My wife & I went and looked at a Catalina 36 today. I noticed the seacocks were plastic. Any problem with these? I could not find the in line secondary fuel filter. Any idea where this would be located? Very roomy boat!
- Status
remove them
I would take out any plastic thru hulls or sea cocks and replace with brass. If you hit something with the boat and knock off the thru hull or hit the plastic sea cock and knock it off, your "Very roomy boat" will end up on the bottom.
I would take out any plastic thru hulls or sea cocks and replace with brass. If you hit something with the boat and knock off the thru hull or hit the plastic sea cock and knock it off, your "Very roomy boat" will end up on the bottom.
Not brass!!! seacocks
I hope Ric means bronze! brass will corode away very quickly in salt water and should never be used! the current generation of plastic seacocks are reputed to work well, but need to be inspected for damage just like any other major hole in your boat. I personally prefer bronze, but htat's just because I'm old school and they've got an established history
I hope Ric means bronze! brass will corode away very quickly in salt water and should never be used! the current generation of plastic seacocks are reputed to work well, but need to be inspected for damage just like any other major hole in your boat. I personally prefer bronze, but htat's just because I'm old school and they've got an established history
Yikes! Let's be clear on what is called what.
First, did the Catalina have plastic or Marelon thru-hulls? And are we talking about the thru-hull, or the valve body...or both? And of course we don't want to rip out plastic only to install brass, or naval bronze (which is brass) in its place - at least, plastic is inert while brass will corrode away and that really will sink a boat We want to use good manganese bronze or similar thru-hulls, right? Jack
First, did the Catalina have plastic or Marelon thru-hulls? And are we talking about the thru-hull, or the valve body...or both? And of course we don't want to rip out plastic only to install brass, or naval bronze (which is brass) in its place - at least, plastic is inert while brass will corrode away and that really will sink a boat We want to use good manganese bronze or similar thru-hulls, right? Jack
John, are you new to this?
It sounds as if you are. As you peek into boats and learn about this stuff, you will see black plastic ball valves and such stuff, keeping the water out. Actually they are glass reinforced nylon. The debate still is going on but the consensus is that those plastic valves are at least as GOOD as anything else for the job. They're called Marelon. They are made by Forespar. Relax.
It sounds as if you are. As you peek into boats and learn about this stuff, you will see black plastic ball valves and such stuff, keeping the water out. Actually they are glass reinforced nylon. The debate still is going on but the consensus is that those plastic valves are at least as GOOD as anything else for the job. They're called Marelon. They are made by Forespar. Relax.
My only doubts about Catalina...
Don't get me wrong...I really like Catalina's, but always heard that they had engineer'd plastic alloy-seacocks. Again, don't get me wrong...I work in the plastics industry and believe that these are very strong alloys, however, who knows if they can hold up to 10-15 years of use. I have worked with with several nylon alloys since the mid 80's, and many times, the claims can be pretty idealistic when comparing plastic to brass...I still think a Catalina is a great boat for the buck...just can't get beyond the plastic seacocks...
Don't get me wrong...I really like Catalina's, but always heard that they had engineer'd plastic alloy-seacocks. Again, don't get me wrong...I work in the plastics industry and believe that these are very strong alloys, however, who knows if they can hold up to 10-15 years of use. I have worked with with several nylon alloys since the mid 80's, and many times, the claims can be pretty idealistic when comparing plastic to brass...I still think a Catalina is a great boat for the buck...just can't get beyond the plastic seacocks...
brass or bronze...
still tough for plastic to compete against...raises an interesting question about carbon fiber masts though (which are, basically, plastic)....I've seen several racers' CB masts literally crack in half in stong winds (even in the America's Cup)...does keep the weight down though they do bend easily for better sail shape...
still tough for plastic to compete against...raises an interesting question about carbon fiber masts though (which are, basically, plastic)....I've seen several racers' CB masts literally crack in half in stong winds (even in the America's Cup)...does keep the weight down though they do bend easily for better sail shape...
