Tony Brooks

I suggest that you CAREFULLY read my posts on this subject. I only ADVISE (you do know what that means, I assume) that buying an in scope boat without the full RCD/RCR paperwork may cause problems later on. Whereas your "advice" along with others seems to be that it there are no risks associated with buying an in scope boat without the relevant paperwork. You will also note that earlier in this topic I pointed out that a private sale would be one way around the broker problem. If you can read AND understand you will also grasp that I do not state things as definite, but do state as a possibility.

That would be nice for those wishing to sell, but might equally put a regulatory spotlight on the named brokers. If what Alan has posted is correct, then I think we could conclude brokers who are not members of the BMF or associated organisations would be the ones to look for. This in no way is intended to suggest what Alan has posted about it is incorrect, I simply don't know, but to my mind it seems likely.

I am sure that we have had a post from a lady who had had a broker demand the boat be certified, although she did not name them, and after an earlier exchange on this topic I had a PM or email from someone confirming that is the case. I don't think that we get much further, saying that unless the brokers are named this is all a mirage.

The size of the inlet manifold connection will be determined by the engine manufacturer in relation to the air flow required, so there will be a relationship between connection size and required air flow. Another point s that K&N main market is petrol engines, that when tuned, have peak revs of over 6000 rpm. Few, if any, boat type diesels will rev at much over 4000 rpm, so the maximum air volume required will be less on our types of diesels. I suspect the OP may have a BMC 1.5 engine, so there is a good chance he could fit anything from a BMC B series engine, the MG specialists may be able to help, but the exhaust manifold cum header tank may get on the way.

I agree on both counts, Alan's and the ambiguity. I think the problem is that there is not sufficient case law to clarify exactly what the regulations mean in practice, so people (the brokers) are erring on the side of caution. We can discuss this ad nauseam and try to find excuses for why the regulations may or may not apply, but it is clear that right now brokers are refusing to handle boats and no matter what any individuals may think and say that is a fact people wanting to sell via a broker must face. It is of no help to them trying to pick holes in the regulations and their applicability.

As K&N are a respected name in engine tuning circles, they are unlikely to produce an air filter that restricts the air supply. The filter linked to will fit, I think, a BMC 1.5 and although the filtering look finer than the wire mesh on the "standard" it has a far breather area so is very unlikely to restrict the air supply. The range of filters fitted by marinises to engines around 1.5 litres capacity is large, from no filter as on the Vetus air boxes, through larger frying pan filters as per many Beta and Listers, to the small foam types fitted on some BMCs, and it seems to make little difference to exhaust smoke and performance, so I doubt the air restriction is a concern providing one does not do anything like fitting motor mower filter. If I were the OP, I would just pipe the breather into a milk "bottle" stood in the engine drip tray. I think that would solve a lot of the filter fouling.

I think it is only "in scope" boats that the brokers are demanding RCR/PCA certificates for. There is no reason for them not to sell boats that are not "in scope", so your request seems to show a degree of misunderstanding of the discussion, and apparently the law as it stands.

Thanks, but I still believe there is an offence committed when someone claims or conducts themselves in a manner that allows others to reasonably believe they have expertise that they do not and the law expects them to deliver that expertise. If they do not, then an offence has been committed. (For clarity, a civil offence).

And your proof of that statement is? It certainly was explained as thus during my motor management law classes when I was studying for my professional qualifications. I have since seen no reason to doubt it.

I am not sure about that. I suspect signing off a non-compliant boat as meeting the RCD/RCR would be a civil offence that requires only "on the balance of probability" style of proof. Then there is contract law (another section of civil law) between the surveyor and the person commissioning him. Anyone who advertises or says or behaves in a way that leads people to believe that they possess a certain skill is deemed in law to be an expert i that skill. The law will hold that person to a higher standard than "the man on the Clapham omnibus". This is known as "passing off" and far too many people (especially on internet forums and such like) do not seem to know this. Signing a document saying a boat complies with the RCD/RCR is totally different from providing a survey, so I doubt the usual surveyor get out clauses would stand up in court. The boat either complies or not, and if not, why did the "expert" surveyor fail to notice that. Having terms and conditions saying if I can't readily see it I am in the clear, I doubt would be accepted as a defence..

This is just my understanding that might be incorrect. As you posted in this articular thread the bat must be pre-RCR so is not in scope, as long as the OP conforms with the BSS there should be no problems. The core of the RCD/RCR boat documentation seems to be the boat manual that should (but from what I have heard often does not) give the full details of all the equipment and fit out, showing how they meet the various clauses. This is probably easiest done by complying with the relevant ISOs, in which case it will be deemed to be compliant. Otherwise, the builder will need to prove that their solution does meet the regulations. If the boat is completed with a full manual, then the cost of getting the certificate should be minimal. One way of ensuing it does meet the ISOs is to work with a surveyor throughout the build, exactly as you describe. I am not sure if a DIY builder can still apply to the RYA to get the certificate, but at one time this was possible, but presumably the RYA would need to see adequate documentation - the manual. The manual should have a full wiring diagram showing cable sizes and colours etc. Likewise, one would hope that a similar specification or diagram for the gas system would be included, as would the domestic water system if that alls under the RCD/RCR. What should be provided and what is provided do not always seem to be the same.

In my case because I specifically avoided the problems by buying a 1991 boat that was and would now, not be in scope of the RCD/RCR. Then, I am not so concerned about shin, dent free paintworks and fancy interior fit out. I think I knew the law as it applied, so avoided any complications.

No, he means the UK version of the RCD - the Recreational Craft Regulations. Same thing, different title page.

AGMs are a subset of lead acid batteries and might or might not require a different charging voltage to flooded open cell lead acid batteries. My GUESS is that it would be suitable once set up. You need to know the charging requirements for your particularly batteries so you can check the unit can be set to provide them.

There is no law that says that you have to sell through a broker, most people in your position would do a private sale through Apollo Duck or some such. I am sure that if the boat is any good, you will find a buyer who has no interest in the RCD/RCR. I doubt you would have to discount it by the full £400o

I don't doubt it, but very much doubt the clamps in question were like that. I bet Ford used ordinary plastic clips until the risk of compensation claims made the extra expense of the conductive ones worthwhile.

That as well. Must be very special highly conductive plastic - not.

Apparently the terminals are made from galvanised copper, then a bit latter they say tinned copper. No wonder I have little trust in Amazon sellers.

Are you sure the solar is configured to charge the engine battery, most are not, so with long periods of no engine running or only running the engine for short periods would be likely to result in a flat engine battery. On April 4th I explained how to do a simple voltmeter check to see if the engine battery is being charged by the engine. Have you done this? You can do similar with solar charging. Cover the panels so they stop working, connect a voltmeter across the battery, and note the reading. uncover the panels and the reading should jump up.