Tricolour?

C

christopherc

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 Mar 2006
Messages
197
Location
Leamington Spa
Visit site
With the mast presently down, I've been quoted £255 to install a tricolour. New boat, and not had one of these before. I've read adverse comments about visibility of tricolour, and judgement of distance in the dark, also reported in Ouzo tragedy. Do you think its worth fitting this at all if I have normal deck level lights anyway? I'm not aniticpating long night passages in big seas that might make these lights less visible.
 
If you are not worried about the visibility of deck level lights and can spare the power to run them do not bother with a tricolour. I have one but power economy was one of the reasons for fitting it.
The other less obvious advantage of a tricolour is it avoids reflection from the deck, superstructure, etc affecting your night vision. The glare from deck level lights is particularly unpleasant in hazy and misty conditions.

On balance I would always fit one but I might not yet be tempted by LED ones.

The point highlighted in the Ouzo report was how the plastic lenses of lamps deteriorates over time. That applies equally to deck level lights and masthead steaming lights. I have just replaced my steaming light which for some reason was particularly bad! All the others, tricolour included, will have to be replaced soon.
 
[ QUOTE ]
illuminates a masthead windex

[/ QUOTE ] True and thats why the windex has retroreflective patches underneath.
 
[ QUOTE ]
With the mast presently down, I've been quoted £255 to install a tricolour. ...... Do you think its worth fitting this at all if I have normal deck level lights anyway? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

seems a bit pricey as it should be a fairly easy diy job, and the lights are expensive but not THAT expensive. If you have time to diy.

Does the term "deck level lights" include a steaming light part of the way up the mast? if not, you will need one or else an all round white at the masthead. An ARW might be useful in case of a blown bulb in the steaming light, or if a sail is obscuring it (if a genoa and an engine at same time is likely).
Some people even use them as anchor lights, but that's another thread.

I'm still a bit undecided about the relative merits of lights low down and at masthead. At present I've got a pulpit bi, and a tri and an all round white at masthead. I suspect this is normal for a small yacht, well some small yachts anyway. I've been toying with the idea of adding a steaming light and a stern light, the former would need the mast down and after all the trauma of the last time I did this ... I don't do much night sailing and the choice between two sets of lights, both legal, perhaps isn't that important.

I once chartered a Sonata with just a tri and an ARW at masthead, no pulpit bi. This is actually legal (ie follows Colregs) for a Sonata which is under 7 m long, not that I'm recommending it ...
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

Ermmm, not too sure of the logic on that one. Boat builders do not offer a good spec on new boats, hoping to obtain more dosh by way of 'extras'. The spec of a boat reflects the 'wisdom' of it's owner.
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

The 40 series tricolour and anchor light cost about £100 with bulbs, so 225 is not bad for running the cable, wiring into switch panel - but a relatively straightforward job.

Would not be without it. Not only reduces consumption but IMHO much more visible than deck level lights.
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

[ QUOTE ]
a 25 watt masthead tricolour takes more power than a bow light (10 W ) and a stern light (10W ) when sailing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but ... a 25 watt bulb will be more visible, and from further away, than a 10W bulb. (Mainly a problem for green and red sectors, since the filter will absorb some of the light. On my tri the white sector seems to have a grey filter to even things up.)
You CAN get tris with a 10W bulb I believe ....
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

[ QUOTE ]
Would not be without it. Not only reduces consumption but IMHO much more visible than deck level lights.

[/ QUOTE ]you'd think so wouldn't you.... but that's not what report after report from bridge officers states.... they almost unanimously claim that deck level lights are easier to see.....
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

[ QUOTE ]
You CAN get tris with a 10W bulb I believe

[/ QUOTE ] Mine (Aquasignal) has a 10watt bulb and I must have bought it like that as i dont have 25 watt bulb anywhere.
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

[ QUOTE ]
a 25 watt bulb will be more visible

[/ QUOTE ]

If the red (in particular) was designed for a 10w bulb then a 25w might too bright and the red would appear almost white at a distance.
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

The Aquasignal series 40 lights, for example, are normally I think you will find supplied with 25watt bulbs in steaming lights, port and starboard side lights, bicolour and tricolour but 10watts in stern and and anchor lights to give the required visibility ranges for vessels between 12 and 20metres. 10watt bulbs are however an option for vessels less than 12m, which have smaller required visibility ranges.

You are probably right that it would affect the colour if a higher wattage than the lamp was designed for was fitted but the smaller range of lamps, Aquasignal series 25 lamps for example, approved only for vessels under 12m, will not accept the 25watt bulbs only 10 watt festoon bulbs.

In a nutshell 10watt bulbs are available as an option to fit the larger lanterns but 25 watt bulbs are not available to fit the smaller ones.

Earlier Hunter Wanderer was comparing a 25 watt bulb with a 10 watt bicolour and a 10 watt stern. that is not a fair comparison. He should have compared a 25 watt tricolour with a 25 watt bicolour and a 10watt stern. The tricoluor then saves 10 watts.

In my case I use a tricolour fitted with the optional 10watt bulb in place of port, starboard and stern lights all fitted with 10 watt bulbs. A saving of 20 watts.
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would not be without it. Not only reduces consumption but IMHO much more visible than deck level lights.

[/ QUOTE ]you'd think so wouldn't you.... but that's not what report after report from bridge officers states.... they almost unanimously claim that deck level lights are easier to see.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmm. I think you are taking things out of context.
There is a case for saying that tricolours can be confusing if viewed against shore lights. However, out at sea I don't believe that confusion can occur and a tricolour will be at least as effective as deck lights and probably more so.

I suspect that it's all a bit academic anyhow. How many accidents have there been as a result of the use of tricolours?
 
Re: Not fitted on Moody\'s

Vic

having one 10 w bulb instead of two saves only 10 w not 20 w.

Really tricolours are not saving a lot and replacing bulbs etc is so much more difficult at masthead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top