Dodgy through hull picture - should I panic?

SKipperStu - you must have X-ray eyes :)


Looking again at the 'corners' of the flange/back nut, does it look as if the failure has been caused by the tail being moved towards about halfpast four from the centre of the oval ? The broken part seems to start at the corner, where the casting / injection mould changes direction

Can my old eyes see that the facet to the bottom left appears to have the screw thread exposed behind it ? The facet might be leaning outwards at that point. If that is the case, then the justification for a speedy detailed investigation and remedy is even stronger.

And more inspection seems to show the the contiguous facet towards three o'clock is also missing the upstand.
 
There have been several insurance threads where this type of corrosion / failure situation has been discussed in terms of T&Cs of policy. If you do nothing and the boat were to sink, are you still covered now that you have raised this potential issue? People smarter than me will be able to confirm if I'm talking nonesense.

Anders
 
OP needs to go back and take a pic that is in focus.

'Wear tear and corrosion' is typically (almost always) excluded from insurance cover. But the BIG question is whether consequential damages are covered - if they are not and the thru hull fails and the boat sinks you have no cover at all. but if consequential damages are covered the insurance will pay for the boat minus the thru hull value. Most policies do NOT cover consequential damages but a very few good ones do. It is perhaps the single most important thing to know about your policy.
 
vyv_cox said:
My initial action would be to heave heavily on the hose tail, working it from side to side to ensure that the skin fitting does not fracture. That will pretty much guarantee you one season. If this approach is not sufficient for your peace of mind I would replace the skin fitting and hose tail with bronze, not terribly expensive from ASAP and others.

See Brass and Bronze on my website for more info and examples.
Click to expand...

My through hulls passed the hammer test on survey but it was suggested that at 25 years old I change them anyway. 12 months later, one broke up when I tried to remove it. If there's any sign of pink, change it if only for peace of mind.

View attachment 48083View attachment 48084
 
sarabande said:
SKipperStu - you must have X-ray eyes :)


Looking again at the 'corners' of the flange/back nut, does it look as if the failure has been caused by the tail being moved towards about halfpast four from the centre of the oval ? The broken part seems to start at the corner, where the casting / injection mould changes direction

Can my old eyes see that the facet to the bottom left appears to have the screw thread exposed behind it ? The facet might be leaning outwards at that point. If that is the case, then the justification for a speedy detailed investigation and remedy is even stronger.

And more inspection seems to show the the contiguous facet towards three o'clock is also missing the upstand.
Click to expand...
My tenner is waiting!
:)
S
 
Anders_P42 said:
There have been several insurance threads where this type of corrosion / failure situation has been discussed in terms of T&Cs of policy. If you do nothing and the boat were to sink, are you still covered now that you have raised this potential issue? People smarter than me will be able to confirm if I'm talking nonesense.

Anders
Click to expand...

No, certainly not nonsense. If an owner is aware of a problem and does nothing to remedy the situation and insurers find out, then there's no cover. Unfortunately for him, the OP has published details.
 
I'm with Stu in that to my eyes the brass nut looks undamaged and with only mild surface corrosion - as found on thousands of boats. However, the picture's not great. One which is actually focussed on the nut rather than the hose would be good and then we can see what's what. I don't think anyone is seriously disagreeing about what to do given any particular state of the fitting - we're just assuming different states from a fuzzy picture.

(I'd also wonder about the apparent lack of backing pad or other support for a fairly tall and narrow assembly that provides plenty of potential leverage, but that's par for the course with modernish boats. As long as it's not in a locker or otherwise vulnerable to getting bashed it'll do.)

Pete
 
If you ever have any doubt over the security of a skin fitting here is the only series of questions you ever need to ask yourself:
1) Do I have the bilge pumping capacity to comfortably cope with the volume of water caused by a skin fitting failure? ( Hint: The answer to this is probably no)
2) Can I survive long enough swimming in UK waters for rescuers to get to me if I were forced to abandon a quickly sinking vessel where the flooded battery compartment prevented me from sending an effective Mayday? (Another hint: The answer is probably no)
3) Do I value my life at less than the cost of a new skin fitting and a few hours on a slipway? ( I'm guessing not?)

