Replacing Ball Valves Without Replacing Skin Fittings -- Bad Practice?

[Pete7]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;2629588]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Thread drift, but isn't this a failure on the part of the builders, not a failure of regulation? Why would they build to the MINIMUM requirement? I just can't understand this.

The builders have met the EU Directive and can advertise that fact. The bean counters are happy because costs have been driven down to improve productivity and therefore dividends for the shareholders. The first owners are happy because they have a shinny new boat. Everyone is happy.

5 years down the road the boat is out of warranty and "would Sir like to view the new 36ft delux 5 cabin on-suite yacht with twin decks that we have just launched".

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Actually I think we have one on the heads exit pipe.

I think this is DZR and at leat 10 years old. The good news is the loo pipe appears clear thanks to lots of flushing when used. the hose tail looks a little thin at a couple of mm and looking down inside the valve the chrome finish on the ball valve has gone and currently has a patchy black finish. I think I will replace it whilst we are out of the water. Given my wife's love of cleaning chemicals I think plastic is probably the best choice for replacement.

Pete

[nigel1]

I fitted all new DZR fittings back in 2014, that was thru-hull, ball valves, elbows and hose nipples. All still looking good.
These replaced the brass fittings as used by Beneteau.

[Pete7]

Whipped the heads discharge valve off tonight and it wasn't looking good but then it is at least 10 years old. Also the hose tail is very thin so nothing for it but to replace it. Thankfully the bronze through hull is in very good condition. Fitted a new Trudesign valve and hose tail.

Pete