wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.

Gene, I ran across this discussion of Grady-White vs Pursuit on another
forum while searching for the lay-up schedule of SeaRay boats.

You and Tom may enjoy it. Nice forum too so don't be afraid to join.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...rt=41&posts=41

JimH,

I have not looked at a SeaRay in the last few years, when I did their larger
boats were middle of the road boats, their smaller ones were price point
boats there were at the bottom of the barrel. I don't believe SeaRay has
changed their marketing strategy from trying to be a middle of the road boat
builder. The reason for the robots is to save money and hopefully provide
consistent middle of the road if quality. Using a fiberglass chop gun has
always been a preferred method of low end boat builders, so I would look
very closely before buying a SeaRay. The fact that Gould uses the robot
manufacturer as his source of technical info concerning the fiberglass
lamination schedule amazes me. Especially since the web site does not
discuss anything concerning a fiberglass lamination schedule.

Gould has become a victim of actually believing his PR pieces.


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

**************

There's a bright fella. Sticks by his lie that I'm "paid by Sea Ray to
defend Sea Ray boats" when even his normally close allies point out the
absurdity.

Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to the
dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you start
writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in the whole
chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go buy the other
manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well that sucks. I am looking to buy a new boat in September and
SeaRay was
on the top of my list. Maxum being second.

Thanks,


Duke


**********

Avoid buying a late 80's, early 90's Sea Ray, or a discontinued jet-ski
model like Larry owned, and it won't suck - at least not in the same
way. :-)

And, avoid boat manufacturer that Chuck has reviewed.

But, Pascoe gets paid for an objective opinion of the boat's condition,
where you get paid to say everything is alright all of the time regardless
of the real qualitiy of the product you are pushing.

You shouldn't call your articles boat reviews you should call them
advertisements.


wrote in message
oups.com...
This didn't appear to post the first time, sorry if it's a repeat:

Gene Kearns wrote:

Your link seems to describe a European robotic application of Pascoe's
complaints... therefore, I suspect his position is still valid....
though the build-up is more precise. In fact, very little is devoted
to marine application.


*************

Nonsense.

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. There is a
chance you do not understand the nature of "Pascoe's complaint," but
the RIMFIRE technology used by Sea Ray to build these small runabouts
does remotely approach the process Pascoe describes.

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........"

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.

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).

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. In either case, when the "advice" is
bogus it needs to be called for what it is- sheer bs hate mail and
nothing more.

****************

Gene Kearns also wrote:

My personal experience with Brunswick is that they trash (cheapen)
everything that they touch.

***********

Remember, the OP was asking for advice about new boats in the year
2005. Impressions formed in the mid-90's or before may no longer be
relevant. In the last several years, Bayliner quality control has
improved
substantially, the larger Bayliner models supplanted with a line of
boats easily built to the prevailing industry standards (Meridian), and
some of the reasons that one could bash Brunswick in the past have just
simply disappeared.

I don't put much stock in the JD Power awards, but those who find them
very important barometers of product quality would want to note that in
a category just above runabouts, Sea Ray was either the top finisher or
rated extremely highly in the latest release.

You don't suppose Pascoe's wierd chunk of "Sea Ray" putty hull came off
of Larry's old jetski, do you?

We're halfway through the 00's, and some folks seem stuck in the late
80's, early 90's. :-)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:26:11 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Again... this has more to do with opinion than anything else. I have
seen very few boats that have failed structurally... in fact... I only
have proof of one.... a Trophy that sunk off Wrightsville Beach, NC a
few years ago, while taking part in a fishing tournament. It was a
dealer boat and I got pictures of the thing when it was dumped back at
the dealership.... Yep, you guessed it.... chopper gun...

I'm in agreement, although I must admit that I beat the hell out of an
MFG "tri-hull" back in the day and that was all chopped glass.

Bluefin, over in Bristol RI, uses a combination hand lay up and
chopped glass approach - the chopped glass is used to build up
strength in areas that don't need cosmetic hand layup. I've talked to
their engineer and he makes the point that from a practical
standpoint, there isn't much difference beyond costs.

I do know that my Ranger is all hand laid except for the transom which
is an extruded under pressure fiberglass mat/resin sandwich - the damn
boat is solid as a rock which is part of the problem - there is no
flex in the boat at all. That extruded transom is so hard, it's cut
with a high pressure water jet and a bitch to drill into.

