Gene Kearns wrote:
Your link seems to describe a European robotic application of Pascoe's
complaints... therefore, I suspect his position is still valid....

Some of Pascoe's comments about hull construction are valid, in the same
way that some of his comments about diesel powerplants are valid. OTOH
some of his comments on both subjects are absurd & highly misleading (if
taken seriously by the uninformed). He's a surveyor, not an engineer.

wrote:
First, Pasoce's inflammatory piece is titled "Fiberglass?" Boats, or
something similar, and his theme bash throughout is that many
manufacturers sell boats that are primarily some weird coring material
beneath a very thin layer of fiberglass and the gel coat.

Pascoe (and a lot of pother people) seem to have a Luddite approach to
fiberglass. It's the same nonsense as declaring that if God had wanted
us to build boats out of fiberglass, He would have given us fiberglass
trees. Only 'good old-fashioned' fiberglass is given approval, and the
fact that some cored hulls have had problems (often due to maintenance
lapses more than anything else, but never mind that) is supposed to be
given as PROOF that *ALL* cored hulls are bad.

In the same way, the fact that some boats have had engine problems might
be declared as PROOF that no boat should ever have an engine at all,
every boat should be propelled by sails alone....


As far as the "European application"...No, that's a European article
about how the Sea Ray process is being exported from the US to Europe
and it's written from the perspective of an FRP manufacturer. Sea Ray
won some sort of industry award for technical innovation with this
RIMFIRE process. I thought this might be more convincing than something
that reads
"Sea Ray says........"

Yeah, well, it's still coming from an industry shill. The reason for the
award, just like most awards (as I understand it), is that it improves
profits, not the final product.


If you read the article with an open mind, you will see how the chopped
strand hull is reinforced at critical points with engineered *fabrics*,
which are biaxial and triaxial glass cloth, kevlar, and other materials
in the modern layup.

Doubt they use Kevlar, it's expensive and not much good for that kind of
structure anyway unless a lot of specific engineering goes into it.



Show of hands: how many people in the NG have ever been in a Brunswick
layup facility? Funny, staring intensely at the monitor I see almost no
hands except my own. (Once again, the hand in Ohio is disqualified due
to finger position). The description in the European article which
notes a chopped hull with glass mat reinforcements is spot on. Pascoe's
alleged practices are nowhere to be seen. The boats are not built up
with "putty" (as his photo of the failed, "bondo" repair job is
supposed to imply).


Yeah, Pascoe's web site is about as misleading as some advertising, only
in the opposite direction. Not useful or reliable as technical info, but
it is a good reminder for the alert buyer.

If a guy doesn't like Sea Ray, that's his right. But to post stuff
that's ridiculously out of date in response to an inquiry about a new
boat along with the comment
"See how they're made" is done either because the poster doesn't know
any better or because the poster can't find anything (true or untrue)
that appears to be more damaging.

Hey, it works in politics. Seems to be coming from the same side, too.



Gene Kearns also wrote:
My personal experience with Brunswick is that they trash (cheapen)
everything that they touch.


I'd agree to some extent, it seems to be a common trait of many business
conglomerates.

Fair Skies
Doug King