|
A boat likely to be of interest
JimH wrote: (If you don't know, that probably says more for your seamanship than if you do). Why are you turning this personal Chuck? I thought you wanted a discussion of the boat you reviewed. Look carefully, Jim. That was a potential compliment. I don't know how to make those impersonal. :-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
Harry Krause wrote: Considering what I would consider the miserable boating weather you have up there (wet, cold, rainy, unswimmable), I can't imagine that Crownline being too popular, though I did love the line about pulling waterskiers, in wet suits, right? Only during the winter months. You're overlooking the fact that we have a lot of freshwater boating opportunities up this way. A lot of water skiing is done on Lake Washington, for example, a huge freshwater lake that is fully accessible to boats of all sizes via the Chittenden Locks. The freshwater lakes are a little warmer than the sound, and people commonly ski on them. Heck, you could even tow this boat (with a wide load permit- $250 a year and no night towing) and get to Lake Roosevelt or some other area where it's actually *hot* in the summer. :-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ps.com... JimH wrote: (If you don't know, that probably says more for your seamanship than if you do). Why are you turning this personal Chuck? I thought you wanted a discussion of the boat you reviewed. Look carefully, Jim. That was a potential compliment. I don't know how to make those impersonal. :-) You are correct Chuck. I was working on a report and I just skimmed your post. Sorry for the confusion. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message m... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion, the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let this one go. I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself. BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-) 32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating. a 50' houseboat, is for large lakes. Lakes can get nasty, but not the 20' swells plus of large oceans. The San Juans and Lake Washington are a large sheltered area. Thousands of miles of protected, year round cruising. If all large bodies of water required a large, Michelson type sport fisher, then you would not have a boat suitable for the Great Lakes. Lots of boaters do not fish, so they want a boat set up for comfort. Not easy clean, hose down the tuna blood, from a day of slaughtering albacore cockpit. Boats are designed for water types. Your 21' boat would have a life expectancy of extremely short if you boated some of the waters I do. The rocks would remove your outdrive and most of your bottom. Same as my boat is not for long distance cruising, it does have a zippered in enclosure, that protects the occupants from the weather, which is nice fishing on the anchor in winter. Fault the boat for a marshmello interior or an ugly arch, but base the design complaints on where the boat is marketed for the waters that can be encountered in the same region. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion, the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let this one go. I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself. BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-) 32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating. I agree and never said otherwise. But 32 feet and not able to take 5 foot swells or 2 foot following seas without flooding the cockpit is a design defect. ;-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message om... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most certainly is *capable* of doing so. Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools also, especially at the 4th grade level. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
A boat likely to be of interest
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message om... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) I doubt very much that your boat would not cause major bung hole constriction in a 5' chop. That is a lot different than 5' seas. The chop is what is on top of the swells. slow to 5-8 knots when the seas get to 3' and drive very carefully back to port. Most of the time I get back to safe harbor before the seas get that nasty. |
A boat likely to be of interest
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:38:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) Anne Arundel schools? Where did that come from? Channel 4. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
A boat likely to be of interest
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message news:cs2dnVYiYpQhQnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast. com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most certainly is *capable* of doing so. Mince the words all you want John. He said you want to be off the water with this boat if there are 5 footers. To me that mean it is not capable of handling it. If it were, why get off? Got it now? Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools also, especially at the 4th grade level. Perhaps you need to take some refreshers on your days off. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message news:cs2dnVYiYpQhQnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast. com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) I doubt very much that your boat would not cause major bung hole constriction in a 5' chop. That is a lot different than 5' seas. The chop is what is on top of the swells. slow to 5-8 knots when the seas get to 3' and drive very carefully back to port. Most of the time I get back to safe harbor before the seas get that nasty. Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion, the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let this one go. I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself. BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-) 32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating. I agree and never said otherwise. But 32 feet and not able to take 5 foot swells or 2 foot following seas without flooding the cockpit is a design defect. ;-) 5' swells on the Pacific would not be a problem for the boat. Would not flood the deck. That is a nice day here. |
