[QUOTE=Nate5.0;4545749]You could pick any one. There is not a SURE one that automatically reverses a tragedy.


We get your point but you are take a large presumption to assume that if your take the booze away that they 110% survive this or the accident does not happen at all. Sorry but that is just not a sure bet or factual statement.[/QUOT

Bet the judge would pick alcohol if they hit or harmed anyone.

[QUOTE=Interceptor;4545872]I know someone that years ago was sitting at a stop light and got hit from behind. He was drunk at the time and It was decided it was his fault.

The reasoning was that since he was drunk he should never have been driving the vehicle in the first place. To the judge the car should not have been there.

[QUOTE=Interceptor;4545872]And?

They all can play a factor. You can't single one out as a factual fault that if removed makes this instance not happen.

[QUOTE=Wildman_grafix;4545878]
By the letter of the law it was his fault.

Again....if we take Booze out of this.....are you telling me that this never happened at all?

You can't. It was one of many bad decisions and faults that had a tragic end.

[QUOTE=Nate5.0;4545883]Booze is a mind altering drug. This means he probably would not have made the same decisions and choices all along the way if he had not been drinking (Booze) a mind altering drug. Correct?
So that means if you took one thing out of the equation then a whole lot of things change! Does that fix the whole problem? that is not provable either way.
I dont nor no one knows what decisions would have been different but I can guarantee alot of things would have happened differently by not drinking, every person will make different decisions or judgement calls along that path if they have been drinking or not.
Some people get courage from drinking, some people become timid from drinking, some people show off when drinking, some people think there skills are better than they are when drinking. Everyone is different. The only common thing is everyone makes different decisions when drinking then they would have when sober.

So, Yes alot of things caused this particular crash, but one single item would have changed alot of those variables. May not have driven so fast, may have been able to see better, may have reacted differently... All those variables get changed with just the drinking and driving aspect.

Boats and high speeds are dangerous and should be respected as that.

Fast cats aren't particularly safe. Ground effects aircraft with no control surfaces.

This is a great thread and a great debate.

My view is that cats (or any boat) with big power require years of experience at 125 mph+ to manage the variables that always come up (wakes, wind, obstacles, etc), I just think there are many and even most out there that do not have the operator skill to match the performance offered. They may think they do, but they don't.

I do not suggest any law or insurance changes etc.. We live in America and should have the right to do what we want as long as we do not negatively affect others.

This has nothing to do with the boat, it has everything to do with the Alcohol. Intoxication makes WALKING deadly.

"An estimated 36 percent of pedestrians killed had BACs of
.08*g/dL or higher in 2004 and 2013."

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812124

In this case, I completely agree, per my earlier post. Alcohol is a non starter.

However, other deaths have occurred simply because the skill set was not equal to the potential the boat had.
That was my point..

Yeah sure... So following that logic if he was in a runabout this wouldn't have happened, or driving as the conditions dictated.

Indy, I don't get that from it. I think the point was, "you can't blame the boat. Being intoxicated makes even the most simple of tasks more difficult if not dangerous".

125 mph? Are you serious?
Have you ever come out of a boat at 70mph? It'll mess you up big time.
Stick your hand out the window at 70, it's also the max speed on many highways.
Just think about it for a minute. 70 MPH is very fast.

This accident has a LOT to do with the boat. The incredible performance it offers is obviously a factor when alcohol is added to the equation. Ya, they could have swamped a 16' skiff going 20 mph in the same conditions, and probably laughed about it the next day at breakfast! A 44' 120+ mph cat brings a level of operator confidence that may allow poor or impaired decisions to have tragic results. The fact remains that this ultra performance boat running at 100 + mph reacted to conditions in a way that the operator was unable to understand or compensate for.

We'll when he says that "this has nothing to do with the boat" I took it that way.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but the driver stuffed up. Whether he would have done things differently without the effects of alcohol, we will never know.
To learn something out of this mess, next time you hit the water, spare a thought for these two guys and the sadness they have left behind and make sure it doesn't happen to you.

