How Safe are Windows in the Hull

[38mess]

There was a brand new Bavaria in our marina last summer. It had huge windows in the hull up forward and I remember thinking I don't like the look of that. I got talking to the owner and he showed me the boat. The windows were solid fitted outside the hull, there was no way they would push in. They looked a proper job. But he said his days of beating to windward were over anyway. Not sure how they will be in 40 years time.

 

[lustyd]

Not sure how they will be in 40 years time.

I feel we should all be able to agree that after 40 years the sealant should have been replaced at least once if not a few times. Double glazing on houses is probably a 20 year replacement so why would a boat last longer?

 

[Aja]

Marinas a chock full of owner's boats where the owners do little or no maintenance. Walk round marinas anywhere around our coast and there are owners who step aboard and set off. Some might even know where the engine is - but probably it's not critical to their enjoyment.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

To be fair Baggywrinkle, that would be a lovely boat if properly looked after :-(

Very true, but as the price drops over time, older boats tend to be bought by people on a budget - just at the point in the boats life where the maintenance and re-fit costs really start to take off. They rarely get the TLC they need and end up like the one I linked.

In German they call it a "Wartungsstau" which literally translated is a maintenance backlog - and it just gets worse with use and age unless massive amounts of time and money are invested. There are examples maintaned by people with a money-no-object attitude, but they are very, very, rare.

Add to that that, no matter how beautiful the old boat might be, it will not have all the conveniences of a more modern design - which weighs on it's value too, and feeds the cycle of neglect that eventually ends with a chainsaw and a skip.

Sad but true.

 

[Tranona]

This has the makings of an issue similar to that of (brass) seacocks which complied with the relevant ISO standard for boat manufacture, but that in turn only specified a service life of 7 years (as I recall), even some top end builders were highlighted as using it as a vehicle for cost saving.... Quite a bit about that one in YM a few years ago.

Yes indeed. Same mix of ignorance misinformation and lack of evidence that surrounded that witch hunt.

Just to be clear there is no ISO that covers choice of material for underwater seacocks in boats. Just a statement in the RCD that the item should have a minimum life of five years. No, it was not "cost saving". Builders in Europe had been using brass fittings for decades as that is what was available and had proved satisfactory - and still do. There is no evidence of widespread failures of these items that result in sinking of boats, despite the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands in the bottoms of boats sitting in the water at any one time, many of them all of their lives.

You can see the same type of ignorance and lack of evidence building up here on this subject, mostly (like the seacock issue) arising from the fact that windows in hulls are not found in boats like mine and therefore must be suspect. Followed by finding one example of failure and extrapolating from there. Of course ignoring the fact that failure of windows in yachts even when not in the hull has always been a problem to the extent that storm covers and blanking boards become the norm for many.

All good stuff to keep forums like this active, though.

 

[davidej]

I don’t know why more ocean going cruising boat manufacturers don’t place a coffer dam around the rudder. The top of the rudder is often close to waterline so it need not even be high.

I don’t think many boats that lose their rudders sink because of ingress of water. It is usually because they become uncontrollable and are unable to weather storm conditions.

 

[noelex]

I don’t think many boats that lose their rudders sink because of ingress of water. It is usually because they become uncontrollable and are unable to weather storm conditions.

Yes, I think that’s true, but a damaged lower rudder bearing can let in a lot of water. The rudder has to be able to move so it is a hard leak to plug effectively. A coffer dam solves these issues, and if installed when the boat was manufactured it would be an easy and inexpensive feature to incorporate.

The recent Orca attacks have highlighted the vulnerability of rudders even "strong" designs, but there are plenty of other things that can hit and damage a rudder.

 

[davidej]

I can’t speak for other yachts, but the rudder stock on our Bene is in a tube that goes well above the waterline so should the rudder drop out completely, there would be no ingress.

I think a more common failure pattern is for the stock to break near the bottom bearing. I suppose if it breaks just above the bearing, it could rupture the said tube but probably a one in a million chance.

But like windows falling out, it is such an unlikely failure scenario that I won’t be losing any sleep.

 

[Bobc]

The boat from Dartmouth that lost a window. I am told that the insurance didn't pay out as thry said it was "wear and tear".

 

[justanothersailboat]

Baggywrinkle... I've just given a boat from a decade later than that one most of the catch-up maintenance it needs. A lot. I'm not sure my views on boatowners who don't keep up with maintenance are repeatable in a public forum!

 

[Tranona]

I can’t speak for other yachts, but the rudder stock on our Bene is in a tube that goes well above the waterline so should the rudder drop out completely, there would be no ingress.

I think a more common failure pattern is for the stock to break near the bottom bearing. I suppose if it breaks just above the bearing, it could rupture the said tube but probably a one in a million chance.

But like windows falling out, it is such an unlikely failure scenario that I won’t be losing any sleep.

