Boat Capsize Evidence

The boat did precisely what it was required to do by mandate. It floated level while swamped and this is the best you can ask for, from a boneheaded move like that.

 

At least the driver took it well, instead of coming up mad at the world for his own stupidity....

 

It's clear to me, this was an intended stunt. The boat he's driving is the preferred puller for professional ski teams. You can see he acknowledges the camera person, and nods to say it's going to happen now, then cuts the throttle. He comes up smiling and then lifts his arms as if to suggest nothing bad has happened. You'll also note the passenger turn to press her vest against the dash, because she knows what's about to happen. She comes up smiling and also raises her arms to say, "I told you it wasn't a big deal" . . .

I can assure you, if any one of us did this with our wife on board, we'd be sleeping on that damn boat for a month and she wouldn't come up smiling and waving her arms as if nothing bad happened.

I'll bet Master Craft or one of the ski teams sponsored that "event", to prove the worth of the design.

The power of observation is the key to survival folks . . .

 

IMO, there is no way on Gods green earth a hull should even be capable of 100% submersion on relatively flat water. It would be the equivalent to an SUV just rolling over while driving down the freeway! It looked like he hit a small wake and that somehow drove the entire boat under water??? If that doesn't illustrate a fatal design flaw, i don't know what does....

Good thing that boat had the engine in the belly because if that happened to virtually ANY other configuration, the boat would have gone down. Water accumulationg in the belly saved that boat. It was a combination of one really good design feature and one really bad one, in this case the good one saved it from the bad one.. That hull should be recalled immediately, it is a potentially fatal accident waiting to happen.

If my hull did ANYTHING that, i wouldn't be here.

It is amazing that anyone in their right mind would own a boat so fatally flawed.

 

He did it on purpose. I think he was attempting a power turn, like here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsF8niEGEMQ&feature=related

but he didn't get it down right.

Some people just go for the dive itself....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-wCtryPVu8&feature=fvw

I believe it works best with jet drive.


.

 

Loveofsea, what is it with your fatal design flaws.

Master Craft builds the best boat for it's intended use, in fact it's quite specialized, you'll note how she's not "hanging her chin" up on plane, for example.

There's nothing wrong with this design, I'm very familiar with them, having been on them dozens of times. In fact, there's one just down the street from me. He purchased it because I told him to, when his kids showed a great interest in skiing.

The boat was never fully submersed, though it did dig into a wake and have a huge hunk of green water roll over her. The water inside the boat is several inches deep, but the pumps will dump it over the side and he'll restart the engine and drive off.

I did mention to pay attention didn't I (good to see SamSam did). Did you notice the driver looks to make sure he killed the engine and turns on the pumps? Why would you kill an engine, toss your hands in the air in celebration, then reach down and flip on a bilge pump?

You can speculate and make unfounded accusations or . . .

 

Wait...did you just say that this boat was not totally immersed?....he heh..I want what kind of drugs that your on dude...why on earth would you....can't believe your defending this bonehead maneuver..we all have done them but why defend it so vehemently....what are you..a Mastercraft rep?..that must be it...

 

We are going to have to disagree on this one gentlemen--whether the driver did it on puropse or not, no legitimate hull design would allow the craft to become completely submerged while on flat water. NO HOW--NO WAY!

Now the first vid that sam linked was what i would expect from a hull when put thru the paces--no water got in the boat~no problem...

Here is a clip of a kid actually being thrown out of the boat after it takes a nose-dive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY9x5YBft8&feature=related

How that near disaster can be defended as simply a benign hull characteristic is beyond my comprehension! Kid thrown out of the boat, and that's OK???

If it were up to me, every hull with this flaw would be recalled and modified or the owner would be reimbersed for the full price paid. The CG really should do an investigation of these patently dangerous hulls.

Be safe~

 

I'm so glad that informed and educated folks such as myself, sit on the committees and boards that make these decisions, rather then the uneducated ridiculousness that I've seen over this.

If we used your logic, then there wouldn't be buildings over 1 story tall because a kid might fall out of a window, ladders wouldn't go more then 3' tall so as to prevent someone breaking an ankle when they fall off it, cars would have doors that don't open so people can't smash their fingers in them when they close and planes would surely not be permitted to have wings, because heaven forbid one might crack you in the forehead as you walk under it.

I've never met a more clueless bunch of posts. I've tired to make amends for suggesting some aren't thinking things through, but clearly I was incorrect in this attempt.