As in most things, there are compromises to be made no matter what
brand of boat.

To make his reviews more believable Pascoe also posted many positive
comments about SeaRay boats, as well as others he has reviewed.. He has a
balance of showing the positives and the negatives, as a boat *review*
should do.

Yes, they are not surveys, as Chuck contends, but they are accurate reviews
showing evidence (positive or negative) to substantiate his claims

On the other hand I have only seen pie in the sky fluff from the *reviews*
of boats Chuck has posted here. In fact I cannot ever remember reading any
negative comments in Chuck's *reviews*.

*Reviews*? Bullcrap....they are no more reviews than the OEM advertising of
their products.

But I guess, according to Chuck, it is all about "going fast and looking
good" when it comes to SeaRay boats....sort of like the 1960's thinking that
the clothes make the man.

OMG!! Can you image folks really buying into that back then? I really
feel for the folks stuck in that time warp.


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
But, Pascoe gets paid for an objective opinion of the boat's condition,
where you get paid to say everything is alright all of the time regardless
of the real qualitiy of the product you are pushing.

You shouldn't call your articles boat reviews you should call them
advertisements.


wrote in message
oups.com...
This didn't appear to post the first time, sorry if it's a repeat:

Gene Kearns wrote:

Your link seems to describe a European robotic application of Pascoe's
complaints... therefore, I suspect his position is still valid....
though the build-up is more precise. In fact, very little is devoted
to marine application.


*************

Nonsense.

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. There is a
chance you do not understand the nature of "Pascoe's complaint," but
the RIMFIRE technology used by Sea Ray to build these small runabouts
does remotely approach the process Pascoe describes.

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........"

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.

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).

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. In either case, when the "advice" is
bogus it needs to be called for what it is- sheer bs hate mail and
nothing more.

****************

Gene Kearns also wrote:

My personal experience with Brunswick is that they trash (cheapen)
everything that they touch.

***********

Remember, the OP was asking for advice about new boats in the year
2005. Impressions formed in the mid-90's or before may no longer be
relevant. In the last several years, Bayliner quality control has
improved
substantially, the larger Bayliner models supplanted with a line of
boats easily built to the prevailing industry standards (Meridian), and
some of the reasons that one could bash Brunswick in the past have just
simply disappeared.

I don't put much stock in the JD Power awards, but those who find them
very important barometers of product quality would want to note that in
a category just above runabouts, Sea Ray was either the top finisher or
rated extremely highly in the latest release.

You don't suppose Pascoe's wierd chunk of "Sea Ray" putty hull came off
of Larry's old jetski, do you?

We're halfway through the 00's, and some folks seem stuck in the late
80's, early 90's. :-)

Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to the
dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you start
writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in the whole
chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go buy the other
manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


....so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:41:49 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:58:41 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

Bluefin, over in Bristol RI, uses a combination hand lay up and
chopped glass approach - the chopped glass is used to build up
strength in areas that don't need cosmetic hand layup. I've talked to
their engineer and he makes the point that from a practical
standpoint, there isn't much difference beyond costs.


He was a good *company man* but a poor engineer.....

see (specifically CHOPPED STRAND FIBERGLASS MAT):
http://www.fibreglast.com/content.ph...rksrc=FreeInfo

The fact that fabrics are anisotropic explains the importance of the
warp clock.... but also explains their greater strength since the
fibers are quite long....

Interesting. So having strength in one direction is more important to
you than strength in all directions - speaking about reinforcement
that is.

Don,
When was the last time you saw anything but positive boat reviews in any
boat magazine that sells ads?


"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to
the dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you
start writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in
the whole chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go
buy the other manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


...so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............

Harry you are the only person in rec.boats that is so ashamed of what you
do, what boat you own and your wife's career choice that you had to lie
about all of them.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to
the dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you
start writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in
the whole chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go
buy the other manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


...so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............


Bert is one of the many right-wing nuts here who is so ashamed of what he
does for a living, he's never told anyone what it is he does. Hertdick is
in the same boat, as are several other righties.





--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:58:29 GMT, Don White wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to the
dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you start
writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in the whole
chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go buy the other
manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


...so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............

