Seaworthiness of RIB vs. Whaler - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Seaworthiness of RIB vs. Whaler

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Seaworthiness of RIB vs. Whaler

littleblue posted 08-08-2002 02:16 AM ET (US)
I currently own a 1990 Avon 13.5 ft. RIB w/ a deep v hull and a 50-HP Yamaha 2-stroke. (Next spring/summer will upgrade to 17ft. Montauk) I was wondering what guys would say in comparing a rib like this and the whaler 13ft. sport.
Without judging upon the fact that the rib can pop, and what could potentially be in better shape in 20 years, which would handle rough waters better? I ask this cause I just realized the military uses both ribs and whalers, same w/ coast guard and other agencies. In addition both are "unsinkable" in terms of being filled w/ water, capsizing, etc. (i know, i know, the rib can pop...) Both can handle a lot of weight and all the other good stuff.
Anyway, I use mine is sf bay and when conditions allow I take it a little ways off shore and up the coast for fishing but there just isn't enough room.
Just curious as to what guys think about this subject.
Bigshot posted 08-08-2002 09:28 AM ET (US)
The Whaler is more stable but the rib could probably handle rougher water.
Louie Kokinis posted 08-08-2002 10:27 AM ET (US)
IMO the RIB is both more seaworthy and offers more stability. Tough to fish from once you get there though :(
jimh posted 08-08-2002 11:24 AM ET (US)
Inflatable boats are nice but they don't last long. The rubberized fabric is prone to punctures and decays over time. There is no guarantee they are seaworthy, either.
This March in the Niagara River two Coast Guard sailors died when their RIB style boat pitch-poled them into a frigid Lake Ontario in very moderate seas. The RIB filled with water and scuttled--it was not sufficiently bouyant. If these unfortunate fellows had been in a Boston Whaler they would probably not have been thrown in the water in the first place, and even in the event they were, they could have returned to a boat with excellent floatation characteristics and perhaps restarted the engines.
Another problem with inflatables is a relatively high cost for anything more than a simple 7-foot dingy.
littleblue posted 08-10-2002 01:49 AM ET (US)
when say scuttled, do mean the boat sank??? Also what do mean by "pitch-poled them into the water"??
jimh posted 08-10-2002 11:01 AM ET (US)
To pitch-pole is to bury the bow into a wave and have the boat thrown forward over the bow.
"Scuttled" was perhaps a bad choice as it implies intentional sinking--the report says "the boat began to sink."
Read the whole tragic story for yourself. See http://www.uscg.mil/d9/NiagaraAIMposting.pdf
Most interesting is how the RIB boat sank at the dock in a dewatering test and had to be sent back to its maker for installation of additional bouyant foam, etc.
After you read this you'll want your Coast Guard to be operating a Boston Whaler.
Pitchpoling is quite rare. One of the most famous incidents involved the Tzu Hang, a 46-foot wooden ketch owned by Miles and Beryl Smeeton, which survived pitchpoling in the south Pacific, about 1,000 west of the Straits of Magellan/Cape Horn.
jimh posted 08-10-2002 11:06 AM ET (US)
[Changed TOPIC; was "which is more seaworthy? Just curious what u will say..."--jimh.]
littleblue posted 08-10-2002 04:17 PM ET (US)
Very interesting read.
I am not sure though that being in a boston whaler would have had a different outcome except for the fact that it may not have "Pitch poled" them. I can't say too much about that because I have no idea what circumstances create pitch poling.
The first and most important thing is that the boat they were operating was not a rib. It was a "foam collered boat" which looks like a RIB but is definatly not one. A RIB has inflatable pontoons not foam filled collers. If it were a rib I am pretty sure that it would never have sunk like their boat did before additional foam was inserted.
In addition, their boat never sank after it capsized anyway, they just swam away from it and because of the currents they could not swim back to it.
[Respect for the Coast Guard and for the families of the dead have forced me to remove these insensitive remarks--jimh.]
I do not see how a BW could have saved these men...
