Rust on newly replaced standing rigging

No, Not a dispute Penberth.
A problem that needs to solved, For the owner, the rigger and the original supplier of the rigging wire.
The owner needs new rigging.
The rigger needs to protect his (or her) reputation and the supplier needs to clarify and resolve the quality issue.

Working together can achieve much more than disputing.

gary
 
garymalmgren said:
No, Not a dispute Penberth.
A problem that needs to solved, For the owner, the rigger and the original supplier of the rigging wire.
The owner needs new rigging.
The rigger needs to protect his (or her) reputation and the supplier needs to clarify and resolve the quality issue.

Working together can achieve much more than disputing.

gary
Click to expand...

Boat owner says there's something wrong with the wire, Rigger says there isn't. I'd call that a dispute.
 
Sandy said:
... that you will be seeking an independent inspection. On the result of the independent inspection may be going down the legal route....
Click to expand...

Good question.

I wonder what type of independent inspection would carry the proper weight and would move the ball forward. A survey report could be easily dismissed, as he is not a materials expert. A metallurgist could only say just so much without testing a sample, which would like destroy a wire.

BTW, the work was done in Spain (from what I understand), if that makes a difference.

It sounds like it comes down to ...
  • Convincing the rigger that this is not within the range of normal. So far, that has proven to be uphill. He believes it will fade over time.
  • Convince the rigger that it is in his long term interests to replace the wire ... recognizing that the next batch or wire could be the same. The rigger probably believes the cruiser will move on to some other country.
  • Convincing KOS to do something. Very big company, who can say, could go either way.
 
You are making me nervous as my rigging is being replaced right now. I would not be happy with the results you have shown.
Incidentally when I was in the business of making stainless instruments I used Citrisurf to passivate them. Recognised proprietary products by an established company
 
Halo said:
You are making me nervous as my rigging is being replaced right now. I would not be happy with the results you have shown.
Incidentally when I was in the business of making stainless instruments I used Citrisurf to passivate them. Recognised proprietary products by an established company
Click to expand...
You dont need to be nervous, maybe you are not unlucky as I am...
 
thinwater said:
Good question.

I wonder what type of independent inspection would carry the proper weight and would move the ball forward. A survey report could be easily dismissed, as he is not a materials expert. A metallurgist could only say just so much without testing a sample, which would like destroy a wire.

BTW, the work was done in Spain (from what I understand), if that makes a difference.

It sounds like it comes down to ...
  • Convincing the rigger that this is not within the range of normal. So far, that has proven to be uphill. He believes it will fade over time.
  • Convince the rigger that it is in his long term interests to replace the wire ... recognizing that the next batch or wire could be the same. The rigger probably believes the cruiser will move on to some other country.
  • Convincing KOS to do something. Very big company, who can say, could go either way.
Click to expand...
yes the work done in Spain and to be honest and based on my experience, it is the most diffucult country to do such type of works...
 
For those interested in learning more about this type of issue should read the link to an earlier thread posted in #19.

Using consumer legislation terminology the tests are "merchantable quality" and "fitness for purpose" As the last post in the earlier thread says, the wire (same manufacturer) tested as 316, and therefore suitable and fit for purpose. The next question is whether the staining affects that to the extent it is no longer fit for purpose. The logical test is whether it still meets the standard in terms of its strength to withstand the loads applied to it. This off course means destructive testing. Almost certainly the wire will still meet the original spec as the staining is unlikely to have any effect on the wire's strength.

The reality is that as many have pointed out, staining on stainless steel wire is not uncommon and while unsightly it does not seem to affect the life of the wire.
 
Halo said:
You are making me nervous as my rigging is being replaced right now. I would not be happy with the results you have shown.
Incidentally when I was in the business of making stainless instruments I used Citrisurf to passivate them. Recognised proprietary products by an established company
Click to expand...
I have also used Citrisurf. Good company. Very similar chemistry to Spotless Stainless, but more focused on industry.
 
Tranona said:
For those interested in learning more about this type of issue should read the link to an earlier thread posted in #19.

Using consumer legislation terminology the tests are "merchantable quality" and "fitness for purpose" As the last post in the earlier thread says, the wire (same manufacturer) tested as 316, and therefore suitable and fit for purpose.....
Click to expand...

