Boat Performance Update
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:26:38 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant

Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)

You never give complete figures. How many miles? What
average speed?

I suppose that would be meaningful in this discussion if that was part
of the original thread. We were discussing GPH and efficiency while
running.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let me look at my chart and
get a distance. Be right back.

Rougly 57 miles over 4 1/2 hours which equals 12.67 mph.

That right? Can't be. Let me use a calculator - I did that in my
head.

Hmmmm - guess it is. Then again, makes sense because some of that
time was not running time but idle time.

Never mind - I was talking to myself. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:26:38 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant
Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)
You never give complete figures. How many miles? What
average speed?

I suppose that would be meaningful in this discussion if that was part
of the original thread. We were discussing GPH and efficiency while
running.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let me look at my chart and
get a distance. Be right back.

Rougly 57 miles over 4 1/2 hours which equals 12.67 mph.

That right? Can't be. Let me use a calculator - I did that in my
head.

Hmmmm - guess it is. Then again, makes sense because some of that
time was not running time but idle time.

Never mind - I was talking to myself. :)




Uh...

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)


Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?
Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)


Go ahead...make my day! I'll watch while you lift my Yamaha off the
transom and put your etec on it. We can do this at the local hospital,
which you will need after your heavy lifting. It's a damned fine little
hospital, too.


Half, eh? So etecs aren't constrained by the rule of 10, eh?

Boat Performance Update
 

Boat Performance Update
 

Calif Bill wrote:


You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?

As you use the black prop, you will notice the black paint will peel
away. Your performance will deteriorate as the paint peels. ;)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:03:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Well, here's the way I look at it.

I don't give a flying rats a$$ about it.

How's that?

Further, unless I see an image of your boat, I'll assume that you
don't have one either. You seem intent on phantom boats, prove you
own one.

Otherwise, drop it - it's stupid and silly.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:01:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:


You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?

As you use the black prop, you will notice the black paint will peel
away. Your performance will deteriorate as the paint peels. ;)

Oh shoot -- *this* is the prop thread!

Boat Performance Update
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:01:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:

You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?
As you use the black prop, you will notice the black paint will peel
away. Your performance will deteriorate as the paint peels. ;)

Oh shoot -- *this* is the prop thread!

Yes, and remember "Black Power".

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:03:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.
Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.
Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Well, here's the way I look at it.

I don't give a flying rats a$$ about it.

How's that?

Further, unless I see an image of your boat, I'll assume that you
don't have one either. You seem intent on phantom boats, prove you
own one.

Otherwise, drop it - it's stupid and silly.

I really don't care if anyone believes I have a boat or not, I have
never made my boat a priority and created a long series of threads as
"my boat" was being custom built. I have never used my boat as my basis
of comparison to other individuals boat. But if I wanted to, I could
publish many photos of my boat, and get a new boat every year. I seem to
remember both photos and a sound wave of the Lobster Boats horn.

Boat Performance Update
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women.
Ahh...been swapping spit with Zell Miller again, eh?



Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got
the prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a
noticable difference in performance. The black prop worked well on
Tuesday while trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12"
one and a nice 24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe
if I paint the stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another
20-30 knots of performance?
The paint is not there for performance, booze-for-brains, it is there on
the Yamaha selections to differentiate between one line and style of props
and several others. There are shiny stainless props, painted stainless
props, painted alum props, et cetera, and they are used in different lines
of props designed for different purposes.

Now, you may return to your third six pack of the day.


Don't base others alcohol intake on your life style.



You do know you are replying to a moron with a mental disorder, right?
Narcissism can force them to make insane statements that they truly
believe and will defend until the end.

Dan

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Do you happen to know the difference in weight? The 4 stroke should be
quite a bit heavier.


Dan

Boat Performance Update
 

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)


Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

Not with the extremely limited use of your boat. To a typical boater
that would be more significant.

-dk

Boat Performance Update
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a
standardized format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

"Elusive"? You don't really believe that, do you? "Imaginary" would be
more accurate.