Could tell me more on pitch poling?
jimh posted 08-11-2002 11:16 AM ET (US)
littleblue--I have done you a favor by removing your incredibly insensitive remarks about the deceased Coast Guard crewmen. In the future please do not profane yourself and this website by making callous observations about deceased members of the Coast Guard who died in the course of their duties.
littleblue posted 08-11-2002 03:01 PM ET (US)
what are talking about? My comments were not ment to be "insensitive". I'm just stating what I observed after reading the article. I am very sorry that those men had to die and I feel for them and their families but lets face the facts. What it comes down to is those men obviously werent taking what they were doing as seriously as they should have. If read the article how can deny that? The article basically states that...
I don't know why your so sensitive about my remarks which werent even that bad...I'm just telling it how it is. I don't care if it's the coast guard, police men, firemen, or what have u, if have a dangerous job and don't treat that job w/ a high amount of respect eventually it will catch up to just like it did w/ those men in the coast guard. Hopefully people will learn from their mistakes.
jimh posted 08-11-2002 03:27 PM ET (US)
Let the Coastguardsmen rest in peace. A careful review of their actions took place in the Coat Guard investigation, and none is needed here.
What is quite clear from the investigation is the substandard quailty of the boat they were given to operate. This contributed significantly to the two deaths in this incidient.
littleblue posted 08-11-2002 03:35 PM ET (US)
okay, I can leave it at that.
triblet posted 08-13-2002 12:11 AM ET (US)
I read the report. While the boat may have
been part of the original cause of the
problem, I think that had the same thing
happened in a Whaler, there would have been
the same outcome. With a properly fitted
and configured drysuit, they should have
survived.
I've got a LOT of time in drysuits. I'm
wearing one 98% of the time I'm on the
whaler. 107 dives this year, which means
55-60 days on the water, 5 hours minimum
per day. Do the math. And on each of those
dives I was in cold water (< 50F, as low as
44F) for 50 minutes to an hour and a half
one each of (usually) two dives.
Cotton kills. Wearing cotton under a dry
suit is a really bad idea. As soon as it
gets damp, it makes a fine thermal conductor.
There are great polypropylene t-shirts and
woolies ("Capiline" and "Thinsulate" are
great brands respectively) to wear under the
the dry suit.
If the neck seal is fitted right, you don't
need "comfort rings".
And it doesn't seem that they had hoods.
You loose 1/3 to 1/2 your heat from your
head. A proper neoprene hood is crucial.
Admiral Linda has a custom 10mm hood from
Otter Bay Wetsuits and Drysuits. I have
a custoem 7mm hood from Diving Concepts. The
custom fit really helps diving, although I'm
not sure the custom fit is important just
floating on the surface waiting to be
rescued.
And only one survival vest among the four,
on a cold, winter, fairly snotty night?
Jimh, while the boat have contributed to the
original accident, putting the coasties in
the water, two died because they were not
properly equipped to survive in the cold
water.

Chuck
where2 posted 08-13-2002 01:01 PM ET (US)
Having owned a 10' Zodiac, and now a 15' BW, I would have to say I'd rather have an inflatable for "seaworthiness". Aside from the ability to "pop", the RIB provides all the features you want in a seaworthy boat: a Deep V, a stern that is not too low, mass centered within the bouyant portion of the boat, low center of gravity.
I also realize that it is possible to capsize an inflatable, just as it is possible to capsize a Whaler. It appears that your current complaint about space is related to one of the features that I consider adding to the seaworthiness of an RIB which is the fact that the tubes keep you from putting too much weight toward the outside of the hull.
johnnywhaler posted 08-13-2002 07:08 PM ET (US)
Can you botom paint an inflatable? Can you dock them in the water? I think some of the small ones look like a lot of fun, wondering if I would need a lift or floatable dock.
littleblue posted 08-14-2002 01:24 AM ET (US)
my boat had bottom paint on it when I bought it. It served as a high performance tender to a guys yacht. Anway it would sit in the water 6mnts out of the year or so. So yes, can paint the bottom and yes can park them in the water. Also, they are a lot of fun and pretty soft riding. I love mine but it just is too small for my needs and in my mind if your getting a boat over 16ft. why get a rib? Unless of course your intended use is just cruising around. I need fishing space however.
