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?

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Sep 5, 8:45 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Make trouble for you? How can the words of internet sock puppets make
trouble for you? I think you take these posts a little more serious
than you let on. And you of all people should not...

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Sep 5, 9:04 am, DownTime wrote:
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a low transom on my work skiff, and it is wide too. That's
helps when bobbing in the surf for sure. For those of you who have not
seen it, here are some pics.
www.yaimkool.com
I have been watching my transom a lot since all of these discussions
and with all the wakes and such, the wide transom keeps it floating
pretty high, even in a following sea. The only water I take in is
splash off the bow, square chines, and slight rake make this a wet
boat going into the wind and sea, it would take something to take
water over the sides though.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



I think women worry more about low transoms than men.

Not just transoms.
For their 50th anniversary Bill and Kate rented the honeymoon cottage
they had stayed at after their wedding, hoping to rekindle those
romantic days.
Arriving in the evening, they unpacked the car, and settled in.
After a candlelight dinner, Kate showered, went in the bedroom
and put on a sexy negligee.
She poked her head out the bedroom door, and shouted at Bill, who had
fallen asleep on the couch while watching TV.
"Bill! It's bedtime, honey."
Bill struggled awake, shaking the sleep from his head, and Kate
quickly slipped under the covers.
After a quick shower while his dentures soaked, Bill went to the
bedroom, lay down on the covers next to his snoring Kate, and quickly
fell asleep.
Bill was up at daybreak, found a nearby newspaper machine,
and bought the paper. Back at the cottage he made coffee
and sat at the kitchen table reading the news.
Kate soon entered, still in her negligee, cooked up some English
muffins with butter and strawberry preserves, and oatmeal with
brown sugar. She set the food down on the table for Bill and herself,
and poured more coffee. As Bill continued to read the newspaper,
Kate sat down at the table and looked about the room.
"My, my! That horse figurine was here when we honeymooned!"
And I remember this wallpaper! My, how they've kept this cottage up."
She glanced at the bedroom door, then through the entry into the
living room at the couch there, and memories of their honeymoon
stirred, and a warm feeling overcame her.
"Bill! Put down that paper! Look around and try to remember our
honeymoon!"
Bill put down his paper, took off his reading glasses and looked
around.
He saw that a horse figurine had replaced the 40" Muskie that he
remembered being on that wall, and that they had removed the
knotty pine paneling and put up wallpaper.
Kate mustered up her "sexy" voice and said,
"Brings back memories, doesn't it? Frankly, it's making me hot."
Bill looked over at her and finally saw that Kate was actually
wearing a low-cut negligee.
"Dammit, Kate. It's no wonder you're hot. You've got one tit in the
oatmeal and the other in the coffee."

Sorry if you heard it before, and I dressed it up a bit making it
longer. Whoa. Could Chuck be affecting me?

--Vic

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

wrote:

I have a low transom on my work skiff, and it is wide too. That's
helps when bobbing in the surf for sure. For those of you who have not
seen it, here are some pics.
www.yaimkool.com
I have been watching my transom a lot since all of these discussions
and with all the wakes and such, the wide transom keeps it floating
pretty high, even in a following sea. The only water I take in is
splash off the bow, square chines, and slight rake make this a wet
boat going into the wind and sea, it would take something to take
water over the sides though.



It's really only an issue for inexperienced boaters and the usual snots
here trying to get the kind of rise from the newsgroup they can't get
from their own equipment.

When I was a little kid I used to go out fishing several mornings a week
in the summer with an old man who lived in the cottage next to ours at
the beach. He had a 12' skiff with a 15" transom and a 3 hp Evinrude.
We'd go four or five miles out into Long Island Sound to one of his
"spots," where we'd haul in a bunch of porgies and the occasional
striper. Sometimes the Sound was flat as a pancake and sometimes it was
choppy to rough. I don't recall ever seeing water come in over the
transom. Like your boat, though, it was a wet ride.

Some of the most common boats in Florida are Carolina Skiffs. They're
everywhere. Low transoms, low sides, wet rides, but perfectly safe, even
offshore, in the hands of experienced boaters.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
snip...
Sorry if you heard it before, and I dressed it up a bit making it
longer. Whoa. Could Chuck be affecting me?

--Vic



If he is, I'd recommend a quick trip to the doctor. There must be
medications to cure that!

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Sep 5, 6:52?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:45 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Make trouble for you? How can the words of internet sock puppets make
trouble for you? I think you take these posts a little more serious
than you let on. And you of all people should not...

Reread my comment. I said they "try," I did not say they succeeded.
Most of them are permanent residents of my filters, which only save the
headers and the senders' names, not the messages themselves. But a small
percentage of their trash is reposted when others make a comment. Of all
the jerks who post here regularly, I would say "Dan" and "John Herring"
are the saddest sacks. They appear to be completely obsessed with me,
and I don't even have nice tits.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You needn't look to far for a sad sack, Krause.