-Dan

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:31:39 -0400, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Do you happen to know the difference in weight? The 4 stroke should be
quite a bit heavier.

The difference, dry weight, is minor and any "weight" advantage is
suspect. The ETEC 200 HO (my engine) is 509 pounds. The Yamaha 200
HP four stroke is 585 pounds dry.

My engine has a 90 degree block, the Yamaha is 60 degree block, but
high compression. Mine is 200 CUI, the Yamaha is 206 CUI.

So comparatively, they are relatively the same except for the block
angle with a slight advantage to ETEC in weight which isn't
significant.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:29:08 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:03:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.
Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.
Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Well, here's the way I look at it.

I don't give a flying rats a$$ about it.

How's that?

Further, unless I see an image of your boat, I'll assume that you
don't have one either. You seem intent on phantom boats, prove you
own one.

Otherwise, drop it - it's stupid and silly.

I really don't care if anyone believes I have a boat or not, I have
never made my boat a priority and created a long series of threads as
"my boat" was being custom built. I have never used my boat as my basis
of comparison to other individuals boat. But if I wanted to, I could
publish many photos of my boat, and get a new boat every year. I seem to
remember both photos and a sound wave of the Lobster Boats horn.

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:21:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:01:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:

You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?
As you use the black prop, you will notice the black paint will peel
away. Your performance will deteriorate as the paint peels. ;)

Oh shoot -- *this* is the prop thread!

Yes, and remember "Black Power".

Gotcha.

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Just a demonstration of the how's and why's. I have no reason to
doubt you and I respect your attempt at anonymity, but I would posit
that all it would take is some time, a little effort and the whole
world would know who you were.

My larger point is still valid. It doesn't matter if Harry had a
"lobsta" boat or not - it proves nothing. If he made an attempt to
present evidence that was refuted - so what? It doesn't matter. Does
it make him a "bad" guy? No. A little odd certainly, but a bad
person? Does your insistence on using a numb due plum - an alter ego
- make you a bad guy? No.

It's Usenet - there's a lot of bull**** and Walter Mitty types running
around in electronic form. :) Matters not.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?

The dog ate 'em.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?


I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:13:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?

I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Here - let me speak very slowly...

I DON'T CARE...

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:13:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...
SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?
I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Here - let me speak very slowly...

I DON'T CARE...



But SW, John and his cohorts *want* you to care. Caring about their
cares is very important to them.

Boat Performance Update
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:13:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?

I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Here - let me speak very slowly...

I DON'T CARE...

Better make that slower and louder. For a former teacher, our John doesn't
learn his lessons very well!

Boat Performance Update
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)

Not worth the work for 5 gallons of fuel at most.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:42:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

No, Harry, I don't 'want' SW (anonymous, BTW) to do anything

Really?

Tell me John - what's my first name? How about my last name? What's
the name of my LLC? What town in CT do I live in? How many kids do I
have? What's Mrs. Wave do for a living.

Anonymous?

Man, you really are a piece of work.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:14:55 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:13:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?

I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Here - let me speak very slowly...

I DON'T CARE...

GOOD!

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:03:57 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:13:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...

SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?

I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Here - let me speak very slowly...

I DON'T CARE...

Better make that slower and louder. For a former teacher, our John doesn't
learn his lessons very well!


I guess your mom must be doing well. You seem to have a lot of time to post
derogatory comments without provocation. Do you find that to be more
enjoyable?

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:24:06 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:13:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:58:45 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

That's what you say.

I've yet to see evidence of it.

Therefore, it's imaginary.

Just saying...
SWS,
All I have to say is I have a really nice imaginary boat, and a really
nice imaginary wife and 3 kids, who love to go the imaginary lake.

Now, what did I do with those blue pills?
I wonder which is more imaginary, the lobsta boat, your lake, or Harry's
'filters'?

Tom, if you're reading this, how would you rate those for 'imagination'?

Here - let me speak very slowly...

I DON'T CARE...



But SW, John and his cohorts *want* you to care. Caring about their
cares is very important to them.

No, Harry, I don't 'want' SW (anonymous, BTW) to do anything. He commented
that Reggie's boat was 'imaginary'. I simply asked a question. I think the
point was made.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:51:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:42:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

No, Harry, I don't 'want' SW (anonymous, BTW) to do anything

Really?

Yes, really.

Tell me John - what's my first name? How about my last name? What's
the name of my LLC? What town in CT do I live in? How many kids do I
have? What's Mrs. Wave do for a living.

What difference does my knowledge of you and/or yours have to do with
anything?


Anonymous?

To any newcomer here, yes.


Man, you really are a piece of work.

Thank you. You must still be ****ed about the pistol incident. I apologized
for asking you that question. Hope you didn't miss it.

Boat Performance Update
 

"Dan" intrceptor@gmaildotcom wrote in message
.. .
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with
a plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women.
Ahh...been swapping spit with Zell Miller again, eh?



Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if
you have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When
I got the prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be
a noticable difference in performance. The black prop worked well on
Tuesday while trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small
12" one and a nice 24" one. Both released to be caught another day.
Maybe if I paint the stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get
another 20-30 knots of performance?
The paint is not there for performance, booze-for-brains, it is there on
the Yamaha selections to differentiate between one line and style of
props and several others. There are shiny stainless props, painted
stainless props, painted alum props, et cetera, and they are used in
different lines of props designed for different purposes.

Now, you may return to your third six pack of the day.


Don't base others alcohol intake on your life style.

You do know you are replying to a moron with a mental disorder, right?
Narcissism can force them to make insane statements that they truly
believe and will defend until the end.

Dan

There are a lot of morons on newsgroups. My daughter makes a very nice
living as a therapist for the handicapped. I do not avoid them here, as
that would remove some of the fun. Just like SW would not be as likeable if
he was normal.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:43:58 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Just like SW would not be as likeable if he was normal.

Normal is for pussies. :)

I'm in the mold of the infamous Linc Hawkes.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sep 17, 5:58 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:43:58 -0700, "Calif Bill"

wrote:
Just like SW would not be as likeable if he was normal.

Normal is for pussies. :)

I'm in the mold of the infamous Linc Hawkes.

Ahh, crap. Now I got to read again. Give me a hint, real or fictional
character... ugh, G O O G L....... crap, I hate intellectuals,
specially sarcastic ones;)

Boat Performance Update
 

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:32:14 -0000,
wrote:

On Sep 17, 5:58 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:43:58 -0700, "Calif Bill"

wrote:
Just like SW would not be as likeable if he was normal.

Normal is for pussies. :)

I'm in the mold of the infamous Linc Hawkes.

Ahh, crap. Now I got to read again. Give me a hint, real or fictional
character... ugh, G O O G L....... crap, I hate intellectuals,
specially sarcastic ones;)

http://www.townonline.com/marblehead...sts/x748944029

Boat Performance Update
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:43:58 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Just like SW would not be as likeable if he was normal.

Normal is for pussies. :)

I'm in the mold of the infamous Linc Hawkes.

Did you make love to your cow? And was it a long ways to go to kiss it
goodnight?

Boat Performance Update
 

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:35:31 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:43:58 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Just like SW would not be as likeable if he was normal.

Normal is for pussies. :)

I'm in the mold of the infamous Linc Hawkes.

Did you make love to your cow? And was it a long ways to go to kiss it
goodnight?

You have to know a little New England history to understand that.

Linc was quite a character and a real friend to the "Wharf Rats" which
was the bunch Mrs. Wave and I used to hang around with in high school.

A true Renaissance Man if there ever was one - just a little rough
around the edges. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:32:14 -0000,
wrote:

I hate intellectuals,
specially sarcastic ones;)

Not to worry, there aren't any in this group.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:43:00 -0400, HK wrote:

There are shiny stainless props, painted
stainless props, painted alum props, et cetera, and they are used in
different lines of props designed for different purposes.

The shiny stainless props are always the fastest.

How do I know?

Take a look at the props on any boat that goes past you at 90 mph.