I've been out in some pretty rough water w/ mine. Real low center of gravity and lost of flotation w/o any popped pontoons. Sort of like a whaler, if take on water just pull the plug while underway. I also installed a automatic bilge. Took a small wave over the back once (not a big one)while fishing, water pumped out in no time. Again, great boat for messing around, jumping wakes and what not.
pglein posted 08-14-2002 01:25 PM ET (US)
I assure you a whaler is more durable, stable, and more useful than any inflatable. I hav owned both and found that the only advantages of inflatables seems to be their light weight and soft sides. But these are only advantages as a tender to a larger boat that does not have a lot of davit capacity or where the tender is used as a real working tender (pushing, anchoring, transfering lines, etc.) A whaler is a far superior stand alone choice, and a very capable tender for any boat large enough to accomodate it.
pglein posted 08-14-2002 01:29 PM ET (US)
Just though i'd follow up:
The whaler will be more stable.
The whaler will be in better shape in 20 years (mine is a 1971 and still in great shape)
The military uses inflatables primarily for operations where the boat has to be quickly transported such as an air drop, or fast-deployments overseas. You will find that anytime they can, they choose the whaler, as do police, fire, coast guard, and most agencies that do not operate on a very limited budget.
jimh posted 08-14-2002 01:48 PM ET (US)
One RIB application in which you can see some rather expensive RIB boats is the America's Cup tenders. As mentioned by pglein, when the boat is used as a tender the inflatible collaring is important. I am sure those 30-40-foot RIBs with twin or triple 250-HP outboards are not cheap. But for ferrying sails and crew alongside a multi-million dollar racing sailboat they are a good choice.
And since when was cost any object in America's Cup competition. If your tender costs a quarter of a million, no big deal.
littleblue posted 08-14-2002 03:34 PM ET (US)
are some of talking about inflatable boats w/ just the hard bottoms? I'm talking about RIBS w/ actual "deep v" hulls.
I know whalers are stable as hell but I find it hard to imagine that in comparing a whaler and RIB of equal size and especially in the smaller boat range the whaler would be more stable. RIBS just have such a low center of gravity.
Whalers will last longer for sure though.
triblet posted 08-14-2002 09:55 PM ET (US)
The term RIB means they have a fibreglass
(or very occasionally aluminum) hull in the
middle between the tubes. If they have
inflatable tube down the middle, they aren't
a RIB.
I'm not sure price is a big factor. A good
RIB (Hypalon tubes, well made) is about the
same price as a whaler the same size. The
Whaler will generally have more room inside,
the RIB will generally have more weight
capacity.
Chuck
phatwhaler posted 08-15-2002 11:01 AM ET (US)
Fellas, After serving in the CG for 8 years, 6 of them at a small boat station I can tell you that a RIB is capable of handling much heavier weather than a comparable Whaler. I have personally filled our 21' Zodiac up with water and watched it drain out. I love Whalers, I use a 24 Justice at work, and I own a 19 OR, but I would pick the RIB every time for seriously nasty conditions.
Now about the guys in Niagra. After a "safety stand down", Coast Guard wide. It is my opinion that the type of boat they were operating had little to do with their deaths. May they rest in peace.
Mr. TRIBLET is right on the money with why these guys died.
phatwhaler out.
littleblue posted 08-15-2002 04:28 PM ET (US)
Any handling characteristics between Whaler and RIB like better/worse?
jimh posted 08-15-2002 11:31 PM ET (US)
I like the part about the air not leaking out of my Whaler and deflating the hull into a mess of sinking fabric.
Louie Kokinis posted 08-16-2002 01:05 AM ET (US)
Littleblue: My observations come from riding in my 22 commercial Whaler and my friends 22 commercial RIB (Hurricane). IMO the RIB is the best rough water boat around, period. I hate to say it, but the RIB takes any sea state better than my Whaler :(
Louie
PS The Whaler still fishes better :) It also goes everywhere the Hurricane does, but if it�s real snotty I�d much rather be in the RIB.
littleblue posted 08-16-2002 01:23 AM ET (US)
can elaborate on that at all?? My experience w/ Whalers is somewhat limited. I've been on a 17 Montauk and a 20/21? ft. outrage. I fished off the outrage in pretty calm seas so I couldn't really say anything about that. When I was fishing off the Montauk it was slightly rough. Lots of windwaves real close togeather and we had to go pretty slow or else we'd pound like crazy and at the time the front hatch hinges were loose so the hatch would fly off if we went crazy.