A boat likely to be of interest
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message news:cs2dnVYiYpQhQnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast .com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) I doubt very much that your boat would not cause major bung hole constriction in a 5' chop. That is a lot different than 5' seas. The chop is what is on top of the swells. slow to 5-8 knots when the seas get to 3' and drive very carefully back to port. Most of the time I get back to safe harbor before the seas get that nasty. Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) A sea or swell is a long period wave. Maybe 15 seconds from crest to crest. I go out in up to 8' swells here off San Francisco. Running downhill with the swells at 8' and no chop, I go about 25 mph or you hit the back of the next swell. But after about 11:30 am in the summer, you want to be near the harbor, as then the breezes are up and the wind waves or chop are building. And you can go from calm water, swells only to 3' chop in about 20 minutes. The chop can be going several directions in regards to the waves, and sometimes the chops build on top of a swell for a really nasty, wet ride. Chop is what causes the "sheep in the meadow" description when looking at the ocean. |
A boat likely to be of interest
JimH wrote: Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) Most boats can easily handle a 5-foot, 10-foot, or even larger ocean *swell* if the waves are far enough apart (defined as a "period" between swells) that they aren't too steep. You just go uuuuuuuup, pause a second, and then go doooooooown. No big deal, unless you're subject to sea sickness. You certainly experience chop on the lake where you boat, as it is a much shorter and steeper wave form created primarily by wind. With enough fetch, even a lake of moderate size and certainly any of the Great Lakes can become pretty nasty in 30-knot conditions. Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have another edition it may be somewhere else in the book. Look down the chart to Force 7 winds: 28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA HEAVE-TO. Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when walking against wind. The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. There's no such thing as 18-foot chop- or if there is I never hope to see it. :-) Capable of structurally surviving such conditions and choosing to be out in them are two different concepts. Chop is like the fish somebody caught last week. The more times the story of a stormy passage is told, the higher the waves seem to become. There are probably a lot of guys who tell stories about 8-foot chop that have never seen 5-footers. In places like Puget Sound or the Chesapeake chop is usually very steep. Imagine hitting a 5-foot "speed bump", and then imagine hitting another one every several seconds. 5-foot chop breaks just below the anchor pulpit on my 36-foot tug. Those are some nasty and uncomfortable seas. 7-foot chop breaks over the rail and floods the foredeck, and being out in that stuff is insane. |
A boat likely to be of interest
Calif Bill wrote: " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion, the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let this one go. I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself. BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-) 32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating. a 50' houseboat, is for large lakes. Lakes can get nasty, but not the 20' swells plus of large oceans. The San Juans and Lake Washington are a large sheltered area. Thousands of miles of protected, year round cruising. If all large bodies of water required a large, Michelson type sport fisher, then you would not have a boat suitable for the Great Lakes. Lots of boaters do not fish, so they want a boat set up for comfort. Not easy clean, hose down the tuna blood, from a day of slaughtering albacore cockpit. Boats are designed for water types. Your 21' boat would have a life expectancy of extremely short if you boated some of the waters I do. The rocks would remove your outdrive and most of your bottom. Same as my boat is not for long distance cruising, it does have a zippered in enclosure, that protects the occupants from the weather, which is nice fishing on the anchor in winter. Fault the boat for a marshmello interior or an ugly arch, but base the design complaints on where the boat is marketed for the waters that can be encountered in the same region. Bill, don't waste your time. JimH won't get it, because he refuses to. He's on his monthly period bipolar rant. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have another edition it may be somewhere else in the book. Look down the chart to Force 7 winds: 28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA HEAVE-TO. Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when walking against wind. I have the same edition......1985/27th Edition Interesting chart. Thanks. ;-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
On 21 Aug 2006 13:37:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. Not necessarily so. Force 7 over open water for a day or two will produce the real thing with lots of breaking crests, nothing "swell" about them. Mix in a little adverse current at the same time and you could produce some really steep 4 to 6 meter waves. This happens fairly frequently in the gulf stream between Florida and the Bahamas, especially in the winter months. |
A boat likely to be of interest