Marelon II
Fred I guess John is new. See his other later post, which you already answered. IT AIN'T PLASTIC, folks. My 1986 boat has Marelon valves, only had to replace one of 6. And it wasn't the handle. The bonnet started to leak. Happens to all valves sooner or later. Sure beat gate valves. That's 18 years. Not bad. They need to be lubrictaed regularly, just like bronze valves, but they sure don't corrode. Mainsheet magazine had a two part discussion about these in 2000. This is NOT an issue. Stu
Fred I guess John is new. See his other later post, which you already answered. IT AIN'T PLASTIC, folks. My 1986 boat has Marelon valves, only had to replace one of 6. And it wasn't the handle. The bonnet started to leak. Happens to all valves sooner or later. Sure beat gate valves. That's 18 years. Not bad. They need to be lubrictaed regularly, just like bronze valves, but they sure don't corrode. Mainsheet magazine had a two part discussion about these in 2000. This is NOT an issue. Stu
Marelon belongs to the group of FRPs:
fiber-reinforced plastics (often more generically designated as "fiber-reinforced polymers"), just as the material that most of our boat hulls are made of. Except that Marelon consists of glass-fiber-filled Zytel (a polyamide or "nylon" material made by Dupont) whereas our vessel hulls consist mostly of a glass-fiber-filled polyester. Just like FRP boats are generally designated as "plastic" (as in "Classic Plastic"), Marelon might be designated as "plastic". To complicate the nomenclature issue a little further, though, not all synthetic polymers are formally speaking "plastics". Whether they are plastics or not depends, oddly enough, on their behavior upon heating. So-called "thermoplasts" melt when heated, whereas "thermosets" form a char-like substance. Interestingly, most types of nylon behave like thermoplasts (clearly visible when trying to seal a nylon rope-end in a flame); but not all types. So, in order to know for sure whether Marelon should be called a plastic or not, one can just hold a corner close to a flame and see if it mostly melts or chars... If this sounds complicated, wait till you need to figure out what the exact definition is of "bronze" versus "brass" or other copper alloys.... Have fun! Flying Dutchman
fiber-reinforced plastics (often more generically designated as "fiber-reinforced polymers"), just as the material that most of our boat hulls are made of. Except that Marelon consists of glass-fiber-filled Zytel (a polyamide or "nylon" material made by Dupont) whereas our vessel hulls consist mostly of a glass-fiber-filled polyester. Just like FRP boats are generally designated as "plastic" (as in "Classic Plastic"), Marelon might be designated as "plastic". To complicate the nomenclature issue a little further, though, not all synthetic polymers are formally speaking "plastics". Whether they are plastics or not depends, oddly enough, on their behavior upon heating. So-called "thermoplasts" melt when heated, whereas "thermosets" form a char-like substance. Interestingly, most types of nylon behave like thermoplasts (clearly visible when trying to seal a nylon rope-end in a flame); but not all types. So, in order to know for sure whether Marelon should be called a plastic or not, one can just hold a corner close to a flame and see if it mostly melts or chars... If this sounds complicated, wait till you need to figure out what the exact definition is of "bronze" versus "brass" or other copper alloys.... Have fun! Flying Dutchman
Longevity of Marelon
Tim - As Stu mentioned, Marelon is not new, and we do know that they last at least 10 to 15 years. I don't discount your concern if you are unsure, but time has tested these things fairly well. I don't know of any catastophics failures. They may exist, but people get run over by busses every day. Again, I don't mean to downplay your question; I just personally choose not to worry about it. If you find information to the contrary, we'd appreciate your sharing it. Thanks for your question and input, Trevor
Tim - As Stu mentioned, Marelon is not new, and we do know that they last at least 10 to 15 years. I don't discount your concern if you are unsure, but time has tested these things fairly well. I don't know of any catastophics failures. They may exist, but people get run over by busses every day. Again, I don't mean to downplay your question; I just personally choose not to worry about it. If you find information to the contrary, we'd appreciate your sharing it. Thanks for your question and input, Trevor
Marelon by Forespar
