Something interesting I learned today regarding the USCG boat testing
- Thread starter Tony H
- Start date
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
If the govt grew a pair they would say, "We no longer have a test facility, here are the specifications and the testing that your vessels must pass. Find a company that will test them or test them yourself. One of our reps may or may not contact you on a moments notice and you're going to have to be able to show all of the data collected during testing. If not, we're going to fine you X amount of dollars, and you'll have 30 days to run the testing on that model or we close the doors."
I'd like to think they're short-handed because two of their helpers got wise, left, and are starting their own testing company/facility for when the above takes place. Any choice by the govt to have less govt involvement in anything besides the economy right now surprises me.
If the govt grew a pair they would say, "We no longer have a test facility, here are the specifications and the testing that your vessels must pass. Find a company that will test them or test them yourself. One of our reps may or may not contact you on a moments notice and you're going to have to be able to show all of the data collected during testing. If not, we're going to fine you X amount of dollars, and you'll have 30 days to run the testing on that model or we close the doors."
I'd like to think they're short-handed because two of their helpers got wise, left, and are starting their own testing company/facility for when the above takes place. Any choice by the govt to have less govt involvement in anything besides the economy right now surprises me.
The USCG has so much money in there budget and decide how much they are going to spend on a contract for testing. If the bids submitted are too high then I guess the USCG will have to pony up more money or drop the program. I don't think I want to build a test pool and all that's involved. The two guys hours were cut to 24 per week or three days. I'm guessing that there is a claus in the contract that lets the USCG modify it based on funding reductions. I have always set up my testing appointments directly with steve.
Tom.
Tom.
Agree'd but if there cutting hours now and cutting back on testing boats, the odds of the USCG ponying up more money is not good.
Tell me about the pool. LOL I may just have to dig a pond in the side yard. It would be a business tax write off right?
Its either that or keep my kids busy with those high tec 200.00 calculators I bought them for HS and college figuring up the weight to sink the boat without floating it. My 16yr old assure me he can do it without floating it. Me. No dang way. LOL I need a pool and some tractor weights.
I don't doubt a thing you guys are saying...
I'm just saying, just because they're not testing the "necessary" amount of boats "for you" doesn't mean you're off the hook.
The smartest people in the world still test their designs/theories. The avg Joe doesn't have millions of dollars wrapped up in a FEA team and equipment like the automotive industry does, and physical testing still proves that stuff wrong every day.
You guys know boats, Tony, I've talked to you on the phone and you've been doing this stuff a while and I trust that you wouldn't intentionally build a dangerous product, but you guys don't know testing and the way the govt works when it comes to safety and durability standards. That's what I've done for over 20 years.
Respectfully I agree to disagree with your stance on the issue.
I'm just saying, just because they're not testing the "necessary" amount of boats "for you" doesn't mean you're off the hook.
The smartest people in the world still test their designs/theories. The avg Joe doesn't have millions of dollars wrapped up in a FEA team and equipment like the automotive industry does, and physical testing still proves that stuff wrong every day.
You guys know boats, Tony, I've talked to you on the phone and you've been doing this stuff a while and I trust that you wouldn't intentionally build a dangerous product, but you guys don't know testing and the way the govt works when it comes to safety and durability standards. That's what I've done for over 20 years.
Respectfully I agree to disagree with your stance on the issue.
. Personally I have no desire to do my own testing. I would much rather take it to someone that does this all the time. This would be much more cost effective in my mind. One should always know there limits and when to sub it out. There certainly isn't enough market for hunting boats to support a testing facility when you consider that I might have to test two or three new models in the coming years.
Tom. [/QUOTE]
Tom. [/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Howard
Well-known member
Dwayne, I build 2-3 boats a year. Guys like Tony and myself take pride in building the safest products we can and we assume the responcibility to do so. We're certainly not trying to "get off the hook". That said, I don't have the room or equiptment to test for level floatation nor do I have the capacity to store or handle the 5000 lbs of pig iron used to certify a boat with a 1000 lbs capacity. Now if there were a commercial facility available where I could have my boats tested I would not be opposed to using it. Why? Because I want my boats tested by an impartial entity although I'm not sure that a commercial facility would stay impartial over the long term. There are hundreds of small boat builders out there and what? 20 auto manufactures? No comparison between the two.
Tony, I apologize for speaking in your stead..
Tony, I apologize for speaking in your stead..
