures you did contact and which did/didn't reply, after all the whole angle seemed to be that 'some' manufacturers may/perhaps be installing possibly substandard fittings (legally).
You can't finger point without pointing fingers, I don't see the point unless you are prepared to follow it up with some information about which manufacturers you think may/may not be cutting corners, It's a cause I think most boat owners would get behind with interest. If its not a cause its not.
(and of course I contacted the manufacturer, thank you for prompting me to do so)
I just thought it would have been more helpful if you finished it by telling us which manufactures you did contact and which did/didn't reply, after all the whole angle seemed to be that 'some' manufacturers may/perhaps be installing possibly substandard fittings (legally).
You can't finger point without pointing fingers, I don't see the point unless you are prepared to follow it up with some information about which manufacturers you think may/may not be cutting corners, It's a cause I think most boat owners would get behind with interest. If its not a cause its not.
(and of course I contacted the manufacturer, thank you for prompting me to do so)
snooks
Well-Known Member
You're right it would have been good to include a list, but there wasn't enough time before going to press.
I'll try to get a web page up today with the manufacturers we know about, and we can update as we know more.
I'll try to get a web page up today with the manufacturers we know about, and we can update as we know more.
Last edited: