Service life of nylon anchor rode?

[Kings Gambit]

b. Samson has a good guide to rope. Samson Rope Guide. Also Marlow. Marlow rope guide. Age is not mentioned by either. See the pattern?

Looking over the references you give above plus others, I do not see mentions of “age” per se (except as noted above for Cancord Ropes), but I do see discussions on when or whether to retire your rope. The Cancord site might have meant to suggest the service life for nylon rode rather than a shelf life. Section D of the Sampson Guide recommends considering, among other things when inspecting for possible retirement, “the time it has been in service.” As with Sampson, Marlow details several “Lifetime Factors” that affect one’s retirement decision for his/her ropes. The word “age” does not appear but everything listed is related to the amount and type of use the rope has received during its “Lifetime.” Where climbing ropes are involved, I see admonition at another website (artofmanliness.com) to “replace regularly” depending on amount of use, but all within 7 years of service.

In my thinking, “time in service”, “retirement”, and “lifetime” all refer to the age of the rope; more directly to its amount of use. All of the manufacturers give guidance on when one might retire the rope from service and replace it.

Regarding my insurance comment, claims for losses that clearly do, or might, result from lack of proper maintenance of the yacht or its equipment will be challenged. Perhaps age is not the best reference term; condition might be preferable. However, I cannot believe that for a loss due to a parting anchor rode the ins adjuster would not examine the rode for condition. It might then fall to the owner to prove that the equipment was not beyond its viable service life and that it had been properly maintained according, most likely, to the manufacturer’s guide you cite above which mentions “time in service”, equating to its age. For example, “Does the rode show excessive wear or degradation for its age?”, etc. There is an evident and acknowledged longevity expectation for the safe use of rope based fundamentally on its age, but also on its use and care. Whether it’s 10 or 20 yr, or other, is the debatable question.

 

[Ralph Johnstone]

So, when Yanmar advises owners of their sail drives to replace the rubber diaphragm after 7 years,

I'd say everything must be considered on its own merit. Yanmar's rubber diaphragm would require replacement depending on the wear it receives. Fuel filters being replaced every year, pure BS.

Nylon rode ? Inspect it yearly. Maybe your next door neighbour figures you're ogling his wife too much and sabotaged your anchoring gear. You never know.

 

[thinwater]

A reasonable question is this. How many people have a 30-year old climbing rope that they have not been using? Obviously, they are not climbers. Put another way, if the rope is actually being used on any sort of regular basis, 7 years is a long time. The 30-year old rope in question was retired because of a cut towards the middle, and I never used it for anything else. Unusual. The climbing ropes I actually use... 7 years is the limit for lead climbing for sure, although they are down-cycled to top roping for about that much longer. And then they get cut up for utility uses.

One of my retired ice climbing (8mm) ropes was used on cruising cats as...

• Traveler control lines. Nice shock absorption.
• Bridles and anchoring snubbers.

 

[Kings Gambit]

A reasonable question is this. How many people have a 30-year old climbing rope that they have not been using? Obviously, they are not climbers. Put another way, if the rope is actually being used on any sort of regular basis, 7 years is a long time. The 30-year old rope in question was retired because of a cut towards the middle, and I never used it for anything else. Unusual. The climbing ropes I actually use... 7 years is the limit for lead climbing for sure, although they are down-cycled to top roping for about that much longer. And then they get cut up for utility uses.

One of my retired ice climbing (8mm) ropes was used on cruising cats as...

• Traveler control lines. Nice shock absorption.
• Bridles and anchoring snubbers.

So, these climbing ropes are “aging out?” Then why cannot anchor rodes of same or similar polymer construction age out under regular use? If you tested those 7-year-old climbing ropes as you did the rodes, would there be detectable reduction in breaking strengths?

 

[jssailem]

Perhaps this question of age is dependent on "in use" and the type of use.

I have always looked at rope/line as a numbers of cycle issue.

If I take nylon or polyester (dacron) rope:

• leave it exposed to the elements (particularly UV),
• Use it to control the boat
• let it cycle (stretch and contract during significant conditions created by wind and wave action)

then I believe the material has been "aged" and based on the change of apperance when inspected will consider it for retirement without regards to the number of "years" the rope/line has reached since purchase.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Perhaps this question of age is dependent on "in use" and the type of use.

I have always looked at rope/line as a numbers of cycle issue.

If I take nylon or polyester (dacron) rope:

• leave it exposed to the elements (particularly UV),
• Use it to control the boat
• let it cycle (stretch and contract during significant conditions created by wind and wave action)

then I believe the material has been "aged" and based on the change of apperance when inspected will consider it for retirement without regards to the number of "years" the rope/line has reached since purchase.

I’m sure that’s what most of us do. But after at least 15 years of service and having to repair the splice anyway, plus it (the rode) having other signs of wear, especially near the deployed end, I opted to “retire” the old man!!

 

[jssailem]

KG. That sounds totally consistent.

 

[FastOlson]

So, when Yanmar advises owners of their sail drives to replace the rubber diaphragm after 7 years, that’s only a sales pitch having nothing to do with maintaining the wear to within a certain safety margin?

I would guess that you want to, just for fun, stir the pot a bit......