Read through this thread.

Who was the very first to start making derogatory remarks about other
posters?

Who, after the first foray, keeps moving the discussion more and more
toward personalities and away from the boating subject in the thread?

Worse yet, it's not an anomaly. It's your SOP. Ever starve for oxygen
up there on your high pedestal? Obviously you never get tired of
making nasty cracks about all the people you consider beneath you- and
that's pretty well everybody.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Sep 5, 4:08?am, 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/

--
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



There should be a couple of removeable plugs in those holes. But the
rest of the boat has been badly neglected and somebody somewhere along
the line apparently tossed away the plugs.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

"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.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:11:19 -0500, 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

Harry is more experienced than anyone else in rec.boats. You can't go wrong
trusting whatever he says, no matter what the topic is.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:35 -0400, "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


Well...manly men, anyway.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

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

wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:45 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Make trouble for you? How can the words of internet sock puppets make
trouble for you? I think you take these posts a little more serious
than you let on. And you of all people should not...



Reread my comment. I said they "try," I did not say they succeeded.
Most of them are permanent residents of my filters, which only save the
headers and the senders' names, not the messages themselves. But a small
percentage of their trash is reposted when others make a comment. Of all
the jerks who post here regularly, I would say "Dan" and "John Herring"
are the saddest sacks. They appear to be completely obsessed with me,
and I don't even have nice tits.

A 'filter' which saves the headers and the senders' names, but filters the
messages. Wow!

What would be the purpose in retaining the header and sender's name for
those whom you've 'filtered'?

Some are obsessed with you because you're such a neat guy with remarkable
'foibles'!

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Sep 5, 7:08 am, 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/

--
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

That boat looks like it would, when new have had no problem surpassing
the safety calculations as put fourth by the USCG for boats that size.
These regulations have served the building community well for a long
time. If you guys want to regulate wet feet, that is your problem;) If
that boat was better maintained, it would seem a perfectly good tool
for many a fishermen, or family folks, as far as the design is
concerened.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:10:37 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Sep 5, 6:52?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:45 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Make trouble for you? How can the words of internet sock puppets make
trouble for you? I think you take these posts a little more serious
than you let on. And you of all people should not...

Reread my comment. I said they "try," I did not say they succeeded.
Most of them are permanent residents of my filters, which only save the
headers and the senders' names, not the messages themselves. But a small
percentage of their trash is reposted when others make a comment. Of all
the jerks who post here regularly, I would say "Dan" and "John Herring"
are the saddest sacks. They appear to be completely obsessed with me,
and I don't even have nice tits.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You needn't look to far for a sad sack, Krause.

Read through this thread.

Who was the very first to start making derogatory remarks about other
posters?

Who, after the first foray, keeps moving the discussion more and more
toward personalities and away from the boating subject in the thread?

Worse yet, it's not an anomaly. It's your SOP. Ever starve for oxygen
up there on your high pedestal? Obviously you never get tired of
making nasty cracks about all the people you consider beneath you- and
that's pretty well everybody.


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!

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Sep 5, 11:27?am, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:10:37 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:52?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:45 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Make trouble for you? How can the words of internet sock puppets make
trouble for you? I think you take these posts a little more serious
than you let on. And you of all people should not...

Reread my comment. I said they "try," I did not say they succeeded.
Most of them are permanent residents of my filters, which only save the
headers and the senders' names, not the messages themselves. But a small
percentage of their trash is reposted when others make a comment. Of all
the jerks who post here regularly, I would say "Dan" and "John Herring"
are the saddest sacks. They appear to be completely obsessed with me,
and I don't even have nice tits.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You needn't look to far for a sad sack, Krause.

Read through this thread.

Who was the very first to start making derogatory remarks about other
posters?

Who, after the first foray, keeps moving the discussion more and more
toward personalities and away from the boating subject in the thread?

Worse yet, it's not an anomaly. It's your SOP. Ever starve for oxygen
up there on your high pedestal? Obviously you never get tired of
making nasty cracks about all the people you consider beneath you- and
that's pretty well everybody.

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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A one-trick pony is as tedious as a toothache.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

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!

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

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.


I thought Herring was buying a new boat...why is trying to stir up more
crap here?

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Chuck Gould wrote:


You needn't look to far for a sad sack, Krause.


Thank you, Mr. Sack.

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
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 did it get to finland? towed over by a bayliner?

Dangerous STARCRAFT boat having U.S. Coast Guard sign
 

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:46:36 -0300, "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.


Hi Don! How's that new boat doing? Have you been out in it yet? Some more
pictures of the boat and your dog would be cool!

You'll note that I said nothing derogatory about Harry in the above post.
So get back to being sociable and tell us more about your boat!

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.