Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Default Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    I'm getting rid of one of the 2marine toilets in my boat, I'll be leaving one of them but replacing the second one for a waterless toilet, at least for the time being. If I get use to the waterless toilet and like it I'll be removing the remaining marine toilet to make room for a wet room/decent shower.
    Both seacocks attached to this toilet are in bad condition as well as the skin fittings. I don't think I really want to permanently get rid of the through holes in case in the future I sell the boat and the next owner wants to go back to marine toilet.
    So my question is, do I replace the through hole and seacock and leave it permanently closed or can I just have the skin fitting with a blanking cap on it?
    Is this a good idea?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Live London
    Posts
    3,909

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    I suspect a waterless toilet is a bad idea.

    Put a Seacock in it you can then revert it back when statement 1 above is found to be true

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Jersey/Antibes
    Posts
    22,685

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    I agree. Suggest you install new skin fitting and seacock (or cap the skin fitting), as you have announced “bad condition” on a public forum (!). #insurersreadthis.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    8,688

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    Quote Originally Posted by jfm View Post
    I agree. Suggest you install new skin fitting and seacock (or cap the skin fitting), as you have announced “bad condition” on a public forum (!). #insurersreadthis.
    Where's the appropriate emoji?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    ation, Loc: ation, Loc: ation.
    Posts
    16,636

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmy_the_builder View Post
    Where's the appropriate emoji?
    He's run out after yesterday.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Guernsey
    Posts
    3,086

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    If you have a redundant skin fitting, remove it and glass it up properly. Its a simple job to cut a new hole if you need to fit a skin fitting in the future.

    If you have a poor condition skin fitting: leaking, sweating, crusty, not sure if it closes fully etc. There is one answer replace fitting and valve with new DZR units dont muck about.

    Never use brass of fittings of indeterminate quality.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    home Brum, boat Costa Brava
    Posts
    3,974

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    Have a look at the Leesan Tru Design products. I’ve just had one fitted to replace a very stiff (old) DZR toilet outlet.
    https://www.leesan.com/shop/seacock-kits

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    207

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    I've just been through this for a redundant strainer / thru hull... Strainer was in the way and used to be for a deck wash... Which is no more (and could have t'd off Genset strainer) I was going to cap the thru hull.. but decided on a new seacocks and plug.. just in case I need to recommission it.. I can get away with 2 years in the water if I dive the props every 6 months or so... So would save a lift.. although I've changed seacocks in the water with minimal hassle..

    Steve

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,492

    Default Re: Redundant through hull. Seacock or blocking cap?

    I have had the same issue with replacing two transducers to a single unit. All I did was replace with a new DZR skin fitting and blanking cap as a belt and braces, I filled the void with Sikaflex so that it is smooth from the outside. Recommissioning including removal of the Sikaflex will be relatively simple. Been in for 4 years now and sound.

    The option of removal and glassing is quite an involved job to do it correctly as it needs the removal of quite a large area around the hole to provide a very shallow countersink from which layers are built up. I didn't fancy that and preferred the mechanical plug.
    Chris
    Out west.... (or in the office)

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
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to