If you answer no to any of the above questions It is probably best to put her up a slip somewhere and change out the fitting.
 
Or 4) do I have a tapered wooden plug?
The argument about insurance: the op has not identified himself or the boat.
cryan said:
If you ever have any doubt over the security of a skin fitting here is the only series of questions you ever need to ask yourself:
1) Do I have the bilge pumping capacity to comfortably cope with the volume of water caused by a skin fitting failure? ( Hint: The answer to this is probably no)
2) Can I survive long enough swimming in UK waters for rescuers to get to me if I were forced to abandon a quickly sinking vessel where the flooded battery compartment prevented me from sending an effective Mayday? (Another hint: The answer is probably no)
3) Do I value my life at less than the cost of a new skin fitting and a few hours on a slipway? ( I'm guessing not?)

If you answer no to any of the above questions It is probably best to put her up a slip somewhere and change out the fitting.
Click to expand...
 
Don't understand all this havering - the photo is indecisive, but the downside is so much more serious than the upside, that only a very careless or manic optimist would waste breath arguing about what he's seeing - my opinion is aligned with VicS. Though I do agree that the likelihood of ferric staining is sufficiently remote to be dismissed, it too is irrelevant to the OPs original request.
 
Black Box theory... if you have doubts about something like a thru hull, change it. I'm putting my money where my mouth is on this one and changing every below the waterline thru hull on my boat as they are unknown age and material.
 
Start with an in focus picture. If it is still uncertain, I would put a smartphone there on video & waggle the valve HARD. Any sign of movement would lead me to replace it, otherwise I might wait for lift out. But my boat is in the water, I don't think that the OP hasn't said if he is in or out. If already out then removal is relatively little hassle.

I wish my bilges were that clean, but then SR is 41 years old, not 10.
 
Searush said:
I wish my bilges were that clean, but then SR is 41 years old, not 10.
Click to expand...

The boat is actually 20 years old - but it is (I believe) a Nauticat and the skin fitting will be glassed in completely and the hull is both solid GRP and very thick at that point. Lot of fuss about nothing!
 
I was assuming that the boat was still in the water, in which case this idea of "waggling" is crazy. The OP needs to get a better photo or mirror arrangement, and having cleaned the area, get a better look at it.
 
It would be nice if the OP could contribute to some of the debate about his question. I've been keeping up with the thread but maybe I have missed his replies to questions and suggestions?
 
Sorry for being late in keeping up, there is this dreadful thing called work that gets in the way of my sailing ambitions! Anyway, here is a photographic update. I've been down in the bilge with a wire brush and a camera and have taken a close up picture after the clean up, see below.

And thanks for all of your interest and comment, it helps in making the decision to replace or not. I have in my mind a plan to replace all through hull fittings and attendant valves but am not finally decided. Having done the clean up exercise on this particular valve I'm feeling less inclined as it looks in good shape to me. Any thoughts on that?

And to answer a few of the questions above:

1) The boat is a Nauticat 39
2) She is eighteen years in commission
3) Afloat until Easter then out for hull blast and potentially seacock change
4) Away sailing for whole of next summer so keen that any issues like this are resolved

I have been in contact with the manufacturer of the valves (this type now discontinued) and he states that the valve is brass. However I am finding that a little odd given Vyv's comments above and also Nauticat reported to me that the valves were "something like saltwater resistant brass" which points to DZR. There is also the language issue as both aforementioned companies are Finnish so there is some detail lost in the translation.

Thanks again for all your input here is the photo:

SC%20closeup.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Tim Good
Help: HFL Generator 8v output?
2
Replies
23
Views
379
geem
geem

Share this page

Top