Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by colemj

Personally, I don't like metal skin fittings at all, and see way too many boats with electrolysis/corrosion problems, or berthed next to boat that have these, that have nothing to do with skin fitting material at all. If Kenomac's fitting was truly DZR like he says, then he has a larger problem to figure out.

Mark

In my build I'm making a seachest, a structural member of the hull which rises above the waterline, where one bronze seacock will be installed (keel cooling for the engine so no intake for that one). it's placed in it's own watertight compartment with strainer and watermaker. Easy to inspect and maintain and totally risk free..

BR Teddy

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by colemj

If Kenomac's fitting was truly DZR like he says, then he has a larger problem to figure out.

Mark

Then why would the yacht manufacturer return to using Naval bronze when all the complaints and potential liability issues with DZR brass began coming up after 5-6 years? Seems to me any engineering issue could have been solved by the design team if the product was as great as you claim it to be. I personally know of many other through hull failures related to the use of DZR brass. My case was not the only one, and the manufacturer of the boat was not the only manufacturer with the issue. I also know of a 2006 Jeanneau 54DS that was surveyed four years ago which required all the brass fittings to be replaced in los Angeles. They only got four years of service from the stuff. Awesome. We'd put an offer in on the boat, then decided against it.

[TanzerTom]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Definitely not a "production boat" - but I love these kids:

What an adventure.

Boy, did that make me feel like a wimp Makes me want to send those two a check for being the kind of young folk we see far too few of these days!

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Then why would the yacht manufacturer return to using Naval bronze when all the complaints and potential liability issues with DZR brass began coming up after 5-6 years? Seems to me any engineering issue could have been solved by the design team if the product was as great as you claim it to be. I personally know of many other through hull failures related to the use of DZR brass. My case was not the only one, and the manufacturer of the boat was not the only manufacturer with the issue. I also know of a 2006 Jeanneau 54DS that was surveyed four years ago which required all the brass fittings to be replaced in los Angeles. They only got four years of service from the stuff. Awesome. We'd put an offer in on the boat, then decided against it.

Again, stay away from Blakes and Isis when you replace yours. You will need to choose lower quality fittings to not get DZR brass.

I still don't believe these issues involve DZR brass. Many of the examples talk specifically about yellow brass and other non-suitable types.

Here, the author talks specifically about more recent EU-built boats NOT using DZR brass: http://trip.ayy.fi/wordpress/wp-cont...8/Seacocks.pdf

And if you think it is cost-related, do some research. DZR brass costs as much as naval bronze. There is no cost savings at all in choosing DZR brass.

There also isn't any corrosion resistance to be gained in bronze over DZR brass.

As to your question about why the switch, it may be that bronze was more available or that the cheap brass previously used colored expectations. It wasn't for price or corrosion resistance.

Just the facts. Please feel free to bring some of your own to the table.

Mark

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by colemj

Once again: DZR brass is high-quality and perfectly acceptable for use in this application. This stuff is widely used in industrial applications that are far more corrosive than simply sitting in cold seawater. It also is not cheap.

Blakes and Isis use only DZR brass in their seacocks and valves. What is your opinion on the quality of these? Most put them at the top.

I don't know what type of brass is used in all of these boats with problem seacocks, but if it is indeed DZR, then the problem is not with the seacock material.

Personally, I don't like metal skin fittings at all, and see way too many boats with electrolysis/corrosion problems, or berthed next to boat that have these, that have nothing to do with skin fitting material at all. If Kenomac's fitting was truly DZR like he says, then he has a larger problem to figure out.

Mark

Mate i replace year on year off a bunch of those DZR skin fittings, no matter what you say is not going to change my mind regarding Brass, CR or not, and i stand with my previou claim, they are junk in a boat.. Go figure!!

[colemj]

Originally Posted by neilpride

no matter what you say is not going to change my mind regarding Brass, CR or not, and i stand with my previou claim, they are junk in a boat.. Go figure!!

Yes, go figure indeed…

Mark

[avb3]

Originally Posted by colemj

......


There also isn't any corrosion resistance to be gained in bronze over DZR brass.

.......

Salt water corrosion or galvanic? We have seen numerous examples and pictures in this thread of problems with DZR brass. Certainly to my eye, some of those look like the corrosion is as a result of contact with salt water.

What do you think the reasons might be for that?



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would agree it is "a" standard, but I'm honestly not sure after reading the lengthy explanations by Polux & others from other threads that it's "the" standard you are trying to represent, namely one geared for consumers to help them properly distinguish between different types of boats. My admittedly vague impression was that it was developed by the mfgs. & for the mfgs. that has been refined & enforced by European regulators. (For example in 2009 when they required certain mfgs. to beef up build quality with heavier scantlings, etc.). What I found somewhat confusing, again from a consumer point of view, is that the same boat may or may not get the same offshore rating based solely on account of the amount of its tankage. This is obviously an important criteria related to self-sufficiency on longer voyages, but it has nothing to do with whether the boat is built to withstand heavier seas.

Then again, there's nothing wrong with framing your thread around "a" standard. In fact it may be helpful given all the vagaries of defining "blue water" vs. "coastal" boats, etc. But if you're using a govt-approved, widely-accepted industry standard (incorrectly or not) as your measuring tool, then expect some pushback when people post about build quality issues on boats rated "offshore" by the regulatory bodies. Besides, isn't it good to know that our deck fittings, for e.g., may need reinforcing? Not sure why this raises such indignation from some.

