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.

*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,
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.

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"?

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.