Tinker tramp as a lifeboat

[pcatterall]

I still fancy an old tramp! I think as a functional tender and having a bit of fun trying to make it sail properly it would be worth considering for our 10m yacht in the Med.
I rather fancy the versatility of the liferaft kit as a bonus.
The figures provided for the craft ( with canopy) suggest it compares well with some conventional liferafts. But I wonder just how it is deployed in its liferaft mode.
I know there are cylinders for quick inflation but are these automatic or do you use them manually? Do you stow it with the canopy fitted or what? It looks like you have to dive in from the front or back then lace up.
Any first hand experience guys?

 

[ShinyShoe]

Can you still get them? I thought Henshaw's had hit problems with RCD or SOLAS or some such regulation that meant they discontinued it...

The old flyer is available here: http://www.tinkerowners.org.uk/tom_LRaft.htm

Manual or automatic: "Just throw the whole thing over the side and pull the cord" so provided you didn't mean hydrostatic release its automatic. SO you obviously need to store the canopy, inflation system and drogue ready to deploy as one. I think that was one of its significant down-sides. - for local costal work where you wanted a tender too you effectively disabled the tender, or you didn't rig it in the hope that you had time to sort it if brown stuff was hitting the fan. For really long distance where you didn't need the tender it was worth the effort to rig the raft.

 

[prv]

Can you still get them? I thought Henshaw's had hit problems with RCD or SOLAS or some such regulation that meant they discontinued it...

I heard the same. Although come to think of it, I don't think there's actually any requirement that rafts for non-racing non-charter boats meet any particular standard. Hence the whole debate over whether to buy an ISO standard raft or not. Racing and charter boats are unlikely to want a Tinker anyway, so actually its inability to meet standards written for standard rafts wouldn't prevent its sale.

Maybe they just suffered a diminishing market as basic conventional rafts got cheaper and typical boats got bigger with room for both raft and dinghy? The whole multi-purpose improvisation thing does feel a bit '70s.

The old flyer is available here: http://www.tinkerowners.org.uk/tom_LRaft.htm

That's not the standard Tinker and liferaft kit in the pictures though - that's the fold-in-half RIB that they brought out later on (and I never knew there was a canopy kit for it). The original raft canopy was a half-cylinder like a covered wagon, and made of narrow tubes side by side so that the whole thing was inflated. In one of the tests they reckoned it was more comfortable with the thing capsized, with the boat on top and the occupants lying on the inflated canopy! I assume that meant it didn't flood when rolled over, which seems like a useful feature.

Pete

 

[ShinyShoe]

I heard the same. Although come to think of it, I don't think there's actually any requirement that rafts for non-racing non-charter boats meet any particular standard. Hence the whole debate over whether to buy an ISO standard raft or not. Racing and charter boats are unlikely to want a Tinker anyway, so actually its inability to meet standards written for standard rafts wouldn't prevent its sale.

Maybe they just suffered a diminishing market as basic conventional rafts got cheaper and typical boats got bigger with room for both raft and dinghy? The whole multi-purpose improvisation thing does feel a bit '70s.

I suspect its a bit of all - bigger boat, cheaper rafts, anyone who might have needed it for a race will decide to throw their money at a 'proper' one etc.... all diminishes the market. The ISO standard while possibly not enforcable sets a measure for leisure use. I can see the risk of law suit for someone who deploys a tinker and perished "because" (their lawyers words) the raft didn't meet the ISO standard would be enough to put any company off (or at least drive up the insurance and make it nor profitable)

My concern was always the risk I would have been causing extra wear and tear to my raft every time I used the Tender...

 

[prv]

I can see the risk of law suit for someone who deploys a tinker and perished "because" (their lawyers words) the raft didn't meet the ISO standard would be enough to put any company off (or at least drive up the insurance and make it nor profitable)

But loads of us, myself included, are sailing around with rafts that aren't ISO standard. Seago is a popular one, but Plastimo also make some non-ISO rafts and I'm sure there are others. The possibility of being sued for not complying with these optional standards doesn't seem to have put these manufacturers off.