Harry Krause wrote: Gee, where does a sudden onset tostito fall, with its 30-foot waves? On the Beaufort Scale, that would need to be about a Force 10 or Force 11. Force 10, 48-55 knots, is classified as a "storm", with waves of 6-9 meters- and 9 meters is close to 30-feet. Force 11, 56-63 knots, is classified as a "violent storn", with "exceptionally high" waves of 9-14 meters. Oh, and as I'm sure you know the only thing beyond Force 11 "violent storm" is a Force 12 "hurricane". I wouldn't recommend anybody go boating in any sort of boat in Force 10, 11, or 12 conditions. :-) Being something of a wuss and remembering that this is supposed to "pleasure boating", you won't find me out, except by accident or poor planning, in much of anything above Force 6- and Force 6 only reluctantly. Every once in a long while I find myself involved with the Truly Nasties, and it always reminds me why I try to avoid those sorts of conditions. The first level where I refuse to tread, Force 7 ("near gale") is not for the faint of heart. I thought Tostitos generated 50-foot waves, and were only survivable in a 23-foot trailer boat with fuel cans lashed to the gunwales. See how the mind plays tricks when it comes to remembering wave heights? |
A boat likely to be of interest
Wayne.B wrote: On 21 Aug 2006 13:37:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. Not necessarily so. Force 7 over open water for a day or two will produce the real thing with lots of breaking crests, nothing "swell" about them. Mix in a little adverse current at the same time and you could produce some really steep 4 to 6 meter waves. This happens fairly frequently in the gulf stream between Florida and the Bahamas, especially in the winter months. I would certainly defer to your local knowledge in that regard. Good reason not to be on the water during a Force 7 in the winter months down there. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... Imagine hitting a 5-foot "speed bump", and then imagine hitting another one every several seconds. Now imagine doing that in a 30-36 ft. outboard-powered center console for 80 miles each way at 30-40 mph. Welcome to the SKA (Southern Kingfish Association...a.k.a. "small kraft advisory"). Those guys are certifiably insane. My Grady will run at 15-18 mph in 4-5 foot chop without pounding. I've run it 22-26mph in those conditions, and it's murder. The secret to those SKA boats (Contender, Yellowfin, Fountain, Sea Vee, etc) is that they get up and run on top of the stuff. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) Most boats can easily handle a 5-foot, 10-foot, or even larger ocean *swell* if the waves are far enough apart (defined as a "period" between swells) that they aren't too steep. You just go uuuuuuuup, pause a second, and then go doooooooown. No big deal, unless you're subject to sea sickness. You certainly experience chop on the lake where you boat, as it is a much shorter and steeper wave form created primarily by wind. With enough fetch, even a lake of moderate size and certainly any of the Great Lakes can become pretty nasty in 30-knot conditions. Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have another edition it may be somewhere else in the book. Look down the chart to Force 7 winds: 28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA HEAVE-TO. Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when walking against wind. I've been on a 900 foot cruise boat in 35 knot winds, and you get wet all the way up to deck #6. Even with stabilizers, the boat rocked so much that the housekeeping carts were rolling back and forth in the hallways. Seas were 15-18 feet. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 21 Aug 2006 14:41:30 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On 21 Aug 2006 13:37:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. Not necessarily so. Force 7 over open water for a day or two will produce the real thing with lots of breaking crests, nothing "swell" about them. Mix in a little adverse current at the same time and you could produce some really steep 4 to 6 meter waves. This happens fairly frequently in the gulf stream between Florida and the Bahamas, especially in the winter months. I would certainly defer to your local knowledge in that regard. Good reason not to be on the water during a Force 7 in the winter months down there. Buncha Pansies... Why in my day, we'd go out in a 13 foot Swampscott dory and row our way to Gloucester just for lunch in weather like that. Up hill. But you East Coast Pansies measure your waves and chops differently. Youse guys probably figure a 2" porkchop is across as opposed to thickness. Both ways. Force 7 indeed - hell, we did it in Force 10 weather without breaking a sweat. |
A boat likely to be of interest
Chuck Gould wrote:
JimH wrote: Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) Most boats can easily handle a 5-foot, 10-foot, or even larger ocean *swell* if the waves are far enough apart (defined as a "period" between swells) that they aren't too steep. You just go uuuuuuuup, pause a second, and then go doooooooown. No big deal, unless you're subject to sea sickness. You certainly experience chop on the lake where you boat, as it is a much shorter and steeper wave form created primarily by wind. With enough fetch, even a lake of moderate size and certainly any of the Great Lakes can become pretty nasty in 30-knot conditions. Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have another edition it may be somewhere else in the book. Look down the chart to Force 7 winds: 28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA HEAVE-TO. Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when walking against wind. The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. There's no such thing as 18-foot chop- or if there is I never hope to see it. :-) Capable of structurally surviving such conditions and choosing to be out in them are two different concepts. Chop is like the fish somebody caught last week. The more times the story of a stormy passage is told, the higher the waves seem to become. There are probably a lot of guys who tell stories about 8-foot chop that have never seen 5-footers. In places like Puget Sound or the Chesapeake chop is usually very steep. Imagine hitting a 5-foot "speed bump", and then imagine hitting another one every several seconds. 5-foot chop breaks just below the anchor pulpit on my 36-foot tug. Those are some nasty and uncomfortable seas. 7-foot chop breaks over the rail and floods the foredeck, and being out in that stuff is insane. Did I ever tell you about the time I was in "unexpected Tositito"? |
