Checking through hulls have not turned to copper

[Rivers & creeks]

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 - I can't see any reference in that post to a request to find every company and builder - just a simple suggestion to publish the list of manufacturers you do have the info for. But like lots of people have said, it's a great thread and fantastic to see YM doing some investigative journalism.

 

[paulstevens]

Update

So far we have two fittings dezincified to failure removed from production boats less than 5 years old. Unfortunately the two builders involved both claim that they use DZR or bronze fittings. The failed components are in our possession and will be sent away for analysis and all other possibilities checked to confirm as far as possible that the fittings are the originals as fitted by the builders.

You will appreciate that production builders are not queueing up with information.

I will be providing some follow up and suggested advice for boatowners and potential owners in the next issue and as I understand it YM will be publishing case histories and further advice, but please give us time, this is such a wide ranging issue. I will not be offering any comment here because there is always the risk that hard information which quite a few folk may appreciate gets lost or misunderstood in the general noise and banter. In the meantime, most of the questions raised can actually be answered by reading the article and visiting the websites provided for reference. The Copper Development Association site has all the European designation numbers for identifying materials, these begin with CW. Unfortunately of course most fittings are not marked.

 

[adam2b]

Thanks Black Kipper, fully recovered from my telling off now!

We all know that production boats cost a lot less than their equivalent from low volume manufacturers, and we all know and accept that there are reasons why, economies of scale and build efficiency are some of it and the use of less expensive materials another. Generally they are bought by sailors, and there are a lot of us I'm afraid, who just want to buy a finished 'product' to go sailing in and we assume it will provide lots of family fun and not sink. Yes my cockpit sole squeeks a bit more then it does on the Najad on the next berth, but I paid half the price, fair enough.

I am entirely sure that every nut, bolt and fitting, whether it moves or not, will meet the appropriate RCD. The article inference however is that some fittings may not be fit for purpose, regardless of RCD, and might need a bit of close inspection now and again.

As a relative newcomer to sailing I spend enough time as it is worrying about all things I might run into, onto or over and I assumed that if the boat did sink I would have something to do with it. The idea that it might develop holes all on its own hadn't really crossed my mind.

If I learn that Dufour were using DZR in 2008 I'll stop worrying about it, If I learn that they didn't I'll get the bits changed next winter along with my very pink Volvo 2 blade folding prop!

If somebody is actually brave enough to put their heads above the trenches and say that non DZR skin fittings/seacocks are not fit for purpose it would be interesting, it won't happen and I understand why. In the meantime Snooks' suggestion to share any info we can get hold of is the best we've got.

So far the dealer is awaiting a response from the Manufacturer.

 

[PeterR]

Thanks Black Kipper, fully recovered from my telling off now!

We all know that production boats cost a lot less than their equivalent from low volume manufacturers, and we all know and accept that there are reasons why, economies of scale and build efficiency are some of it and the use of less expensive materials another. Generally they are bought by sailors, and there are a lot of us I'm afraid, who just want to buy a finished 'product' to go sailing in and we assume it will provide lots of family fun and not sink. Yes my cockpit sole squeeks a bit more then it does on the Najad on the next berth, but I paid half the price, fair enough.

I am entirely sure that every nut, bolt and fitting, whether it moves or not, will meet the appropriate RCD. The article inference however is that some fittings may not be fit for purpose, regardless of RCD, and might need a bit of close inspection now and again.

As a relative newcomer to sailing I spend enough time as it is worrying about all things I might run into, onto or over and I assumed that if the boat did sink I would have something to do with it. The idea that it might develop holes all on its own hadn't really crossed my mind.

If I learn that Dufour were using DZR in 2008 I'll stop worrying about it, If I learn that they didn't I'll get the bits changed next winter along with my very pink Volvo 2 blade folding prop!

If somebody is actually brave enough to put their heads above the trenches and say that non DZR skin fittings/seacocks are not fit for purpose it would be interesting, it won't happen and I understand why. In the meantime Snooks' suggestion to share any info we can get hold of is the best we've got.

So far the dealer is awaiting a response from the Manufacturer.

I asked our local Dufour dealer what sort of fittings were used today. He did not know for sure but thought they were ordinary brass. He was totally unconcerned and was not about to start asking the factory. He said they had never replaced a fitting other than because they had seized. Given that they have only been a Dufour agent for 3 years I cannot say that response filled me with confidence. If you find out more please let me know.

