Bought and paid for... Nice sales pitch, what did you get out of it?
Yeah, I know, the better your article, the more articles you get to
write. Stick to political shills here, and high fiving Harry and Jps,
leave the boating to those of us that are here for that!


That's got to be the first time I ever got my butt blistered for an on-topic
post. :-)

On 19 Oct 2003 20:57:38 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
That's got to be the first time I ever got my butt blistered for an on-topic
post. :-)
=============================================

Actually not, but I'm not counting. Your "test drive" articles always
provoke a few folks for one reason or another, probably because they
generally have some of the same tone and character as the "we like
everything" articles that are standard fare for the marine press. I
usually enjoy reading about your impressions of these boats but it
would be nice if you'd report the negatives as well as the positives.
I'll give you an example. The twin Yamaha 225s should have been
burning close to 45+ gph at WOT which is not a very cheery number for
most folks, but you were "too busy steering" to notice. Maybe.

Another example: "We accelerated to 25 knots, a very comfortable
"slow cruise" speed for the NZ29. The Flo-Scan fuel meters reported a
fuel consumption of 8.6 gallons per hour, per engine." Reporting fuel
consumption "per engine" borders on intellectual dishonesty when
totals for both engines are also being reported elsewhere in the same
article. Yeah sure, this is just more of the old $1.98 perception
game but we expect better from those who know better.

but it
would be nice if you'd report the negatives as well as the positives.

Read it again, if you'd care to.
I mentioned a few things that I thought could be improved a little and observed
a few of the shortcomings of the design from an interior layout perspective.

The twin Yamaha 225s should have been
burning close to 45+ gph at WOT which is not a very cheery number for
most folks, but you were "too busy steering" to notice. Maybe.

Hey, I'm a 9 knot boater. I was busy steering. I accurately reported the
Flo-Scan reading at near WOT. Who gives a monkey dung how many GPH the boat
burns at WOT? How many "hours" is the typical user going to run at WOT?


Another example: "We accelerated to 25 knots, a very comfortable
"slow cruise" speed for the NZ29. The Flo-Scan fuel meters reported a
fuel consumption of 8.6 gallons per hour, per engine." Reporting fuel
consumption "per engine" borders on intellectual dishonesty when

No it doesn't. Did you have any difficulty comprehending the total fuel burn?
Nor would anybody else. Here's an interesting bit of information you might
appreciate:
At 25 knots, the Flo-Scan readout shows
8.6. I mentioned that the Flo-Scan meters reported 8.6 gph per engine because
only one engine shows on the Flo-Scan at a time. You have to flip a toggle
switch to select port or starboard and see the exact reading for that engine.

So in spite of your discomfort with the phrasing, 8.6 gph per engine is a very
accurate description of the Flo-Scan reading. People familiar with Flo-Scan
meters would have no difficulty understanding my meaning. You might have a
point: perhaps it would be well to mention that the meter only shows one engine
at a time.

On 20 Oct 2003 05:11:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Did you have any difficulty comprehending the total fuel burn?

================================================== ==

Obviously not but I had to reread the sentence to make sure I had it
right. Like I said, it comes across to me as an attempt at perception
management. Just my impression for what it's worth.