Sangar, boat or submarine?

[Steck]

"Under the U.S. Coast Guard Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, boats less than 20 feet powered with an inboard, outboard, or stern drive engine manufactured after November 1, 1972, must display a capacity plate defining the safe load limits. This plate must be mounted where you can see it when preparing to get underway. Sailboats, canoes, kayaks and inflatable boats are exempt from this standard."

I didn’t think a boat over 20 ft needs the plate it is more of a precautionary thing. Anyone know any different?

Edited May 8, 2008 by Steck

[txwakejunkie]

What exactly was the MC driver trying to do?

Unless there were a lot of lead weights in the Sanger it shouldn't have sunk to the bottom even with 15 people in a 9 person capacity boat. Being overloaded with ballast (water ballast - not lead) and people could cause taking on water but not sinking the boat. After the people are out the boat should float back up to the top. It will be interesting to see if there was a design issue with the Sanger or if lead weights were involved.

I never knew air chambers were allowed, I always thought foam was required for bouyancy.

Tell your friends to steer clear of any D215's with low hrs!

[areamike]

The D215 Comes with dual rear ballast option(no weight given) along with 500 lb of bow sacks.

Also, they had the 8.1 liter engine. I "imagine" there' s little more weight there as well.

[Malibudude]

I'm envisoning something like this....lol

[spaznoook]

I'm envisoning something like this....lol

OMFG~ That's a frickin ton of people!!!!

Damn - I just realized that's probably what it's going to look like in a few years when each of my kids wants to bring ONE friend along........

[stewart]

Damn - I just realized that's probably what it's going to look like in a few years when each of my kids wants to bring ONE friend along........

Better save up for the 247 now.

[GeorgeWBush]

"Under the U.S. Coast Guard Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, boats less than 20 feet powered with an inboard, outboard, or stern drive engine manufactured after November 1, 1972, must display a capacity plate defining the safe load limits. This plate must be mounted where you can see it when preparing to get underway. Sailboats, canoes, kayaks and inflatable boats are exempt from this standard."

I didn’t think a boat over 20 ft needs the plate it is more of a precautionary thing. Anyone know any different?

All single hull boat will have a capacity limit even if it does not have a plate. On a boat that has no plate, or a one that has been removed there is a formula: length x width (inches) / 15 = weight capacity.

Also didn't someone say that this river was only 10-15 feet deep? What is the bottom like? Maybe the boat got bobbed way down and got stuck on the muddy bottom before it could float back up.

[brazosvet]

I'm sure Sanger tested the boat which is why it is rated for 9 persons. NOT 14-15 that were in it at the time.

I wouldn't be so sure. It did sink.

[footnlongline]

The really important issue this brings-up is mfg. testing. Sangar is a well respected company, as is Malibu, CC, and others. With all the advances in wake-making technology, can we as buyers be sure the boat we buy is not going to do this. I feel like, in this case, that Sangar was too quick to give their client the boat he wanted, and not a boat that was safe. Does every model get tested for boyancy? I mean real world testing, not just computer simulation. I'll be asking from now on.

I'm sure Sanger tested the boat which is why it is rated for 9 persons. NOT 14-15 that were in it at the time.

With the amount of people and ballast, I understand how it filled with water. What i dont understand is, why it went to the bottom?

It will be interesting to hear the answer to this question!

WHY... are you worried yours will do that??? Relax, most sangers don't sink to the bottom.... I think I am pretty sure about that... maybe

[GeorgeWBush]

The really important issue this brings-up is mfg. testing. Sangar is a well respected company, as is Malibu, CC, and others. With all the advances in wake-making technology, can we as buyers be sure the boat we buy is not going to do this. I feel like, in this case, that Sangar was too quick to give their client the boat he wanted, and not a boat that was safe. Does every model get tested for boyancy? I mean real world testing, not just computer simulation. I'll be asking from now on.

I think that would be like asking if every bridge got tested to figure out its weight limit. I'm sure it is all mathematical...

I'm still wondering how deep this river was... Going straight to the bottom in 20ft of water with a good current is way different than going straight the the bottom of a 200ft deep still lake....

[brazosvet]

The really important issue this brings-up is mfg. testing. Sangar is a well respected company, as is Malibu, CC, and others. With all the advances in wake-making technology, can we as buyers be sure the boat we buy is not going to do this. I feel like, in this case, that Sangar was too quick to give their client the boat he wanted, and not a boat that was safe. Does every model get tested for boyancy? I mean real world testing, not just computer simulation. I'll be asking from now on.

I think that would be like asking if every bridge got tested to figure out its weight limit. I'm sure it is all mathematical...

I'm still wondering how deep this river was... Going straight to the bottom in 20ft of water with a good current is way different than going straight the the bottom of a 200ft deep still lake....

No not at all. Its a little preposterous to destroy a bridge to test its strength, however, car mfg.s crash test models to check for saftey. Is it too much to ask a boat mfg. to sink/swamp each model to test its bouyancy? Sounds like proper R&D, or just due diligance.

Brazos river here is 10 -15 ft. deep. Current is negligable. Depth is irrelevant as the bottom is the bottom and you have no boat to carry you home in.

[brazosvet]

WHY... are you worried yours will do that???

Well, I do own a RLxi.

Edited May 9, 2008 by brazosvet

[auto]

one more sad day at St. Brazos. Unfortunately, the azzholes at COE have jacked with my life

[WAKE-RIDER-01]

That video on BFC is crazy. Why would anyone do that to a boat.

I looked for the video. Does any have a direct link?