 

[Lady Campanula]

Insurance implications

There's another important point to be made here.

As far as I know, every marina and moorings contract has a requirement for insurance cover for 'removal of wreck in event of sinking'. Every marine insurance contract I've ever seen offers cover for the costs of 'wreck removal'.

The marine insurers are certainly aware of, and concerned about, this 'brass skin fittings' problem, and I expect them to insist on inspections and replacement, before the year is out - or that element of cover will be withdrawn.

Consider the implications of that!

And don't congratulate the yachting journalists too soon. This problem has been known about within the industry for some time, and to my knowledge not a single yachting journalist, writing in a New or Used Boat Test, has ever mentioned this.... until now.

 

[Rivers & creeks]

And don't congratulate the yachting journalists too soon. This problem has been known about within the industry for some time, and to my knowledge not a single yachting journalist, writing in a New or Used Boat Test, has ever mentioned this.... until now.

I agree but it is a small positive change. I gave up on YM when it became clear that the editorial material was there primarily to drive advertising space - maybe now we are seeing a shift to true reporting. Perhaps I could suggest that instead of new boat reviews fretting over whether the chart table faces fore or aft (yawn) there could be a routine assessment on the quality of the skin fittings? I'm not holding my breath

 

[adam2b]

I just re read the article just to get a clear understanding of what I need to look for next time I'm on board, a couple of points are starting to become clear;

From the article;

‘Cheaper brass fittings are know to fail with catastrophic results. Yet in recent years, some of the world’s leading boatbuilders have been using ordinary brass fittings below the waterline.

[But we are not going to tell you who???]

To continue:

‘These typically consist of 40% zinc and are patently not suitable for use below the water line.’

We still have something called the sale of goods act in the UK and supposing one of the UK’s leading yacht surveyors was asked to make an expert witness statement that ordinary brass fittings were not suitable or fit for purpose, I’m confident that a court would likely accept that and could force the manufacturers (or dealers unfortunately) to replace the parts or cover any damage incurred as a result of its not being fit for purpose. Good job he didn’t do that then!

So yes I think we are getting close to having a really usefull article and some ‘true reporting’ but until we are told a few more details we’ll carry on assuming that the lack of teeth is down to advertising revenue, I think we realise all magazines rely on this revenue for survival. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, it’s a fact of business and I would rather YM survived.

On the other hand they can tell us the facts, Paul also says “My Colleague John Ross and I wrote to several major boatbuilders, asking how they could justify installing ordinary CW617N brass fittings in new boats. We received no response from the yacht builders”

So go on then WHO WERE THEY?

 

[snooks]

[But we are not going to tell you who???]

This one is still under investigation, any more than that I don't want to say at the moment

In the article we mentioned Bavaria, Elan and Sealine use none bronze/DZR, they are some of the worlds leading boat builders

Seriously though there are others and until we are 100% certain (and this is what we're investigating) we can't say, for obvious reasons.

 

[Tranona]

I just re read the article just to get a clear understanding of what I need to look for next time I'm on board, a couple of points are starting to become clear;

From the article;

‘Cheaper brass fittings are know to fail with catastrophic results. Yet in recent years, some of the world’s leading boatbuilders have been using ordinary brass fittings below the waterline.

[But we are not going to tell you who???]

To continue:

‘These typically consist of 40% zinc and are patently not suitable for use below the water line.’

We still have something called the sale of goods act in the UK and supposing one of the UK’s leading yacht surveyors was asked to make an expert witness statement that ordinary brass fittings were not suitable or fit for purpose, I’m confident that a court would likely accept that and could force the manufacturers (or dealers unfortunately) to replace the parts or cover any damage incurred as a result of its not being fit for purpose. Good job he didn’t do that then!

So yes I think we are getting close to having a really usefull article and some ‘true reporting’ but until we are told a few more details we’ll carry on assuming that the lack of teeth is down to advertising revenue, I think we realise all magazines rely on this revenue for survival. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, it’s a fact of business and I would rather YM survived.

On the other hand they can tell us the facts, Paul also says “My Colleague John Ross and I wrote to several major boatbuilders, asking how they could justify installing ordinary CW617N brass fittings in new boats. We received no response from the yacht builders”

So go on then WHO WERE THEY?

Two issues here. First highly unlikely any claim based on fitness for purpose unlikely to get anywhere if the fittings are in accordance with the ISO.