Volvo used to recommend this maintenance after 7 years, altho they might have extended that period in the last decade.
Either way, it's an apples to oranges comparison. (About a decade ago, our YC strongly encouraged the owner of a neglected 37 foot sailboat to, among other signs of neglect, do this maintenance on his boat's 20+ year old Volvo sail drive. Doing it was evidently costly enough that he chose to move the boat to a "don't ask don't tell" older marina, and later sold it, after being on the market quite a while.
(If boat buyers would do their due diligence regarding sail drives foisted off on them installed in new boats, they would be better off, and would lose less $ when they sell the boat a decade later. Strictly IMHO, of course.)

 

[thinwater]

So, these climbing ropes are “aging out?” Then why cannot anchor rodes of same or similar polymer construction age out under regular use? If you tested those 7-year-old climbing ropes as you did the rodes, would there be detectable reduction in breaking strengths?

Not in the first example. It was cut by a crampon.

The others accumulate enough abrasion to be fuzzy. So yes, they are "aged out" in terms of abrasion and perhaps fatigue, but years are not really the factor. It's just that 3-7 years of regular climbing (or cruising by extension) exposes them to chafe and fatigue.

Yes, typically 5-7 year old well-used climbing ropes (really fuzzy, an objective measurement to be sure) are typically about 80% strength and can only hold about 1/3-1/2 the number of EXTREME falls. But the extreme fall test is really not a good measure, since you are measuring a very extreme behavior using a go-no go method. But it is cause for retirment from lead climbing (the sort that exposes ropes to ridiculous, extreme falls).

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

claims for losses that clearly do, or might, result from lack of proper maintenance of the yacht or its equipment will be challenged.

Are you an expert on this? I’ve never heard of this in the real world.

 

[BigEasy]

Are you an expert on this? I’ve never heard of this in the real world.

I am definitely no expert on insurance matters!
Having made that statement, one has to be thoroughly familiar with the contents, coverages, and exclusions contained within the written policy. In some policies, losses due to wear & tear as well as lack of maintenance could be reasons for the underwriter to deny coverage for a claim. Policies with coverage for "consequential loss / damage" will cover losses for wear & tear, etc. Of course, a policy including the consequential loss provision is more expensive. I have been debating whether to drop my current policy, that has consequential loss provisions, for a less expensive policy; however, I prefer to have the "peace of mind" that the boat will be completely covered if a part breaks, ( hose breakage, electrical inlet fire, galvanic corrosion), that leads to substantial losses.

 

[dlochner]

I am definitely no expert on insurance matters!
Having made that statement, one has to be thoroughly familiar with the contents, coverages, and exclusions contained within the written policy. In some policies, losses due to wear & tear as well as lack of maintenance could be reasons for the underwriter to deny coverage for a claim. Policies with coverage for "consequential loss / damage" will cover losses for wear & tear, etc. Of course, a policy including the consequential loss provision is more expensive. I have been debating whether to drop my current policy, that has consequential loss provisions, for a less expensive policy; however, I prefer to have the "peace of mind" that the boat will be completely covered if a part breaks, ( hose breakage, electrical inlet fire, galvanic corrosion), that leads to substantial losses.

With consequential coverage the item that failed due to lack of maintenance or manufacturer's defect will not be covered, however the damages that occurred as a result of the failure would be.

As I understand the clause, if the anchor rode was old and failed with the boat ending up on the beach insurance would cover the damage up to the limits and less deductible except it would not pay for the new rode and anchor.

 

[Ken13559]

My anchor rope came stock with boat 20 years ago and is still in use. For the 10 times/year use I haven't broke the anchor rope yet. I think its still good for many more years given it hardly see sunlight....even when in use.

KenY

 

[Kings Gambit]

Are you an expert on this? I’ve never heard of this in the real world.

No. But one real world example of the principle is that a friend’s boat sank, or nearly sank, at the dock b/c a hose to a thru-hull that had never been maintained parted. Report was that ins refused to pay off claiming that it’s the owner’s responsibility to maintain the seaworthiness of boat, etc. The owner came up with the bizarre story that he did not know of the thru-hull b/c it was out of sight under one of the sinks. So, somehow the owner managed to wrangle an argument that he was not negligent b/c he did not know of the hose in order to maintain it, etc. Something along those lines. Some of the loss was eventually compensated. The most memorable part for me being the initial refusal to pay off and why. It would be a lot harder to claim that the anchor rode you’re riding on is not known to you as a maintenance item, etc., in a similar or parallel situation.

 

[dlochner]

No. But one real world example of the principle is that a friend’s boat sank, or nearly sank, at the dock b/c a hose to a thru-hull that had never been maintained parted. Report was that ins refused to pay off claiming that it’s the owner’s responsibility to maintain the seaworthiness of boat, etc. The owner came up with the bizarre story that he did not know of the thru-hull b/c it was out of sight under one of the sinks. So, somehow the owner managed to wrangle an argument that he was not negligent b/c he did not know of the hose in order to maintain it, etc. Something along those lines. Some of the loss was eventually compensated. The most memorable part for me being the initial refusal to pay off and why. It would be a lot harder to claim that the anchor rode you’re riding on is not known to you as a maintenance item, etc., in a similar or parallel situation.

It seems like your friend's argument really supports the notion that he was negligent. Not knowing about the basic systems on your boat seems to be the part of the definition of negligence. Inspecting but no seeing evidence of a potential failure would be a more plausible reason.

Not all insurance companies are equal. Some have more experience with boats and sailboats and would seem to be a better choice than other companies who do not have as much experience. Just adding the boat to a household policy would seem to be the worst choice.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Voilà