Publishing the in depth report can only heighten awareness to the dangers of boating.

To be clear, I'm not a proponent of more government/regulation in our society overall. I also do not support the general idea of requiring a license to drive any boat. However, when it comes to ultra high performance in the "motorsports" category, or with aviation, or with other rolling/floating machinery that exposes the general public to the risk of these specialized machines being operated on public thoroughfares (roads, waterways or airspace) -- it seems reasonable to me to require that the owner/operator possess an appropriate level of special training and certification.

I don't think anyone can argue that operating things of a "specialized" nature requires varying degrees of advanced skill, knowledge and seat-time to a) operate in a safe manner, and b) operate in a way that optimizes the performance or utility of the vehicle or vessel itself. If I wanted to drive a big rig I'd need a commercial driver license, to fly a plane I'd need a pilot's license, to captain a tugboat and barge a load of green beans down the Mississippi I'd need a captain's license, and to compete in a sanctioned car race (NASCAR, F1 etc.) I'd need to complete and pass certification before doing competitive laps with other drivers (imagine the outcry by race car drivers if rookies could just walk on).

As someone with 30 years experience operating recreational boats on many waterways (some more challenging than others), loves being on the water going fast or slow and watching as these beautiful high performance cats and V's have gotten faster and more exotic and are available to anyone with the financial resources to acquire one -- I think the time has arrived to require some type of official and enforced certification to operate a vessel capable of the performance levels we're talking about here. Really pushing it, and since poor judgment can't be "trained out" of a person -- I can also see the time coming when the Water Patrol begins passing out wreckless driving citations for operating a vessel in a manner that "exceeds the safety limits of the conditions at the time". Very subjective.

Just IMO.

I2D.

It's not "the" boat, it's NOT the laws and it was most likely not the alcohol.

The boat got out of shape, and sober wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Cat boats are using 2 very unstable surfaces - wind and water. Once a cat packs air underneath it, it needs something to help balance it, it is depending on water first, and then air flow...a wave, or gust of wind can push it off balance, and usually, it's not a big deal.

Skills don't mean anything once the boat tries to take off. Usually, the boat levels itself and the operator gains control and can keep it pointed in a certain direction. The problem is, sometimes the air-flow and water are all out of place and the boat does whatever it wants to do with inertia and the driver has absolutely no control whatsoever. NONE.

Only this time, the boat got out of shape, inertia won.

Remember this, these boats are designed by "guesswork" at best, they have not been developed by an engineer or wind-tunnel tested, and this accident, as well as others, are the result of installing massive horsepower and pushing incredible speeds that exceed common sense.

There is no training, education or experience to prevent these types of accidents - it's pure luck to walk away from a 180mph ride.

My sonic was uninsurable without a boater safety course by Tres martin or the likes. There are companies that do make this a MUST do but it still can not always prevent an issue. This driver was very skilled at driving a big power car and especially an MTI.

I feel the time has come where boaters should be "encouraged" to get some sort of training and/or license to operate a boat that planes. I know this is a sensitive area, but the water ways are more crowded and PC has taken over. BUT, and AGAIN, there is no training, education or experience to prevent these types of accidents that are being discussed in this thread.

Doesn't this support the facts here? None of the captains were newbies. More than half of the ones lost/ Sydwayz listed were NOT DRINKING ALCOHOL. Two incidents happened on a close course. The rest arguably were results of the crashed boat interacting with traffic and or resulting conditions on a busy weekend on a public waterway. And all of them in a cat in excess of 100 mph.

The 80,000 pound big rig is a good analogy. They are everywhere and accidents happen. But in the interest of public safety they have a very different "set of rules" to be allowed to share the road with a suburban full of families. There are task force teams here that do nothing but harass commercial heavy vehicles. Full mechanical inspections on the road side along with weighing axles etc... As well the operator has a different skill set/license requirements, increased training and a ZERO tolerance policy where alcohol (or other drugs) is concerned.