<a href="http://www.barefootcentral.com/ShowSkiChallenge.htm" target="_blank">http://www.barefootcentral.com/ShowSkiChallenge.htm</a>

Scroll down to " The Submarine" click on it for the video

Thanks for the video...wow that would be insane to watch happen right in front of you...

[Faceplant409]

That video on BFC is crazy. Why would anyone do that to a boat.

I looked for the video. Does any have a direct link?

It's just the MC submarine video from a show last year...

Pat

[brazosvet]

one more sad day at St. Brazos. Unfortunately, the azzholes at COE have jacked with my life

Is there an interpreter in the house?

[auto]

one more sad day at St. Brazos. Unfortunately, the azzholes at COE have jacked with my life

Is there an interpreter in the house?

Well I think this should explain it. No overnight unattended structures.

[brazosvet]

[ Well I think this should explain it. No overnight unattended structures.

Sounds like a whole new thread.

[auto]

Sounds like a whole new thread.

Sounds like a whole new reason to drink to oblivion.

[GeorgeWBush]

The really important issue this brings-up is mfg. testing. Sangar is a well respected company, as is Malibu, CC, and others. With all the advances in wake-making technology, can we as buyers be sure the boat we buy is not going to do this. I feel like, in this case, that Sangar was too quick to give their client the boat he wanted, and not a boat that was safe. Does every model get tested for boyancy? I mean real world testing, not just computer simulation. I'll be asking from now on.

I think that would be like asking if every bridge got tested to figure out its weight limit. I'm sure it is all mathematical...

I'm still wondering how deep this river was... Going straight to the bottom in 20ft of water with a good current is way different than going straight the the bottom of a 200ft deep still lake....

No not at all. Its a little preposterous to destroy a bridge to test its strength, however, car mfg.s crash test models to check for saftey. Is it too much to ask a boat mfg. to sink/swamp each model to test its bouyancy? Sounds like proper R&D, or just due diligance.

Brazos river here is 10 -15 ft. deep. Current is negligable. Depth is irrelevant as the bottom is the bottom and you have no boat to carry you home in.

Your right a sunk boat is a sunk boat, but the discussion here is about how far it sank. The deeper you are in the water the denser it becomes. Every 33ft something like 15lbs per square inch of pressure is added. Given enough depth anything will become neutrally buoyant before it reaches bottom. I'm thinking that due to some slight current and some sticky bottom mud the boat got stuck on the bottom. I'm sure that if happened to this boat on a 200ft deep, calm lake it would have sank to no more than 15 feet, and just chilled there so it could be recovered. Probably 90%+ of a boat is made from buoyant materials, with or without the mfg. adding extra foam. And if bottom is bottom and you have no boat to carry you home why would it matter if the boat mfg. did "crash tests" for buoyancy?

[brazosvet]

Your right a sunk boat is a sunk boat, but the discussion here is about how far it sank. The deeper you are in the water the denser it becomes. Every 33ft something like 15lbs per square inch of pressure is added. Given enough depth anything will become neutrally buoyant before it reaches bottom. I'm thinking that due to some slight current and some sticky bottom mud the boat got stuck on the bottom. I'm sure that if happened to this boat on a 200ft deep, calm lake it would have sank to no more than 15 feet, and just chilled there so it could be recovered. Probably 90%+ of a boat is made from buoyant materials, with or without the mfg. adding extra foam. And if bottom is bottom and you have no boat to carry you home why would it matter if the boat mfg. did "crash tests" for buoyancy?

DUDE!

Dude.

Dude?

Wow.

Edited May 9, 2008 by brazosvet

[jesutton3]

The deeper you are in the water the denser it becomes. Every 33ft something like 15lbs per square inch of pressure is added.

Water does not become denser as you go deeper. You cannot compress water so the only way to make it denser is to disolve minerals in the water. An example would be salt vs. fresh water. Salt water is denser than fresh. But salt water is the same density at depth. The only other thing that would effect the density would be temperature. So it would be slightly denser at depth due to it being colder but not just because of the depth.

But you are correct about the force as you go deeper. Every 30ish feet you have 1x the atmospheric pressure at sea level. So at 30ish feet you get double the psi you feel standing on the shore at the beach. 60ish is three times and so own. So as you go deeper things get more bouyant because the water is exerting more force on the object. Not density.

[areamike]

Who invited the Rocket Scientists into this discussion?

[VinRLX]

I'm learning way too much for this early in the morning. . .need. . .more. . .coffee to keep up!

[GeorgeWBush]

The deeper you are in the water the denser it becomes. Every 33ft something like 15lbs per square inch of pressure is added.

Water does not become denser as you go deeper. You cannot compress water so the only way to make it denser is to disolve minerals in the water. An example would be salt vs. fresh water. Salt water is denser than fresh. But salt water is the same density at depth. The only other thing that would effect the density would be temperature. So it would be slightly denser at depth due to it being colder but not just because of the depth.

But you are correct about the force as you go deeper. Every 30ish feet you have 1x the atmospheric pressure at sea level. So at 30ish feet you get double the psi you feel standing on the shore at the beach. 60ish is three times and so own. So as you go deeper things get more bouyant because the water is exerting more force on the object. Not density.

Your right density was not the correct word to use, water does not become a solid (unless it freezes - and then it becomes less dense yadda yadda), I was just trying to simplify things. The pressure causes water to "act" like something more dense in some ways, like wet concrete or something (but not in every way), it has very unique qualities. Getting my deep diver cert. we would take down objects to a 100ft and watch them crumple. Saying it gets denser was bad in hind sight.

That boat would have not gone "straight to the bottom" in deep water (because of the pressure), that is the only point I have.

Love, life.

The dude.

Edited May 9, 2008 by GeorgeWBush