"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:13:53 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?


Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it
were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

Being in denial the Sea Ray name isn't the Sea Ray of old isn't going to
change the slipshod workmanship and lousy, cheap designs. Yacht
standards,
my ass. Sue me.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined
in
chalk.


Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and go
fast", or something to that effect.

He has to defend them.......SeaRay paid him to do so.


First, Jim, I can't believe you're crossposting this crap. Second, yeah,
Chuck
gets paid by his publisher who gets some advertising dollars from Sea Ray,
so
indirectly your statement has a *very little* basis in fact.

Your assertion that Chuck shouldn't post his fluff piece here because
newbies
might see it, also has *very little* basis in fact. In all your time here,
have
you *ever* heard anyone say, "I bought my boat 'cause Chuck said it was
nice and
it's a piece of ****?" Me neither.

I would hope that one who has earned enough money to buy a boat has more
sense
than to buy one based on one article he's read.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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*.

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.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.
You think that's "beneath" your own non-use, as a non-owner, or
something? My boat will do 10kts (when pressed hard) but that doesn't
mean I'm unable to appreciate the thrill of jumping into a small
runabout and zipping up and down the lake on a hot, sunny day. Ask a
waterskier
why they engage in the sport and "going fast and having fun" will be up
near the top of the list.
Some of them will fantasize that they look good in the process, and
sure enough- some of them acutally do.

You have to be the snobbiest non-boater in the crowd. Last week you
diss'd all Sea Ray owners with a comment that they all had large
inventories of gold chains and small manhoods. This week you imply that
owing a sporty looking boat for the sheer joy of looking good, going
fast, and having fun is somehow beneath the definition of a true
"boater". What in the Sam H would qualify a guy who doesn't even own a
boat to cast dispersion on the motivations of people who do?

This thread is supposed to be about Sea Ray boats. What prompted your
personal attack?
Go ahead and launch your last, limp "zinger" (talk about inadequately
endowed), and smirk away thinking you had the "last word". I won't help
you screw up this thread any worse by responding to more of your
classic JimH personality attack in this particular thread.

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.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.

LOL. That would explain us bass boat owners. 70.9 MPH Bass Cat under ideal
conditions with a full (tournament) load. 72 plus lightly loaded and out of
control. On the other hand my GPS indicates an average speed of les than 1
MPH when actually fishing. LOL.

I'ld have to say in my personal experience those people who can afford and
choose to buy a nice boat are either about looking good and going fast or
looking good and being comfortable. In my case I bought my Bass Cat after
reading hundreds of articles and listening to many other people with hands
on personal expereince of different boats, and having owned three used
beater bass boats so I could compare features and decide what I truly wanted
out of a Bass Boat.

In the case of my dad's two Searays. They are older models. Pre-Brunswick
so I guess my experience with them does not apply. I can say those old
Phoenix made Searays are rock solid rough water handlers. Stable and safe
at displacement speeds and pretty darned impressive when properly handled at
planing speeds. No flex and accurate tracking in the worst conditions we
have run them in. No, we have not run them offshore, but I think people who
call them an OK lake boat are really doing them a disservice. We have run
ahead of (and a few times trailing) storm driven waves in huge lakes with
these and they kept us safe and drive. Anybody who has run Lake Mead or
Lake Powel in the afternoon on a windy day will understand the type of
conditions I am talking about.

So, I guess I have no relevant opinion on modern Searay boats, but the odler
ones were incredible. At the time my dad bought his Searays they had a top
notch reputation in the industry. He also has an early 90s 22' Bayliner
walk around cuddy which had a transom rot out in just a couple years. (it
was kept on a trailer, covered and dry except for a few weeks each year.
They also sold it way under powered with a single Force 150. He had the
transom rebuilt by an independent shop, and set it up with twin 150s. It is
now a decent boat. If Searay in the early 90s was truly similar in quality
and construction.to the Bayliner then I would have to agree with their
detractors, and any current Seray would be subject to severe scrutiny by
myself before I would consider purchasing one.

Personally I love the look of that 68 footer they have on their website. If
I was able to afford something like that I'ld certainly consider my options
carefully. On the other hand. Do you think that thing could outrun pirates
off the coast of Yemen with the over 3 thousand (claimed) horsepower using
that pair of optional Cat diesels? LOL. Don't need no stinking guns. Just
catch us if you can. LOL. On the other hand with only a thousand gallons
of fuel capacity I doubt it would ever make it that far. LOL. I'ld never
make it across the Pacific with it.
--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

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.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.

Really?


You think that's "beneath" your own non-use, as a non-owner, or
something? My boat will do 10kts (when pressed hard) but that doesn't
mean I'm unable to appreciate the thrill of jumping into a small
runabout and zipping up and down the lake on a hot, sunny day.

But do you look good doing so Chuk?

Ask a
waterskier
why they engage in the sport and "going fast and having fun" will be up
near the top of the list.

Gee, I knew the spin would start soon. And it has.


Some of them will fantasize that they look good in the process, and
sure enough- some of them acutally do.

And that is why they boat a SeaRay....eh?



You have to be the snobbiest non-boater in the crowd. Last week you
diss'd all Sea Ray owners with a comment that they all had large
inventories of gold chains and small manhoods.

And you said for SeaRay owners it all just about "looking good and going
fast".....I would take more of an offence to that if I was a SeaRay owner.

Pot-kettle-black.

This week you imply that
owing a sporty looking boat for the sheer joy of looking good, going
fast, and having fun is somehow beneath the definition of a true
"boater".

Don't exagerate what I said. I repeated words that you used when reviewing
a SeaRay boat...."going fast and looking good." Are you now saying you
never said this?

What in the Sam H would qualify a guy who doesn't even own a
boat to cast dispersion on the motivations of people who do?

This thread is supposed to be about Sea Ray boats. What prompted your
personal attack?

If you took it as a personal attack (repeating what you wrote) then that is
your problem.

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.

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............

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............

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."

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."

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.