Quicksilver 640 Pilothouse safety warning

[PaulGooch]

A recent thread on another forum has highlighted a potential safety issue with the Quicksilver 640 Pilothouse.

The original post :

I own a Quicksilver 640 pilothouse. I bought her new. Recently, during upgrading the aerator pump system (the earlier models had the pump on the transom), I discovered this

The manufacturer had CUT the plywood so that put the pump “deep” in the transom. That’s incredible!!! Wrong… You can see the proper installation at figure.

Result? THIS. Delamination Wet and Rotten plywood due to bad installation and sealing.

The importer has already sent the pics to Belgium. I don’t know what will happen but I have to replace the rotten core. Could anyone give me any advice. (Transom anatomy of these boats, repairing methods etc)

Thanks

An additional image :

I would suggest that everyone with a QS or Arvor check that all of their through hull fittings have a seacock at the hull. It is a legal requirement of the RCD (CE regs if you like) that all through hull fittings below the waterline be fitted with a sea cock.

If anyone finds a pump that is fitted "countersunk" through the transom like Nikous, that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. I would contact IBS and demand a new hull/boat.

If anyone finds that there is no sea cock at the hull (there may be one after the pump, but that's a waste of time), i would again contact IBS and demand that they pay to have one correctly installed, with the pump mounted remotely after the sea cock. This is a legal requirement and they must comply.

In the meantime, anyone using a Quicksilver/Arvor without a sea cock, make sure you have a wooden bung to hand, suitable to bang up the pump inlet from the outside of the transom.

 

[gjgm]

A recent thread on another forum has highlighted a potential safety issue with the Quicksilver 640 Pilothouse.

The original post :



An additional image :

I would suggest that everyone with a QS or Arvor check that all of their through hull fittings have a seacock at the hull. It is a legal requirement of the RCD (CE regs if you like) that all through hull fittings below the waterline be fitted with a sea cock.

If anyone finds a pump that is fitted "countersunk" through the transom like Nikous, that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. I would contact IBS and demand a new hull/boat.

If anyone finds that there is no sea cock at the hull (there may be one after the pump, but that's a waste of time), i would again contact IBS and demand that they pay to have one correctly installed, with the pump mounted remotely after the sea cock. This is a legal requirement and they must comply.

In the meantime, anyone using a Quicksilver/Arvor without a sea cock, make sure you have a wooden bung to hand, suitable to bang up the pump inlet from the outside of the transom.

Two issues,surely. First, that there isnt a seacock. Second that the fitting was crudely fitted without protecting the core from water. The second might be lousy fitting, but hardly demands a new hull/boat. Just needs fixing;perfectly do-able.

 

[PaulGooch]

Two issues,surely. First, that there isnt a seacock. Second that the fitting was crudely fitted without protecting the core from water. The second might be lousy fitting, but hardly demands a new hull/boat. Just needs fixing;perfectly do-able.

Yes, i agree there are two issues.

1) The unbelievably bad installation, where the transom has been hacked.

2) The issue of sea cocks. It's been said by some that there QS has a sea cock. But, i'm led to believe that the seacock is fitted after the pump. This is wrong !! That "tap" does not qualify as a sea cock. A sea cock should be fitted directly to the hull, every thing else should be fitted after the sea cock. In this particular instance, there is no sea cock at all.

In my opinion, any Quicksilver that has this pump fitted without the legally required sea cock should be recalled and rectified.

In the case of this bad installation (and any others that were fitted like this, if any) i think the hull should be replaced. They clearly fitted the pump very badly, which has allowed water ingress into the transom core, causing it to delaminate and rot. The hull design would mean that the transom needs cutting out from the rear. Whilst this is indeed a doable job i don't see why the owner should have to put up with such a repair. It would be a different story if it was an old boat that needed repairing as a result of it's age. I don't see why an owner of a five year old boat should have to have such a repair, due to the manufacturers poor fitting of a pump.

Just my opinion, which shouldn't be allowed distract from the original message, which is that owners of these boats should check the pump installations.

 

[sailorman]

Yes, i agree there are two issues.

1) The unbelievably bad installation, where the transom has been hacked.

2) The issue of sea cocks. It's been said by some that there QS has a sea cock. But, i'm led to believe that the seacock is fitted after the pump. This is wrong !! That "tap" does not qualify as a sea cock. A sea cock should be fitted directly to the hull, every thing else should be fitted after the sea cock. In this particular instance, there is no sea cock at all.

In my opinion, any Quicksilver that has this pump fitted without the legally required sea cock should be recalled and rectified.

In the case of this bad installation (and any others that were fitted like this, if any) i think the hull should be replaced. They clearly fitted the pump very badly, which has allowed water ingress into the transom core, causing it to delaminate and rot. The hull design would mean that the transom needs cutting out from the rear. Whilst this is indeed a doable job i don't see why the owner should have to put up with such a repair. It would be a different story if it was an old boat that needed repairing as a result of it's age. I don't see why an owner of a five year old boat should have to have such a repair, due to the manufacturers poor fitting of a pump.

Just my opinion, which shouldn't be allowed distract from the original message, which is that owners of these boats should check the pump installations.

Where does the CE mark fit into this situation as it cant conform surely

 

[oldgit]

Where does the CE mark fit into this situation as it cant conform surely

de ja Vue......Had an early 1970s Regal with exactly the same problem,(one of many inc alloy fuel tank sitting directly on hull stringers which corroded underneath )although in my case the entire transom had suffered due to ingress of water over many many years.
It would appear even after 40 years boat builders are still making the same old mistakes again and again just to save a couple of quid.

 

[PaulGooch]

Where does the CE mark fit into this situation as it cant conform surely

It doesn't conform.

The RCD states :

Openings in hull, deck and superstructure

3.4. Openings in hull, deck(s) and superstructure shall not impair the structural integrity of the craft or its weathertight integrity when closed.

*

Windows, portlights, doors and hatchcovers shall withstand the water pressure likely to be encountered in their specific position, as well as pointloads applied by the weight of persons moving on deck.
*

Through hull fittings designed to allow water passage into the hull or out of the hull, below the waterline corresponding to the manufacturer’s maximum recommended load according to section 3.6, shall be fitted with shutoff means which shall be readily accessible.

 

[PaulGooch]

Should have said, this isn't a dig at the brand in general, just a heads up for any owners.

A couple of Quicksilver 640 owners (2008 and 2009 models) have now confirmed that their boats have correctly fitted pumps, with the required sea cock.

Still worth checking though.

 

[sailorman]

It doesn't conform.

The RCD states :

Thats a No then Not fit for purpose

 

[gjgm]

Yes, i agree there are two issues.

1) The unbelievably bad installation, where the transom has been hacked.

2) The issue of sea cocks. It's been said by some that there QS has a sea cock. But, i'm led to believe that the seacock is fitted after the pump. This is wrong !! That "tap" does not qualify as a sea cock. A sea cock should be fitted directly to the hull, every thing else should be fitted after the sea cock. In this particular instance, there is no sea cock at all.

In my opinion, any Quicksilver that has this pump fitted without the legally required sea cock should be recalled and rectified.

In the case of this bad installation (and any others that were fitted like this, if any) i think the hull should be replaced. They clearly fitted the pump very badly, which has allowed water ingress into the transom core, causing it to delaminate and rot. The hull design would mean that the transom needs cutting out from the rear. Whilst this is indeed a doable job i don't see why the owner should have to put up with such a repair. It would be a different story if it was an old boat that needed repairing as a result of it's age. I don't see why an owner of a five year old boat should have to have such a repair, due to the manufacturers poor fitting of a pump.

Just my opinion, which shouldn't be allowed distract from the original message, which is that owners of these boats should check the pump installations.

How can they replace the hull? Keep the chairs, perhaps

I agree its very poor, but it isnt that hard to remedy the transom issues. Thats one of the great things about GRP. I merely suggest that since the repair is not onerous and would make the hull sound, I cant see why you could claim an entire new hull/boat.

 

[PaulGooch]

How can they replace the hull? Keep the chairs, perhaps

I agree its very poor, but it isnt that hard to remedy the transom issues. Thats one of the great things about GRP. I merely suggest that since the repair is not onerous and would make the hull sound, I cant see why you could claim an entire new hull/boat.

I'm saying, if it were my boat, i wouldn't be happy having the transom hacked out and rebuilt. GRP or not, it wouldn't be the same as it would have been were it built correctly in the first place. I don't see why i should accept "second best" because a manufacturer made a mess of building it in the first place.

That's my opinion and how i would proceed if i owned a boat like this. You would of course be entitled to proceed how you saw fit.

 

[gjgm]

I'm saying, if it were my boat, i wouldn't be happy having the transom hacked out and rebuilt. GRP or not, it wouldn't be the same as it would have been were it built correctly in the first place. I don't see why i should accept "second best" because a manufacturer made a mess of building it in the first place.

That's my opinion and how i would proceed if i owned a boat like this. You would of course be entitled to proceed how you saw fit.

Sure, I would like a new boat too; I am less sure that the builder wouldnt agree to fix it, and that legally that would be adequate .
Of course , maybe its a great dealer and builder who will agree, but from the outset, all I was suggesting was that the customer demanding a whole new boat for maybe a £1000 repair might not get his Xmas wish !
Good for him if he does.

 

[MikeJ42]

It doesn't conform.
Openings in hull, deck and superstructure

3.4. Openings in hull, deck(s) and superstructure shall not impair the structural integrity of the craft or its weathertight integrity when closed.

*

Windows, portlights, doors and hatchcovers shall withstand the water pressure likely to be encountered in their specific position, as well as pointloads applied by the weight of persons moving on deck.
*

Through hull fittings designed to allow water passage into the hull or out of the hull, below the waterline corresponding to the manufacturer’s maximum recommended load according to section 3.6, shall be fitted with shutoff means which shall be readily accessible.

The RCD states :

How does the last bit work with outdrives?

 

[stelican]

How does the last bit work with outdrives?

Volvo Penta use to fit a shut off valve to the seawater inlet pipe on the inside of the transom plate, Not any longer dont know how they get away with it
On the exhaust side they were probably relying on all the exhaust valves being closed on the cylinder head!