ISO vs Non-ISO Life Rafts?

[Tim Good]

I have an 8 man raft and looking for a 4 man for off-shore leisure use. I was contacted by a nice chap on here re. a used 4 man raft but I though I'd post with some advice first as I keep getting differing advice everywhere I go.

Half the people I speak to which ranges from professionals and users say -
"don't buy a non iso raft. they are usually made in china and it isn't worth it"

Then the other half say -
"Non-iso is perfectly fine if by a decent manufacture like Ocean Safety, Zodiac etc plus they are lighter weight. ISO is not needed and you pay a lot for the stuff inside like more flares, water etc.

So to go back to the old question... ISO is important for non coded leisure vessels or a waste of extra money?

 

[Tranona]

There are two issues. First is the quality of construction of the raft and in general the more expensive the raft the better the quality. However there is little evidence that the cheaper rafts are less effective in the use for which they were designed, although the evidence is limited simply because there is so little data about deployments for real.

The second is the level of equipment included in the raft, which is largely independent of the quality of construction but is defined by the area of intended use or coding/racing requirements.

So in choosing your raft you need to take into a where you are going to use it. The coastal (cheaper) rafts are popular because you would not expect to be in one for a long period of time, but if you are going to remoter places then you might envisage your raft being in use for long periods in adverse conditions so may well choose to buy a higher specification, better equipped raft - plus of course a grab bag with extra gear that would not fit in the raft.

 

[bedouin]

So to go back to the old question... ISO is important for non coded leisure vessels or a waste of extra money?

I would not place much trust in ISO as an indicator of quality.

For something like a liferaft you need to decide what features are important to you, and choose the raft that best matches your requirements.

I would be very happy to buy a non-ISO liferaft from a reputable manufacturer/supplier. For the sort of sailing I do (offshore rather than Ocean) I don't think there is much benefit in fish hooks and water catchers.

 

[sailorman]

I have an 8 man raft and looking for a 4 man for off-shore leisure use. I was contacted by a nice chap on here re. a used 4 man raft but I though I'd post with some advice first as I keep getting differing advice everywhere I go.

Half the people I speak to which ranges from professionals and users say -
"don't buy a non iso raft. they are usually made in china and it isn't worth it"

Then the other half say -
"Non-iso is perfectly fine if by a decent manufacture like Ocean Safety, Zodiac etc plus they are lighter weight. ISO is not needed and you pay a lot for the stuff inside like more flares, water etc.

So to go back to the old question... ISO is important for non coded leisure vessels or a waste of extra money?

[

my raft is 12 yrs old & due a service
i have been offered a new Waypoint offshore, does anybody have experience of these rafts

 

[nauticalnomad]

I recently opened my old (non iso) raft and checked it out.
I am glad i did not use it at sea!
Upon inflation via ripcord the arch got stuck in the hull part of raft as was inflating and the plastic fitting then cracked under stress as we tried to free the arch to complete inflating. The arch then deflated and air was pouring out of the hull part at this stage. Id would have been good if we had say a few extra plastic fittings or a 3/4 screwed plug and teflon tape to seal the plastic fitting that cracked and blew out.
Grab the "footpump" you think to yourself..
Yeah an el cheapo footpump from a rejected bin at the pound shop where with each pump the end flies off.
All this was being done on the ground....
I can only imagine being in a swell where the raft is supposedly more safer than the yacht itself. So im pumping without pannicking and getting no where needing 4 hands to hold the hose on the el cheapo crap pump and then one in the liferaft inflation point and then the short hose meant i couldnt pump from ground so needed another 2 hands to play the piano accordion whilst what would be rocking up and down in a leaking liferaft.
I have in place of this purchased an ISO raft from Suffolkmarine in hope that the contents are purchased from Tescos toy section and not the toy section at poundland. But the rest of the crap inside was alright. A small mirror and sea anchor. A handreel for fishing with the weirdest looking lure on the end of it which i reckon would of fell off upon casting or the fish died of laughter or brain hemorrhage trying to work out what it is/was.
I think the whole idea of the liferaft is to ensure you die at sea so as not to report how crap the innards actually are on an average liferaft.

 

[prv]

in a swell where the raft is supposedly more safer than the yacht itself

Whatever gave you that idea?

The only time a paddling pool with a tent on top is safer than a yacht, is when the yacht is either irretrievably on fire or on its way to the seabed.

Pete

 

[pvb]

The actual purchase price of a liferaft is only part of the cost, you need to factor in the service costs every 3 years as well. So, over the life of the raft, a few hundred quid saving in purchase price on a cheap raft won't be as significant a proportion. Additionally, if you ever need to use the liferaft, I bet you'll be pleased you bought a good one!