A boat likely to be of interest
Harry Krause wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: JimH wrote: Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop: "The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting from wind action on small bodies of water." So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas. I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the definition. ;-) Most boats can easily handle a 5-foot, 10-foot, or even larger ocean *swell* if the waves are far enough apart (defined as a "period" between swells) that they aren't too steep. You just go uuuuuuuup, pause a second, and then go doooooooown. No big deal, unless you're subject to sea sickness. You certainly experience chop on the lake where you boat, as it is a much shorter and steeper wave form created primarily by wind. With enough fetch, even a lake of moderate size and certainly any of the Great Lakes can become pretty nasty in 30-knot conditions. Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have another edition it may be somewhere else in the book. Look down the chart to Force 7 winds: 28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA HEAVE-TO. Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when walking against wind. The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. There's no such thing as 18-foot chop- or if there is I never hope to see it. :-) Capable of structurally surviving such conditions and choosing to be out in them are two different concepts. Chop is like the fish somebody caught last week. The more times the story of a stormy passage is told, the higher the waves seem to become. There are probably a lot of guys who tell stories about 8-foot chop that have never seen 5-footers. In places like Puget Sound or the Chesapeake chop is usually very steep. Imagine hitting a 5-foot "speed bump", and then imagine hitting another one every several seconds. 5-foot chop breaks just below the anchor pulpit on my 36-foot tug. Those are some nasty and uncomfortable seas. 7-foot chop breaks over the rail and floods the foredeck, and being out in that stuff is insane. Gee, where does a sudden onset tostito fall, with its 30-foot waves? In the Sea of Cortez, of course. |
A boat likely to be of interest
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 21 Aug 2006 14:41:30 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On 21 Aug 2006 13:37:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those would be swells. Not necessarily so. Force 7 over open water for a day or two will produce the real thing with lots of breaking crests, nothing "swell" about them. Mix in a little adverse current at the same time and you could produce some really steep 4 to 6 meter waves. This happens fairly frequently in the gulf stream between Florida and the Bahamas, especially in the winter months. I would certainly defer to your local knowledge in that regard. Good reason not to be on the water during a Force 7 in the winter months down there. Buncha Pansies... Why in my day, we'd go out in a 13 foot Swampscott dory and row our way to Gloucester just for lunch in weather like that. Up hill. Both ways. Force 7 indeed - hell, we did it in Force 10 weather without breaking a sweat. Tom.. you're starting to sound like NOYB's patients down there in Florida. You know those guys who wear their pants almost up to their armpits and the white buck shoes... |
A boat likely to be of interest
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:51:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: My Grady will run at 15-18 mph in 4-5 foot chop without pounding. I've run it 22-26mph in those conditions, and it's murder. The secret to those SKA boats (Contender, Yellowfin, Fountain, Sea Vee, etc) is that they get up and run on top of the stuff. I can attest to that although I've heard that the Yellowfins are a rather wet ride for some reason. I have no personal knowledge of that - just something I either read or heard. I'd like to do one of those SKA tournies some day. I wouldn't. They're a "captain's choice" format. They don't cancel the tourney no matter the conditions. It's up to each individual team/captain to decide if it's safe enough to go out. The one out of Key West this year ran in 8-10 foot seas. 34' Fountains were doing 8 mph. It's gotten to the point where a twin-engine 34' boat is getting too small to compete. |
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. |
A boat likely to be of interest
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:57:03 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? You know what they say - there are only six degrees of separation between anybody and Kevin. Bacon that is - Kevin Bacon. :) Ah, maybe THAT'S what the local idiots are referring to! |
A boat likely to be of interest
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? |
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. |
A boat likely to be of interest
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? |
A boat likely to be of interest
"NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. |