What was incorrect in Bert's comments, Don?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"*JimH*" wrote:
Gene, I ran across this discussion of Grady-White vs Pursuit on another
forum while searching for the lay-up schedule of SeaRay boats.

You and Tom may enjoy it. Nice forum too so don't be afraid to join.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...rt=41&posts=41


Sorry, I don't like to try reading forums around the edge of the 'JOIN
NOW' box... who needs annoying commercialized bull****?



Gene Kearns wrote:
Thanks...

There are a lot of give-and-takes... necessary evils... in
construction. IMHO... foam core construction is a poor choice of
construction for a boat. It is often employed in aircraft construction
where weight (or lack thereof) is of paramount importance.

You're missing an important point here. It's not about weight, it's
about strength. Foam cores allow a much higher rigidity (modulus) for a
given weight; that's why they can be built lighter. A properly built
foam core panel can literally be twice as strong at half the weight of
solid fiberglass. At equal weight, it would be about 8X as strong, for
equal strength, maybe 1/4 the weight.

Foam core panels do have a number of downsides. They need to be
engineered properly, it's expensive to just build it up 10X as strong as
it needs to be, then start cutting it down until it starts flexing
alarmingly... ie standard boatbuilders engineering. They need to be
carefully laid up for max bond strength, requiring more & better labor,
higher costs. They need to be protected against water intrusion, meaning
that the owner must maintain the boat properly, and this IMHO is the
biggest cause of core problems.

Boats are like airplanes in that they pay a speed penalty for carrying
more weight. Do you like boats that use more fuel & are slower than they
should be? If so, *then* you have good cause to dislike foam core
construction.


.... Grady-White... a viable argument could be made
that marine plywood, while an excellent structural element, can
rot....

Yep, it sure can... and almost certainly will. It's only a matter of time.

... though I suspect that rotten wood and foam core have about the
same strength.. go figure...


How do you "figure" this?


Chopper guns... whether guided by computer or hand are cost effective
methods of getting glass and resin on a surface. They are poor
substitutes for providing strength and rigidity.


Chopper gun lay-up is heavy & brittle. It's a cheap way to build up
thickness & not have print-thru. IMHO a well-built boat should not have
any chopper gun in it anywhere. There's no reason to use a chopper gun
except to cut cost.

An interesting term.... "lay-up schedule"... usually involves a warp
clock and, in this discussion, implies that there is a warp.... or
stated in other terms... that there are no chopped strands involved...


No, a lay-up schedule can include random stand mat, or core-mat which
kind of like felt, as well as fabric or roving.


I like cloth for layups and that includes Pursuit and G-W.... among a
host of others..... I DON'T like chopper guns.... as that smacks of
poor strength and bean counters....


heh heh heh how do you feel about rotomolded plastic?

Again... this has more to do with opinion than anything else. I have
seen very few boats that have failed structurally... in fact... I only
have proof of one.... a Trophy that sunk off Wrightsville Beach, NC a
few years ago, while taking part in a fishing tournament. It was a
dealer boat and I got pictures of the thing when it was dumped back at
the dealership.... Yep, you guessed it.... chopper gun...


Can't say I've seen a lot of boats that have failed structurally, but
certainly more than one. Sometimes it was due to the boat being placed
in a ridiculous situation, like being trapped under one corner of the
dock in a rising tide; or left to bash against a piling for 12 hours
thru a hurricane.

It would be possible, but expensive, to build a boat that was proof
against this sort of stupidity... it would not be possible at any price
to build a boat that was strong enough to withstand any & all possible
abuse... especially if you include poor maintenance!

Fair Skies
Doug King

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to
the dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you
start writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in
the whole chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go
buy the other manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


...so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............

Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of my
capabilities soon enough.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"*JimH*" wrote:
Gene, I ran across this discussion of Grady-White vs Pursuit on another
forum while searching for the lay-up schedule of SeaRay boats.

You and Tom may enjoy it. Nice forum too so don't be afraid to join.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...rt=41&posts=41

Sorry, I don't like to try reading forums around the edge of the 'JOIN
NOW' box... who needs annoying commercialized bull****?

Especially when you can fling your own bull**** around here and not get
kicked off by the "moderators."

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"*JimH*" wrote:
Gene, I ran across this discussion of Grady-White vs Pursuit on another
forum while searching for the lay-up schedule of SeaRay boats.

