Survey for insurance purposes

Forum for general cruising topics
Pete Cooper
Old Salt
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 5:48 pm
Boat Type: Micro Gem 550 Super Yacht

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby Pete Cooper » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:26 pm

If you go to a thicker diameter of wire is there a danger that you are overstressing something else? I have seen many threads where people say that you should tighten shrouds to a certain percentage of the breaking strain(or something) of the wire. So if you go from 8mm wire to 10mm wire that would mean putting a significantly greater load on other bits of the boat.
I have never been asked by my insurance to replace rigging, and it is certainly older than 12 years.

User avatar
ParaHandy
Old Salt
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:11 am

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby ParaHandy » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:17 pm

Pete Cooper wrote:So if you go from 8mm wire to 10mm wire that would mean putting a significantly greater load on other bits of the boat.
I have never been asked by my insurance to replace rigging, and it is certainly older than 12 years.

Which insurer?

A change from 8 to 10mm is a bit much and unnecessary, I would have thought? 8mm has a 7 tonne breaking strain and 10mm?

Pete Cooper
Old Salt
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 5:48 pm
Boat Type: Micro Gem 550 Super Yacht

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby Pete Cooper » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:07 am

ParaHandy wrote:
Pete Cooper wrote:So if you go from 8mm wire to 10mm wire that would mean putting a significantly greater load on other bits of the boat.
I have never been asked by my insurance to replace rigging, and it is certainly older than 12 years.

Which insurer?

Navigators & General - I suspect it is because my boat is very low value. If the mast fell off they would probably class it as a write off rather than pay however much to rerig it.

A change from 8 to 10mm is a bit much and unnecessary, I would have thought? 8mm has a 7 tonne breaking strain and 10mm?

That's my point - we hear of people moving up in rigging size, and if you tension it to the same percentage as the original then something else is possibly being over stressed? I wouldn't fit over sized rigging on my boat - I'll just trust the designers.

User avatar
aquaplane
Admiral of the White Rose
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 12:55 pm
Boat Type: Jeanneau Espace
Location: Body: West Yorks; Boat: Tayvallich
Contact:

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby aquaplane » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:43 pm

What if you go up a size but tension to whatever % of the original size. The stress on the fittings should be the same but there should be loads of spare in the rigging?

I suppose it comes down to what you want to fail first, the rigging or the fittings.
Seminole.
Cheers Bob.

User avatar
sahona
Admiral of the White
Posts: 1977
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:17 pm
Boat Type: Marcon Claymore
Location: Clyde

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby sahona » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:56 pm

I'm not suggesting you go "up a size" of rigging while leaving other weak links all over the boat. What I'm saying is that some boats seem to have been over-engineered in comparison to others -the assumption being that the sturdyness pervades throughout the boat, and it should therefore be exempt from ad hoc replacement.
The TW35, I would have thought, falls into this brickshithouse category and in my opinion demands more respect from insurers.
http://trooncruisingclub.org/ 20' - 30' Berths available, Clyde.
Cruising, racing, maintenance facilities. Go take a look, you know you want to.

User avatar
claymore
Admiral of the Green
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:55 pm
Boat Type: Claymore
Location: Northern Hemisphere

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby claymore » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:19 pm

sahona wrote:I'm not suggesting you go "up a size" of rigging while leaving other weak links all over the boat. What I'm saying is that some boats seem to have been over-engineered in comparison to others -the assumption being that the sturdyness pervades throughout the boat, and it should therefore be exempt from ad hoc replacement.
The TW35, I would have thought, falls into this brickshithouse category and in my opinion demands more respect from insurers.


Unlike the fekkin owner :shake:
Regards
Claymore
:goatd

User avatar
Bodach na mara
Master Mariner
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:54 am
Boat Type: Westerly Seahawk
Location: Clyde

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby Bodach na mara » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:17 pm

I have been interested in this thread because my insurer has added a condition that I must have "full out-of-water survey before renewal in 2015" so next winter I face the same problem. The surveyer employed by Para seems like a right jobsworth. To recommend that the rigging and gas system be "inspected" is simply buck-passing. That is what he was supposed to do in the first place. Far too many surveyers (and other professionals) are up to this trick and their "reports" are not worth a damn due to tyhe hedging contained therein. A wee heads-up on the identity of this particular chancer would be welcome by the way.

