Save-A-Boat - The Forum for Plastic Classic Rebuilds!

I just noticed this Rhodes 41 on Ebay. Looks like it needs some work, but pretty spiffy none the less.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Classic- ... dZViewItem

Jimmy Small

You should note the little detail: she sank at her mooring because a hose came off.

I live in fear of such a disaster. Our insurance will not pay for a failure due to corrosion or lack of maintenance.

D

...she sank at her mooring because a hose came off...

Oh, how many times has this been said. Such an unfortunate occurrence--yet completely avoidable.

Insurance claim statistics (that I have read somewhere--probably BoatUS) show that most sinkings occur at moorings or docks, typically because of a broken fitting or broken/deteriorated/loose hose.

Folks: inspect those hoses, through hulls, and clamps! Insist on only the best and highest quality hose that is appropriate for the intended use, and spend the extra money for the all 316SS, smooth-band hose clamps, such as those made by AWAB. And close seacocks everywhere you can whenever a certain through hull is not in use.

Fear of this happening is the best insurance against it ever happening. I fear it badly...and therefore tend to obsess over the maintenance of through hull fittings and hose.

Sinkings make a real mess of things. Some of the problems don't show up till later on. Paying 20K for this boat (the Rhodes) after a sinking would be crazy.

There should never be a thru-hull anywhere near the waterline that doesn't have a seacock. I've recently started researching plastic classics and I read, with amazement, that many have thru-hulls w/out seacocks! What were they thinking?! Without a seacock your boat's life hangs on a $2 hose clamp! I couldn't sleep at night knowing my boat was that close to the edge.

There should never be a thru-hull anywhere near the waterline that doesn't have a seacock.

While I agree with this statement in principle, I have seen instances of through hulls used without seacocks (which were found acceptable to surveyors), usually in situations where there isn't room for a seacock and/or a seacock wouldn't be accessible even if one were installed. Where I've seen this is in cockpit drains. In those instances the hose length was usually very short from the top fitting to through hull, and double clamping was the order of the day.

I guess surveyors are used to seeing these things, but I simply would not allow a hole in the bottom of my boat that I couldn't close. I'm sure that, statistically, you're OK with a double clamped hose - in the same way that you would probably survive not locking the doors to your home each evening, but these things seem to me to fall under the "tempt not thy Lord" heading. the only place where there's any wiggle in my stance on this would be if you could have a F.G. tube that went directly from your cockpit drain to the bottom of the boat. If it was the same thickness as the rest of the hull, wouldn't it be as strong as the rest of the hull? I don't know. What I do know is, surveyor or not, trusting my boat to a pair of $2 hoseclamps and a $4 piece of hose would give me loose bowels.

Yeah..what about those fiberglass tubes?

I have 2 for the sinks and 4 for the cockpit and deck drains. All seem very solid...but I am terrified of something in a locker breaking one off and Andiamo sinking like a stone. I suppose it doesn't happen or we would read about it more.

I wonder if they are above waterline at heel too? Now you got me worried and thinking....

I know guys that do have seacocks on their thru-hulls above the waterline. It is not unheard of to take water into your engine thru the exhaust so some people even put a seacock on their exhaust. I think I'd do that if I did a lot of blue water work, but I don't so I have no seacocks above the waterline. My topsides thru-hulls are 18" or more off the water so I think I'm alright. Six holes in the bottom you can't close?! Maybe you are more likely to get struck by lightening, but it would worry the mess out of me. Are these fiberglass tubes that are glassed in at either end?

These are fiberglass tubes that are about 1.5 inches in diameter that are glass to the boat and stand vertically. They reach above the waterline and then have rubber tube attached to bridge between the sink or cockpit/deck scupper.

They seem very substantial....but I've never tried to see what it would take to break one off!!! If I succeded results would be pretty predictable and quick.

Here is one I put up on my blog for you all to see



This is the sink and shower drain. The galley sink is the same and there are additonal ones for the scuppers.

The sink is attached to the top of the fglass tube with a good rubber hose and double clamps. The tube is glassed to the boat. Please ignore the general nastiness...these were taken as soon as I bought the boat and much cleaning has occured.


Way I figure it is that it is 44 years old (1962!!) and the tubes seem solid, again I have pulled on them but not intentionally overstressed them. No worries of leaking hoses or forgetting a seacock.