Anyway, I was just wondering what characteristics about the handling of ribs youve been on gives u more confidence than your whaler.
diveorfish posted 08-16-2002 02:22 PM ET (US)
Littleblue: Inflatables, including RIBs, are the most stable seaworthy platform you can have. They have big tubes that are extremely stable offering literally no roll, incredible buoyancy, and great weight carrying capacity. They are generally a lot lighter than regular boats thus requiring less horsepower. They have soft sides so they can bump into rocks and other thing without doing any damage. They are great seaworthy boats and you can�t praise them enough in that regard. I always wanted to get one for diving and I still think they are great dive boats.
As with anything though, they do have their downfalls, otherwise everybody would have an RIB. To get the good qualities of an inflatable you have to sacrifice a lot.
The biggest sacrifice is comfort and space. Compare a new Whaler 210 outrage with a Zodiac Pro Open 650. (You can see them both on the web) Both are just over 21 ft. long and just over 8 feet of beam. The Zodiac has very little space and very low freeboard. You are going to be wet and cramped in the Zodiac. The Zodiac also doesn�t have a gunwale that you mount downriggers or other fishing gear to. (If you are a fisherman). The Zodiac also has much a much smaller internal gas tank therefore less range. They just aren�t much good for fishing or pleasure boating and therefore have less versatility.
You can also pop an RIB as well. I remember watching a Coast Guard inflatable limping into port with half their boat deflated. As it turned out, they were rescuing a couple of divers who were spear fishing and couldn�t get back to shore. The divers were a little stressed and accidentally popped a couple of holes in the Coast Guard boat with their spear guns while being rescued. You could tell that those Coast Guard guys were pissed. I�m sure that was a very rare occurrence but seeing that kind of cooled off on an inflatable in favor of a whaler.
littleblue posted 08-17-2002 03:22 AM ET (US)
unless the inflatable was taken care of w/ a lot of tlc and consistantly coverd from the sun it would be in pretty rough shape. Especially if not made from hypolon.
littleblue posted 08-17-2002 03:24 AM ET (US)
umm, what the hell is up w/ the huge "u's" in my posts?
prj posted 08-17-2002 07:43 PM ET (US)
I'm not confident, but i certainly have a guess.
Regardless of the intent, the enlarged abbreviations have the inadvertant result of some fantastic graphics. Perhaps the font change is assisting?
JFM posted 08-17-2002 08:14 PM ET (US)
Did you know that Whaler had an inflatable in their line at one time. JW on the site has one.
I used a Nissan 12' Hypalon inflatable (made by Toyo) to fish in the flats of Fla.. With a draft of 3-4" you can go almost anywhere. However, I replaced it with a 13' Sport because of the oyster bars. We then went to a Montauk but it's draft was too deep. Now we have another 13 Sport.
When we have the Nauset ready we'll try it. Having just put 8 barrier coats of West Systems on, I'm not too worried about the oyster bars any more.
Regards, Jay
jimh posted 08-17-2002 10:56 PM ET (US)
I just happened to notice an ad for a 13-foot inflatible with 25-HP Mercury 4-stroke. The price was about $12,000. I don't think that included a trailer. This was for a dressed up boat with a little console, helm, and remote engine controls.
A 130-Sport Whaler is about $8,000 (new) with trailer.
That is quite a premium (50%) for the inflatible.
JFM posted 08-18-2002 07:43 PM ET (US)
Jim,
They are just full of HOT air! Just like the salesmen that sell them. Where is the value? That's why we switched to Whalers.
My son and I went to look at larger inflatables and explained our oyster bar problem. We over heard the boss tell the salesman "what they need is a little Whaler". To bad they didn't have any. We've had 5(Whalers) since the inflatable.
Regards, Jay
newt posted 08-18-2002 09:40 PM ET (US)
Hey I just noticed the huge "u" s on this post. Doesnt happen at work. Littleblue, you got my attention, how did you do it?
triblet posted 08-19-2002 01:23 AM ET (US)
I suspect they wouldn't happen, if it were
spelled "you".
I also suspect our moderator is giving a
spelling lesson and having some fun. The big
"u" is a gif image,
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/u.gif .