The "belief" that rudder failure results in water entering the boat largely comes from the Hanse 37 that sank in the Irish Sea about 20 years ago. It was a unique failure and never fully explained even though the rudder was recovered and subjected to intense scrutiny as to the cause of the failure. The stock broke inside the boat above the waterline and as you say most failures are from collision or some other traumatic event and occur below the hull so the upper seal or bellows stays in place. Of course if this seal is breached then water fills the hull and a coffer dam would reduce the chances of water flooding the hull.. Inevitably the report recommended that coffer dams or watertight bulkheads should be considered - and indeed many boats do have them.

However the reality is that such failures are so rare that like hull windows failing, seacocks failing, hose clips failing they fall into the category of "might happen - but don't"

 

[capnsensible]

Anyone got the figures yet for how many yacht 'windows' fell out last week?

 

[boomerangben]

The "belief" that rudder failure results in water entering the boat largely comes from the Hanse 37 that sank in the Irish Sea about 20 years ago. It was a unique failure and never fully explained even though the rudder was recovered and subjected to intense scrutiny as to the cause of the failure. The stock broke inside the boat above the waterline and as you say most failures are from collision or some other traumatic event and occur below the hull so the upper seal or bellows stays in place. Of course if this seal is breached then water fills the hull and a coffer dam would reduce the chances of water flooding the hull.. Inevitably the report recommended that coffer dams or watertight bulkheads should be considered - and indeed many boats do have them.

However the reality is that such failures are so rare that like hull windows failing, seacocks failing, hose clips failing they fall into the category of "might happen - but don't"

We get to know about the thankfully few failures that end up on telly or cause tragic loss, but how many seacocks/hose clips fail during inspection/maintenance and results in a quick call to the marina hoist, get me out quick or the swift application of bung or whatever? The key statistic in preventative maintenance I would imagine is the number of “near misses” that never get reported. This is not a sector that requires detailed reporting so we have no idea how many windows/seacocks/hose clips/rudder stocks/etc etc fail and how often. I think you are trying to point out that these failures are really rare, which they probably are, but just how rare are the near misses that give a much more accurate indication of the reliability of parts? But as boats and their construction gets more complicated, I wonder what instructions owners are given on maintenance when they purchase a boat, what training are given to surveyors and boatyards for identifying potential issues with novel features and how to fix them? If I were ever in the position to drop 1/4 million on a new yacht, I would want to know what the builder recommends for ongoing maintenance and who is qualified to do it. Maybe that is in fact what happens, I don’t know. But if insurance companies are classing window failures as wear and tear, then owners need to be very aware of the service requirements and history of their boats. After all when buy a car, dealerships are falling over themselves to sell service contracts, there’s a service record in the car and when buying second hand, most buyers I imagine take at least passing interest in service history.

 

[lustyd]

but how many seacocks/hose clips fail during inspection/maintenance and results in a quick call to the marina hoist

judging by the lack of threads on here, I'd say relatively close to none. I'm sure it happens, and I'm certain that dezinced stuff is dangerous, but I don't think it's widespread

 

[capnsensible]

I've picked up brand new yachts for onward delivery. The owner manual standards are generally very good. Just largely ignored.

I've also found after many years of coding yachts that all the surveyors I met aren't stupid.

 

[awol]

The boat from Dartmouth that lost a window. I am told that the insurance didn't pay out as thry said it was "wear and tear".

One of the reasons for having insurance that covers "consequential damage". It may not pay for the window but the water damage to the boat would have been covered.

 

[Supertramp]

I (and I'm sure many others) have the original build manual and details for my boat. It is invaluable in understanding what was installed, where and the exact parts used. But it really doesn't address the effects of ageing, especially on hidden parts or the construction details like adhesives or sealants used. Preventative inspection and maintenance is the right way to go and is well understood for rigging, chainplates, keel bolts, engines. The biggest difficulty is deciding how far to go with inspecting and replacing otherwise serviceable working items like masts, rudder shafts, electrics, windows, deck fittings.

Forums like this at least reveal potential problems and solutions. It is up to each owner to decide based on their use, boat age and type and at least in my case ability to repair. A lot of parallels with the risk assessment process used in safety and maintenance assessment.

 

[Tranona]

One of the reasons for having insurance that covers "consequential damage". It may not pay for the window but the water damage to the boat would have been covered.

Quite likely but it really depends on how the policy is written (this one was French) the details of the actual claim then what was rejected and why.

Without these details the comment about "rejection" and "wear and tear" is meaningless.

 

[boomerangben]

judging by the lack of threads on here, I'd say relatively close to none. I'm sure it happens, and I'm certain that dezinced stuff is dangerous, but I don't think it's widespread

Judging by it seems to be a relatively few number of people who post here (a couple of hundred maybe?) and the number of boats worldwide I’m not sure the threads here are necessarily statistically significant.

But think I hear what you are saying and I would, to a certain extent, agree that failures are few and far between. I have no idea what the stats are and am merely trying to make the point that I wonder if anyone really knows what the risk (probability) of a given fitting (be it hose, seacocks, windows etc) failing when you least want it to. But like so many things in sailing, we as skippers get to manage our own risk which is relatively low in what is anecdotally at least a safe past time

 

[38mess]

I feel we should all be able to agree that after 40 years the sealant should have been replaced at least once if not a few times. Double glazing on houses is probably a 20 year replacement so why would a boat last longer?

Good point.