Second, although it is clear that brass is not as durable as DZR or bronze, if we believe what is said and it has been used since 1998, then where is the rash of boats that have sunk because of failures? If the life is only 5 years then literally thousands of boats are past that date and still floating.

I would prefer the investigative journalists spent their time determining what has happened rather than speculating on what might!

 

[adam2b]

Two issues here. First highly unlikely any claim based on fitness for purpose unlikely to get anywhere if the fittings are in accordance with the ISO.

Nonsense. If CW617N is not resistant to dezincification and therefore should not be used in salt water it can't be claimed to meet the ISO, if it corroded badly or failed within 5 years there is no way a manufacturer could argue that it did.

I agree that most of the boats on our marina seem to be still floating, even if they are more than five years old. As galvanic corrosion seems to be quit high around us I don't give two hoots about ISO or RCD's, if my seacocks turn out to be ordinary CW617N, they are getting changed next year whatever their condition!

 

[Danny Jo]

Pictures of dezincified through-hull

I regret that the rush to get Danny Jo ready for launch prevented me from reading this fascinating thread, or indeed the YM article.

Two things persuaded me to replace all six seacocks this year: first, failure to remove the nut securing the broken handle of one seacock; second, finding that the T-piece connected to another seacock by a now completely dezincified male thread came away in the hand of the valiant forum member helping me identify the cause of a long-standing slow leak.

Replacing the 3/4" and 1" seacocks with replacement bronze seacocks was no problem. However one the of larger (1 1/2"?) seacocks was so badly corroded that it could not be persuaded to unscrew, and the through-hull turned in the wooden hull. So I removed the flange of the through hull with an angle-grinder and replaced both with mylar seacocks.

Having looked more closely at the dezincification revealed by my work with the angle-grinder, I have added replacement of the other through hulls to the list of future tasks.

The white crusting visible at the margins of the dezincified metal has developed over the two weeks or so since removal and is presumably a reflection of its porosity.

The state of the underlying layers of mahogany and cedar revealed during the replacement of the two larger through-hulls persuaded me that this was likely to be the first time they had been replaced in Danny Jo's 23-year life, and greatly increased my respect for the benefits of wood-epoxy construction. Spot the flanges! (The stippled copper around the opening is, er, stippled coppercoat).

One of the Mylar seacocks gave me quite a shock, though. On first opening after immersion, quite a bit of water came in via the handle, so I shut it again quickly. It was as dry as a bone when I reopened it, so presumably an 0-ring had not bedded down.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

>>However, as the YM article points out, they may not have the fire resistance for use in engine rooms.

.

Daft YM comment. Do they think that a bronze seacock connected to a plastic pipe is any safer in an engine room fire?

 

[paulstevens]

Daft YM comment. Do they think that a bronze seacock connected to a plastic pipe is any safer in an engine room fire?

Not a YM comment but mine as author of the article. As I explained earlier in the thread the thinking behind this is that even a small fire in the engine space will disable a plastic seacock, whereas a metal one will still be operable after the fire has been extinguished. The hoses will be destroyed in both cases but my money is on metal seacocks in this unwelcome scenario, but its a free country.



For the record many people in the industry have been aware of this situation for a long time but the difficulties of getting sufficient information in order to be in a position to challenge the builders is frankly insurmountable for an individual. I however reached a point where I decided to just get on with it and did this in the knowledgebox feature at LIBS, at various seminars including to the Insurance Industry, and finally with the article.

I've been somewhat shaken by some of the responses on this forum , i've been accused of just about everything from being a scaremonger to an incompetent expert witness.

To me its a very simple issue, I do not believe it should be necessary for the buyer of a boat or chandlery components to have any knowledge of materials, he or she should be able to rely upon the builder or supplier to provide the appropriate material. In the UK as has been quite rightly pointed out, we mainly sail our boats in saltwater and as such its reasonable to expect appropriate materials to be used. How silly that a Cat A Ocean or Cat B Offshore boat be fitted with materials only suitable for use in fresh water. Even worse that the ISO standard is so bad that guilty parties can attempt to hide behind it. In my experience so far UK consumer law is no help either, it offers no protection unless the problem is soon after purchase. I am not a lawyer however and would be grateful to hear any informed opinions as to how the law might be better used.
As a surveyor I have also known for some time that builders are not always telling the truth over this. Hopefully when everything is proven and double checked they will be challenged but it is not something I am going to broadcast here, even if you use capital letters.