Pete

 

[Tranona]

Was never successful. Just one compromise too much. Poor as a liferaft, poor as a dinghy and more expensive (even then) than an inflatable and a raft. Now of course when you can get both for under £1000, even less of a potential market. As already stated, was not classified as a liferaft so locking out from the coded and racing rules market which was then the big part of the demand for rafts.

 

[pcatterall]

Thanks all
My reading suggests that it performs well ( in stability terms) as a liferaft and works well as a tender. Sailing is not its strong point but can be fun.
Lack of space on our yacht is an issue, we try to ensure that everything is (at least) dual purpose!!
Wear and tear of safety equipment is an issue but there is a case that items you use regularly and are familiar with can have advantages over items which you just have to trust will work when required!!

 

[prv]

As already stated, was not classified as a liferaft so locking out from the coded and racing rules market which was then the big part of the demand for rafts.

Ah, that makes sense. If most private cruising boats in those days didn't carry rafts, then the standards-compliance would matter more than it might now.

Pete

 

[ShinyShoe]

But loads of us, myself included, are sailing around with rafts that aren't ISO standard.

Well firstly there will be loads who bought pre-standard (the leisure ISO is only 10 years old). But yes there are plenty of non ISO compliant ones still manufactured. Not aware of anyone who makes a non-compliant who doesn't also make a compliant one. That has two advantages - a buyer should be able to look at the range of options to decide if they need to be compliant and if so have an option to chose from. If you don't offer the option customers go elsewhere or buy in error.

The possibility of being sued for not complying with these optional standards doesn't seem to have put these manufacturers off.

I suspect they are all waiting for the others to make a move. They will all be worried about loosing business by dropping their "cheap" non-compliant range. But if you had a more expensive range than people have a compliant version for you'd question if people will buy it... ...especially as has been pointed out it killed off the Coded and Racing Markets, and the only benefit for the remaining market advantage was size and possibly better comfort if deployed, but disadvantages of not being pre-packed with all the bits you might want, needing rigged before departure, wear and tear...

Don't get me wrong - I think the concept was rather smart, and you'd think you could take your standard 2.7m inflatable dinghy and add a CO2 cylinder, drogue and tent to it for relatively small money for people who feel they don't usually need a raft but occasionally cross a bit more sea than normal. But I have known people end up in a raft just 3 miles off the coast of the UK... ...so perhaps it just encourages people to down play the coastal risks...

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Had one for many years. Kept dinghy half inflated for inshore work, but rigged the canopy for offshore passages with CO2 Inflation.. I think it would have actually been easier to deploy than the "proper" life raft I have now which weighs a ton!

 

[prv]

Just as a matter of interest, I found this picture of the liferaft canopy:

Pete

 

[prv]

I think it would have actually been easier to deploy than the "proper" life raft I have now which weighs a ton!

I tend to assume that a canister raft on a GRP deck in a seaway would slide over the side in fairly short order once released from its cradle, even without human assistance. Might be a bit more friction if you have teak or Treadmaster I suppose. Just imagine if, instead of a raft, it was some kind of valuable equipment in a slippery rounded plastic case - if you had to take it up onto the foredeck in rough conditions you'd rightly be very worried about losing it over the side.

Pete

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

I tend to assume that a canister raft on a GRP deck in a seaway would slide over the side in fairly short order once released from its cradle, even without human assistance. Might be a bit more friction if you have teak or Treadmaster I suppose. Just imagine if, instead of a raft, it was some kind of valuable equipment in a slippery rounded plastic case - if you had to take it up onto the foredeck in rough conditions you'd rightly be very worried about losing it over the side.

Pete

With either type I think lifting over the life lines in a crisis is a problem. I would be reluctant to have a raft suspended on the pushpit for fear of it being swept away if pooped.

 

[prv]

With either type I think lifting over the life lines in a crisis is a problem.

So let it slide under.

Pete