My boat was last surveyed in 2005, so it is not unreasonable to have it surveyed again. But the last survey was becaues my previous insurer demanded one. Armed with the survey, I got a quote for insurance for half what I was paying and saved the cost of the survey in two years.
Ken

User avatar
ParaHandy
Old Salt
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:11 am

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby ParaHandy » Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:42 pm

Wight Dawn wrote:I have been interested in this thread because my insurer has added a condition that I must have "full out-of-water survey before renewal in 2015" so next winter I face the same problem. The surveyer employed by Para seems like a right jobsworth. To recommend that the rigging and gas system be "inspected" is simply buck-passing. That is what he was supposed to do in the first place. Far too many surveyers (and other professionals) are up to this trick and their "reports" are not worth a damn due to tyhe hedging contained therein. A wee heads-up on the identity of this particular chancer would be welcome by the way.

My boat was last surveyed in 2005, so it is not unreasonable to have it surveyed again. But the last survey was becaues my previous insurer demanded one. Armed with the survey, I got a quote for insurance for half what I was paying and saved the cost of the survey in two years.

I'm wondering if I can recover the financial loss I'll incur by a county court action either against the surveyor or his organization, YDSA. They will have to prove that the risk exists such that specific action must be taken to mitigate the risk rather than that the risk is a generic insured risk. Despite rummaging through the MAIB's cases, I've yet to find either a death or injury caused through rigging failure of a cruising yacht.

I had to employ a surveyor (a shipyard damaged her) 8 years ago and this one was promptly sacked after reading his T&Cs which noted that any dispute was time limited and had to be heard in the Cook Islands. I am deadly serious, that was how he did his business in the UK and he's not the only one.

A friend suggested I get 3rd party insurance and avoid all this ...

User avatar
claymore
Admiral of the Green
Posts: 4191
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:55 pm
Boat Type: Claymore
Location: Northern Hemisphere

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby claymore » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:04 pm

Para
Stop fekkin aboot and get yersel some cover
Saga wid be happy tae accomodate an auld cacker like yersel.....
Regards
Claymore
:goatd

User avatar
Arghiro
Old Salt
Posts: 918
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:54 pm
Boat Type: Pentland Ketch
Location: Midlands

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby Arghiro » Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:24 pm

I realise I am a little late in the day joining this thread, but I too am of the opinion that boats with rigs built like a brick outhouse & sailed on family picnics tend not to lose their masts that often. My aged Westerly has short fat masts & heavy rigging and is still healthy @ 41 years old. I did however replace the perished original rubber gas hose about 10 years ago when I put the stove on gimbals.

I have also written my own survey in the past. I was honest about the condition & used an earlier survey as a pattern. I told the insurance company I was doing my own survey & pointed out that I was a Chartered Engineer 7 they accepted it. Basically, they want a report that says you probably won't sink tomorrow to reassure the underwriters.

Check it all over, replace anything that you don't like & tell 'em what you've done. They should be OK with that. You could be crafty & get someone else to sign it I suppose - as there is no requirement for a surveyor to be "qualified", what can they say?

User avatar
ParaHandy
Old Salt
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:11 am

Re: Survey for insurance purposes

Postby ParaHandy » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:33 pm

Arghiro wrote:I have also written my own survey in the past. I was honest about the condition & used an earlier survey as a pattern. I told the insurance company I was doing my own survey & pointed out that I was a Chartered Engineer 7 they accepted it. Basically, they want a report that says you probably won't sink tomorrow to reassure the underwriters.

Check it all over, replace anything that you don't like & tell 'em what you've done. They should be OK with that. You could be crafty & get someone else to sign it I suppose - as there is no requirement for a surveyor to be "qualified", what can they say?

I used the CE argument in 2004 when a "competent engineer could do a gas installation" under the various Acts. Surveyor has to be a member of the YDSA and they require a qualification, I believe. I did indeed tell 'em what I was going to do and what I wasn't; all of which was accepted. I bet, though, if my rubber pipe to the cooker bursts and blows the fekking thing up, I will be uninsured.


Return to “Shooting the breeze”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests