| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
A boat likely to be of interest
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. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
"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. ;-) |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
JimH wrote: "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. ;-) How do you know ANYTHING about "the weaknesses of the boat's design"? Have you been on one? Have you took it out in the types of seas you are mentioning? Have you even seen one up close? |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. ;-) |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:25 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message link.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 You are beginning to act very 'Kevinesque' John. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:25 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message link.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 You are beginning to act very 'Kevinesque' John. Still on your monthly period bipolar rant, I see......... |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A boat likely to be of interest
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:09:05 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:25 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.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 You are beginning to act very 'Kevinesque' John. At least I can read, understand, and exhibit some integrity. If that's 'Kevinesque', then it's a good thing. -- ****************************************** ***** Hope your day is great! ***** ****************************************** John |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A Recreational Boating Message | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
