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.

You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though
they were stated by the OP.

Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension
problem.

"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? ;-)

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

"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

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

" 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.

"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. ;-)

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
news

"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.

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.

"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. ;-)