Rigging or sea cocks replacement

[Dutch01527]

I am working through a series of improvements / maintenance on my new boat. It is a 1986 Southerly and is generally in good condition.

I am trying to do one or two big items a year. Last year was a electric windlass and AIS.

This year I am considering replacing the standard rigging or the sea cocks. Both items are of uncertain age but at least 10 years old. I suspect that the bronze sea cocks might be original.

Neither have any visible issues or excessive wear but I want to be cautious. The boat is kept on a swing mooring and is unattended for reasonably long periods on occasion.

Budget only stretches to one this year with the second being done next year

Which would you replace first?

 

[xcw]

I would replace the seacocks. One started to leak on my 7 year old Bavaria and on closer inspection it was badly corroded and could have failed at any time. I was subsequently informed that they only have an expected life of 5 years (although clearly often last a lot longer) - that was a great surprise to me

 

[Yealm]

I think I’ve got original bronze ones from over 40 years ago! I got them ‘checked’ when I bought the boat- is this a reliable strategy? Or should they be replaced even if they look fine?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

You can easily ascertain the condition of the seacocks and decide if they need replacing, something that is far more difficult to do for the standing rigging. Replacement of the standing rigging will be more expensive than the seacocks. Do some meaningful investigation of the seacocks, get an estimate for replacement of the standing rigging and turnbuckles then make up your mind.

 

[Boathook]

@Dutch01527 if the seacocks are proper bronze they should last years. If you take one off and there is a hint of 'pink' I would replace using the Trudesign plastic ones. More expensive than the modern metal seacocks but indefinite life I believe. The plastic ones are bigger in size so if space is tight they might not fit.
Might be a good idea to pay a rigger to do an inspection of the standing rigging.

 

[Tranona]

Pretty sure you will find your seacocks are Blakes - at least for the toilet. So no need to replace, just service them by removing the plugs cleaning and re greasing. yachtingmonthly.com/gear/servicing-a-blakes-seacocks-73248 If you have any ball valves for example for the engine water inlet or sink drains then inspect them, give them a bang with a hammer (when out of the water!) and if they are sound and turn freely not really necessary to replace them. If you do then the easiest replacement is DZR metal including the skin fitting and tail. Composite Trudesign are the same size holes, but the body is physically larger so check you have space before going down this route.

 

[Zing]

I am working through a series of improvements / maintenance on my new boat. It is a 1986 Southerly and is generally in good condition.

I am trying to do one or two big items a year. Last year was a electric windlass and AIS.

This year I am considering replacing the standard rigging or the sea cocks. Both items are of uncertain age but at least 10 years old. I suspect that the bronze sea cocks might be original.

Neither have any visible issues or excessive wear but I want to be cautious. The boat is kept on a swing mooring and is unattended for reasonably long periods on occasion.

Budget only stretches to one this year with the second being done next year

Which would you replace first?

You don’t maintain a boat by setting a budget. You fix safety items like these that need fixing regardless of budget. You do preventative or cosmetic maintenance to a degree on a budget. So, if your thru hulls are bad you must replace them and if your rigging checks out as bad it must be replaced. You might have to do both. You check the through-hulls and valves and hosetails by scraping and sanding down to bare metal and look for pink dezincifation. If they are bronze they will be fine, probably also for DZR, but check anyway. The rig at that age is due for a strip down and dye test. Any cracks, then replace that part, or do the lot as a preventative maintenance measure.

 

[lustyd]

You don’t maintain a boat by setting a budget.

I disagree. Sensible people set a budget for proactive maintenance, as the OP has done. Waiting for things to break only results in loss of use of the boat during the season.

 

[Zing]

I disagree. Sensible people set a budget for proactive maintenance, as the OP has done. Waiting for things to break only results in loss of use of the boat during the season.

I said that in essence, just not if safety is an issue, like here, then budgets must be discarded.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

I have my rigging inspected by a rigging contractor every second year. They do a visual assessment and produce a report. Cost has been just under £100. At another marina I paid £175, a good few years ago. To be quite frank, this can be done by yourself, as all they are doing is looking for wear, obvious cracks and failed strands, deck sealant and stuff like that. I found that modern phone cameras are excellent for close up shots of fittings to aid visual crack detection.

Seacock‘s depends what you have fitted and condition. Easier to check.

 

[BabaYaga]

Budget only stretches to one this year with the second being done next year

I would challenge the idea that every item within a category would necessarily have to be replaced at the same intervals. For instance, a forestay inside a furling system is difficult to inspect, unlike the shrouds and backstay. So to me it makes sense to replace the forestay more often, say at 10 years or so, as a precaution.
Regarding through-hulls, I would imagine that material thickness is less in smaller bore fittings (typically intakes), in which case it would also make sense to replace these more often than for instance the fittings for the cockpit drains.

 

[Dutch01527]

Safety is a balanced judgement not an absolute in my opinion. To be 100% safe we would all have a second long range VHF, change main sheet blocks and shakes every couple of years, have the anchor chain tested regularly, carry a 3 inch water pump etc etc.