No problem Howard, Small boat testing is simple. I done our layout boats in a 15ft swimming pool. LOL But when it comes time for the larger boats there will indeed be potential for an issue. LOL
Dwayne, Regardless we both have to follow rules and there are probably alot more rules that boat builders must follow than you realize. Way beyond the float tests. Wiring and lights electronics all have regulations as well for manufacturers that we must follow as well. While I cannot compare to the auto industry I can tell you this there is a 4" thick manual of all kinds of great things for boat manufacturers to follow. Alot depends on the kind of boats your building etc.
Regardless, I guess some of us who choose to use the test facility are just spoiled. So be it. The government gave us that option.
I've been going back and forth reading this. Sometimes laughing, sometimes getting pissed. Most of what is being posted is not accurate. Yes the CG budget is being reduced just like other agencies but the factory visit and testing program is a contract that is already paid for and spent. Yes we've cut back to one paid visit. If you can't figure it out after one boat you probably shouldn't be building them. Sequestration had nothing to do with this. Were still testing boats and still buying boats for testing. If you know of a builder whose boats we should buy, let me know. In fact we will have a auction in a couple months to sale off some of the boats we've purchased this year. Were just trying to do things smarter and put the money where it will do the most good. This year has seen the least amount of builders bringing boats for testing. The numbers have been declining the last three years. Thats why the staff hours have been reduced not because there isn't money. Its not smart business to keep doing things the same way. There is a lot more going on that I'm not going to comment on at this time. There will be more business changes in the future but not at a risk of safety. If you got concerns or questions send me a private message and I'll answer them if I can.
MLBob Furia
Well-known member
Interesting discussions. Made me want to do some reading.
One thing I find is that the average guy like me needs clarification on the terms "Testing"/ "Certified"/ "Approved", et al. What do they mean? Are they required? As I read, I came to find that that label on my boat or anyone else's meams a WHOLE lot of different things depending on who is doing the building.
For example, it can merely mean that the builder read the Coast Guard manual and built according to what he felt were the applicable regulations on that type of craft - he then went out and had his capacity (not certification) plates made up and affixed them.
....It could mean that he actually took the boat to a Coast Guard facility and had it tested & inspected - but not necessarily. Nothing illegal about it, either.
On another end of the scale, it might mean that the builder is a paying member of an organization like NAMA (and there are others), and had his boat(s) certified through their inspections (... inspections done by certified engineers trained for boat industry specifics, and also inspections which seem to be recognized by the Coast Guard as exceeding their standards). These types of organizations not only conduct the applicable inspections for the craft being built, but also seem to be are right up to date on what applies & changes year to year. Now, builders who do this can add the info on additional certification like this to their certification plates; but again - it's just the builder telling you what he's done with that particular boat. It also lookes like a process that is going to cost the builder some coin depending on the scale of his operation.
When it comes to the scale & range of the boats we are using to hunt, it sounds like that what it boils down to is that you need to be convinced that the builder you're dealing with knows what he's doing, and is taking every measure to build something that will get you there and back season after season. Essentially, you've got to be the one who evaluate if this is so based on the info provided, doing your homework, looking at the track record of the craft, getting to know the builders and his reputation, asking questions, realistically evaluating your needs & hunting conditions, etc.,etc., etc.
Here's some links that I found interesting. If you take the time to watch the video on the first one, it has some stuff that is food for thought, even though it may seem to apply to large scale operations:
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/index2.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/certified.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/
One thing I find is that the average guy like me needs clarification on the terms "Testing"/ "Certified"/ "Approved", et al. What do they mean? Are they required? As I read, I came to find that that label on my boat or anyone else's meams a WHOLE lot of different things depending on who is doing the building.
For example, it can merely mean that the builder read the Coast Guard manual and built according to what he felt were the applicable regulations on that type of craft - he then went out and had his capacity (not certification) plates made up and affixed them.
....It could mean that he actually took the boat to a Coast Guard facility and had it tested & inspected - but not necessarily. Nothing illegal about it, either.
On another end of the scale, it might mean that the builder is a paying member of an organization like NAMA (and there are others), and had his boat(s) certified through their inspections (... inspections done by certified engineers trained for boat industry specifics, and also inspections which seem to be recognized by the Coast Guard as exceeding their standards). These types of organizations not only conduct the applicable inspections for the craft being built, but also seem to be are right up to date on what applies & changes year to year. Now, builders who do this can add the info on additional certification like this to their certification plates; but again - it's just the builder telling you what he's done with that particular boat. It also lookes like a process that is going to cost the builder some coin depending on the scale of his operation.