For such an important item, detailed specs on liferafts are often hard to come by. It's useful to actually see the liferaft in its blown-up form if you can. ISO9650 type1 group A rafts are a good spec, should have reasonable stability, will certainly have an insulated floor, and should be made to a decent standard.

 

[johnalison]

Whatever gave you that idea?

The only time a paddling pool with a tent on top is safer than a yacht, is when the yacht is either irretrievably on fire or on its way to the seabed.

Pete

I think you missed the irony in his tone of voice. Most people know the old advice, only ever to step up into a liferaft.

 

[LadyInBed]

It would depend on where and for how long you might expect to float around in it.
A week or so in an ocean - ISO
A day or so a few miles off shore or in Biscay (with PLB/EPIRB) then non ISO would suffice.

 

[KellysEye]

>in a swell where the raft is supposedly more safer than the yacht itself

Tell that to the 15 sailors in 1979 Fasnet race the who died when abandonning their yachts that were still afloat and got into liferafts. The full story is:

Over 13–14 August 25, of the 306 yachts taking part, 5 were sunk, 100 suffered knock downs, and 77 rolled (that is turtled) at least once due to high winds and "mountainous seas". The Daily Telegraph August 1979 described the situation, where "Royal Navy ships, RAF Nimrod jets, helicopters, lifeboats, a Dutch warship and other craft picked up 125 yachtsmen whose boats had been caught in force 11 violent storm strength gusts midway between Land's End and Fastnet". The effort also included tugs, trawlers, and tankers. Rescue efforts began after 6:30 am on 14 August, once the winds had dropped to severe gale Force 9.

"15 sailors died, five boats sank, and at least 75 boats flipped upside down." In any event, adopting heaving to as a storm tactic proved to be a good preventive of capsize and turtling during the race. Not one of the hove to yachts were capsized or suffered any serious damage. This seminal disaster resulted in a major rethink of racing, risks and prevention.

The coastguard requested support resulting in a Nimrod from Kinloss being ordered to the scene to act as the Scene of Search Coordinator. As the scale of the disaster became apparent other rescue assets were requested and HMS Broadsword was ordered to the scene taking over as the Scene of Search Coordinator on arrival 17:30 on 14 August.

 

[awol]

ISO 9650-1 covers construction, insulated floor, water ballast, entry step/webbing, and a stack more. It does not guarantee quality. Liferafts not to any particular spec. may have single floors, small ballast pockets, entry problems and be slightly glorified paddling pools. You pays your money ...........

 

[prv]

ISO 9650-1 covers construction, insulated floor, water ballast, entry step/webbing, and a stack more. It does not guarantee quality. Liferafts not to any particular spec. may have single floors, small ballast pockets, entry problems and be slightly glorified paddling pools. You pays your money ...........

...or they could be almost identical.

Compare these two from Seago:

http://www.seagoyachting.co.uk/96501-liferaft-p-10.html (ISO)
http://www.seagoyachting.co.uk/offshore-raft-p-9.html (non-ISO)

The only significant difference I can see between the rafts themselves is the boarding ramp on the ISO one. Possibly there's a difference in the kit contents (they're not listed explicitly for the non-ISO raft) but I don't think it's significant. We have the non-ISO raft and from memory I think it contains all or most of the items listed there. You'd want a grab bag of actually-useful stuff in either case.

Pete

 

[GrahamM376]

I have an 8 man raft and looking for a 4 man for off-shore leisure use. I was contacted by a nice chap on here re. a used 4 man raft but I though I'd post with some advice first as I keep getting differing advice everywhere I go.

Half the people I speak to which ranges from professionals and users say -
"don't buy a non iso raft. they are usually made in china and it isn't worth it"

Then the other half say -
"Non-iso is perfectly fine if by a decent manufacture like Ocean Safety, Zodiac etc plus they are lighter weight. ISO is not needed and you pay a lot for the stuff inside like more flares, water etc.

So to go back to the old question... ISO is important for non coded leisure vessels or a waste of extra money?

ISO should be to a better spec than most non ISO. Some ISO rafts are also made in China and I'm reliably informed that at least one Ocean Safety raft is a re-badged Chinese SeaSafe.

 

[Strolls]

Compare these two from Seago:

http://www.seagoyachting.co.uk/96501-liferaft-p-10.html (ISO)
http://www.seagoyachting.co.uk/offshore-raft-p-9.html (non-ISO)

The only significant difference I can see …

The ISO versions are 3kg - 4kg heavier, and correspondingly a bit larger (packed).