Chuck
littleblue posted 08-19-2002 03:41 AM ET (US)
did I really use a "u" for every "you" that I wrote out?... damn e-mail...

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Seaworthiness of RIB vs. Whaler
littleblue	posted 08-08-2002 02:16 AM ET (US) I currently own a 1990 Avon 13.5 ft. RIB w/ a deep v hull and a 50-HP Yamaha 2-stroke. (Next spring/summer will upgrade to 17ft. Montauk) I was wondering what guys would say in comparing a rib like this and the whaler 13ft. sport. Without judging upon the fact that the rib can pop, and what could potentially be in better shape in 20 years, which would handle rough waters better? I ask this cause I just realized the military uses both ribs and whalers, same w/ coast guard and other agencies. In addition both are "unsinkable" in terms of being filled w/ water, capsizing, etc. (i know, i know, the rib can pop...) Both can handle a lot of weight and all the other good stuff. Anyway, I use mine is sf bay and when conditions allow I take it a little ways off shore and up the coast for fishing but there just isn't enough room. Just curious as to what guys think about this subject.
Bigshot	posted 08-08-2002 09:28 AM ET (US) The Whaler is more stable but the rib could probably handle rougher water.
Louie Kokinis	posted 08-08-2002 10:27 AM ET (US) IMO the RIB is both more seaworthy and offers more stability. Tough to fish from once you get there though :(
jimh	posted 08-08-2002 11:24 AM ET (US) Inflatable boats are nice but they don't last long. The rubberized fabric is prone to punctures and decays over time. There is no guarantee they are seaworthy, either. This March in the Niagara River two Coast Guard sailors died when their RIB style boat pitch-poled them into a frigid Lake Ontario in very moderate seas. The RIB filled with water and scuttled--it was not sufficiently bouyant. If these unfortunate fellows had been in a Boston Whaler they would probably not have been thrown in the water in the first place, and even in the event they were, they could have returned to a boat with excellent floatation characteristics and perhaps restarted the engines. Another problem with inflatables is a relatively high cost for anything more than a simple 7-foot dingy.
littleblue	posted 08-10-2002 01:49 AM ET (US) when say scuttled, do mean the boat sank??? Also what do mean by "pitch-poled them into the water"??
jimh	posted 08-10-2002 11:01 AM ET (US) To pitch-pole is to bury the bow into a wave and have the boat thrown forward over the bow. "Scuttled" was perhaps a bad choice as it implies intentional sinking--the report says "the boat began to sink." Read the whole tragic story for yourself. See http://www.uscg.mil/d9/NiagaraAIMposting.pdf Most interesting is how the RIB boat sank at the dock in a dewatering test and had to be sent back to its maker for installation of additional bouyant foam, etc. After you read this you'll want your Coast Guard to be operating a Boston Whaler. Pitchpoling is quite rare. One of the most famous incidents involved the Tzu Hang, a 46-foot wooden ketch owned by Miles and Beryl Smeeton, which survived pitchpoling in the south Pacific, about 1,000 west of the Straits of Magellan/Cape Horn.
jimh	posted 08-10-2002 11:06 AM ET (US) [Changed TOPIC; was "which is more seaworthy? Just curious what u will say..."--jimh.]
littleblue	posted 08-10-2002 04:17 PM ET (US) Very interesting read. I am not sure though that being in a boston whaler would have had a different outcome except for the fact that it may not have "Pitch poled" them. I can't say too much about that because I have no idea what circumstances create pitch poling. The first and most important thing is that the boat they were operating was not a rib. It was a "foam collered boat" which looks like a RIB but is definatly not one. A RIB has inflatable pontoons not foam filled collers. If it were a rib I am pretty sure that it would never have sunk like their boat did before additional foam was inserted. In addition, their boat never sank after it capsized anyway, they just swam away from it and because of the currents they could not swim back to it. [Respect for the Coast Guard and for the families of the dead have forced me to remove these insensitive remarks--jimh.] I do not see how a BW could have saved these men... Could tell me more on pitch poling?
jimh	posted 08-11-2002 11:16 AM ET (US) littleblue--I have done you a favor by removing your incredibly insensitive remarks about the deceased Coast Guard crewmen. In the future please do not profane yourself and this website by making callous observations about deceased members of the Coast Guard who died in the course of their duties.