You and Tom may enjoy it. Nice forum too so don't be afraid to join.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...rt=41&posts=41

Sorry, I don't like to try reading forums around the edge of the 'JOIN
NOW' box... who needs annoying commercialized bull****?


I missed the part where I asked you to read the discussion over there DSK.

BTW: The site is not commercialized. However, one does have to join to
view and post to the forum after the first looky-see.

And all you had to do is click on that tiny 'x' in the upper right corner to
get rid of the box. ;-)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:59:35 -0400, DSK wrote:

Foam core panels do have a number of downsides. They need to be
engineered properly, it's expensive to just build it up 10X as strong as
it needs to be, then start cutting it down until it starts flexing
alarmingly... ie standard boatbuilders engineering. They need to be
carefully laid up for max bond strength, requiring more & better labor,
higher costs. They need to be protected against water intrusion, meaning
that the owner must maintain the boat properly, and this IMHO is the
biggest cause of core problems.

Years ago I became interested in "cold molding" using the WEST system
of wood veneer over a base frame, sans core. A friend of mine back
then built a 32 foot Downeaster style boat using this method and it's
one hell of a boat - it's been through a lot and looks damn near new.

He built a second boat - a 40 foot, full keel sailboat using some kind
of core material (I can't remember at the moment) again with the
veneer and WEST system resins and that boat has been used well and
it's a very solid boat - in fact, the only sail boat my wife will step
foot on.

What really counts is the workmanship. I wouldn't have any problems
purchasing a Bluefin and they use chopper guns to bolster areas of
their hull - it's a great hull, well built and solid as a rock.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Years ago I became interested in "cold molding" using the WEST system
of wood veneer over a base frame, sans core.

That's an excellent way to build a boat... or any other structure where
strength and high load cycle life span is desirable. Basically it's the
same thing ('laminated composite') as conventional fiberglass, only
substituting wood fibers & epoxy for glass fibers & polyester.


... A friend of mine back
then built a 32 foot Downeaster style boat using this method and it's
one hell of a boat - it's been through a lot and looks damn near new.


Sounds good... I bet it's been well taken care of, too.

He built a second boat - a 40 foot, full keel sailboat using some kind
of core material (I can't remember at the moment) again with the
veneer and WEST system resins and that boat has been used well and
it's a very solid boat - in fact, the only sail boat my wife will step
foot on.


I've only read about this kind of build method... sounds wierd to put a
foam core inside a wood laminate, but according to the texts it's very
strong stuff.

What really counts is the workmanship.

And the maintenance.

... I wouldn't have any problems
purchasing a Bluefin and they use chopper guns to bolster areas of
their hull - it's a great hull, well built and solid as a rock.

Maybe so, I've never seen a Bluefin that I know of, it could be a great
boat. But I stand by my statement that the only reason to use a chopper
gun is to save money... it's heavy & weak compared to any other sort of
lay-up. The good points are that it builds up quickly and has little or
no print-thru. A friend of mine who worked in a fiberglass shop making
shower stalls & bath tubs once made a 14' skiff with a chopper gun. It
weighed half a ton and flexed where you stepped. But it didn't cost
anything, it was made up of what would otherwise have been cleaned out
of the chopper gun and thrown away.

Fair Skies
Doug King

JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the Four
Winns web site.




"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:58:29 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to
the
dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you
start
writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in the
whole
chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go buy the
other
manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


...so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............

What was incorrect in Bert's comments, Don?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:


What was incorrect in Bert's comments, Don?


Don't believe I said he was right or wrong...just commented on how
'talented' he was...

Bert Robbins wrote:


Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of my
capabilities soon enough.



Well...that calls for another 'western beer'!

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.




Silence.

Newsgroup Reader wrote:
JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the Four
Winns web site.



Gould never offered to provide the "detailed layup schedule" for Sea
Ray.
It will be news to many of course, but the layup schedule will actually
vary from one model of Sea Ray to the next. (It will be consistent for
boats of the same model in the line-up). There is no "Sea Ray" layup
schedule, but there are manufacturing principles. What I did provide
was actual evidence that the Sea Ray 215 is a fiberglass boat, not
something made of "putty" as David Pascoe implies and Larry WS---
rushes to confirm.

