Wightlink rescues MacGregor...

kristifercolumnbus said:
Anyway the thing looks like a box & I would guess sails like one.
Click to expand...

I have sailed quite safely in a box, but then it's amazing what a child's imagination can make of a discarded, cardboard carton! (I used to make my sister walk the plank. ;)

I suppose we all make mistakes, but of course, in sailing, you don't get away with them so often. I wouldn't want to make a mistake in a boat like that mind.
 
dukes4monny said:
Absolutely........why can't they have something like self-
Pardon my obvious ignorance on this matter, but surely there is an equivilant safety standard for yachts etc.? If a machine tool was found to breach the CE regs it was possible for the HSE to place a prohibition order to prevent any more being sold and all existing machines to be corrected / modified by the manufacturer / supplier........
Click to expand...

It meets the requirements of the RCD Category C - with quite a lot of mods but mainly to equipments rather than basic design. It therefore has a CE mark. Getting certification means that the documentation covers how to operate the boat safely.

If there is a question then it is about the standards required to meet Category C.

If 10000 have been sold and the accident reported here is the only one that has resulted in deaths, does not suggest that it is inherently a death trap.
 
Tranona said:
It meets the requirements of the RCD Category C - with quite a lot of mods but mainly to equipments rather than basic design. It therefore has a CE mark. Getting certification means that the documentation covers how to operate the boat safely.

If there is a question then it is about the standards required to meet Category C.

If 10000 have been sold and the accident reported here is the only one that has resulted in deaths, does not suggest that it is inherently a death trap.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that Tranona. Is the CE marking (RCD) for yachts a self certification process or undertaken by an approved body?

The way that I look at it is that there are 9,999 more potential drowning incidents just waiting to happen!
They are probably a very safe vessel if used by experienced people, but part of the CE marking surely is, "Ok, what if an inexperienced person does this.....is it still safe?", if the answer is "No" then a redesign is required to remove that possibility.
Sometimes people NEED protecting from themselves.........
 
Oh come on - you can go too far ...

A toaster is CE marked - but if you stick your hands in whilst it is turned on? Do they need redesigning with a grid that automatically covers the top when it's on?
 
fireball said:
Oh come on - you can go too far ...

A toaster is CE marked - but if you stick your hands in whilst it is turned on? Do they need redesigning with a grid that automatically covers the top when it's on?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not........but that is the point, it doesn't require protection because it won't happen.........but, as an example, in the UK we don't allow electric sockets in bathrooms to prevent someone from (accidently) doing something stupid and killing themselves....or someone else.

It would appear that, from what I have read, the MacGregors are designed with the nautical equivilant of having electric sockets in the bathroom.............hmmmm...not sure if that's a good analogy but I think you'll get my meaning ;o)
 
dukes4monny said:
Thanks for clarifying that Tranona. Is the CE marking (RCD) for yachts a self certification process or undertaken by an approved body?

A bit of both. There is an excellent summary of the process on the RYA site under RCD in the Technical section.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see any design concept flaw in a boat that has water ballast arrangement for sailing that can be removed for motoring, provided both can be done reasonably adequately/safely with proper operation. It's a bl**dy attractive concept. It probably doesn't appeal to sailing or fast powerboat enthusiasts but why should they dictate what should or shouldn't be available to people of different persuasion.
 
Tranona said:
If 10000 have been sold and the accident reported here is the only one that has resulted in deaths, does not suggest that it is inherently a death trap.
Click to expand...
Just because only one incidence of deaths has been posted, doesn't mean that they are the only deaths this boat has caused. Also you have to realise where these boats are mostly used, which is sheltered, and busy waters. What do you think would have happened to that guy in the Solent if the Wightlink and all the other yachts and emergency services weren't there?
 
but that is the point, it doesn't require protection because it won't happen
Click to expand...
Eh? are you sure nobody has ever burnt themselves sticking their fingers in a toaster? Of course it can happen when someone doesn't think about the consequences - doesn't mean it isn't fit for purpose though does it.
 
fireball said:
Eh? are you sure nobody has ever burnt themselves sticking their fingers in a toaster? Of course it can happen when someone doesn't think about the consequences - doesn't mean it isn't fit for purpose though does it.
Click to expand...

You've caught me out there haven't you, I must admit, I haven't done the research to check whether anyone has actually put their fingers in a toaster and kept them there to burn themselves....., but they would only get slightly burnt before they realised it was getting hot and remove their fingers......but you cannot slightly drown!

I'm not suggesting that they're water ballasting system itself is unsafe, merely that perhaps the mode of operation needs looking at.
Having worked with CE marking in another industry, I know that the HSE work with manufacturers and end users to ensure that maximum safety AND useability are maintained and that the standards are not set in stone and are adapted when the need arises.

What are you're views on this then?
 