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect.. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Hehe!! I KNEW it was way over your head!!!!!! im·pli·ca·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mpl-kshn) n. The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated. The act of implying or the condition of being implied. Something that is implied, especially: An indirect indication; a suggestion. An implied meaning; implicit significance. Root word: im·ply ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl) tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer. Obsolete. To entangle. (see the second meaning.) Now would you think that it was IMPLIED that he was meaning ME, after idiotically calling me Kevin at least a few thousand times???? Furthermore, do you only reply to posts that are 100% directed at YOU? If so, what are you doing in this thread? An inference. See Usage Note at infer. |
A boat likely to be of interest
JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... |
A boat likely to be of interest
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? |
A boat likely to be of interest
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:25 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion, the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let this one go. I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself. BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-) 32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating. I agree and never said otherwise. But 32 feet and not able to take 5 foot swells or 2 foot following seas without flooding the cockpit is a design defect. ;-) Again, reading comprehension... 'Not able to take' and 'not intended for' are two different things. Can you not see the difference, or do you feel you must put words in Chuck's mouth to support whatever you're attempting to say? -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
A boat likely to be of interest
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... JR North wrote: They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a 2 foot following sea. JR If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the passages to port and starboard are partially protected with what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering would all be taking place below the waterline. Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) Do you never tire of it? John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to Kevin's level. Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up. If you're not Kevin, then why do you reply to all messages in which Jim refers to Kevin? Are you friends with Kevin? Because he directly refers to MY POSTS. Damn, are you people really that stupid? When you reply directly to a certain person, then you are replying TO THAT PERSON. Friends, not really. I do know him. In this case, Jim was responding to John's post. So why did you reply to Jim's message that referred to Kevin? It's called an implication, which I'm sure is way over your head. He intended to respond to Kevin, but responded to John instead? So how does that pertain to you? Kevin keeps on showing us why he is and always will be *our* Kevin. You gotta love it. See?? Jim is so ****ing stupid that HE doesn't understand the implication right at the exact time that he's still doing it!!!! Care to make a wager that I'm not Kevin, Jim? Put up or shut up. Come on, act like a man for ONCE... He didn't call you Kevin. He was responding to my post. Do you have a gay crush on Kevin? Pavlov would have had a field day with Kevin. ;-) |
A boat likely to be of interest
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:15:34 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message news:cs2dnVYiYpQhQnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast .com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most certainly is *capable* of doing so. Mince the words all you want John. He said you want to be off the water with this boat if there are 5 footers. To me that mean it is not capable of handling it. If it were, why get off? Got it now? Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools also, especially at the 4th grade level. Perhaps you need to take some refreshers on your days off. Jim, *you* are the one who is mincing Chuck's words to fit your argument. It's dishonest. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
A boat likely to be of interest
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:23:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the cockpit will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you mention that in your review though. ;-) One has nothing to do with the other. Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are built into bulwarks. This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly light displacement. Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer. Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high. A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a following sea. (I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats built with no transom at all........) No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-) The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to accept criticism on them. And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than an advertisement. ;-) The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and 5 foot seas. Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas. Yes John you missed something. You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though they were stated by the OP. No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote: "Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that kicks up." Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK? Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension problem. Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-) Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most certainly is *capable* of doing so. Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools also, especially at the 4th grade level. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John What's with these screwball school system references? Many Maryland counties are having big problems achieving their desired improvement levels. Perhaps you missed the news a couple weeks ago. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com