Very few amateur sailors do those things. We take calculated risks everytime we step on the boat. Different people have a different risk tolerance.

 

[Tranona]

I said that in essence, just not if safety is an issue, like here, then budgets must be discarded.

Not sure that "safety" is really the issue here. Seacocks are easily checked and replaced of necessary. Even dezincified brass rarely fails catastrophically. Likewise with rigging there is little evidence that failure is time related and apart from visual inspection there is no reliable testing method and therefore no way of determining what is "bad". Regular replacement is largely driven by insurance requirements although insurers fail to disclose the basis for their arbitrary time based rules.

 

[Dutch01527]

I would challenge the idea that every item within a category would necessarily have to be replaced at the same intervals. For instance, a forestay inside a furling system is difficult to inspect, unlike the shrouds and backstay. So to me it makes sense to replace the forestay more often, say at 10 years or so, as a precaution.
Regarding through-hulls, I would imagine that material thickness is less in smaller bore fittings (typically intakes), in which case it would also make sense to replace these more often than for instance the fittings for the cockpit drains.

Some good points there. Maybe a seacock and rig detailed inspection is the first step. Then address any issues followed by progressive programme of preventative maintenance.

That being said, if the rigger is up the mast changing forestry and checking the rest the incremental extra cost of doing it all might not be too great. Same is true of lifting the boat out to change sea cocks. Would need quotes to make that decision I think.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Some good points there. Maybe a seacock and rig detailed inspection is the first step. Then address any issues followed by progressive programme of preventative maintenance.

You raise an interesting point or two; Are you capable or feel competent to do the seacock inspection yourself, can you do the visual inspection of the standing rigging yourself looking for broken strands and cracks in tangs and fittings, or do you wish to pay someone to do it. This will have a marked effect as will actually doing the work your self or paying for it to be done on the budget.
All the work from inspection to installation is well within the ability of an average motivated DIYer.

 

[Tranona]

I have my rigging inspected by a rigging contractor every second year. They do a visual assessment and produce a report. Cost has been just under £100. At another marina I paid £175, a good few years ago. To be quite frank, this can be done by yourself, as all they are doing is looking for wear, obvious cracks and failed strands, deck sealant and stuff like that. I found that modern phone cameras are excellent for close up shots of fittings to aid visual crack detection.

Seacock‘s depends what you have fitted and condition. Easier to check.

I have found it difficult to get an inspection and written report from riggers claiming they cannot get insurance to provide reports as this shifts liability for claims onto them.

 

[LittleSister]

@Dutch01527 if the seacocks are proper bronze they should last years. If you take one off and there is a hint of 'pink' I would replace . . .

I think this is over-cautious. If there is a hint of pink, try gently abrading the surface with some e.g. fine-ish wet and dry abrasive paper. You may well find this is only an extremely thin surface layer, and of no structural significance. I've had this on the external flange of a through hull, removed in a minute or two with some wet and dry; and on the cone of a Blakes seacock, which was swiftly eroded away in the normal lapping process with medium grinding paste.

What you must check for and avoid is pinkness - i.e. dezincification - that is more than just a thin surface and continues through the thickness of the metal, which indicates a dangerous weakness of its structural integrity.

 

[LittleSister]

I have found it difficult to get an inspection and written report from riggers claiming they cannot get insurance to provide reports as this shifts liability for claims onto them.

I agree. I expect a rigger will be willing to tell you if they identify something wrong or suspect, but won't tell you in writing it's all fine. The last time I confronted this, I decided by the time I'd paid them to inspect the rig on a boat I'd bought, I might as well replace the standing rigging (of uncertain vintage) and check the fittings etc. while they were at it.

 

[Tranona]

I think this is over-cautious. If there is a hint of pink, try gently abrading the surface with some e.g. fine-ish wet and dry abrasive paper. You may will find this is only an extremely thin surface layer, and of no structural significance. I've had this on the external flange of a through hull, removed in a minute or two with some wet and dry; and on the cone of a Blakes seacock, which was swiftly eroded in the normal lapping process with medium grinding paste.

What you must check for and avoid is pinkness - i.e. dezincification - that is more than just a thin surface and continues through the thickness of the metal, which indicates a dangerous weakness of its structural integrity.

I agree. Little value in external inspection. The vast majority of dezincification occurs in skin fittings and hose tails, usually start in the threads where saltwater rests, rarely in the valves as the yellow metal on ball valves is nit normally exposed to seawater. When I sold my 6 year old Bavaria the surveyor reported dezincification based on visual inspection which found spots on the external flanges. Buyer insisted on them being replaced - totally unnecessary, but how does one argue when a near £100k sale is at stake? I adjusted the price to avoid being responsible for doing the work, but the inner me would have loved to remove all the fittings and valves just to prove they were sound.

 

[Daydream believer]

If the OP thinks that either, or both, items needs replacing, then it is a no brainer. They should be replaced immediately. Owning a boat requires a budget suitable to maintain it in a safe working condition. If one cannot afford to do that, then one should ask if one can afford the boat in the first place. Unfortunately the brutal reply might be No.