So, Smithers, I provided what I said I would and could provide. You
retort that the "truth is somewhere in the middle" between the photos
of a Sea Ray hull being laid up and the allegations of Pascoe and
Larry---- (that it isn't even really a fiberglass boat). If we're still
waiting for anything, it would be for you to come forward with your
revelation of just how much "putty" and how much fiberglass is utilized
when building a Sea Ray runabout. You choose instead to make bitchy
remarks about boating magazines and dance around the subject. Please,
tell us just where in the middle between "the boats are made of putty"
and "the boats are made from fiberglass with a technique that is
descrived and can be viewed on this website" the truth falls........

Are you yet another of the crowd that cat-calls and criticizes from the
edge of the crowd, but when called upon to demonstrate some actual
knowledge is shown as one who can only talk the talk, not walk the
walk? What a relief it would be if just once a few of you non-boaters
who hang out here and holler "wrong" at every turn would offer some
technical rebuttal rather then personal insults to
back up your so-called arguments.

I'm glad this discussion has prompted you to begin researching the
basic differences among techniques in fiberglass fabrication. That will
come in handy when you disclose your version of the truth, "somewhere
in the middle."

As far as chop goes, I too prefer a hand laid, hand rolled hull. Two of
the biggest disadvantages of chopped hull construction are eliminated
with the RIMFIRE system, however. The application of chop into a mold
is a job that has been traditionally assigned to some very low
dollar-per-hour entry level workers. As a result, the chopped
fiberglass strands were not always skillfully and evenly applied and
were often inconsistently wetted out with the proper amount of resin.
The RIMFIRE system, and other automated approaches, controls the
glass/resin ratio very precisely, controls the temperature of the
material being applied, and the robotic application exactly duplicates
the application process on every hull. (You don't wind up with a thick
spot where the 17-year old applicator got distracted by the long legs
and short skirt of the company secretary).

When comparing chop construction to hand laid and hand rolled
laminations, it's important to remember that the ultimate goal is the
same in both cases. The builder needs to combine "glass" or other
engineered fabrics with resin to create a solid plastic shape inside a
mold. Whether the fabric is laid in subsequent layers to conform to the
mold and wetted out, or whether the fabric is shredded into indivdual
strands and sprayed onto the gelcoated surface of the mold, some basic
principles apply. The fabricator wants to create a hull with a
controlled consistent density and without voids. (Getting the density
controlled and consistent has been a challenge with chop, building
without voids has been a challenge with hand rolled) Either technique
should be fine for building the hull of a 21-foot boat when properly
executed. Either technique will turn out a crappy boat when sloppily
done.

I'm sure your research will soon inform you that blistering and
delamination are both more common on hand-laid, hand-rolled hulls than
on hulls built with chopped strand technique. Don't fall for the old
noise where a properly and skillfully executed hand laminated hull is
compared to a crappily done chopped strand hull and the obvious
difference is quality assigned to differences in technique, rather than
the bigger variable- the skill of the workman.

Again, I personally prefer a well-done hand rolled hull but I recognize
that it's a personal preference rather than a universal and absolute
constant.

wrote in message
ups.com...


Newsgroup Reader wrote:
JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any
information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still
the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to
SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the
Four
Winns web site.



Gould never offered to provide the "detailed layup schedule" for Sea
Ray.
It will be news to many of course, but the layup schedule will actually
vary from one model of Sea Ray to the next. (It will be consistent for
boats of the same model in the line-up). There is no "Sea Ray" layup
schedule, but there are manufacturing principles. What I did provide
was actual evidence that the Sea Ray 215 is a fiberglass boat, not
something made of "putty" as David Pascoe implies and Larry WS---
rushes to confirm.

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.

Newsgroup Reader wrote:
The fact that Gould uses the robot
manufacturer as his source of technical info concerning the fiberglass
lamination schedule amazes me. Especially since the web site does not
discuss anything concerning a fiberglass lamination schedule.


Wow. Are you ever confused. I *never* said I was providing a detailed
layup schedule, only a link to a site that detailed how (as in the
general technique) the boats are laid up.

Tell us, please, where "in the middle" between Pascoe's assertion that
Sea Ray boats aren't really fibergalss at all, but made of "putty"
instead and the photos of a Sea Ray hull being constructed from chopped
strand doed the "truth" reside? Why do you now concentrte on personal
attacks rather than come forward with this information you claim to
possess?

