Brass Seacocks -

[Stumble]

Del,

We investment cast titanium all the time. It isn't that difficult once the equipment is set up for it. But you are right that is takes specialized tools and know how to do well. We are also getting into some pretty cool stuff like powdered metallurgy, and hipping. It's a fun time to be playing with this stuff.

The cost for a thu-hull mold would run about $600, so you need a decent product run to justify the cost to make it, but it isn't that outrageous.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Del,

We investment cast titanium all the time. It isn't that difficult once the equipment is set up for it.

That's the key if ones already invested into the tools, the costs are reduced.

Being how soft the surface is of titanium is would be nice to put a pyrolytic chromium carbide coating on the ball or plug of the valve to reduce leakage from scratches. Titanium is much like a hard aluminum, just with a high resistance to heat and flex. What makes it hard to machine is the bond in the material. It's like trying to cut a car tire with a pocket knife. You have to go slow and use a lube to reduce heat, which is what tears up the carbide tooling. I found Ceramics work best on long heavy cuts.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Jedg

My choice for a seacock would be a plastic designed for a marine environment, with strength characteristics similar to that of a fiberglass hull, like TPU.

Definitely not a material that degrades significantly in water like Marelon a 50 year old technology (Marelon is Dupont GR Nylon 70G13LBK (seacocks and fittings and 8018HS thru-hulls).

Originally Posted by delmarrey

BTW- I'd go with Jedg! Hi-pro plastics is the way to go IMHO. Less costs and no corrosion. Just keep'm clean and lubed.

I'm not the brightest LED so: Marelon is not as good as TPU/Hi-pro plastics. And TPU/Hi-pro plastics means?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

My custom boat, being steel, was reasonably priced compared to new. You could, in fact, have probably afforded it.

"Not wanting to go to sea in one" is justified by my own experience and opinions on what I think is seaworthy and seakindlly. "Good enough" is a moving target in terms of personal tolerances and industry or governmental regulation. I don't like the "good enough" minimums for house construction, either. "Rated Lloyd's Ocean A" seems a bit of a sick joke to me, and yet it's a phrase trotted out to the newbies at boat shows as if it's a meaningful measure of ultimate seaworthiness.

Brass below the waterline is not "good enough" for me. That's the end of the story. I don't really care what other people will tolerate, or of which what material qualities they will choose to be ignorant or under-informed.

My family goes on our boat. I know what has been installed where, and how to fix it if it goes wrong, for the most part. Accepting substitutes or inappropriate materials for the application, as I deem brass seacocks to be, is not really how I roll, although it's amazing what you can acquire from non-marine sources that are, in fact, acceptable on the seaworthy boat.

I need no further justification than my own experience and planning and time served, because I am not the pimp here. The marketing branches and QC departments of the boat building industry are in that role, and like pimps, their mortal enemy is a strong light that reveals the patchwork, spackle and shortcuts.

Your are of course entitled to your opinions , your are not entitled to the facts

I tried to get a custom steel boat built to a compatible standard to a GRP yacht it was significantly more expensive. , i know of none cheaper then comparable GRP. it required regular and quiet fastidious maintenance , difficult to repair to the original cosmetic standard, had a lower resale , and provided me with dubious security given the frequently that I need such supposed high abrasion or impact strength. At 10 years of age it looked like an old boat.


There is no such thing as " Lloyds a ocean A".

You are correct that certification is not a measure of ultimate seaworthiness. However the definition of seaworthiness is not a engineering metric, merely to some extent an opinion.

Brass below the waterline is " good enough " for builders from Bavaria to Halberg Rassy, why because its good enough. Yes it's not the preferred material. It doesn't last indefinitely but neither do your sails or the roller furlong gear or for that matter your modern turbo diesel. I'm not defending it , but I know why it's there.

You are lucky in your engineering skills, thousands are not and require the services of professionals, its keeps the world going around.

Marketing departments exist to sell boats, punters buy lifestyle, comfort and illusion, whether its , houses, an apple iPad or a BMW. Boats are no different. The base product meets the needs , its suffices , it is built to a price and the fact is it sells. Of course us engineering perfectionists want under the hood perfection , most punters don't. They want to go sailing and guess what the product does that in general quite well

Strong lights are regularly shown on production boats, in general they come out in an acceptable fashion. ( see YBW destructive test boat )

Dave

[S/V Alchemy]

Dave said:

Your are of course entitled to your opinions , your are not entitled to the facts

I tried to get a custom steel boat built to a compatible standard to a GRP yacht it was significantly more expensive. , i know of none cheaper then comparable GRP. it required regular and quiet fastidious maintenance , difficult to repair to the original cosmetic standard, had a lower resale , and provided me with dubious security given the frequently that I need such supposed high abrasion or impact strength. At 10 years of age it looked like an old boat.

