Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

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/

--
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:
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/




Takes a while for those 1991 magazines to get to your address, eh?

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

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.

--Vic

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

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.

--Vic

Yup, that low transom problem really needs to be addressed. Too many
people seem to think it is normal for water to come flood the boat thru
the transom in 1 ft. waves. ;)

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

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.

--Vic


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.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:56:41 -0400, HK wrote:

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.

--Vic


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 looked. Lotsa old crappy boats out there.
You do know I was joking?
Probably the Finn was joining in the fun, but I'm not up on Finns and
their humor.
For the record, I'm not an experienced boater, but given your
experience and your comments I have no trouble with your low transom,
and I think Tom's is even lower.

--Vic

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:56:41 -0400, HK wrote:

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.

--Vic


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 looked. Lotsa old crappy boats out there.
You do know I was joking?
Probably the Finn was joining in the fun, but I'm not up on Finns and
their humor.
For the record, I'm not an experienced boater, but given your
experience and your comments I have no trouble with your low transom,
and I think Tom's is even lower.

--Vic


I think women worry more about low transoms than men.

Eisboch

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:56:41 -0400, HK wrote:

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.

--Vic

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 looked. Lotsa old crappy boats out there.
You do know I was joking?
Probably the Finn was joining in the fun, but I'm not up on Finns and
their humor.
For the record, I'm not an experienced boater, but given your
experience and your comments I have no trouble with your low transom,
and I think Tom's is even lower.

--Vic


Yeah, I realized that, and unlike Chuck, I enjoy jokes at my expense. No
one laughs more at me than me. Unfortunately, we have a number of
posters here with an "agenda" that includes trying to make trouble for
me and a few others. The fact that they don't succeed, haven't
succeeded, and never will succeed must cause they a great deal of grief,
eh? :}

I thought Tom was transomless.

Oh...Finns. I worked with one for three years. He had no sense of humor.
None.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:56:41 -0400, HK wrote:

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.

--Vic

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 looked. Lotsa old crappy boats out there.
You do know I was joking?
Probably the Finn was joining in the fun, but I'm not up on Finns and
their humor.
For the record, I'm not an experienced boater, but given your
experience and your comments I have no trouble with your low transom,
and I think Tom's is even lower.

--Vic


I think women worry more about low transoms than men.

Eisboch




Sinking transoms on a woman...not a fun thing.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:56:41 -0400, HK wrote:

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.

--Vic

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 looked. Lotsa old crappy boats out there.
You do know I was joking?
Probably the Finn was joining in the fun, but I'm not up on Finns and
their humor.
For the record, I'm not an experienced boater, but given your
experience and your comments I have no trouble with your low transom,
and I think Tom's is even lower.

--Vic


I think women worry more about low transoms than men.

Eisboch


Are wide transoms also a concern? Anyone aware of any legal
restrictions, personal preferences aside?