Btw, you cannot possibly have any idea whether "most of the disagreement [with the CE std.] comes from people who are not in any way NAs or engineers or builders," just like you have no idea whether fender washers used instead of backing plates on cleats are purposely engineered as "fuses" or are just a cheap build practice. With all the constructive feedback from others, there's no need to keep straining your credibility.

The CE standard provides a reference point for liability assignment and is a useful marketing tool for boat builders. The CE standard gives no indication of the survivability of a vessel.

In the auto industry key safety and environmental standards require destructive and non destructive testing and certification. These tests are legislated. Decades of test and proving results and empirical data provide a trusted baseline. No equivalent exists for pleasure craft.

The example of fused cleats is a good example. There are several failure methods for a cleat. Fatigue, brittle fracture, corrosion and then the attachment, fasteners. Failure, mode, effect and criticality analysis (FMECA) is a traditional engineering method for capturing failure modes and their effects. The most critical or highest risk modes will often be subject to a range of destructive and non destructive reviews, analysis, tests and observations. Often failures will trigger redesigns and tweaks. The process continues until performance goals are reached or the test specifications are met. It's time consuming and expensive.

No pleasure vessels receive this level of testing and certification rigour no matter what the salesperson tells you. The volumes are too small and the testing costs can't be viably amortised. There are also no pleasure vessel legislation in place to mandate this level of rigour. So don't think you're buying a proven product. Every pleasure vessel is in essence a prototype.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

Salt water corrosion or galvanic? We have seen numerous examples and pictures in this thread of problems with DZR brass. Certainly to my eye, some of those look like the corrosion is as a result of contact with salt water.

What do you think the reasons might be for that?

Both. You don't need to take my word as for the reasons - just read pages 14-16 of people with expertise: http://www.copper.org/applications/m...pdf/pub206.pdf

Check out Figure 5 on page 9 here to see that the corrosion rate of DZR brass is equal to or slightly less than the bronzes: http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...%20harvest.pdf

Page 12 of that paper is also a good read.

You may also perform a thought experiment by asking yourself why Blakes and Isis now make all their seacocks out of DZR brass.

You could also google around yourself for some answers.

I haven't yet seen a single example of problems with DZR brass itself. The two examples listed rely solely on the poster claiming it was DZR brass, while also ignoring the possibility that they have electrolysis or corrosion issues on the boats.

Mark

[avb3]

Yachtworld article on keel failures. Timely considering the discussion here.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/feature...ng-facts-60006

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[avb3]

Originally Posted by colemj

Both. You don't need to take my word as for the reasons - just read pages 14-16 of people with expertise: http://www.copper.org/applications/m...pdf/pub206.pdf

Check out Figure 5 on page 9 here to see that the corrosion rate of DZR brass is equal to or slightly less than the bronzes: http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...%20harvest.pdf

Page 12 of that paper is also a good read.

You may also perform a thought experiment by asking yourself why Blakes and Isis now make all their seacocks out of DZR brass.

You could also google around yourself for some answers.

I haven't yet seen a single example of problems with DZR brass itself. The two examples listed rely solely on the poster claiming it was DZR brass, while also ignoring the possibility that they have electrolysis or corrosion issues on the boats.

Mark

Thanks for the references, Mark. Links like that help advance a discussion, versus some who make assertions and then tell us we should just "trust them".

It appears to me that galvanic corrosion is less of an issue with bronze (and disappears completely with marlon) than with DRZ. Would you concur with that?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

Thanks for the references, Mark. Links like that help advance a discussion, versus some who make assertions and then tell us we should just "trust them".

You mean the "yard guys"?

I don't know how to assess the galvanic series. DZR brass isn't included in any of the tables I found. If you take aluminum brass as a close substitute, then this puts it right in the middle of the bronzes. Neither are good with aluminum, and both should be watched with 300 series stainless, but should be OK.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that bronzes take active and deactive forms. The initial galvanic potential of the typically inactive form changes completely when enough "damage" is done to it to turn it to the active form.

Mark

[avb3]

Originally Posted by colemj

You mean the "yard guys"?

...

Nope.

It's the self appointed " experts" who say things like "and my word on that is enough" when one asks for references or links on assertions they make.

That stretches credibility doesn't it?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

... I did not have the wisdom to do that, but I must confess to enjoying my creature comforts & electronic gizmos. If nothing else this is another good example of the trade-offs -- pro & con -- of buying a mass-produced boat.

Regarding creature comforts on the Bavaria I had only the freezer but regarding electronic I had plenty of it: Navtex, Radar, 2 plotters (one inside other outside), all normal navigation and wind instruments plus autopilot.

On the comet I have all that plus diesel heating and fans for cooling and recirculating the air. Besides the refrigerator a freezer too. I remember now that I had to change a water pump on the Comet when I bought it.

[nigel1]

I'm a little perplexed about this DZR/Brass arguement.

I replaced all the skin fittings and valves in my boat last year, and used DZR (all with the CR marking). These valves an fittings replaced the original yellow brass used by Beneteau. My boat is a 2001 build, so the originals had stood up well, and showed no signs of dezincing, (from an external inspection), but when I cut the old ones open, two or three were looking bad.
Now, I used DZR based on the articles posted up by Mark. If the claims and reports are incorrect (which I doubt), I'll be a tad upset.