Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
Chuck, it's only because we *are* beneath him. He just has a few cute
little 'foibles' that we should overlook. In this thread he's only
attacked
you, me, Dan, and the Finns, without provocation. But, that's just 'Harry
being Harry' as some here would say!


John...your behaviour is outrageous.
You throw as many digs at Harry as he sends your way...maybe more since
Harry only responds after seeing your shots through a 3rd party.
A lot of your digs are 'freebies' when everyone else ignores you.



Are you the designated 3rd party, Dummy Don?

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:06:16 -0400, HK wrote:

Low transoms, low sides, wet rides, but perfectly safe, even
offshore, in the hands of experienced boaters.

I'd modify that statement to read "lucky boaters" rather than
"experienced boaters". The people who get into trouble are those
unfortunate enough to find themselves stern to a breaking wave. That
could happen from inexperience but more often from bad luck: The
engine fails at an inopportune time; the boat gets snagged on a
lobster pot or crab trap in the middle of a tide rip; a large wake
comes in from a different angle than the swell; etc., etc. These
things can and do happen to anyone. It is true that an experienced
boater is more likely to recognize a dangerous situation and avoid it.
After that it's luck.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:52:55 -0400, HK wrote:

They appear to be completely obsessed with me,
and I don't even have nice tits.

I think it's your transom they like.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:06:16 -0400, HK wrote:

Low transoms, low sides, wet rides, but perfectly safe, even
offshore, in the hands of experienced boaters.

I'd modify that statement to read "lucky boaters" rather than
"experienced boaters". The people who get into trouble are those
unfortunate enough to find themselves stern to a breaking wave. That
could happen from inexperience but more often from bad luck: The
engine fails at an inopportune time; the boat gets snagged on a
lobster pot or crab trap in the middle of a tide rip; a large wake
comes in from a different angle than the swell; etc., etc. These
things can and do happen to anyone. It is true that an experienced
boater is more likely to recognize a dangerous situation and avoid it.
After that it's luck.


Gee, whiz. I've been "stern to" to breaking waves in small boats for
decades. Typically, the breaking wave lifts the transom of the boat then
sets it down. Under some circumstances, and not often, I've gotten a
bit of water over the transom and on the deck that drained right out.

I've seen more slow-moving trawlerbarges and sailboats get into serious
trouble trying to run inlets than I have small, low-transomed boats get
pooped. I've seen more trawlerbarges and sailboats run aground and holed
than I have seen or heard of small, low-transomed boats get pooped.

Sorry, it's simply not something I or any other experienced boat
operator worries about very much.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:52:55 -0400, HK wrote:

They appear to be completely obsessed with me,
and I don't even have nice tits.

I think it's your transom they like.


They do seem to like sniffing my butt. Maybe I should bathe less.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Personally, I like the too long screws.
JR

Matti Kaki wrote:
Hello from Finland.

I just took a look of a finnish boating magazine from year 1991 and was
really allerted. There was a story about US-made boat which could not
pass a finnish yachtclub inspection at all.

This boat is made by SYLVAN MARINE Lagrande, GA. Model 17VFC / VFC 175

There is very low transom freeboard. If you put a 140 hp engine which
you can do according to the U.S. Coast Guard plate, the stern probably
takes water inside thru the two holes which probably are supposed to
drain the boat not fill it with water. There is no motor well.

I can't undestand that this boat has U. S. Coast Guard plate. How is
this possible? Here I have some pictures:

http://www.mattikaki.fi/starcraft/



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

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

In article , says...


On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:08:30 +0300, Matti Kaki penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Hello from Finland.

I just took a look of a finnish boating magazine from year 1991 and was
really allerted. There was a story about US-made boat which could not
pass a finnish yachtclub inspection at all.

This boat is made by SYLVAN MARINE Lagrande, GA. Model 17VFC / VFC 175

There is very low transom freeboard. If you put a 140 hp engine which
you can do according to the U.S. Coast Guard plate, the stern probably
takes water inside thru the two holes which probably are supposed to
drain the boat not fill it with water. There is no motor well.