I might assume that they use heavier materiel, but that doesn't explain why the 4-man and 8-man ones are 4kg heavier, and the 6-man 3kg heavier.

The tube diameters (is this the black tubes which inflate and provide the buoyancy?) are 5mm and 20mm larger in the 4-man and 6-man ISO versions.

Happy to concede that these differences may not be significant, however.

 

[duncan99210]

G

The ISO versions are 3kg - 4kg heavier, and correspondingly a bit larger (packed).

I might assume that they use heavier materiel, but that doesn't explain why the 4-man and 8-man ones are 4kg heavier, and the 6-man 3kg heavier.

The tube diameters (is this the black tubes which inflate and provide the buoyancy?) are 5mm and 20mm larger in the 4-man and 6-man ISO versions.

Happy to concede that these differences may not be significant, however.

Most of the weight difference in the ISO raft is down to the water pouches that are packed in the raft. Can't remember the number but it's an amount designed to keep survivors hydrated for the expected period before rescue.

 

[pvb]

G
Most of the weight difference in the ISO raft is down to the water pouches that are packed in the raft. Can't remember the number but it's an amount designed to keep survivors hydrated for the expected period before rescue.

Water pouches are not included in most ISO rafts, which are sold in the "up to 24hr" class. The extra weight reflects sturdier construction.

 

[RIBW]

Having benefitted from Tranona's recent review of MIAB reports and several other liferaft threads, I decided to 'service' my 6 year old offshore valise raft, which came with the boat three years ago. (I deliberately omit the make because I have no way of knowing if it is better or worse than others)

The good news is that it inflated and stayed inflated for a week. [I used my Bravo dinghy pump to inflate and deflate]. Provided the CO2 tank was triggered by the tether on deployment, it would probably achieve its primary purpose.

However, if I had seen the components laid out prior to buying, I would have asked to see a better quality model. The comment above about the quality of the parts is pretty spot-on.

I dumped the 'morse' torch and its leaky batteries. The top-up inflation tube had an adapter at one end that had disintegrated (luckily, cutting it off and wrapping one turn of insulation tape around the tube made a good seal. The arch light battery had been left on and the battery was dead (and not found as a retail item for replacement). The pump was as described in an earlier posting.

I am glad I did the service myself because I now know the bits that are in the raft work. I also know how to top up the raft using the hand pump (if it works). The manual does not clarify how the top-up valve works. A long time was spent pumping before we realised it had to be cracked open just a little - too much and counter productive deflation happens - I imagine that would be quite scary in an emergency.

The major learning was "be grateful we keep our tried and tested dinghy rapidly deployable on the stern". Yes, I know it is not the same but.....

When I buy a new one in three years time, I will try to see an inflated raft and its components before buying. I will also enjoy watching the local sea cadets deploying my current one before it goes to the skip.

Cheers
Bob

P.S. I have done an illustrated write up of the 'service' I did. Can anyone suggest where it can be uploaded for others to read that doesn't require me to sign up for anyone's cloud services.

 

[prv]

G
Most of the weight difference in the ISO raft is down to the water pouches that are packed in the raft. Can't remember the number but it's an amount designed to keep survivors hydrated for the expected period before rescue.

And if the expected period is less than 24 hours, that amount is zero

Many ISO rafts only meet the <24hr standard as-is, if you order the >24hr option the additional kit comes as a separate grab bag. Once a separate bag is involved, I can pack a better one than the liferaft makers.

The point I'm trying to make is not that ISO 9650-1 is a bad thing, just that it's not a magic wand that you can blindly trust to result in a vastly better raft. You still need to look at what you're actually buying, and the differences may be slight.

Pete

 

[jerrytug]

I bought my boat with an Ocean Safety ISO 4-man canister.

I sent it to be serviced at OS, Plymouth branch, and they condemned it out of hand, at about 4 yrs old, due to a manufacturing defect in the fabric or stitching, they were unclear (except that it would have sunk..)

OS then delivered me a new one, free of charge! I just had to buy the HRU.

So I recommend Ocean Safety as a company with good service and a reputation to uphold (I believe they have the RNLI liferaft contract).

I would imagine it being an ISO raft helped, I can't see Plastimo etc replacing a 4 yr old Chinese raft FOC...

 

[Tim Good]

ISO should be to a better spec than most non ISO. Some ISO rafts are also made in China and I'm reliably informed that at least one Ocean Safety raft is a re-badged Chinese SeaSafe.

Yes that's right. Strange that they didn't even bother to go to the effort of removing the SeaSafe logo off the image on their site or just take a new photo.