littleblue	posted 08-11-2002 03:01 PM ET (US) what are talking about? My comments were not ment to be "insensitive". I'm just stating what I observed after reading the article. I am very sorry that those men had to die and I feel for them and their families but lets face the facts. What it comes down to is those men obviously werent taking what they were doing as seriously as they should have. If read the article how can deny that? The article basically states that... I don't know why your so sensitive about my remarks which werent even that bad...I'm just telling it how it is. I don't care if it's the coast guard, police men, firemen, or what have u, if have a dangerous job and don't treat that job w/ a high amount of respect eventually it will catch up to just like it did w/ those men in the coast guard. Hopefully people will learn from their mistakes.
jimh	posted 08-11-2002 03:27 PM ET (US) Let the Coastguardsmen rest in peace. A careful review of their actions took place in the Coat Guard investigation, and none is needed here. What is quite clear from the investigation is the substandard quailty of the boat they were given to operate. This contributed significantly to the two deaths in this incidient.
littleblue	posted 08-11-2002 03:35 PM ET (US) okay, I can leave it at that.
triblet	posted 08-13-2002 12:11 AM ET (US) I read the report. While the boat may have been part of the original cause of the problem, I think that had the same thing happened in a Whaler, there would have been the same outcome. With a properly fitted and configured drysuit, they should have survived. I've got a LOT of time in drysuits. I'm wearing one 98% of the time I'm on the whaler. 107 dives this year, which means 55-60 days on the water, 5 hours minimum per day. Do the math. And on each of those dives I was in cold water (< 50F, as low as 44F) for 50 minutes to an hour and a half one each of (usually) two dives. Cotton kills. Wearing cotton under a dry suit is a really bad idea. As soon as it gets damp, it makes a fine thermal conductor. There are great polypropylene t-shirts and woolies ("Capiline" and "Thinsulate" are great brands respectively) to wear under the the dry suit. If the neck seal is fitted right, you don't need "comfort rings". And it doesn't seem that they had hoods. You loose 1/3 to 1/2 your heat from your head. A proper neoprene hood is crucial. Admiral Linda has a custom 10mm hood from Otter Bay Wetsuits and Drysuits. I have a custoem 7mm hood from Diving Concepts. The custom fit really helps diving, although I'm not sure the custom fit is important just floating on the surface waiting to be rescued. And only one survival vest among the four, on a cold, winter, fairly snotty night? Jimh, while the boat have contributed to the original accident, putting the coasties in the water, two died because they were not properly equipped to survive in the cold water. Chuck
where2	posted 08-13-2002 01:01 PM ET (US) Having owned a 10' Zodiac, and now a 15' BW, I would have to say I'd rather have an inflatable for "seaworthiness". Aside from the ability to "pop", the RIB provides all the features you want in a seaworthy boat: a Deep V, a stern that is not too low, mass centered within the bouyant portion of the boat, low center of gravity. I also realize that it is possible to capsize an inflatable, just as it is possible to capsize a Whaler. It appears that your current complaint about space is related to one of the features that I consider adding to the seaworthiness of an RIB which is the fact that the tubes keep you from putting too much weight toward the outside of the hull.
johnnywhaler	posted 08-13-2002 07:08 PM ET (US) Can you botom paint an inflatable? Can you dock them in the water? I think some of the small ones look like a lot of fun, wondering if I would need a lift or floatable dock.
littleblue	posted 08-14-2002 01:24 AM ET (US) my boat had bottom paint on it when I bought it. It served as a high performance tender to a guys yacht. Anway it would sit in the water 6mnts out of the year or so. So yes, can paint the bottom and yes can park them in the water. Also, they are a lot of fun and pretty soft riding. I love mine but it just is too small for my needs and in my mind if your getting a boat over 16ft. why get a rib? Unless of course your intended use is just cruising around. I need fishing space however. I've been out in some pretty rough water w/ mine. Real low center of gravity and lost of flotation w/o any popped pontoons. Sort of like a whaler, if take on water just pull the plug while underway. I also installed a automatic bilge. Took a small wave over the back once (not a big one)while fishing, water pumped out in no time. Again, great boat for messing around, jumping wakes and what not.
