*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.

If I told you the boat was built with alternating layers of Velveeta
and potato chips, you wouldn't know or appreciate the difference.

I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule. The technique
("uses no putty") is what is important to this discussion. I have
contacts
that could provide me with more technical information about the Sea Ray
hull than you or your buddy Smithers have the capacity to understand-
but why bother? A long, detailed, technical analysis would be
immediately dissed by you guys as it was "provided by Sea Ray, and who
can believe the mfgr?".

I think I'll sit and watch Smithers turn slowly on his own hook,
claiming I promised to provide something I never agreed to provide and
insisting that the truth is "somewhere in the middle" between Pascoe's
assertion that Sea Rays aren't really fiberglass boats and the photos
and description of the manufacturing process that are commonly and
publicly available. All the paniced insulting and finger pointing he
can muster aren't going to let him ge away without either 1)
establishing how much "putty" vs. how much fiberglass is in a Sea Ray
runabout hull or 2) admitting that he is speaking through his West
Marine "captain" hat and doesn't really know schidt from shine about
how Sea Ray hulls are built. So far, he's hooting down all sources that
don't agree with his bizarre position- but failing to provide a single
shred of evidence for his own, "in the middle" position.

I do commend him for doing some "research" into fiberglass fabrication
methods. Too bad he doesn't do such research before he fires off his
nonsense.