A don't think you need to go that far with the small print. It appears to be defective wire made up with one strand of different material, it should never have left the factory.
 
penberth3 said:
A don't think you need to go that far with the small print. It appears to be defective wire made up with one strand of different material, it should never have left the factory.
Click to expand...
The problem is that out of 8 wires, 6 of them has the same pattern, a rusty wire...
 
thinwater said:
Good question.

I wonder what type of independent inspection would carry the proper weight and would move the ball forward. A survey report could be easily dismissed, as he is not a materials expert. A metallurgist could only say just so much without testing a sample, which would like destroy a wire.....
Click to expand...

In the UK there are plenty of materials labs and various accreditation schemes. Easy enough to find one to provide a competent independent inspection which could ultimately be used in court. This might even be non-destructive based on the magnetism. There's also XRF which is used by most scrap yards to identify metals.
 
Challenges include ...
  • Either a wire needs to come off or the lab has to come to you (travel time and limited results).
  • Destructive tests will destroy a wire.
  • I've used field XRF, but I doubt it is possible to look at one strand. Looking at the bundle would almost certainly be non-conclusive, since the alloy is at most very slightly off. Additionally, XRF is not terribly precise on small samples; I doubt it could tell the difference on a cable. Even lab XRF probably can't work with cable.
  • Strength isn't going to tell you anything. Other SS alloys can actually be stronger, but it will likely be within the spec and error bar anyway.
The bottom line is $$$. The testing and report will run thousands plus replacement of the sacrificed wire. The report will likely reveal nothing other than a "certified" opinion of what you saw, which is not exactly definitive. I don't think the magnetism is either, but you could ask the lab that simple question: "is a finding of magnetism on 316 cable definitive?" I'm about 95% certain they will say "no."

Reputation and customer satisfaction seem like the strongest arguments. In the US, I would call a US KOS branch to learn if this was considered normal. If it is, then it's uphill.
 
penberth3 said:
A don't think you need to go that far with the small print. It appears to be defective wire made up with one strand of different material, it should never have left the factory.
Click to expand...
You do. Just because it "appears" to be defective in a photo is not enough to prove that it is. It is only your opinion that it should not have left the factory.

If the supplier is not willing to accept it is defective after 6 months it for you to "prove" that the defect was there from the start. This is extremely difficult in this sort of situation. You have to show that the defect makes it not fit for purpose - that is the breaking strain has been compromised. Or you have to show in this case that it is not made to the appropriate standards for the material and the application. This requires an "expert" that is hopefully a better or more convincing one than the supplier fields.

Pretty sure the material will be found to spec and the breaking strain is within limits.
 
I suppose the whole rigging has cost a few thousand euro, 2-3-5k ? whatever.
Crude reality, the cost of any longish legal assistance and procedure in Spain is likely to reach very quickly that amount, then add to this all costs for technical expertises (let alone likely legal translation costs for documents -a French friend has divorced from his Spanish wife, Spanish court, all French language legal translation into Spanish ran in the 50-100euro/page).
Even if you had a legally valid evidence of a technical fault, bringing the whole thing into court would be quite costly, let alone the months/years spent after this unpleasant situation.
If there is no room left for a satisfactory OTC agreement with the rigger, you might ask a lawyer to "send a letter" with some sort of official request (replacement, compensation, etc), it will cost you x-hundred euro and may provide incentive for the rigger to make some steps to satisfy you, or may not. That's what I would do.
Best luck.
 
Stainless should be stainless. The clue is in the name. What has been supplied to the OP isn't stainless. QED.
 
NormanS said:
Stainless should be stainless. The clue is in the name. What has been supplied to the OP isn't stainless. QED.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly know? "stainless" is just a label. Various alloys described as stainless do corrode. The "shiny" bit is just literally skin deep and only stays shiny and uncorroded if it the surface remains intact.
 
I think here there is a bad intention from the rigger as well, because any qualified person who does rigging should know that this is not normal. Seeing this and saying everything is perfect is a very bad intention. Of course there will be consequences of this behaviour… I am not sharing his details now, but just for now…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top