"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.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. ;-)

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........)

"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. ;-)

JimH wrote:
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. ;-)

You *completely* distorted my comments, and then crafted an argument
based not on my comments but on your own distortion. (You really need
to switch to a different type of radio programming).

I said: (cut and paste from the post)

"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. 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."


You said I said:

"You said the boat was built only for calm, sheltered water as the boat
will take on water in rough or following seas"


Not much point to continue to defend a position that I never stated in
the first place, is there?

I stand by my original comment quoted above. What that has to do with
what you tried to read into it, I'll never know.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
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. ;-)

You *completely* distorted my comments, and then crafted an argument
based not on my comments but on your own distortion. (You really need
to switch to a different type of radio programming).

I said: (cut and paste from the post)

"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. 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."

Sorry if I distorted things. I did conclude though that it is a shame that
this 32 foot boat cannot handle open water or 5 foot seas without the fear
of flooding the deck. ;-)

Poor engineering.

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. They
are articles designed to peak the readers interest in the boat and
boating in general. As we have discussed many times previously, all
boating and speciality magazines in general, write these kind of
articles to promote their hobbies, interest and to increase their
readership, so they can increase their ad revenue.

When Chuck posts them in rec.boats he encourages boating discussions,
but no one should ever assume Chuck's, or any boat magazine boat
article, is a critical review of a boat. Most people (probably all
people) who buy boating magazines understand the articles are not
critical reviews, so when you read Chuck's reprints of those articles in
rec.boats you really need to understand he does not pretend they are
critical reviews, why do you?

"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.

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.

"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. ;-)

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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.

Jim's just on yet another of his monthly period bipolar rants. Same
old, same old!