"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.


Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is
intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no liability?
I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...sts-new-trial/

Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But what a
darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid to do
this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even go for
the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


So, because the defense attorney is vigorously representing his client, and
there's a review underway, that means it's going to be overturned. I think
I'll wait for the outcome of the investigation... unlike you who wants to
condemn any and everything you don't "think" is right.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 10/04/2010 4:39 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.


Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop?
(that would be the effect of any prop guard)
We have had this out a lot here in reference to manatees getting prop
scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

BTW I love the quote
"Brunswick officials said in a statement that they are sympathetic to
Brochtrup but "stand behind our products," they should have added "...
but don't swim behind them when they are backing up."

This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every
boat made in the future.

Or make them offshore and sell them as is. So you have to go to Peking
or Taiwan to sue.

Where do they get these juries? They must be some of the dumbest nails
around.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:39:41 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop? (that would be the
effect of any prop guard) We have had this out a lot here in reference
to manatees getting prop scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

But what if there is?

http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/ptech/safet...ypropeller.htm


This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every boat
made in the future.

Is it the lawyers, or the 30-40 Americans that are killed every year?

On 10/04/2010 5:35 PM, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:39:41 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop? (that would be the
effect of any prop guard) We have had this out a lot here in reference
to manatees getting prop scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

But what if there is?

http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/ptech/safet...ypropeller.htm


This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every boat
made in the future.

Is it the lawyers, or the 30-40 Americans that are killed every year?

Just watched the video, what a crock. 30% or worse fuel mileage
guaranteed. Just the hole in the middle, the drag. And the edges so
blunt it is like a hammer in water.

Easier just to pass a law that says drivers, like pilots and boat owners
are 100% by default responsible for the operation of their boat,
including liability. With a clause that states that in order to sue a
motor vendor, you must clearly show negligence in construction or
specified claims as being false.

Make it retroactive.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:39:41 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop? (that would be the
effect of any prop guard) We have had this out a lot here in reference
to manatees getting prop scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

But what if there is?

http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/ptech/safet...ypropeller.htm


This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every boat
made in the future.

Is it the lawyers, or the 30-40 Americans that are killed every year?


It's the right wing kooks who think our system of jurisprudence doesn't
work. Apparently our representative doesn't work either. Nothing works.
Perhaps they should just leave.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:42:23 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:35:09 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:39:41 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop? (that would be the
effect of any prop guard) We have had this out a lot here in reference
to manatees getting prop scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

But what if there is?

http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/ptech/safet...ypropeller.htm


You notice he is careful to rub the edge of the prop, not stick his foot
into the leading edge like a swimmer would do. Try it on your table fan.
Stick something in on the suction side, like the back of a prop when you
are in reverse.

It is also turning pretty slow, in the air without the suction of water
to multiply the effect


This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every
boat made in the future.

Is it the lawyers, or the 30-40 Americans that are killed every year?
Injured or killed?

They were killed. The cite came from somewhere in that safety propeller
site.

In the grand scheme of things that is a pretty small number

What do you think the effect is on performance, fuel mileage etc?

If it can be believed, top speeds were reduced by less than .2 mph. Hey,
I'm not saying the "safety propeller" is the answer, but propeller
technology is definitely old technology. I can see improvements being
made, especially where loved ones body parts are exposed.

I know, screw the environment, global warming, dependence of foreign oil
etc if we can save a few stupid people from otherwise preventable
accidents.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, Tim wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.


Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is
intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop?
(that would be the effect of any prop guard)
We have had this out a lot here in reference to manatees getting prop
scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

BTW I love the quote
"Brunswick officials said in a statement that they are sympathetic to
Brochtrup but "stand behind our products," they should have added "...
but don't swim behind them when they are backing up."

This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every
boat made in the future.


You're telling me that a small diff in drag is going to be noticed?? So, now
the boat can go 52.3 mph instead of 55. I think most people wouldn't notice.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:27:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You're telling me that a small diff in drag is going to be noticed?? So,
now
the boat can go 52.3 mph instead of 55. I think most people wouldn't
notice.

--
Nom=de=Plume

No I am saying that is a big drag and it will be more than noticed. It
will seriously affect fuel mileage and performance. There is a very
good reason why props are the way they are, particularly the trailing
edge of the blade, where this swimmer hit. Even a very blunt work boat
prop has a sharp trailing edge. Otherwise it cavitates. This guy is
bragging about holes in the prop that make it cavitate more. This
isn't a prop, it is a bubble machine.


See thunder's post.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:01:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No I am saying that is a big drag and it will be more than noticed. It
will seriously affect fuel mileage and performance. There is a very
good reason why props are the way they are, particularly the trailing
edge of the blade, where this swimmer hit. Even a very blunt work boat
prop has a sharp trailing edge. Otherwise it cavitates. This guy is
bragging about holes in the prop that make it cavitate more. This
isn't a prop, it is a bubble machine.


See thunder's post.

I saw Thunder's post and he is guessing too.
Somebody show me a side by side test with a regular cheap aluminum
prop (not even some special high performance SS) and I will be
convinced.
My bet, at least a 10% decrease in performance on a barge like mine
and probably more like 25% a performance boat. There is no accident
props are made like they are. This is a century old technology and
they improve them every year, basically by doing the opposite of what
this guy is doing. (thinner blades, sharper edges) That is why people
spend the money for stainless steel. It is hard enough to hold that
edge. Guys spend $50-100 bucks to get them cleaned up when they get
tiny dings in them.

I am not even convinced that if you actually hit someone in the water
it would make that much difference. It is a lot easier to knock the
arm out of the way, from the side, in free air. Would you try it? None
of this would affect going straight into the prop.


But, you're not guessing... no way. You have the FACTS. Sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 10/04/2010 3:16 PM, Jack wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.

What a darwin.

Yes, unbelievable. Just like McDonalds hot coffee and minivan windows
at 55mph collisions....

Everyone elses fault. Somebody else must pay for the darwins stupidity.
Give me a break, why are these suits not just tossed out of court with
prejudice?

Makes me wonder in the total cost of a boat, how much of it is in legal,
insurance and taxes. Next time we buy one, might have to sign 25 sheets
of disclamer.

"If your are stupid enough to stick you body into the propeller, or if
your are inept captian, you will find no fault with our product and you
cannot sue us. If you try to sue us, we reserve the right for total
compensation for your frivious studpidity. If you do not agree, you are
not authorized to use our product as you are too stupid."

I wonder how much cheaper that would make boats and motors?

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.