Marelon* Thru-Hulls & Seacocks: ABYC Section “H-27" requires, in part, that Seacocks (27.5.2) and Through-hull fittings (27.5.3) shall be designed to meet ANSI/UL 1121. And under Materials that: (27.6.1) “All materials shall be galvanically compatible ...” (27.6.3) “All plastic fittings shall meet the following minimum physical properties:: (27.6.3.1) “... min. tensile strength of > 10,900 psi ...” (27.6.3.2) “... min. flexural modulus of > 500,000 psi ...” And under Installation that: (27.7.1) “A seacock shall be securely mounted so that the system will withstand a 500 pound static force applied for 30 seconds ... without failing. (27.7..5.2) “Metallic thru-hull fittings ... shall be bonded to the boat’s common ground point ...” Marelon® Thru-Hulls and Seacocks, manufactured by Forespar, are U.L. marine listed (MQ1151R) and exceed A.B.Y.C. (H-27) (American Boat & Yacht Council) standards. All Forespar® Integrated valve systems (except the Flowtech Performance Valve) used with the thru-hulls supplied meet all current A.B.Y.C. requirements and are Marine U.L. Approved for use below the waterline. OMO - PROPERLY INSTALLED, there is no reason to be concerned about Marelon® Seacocks and Thru-hulls. Regards,
Marelon* Thru-Hulls & Seacocks: ABYC Section “H-27" requires, in part, that Seacocks (27.5.2) and Through-hull fittings (27.5.3) shall be designed to meet ANSI/UL 1121. And under Materials that: (27.6.1) “All materials shall be galvanically compatible ...” (27.6.3) “All plastic fittings shall meet the following minimum physical properties:: (27.6.3.1) “... min. tensile strength of > 10,900 psi ...” (27.6.3.2) “... min. flexural modulus of > 500,000 psi ...” And under Installation that: (27.7.1) “A seacock shall be securely mounted so that the system will withstand a 500 pound static force applied for 30 seconds ... without failing. (27.7..5.2) “Metallic thru-hull fittings ... shall be bonded to the boat’s common ground point ...” Marelon® Thru-Hulls and Seacocks, manufactured by Forespar, are U.L. marine listed (MQ1151R) and exceed A.B.Y.C. (H-27) (American Boat & Yacht Council) standards. All Forespar® Integrated valve systems (except the Flowtech Performance Valve) used with the thru-hulls supplied meet all current A.B.Y.C. requirements and are Marine U.L. Approved for use below the waterline. OMO - PROPERLY INSTALLED, there is no reason to be concerned about Marelon® Seacocks and Thru-hulls. Regards,
Hmmm, Thanks Gord. Now I know
why I love my Marelon valves.
(Installed them during my first haul out in 1987)And Trevor, I don't think Tim will find any info that is seriously demeaning to Marelon. Their 'half life' is pretty close to plutonium.
why I love my Marelon valves.
(Installed them during my first haul out in 1987)And Trevor, I don't think Tim will find any info that is seriously demeaning to Marelon. Their 'half life' is pretty close to plutonium.Here is a test **everyone** can try to prove there
is NO PROBLEM with Marelon Thru Hulls breaking. Here is your test. Go to a west marine store buy a REAL MARELON (not a cheap "plastic" one there is a difference) thruhull and mount it properly in a scrap boat or big piece of fiberglass. Now take a huge monkey wrench or sledge hammer and try and break the thru hull. Go ahead, I dare you. What you will see crack or break will be the gelcoat or the fiberglass boat around where its mounted and not the thru-hull. I can argue they are tougher than some thin-walled bronze thruhulls. If they are real Marelon® Then they are U.L. marine listed (MQ1151R) and exceed A.B.Y.C. (H-27) (American Boat & Yacht Council) standards. Catalina wouldn't be able to pass American and European safety standards if they didn't Remember what is on Catalinas are NOT plastic. I thought the same way you did about bronze but after knowing so much more I am actually thinking that I prefer the marelon now (I'll refer to just one story in many later below). Some benefits are no worries of electrolysis and corrosion that could put your boat with bronze thru-hulls on the bottom of the ocean. I have even heard of lightning going thru a bronze thru hull of a boat in a mooring and the slight crack in the bronze through hull leaked enough for the boat to end up on the bottom of the bay (The insurance company traced the lightning scorch marks along hull to the thru-hull and noted the crack in the bronze) Now I have heard of one or two problems in the past with the old "handles" of the Forespar seacocks (not the thru-hulls), but it did not allow any water in the boat , but the handles broke, it wasn't like the seacock broke (only one type of Forespar also). Forespar quickly redesigned the seacock handles and they also have a retrofit to fix any potential issues you might have. I am the Catalina 36MKII Tech editor and I do not no of one thru-hull on a Catalina 36 failing ever and they have made over 2000 of these boats and for over 20 years. (BTW its a great sailing boat and I know you'd love her. the most popular 36 foot boat **ever** made !) In fact I personally know someone with a Catalina 42 (He on the Catalina email list also now owns a C36 as he moved back inland to a lake) and they had all Marelon seacocks except for one bronze one that was installed for the A/C intake. The boat was almost lost offshore because the one bronze thruhull had de-zinctified (is that a word?) or corroded so badly that it failed while come from the caribbean to the states. Most likely from a "hot marina" slip. Luckily (very luckily when you hear the story) they were able to save the boat.