It's not always the same cause when tragedy strikes...poor maintenance, excessive speed, operator in attention, other drivers etc. But the fact remains, the risk of death or injury when an 80,000 pound vehicle rolling 70-75 mph is clear and present and unfortunately it's usually the family/private vehicle that gets crushed and folks lost. So the rules/laws are in place and the heavy burden is on the "big rig" because he's the one that's risks catastrophe if every single thing isn't in order and operated with a high level of attention all the way around. Especially in heavy traffic.

Hey jusabum, You are naive if you think any of these super high performance cats are "designed by guesswork at best" and have not been engineered. Computer Aided Design has been in use for many years now. I can assure you that there are thousands of hours in hydrodynamic testing both real and computer generated to insure quality products that are viable for the intended market. There is no manufacturer that wants the stigma of this tragedy associated with it's brand.

CLUELESS.
They may be using cad to design and cut foam, but that's it. There is NOT ONE manufacturer who has implemented true data engineering or wind-tunnel flow analysis like most every performance car must go thru.
Comments like yours are scary and reckless.

Mystic is designed and built by an engineer along with wind tunnel testing

Sorry, I don't believe that and would like to see something that documents wind-tunnel testing. He may be an engineer, but they also "popped" a Michael Peters designed cat, that's not engineering, that's stealing somebody's hard earned work and reputation.

And Peters popped it off a Skater, you'll have to call John for his wind tunnel documents for the 51s

The issue with bringing in license regulations for boats is the amount of qualified instructors/inspectors for the different types of performance boats available. Yes there is Tres and Brad and we have a couple here in Canada also. We have Pleasure Craft Operators requirements in Canada and they are a joke. Read a book and do a multiple choice test to pass and if you don't pass the first time they go through the questions you had wrong and you can write the test again (for a fee) right away.There are restrictions on what types of boats you can drive while you are under 12 (i think it's that low) but then after that you can drive what you want.

There is also the I KNOW MORE than anybody else can teach me attitude. Maybe its time for the manufactures to provide some sort of training as part of the buying process. I think DCB provides the Tres course for new boat purchasers.

Being in the boat insurance industry here I get calls from the underwriting people when they hear about these type of accidents and try to down play what happened until all the facts are known. It's sad to have these accidents happen and hope lessons are learned so we can continue to do what we like.

ROFLMAO, you make that statement about two of the most distinctly different designed cat boats on the water.

jusabum -Alcohol had everything to do with this accident. Being buzzed and or two times the limit effects decision making, reaction times and Vision. These Cats are designed to be safe at high speeds. Even without any Cad Work these boats have been tested, raced for years and years while being improved and then used for years for high speed recreational use. They are safe until you put them into a condition that is unsafe which 99% of the time can be prevented by thinking, planning and looking ahead.
Like anything operated at high speed you have to be at your best, meaning 100% focused and not under the Influence of anything. It is sad fellow boaters died and it is even worse in that it could have been prevented. This can't be blamed on Lake Conditions, boat wakes, or a setting sun. All these are conditions, are unsafe for running fast. Not picking on you, its more about picking on making any kind of excuse that Alcohol was not a cause.

Seriously?

Wreckless behavior is good. This thread wouldn't exist if these guys were wreckless.


Reckless behavior however, is not good.

False, it's all done by trial and error, theories and ideas. Design changes occur model by model, perhaps boat by boat. The judgment criteria is speed. If the handling "feels" really bad, they might rework it. Computer aided design is just that, design software. It's not a dynamic model.

No one knows how much which factors contributed to the crash. You're all speculating based on your personal biases.

Obviously alcohol rarely helps. the risks are well known documented. But I think everyone wants to blame that because they love big high performance boats.
Fast cats have a couple of crash modes, and due to their high speeds, passenger ejections aren't very survivable in them.
A. Backflip due to packing air and cg being near the back of the boat
B. Roll due going on one sponson which then steers itself under the boat.
C. Fast singles have added risk of not having props with countering forces.

I think a big light cat probably gives a false sense of security. If the tunnel area to weight ratio is similar, and the speeds scaled up, its no less of risk to flip than as smaller cat.

