| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Not only does their boat suffer from Little Lake Transom Syndrome, their scuppers are under water* and, most dangerous of all, they have a third-rate outdoor motor on the back end! * Probably because the boat was not designed for a modern 225 that weighs as much as these do. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
HK wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Not only does their boat suffer from Little Lake Transom Syndrome, their scuppers are under water* and, most dangerous of all, they have a third-rate outdoor motor on the back end! * Probably because the boat was not designed for a modern 225 that weighs as much as these do. LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
"HK" wrote in message ... http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Not only does their boat suffer from Little Lake Transom Syndrome, their scuppers are under water* and, most dangerous of all, they have a third-rate outdoor motor on the back end! * Probably because the boat was not designed for a modern 225 that weighs as much as these do. The police would be wise to hire Waylon Smithers & John Herring as expert boating consultants. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Not only does their boat suffer from Little Lake Transom Syndrome, their scuppers are under water* and, most dangerous of all, they have a third-rate outdoor motor on the back end! * Probably because the boat was not designed for a modern 225 that weighs as much as these do. The police would be wise to hire Waylon Smithers & John Herring as expert boating consultants. Now there's a laugh in the making. Well, at least Herring is a real person with a real name and I know he actually owned a boat. Smithers is nothing more than a fart in the wind. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:07:48 -0400, HK wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Very smart of them. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
"John H." wrote in message ... How's your mom, Don? Haven't heard much about her lately. -- John H John.. this is a boating newsgroup. People don't come here to hear about my mother. She is doing fine by the way...still waiting for her nursing home bed. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:07:48 -0400, HK wrote: http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Very smart of them. I'll have to ask the boys what they think of that motor when I next see them. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... How's your mom, Don? Haven't heard much about her lately. -- John H John.. this is a boating newsgroup. People don't come here to hear about my mother. She is doing fine by the way...still waiting for her nursing home bed. You want Herring to talk about the last time he was out fishing on his boat? |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:22:06 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Not only does their boat suffer from Little Lake Transom Syndrome, their scuppers are under water* and, most dangerous of all, they have a third-rate outdoor motor on the back end! * Probably because the boat was not designed for a modern 225 that weighs as much as these do. The police would be wise to hire Waylon Smithers & John Herring as expert boating consultants. How's your mom, Don? Haven't heard much about her lately. -- John H |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:38:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Level flotation also... |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:38:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Level flotation also... And if you stand in the stern, the scuppers are entirely underwater, instead of halfway under... But I do agree, these are tough boats. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:33:54 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:38:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Level flotation also... Must be the lighter high tech two stroke quiet, efficient and reliable outboard engine. Not like some Plain Jane ancient technology outboard engine. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:33:54 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:38:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Level flotation also... Must be the lighter high tech two stroke quiet, efficient and reliable outboard engine. Not like some Plain Jane ancient technology outboard engine. Lighter? The 225 etec weighs 520 pounds. The Yamaha two stroke weighs 540 pounds. D'oh. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:48:46 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:33:54 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:38:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Level flotation also... Must be the lighter high tech two stroke quiet, efficient and reliable outboard engine. Not like some Plain Jane ancient technology outboard engine. Lighter? The 225 etec weighs 520 pounds. The Yamaha two stroke weighs 540 pounds. D'oh. Harry - relax. You've got a nice boat and you should be proud of it. Just yanking your chain a little. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:48:46 -0400, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:33:54 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:38:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: These guys just don't get it... Of course they "got it". Beautiful boat, big time high tech engine - quiet, efficient, reliable. Level flotation also... Must be the lighter high tech two stroke quiet, efficient and reliable outboard engine. Not like some Plain Jane ancient technology outboard engine. Lighter? The 225 etec weighs 520 pounds. The Yamaha two stroke weighs 540 pounds. D'oh. Harry - relax. You've got a nice boat and you should be proud of it. Just yanking your chain a little. I know that. I'm yanking yours. Poor old Ole must be rolling in his grave. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. Not to worry though, Harry has told us many times how experienced he is and there's no reason to doubt it that I know of. http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...escued_at_sea/ |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. Not to worry though, Harry has told us many times how experienced he is and there's no reason to doubt it that I know of. http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...escued_at_sea/ Ahh, yes, boating accidents. So, how long will that barge of yours float if it is holed while you are, say, 23 miles out in the Atlantic? What's that, no flotation at all? Sink like a stone? :} |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. --Vic |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. --Vic :} Hey...no fair letting my secret out of the bag! |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:03:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. Do not confuse name calling and dancing around an important issue with "kicking butt". Harry's boating with Cleopatra: Right in d' Nile. Whenever you see clouds of smoke there's fire somewhere. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. --Vic Vic, I hope you know that no one ever wins an newsgroup arguement. I used this as a great boating discussion. Harry is the one who got so upset and started calling everyone assholes. It reminds me of someone saying a postal worker was kicking ass when he goes postal. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Aug 16, 9:07 am, HK wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ly58h These guys just don't get it... Not only does their boat suffer from Little Lake Transom Syndrome, their scuppers are under water* and, most dangerous of all, they have a third-rate outdoor motor on the back end! * Probably because the boat was not designed for a modern 225 that weighs as much as these do. I must be missing something, it's a Whaler right? So, who cares if the transom is low cut, or that the scuppers are half underwater. It can't sink. ;-) |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. Not to worry though, Harry has told us many times how experienced he is and there's no reason to doubt it that I know of. http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...escued_at_sea/ My comments on this transom thing is based on personal experience. I swamped a small boat once, back in my teenaged years and it was on a fresh water pond, flat as a pancake with no other influences on the boat other than my stupid operation of it. I was pulling a skier and she fell, but didn't immediately let go of the tow line. I immediately made a hard turn, while pulling the throttle back. The resultant wake wave hit the boat on the stern quarter and filled the boat with well over a foot of water in a nanosecond. There was no way I could move it with the engine without more water pouring over the open transom. The engine then quit, the boat became extremely unstable, in danger of flipping so I slid into the water. The skier and I then swam back to the nearby shore, slowly pulling the swamped boat with us with the tow line. When it happens on a small boat, it happens fast. Eisboch |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:03:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. Do not confuse name calling and dancing around an important issue with "kicking butt". Harry's boating with Cleopatra: Right in d' Nile. Whenever you see clouds of smoke there's fire somewhere. The Cleo analogy would be more appropriate for you; you're the one with the slow-moving floating RV barge. BTW, how long will that boat float once you put a nice big hole in the bottom? |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:49:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:03:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. Do not confuse name calling and dancing around an important issue with "kicking butt". Harry's boating with Cleopatra: Right in d' Nile. Whenever you see clouds of smoke there's fire somewhere. Oh, I'm learning a bit about transom cutouts, following seas, ocean drift fishing, crab pot entanglement, etc. That's good, but I've read about many sinkings in countless accident reports. Transom cutouts were never raised as the root cause of any accident to the best of my recollection. But some here decided to climb into the ring with Harry, wearing transom cutout jock straps. All I see is Harry tossing them over the ropes. Too funny. Now I'm open-minded about it. When I first saw how close to the water that Parker cutout is, it raised my inexperienced eyebrows. I have almost swamped low transom boats when backing in lakes, but have zilch experience with small boats in "heavy" seas. I thought Harry's answers about it were well-reasoned, and Tom didn't see it as a safety issue either. My impression is that Tom and Harry have extensive experience with and knowledge about this type of boat, and the waters it's suitable for. You posted a link to where some kids got in trouble and sank grand dad's boat. I didn't see anything in that article about the transom, the real cause of the sinking, or what model boat it was. From the story, the kid might have just failed to put in the drain plug. I did see that the kid attempted to get it moving to self-bail. Just guessing here, but from what Harry has said deep transom cutouts may have made that attempt successful if the boat had one. So who's blowing smoke? Did the boat-sinking you posted a link to have anything to do with a deep transom cutout? Me, I'm just a curious spectator. Pass the popcorn. --Vic |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:13:38 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. --Vic Vic, I hope you know that no one ever wins an newsgroup arguement. I used this as a great boating discussion. Harry is the one who got so upset and started calling everyone assholes. It reminds me of someone saying a postal worker was kicking ass when he goes postal. It's always been obvious to me that most *losers* don't know they've lost a newsgroup argument, but it's in the eye of the beholder for sure. I gave you this beholder's opinion. And it's obvious to anybody who frequents this group that there are posters who are here for one purpose - to climb into the ring with Harry. If it leads to a good boating discussion, fine and dandy. But they come here looking to brawl. This brawl does have some useful boat info, and entertainment value. And sometimes Harry loses IMO, but he hasn't so far in this fracas. Postal worker? Harry reminds me more of Killer Kowalski than a mailman. --Vic |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:13:38 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. --Vic Vic, I hope you know that no one ever wins an newsgroup arguement. I used this as a great boating discussion. Harry is the one who got so upset and started calling everyone assholes. It reminds me of someone saying a postal worker was kicking ass when he goes postal. It's always been obvious to me that most *losers* don't know they've lost a newsgroup argument, but it's in the eye of the beholder for sure. I gave you this beholder's opinion. And it's obvious to anybody who frequents this group that there are posters who are here for one purpose - to climb into the ring with Harry. If it leads to a good boating discussion, fine and dandy. But they come here looking to brawl. This brawl does have some useful boat info, and entertainment value. And sometimes Harry loses IMO, but he hasn't so far in this fracas. Postal worker? Harry reminds me more of Killer Kowalski than a mailman. --Vic Oh, it wouldn't have mattered to the assholes here what new boat I bought; they would have busied themselves looking for any scrap of crap they could find to denigrate my decision. It's part of their losers' game. I shopped around a bit before deciding on a Parker 2100CC. It was the one that most closely met what I wanted in a new boat. The fact that the fellow who many consider the very best fishing guide in these waters, a guide you have to book six months in advance, uses a nearly identical boat on these waters, didn't hurt. This is a factory-sponsored guide, a fellow who doesn't have to pay for his boats, engines or gear. I knew what I did not want: a new boat with a eurotransom or a bracket, the former because it takes up too much room in a small boat, and the later because it makes a small boat longer than I wanted it to be. I was also concerned with the balance at rest of the new boat. Small boats with brackets tend to be stern heavy. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:13:38 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. You might think that. I tend to think that Harry just enjoys kicking ass. Pretty funny seeing him tossing around a ten-man tag team by his lonesome. --Vic Vic, I hope you know that no one ever wins an newsgroup arguement. I used this as a great boating discussion. Harry is the one who got so upset and started calling everyone assholes. It reminds me of someone saying a postal worker was kicking ass when he goes postal. It's always been obvious to me that most *losers* don't know they've lost a newsgroup argument, but it's in the eye of the beholder for sure. I gave you this beholder's opinion. And it's obvious to anybody who frequents this group that there are posters who are here for one purpose - to climb into the ring with Harry. If it leads to a good boating discussion, fine and dandy. But they come here looking to brawl. This brawl does have some useful boat info, and entertainment value. And sometimes Harry loses IMO, but he hasn't so far in this fracas. Postal worker? Harry reminds me more of Killer Kowalski than a mailman. --Vic Vic, Harry knows everything about boating, so our comments are not directed towards him. If you have been around long enough, you will see he spends every weekend and weekday logged onto rec.boats. When he goes to sell this boat in a few years, you will see it has very very few hours on the engine meter. But if you also noticed, those regulars who actually use their boats and boat in salt water, no of them, would have picked a boat with an open transom. So this discussion of open transom vs. brackets or engine well is really designed for those people who don't know everything yet, but might be interested in buying a CC to actually use. I find any discussion that actually involves a boating topic to be far superior to one that involves cut and pasting a political argument into a boating NG, just so one can call other assholes. So in that respect, I would have to say the NG is the winner, and there are no losers. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. Not to worry though, Harry has told us many times how experienced he is and there's no reason to doubt it that I know of. http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...escued_at_sea/ My comments on this transom thing is based on personal experience. I swamped a small boat once, back in my teenaged years and it was on a fresh water pond, flat as a pancake with no other influences on the boat other than my stupid operation of it. I was pulling a skier and she fell, but didn't immediately let go of the tow line. I immediately made a hard turn, while pulling the throttle back. The resultant wake wave hit the boat on the stern quarter and filled the boat with well over a foot of water in a nanosecond. There was no way I could move it with the engine without more water pouring over the open transom. The engine then quit, the boat became extremely unstable, in danger of flipping so I slid into the water. The skier and I then swam back to the nearby shore, slowly pulling the swamped boat with us with the tow line. When it happens on a small boat, it happens fast. Eisboch Yes, when I was about 10, I momentarily swamped an 8' plywood pram which we had overloaded with a friend's 10 hp outboard. Boat would only plane with a friend in the bow. Stopped the boat suddenly, wake came rushing over the little stern. Lesson learned: when you come off plane in a small boat, goose the accelerator a little to stay ahead of the oncoming collapsing wake. On the other hand, if you ram your 49' trawler onto one of the uncharted underwater rocks around the Thimble Islands, guess what? You're probably going to sink the boat. That 9' tall transom won't save you. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. Not to worry though, Harry has told us many times how experienced he is and there's no reason to doubt it that I know of. http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...escued_at_sea/ My comments on this transom thing is based on personal experience. I swamped a small boat once, back in my teenaged years and it was on a fresh water pond, flat as a pancake with no other influences on the boat other than my stupid operation of it. I was pulling a skier and she fell, but didn't immediately let go of the tow line. I immediately made a hard turn, while pulling the throttle back. The resultant wake wave hit the boat on the stern quarter and filled the boat with well over a foot of water in a nanosecond. There was no way I could move it with the engine without more water pouring over the open transom. The engine then quit, the boat became extremely unstable, in danger of flipping so I slid into the water. The skier and I then swam back to the nearby shore, slowly pulling the swamped boat with us with the tow line. When it happens on a small boat, it happens fast. Eisboch Yes, when I was about 10, I momentarily swamped an 8' plywood pram which we had overloaded with a friend's 10 hp outboard. Boat would only plane with a friend in the bow. Stopped the boat suddenly, wake came rushing over the little stern. Lesson learned: when you come off plane in a small boat, goose the accelerator a little to stay ahead of the oncoming collapsing wake. On the other hand, if you ram your 49' trawler onto one of the uncharted underwater rocks around the Thimble Islands, guess what? You're probably going to sink the boat. That 9' tall transom won't save you. Harry, Read what Pasco says about boat sinkings. http://www.yachtsurvey.com/sinking.htm Remedy the flaws that you can. Then invest in the best life jacket and EPIRB you can afford. Safe boating. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Jim wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:17 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: LOL, Harry you sure seem to be hung up on this transom thing. You noticed that also. Methinks he is a mite sensitive perhaps. Not to worry though, Harry has told us many times how experienced he is and there's no reason to doubt it that I know of. http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...escued_at_sea/ My comments on this transom thing is based on personal experience. I swamped a small boat once, back in my teenaged years and it was on a fresh water pond, flat as a pancake with no other influences on the boat other than my stupid operation of it. I was pulling a skier and she fell, but didn't immediately let go of the tow line. I immediately made a hard turn, while pulling the throttle back. The resultant wake wave hit the boat on the stern quarter and filled the boat with well over a foot of water in a nanosecond. There was no way I could move it with the engine without more water pouring over the open transom. The engine then quit, the boat became extremely unstable, in danger of flipping so I slid into the water. The skier and I then swam back to the nearby shore, slowly pulling the swamped boat with us with the tow line. When it happens on a small boat, it happens fast. Eisboch Yes, when I was about 10, I momentarily swamped an 8' plywood pram which we had overloaded with a friend's 10 hp outboard. Boat would only plane with a friend in the bow. Stopped the boat suddenly, wake came rushing over the little stern. Lesson learned: when you come off plane in a small boat, goose the accelerator a little to stay ahead of the oncoming collapsing wake. On the other hand, if you ram your 49' trawler onto one of the uncharted underwater rocks around the Thimble Islands, guess what? You're probably going to sink the boat. That 9' tall transom won't save you. Harry, Read what Pasco says about boat sinkings. http://www.yachtsurvey.com/sinking.htm Remedy the flaws that you can. Then invest in the best life jacket and EPIRB you can afford. Safe boating. There are thousands of reasons why boats swamp or sink. Some of these are the result of bad design or bad materials or bad construction. MAny more are the result of operator error. Some just happen. I'm always more concerned about my safety on this country's highways than I am while I am piloting a boat. I've got six of the proper lifejackets on son of Yo Ho, plus a Mustang auto inflatable for my wife and me. I just bought a McMurdo epirb for the new boat. It has a built-in GPS transmitter. Of course, if I boated on Lake Lanier, I could just walk to shore on the decks of the 93,000 boats on that little bit of water. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: --Vic Vic, Harry knows everything about boating, so our comments are not directed towards him. If you have been around long enough, you will see he spends every weekend and weekday logged onto rec.boats. When he goes to sell this boat in a few years, you will see it has very very few hours on the engine meter. But if you also noticed, those regulars who actually use their boats and boat in salt water, no of them, would have picked a boat with an open transom. So this discussion of open transom vs. brackets or engine well is really designed for those people who don't know everything yet, but might be interested in buying a CC to actually use. I find any discussion that actually involves a boating topic to be far superior to one that involves cut and pasting a political argument into a boating NG, just so one can call other assholes. So in that respect, I would have to say the NG is the winner, and there are no losers. Vic, As someone who doesn't know