I have never run across anyone who has had issues with these, either splitting in the water in cold weather or failing....but I sure would like to hear about it if someone has info to the contrary!!!

A customer of mine just paid $1,000 to have a contractor haul his father's Columbia 10.6 off to the junk pile. Dad has altzhiemer's, and no hull insurance. A fitting failed, the batteries were dead, and bingo bango, sank at the dock. The marine surveyor he hired wouldn't even enter the cabin to do an inspection. No telling how long it sat in the mud before someone noticed. {private marina,no dockmaster} This was a boat that should have been worth at average $28,000.

Ric,
Sounds like they are strong enough.

Radicalsy,
What kind of fitting failed. I worked with a fellow whose head back-siphoned & sank his boat.

I'm not sure, but suspect a hose ruptured or a fitting corroded. The boat had been left without monitoring for some time due to illness.

keelbolts wrote:the only place where there's any wiggle in my stance on this would be if you could have a F.G. tube that went directly from your cockpit drain to the bottom of the boat.

Unfortunately, hulls, decks, and cockpits always move somewhat independently of each other. Solid connections like this, however sturdy they might seem, would be susceptible to stress cracking and ultimate failure from the repetitive stress between the various components. A connection like this would be far riskier than the fiberglass tube with hose attached.

I took all the original fiberglass tubes out of my boat. A couple of them were well laid-up and strong, but the ones under the cockpit were splintery, full of resin-starved fabric, and generally non-confidence building. Fitting seacocks (OK, flanged ball valves; technically, I have no "seacocks" on my boat, as no ball valve is technically a seacock; a true seacock is actually a barrel-type device, as keelbolts mentioned elsewhere) and hoses into this space was a challenge that I have frequently discussed here, and which is also detailed on my website.

In the end, any boat with a self-bailing cockpit requires at least one open hose through the hull at all times. Trust in hose and hose clamps is a must, or else we have to just stay home and leave the boat high and dry. So, to allay fears, frequent inspections, regular replacement, and the use of only the best quality materials is required.

Most hose barbs sold today are not long enough to properly support a pair of hose clamps. In many cases, the second clamp is more of a hinderance than a help, as it can even pull the hose off the barb if the clamp is too near the end of the barb. Older fittings have longer barbs that can accept two clamps if desired, but it takes a surprisingly long barb to properly support a pair of clamps.

I prefer the approach of using the best clamps available and using only one at each location. After all, if one clamp fails, why should we expect that the one immediately above it should be in any better shape? Double clamps are a false security at best, I think. Perhaps there's no harm in some situations, but I question the benefit either.

Double hose clamps are required only on engine exhaust and fuel fill hoses. No other instances are required by applicable standards and laws, and in my opinion they should be avoided on most fittings.

I've seen quality fittings and hoses on a very tiny percentage of boats that I have ever looked at. Most boats look like they were outfitted at the local Dollar Store. No wonder they sink at the dock. Each to their own. But if you have, say, $50 worth of quality clamps on your boat, (versus $10 for the typical type) is that really too high a price to pay for the boat's well-being? Not in my book.

But if you have, say, $50 worth of quality clamps on your boat...

Totally agree Tim but I think you are in denial if you only have $50 worth of clamps on Glissando :-) At $3-4 dollars a pop they add up a bit quicker than that. I think my engine installation alone has more money invested in clamps. I am just nit-picking of course. I am actually glad to hear you say that the second clamp tends to 'fall off' or otherwise pull the hose off. I have fought this tendency several times and I have wondered if it was just me.

Once you have worked with a good AWAB all stainless clamp you will never use anything else. Costs be damned.

-Britton

Taking this thread one step farther away from the original post, there are now Titanium hose clamps available, that are that much more secure than stainless. They retail for around $5.00 each. Link below.

http://www.sailorssolutions.com/index.a ... egoryID=28

bcooke wrote:

But if you have, say, $50 worth of quality clamps on your boat...

Totally agree Tim but I think you are in denial if you only have $50 worth of clamps on Glissando :-) At $3-4 dollars a pop they add up a bit quicker than that.

True enough. I was just throwing random numbers around as an example.

OK, back to the Rhodes 41 -- the critical question no one has asked yet is How far was she submerged, and for how long? Also, were the pictures taken before the sinking or after the clean up?