On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:42:33 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:40:08 -0400, HK wrote:

I kinda like boats that are handbuilt. You know, the kind where the hull
is laid up by hand, and sits in the mold for a week, and then real
stringers are glassed into the hull using box grid construction. And
then a deck is glassed over that, and then the top cap of gunnels is
glassed onto the hull.

Gosh, I wonder who builds boats like that? :}

Ranger, Triton, Bass Cat and Gambler I believe.

There is also a company - can't like of the name - Puker, Pucker,
Pansy, Pussy...something like that. :)

PuckerUp.

Well, you know that Parker is a very appropriate manufacturer for you
- based strictly on the mount of use you understand.

Get it?

Parker - Park 'Er

Heh, heh, heh...

Sorry - couldn't resist...

On Aug 11, 7:27 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:10:47 -0400, HK wrote:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=647105

Opps.

That's the second bay boat of that length that had something like this
happening and it also had a hydraulic jack plate and I think a Yamaha
four stroke.

Just looking at the pictures, it looks serious, but I believe that
Nauticstar uses the same extruded glass technique as Ranger does - so
it may be just a pocket foam situation rather than a stringer.

Interesting all the same.

Well if it's extruded then my last post is off base, but if it is, why
would it tear so straight? Anyway, if it's extruded, maybe I should
bin my last post.

On Aug 11, 7:10 am, HK wrote:
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=647105

Holy Crap! That does not look random to me, that is a design problem
in my opinon. It looks like they tried to cheap out on labor by using
a chopper gun (strands and resin) for structural fillets! That is just
unbefrekinleavable. No mat, not cloth, no structure, Holy Crap!! They
may as well have used scotch tape. I admit to little knowledge of big
poly boats, but I know a little about glass and resin, more apparently
than the engineers over at Nautic Star...

Prophetic observation.
JR

Gene Kearns wrote:

If they don't brag about quality construction on their web site, there
probably isn't any....



--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

Wow...I'd be PLENTY ****ed. There doesn't appear to be any mat or
chopper string in the joint at all. In fact, it looks like the
stringer/hull joint was smeared with some slimy goop to cover the joint.
Clearly this is a bonded hull, where some idiot forgot to, uh, bond it.
Wonder about defects in the bond you can't see. It would be interesting
to take it out in some 3 ft chop and see how long it takes for the
engine to come off.
JR

HK wrote:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=647105


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

JR North wrote:
Wow...I'd be PLENTY ****ed. There doesn't appear to be any mat or
chopper string in the joint at all. In fact, it looks like the
stringer/hull joint was smeared with some slimy goop to cover the joint.
Clearly this is a bonded hull, where some idiot forgot to, uh, bond it.
Wonder about defects in the bond you can't see. It would be interesting
to take it out in some 3 ft chop and see how long it takes for the
engine to come off.
JR

HK wrote:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=647105





Makes you wonder what other horrors are hidden under those thin inner
skins, eh?

" Nautic Star is making waves as one of the fastest growing names in the
boating industry".
Not with this level of quality. It's obvious to me they KNEW about the
bond defect during manufacture; slapped some goo over it to cover it up,
and rolled the piece of crap. It's hard to tell, but it looks like the
joint has pulled apart some from stress. It may have looked OK to a
casual glance when new. (After they hid it). Can only get worse.
JR

HK wrote:


http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=647105


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

On Aug 11, 12:23 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:45:38 -0700, JR North penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

" Nautic Star is making waves as one of the fastest growing names in the
boating industry".
Not with this level of quality. It's obvious to me they KNEW about the
bond defect during manufacture; slapped some goo over it to cover it up,
and rolled the piece of crap. It's hard to tell, but it looks like the
joint has pulled apart some from stress. It may have looked OK to a
casual glance when new. (After they hid it). Can only get worse.
JR

HK wrote:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=647105

This doesn't look like it is going particularly well for the OP (on
the forum), since Nautic Star is starting off down the "cosmetic
damage" road. I don't think this is peeling paint!

It looks to me like the Plexus adhesive may have held, but the FRP (if
that is what it is) may have delaminated.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out....


Well, I would already be at the liar's office, and I am somewhat of a
rightie on issues of litigation. Show those pictures to a Judge,