Refitting the Scuppers for Heavy Weather Confidence

[testingthewaters91]

I'm upgrading the cockpit drains on my Cherubini with bluewater reliability in mind—planning for green water, not just rain. The current setup is typical of the era: molded fiberglass drains, glassed into the cockpit sole and hull, no flanged fittings, no seacocks—just a hose clamped onto a hand-shaped layup that looks like it was built with a bucket of resin and a prayer.

They've held up, but they look rough, and I’m not interested in crossing oceans with systems that rely on luck and legacy glasswork. I like the 1.5" hose size and plan to replace it with high-quality smooth-wall hose. I’m also considering adding seacocks to the cockpit drain outlets, even though they exit slightly above the waterline, just for peace of mind offshore.

I want to bring some real structure and serviceability to this part of the boat—flat flange, proper through-hull, backing plate, valve, and hose run that won’t make me nervous in a seaway.

Open to ideas or lessons learned if anyone’s done this kind of retrofit.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Seacocks make no sense. You want the water to get out. If concerned about backup, then cross the hoses.

Where will you be sailing that makes you think you'd need an upgrade and expect blue water of a magnitude that would overwhelm your existing system?

A friend sailed his C34 from Vancouver to Mexico. His only comment was to use wire reinforced hose. n He wrote: - scupper hoses - I replaced these "above waterline" hoses with whatever cheap crap the guy at West Marine said would be good. When you have a big following sea off the Oregon coast at 2 o'clock in the morning, your scupper hoses are not above the water and there is no comfort in cheap hoses that could get ripped if something shifted down there - I replaced these in Coos Bay with exhaust style hose. Our C34s have two like yours, only difference is the cockpit fittings are manufactured not built-up fg.

 

[testingthewaters91]

Seacocks make no sense. You want the water to get out. If concerned about backup, then cross the hoses.

Where will you be sailing that makes you think you'd need an upgrade and expect blue water of a magnitude that would overwhelm your existing system?

A friend sailed his C34 from Vancouver to Mexico. His only comment was to use wire reinforced hose. n He wrote: - scupper hoses - I replaced these "above waterline" hoses with whatever cheap crap the guy at West Marine said would be good. When you have a big following sea off the Oregon coast at 2 o'clock in the morning, your scupper hoses are not above the water and there is no comfort in cheap hoses that could get ripped if something shifted down there - I replaced these in Coos Bay with exhaust style hose. Our C34s have two like yours, only difference is the cockpit fittings are manufactured not built-up fg.

Really appreciate your thoughts, Stu—especially the Coos Bay story. That’s exactly the kind of real-world data I’m hunting. And you're right—cheap hose is a false economy.

That said, I’m not sure I follow the "seacocks make no sense" angle. ABYC H-27 calls for shutoffs on all hull penetrations below the waterline—or near it. A knockdown doesn't care how high the drain exits looked at the dock.

Crossed hoses help, but they don’t stop a cracked fitting, a failed clamp, or a dragged-off hose from flooding a laz. I’m thinking in terms of collision, inversion, container strike—not rainwater management.

To your question: planning ICW to Caribbean, but designing for Cape Horn—because I’ve never met a storm that asked where I was going.

Still sketching options. Curious what others are running—factory glassed tubes, flanged fittings, valves, or just hope and tradition?

 

[jssailem]

A knockdown doesn't care how high the drain exits looked at the dock.

I look at the cockpit drains the same way I look at the water breaks in my deck toe rail. Water washes on, water washes off. It would be just your luck that a knockdown or boarding sea happens when the drains (which are hidden in a locker against the hull) are closed. Now what are you going to do? If they are open, your boat rights itself, the water washes out of the drains, and you are sailing again.

When conditions are such that you are concerned about a following sea trying to poop you, you should have all of the lockers/hatches/lazeretts closed and locked down. That way, you prevent water from entering the boat.

 

[testingthewaters91]

I look at the cockpit drains the same way I look at the water breaks in my deck toe rail. Water washes on, water washes off. It would be just your luck that a knockdown or boarding sea happens when the drains (which are hidden in a locker against the hull) are closed. Now what are you going to do? If they are open, your boat rights itself, the water washes out of the drains, and you are sailing again.



When conditions are such that you are concerned about a following sea trying to poop you, you should have all of the lockers/hatches/lazeretts closed and locked down. That way, you prevent water from entering the boat.

Appreciate the perspective—it’s a solid point that open drains get the cockpit clear fastest after a knockdown, and I’m with you on keeping water moving off the boat.

Where I get caught thinking is the what-if layer. ABYC H-27 calls for shutoffs on any penetration that can be below the waterline in any condition, dynamic or static. In real weather, heel and pitch can put even “above-waterline” drains under for sustained periods, and a failed hose or cracked fitting in that moment can feed water in just as fast as it leaves.