I guess the answer is obvious, isn't it?

*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.

Chuck,
My comment about SeaRay being in the middle was in reference to the boat
being a middle of the road quality. Since I have looked into process, it
looks like SeaRay has decided to follow Bayliner as being a price boat. If
you want a cheap boat, I am sure it would meet your needs in protected
waters.

I am glad your article prompted a detailed discussion concerning the PR
fluff pieces written for boating magazines. You have done a great service
to any newbie's reading boating magazines.




wrote in message
ups.com...


Newsgroup Reader wrote:
JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any
information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still
the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to
SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the
Four
Winns web site.



Gould never offered to provide the "detailed layup schedule" for Sea
Ray.
It will be news to many of course, but the layup schedule will actually
vary from one model of Sea Ray to the next. (It will be consistent for
boats of the same model in the line-up). There is no "Sea Ray" layup
schedule, but there are manufacturing principles. What I did provide
was actual evidence that the Sea Ray 215 is a fiberglass boat, not
something made of "putty" as David Pascoe implies and Larry WS---
rushes to confirm.

So, Smithers, I provided what I said I would and could provide. You
retort that the "truth is somewhere in the middle" between the photos
of a Sea Ray hull being laid up and the allegations of Pascoe and
Larry---- (that it isn't even really a fiberglass boat). If we're still
waiting for anything, it would be for you to come forward with your
revelation of just how much "putty" and how much fiberglass is utilized
when building a Sea Ray runabout. You choose instead to make bitchy
remarks about boating magazines and dance around the subject. Please,
tell us just where in the middle between "the boats are made of putty"
and "the boats are made from fiberglass with a technique that is
descrived and can be viewed on this website" the truth falls........

Are you yet another of the crowd that cat-calls and criticizes from the
edge of the crowd, but when called upon to demonstrate some actual
knowledge is shown as one who can only talk the talk, not walk the
walk? What a relief it would be if just once a few of you non-boaters
who hang out here and holler "wrong" at every turn would offer some
technical rebuttal rather then personal insults to
back up your so-called arguments.

I'm glad this discussion has prompted you to begin researching the
basic differences among techniques in fiberglass fabrication. That will
come in handy when you disclose your version of the truth, "somewhere
in the middle."

As far as chop goes, I too prefer a hand laid, hand rolled hull. Two of
the biggest disadvantages of chopped hull construction are eliminated
with the RIMFIRE system, however. The application of chop into a mold
is a job that has been traditionally assigned to some very low
dollar-per-hour entry level workers. As a result, the chopped
fiberglass strands were not always skillfully and evenly applied and
were often inconsistently wetted out with the proper amount of resin.
The RIMFIRE system, and other automated approaches, controls the
glass/resin ratio very precisely, controls the temperature of the
material being applied, and the robotic application exactly duplicates
the application process on every hull. (You don't wind up with a thick
spot where the 17-year old applicator got distracted by the long legs
and short skirt of the company secretary).

When comparing chop construction to hand laid and hand rolled
laminations, it's important to remember that the ultimate goal is the
same in both cases. The builder needs to combine "glass" or other
engineered fabrics with resin to create a solid plastic shape inside a
mold. Whether the fabric is laid in subsequent layers to conform to the
mold and wetted out, or whether the fabric is shredded into indivdual
strands and sprayed onto the gelcoated surface of the mold, some basic
principles apply. The fabricator wants to create a hull with a
controlled consistent density and without voids. (Getting the density
controlled and consistent has been a challenge with chop, building
without voids has been a challenge with hand rolled) Either technique
should be fine for building the hull of a 21-foot boat when properly
executed. Either technique will turn out a crappy boat when sloppily
done.

I'm sure your research will soon inform you that blistering and
delamination are both more common on hand-laid, hand-rolled hulls than
on hulls built with chopped strand technique. Don't fall for the old
noise where a properly and skillfully executed hand laminated hull is
compared to a crappily done chopped strand hull and the obvious
difference is quality assigned to differences in technique, rather than
the bigger variable- the skill of the workman.

Again, I personally prefer a well-done hand rolled hull but I recognize
that it's a personal preference rather than a universal and absolute
constant.

Gould,
If you read my comment, I said many boat builders will use putty to correct
any problems found when the boat is removed from the mold. Do you disagree
with this? While I have not made any insults, you seem to be getting
yourself worked up into a tizzy and hurling insults my direction.