is NO PROBLEM with Marelon Thru Hulls breaking. Here is your test. Go to a west marine store buy a REAL MARELON (not a cheap "plastic" one there is a difference) thruhull and mount it properly in a scrap boat or big piece of fiberglass. Now take a huge monkey wrench or sledge hammer and try and break the thru hull. Go ahead, I dare you. What you will see crack or break will be the gelcoat or the fiberglass boat around where its mounted and not the thru-hull. I can argue they are tougher than some thin-walled bronze thruhulls. If they are real Marelon® Then they are U.L. marine listed (MQ1151R) and exceed A.B.Y.C. (H-27) (American Boat & Yacht Council) standards. Catalina wouldn't be able to pass American and European safety standards if they didn't Remember what is on Catalinas are NOT plastic. I thought the same way you did about bronze but after knowing so much more I am actually thinking that I prefer the marelon now (I'll refer to just one story in many later below). Some benefits are no worries of electrolysis and corrosion that could put your boat with bronze thru-hulls on the bottom of the ocean. I have even heard of lightning going thru a bronze thru hull of a boat in a mooring and the slight crack in the bronze through hull leaked enough for the boat to end up on the bottom of the bay (The insurance company traced the lightning scorch marks along hull to the thru-hull and noted the crack in the bronze) Now I have heard of one or two problems in the past with the old "handles" of the Forespar seacocks (not the thru-hulls), but it did not allow any water in the boat , but the handles broke, it wasn't like the seacock broke (only one type of Forespar also). Forespar quickly redesigned the seacock handles and they also have a retrofit to fix any potential issues you might have. I am the Catalina 36MKII Tech editor and I do not no of one thru-hull on a Catalina 36 failing ever and they have made over 2000 of these boats and for over 20 years. (BTW its a great sailing boat and I know you'd love her. the most popular 36 foot boat **ever** made !) In fact I personally know someone with a Catalina 42 (He on the Catalina email list also now owns a C36 as he moved back inland to a lake) and they had all Marelon seacocks except for one bronze one that was installed for the A/C intake. The boat was almost lost offshore because the one bronze thruhull had de-zinctified (is that a word?) or corroded so badly that it failed while come from the caribbean to the states. Most likely from a "hot marina" slip. Luckily (very luckily when you hear the story) they were able to save the boat.
John, ps. Secondary fuel filter is on the engine
Not sure what year or engine you are looking at, but its a very high likelyhood that its a Universal deisel engine (either the M25, the M30 or the M35 series) All very good engines with a good track record. These engines have a filter right on the engine (mine M35B filter actually looks like another little oil filter stuck on the side of the engine -- its a spin on filter). The other filter Catalina put on the boat is a Racor filter just behind the engine. To learn more about the Catalina 36 you can peruse the Catalina36 website. It has loads and loads of great stuff. (if you buy the boat you should join the organization !!) http://www.catalina36.org/
Not sure what year or engine you are looking at, but its a very high likelyhood that its a Universal deisel engine (either the M25, the M30 or the M35 series) All very good engines with a good track record. These engines have a filter right on the engine (mine M35B filter actually looks like another little oil filter stuck on the side of the engine -- its a spin on filter). The other filter Catalina put on the boat is a Racor filter just behind the engine. To learn more about the Catalina 36 you can peruse the Catalina36 website. It has loads and loads of great stuff. (if you buy the boat you should join the organization !!) http://www.catalina36.org/
Thanks for the A.B.Y.C. standard requirements
with regard to flexural modulus and tensile strength. Any ideas what the actual test data for Marelon would be like? My guess is that reliable test data will be hard to find for the following reasons: (1) the tensile and flexural properties of the final FRP product will be more or less strongly directional; i.e. will differ in various directions depending upon the fiber skeleton; and (2) since all FRPs are "engineered materials", the final performance depends on the recipes, experience and care used in the manufacturing process (very much like the quality of a manufactured car tire or the lay-up of your FRP hull). Consequently, actual test data, if in the public domain at all, are likely to go all over the map. Don't misunderstand me; for all I know Marelon through-hulls and sea-cocks are great products. At least, I don't personally know anyone who has come to serious grief by using them. However, Just to trust Marelon as a product because the manufacturer has declared that it meets A.B.Y.C. standards still leaves lots of questions to be answered. Have fun! Flying Dutchman
with regard to flexural modulus and tensile strength. Any ideas what the actual test data for Marelon would be like? My guess is that reliable test data will be hard to find for the following reasons: (1) the tensile and flexural properties of the final FRP product will be more or less strongly directional; i.e. will differ in various directions depending upon the fiber skeleton; and (2) since all FRPs are "engineered materials", the final performance depends on the recipes, experience and care used in the manufacturing process (very much like the quality of a manufactured car tire or the lay-up of your FRP hull). Consequently, actual test data, if in the public domain at all, are likely to go all over the map. Don't misunderstand me; for all I know Marelon through-hulls and sea-cocks are great products. At least, I don't personally know anyone who has come to serious grief by using them. However, Just to trust Marelon as a product because the manufacturer has declared that it meets A.B.Y.C. standards still leaves lots of questions to be answered. Have fun! Flying Dutchman
Don't Complain if you Don't Maintain
For those who "complain" that the handle of their Marelon thru-hull broke, or say they knew of someone who had a handle break, it would be good if they would be honest and say how many years the valve went without any maintenance. To not maintain something and then complain that something broke is, well.... Just consider the source.
For those who "complain" that the handle of their Marelon thru-hull broke, or say they knew of someone who had a handle break, it would be good if they would be honest and say how many years the valve went without any maintenance. To not maintain something and then complain that something broke is, well.... Just consider the source.
Henk M.
Is right to be a little skeptical about manufacturers’ claims. However, I find the questions regarding the test results to be somewhat disingenuous or specious (take your pick as to motive). Do you honestly think that any professional would not consider all likely force vectors when testing structural properties? To imply that only “engineered” materials, by which I understand you to intend “man-made or synthetic” materials, are subject to manufacturing “quality” issues, is to suggest that you’ve never seen an Asian Bronze castings. The ABYC specifications I partially quoted go on to say “when tested to ASTM D368 and D790 (tensile & flexural respectively)”. I don’t have access to the ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) test specifications, nor the documentation under which Forespar passed these tests. Undoubtably, the testing standards address the (directional & manufacturing consistency) issues Henk raises. and ABYC 27.7.1 describes the 500# static force test as performed at the “...inboard end of it’s connecting fitting, at any point in it’s most vulnerable direction...” Please note, that I did not previously recommend one over the other, but only advised that I knew of no critical limiting problem with Marelon® fittings. Having used & installed, and understanding the tradeoffs of both, I will now express my preference (in most cases) for the Marelon® products.My personal recommendations are based upon my previous experience with both Marelon® and Bronze fittings - both on my own boats and as I installed them on others’ boats. They are smaller, lighter, and non-conductive - all of which I find to be advantageous over Bronze. Go Marelons! (S. Fla. joke) Respectfully,
Is right to be a little skeptical about manufacturers’ claims. However, I find the questions regarding the test results to be somewhat disingenuous or specious (take your pick as to motive). Do you honestly think that any professional would not consider all likely force vectors when testing structural properties? To imply that only “engineered” materials, by which I understand you to intend “man-made or synthetic” materials, are subject to manufacturing “quality” issues, is to suggest that you’ve never seen an Asian Bronze castings. The ABYC specifications I partially quoted go on to say “when tested to ASTM D368 and D790 (tensile & flexural respectively)”. I don’t have access to the ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) test specifications, nor the documentation under which Forespar passed these tests. Undoubtably, the testing standards address the (directional & manufacturing consistency) issues Henk raises. and ABYC 27.7.1 describes the 500# static force test as performed at the “...inboard end of it’s connecting fitting, at any point in it’s most vulnerable direction...” Please note, that I did not previously recommend one over the other, but only advised that I knew of no critical limiting problem with Marelon® fittings. Having used & installed, and understanding the tradeoffs of both, I will now express my preference (in most cases) for the Marelon® products.My personal recommendations are based upon my previous experience with both Marelon® and Bronze fittings - both on my own boats and as I installed them on others’ boats. They are smaller, lighter, and non-conductive - all of which I find to be advantageous over Bronze. Go Marelons!