I don't like the boat.
I think they're ugly and compromise far to much on the sailing performance.

but from the H&S point of view I fail to see why we have to cater for the lowest common demoniator. The boat is suitable for use in Cat C areas, but of course it is going to tip up if you don't ballast it and put sails up - it is the responsibility of the skipper to ensure he is using the vessel correctly...
 
"Keel has no ballast"

Searush said:
You can see the keel is up & the Outboard is down. Could the idiot have tried "motorsailing" it without ballast or keel? If so he has reaped exactly what he sowed.
Click to expand...

The photo looks like a 26X. In which case the "keel" add nothing to stability - it's barely weight anything and is more properly called a centreboard - it's there in a only partially successful ;-) attempt to stop leeway.

All the stability comes from the hull form itself and the ballast (water) tank when filled. When you have no ballast you rely on the hull form alone. I suspect that's what the guy in the photo was doing (deliberately or not). I have seem Macs come back from that angle if their ballast tanks are filled.
 
The "keel" is irrelevant.

photodog said:
I am gobsmacked that clearly these things can in effect fail into a unsafe condition....

ie fail to drop the keel... you are gonna end up on your head.
Click to expand...

You would seem to be commenting on a boat you really don't understand at all. As per the previous post the "keel" (really a centreboard) is irrelevant to stability on a Mac 26X.

You may not like the boat - fine. You may hate the boat - fine. But I just thought we might want some facts here. ;-)
 
dukes4monny said:
Absolutely........why can't they have something like self-bailers (but permanently open) used in dinghies which would allow the ballast tanks to empty when used at speed but would fill up when the speed dropped again?
Click to expand...

This would make the boat more dangerous not less.

It does "self bail" if driven at a moderate speed. You open the ballast valve on the transom and water just pours out. It's really a gravity pouring out rather than a self bail AKA dinghys. After about 6/8 mins the ballast tank is empty.

Then, and this is the important bit, you shut the valve leaving your self with a empty tank.

The most unstable state is with a partially filled tank. The so called "free surface water effect" takes over at that point. You heel a bit, the water runs that way, you hell more, the water runs more that way... you go over.

Care must be take on when and where you choose to refill the balast tank.
 
Wow !

Observer said:
I don't see any design concept flaw in a boat that has water ballast arrangement for sailing that can be removed for motoring, provided both can be done reasonably adequately/safely with proper operation. It's a bl**dy attractive concept. It probably doesn't appeal to sailing or fast powerboat enthusiasts but why should they dictate what should or shouldn't be available to people of different persuasion.
Click to expand...


As the pitch forks are sharpend and the fires are lit someone posts a reasoned measured response!

(Actually there were a couple of other posters asking for some perspective but I was feeling slightly outnumbered)
 
Personally I don't fancy a NacGregor 26. But before we continue being high and mighty and damning this boat based upon once un-researched case, worth bearing in mind that many other well regarded small boats are also at risk of capsize if used out of their working range - eg the Drascombe Dayboat, Jaguar 22 etc, both great boats if used appropriately but at slight risk if caught out
 
Woodlouse said:
Just because only one incidence of deaths has been posted, doesn't mean that they are the only deaths this boat has caused. Also you have to realise where these boats are mostly used, which is sheltered, and busy waters. What do you think would have happened to that guy in the Solent if the Wightlink and all the other yachts and emergency services weren't there?
Click to expand...

There is no record of any incidents in UK waters that have resulted in an MAIB report - which would have happened certainly if there had been any fatalities. If there had been any serious incident that had caused concerns or from which lessons might have been learned then there would also have been an investigation even if not a full report.

Of course, relatively few have been sold in this country and despite what ill informed opinion might say there do not seem to have been accidents that can be blamed on the design.

We cannot of course speak for the USA where the majority of the 10000 or so will be in use, but I am sure anybody who is interested could find out by looking at the US Coastguard reports.

I have no idea what would have happened to the unfortunate person in this incident - neither does anyone else on this forum as they were not there and their only point of reference is a photograph and sketchy report. Hardly the basis for an informed view!
 
MacMan said:
This would make the boat more dangerous not less.

It does "self bail" if driven at a moderate speed. You open the ballast valve on the transom and water just pours out. It's really a gravity pouring out rather than a self bail AKA dinghys. After about 6/8 mins the ballast tank is empty.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the ballast is held above the water line? Or have the Merkins rewritten Newton's first law?

MacMan said:
Then, and this is the important bit, you shut the valve leaving your self with a empty tank.

The most unstable state is with a partially filled tank. The so called "free surface water effect" takes over at that point. You heel a bit, the water runs that way, you hell more, the water runs more that way... you go over.

Care must be take on when and where you choose to refill the balast tank.
Click to expand...

sounds great, where do I sign? (I think I will name mine 'Zeebrugge Too')
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top