I've preformed this maneuver on several occasions, it's actually fun it you "stuff" it just right, especially on a 95 degree day. To have people suggest it's a design flaw and that the USCG should investigate is sheer lunacy of the highest order from ill informed, uneducated, want-a-be's. Who do you think is going to investigate? Someone with your level of understanding or someone like me? Thank God people like me sit on these boards, if for no other reason then to keep people like you off them. You should go twist yourselves up in bubble warp and hope the end comes quickly.

 

Are You serious? Brainless idiots are overloading the boat at bow, but it is still designer's fault?

 

Was browsing thru here and ran across that "not totally immersed" part and had to disagree...surprised to check back and find that you were the one who said that...that boat was pretty damn well immersed IMHO but none of us are perfect...I don't have a dog in this fight..so I'll leave it there...just happened upon this thread again ... but I think it is an interesting one...cool video for sure...a stunt gone wrong?

 

Ummmm.....it wasn't flat water. I believe there was a pretty hefty wake involved. If the bow hadn't gone up over that wake and then headed down directy at the "flat" water, the boat wouldn't have played submarine....

You remind me of the activists who screamed and carried on and got Suzuki Swifts taken out of production, because OH MY GOD: if you drive them like a stunt car instead of a 4x4, they turn over!!! People who think like you are the reason my sons wound up in an elementary school where running was forbidden, lest someone fall down and hurt himself. I'm serious: any child caught running was immediately benched, until the end of recess or lunch break.

You cannot design human stupidity out of a boat, unless you design them not to carry people.

 

Nothing went wrong folks, the stunt (which is what it is and one I and many others have preformed on countless occasions) was well executed. The bow wasn't over loaded, it was what we call "stuffed" into the back of a wave, wake or whatever happens to be handy. In fact you don't even need a wave or wake, but it does make it a wetter and more spectacular event to see.

It takes some practice to do and have it look good. You blast along at a good clip and get in rhythm with the boat's "dance". As the boat rises and smashes down, you time the throttle chop as the boat is coming down off a wave or a wake and ideally, if you can stuff the bow into another as you come to a stop, it'll look better.

As soon as you cut the throttle, the bow dives. Anyone that's ridden a motorcycle and grabbed a big hand full of front brakes with spent front shocks, knows the sensation that occurs next. The boat takes a nose dive and the stern rises up on the following wave and momentum, further stuffing the bow in good and shoveling water right over the foredeck.

The boat isn't totally immersed, though it does look like it, to those that have never seen real boarding water before. I've had 30' waves crash on deck, completely flooding the cockpit of the sailboat I was on. It sure seemed like the boat was a submarine for a second, but it shed it's wet blanket and asked for more a few seconds later.

These are boats people. If you go out in them, you can have a perfect day and not a drop of water can touch you. On the other hand these are boats and getting wet is what they're designed to do. I use to have a boat that I specifically setup for heavy weather action. We didn't even head out unless the wind were a steady 25-30. We took our foul weather gear and harnesses and got hammered by mother nature. We were even stopped by a USCG cutter during hurricane Hugo and told to turn around. Fortunately, I was with two USCG officers buddies (there's always more then one nut case aboard). We were partners and racing sailors friends and they knew the boat and how it was set up.

My point is because you can take a PWC and drive right under a freighter's wake, blasting out the other side in a cloud of exploding water droplets, this doesn't mean it's a design flaw. Possibly some mental disorder would be a better description, but there's nothing wrong with the boat, just how it's being used. This isn't the boat's fault, nor that of the designer. It's an operator choice and I for one am all for them, because the contrary to this freedom is having anal retentive, frightened, wussies legislate out any potential for having a choice in the first place.

This is the point that I've been trying to get at all along. Everyone should have the ability to accept the results of the choices we make. Our country was based on this very premise and I'll defend it with my last breath. We have so many opportunities as a result of being able to choose in this country, that we take for granted our very freedoms and attempt to remove them for our own good!

 

Hm... 3 guys of 80kg each plus luggage at bow on such a small boat? I would say it is overload. Driving boat in such condition isn't good practice.

 

Alik, I agree that some of the videos show poor judgment, but this isn't the fault of the boat or the boat design. 3 guys in a bow rider isn't over loading it. It has 4 seats forward of the helm on that boat, so it can take it. Of course they aren't sitting in the seats, but on the seatbacks and the skipper should have known what would happen if he "stuffed" the boat. Again, this isn't the fault of the boat or it's design. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand for some.

If we watched all of the boneheaded things some people can do, we'd want to out law having kids.