I don't believe anything I have said concerning the PR pieces written for
boating magazines is incorrect.


wrote in message
ups.com...


*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.

Gould,
I have not made any person attacks, that seems to be your bailiwick
wrote in message
ups.com...


Newsgroup Reader wrote:
The fact that Gould uses the robot
manufacturer as his source of technical info concerning the fiberglass
lamination schedule amazes me. Especially since the web site does not
discuss anything concerning a fiberglass lamination schedule.


Wow. Are you ever confused. I *never* said I was providing a detailed
layup schedule, only a link to a site that detailed how (as in the
general technique) the boats are laid up.

Tell us, please, where "in the middle" between Pascoe's assertion that
Sea Ray boats aren't really fibergalss at all, but made of "putty"
instead and the photos of a Sea Ray hull being constructed from chopped
strand doed the "truth" reside? Why do you now concentrte on personal
attacks rather than come forward with this information you claim to
possess?

I guess the answer is obvious, isn't it?

wrote in message
ups.com...


*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.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was being
used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the boat as
exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

I wonder why Gould wants to pretend his "articles and reviews" are not fluff
PR pieces. It is common knowledge in the industry and with most people who
read boating magazines that you will never see an honest review of any boat
in any of the boating magazines that sell ads.




"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*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.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was being
used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the boat as
exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

And he had to reply with insults followed by his little spin as he usually
does when backed into a corner. He must be taking lessons from Krause.

Both those guys are predictable and funny to watch while they try to squirm
out of a lie or when backed into a corner.


"Newsgroup Reader" wrote in message
...
I wonder why Gould wants to pretend his "articles and reviews" are not
fluff PR pieces. It is common knowledge in the industry and with most
people who read boating magazines that you will never see an honest review
of any boat in any of the boating magazines that sell ads.




"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*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.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was
being used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the boat
as exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
And he had to reply with insults followed by his little spin as he usually
does when backed into a corner. He must be taking lessons from Krause.

Both those guys are predictable and funny to watch while they try to
squirm
out of a lie or when backed into a corner.

But combined, they still don't come close to matching kevin. ;-)



"Newsgroup Reader" wrote in message
...
I wonder why Gould wants to pretend his "articles and reviews" are not
fluff PR pieces. It is common knowledge in the industry and with most
people who read boating magazines that you will never see an honest
review
of any boat in any of the boating magazines that sell ads.




"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*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.



I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule.

Why not? You rated the boat as great in your fluff review. Surely you
looked into how the hull was constructed and what layup schedule was
being used. Are you now saying you didn't yet still *reviewed* the
boat
as exceptionally good, one that "goes fast and makes you look good"?

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of my
capabilities soon enough.

Well...that calls for another 'western beer'!

I can stop drinking beer but, you can't stop being an asshole!

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of
my capabilities soon enough.

Well...that calls for another 'western beer'!

I can stop drinking beer but, you can't stop being an asshole!



I don't think Don is not old enough to drink....he is still living with his
mother and just recently found enough money to purchase his own $80 electric
snow broom as he was tired of having to shovel him Mom's drive.

The problem is that an electric broom is meant to clear snow off front door
steps in southern Ohio, not 6 foot driveway drifts in snow country.

Poor Donny.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:


Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of my
capabilities soon enough.

Well...that calls for another 'western beer'!


I can stop drinking beer but, you can't stop being an asshole!


Yeah...but then you'd be back on the wine or hard stuff.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:


Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of
my capabilities soon enough.

Well...that calls for another 'western beer'!


I can stop drinking beer but, you can't stop being an asshole!


Yeah...but then you'd be back on the wine or hard stuff.

And, you would still be an asshole regardless of what I do or what you do!

*JimH* wrote:


"I don't think Don is not old enough to drink...."

** is this a 'double negative'? What do you think?

"he is still living with his
mother and just recently found enough money to purchase his own $80 electric
snow broom as he was tired of having to shovel him Mom's drive."

**correction...she lives with me
my Toro 1800 cost $500.00 CDN dollars including HST
I was tired shoveling 'my' driveway


"The problem is that an electric broom is meant to clear snow off front door
steps in southern Ohio, not 6 foot driveway drifts in snow country.

Poor Donny."


** poor JimH