Ever heard of CFD....Computational Fluid Dynamics?

Dynamic is right in the name.

I'll agree with you, not good. Maybe you didn't get the intended pun but that's ok.

Any trouble with the rest of my spelling or punctuation? :readinghelp::helmet:

Yes, I have heard of it. And like I said before, the flow of "fluid" is only part of it...BUT, none of the boat manufacturers use it, or any other data-driven testing.

HOGIE ROLL SAID IT PERFECTLY:
it's all done by trial and error, theories and ideas. Design changes occur model by model, perhaps boat by boat. The judgment criteria is speed. If the handling "feels" really bad, they might rework it. Computer aided design is just that, design software. It's not a dynamic model.

CATAMARAN.
Hydrodynamics - sponson lift.
Aerodynamics - a semi-wing effect creating lift.
The tunnel design creates compression, lightening the boat, reducing drag.
Thrust trying to overcome Drag, moving the boat forward creating inertia.
Lift trying to overcome Gravity and Drag to create speed.
Water changing the angle of attack, mixed signals.
Throttles creating more push, or less, depending on perceived circumstance
Driver, thinking he has control, adjusting the angle of attack and direction.

All of this was not a big deal at speeds in the 90's, gravity and drag seemed to always bring the boat back from borderline disaster (in most cases). But every length has its limit, or hull speed as the used to call it. So, the boats got longer, and lighter, allowing for more speed and some perceived stability.

But we are exceeding the limits now. At a certain point of speed, to weight, to running surface, there is no difference than strapping a jet engine on a flat board.

We are seeing speeds increased beyond the point of no return, the boat naturally wants to fly after a certain point. Gravity plays less of a role as lift becomes the dominate factor.

Without flight controls, the boat is at the mercy of lift and inertia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUVSEcePCr8

How many of you make better decisions when drunk?
How many domestics or stupid fights happen because people are drunk vs sober?
How many athletes perform better when they are drunk vs sober?
How many people have called a girl at night drunk and woke up the next morning thinking what was I thinking?

These are all decision making skills that are effected by being drunk!
Driving a boat requires decision making skills at all times as well as reaction time and processing skills to be at a high level. If your driving your car at 75 mph and you think its fast, now drive 125 mph and come up on a car going 75 mph. You better have your decision making skills on high alert.
Now do that in a boat that is not on a flat surface, in fact a very rough surface with rolling waves coming at you and no brakes.
Drunk skills will not make you react better or decide better things like maybe I should slow down or I cant read the water very good maybe I shouldnt push it.

People are loving to pick on the Cat boats for being unsafe. Every kind of boat has a safe speed they can and should be able to run. When you push it past that point your running into safety issues in a cat, a sport v bottom, a center console, fishing boat, every boat is designed to run safely to a certain speed. If you push them past that speed you could start to run into safety problems. This is no different from any type of car/truck/motorcycle,v bottom boat or Catamaran boat.
As the boats are getting faster the designs are getting different, move steps, strakes, notches, pads, width, on and on... I wouldn't want to take a 80's checkmate and go run 100 mph.
A 36' cat going almost 200 seems sketchy but honestly anything nearing that 200 mark on water or land seems sketchy.
There was a V bottom at the shootout last August who crashed by chine walking and spinning out at about 80 mph. That doesnt make all v bottoms unsafe it just means that particular setup and driver found the limits on that day.
All boats and cars have there limits, sometimes you may be able to push past them but it better be the right time and right place and then there still is no guarantees.

Would be impossible to develop anything but a model with perfectly flat water and no wind.

I don't think it's fair to imply that all boat types are inherently as dangerous as each other. The only people with statistics to back that up would be insurance companies. The difference in insurance rates between boat types should give you a good idea of the relative risks.

A V running 150 and a cat running 150 mph rates are similar if value is similar
A V running 110 and a cat running 110 mph rates are similar if value is similar

The real difference is there is very few V's running 120+ and alot of Cats running 120+
There are no production V's running 165+ and several production 165+ cats