Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SW Scotland
    Posts
    16,935

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    I can't see any point in fitting a seacock unless either (a) you have good reason for closing it on a regular basis (my galley sink fills on starboard tack if not shut off) or (b) you have genuine reason to expect the hose to fail. Otherwise you are simply adding an additional point of failure, an additional layer of complexity and additional stress on the bit of the whole setup - the skin fitting - which is most likely to fail.

    Neither my current boat not my last one had seacocks on the cockpit drains, and I did and do not feel any qualms as a result.
    "Seamen are always wanting to do things the proper way; and I like to do them my way."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    326

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Two duplicate threads merged.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    33,937

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Quote Originally Posted by JumbleDuck View Post
    I can't see any point in fitting a seacock unless either (a) you have good reason for closing it on a regular basis (my galley sink fills on starboard tack if not shut off) or (b) you have genuine reason to expect the hose to fail.
    Maybe it's because I only finished refitting the boat a couple of years ago, but I feel like I would miss the ability to remove a hose in order to replace it, re-route it, or get something else past it. For example my engine has a minor oil leak that will need it to be removed, which I may get round to doing this winter, and most likely the cockpit drain and engine cooling hoses will need to be removed from their skin fittings in order to slide it past. I suppose in theory I could whip the hose off and jam in a wooden plug, but I'll be a lot happier (and drier) with a closed valve.

    Like you I don't worry about the hose spontaneously failing or leaping off the seacock of its own accord, though. I exercise the seacocks a few times a year to ensure they don't get glued in position with fouling, but otherwise leave them open.

    Pete

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southminster, essex
    Posts
    7,812

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Quote Originally Posted by JumbleDuck View Post
    I can't see any point in fitting a seacock unless either (a) you have good reason for closing it on a regular basis (my galley sink fills on starboard tack if not shut off) or (b) you have genuine reason to expect the hose to fail. Otherwise you are simply adding an additional point of failure, an additional layer of complexity and additional stress on the bit of the whole setup - the skin fitting - which is most likely to fail.

    Neither my current boat not my last one had seacocks on the cockpit drains, and I did and do not feel any qualms as a result.
    My cockpit drains are above the water line so are a different situation to below the waterline. However, to not have a stop valve on something below the waterline- in my opinion- is just plain silly. I have had a hose split & would never have been able to replace it without a valve. It was in an awkward place & putting a bung in the hole when the hose was removed would have been quite difficult
    However, to each his own & if you are happy then so beit. There are a few on this forum whom I suspect would not be
    It is all down to the fact that my wife does not understand me !!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SW Scotland
    Posts
    16,935

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Quote Originally Posted by prv View Post
    Maybe it's because I only finished refitting the boat a couple of years ago, but I feel like I would miss the ability to remove a hose in order to replace it, re-route it, or get something else past it. For example my engine has a minor oil leak that will need it to be removed, which I may get round to doing this winter, and most likely the cockpit drain and engine cooling hoses will need to be removed from their skin fittings in order to slide it past. I suppose in theory I could whip the hose off and jam in a wooden plug, but I'll be a lot happier (and drier) with a closed valve.
    That's a good point. Because I almost always winter ashore, I'm used to thinking that I have plenty of opportunity to change hoses. Someone who is afloat for extended periods might well take a different view.
    "Seamen are always wanting to do things the proper way; and I like to do them my way."

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    33,937

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Quote Originally Posted by JumbleDuck View Post
    That's a good point. Because I almost always winter ashore, I'm used to thinking that I have plenty of opportunity to change hoses. Someone who is afloat for extended periods might well take a different view.
    We've had this boat out all winter once, but otherwise it only comes out for brief periods for a scrub, antifoul, anode change, etc. Even when I was in full refit mode with half the interior ripped out and wires and pipes everywhere, we were "laid up afloat" alongside a pontoon. Saves having to carry all the tools and materials up and down ladders

    Pete

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southminster, essex
    Posts
    7,812

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Quote Originally Posted by prv View Post
    we were "laid up afloat" alongside a pontoon. Saves having to carry all the tools and materials up and down ladders
    Pete
    & how far was it from the car to the pontoon & how high was the fall & rise of the tide?
    It is all down to the fact that my wife does not understand me !!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    4,496

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Polly1 View Post
    Like this one
    Attachment 68680

    Pros, one less joint to leak
    Cons cant replace it if it fails without removing the through hull.

    I am going to replace all the rather greenish though hulls on my ageing fiberglass yacht soon and was just wondering which to go for.
    Thanks
    I have replaced my engine inlets with these, and so far very good. I intend to replace every valve in due course. I did add a marine ply backing plate ~ 3 x the hole diameter. The supplied plug allows you to stop the inlet from the outside whilst the valve can be stripped down for servicing. I am not sure I would remove the valve body from the skin fitting afloat - not brave enough for that, besides the skin fitting would likely turn which would break the sealant, for which I used Sika 291.
    Corvette 32 for sale - PM me for details

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30,770

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Almost any skin fitting can be plugged from outside.
    But frankly it's usually going to be worth drying out on a tide and giving the hull a wash anyway.
    To make that plug seal properly, you will probably need to clean some growth and antifoul off the thru-hull.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    89

    Default Re: Should a through hull have an integral seacock?

    Good point about inspecting the current ones. The boat is from 1974 but had an osmosis treatment 5 years ago so I imagine that all of the through hulls were re fitted then. I just wanted to set my mind at rest before heading a bit further off shore.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Find Boats For Sale

to
to