pglein	posted 08-14-2002 01:25 PM ET (US) I assure you a whaler is more durable, stable, and more useful than any inflatable. I hav owned both and found that the only advantages of inflatables seems to be their light weight and soft sides. But these are only advantages as a tender to a larger boat that does not have a lot of davit capacity or where the tender is used as a real working tender (pushing, anchoring, transfering lines, etc.) A whaler is a far superior stand alone choice, and a very capable tender for any boat large enough to accomodate it.
pglein	posted 08-14-2002 01:29 PM ET (US) Just though i'd follow up: The whaler will be more stable. The whaler will be in better shape in 20 years (mine is a 1971 and still in great shape) The military uses inflatables primarily for operations where the boat has to be quickly transported such as an air drop, or fast-deployments overseas. You will find that anytime they can, they choose the whaler, as do police, fire, coast guard, and most agencies that do not operate on a very limited budget.
jimh	posted 08-14-2002 01:48 PM ET (US) One RIB application in which you can see some rather expensive RIB boats is the America's Cup tenders. As mentioned by pglein, when the boat is used as a tender the inflatible collaring is important. I am sure those 30-40-foot RIBs with twin or triple 250-HP outboards are not cheap. But for ferrying sails and crew alongside a multi-million dollar racing sailboat they are a good choice. And since when was cost any object in America's Cup competition. If your tender costs a quarter of a million, no big deal.
littleblue	posted 08-14-2002 03:34 PM ET (US) are some of talking about inflatable boats w/ just the hard bottoms? I'm talking about RIBS w/ actual "deep v" hulls. I know whalers are stable as hell but I find it hard to imagine that in comparing a whaler and RIB of equal size and especially in the smaller boat range the whaler would be more stable. RIBS just have such a low center of gravity. Whalers will last longer for sure though.
triblet	posted 08-14-2002 09:55 PM ET (US) The term RIB means they have a fibreglass (or very occasionally aluminum) hull in the middle between the tubes. If they have inflatable tube down the middle, they aren't a RIB. I'm not sure price is a big factor. A good RIB (Hypalon tubes, well made) is about the same price as a whaler the same size. The Whaler will generally have more room inside, the RIB will generally have more weight capacity. Chuck
phatwhaler	posted 08-15-2002 11:01 AM ET (US) Fellas, After serving in the CG for 8 years, 6 of them at a small boat station I can tell you that a RIB is capable of handling much heavier weather than a comparable Whaler. I have personally filled our 21' Zodiac up with water and watched it drain out. I love Whalers, I use a 24 Justice at work, and I own a 19 OR, but I would pick the RIB every time for seriously nasty conditions. Now about the guys in Niagra. After a "safety stand down", Coast Guard wide. It is my opinion that the type of boat they were operating had little to do with their deaths. May they rest in peace. Mr. TRIBLET is right on the money with why these guys died. phatwhaler out.
littleblue	posted 08-15-2002 04:28 PM ET (US) Any handling characteristics between Whaler and RIB like better/worse?
jimh	posted 08-15-2002 11:31 PM ET (US) I like the part about the air not leaking out of my Whaler and deflating the hull into a mess of sinking fabric.
Louie Kokinis	posted 08-16-2002 01:05 AM ET (US) Littleblue: My observations come from riding in my 22 commercial Whaler and my friends 22 commercial RIB (Hurricane). IMO the RIB is the best rough water boat around, period. I hate to say it, but the RIB takes any sea state better than my Whaler :( Louie PS The Whaler still fishes better :) It also goes everywhere the Hurricane does, but if it�s real snotty I�d much rather be in the RIB.
littleblue	posted 08-16-2002 01:23 AM ET (US) can elaborate on that at all?? My experience w/ Whalers is somewhat limited. I've been on a 17 Montauk and a 20/21? ft. outrage. I fished off the outrage in pretty calm seas so I couldn't really say anything about that. When I was fishing off the Montauk it was slightly rough. Lots of windwaves real close togeather and we had to go pretty slow or else we'd pound like crazy and at the time the front hatch hinges were loose so the hatch would fly off if we went crazy. Anyway, I was just wondering what characteristics about the handling of ribs youve been on gives u more confidence than your whaler.