(S. Fla. joke) Respectfully, and the best way to maintain them...
is to use them!!! Open them as part of your boarding procedure and close them when you leave. You are checking them for ease of movement and insuring that they work, and, at the same time, insuring that they are open and/or closed when they are supposed to be. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet in this thread, but tapered wooden plugs should be tied to the seacocks for emergencies. Tom
is to use them!!! Open them as part of your boarding procedure and close them when you leave. You are checking them for ease of movement and insuring that they work, and, at the same time, insuring that they are open and/or closed when they are supposed to be. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet in this thread, but tapered wooden plugs should be tied to the seacocks for emergencies. Tom
Gord, questioning anyone's motives is not
exactly my favorite way of having discussions on this board. Just for the record, however, I neither manufacture, nor install and sell Marelon or any type of competing products. Also, I have no personal axe to grind here. I am neither a proponent nor an adversary of Marelon products. There are applications in which I am happy to use them and others in which I would rather not. However, over the past 2 decades my laboratory has tested a wide range of composite materials ranging from car tires and FRPs to artificial human hearts. The shortest way to sum up what I know about FRPs is that there are no really satisfactory procedures to fabricate them to uniform performance standards. Moreover, to make matters worse, we currently have no really adequate methods to test their strength and resilience in all 3 dimensions, other than perhaps by extremely expensive MRI or 3-dimenional X-ray methods. Just take an arbitrary piece of fiberglass (a related FRP; except with polyester rather than polyamide) from one of our vessels. Do you really think anyone on this planet could accurately predict how strong it is going to test out? We all know that the precise way in which the resin and the fibers were put together, the environmental conditions, the way tiny bubbles were removed, the way it was cured, and so on and so forth, will make a tremendous difference. This is what I mean by an "engineered material", it is the chef's recipe rather than the chemical composition that determines the end result. Another well known example of an engineered material are car tires. Every decade or so the world will be hit by some kind of Firestone-like scandal. The unlucky manufacturer who hits the dirt simply had a bad week in the kitchen. Could happen to the best of them, though. Have fun! Flying Dutchman
exactly my favorite way of having discussions on this board. Just for the record, however, I neither manufacture, nor install and sell Marelon or any type of competing products. Also, I have no personal axe to grind here. I am neither a proponent nor an adversary of Marelon products. There are applications in which I am happy to use them and others in which I would rather not. However, over the past 2 decades my laboratory has tested a wide range of composite materials ranging from car tires and FRPs to artificial human hearts. The shortest way to sum up what I know about FRPs is that there are no really satisfactory procedures to fabricate them to uniform performance standards. Moreover, to make matters worse, we currently have no really adequate methods to test their strength and resilience in all 3 dimensions, other than perhaps by extremely expensive MRI or 3-dimenional X-ray methods. Just take an arbitrary piece of fiberglass (a related FRP; except with polyester rather than polyamide) from one of our vessels. Do you really think anyone on this planet could accurately predict how strong it is going to test out? We all know that the precise way in which the resin and the fibers were put together, the environmental conditions, the way tiny bubbles were removed, the way it was cured, and so on and so forth, will make a tremendous difference. This is what I mean by an "engineered material", it is the chef's recipe rather than the chemical composition that determines the end result. Another well known example of an engineered material are car tires. Every decade or so the world will be hit by some kind of Firestone-like scandal. The unlucky manufacturer who hits the dirt simply had a bad week in the kitchen. Could happen to the best of them, though. Have fun! Flying Dutchman
- Status