everything there is to know about all subjects, I do learn something new just about everyday. David Pasco, a professional marine surveyor and author (http://www.yachtsurvey.com/surveyorrelated.htm) had this this to say about open transom boats: Open Transoms or boats with no transoms have been appearing on the market with more frequency lately, and many of these are just accidents waiting to happen. A boat without a transom cannot reasonably be called seaworthy unless the internal compartments of the hull are made absolutely watertight. This is almost never the case because the builders never put absolutely watertight hatches in the decks. They make a mistake by ignoring the probability that at some point in time the vessel will encounter circumstances where waves are crashing over the nonexistent transom, flooding the deck, and thereby endangering the vessel and its passengers. Builders of such boats don't have the foresight (which they should have) to consider what would happen if such a boat lost power while navigating a dangerous inlet, or breaks down while at sea. Under these circumstances, the lack of a transom becomes very dangerous. Even large sport fishermen with large, open cockpit scuppers or non-sealing transom doors have gotten into trouble under such conditions. If you are the owner of such a boat, you had better think carefully how you use it. I have no doubt Harry will not have any problem using his boat on perfect days in the Chesapeake Bay, so it is the perfect boat for his application, but if I was buying a boat to go offshore in less than perfect conditions. When I used to hear all of the Bayliner Bashers I said that they were a great boat for inland lakes, bays and close to shore use, but to compare them to a true offshore battlewagon (as Skipper used to do) was silly. I think before anyone purchased an open transom boat, they should review how they plan on actually using the boat. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:18:30 -0400, HK wrote:
how long will that boat float once you put a nice big hole in the bottom? Longer than yours... :-) |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:21:36 -0400, HK wrote:
On the other hand, if you ram your 49' trawler onto one of the uncharted underwater rocks around the Thimble Islands, guess what? You're probably going to sink the boat. That 9' tall transom won't save you. Funny you should mention the Thimble Islands, arguably one of the most scenic locations on Long Island Sound. We went there for the first time in the summer of 1972 and have been going back ever since. Unfortunately the 49 is a tad on the large size for safe anchoring in the islands. We've never found any uncharted rocks although there are always a few folks who rediscover one of the many that are on the charts. As I said once before, none of my discussion of low transom risks is directed at you or your Parker. They are fine boats for their intended purpose. The risks are very real however for those who push the envelope and get unlucky. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:59:43 -0700, "capt.bill11"
wrote: I must be missing something, it's a Whaler right? So, who cares if the transom is low cut, or that the scuppers are half underwater. It can't sink. ;-) Exactly, level flotation. They can most definitely be capsized however, and much more easily if swamped. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
|
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:18:30 -0400, HK wrote: how long will that boat float once you put a nice big hole in the bottom? Longer than yours... :-) Really? Your barge has flotation, eh? |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:21:36 -0400, HK wrote: On the other hand, if you ram your 49' trawler onto one of the uncharted underwater rocks around the Thimble Islands, guess what? You're probably going to sink the boat. That 9' tall transom won't save you. Funny you should mention the Thimble Islands, arguably one of the most scenic locations on Long Island Sound. We went there for the first time in the summer of 1972 and have been going back ever since. Unfortunately the 49 is a tad on the large size for safe anchoring in the islands. We've never found any uncharted rocks although there are always a few folks who rediscover one of the many that are on the charts. As I said once before, none of my discussion of low transom risks is directed at you or your Parker. They are fine boats for their intended purpose. The risks are very real however for those who push the envelope and get unlucky. I used to know of a few uncharted rocks around the Thimbles. Perhaps by now they are on the charts. |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:59:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
When it happens on a small boat, it happens fast. In my opinion, some of these "events' all relate to boat design. Open transom work ok, but I'd rather have something more back there than a hole. I've often wondered why none of the majors in the small CC fishing market have gone back to the tried and true center well outboards. In my opinion, those are the safest for variety of reasons including placing stern way on the boat for any number of reasons. Inshore lobster men used these types of boats for years - most based on the Swampscott Dory and/or Amesbury Dory designs. It's a clean design, efficient, actually adds interior room and is the safest. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :) |
Too Dangerous for Safe Boating!
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:39:08 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . How's your mom, Don? Haven't heard much about her lately. -- John H John.. this is a boating newsgroup. People don't come here to hear about my mother. She is doing fine by the way...still waiting for her nursing home bed. Don, asking about your mom is no more inappropriate than your and Harry's derogatory comments, wouldn't you say? -- John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com