What is most incomprehensible to me is that this bizarre situation is totally avoidable by just doing what our fathers did long before all these ridiculous standards and categories.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

For the record many people in the industry have been aware of this situation for a long time but the difficulties of getting sufficient information in order to be in a position to challenge the builders is frankly insurmountable for an individual. I however reached a point where I decided to just get on with it and did this in the knowledgebox feature at LIBS, at various seminars including to the Insurance Industry, and finally with the article.

In the PBO forum, I noted that the MAIB "Random Harvest" investigation clearly states on page 12 that in the opinion of the MAIB, the use of Brass below the waterline neither meets ISO 9093 nor the Recreational Craft Directive. On the basis of this, one could realistically challenge the "fitness for purpose" of a craft purporting to meet the RCD, and yet using brass in contact with salt water.

 

[Lady Campanula]

'Where there's muck, there's brass...'

For the record many people in the industry have been aware of this situation for a long time but the difficulties of getting sufficient information in order to be in a position to challenge the builders is frankly insurmountable for an individual. I however reached a point where I decided to just get on with it....

I've been somewhat shaken by some of the responses on this forum....

...the buyer of a boat or chandlery components ....should be able to rely upon the builder or supplier to provide the appropriate material.

As a surveyor I have also known for some time that builders are not always telling the truth over this.

....this bizarre situation is totally avoidable.

I for one am pleased, Paul Stevens, that you had the courage of your convictions over publication of the scandalous 'brass skin fittings' situation in a recent YM issue, and that editor Paul Gelder had the courage to print it.

There has been growing concern among UK marine insurance brokers, and I, for one, questioned why the boating public were being kept in the dark about the issue and its obvious implications. Respected marine consultant/metallurgist Vyv Cox gave wings to the issue with his support, and interest spread fast - including into the USA. It is clear you've been following a similar path.

We know that 'SI' agreements don't come about overnight. Delegates to the various committees of the ISO and their lenghty deliberations report back to and consult with their sponsoring bodies - in this case, most probably, the British Marine Federation and the DTI. This issue was known and understood before any of us got wind of it. Certainly, the insurers - as a trade group - were aware of the implications last year, and they work hand-in-glove with surveyors.

What is concerning is the silence from your own professional body, the YBDSA. I can appreciate why no individual insurance broker or surveyor would want to put his commercial head above the parapet, preferring to leave that to someone else, and you have done this community a signal service by your own 'whistleblowing' actions in this regard.

Might I suggest that a joint statement of 'best practice' between your professional body and the main insurers active in the UK leisure boating market - published by your favourite sailing mag - might do much to repair the damage to reputation and public confidence....?

 

[Plomong]

Will photograph lettering on all fittings tomorrow, and report back on what I find.

In a previous post I promised to post some photos of my seacocks, and a promise is a promise, so here is one of the heads inlet water pipe. All others except the 2 engine water inlets are identical, except for size, of course.

Boat: a Beneteau Oceanis 323, 2006 vintage.

Plomong

 

[Stork_III]

In a previous post I promised to post some photos of my seacocks, and a promise is a promise, so here is one of the heads inlet water pipe. All others except the 2 engine water inlets are identical, except for size, of course.

Boat: a Beneteau Oceanis 323, 2006 vintage.

Plomong

Not DZR then, can't see the CR logo.

 

[PeterR]

This gets more confusing by the minute. The YM article author says that all silver coloured ball valves with red handles are nickel plated ordinary brass. However, the lead to the article also says that Beneteau claim to be fitting DZR valves. Have they upgraded their spec, are they telling porkies or do silver coloured DZR fittings exist?

 

[vyv_cox]

This gets more confusing by the minute. The YM article author says that all silver coloured ball valves with red handles are nickel plated ordinary brass. However, the lead to the article also says that Beneteau claim to be fitting DZR valves. Have they upgraded their spec, are they telling porkies or do silver coloured DZR fittings exist?

The valve is not necessarily original equipment, although it would be difficult to think of a reason for changing a DZR one for brass. In general I would agree that plated valves are unlikely to be the better material. I also suggest, based solely on colour, that whereas the skin fitting may be bronze the elbow almost certainly is not.

 

[SimbaDog]

The valve is not necessarily original equipment, although it would be difficult to think of a reason for changing a DZR one for brass. In general I would agree that plated valves are unlikely to be the better material. I also suggest, based solely on colour, that whereas the skin fitting may be bronze the elbow almost certainly is not.

That image matches the heads inlet seacock on my Beneteau 2006, definitely oe fitment