diveorfish	posted 08-16-2002 02:22 PM ET (US) Littleblue: Inflatables, including RIBs, are the most stable seaworthy platform you can have. They have big tubes that are extremely stable offering literally no roll, incredible buoyancy, and great weight carrying capacity. They are generally a lot lighter than regular boats thus requiring less horsepower. They have soft sides so they can bump into rocks and other thing without doing any damage. They are great seaworthy boats and you can�t praise them enough in that regard. I always wanted to get one for diving and I still think they are great dive boats. As with anything though, they do have their downfalls, otherwise everybody would have an RIB. To get the good qualities of an inflatable you have to sacrifice a lot. The biggest sacrifice is comfort and space. Compare a new Whaler 210 outrage with a Zodiac Pro Open 650. (You can see them both on the web) Both are just over 21 ft. long and just over 8 feet of beam. The Zodiac has very little space and very low freeboard. You are going to be wet and cramped in the Zodiac. The Zodiac also doesn�t have a gunwale that you mount downriggers or other fishing gear to. (If you are a fisherman). The Zodiac also has much a much smaller internal gas tank therefore less range. They just aren�t much good for fishing or pleasure boating and therefore have less versatility. You can also pop an RIB as well. I remember watching a Coast Guard inflatable limping into port with half their boat deflated. As it turned out, they were rescuing a couple of divers who were spear fishing and couldn�t get back to shore. The divers were a little stressed and accidentally popped a couple of holes in the Coast Guard boat with their spear guns while being rescued. You could tell that those Coast Guard guys were pissed. I�m sure that was a very rare occurrence but seeing that kind of cooled off on an inflatable in favor of a whaler.
littleblue	posted 08-17-2002 03:22 AM ET (US) unless the inflatable was taken care of w/ a lot of tlc and consistantly coverd from the sun it would be in pretty rough shape. Especially if not made from hypolon.
littleblue	posted 08-17-2002 03:24 AM ET (US) umm, what the hell is up w/ the huge "u's" in my posts?
prj	posted 08-17-2002 07:43 PM ET (US) I'm not confident, but i certainly have a guess. Regardless of the intent, the enlarged abbreviations have the inadvertant result of some fantastic graphics. Perhaps the font change is assisting?
JFM	posted 08-17-2002 08:14 PM ET (US) Did you know that Whaler had an inflatable in their line at one time. JW on the site has one. I used a Nissan 12' Hypalon inflatable (made by Toyo) to fish in the flats of Fla.. With a draft of 3-4" you can go almost anywhere. However, I replaced it with a 13' Sport because of the oyster bars. We then went to a Montauk but it's draft was too deep. Now we have another 13 Sport. When we have the Nauset ready we'll try it. Having just put 8 barrier coats of West Systems on, I'm not too worried about the oyster bars any more. Regards, Jay
jimh	posted 08-17-2002 10:56 PM ET (US) I just happened to notice an ad for a 13-foot inflatible with 25-HP Mercury 4-stroke. The price was about $12,000. I don't think that included a trailer. This was for a dressed up boat with a little console, helm, and remote engine controls. A 130-Sport Whaler is about $8,000 (new) with trailer. That is quite a premium (50%) for the inflatible.
JFM	posted 08-18-2002 07:43 PM ET (US) Jim, They are just full of HOT air! Just like the salesmen that sell them. Where is the value? That's why we switched to Whalers. My son and I went to look at larger inflatables and explained our oyster bar problem. We over heard the boss tell the salesman "what they need is a little Whaler". To bad they didn't have any. We've had 5(Whalers) since the inflatable. Regards, Jay
newt	posted 08-18-2002 09:40 PM ET (US) Hey I just noticed the huge "u" s on this post. Doesnt happen at work. Littleblue, you got my attention, how did you do it?
triblet	posted 08-19-2002 01:23 AM ET (US) I suspect they wouldn't happen, if it were spelled "you". I also suspect our moderator is giving a spelling lesson and having some fun. The big "u" is a gif image, http://continuouswave.com/ubb/u.gif . Chuck
littleblue	posted 08-19-2002 03:41 AM ET (US) did I really use a "u" for every "you" that I wrote out?... damn e-mail...