When it comes to the scale & range of the boats we are using to hunt, it sounds like that what it boils down to is that you need to be convinced that the builder you're dealing with knows what he's doing, and is taking every measure to build something that will get you there and back season after season. Essentially, you've got to be the one who evaluate if this is so based on the info provided, doing your homework, looking at the track record of the craft, getting to know the builders and his reputation, asking questions, realistically evaluating your needs & hunting conditions, etc.,etc., etc.
Here's some links that I found interesting. If you take the time to watch the video on the first one, it has some stuff that is food for thought, even though it may seem to apply to large scale operations:
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/index2.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/certified.html
http://newboatbuilders.com/
After reading even more now and my emails telling me they dont test recreational boats now just watch the video's below and at the very end it tells you who to contact to have your recreational boat tested. ITs funny to see these videos with Steve shown in them because when we took the UFO we were not allowed to video or take pictures of him for the sake of his identity.
http://www.safeafloat.com/vtp/
Completely makes no sense to me why they would not test any boat a manufacturer was willing to bring to be tested redardless. If a company has 3-4 boats to be tested a year GREAT! if they have 1 thats great too. It makes alot more sense than the USCG going out and buying boats to test them. For example, lets go buy a 10K boat just to test it. When we could just send the company a letter stating that they offer this testing program and feel they should have there boats tested free of charge. Granted they are going to sell the boat when they are done with it but it would have to sell for much less than they paid for it. I could understand them only paying for one boat. And that was what started all this. I asked if I could bring 2 boats to be tested and how I would be reimbursed for them. The gentleman I have been emailing is shown in these videos.
I am a manufacturer and am lucky to have a couple sons who have the math qualifications to understand simpsons rule and we can get the Maximum displacement figure without a test pool. However I like to test that theory in a pool as well. For example. When we took the UFO for testing we already had a capacity label in tact and that is what we tested for based on our own calculations and guess what? it passed no problems what so ever. So the new models we plan to do the exact same thing with. Test them ourselves then send them to be tested just to insure we didnt make a mistake somewhere. It just makes more sense to me to do things this way. The comfort knowing not only did we get it right but when tested by the USCG it was right again. This gives us double the security and protection should there every be a problem down the road.
Last edited:
This is my last post on this. I hated even posting and moving this back to the top but I said I would get the latest info for you.
To clarify previous policy regarding the Volunteer Boat Test Program the following applies:
The Coast Guard will perform free testing of one boat per manufacturer within a one year time frame and will pay the cost of transporting the boat to and from the test facility and will pay per diem for the manufacturer to observe the testing.
The Coast Guard will perform free testing of any additional boat/s by the same manufacturer within the one year time frame, pending the availability of the test facility, if the manufacturer pays for the cost of transporting the boat/s to and from the test facility and pays his own way if he desires to observe the testing.
Boats submitted to the voluntary testing program must be completed production model boats and not in a prototype stage. They must be representative of boats that are being offered for sale to the public.
Bottom line: The actual testing is free but we will only pay travel expenses for one boat per year. Additional boats can be tested for free but at the builders own travel expenses to Maryland. Scheduling is handled by the test facility.
I won't be responding anymore to this. If you have a question send me a PM and I'll answer when I can.
To clarify previous policy regarding the Volunteer Boat Test Program the following applies:
The Coast Guard will perform free testing of one boat per manufacturer within a one year time frame and will pay the cost of transporting the boat to and from the test facility and will pay per diem for the manufacturer to observe the testing.
The Coast Guard will perform free testing of any additional boat/s by the same manufacturer within the one year time frame, pending the availability of the test facility, if the manufacturer pays for the cost of transporting the boat/s to and from the test facility and pays his own way if he desires to observe the testing.
Boats submitted to the voluntary testing program must be completed production model boats and not in a prototype stage. They must be representative of boats that are being offered for sale to the public.
Bottom line: The actual testing is free but we will only pay travel expenses for one boat per year. Additional boats can be tested for free but at the builders own travel expenses to Maryland. Scheduling is handled by the test facility.
I won't be responding anymore to this. If you have a question send me a PM and I'll answer when I can.
This is great news. I hope everyone is on the same page with this Darren, This is not what I was told as you know. But thats fantastic and works out perfect. I would like to bring 2 models over to test real soon. And as I understand it The USCG will pay for the first one and travel expenses etc the second is on me. Sounds perfect.
I will print and save this in case there is further issues from anyone.
Tony.