I didn't say I built it or had it built. I said I had purchased it. I paid a fraction of what the surveyor (who specialized in steel) estimated it would cost to build from scratch today. We paid that "low resale value" because the design of the boat and its other qualities suited us for anticipated long-term cruising.

I agree that in a salt water environment, steel requires maintenance of the "often" variety. This particular boat has never seen salt, and I have done enough grinding, priming and topcoating with two-part epoxy to understand and not resent the labour or cost. As for cosmetic considerations, there are some advantages in light of where we plan to cruise in not being the prettiest boat in the lagoon.


There is no such thing as " Lloyds a ocean A".

Yet it is a recurring and prime example of the bollocks sales drones feed to potential new boat buyers.

You are correct that certification is not a measure of ultimate seaworthiness. However the definition of seaworthiness is not a engineering metric, merely to some extent an opinion.

As are most topics discussed on forums such as this one. The belief that "the choices I've made and the techniques I've employed haven't sunk me yet, and therefore must represent best practices" is frequently delusional and yet is very common.

Brass below the waterline is " good enough " for builders from Bavaria to Halberg Rassy, why because its good enough. Yes it's not the preferred material. It doesn't last indefinitely but neither do your sails or the roller furlong gear or for that matter your modern turbo diesel. I'm not defending it , but I know why it's there.

I know why it's there, too, because many potential buyers are not aware that there is a difference, and that they may be interested in the difference. Believe me, I also own a 1970s boat wired to then-current house building standards. My parents owned cars in the '60s in which we rode behind untempered windscreens on unbelted seats.

That was "good enough" then, but in no sense is "good enough" today. Updating the wiring on a gradual basis on that particular boat has informed my thinking on the "good enough" issue and of what is right to use in terms of materials. The chemistry and physics involved in turning the core of an untinned conductor into green and black powder and goo doesn't really care about human value judgements. By the same measure, a dezincifying brass seacock or barb in a marina with a slightly faulty shorepower setup is also indifferent to "good enough". The prudent mariner is proactive and knowledgeable about all materials and aspects of his vessel's operation that keep it afloat. "Good enough" is too low a bar for me, although like most sailors, I enjoy finding a bargain or a cheaper substitute that will serve a limited purpose or a single task.

Yeah, I'm picky about my beer and rum, too.

You are lucky in your engineering skills, thousands are not and require the services of professionals, its keeps the world going around.

I don't possess formal engineering skills. I possess observational and seamanship skills sufficient (we all hope) to keep us alive and moving at sea. I've had to learn several trades to apprentice or better level just to be able to spot potential problems. Makes me wish I'd taken more shop and chased less skirt in high school now...well, a bit. I realize in my boat refitting projects that there is always a short-cut and always a cheaper or faster fix. Sometimes that fix is expedient, or the consequence is trivial. Other times (like having a brass seacock that may snap in half because it's gone all honeycombed in a year or two...and you'll note the absence of tapered plugs in all those shots), the consequence can cost you your boat.

I'll put it this way: The cost of insurance for my boat is prohibitive beyond the almost-mandatory liability (running down kayakers, etc.). The decision not to purchase replacement insurance is balanced by our collision bulkheads, limber hole bungs, a cautious approach to navigation...and all the time I've spent reducing the number of holes in the bottom of the boat and making sure that the holes that remained had proper seacocks. If you owned a dock queen or a daysailer and knew little and cared less about things like brass seacocks, insurance is a better option.

Marketing departments exist to sell boats, punters buy lifestyle, comfort and illusion, whether its , houses, an apple iPad or a BMW. Boats are no different. The base product meets the needs , its suffices , it is built to a price and the fact is it sells. Of course us engineering perfectionists want under the hood perfection , most punters don't. They want to go sailing and guess what the product does that in general quite well

Perhaps we are on the same page: I am describing my world as I wish it to be, and you are describing the world as it currently exists. Unfortunately, the acceptance of materials unsuited to the purpose in sailing will eventually drown "a punter" or two, and then further regulation, instead of common sense, will follow, to prevent the prudent from the ignorant.

Strong lights are regularly shown on production boats, in general they come out in an acceptable fashion. ( see YBW destructive test boat )

I've seen that, if you mean the one where they punch a hole into a hull in the V-berth and try to stop it sinking. Good stuff...I love seeing "real life" examples. But I maintain that acceptable is fine...to a point. Engineers signed off on the two destroyed space shuttles, too. We aren't proposing to take our boat into space, but where we will be, punters will not. A different approach is required.

[Roy M]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

MOst tapered seacocks weeped, ball valves dont.


Dave

I haven't noticed any "weeping" in thirty-some years. Might be that I can pull them apart, clean and regrease them every haulout. And, using that model, I prefer a shaft log that requires occasional adjustment over a "sealed", leak-proof shaft log. I wish I had investment capital, I'd buy Spartan valves and silicon-bronze fasteners.