I’m not arguing for sailing around with everything closed—just looking for a system that drains fast and lets me isolate the run instantly if something lets go offshore. In theory, you never need that. In practice, I’ve met enough gear failures to keep it in the back of my mind.

Curious how others have solved the balance between immediate drainage and fail-safe isolation on bluewater setups.

 

[jssailem]

My boat’s cockpit drains are schedule 80 1.5” PVC PIPE. The 90degree turn is a full flow 90. They exit the stern. Water would have to flow up 3-4feet if it is breaking against the stern. From in the cockpit I’ll be standing in water as it empties.
Here are the outlets.

With your concern are you installing a high volume manual bilge pump?

 

[Stu Jackson]

I’m not arguing for sailing around with everything closed—just looking for a system that drains fast and lets me isolate the run instantly if something lets go offshore. In theory, you never need that. In practice, I’ve met enough gear failures to keep it in the back of my mind.

So where would the valves go? At the top of the hose just below the deck to stop cockpit water getting down below in case of a broken hose? Or at the bottom to stop water coming up? See, this is why valves on cockpit drains make no sense, because if there is no right place for them, then the sensible thing to do is assure your hoses are of the proper material and in good condition and clamped properly - end of story.

 

[Richard19068]

This is a possible scenario the OP might be pondering:

You're sailing along in good wind with following seas. Your scupper thru hulls, at least one of them, are below the waterline because of the conditions. This happens. For whatever reason your super drain hose breaks or comes off the thru hull fitting and so water comes gushing in. You don't notice until the boat starts getting sluggish from the weight. Now because of that weight the scupper drain thru hull is further under water, even with the boat slowed to a stop. You look down in the lazarette, or wherever the scupper thru hulls are, and say F***! Sure, you should have some kind of plug for each hull penetration but wouldn't that be a good time to have a valve on that thru hull?

Far fetched example maybe but it could happen. So, if you are worried about it and want to spend the time and money to install those valves..... " your boat your choice". Right?

 

[dlochner]

If you install seacocks, only do so if you can easily reach them. Sabre has a habit of installing seacocks on their cockpit drains because they are at or below the waterline. However, reaching them is nearly impossible unless you have gorilla arms that can reach down that far in the lassarette. I suppose in an emergency and sufficiently motivated, one would stand on their head to close them, however, if they are hard to reach and service, they won't be.

 

[Richard19068]

If you install seacocks, only do so if you can easily reach them. Sabre has a habit of installing seacocks on their cockpit drains because they are at or below the waterline. However, reaching them is nearly impossible unless you have gorilla arms that can reach down that far in the lassarette. I suppose in an emergency and sufficiently motivated, one would stand on their head to close them, however, if they are hard to reach and service, they won't be.

That's a good point. My engine intake valve is in a difficult position to get to. Especially as I get to a point that makes the boat yoga even harder. I rigged up a system that allows me to open and close that valve from the the cockpit without all the contortions.

 

[Dalliance]

We have the same boat. Seacocks would just be left open all the time because they’re too hard to reach. Don’t do it.
My cockpit scupper hoses cross. Starboard cockpit pit drain hose exits port side. Port side drain on starboard.
The only thing that would help the cockpit drain a bit faster old be to remove the slotted stainless steel cover plates in the cockpit. The risk is that small objects dropped in the cockpit could disappear down the scuppers.

 

[Foswick]

To my mind, the only good reason to put a seacock on the cockpit scupper hoses is to respond to a failure of the hose that was above the seacock but below the waterline. This would afford you the ability to close that through-hull location while effecting a repair. While that is certainly valid, it assumes that the seacock itself or the through-hull are not the source of the failure, in which case you are no better off.

So, you have a couple of ways to mitigate the risk of a failure along that short stretch of hose. One is to install a seacock. Another is to install the hose in a way it is exceedingly unlikely to fail. I would focus on the latter.

Of course, you could say that both is better - a robust hose installation AND a seacock, just in case. And, that is a defensible position. It just depends on if you trust the seacock not to fail catastrophically more than you trust a simpler installation without the seacock. I wouldn't, but you might. Modern seacocks are extremely reliable, when installed properly, but so is just a simple through-hull.

And, as was raised, if you can't get to the seacock in an emergency, in this case, you're better off without it. On our boat, should we have a catastrophic failure, about the only thing to do about it would be to plug the through-hull from the outside, since there would be no safe way to get to a seacock in that location. Might be different on your boat.

You do raise a valid concern about serviceability. Re-engineering the drainage end-to-end could make it easier to service, but at the cost of more points of failure. As ugly and haphazard as the fiberglass looks, it is reliable and, just as importantly, it is easy to repair at sea - just stop the flow of water, slap more fiberglass on, and fix it properly later. That cannot be said for a failure on/around a seacock.

So, when talking about serviceability, it depends on if you mean "easier to work on when on the hard" or "easier to fix in the middle of the Pacific".