Follow on Insurance Thread

rubberduck

rubberduck

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Nov 2006
Messages
8,525
Location
essex
www.atlas-courier-express.co.uk
Having read about seacock failures on the insurance thread, we are going to replace the two on our boat this winter as they are now five years old, what about the Raymarine speed wheel thingy, which seems to be the only other possible weak point ? I am presuming the integrity of the outdrives is covered by Volvo main dealer service. Thinking about it, is the bowthruster a risk area ?
 
I would visually inspect the inside of the boat for water by the bow thruster and by the Raymarine log and only if there is a leak detected would I investigate further.

Brass skin fittings and valves last only 5 to 7 years unless there are stray 240v currents present and then they last a lot less, so should be replaced at 5 to 7 years by good DZR units.

DZR and bronze skin fittings and valves should be removed from the boat and dismantled and only in perfect condition re used, in reality a 7 year programme to refit new DZR fittings is a good practice.
 
Bandit said:
I would visually inspect the inside of the boat for water by the bow thruster and by the Raymarine log and only if there is a leak detected would I investigate further.

Brass skin fittings and valves last only 5 to 7 years unless there are stray 240v currents present and then they last a lot less, so should be replaced at 5 to 7 years by good DZR units.

DZR and bronze skin fittings and valves should be removed from the boat and dismantled and only in perfect condition re used, in reality a 7 year programme to refit new DZR fittings is a good practice.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I am pretty sure that the seacocks on our 22 year old Broom are the originals.......I guess they don't make them like they used to :)

On a serious note I would be concerned about replacing perfectly good and obviously good quality fittings with new and maybe poorer quality fittings. Doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
My Broom is 30 years old but other than the WC Outlets they are also original however apart from the main engine inlets they are "Blake's" so I think that says a lot, I do however intend to replace the engine inlets this year as they are gate valves which I don't like.
 
Greg2 said:
Interesting. I am pretty sure that the seacocks on our 22 year old Broom are the originals.......I guess they don't make them like they used to :)

On a serious note I would be concerned about replacing perfectly good and obviously good quality fittings with new and maybe poorer quality fittings. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Thet do, but its cheaper to fit ones that last 5 1/2 years to conform to the directive. Sheer madness on the interpretation / meaning of the directive
 
capsco said:
My Broom is 30 years old but other than the WC Outlets they are also original however apart from the main engine inlets they are "Blake's" so I think that says a lot, I do however intend to replace the engine inlets this year as they are gate valves which I don't like.
Click to expand...
I have Elanco seals ( Landermores )all original & all as good as new. all are disassembled & serviced each spring.
 
The one to check in particular is the heads outlet. Ours was the only one that had gone (and surveyor said this was common) and got replaced with Marelon.
 
Bandit said:
DZR and bronze skin fittings and valves should be removed from the boat and dismantled and only in perfect condition re used, in reality a 7 year programme to refit new DZR fittings is a good practice.
Click to expand...

You said this on the other thread and still haven't provided anything to justify it.

Pete
 
sailorman said:
Probably due to chemicals being used to clean just like at home
Click to expand...

It could be the cause but the surveyor and repairer put it down to the other stuff that passes that way. I don't suppose they had any proof at all of that (or even if there is any scientific validity to that theory) but some of the human product might hang around a bit more than the (fairly rare) use of chemicals. I don't pretend to be a metalurgist but I am a little surprised that human and/or chemicals could cause it but there we are.

Whatever the reason, it seems there is empirical evidence that - all other things being equal - it is one that it is most vulnerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top