I can't undestand that this boat has U. S. Coast Guard plate. How is
this possible? Here I have some pictures:

http://www.mattikaki.fi/starcraft/

Think about it..... in 1991 a 20 year old boat was still floating....
in spite of horrendous Finnish alteration, preventive maintenance, and
repair. Seems more like a testament to the superb quality of American
design and workmanship than anything else. Seems to me that the USCG
got it right!

How come 20 yrs? The magazine tells that this boat was imported 1989!
So it was only two years old. Or do you think that this was on old
and used boat made in early 70's? I undestand that the exporter
started to export these boats in 1989 and these were all new boats.

--
Matti Kaki at iki dot fi http://www.sci.fi/~oh2bio
=========== Location: 60.414 N 25.097 E ===========
Navigare Necesse Est - Vivere Non Est Necesse

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

In article , says...


Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:08:30 +0300, Matti Kaki
wrote:

60.414 N 25.097 E

That's a bit north of Helsinki, Finland.
Man, this low transom issue is becoming an international furor.

Did you look at the photos he posted? The boat is just this side of
decrepit, and the reason water coming in can get to the battery is
because someone removed the hatch that covers the opening in the deck.
He'll fit in well here with the rest of the inlanders.

I believe that the photographer had removed the hatch to show
that there is no groove to prevent water going to the pilge.
The hatch is not tight and water goes thru the seem easily.
There should be groove (water channel) which prevent water
entering the pilge and over the battery.

But do you think that the U.S. Coast Guard plate _is_ authentic
and not a forgery? This kind of boat could _never_ get a Finnish
approvment nor CE.marking. We had earlier so called "Blue shield"
or "Sininen kilpi" in Finland which was safety guarantee before
CE-regulations took place in 1998. Well, CE-marking is _not_
same as safety guarantee. :-(

Finnish Marine Industries Federation: http://www.finnboat.fi

--
Matti Kaki at iki dot fi http://www.sci.fi/~oh2bio
=========== Location: 60.414 N 25.097 E ===========
Navigare Necesse Est - Vivere Non Est Necesse

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Matti Kaki wrote:
In article , says...

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:08:30 +0300, Matti Kaki
wrote:

60.414 N 25.097 E
That's a bit north of Helsinki, Finland.
Man, this low transom issue is becoming an international furor.

Did you look at the photos he posted? The boat is just this side of
decrepit, and the reason water coming in can get to the battery is
because someone removed the hatch that covers the opening in the deck.
He'll fit in well here with the rest of the inlanders.

I believe that the photographer had removed the hatch to show
that there is no groove to prevent water going to the pilge.
The hatch is not tight and water goes thru the seem easily.
There should be groove (water channel) which prevent water
entering the pilge and over the battery.

But do you think that the U.S. Coast Guard plate _is_ authentic
and not a forgery? This kind of boat could _never_ get a Finnish
approvment nor CE.marking. We had earlier so called "Blue shield"
or "Sininen kilpi" in Finland which was safety guarantee before
CE-regulations took place in 1998. Well, CE-marking is _not_
same as safety guarantee. :-(

Finnish Marine Industries Federation: http://www.finnboat.fi



I don't know, Matti, and I don't care. It's a cheap old decrepit boat,
and if it is still around, should be used as a planter.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:06:16 -0400, HK wrote:

Low transoms, low sides, wet rides, but perfectly safe, even
offshore, in the hands of experienced boaters.

I'd modify that statement to read "lucky boaters" rather than
"experienced boaters". The people who get into trouble are those
unfortunate enough to find themselves stern to a breaking wave. That
could happen from inexperience but more often from bad luck: The
engine fails at an inopportune time; the boat gets snagged on a
lobster pot or crab trap in the middle of a tide rip; a large wake
comes in from a different angle than the swell; etc., etc. These
things can and do happen to anyone. It is true that an experienced
boater is more likely to recognize a dangerous situation and avoid it.
After that it's luck.

Based upon the amount of time Harry has spent boating in the last 15
yrs, I would not consider Harry experienced.