[PamlicoTraveler]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Perhaps we are on the same page: I am describing my world as I wish it to be, and you are describing the world as it currently exists. Unfortunately, the acceptance of materials unsuited to the purpose in sailing will eventually drown "a punter" or two, and then further regulation, instead of common sense, will follow, to prevent the prudent from the ignorant.
.

Brilliant reply all around. Kudos. Using the word "punter" for a buyer is insulting and dismissive. Safety is not something you can just dismiss and say "good enough" for the "punter" when their life could be on the line.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by PamlicoTraveler

Brilliant reply all around. Kudos. Using the word "punter" for a buyer is insulting and dismissive. Safety is not something you can just dismiss and say "good enough" for the "punter" when their life could be on the line.

Well, the "brothers' keeper" ideal has its limits, I suppose.

About the only thing I can say about the sea with certainty is its absolute indifference to man's plans and aspirations. The power of the sea exists for its own sake; its ability to smash or disable boats is real, but irrelevant. When confronted with such vast indifference, I feel that it's important to make one's own plans and not to rely on "what the nice man at the boat show" said.

Nonetheless, people do all the time. And it's "people", from whom agitation to raise construction standard isn't usually forthcoming, who set the tone for the car industry, the boat industry...indeed, any industry.

Seacocks, therefore, are like governments: we get the ones we deserve. Brasses or asses.

Unless we vote with our wallets and our standards.

[Rhapsody-NS27]

I'm glad I found out about a loose thru-hull. The attached picture shows the one I took off with the new Groco that arrived today.

The only markings on the one I took off say:

Red-White
Toyo

150WSP
400WOG

As far as I know they were original to the boat. I'm not seeing anything in the old maintenance books I inherited with the boat about them being changed. I'm now thinking to replace the other thru-hulls with Groco's to make sure everything will be secured nicely.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Rhapsody-NS27

I'm glad I found out about a loose thru-hull. The attached picture shows the one I took off with the new Groco that arrived today.

The only markings on the one I took off say:

Red-White
Toyo

150WSP
400WOG

As far as I know they were original to the boat. I'm not seeing anything in the old maintenance books I inherited with the boat about them being changed. I'm now thinking to replace the other thru-hulls with Groco's to make sure everything will be secured nicely.

Red-white Toyo was a company that made pretty decent valves, they are still in business, but have since been acquired by an Italian company VIR. The 150/450 refer to the preassure ratings, of 150psi at 350F, and 450 from 15-160F.

There isn't a model number that you posted, but a low zinc brass, or bronze would easily last for the 30 years or so yours did. At that age I would probably start thinking about replacing them all too, particularly if you have had a failure. They very well could last decades more, but once one of them fails it is generally because they are starting to wear out.

[Rhapsody-NS27]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Red-white Toyo was a company that made pretty decent valves, they are still in business, but have since been acquired by an Italian company VIR. The 150/450 refer to the preassure ratings, of 150psi at 350F, and 450 from 15-160F.

There isn't a model number that you posted, but a low zinc brass, or bronze would easily last for the 30 years or so yours did. At that age I would probably start thinking about replacing them all too, particularly if you have had a failure. They very well could last decades more, but once one of them fails it is generally because they are starting to wear out.

I took a look at the handle again and does say "Fig No. 5044".. Maybe model?
I thought to replace them all for the same reason even though they don't look too bad, but the handles are soft and bend when trying to move them. The backing material was wood and that got soft. They were/are mounted like Maine Sail shows here on the right side, valve direct to thru-hull. I'm looking at doing the project as Maine Sail explains on his site. Lots of good info there.

[Stumble]

Rhapsody,

Unless they have changed the model number in the last thirty years that is a C37700 alloy brass, which is 37% or so zinc. If this is correct you have gotten very lucky, probably because the boat is in fresh water, which is much easier on galvanic problems than salt water is. Again assuming that this is the correct alloy, I would defiantly replace all of them. Thirty years with high zinc fittings is well beyond what I would be willing to risk.

Valve http://www.redwhitevalvecorp.com/pdf...ec%20sheet.pdf
Alloy info - MatWeb - The Online Materials Information Resource

[Rhapsody-NS27]

Thanks for the info, Greg. The boat spent most of its life on salt water. Once I do my work, then it'll go to fresh water.

[S/V Alchemy]

Just a cool little video I found on the related topic of "seacock/thruhull failure".

Yachting Monthly's Crash Test Boat - Through Hull Failure - YouTube

It's one of the excellent series of Yachting Monthly videos where they gradually destroy a boat in the name of science.

[PamlicoTraveler]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

It's one of the excellent series of Yachting Monthly videos where they gradually destroy a boat in the name of science.

I need to remember to always have fresh carrots and potatoes on board.... Great video.