Unsinkable boat

[jfm]

OK, thanks. Then I'd vote "No". (When counting, please change my Yes to a No). I do not think that sinking for want of several cubic metres of closed cell foam is a significant risk in (say) a 60 foot boat. There are many other more significant risks to deal with, and for those one-in-million tiny probabilities there are a couple of LRs, many LJs, and a tender ready to be quick launched with a knife.

On the other hand, building many cubic metres of closed cell foam in creates the certianty (not merely the risk) of much less interior volume, difficult engineering access, etc. Those things would reduce my enjoyment of the boat with certianty. And the whole point of having the boat is to have fun

So no, I wouldn't do something that might help me in a 1-in-million unlikely scenario if the cost of that is permanent reduction in enjoyment of the boat. If one were to follow that logic one wouldn't fly or drive to the boat for risk of crashng, etc

 

[MapisM]

[ QUOTE ]
there are a couple of LRs, many LJs, and a tender ready to be quick launched with a knife.

[/ QUOTE ]Howzzat, no EPIRB?!? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Anyway. The reason why I still replied 'yes' is that in my understanding these polls implies the assumption "all other things being equal".
You're correct saying that in real world the volumes required to make a 60' unsinkable are huge, and hence not worth the hassle.
But I guess that in a theorical alternative between two identical boats under any respect aside from sinkability, you'd rather go for the un- than for the sinkable, wouldn't you?

 

[jfm]

Yep, loads of other safety gear too, I didn't mention it all! The boat is cat B (60miles from safe haven) MCA coded for 12+2 so that means quite a lot of (pretty sensible) safety gear

Yeah, sure, if all other things equal then I'd choose unsinkable. I read the question as meaning a boat half full of closed cell foam. As ever with these things, the question tells 1/3 of the story and each reader invents the other 2/3 in his mind and answers the question based on that!

 

[BrendanS]

As you say, you are making a lot of assumptions

I'll tell all, but don't want to start various thread drifts before the poll has had at least 24 hours to get some decent results.

 

[Nick_H]

The "all other things being equal" qualification makes the poll a bit pointless doesn't it, of course everyone would sooner have a boat that doesn't sink, all other things being equal. Answering "no" to that can only mean you want your boat to sink. In reality though, there's always a trade off, maybe space if its filled with foam, or cost if its a fancy air bag deployment system.

So i've answered "no", I don't want a boat that doesn't sink, cos I don't think its likely to happen, and i'm probably not prepared to accept the trade off, whatever it may be.

 

[jfm]

Oh heck, if it's a fancy airbag deployment system I definitely dont want one! Jeeze. That would be a solution looking for a problem, thanks. Anyway, I already have 3 "airbags" (2x LR plus a tender) and conveniently these even separate from the mothership if it's on fire, which i bet the fancy system doesn't

I hope this isn't a development of the water buoy product... Brendan?

 

[MapisM]

Good point. I agree that the "other things equal" assumption, logicwise, can only lead to one conclusion.
On the other hand, by not qualifying the implications of the non-sinkability (how it's achieved, cost, etc.), the only logical reply would be "how on earth can I say yes or no?"... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[BrendanS]

Nothing that complex. I was takling to a someone who imports and sells a range of boats. The boats in the roughly 30' range are unsinkable, and I never realised. He said he didn't push the fact as no one seemed particularly interested in the fact when he was selling them, which suprised me, so I just wondered what the forum thought.

 

[jfm]

That's a bit of an anticlimax Brendan! What range of boats are they? Gotta link? Do they do it with closed cell foam? Enough to support 2 engines and other gear when the hull is flooded?

 

[BrendanS]

Motorcats

http://www.motorcat.com/

When they did the tests, they obviously didn't want to immerse actual engines and finished interiors, so they loaded the finished hulls and cabin with same weight and density materials throughout the hulls/cabin to similulated engines and fully fitted interiors. The boat had sufficient bouyancy to keep it afloat and then they put I think 6 people aboard, just to finish the simulation, and there was still buoyancy to spare to account for extra kit on board etc.

 

[jfm]

Just had time for a quick look, gotta run, but website only talks (in very poor engineering talk about shear forces...) of foam core (ie Airex or similasr) in the GRP laminate. Not huge great chambers full of closed cell foam.

The "trick" is that it only has 2 tiny outboards. i suppose if i replaced marine diesels and genset etc on mine with a couple of outboards it would actually be unsinkable with all the airex in it.

Imho they're they're right to keep quiet about unsinkability, cos the story doesn't really hold water. The "compromise" as mentioned/predicted by several posters in this thread is that you have 2 outboards for power - hardly a case of "all other things being equal"!

 

[BrendanS]

That's why I avoided details in the poll. I was more interested in the fact that potential purchasers weren't interested, and wanted to see what forumites thought. Rather than dissecting a particular boat. More interested in general opinion of whether people would be influenced by unsinkability, or whether it would not affect purchasing decision.

 

[Nautorius]

Brendan,

Having recently bought an open Centre Console boat it did affect my decision. These things are open bath tubs and so an unsinkable one was a definite must! Ironically got an Italian model but she is supposed to be unsinkable.

I have however drilled lots of holes in her now but she did not leak on Saturday!

Cheers

Paul /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif