I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:15:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:09:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:43:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Not if you are in a boat that weighs about twice as much as my house.

Does your house have a displacement hull or a planing hull?

I'm betting displacement.

Oh the shame of it all, but at least it doesn't pound. :-)

Maybe if you put more power on it...

I'll tell you one thing, the day that my GB pounds will be the day
that I once again try to improve my golf game. Actually, anything
would be an improvement.

I tried golf once - gave it a whole year.

I gave it up because it's just too stupid for words.

I felt pretty stupid at the end of my first year too. I still feel pretty
stupid occasionally. But, the times I feel good about a shot are becoming
more and more regular.

Maybe you just gave up too soon?

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.

If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Oct 9, 9:50 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

Ok, they wear knickers and are such big pansies they have to buy their
balls in boxes of 12 ;)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:50:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

I said nothing about people who play golf - that is their choice and
if they enjoy it, that's fine by me - no problems.

I think it's stupid - not the people who play it.

I feel much the same way about ten pin bowling.

Now duck pins - that's a whole different story. Great game. :)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:01:33 -0000,
wrote:

On Oct 9, 9:50 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

Ok, they wear knickers and are such big pansies they have to buy their
balls in boxes of 12 ;)

Um...

Please note - I did not say it.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 9, 9:50 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way
to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise
while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

Ok, they wear knickers and are such big pansies they have to buy their
balls in boxes of 12 ;)

Can tell you're not a golfer. They are also readily available in boxes of
15. 8)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:10:05 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Now duck pins - that's a whole different story. Great game. :)

If you like shooting marbles.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:10:05 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Now duck pins - that's a whole different story. Great game. :)

If you like shooting marbles.

Duckpins are for pussies. Real men bowl candlepins. There are no 300
games in candlepins.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:01:33 -0000,
wrote:

On Oct 9, 9:50 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:
No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.
No - only golf is stupid.
Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.
Ok, they wear knickers and are such big pansies they have to buy their
balls in boxes of 12 ;)

Um...

Please note - I did not say it.

But you wish you had... ;)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:40:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:37:05 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:15:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:09:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:43:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Not if you are in a boat that weighs about twice as much as my house.
Does your house have a displacement hull or a planing hull?

I'm betting displacement.

Oh the shame of it all, but at least it doesn't pound. :-)

Maybe if you put more power on it...

I'll tell you one thing, the day that my GB pounds will be the day
that I once again try to improve my golf game. Actually, anything
would be an improvement.
I tried golf once - gave it a whole year.

I gave it up because it's just too stupid for words.
I felt pretty stupid at the end of my first year too. I still feel pretty
stupid occasionally. But, the times I feel good about a shot are becoming
more and more regular.

Maybe you just gave up too soon?
No - it's too stupid for words.

Sounds like my grandkid trying jump rope.

"This is stupid. Why would anyone want to do anything this stupid where you
just get your legs all tangled? What a stupid game!"

It takes a while to learn and appreciate.


I don't like the game much, but I do enjoy the walking on pretty golf
courses.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:40:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:37:05 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:15:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:09:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:43:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Not if you are in a boat that weighs about twice as much as my house.

Does your house have a displacement hull or a planing hull?

I'm betting displacement.

Oh the shame of it all, but at least it doesn't pound. :-)

Maybe if you put more power on it...

I'll tell you one thing, the day that my GB pounds will be the day
that I once again try to improve my golf game. Actually, anything
would be an improvement.

I tried golf once - gave it a whole year.

I gave it up because it's just too stupid for words.

I felt pretty stupid at the end of my first year too. I still feel pretty
stupid occasionally. But, the times I feel good about a shot are becoming
more and more regular.

Maybe you just gave up too soon?

No - it's too stupid for words.

Sounds like my grandkid trying jump rope.

"This is stupid. Why would anyone want to do anything this stupid where you
just get your legs all tangled? What a stupid game!"

It takes a while to learn and appreciate.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:50:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

Gee thanks, Reggie!

Do raining (or was it reigning) a-holes need umbrellas?

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:46:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.

If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Here's a good place to get something to help you out - wuss!

http://www.theballstogoforit.com/base.html

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:01:33 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 9, 9:50 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

Ok, they wear knickers and are such big pansies they have to buy their
balls in boxes of 12 ;)

Uh, that would be 15 for us cheapskates that still lose a ball here and
there.

http://tinyurl.com/2epye9

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:57:33 -0500, John H. wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:46:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.

If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.

No - only golf is stupid.

Here's a good place to get something to help you out - wuss!

http://www.theballstogoforit.com/base.html

Click on wimp-stop shopping. You'll love it.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:50:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:28:37 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

No - it's too stupid for words.
If you think about it.........all sport games are, but they are a way to
take ones mind off the realities of the world and get some exercise while
doing so.
No - only golf is stupid.
Well said, maybe you could add something negative about those
who like to play golf, sort of a cherry on top of the sundae.

Gee thanks, Reggie!

Do raining (or was it reigning) a-holes need umbrellas?

Nope, feel free to dump all over me. ;)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Oct 9, 5:52 pm, HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:51 -0000,
wrote:

Me and wave were in his bay boat, doing 45 mph, 1 1/2 to 2 footers. I
thought the ride was pretty good and tolerable...

That's because you were only hitting every 4th or 5th wave.

Wouldn't that depend upon the distance between wave tops? In hard chop,
they are very close together.

At speed on the Ranger, everything is close together;)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
Which boat will dip into a wave??

Hummmmmm....

http://www.yaimkool.com/imjustsayin.htm

;)

I included the link again cause I do have a question. I have been
looking at low transom boats and accepted Harrys assertion of the
benefits of a LT (ie. quick empty cockpit etc.) as I also have a LT
boat even if it is worth less than Harrys guage cluster;) Anyway, I
was watching my transom ride way above everything I could throw at it
and with my wide flat (primary stability/bouyancy) hull it makes a lot
of sense as it takes a great amount of pressure to dip my transom,
right from the start. What I can't understand is how a LT is good on a
deep vee (with secondary or in this case, delayed stability/bouyancy).
In rough water the transom can rise and fall. The deep vee does not
provide nearly as much bouyancy high in the water and the momentum of
the drop to sea level comes much more slowly. The momentum of such a
heavy hull, and narrow surface presence could much more easily allow a
deep vee to submerge. Much more easily that a flat or relatively flat
bay boat the same way a deep vee rolls more in relation to the surface
compared to a flat boat. Remember, bouyancy is only relational to the
surface area of contact with the hull. After considering this I am
wondering why anyone would really build a LT into a deep Vee, big
water type boat? Or is a Parker really a bay boat, not intended for
rough water? Kind of like a Suzuki Samuri, looks like it's built for
the trails, but really built for the urban dweller?

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
Which boat will dip into a wave??

Hummmmmm....

http://www.yaimkool.com/imjustsayin.htm

;)

I included the link again cause I do have a question. I have been
looking at low transom boats and accepted Harrys assertion of the
benefits of a LT (ie. quick empty cockpit etc.) as I also have a LT
boat even if it is worth less than Harrys guage cluster;) Anyway, I
was watching my transom ride way above everything I could throw at it
and with my wide flat (primary stability/bouyancy) hull it makes a lot
of sense as it takes a great amount of pressure to dip my transom,
right from the start. What I can't understand is how a LT is good on a
deep vee (with secondary or in this case, delayed stability/bouyancy).
In rough water the transom can rise and fall. The deep vee does not
provide nearly as much bouyancy high in the water and the momentum of
the drop to sea level comes much more slowly. The momentum of such a
heavy hull, and narrow surface presence could much more easily allow a
deep vee to submerge. Much more easily that a flat or relatively flat
bay boat the same way a deep vee rolls more in relation to the surface
compared to a flat boat. Remember, bouyancy is only relational to the
surface area of contact with the hull. After considering this I am
wondering why anyone would really build a LT into a deep Vee, big
water type boat? Or is a Parker really a bay boat, not intended for
rough water? Kind of like a Suzuki Samuri, looks like it's built for
the trails, but really built for the urban dweller?

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...




I'm not "****ed" at your attempts to educate yourself. I think you're a
funny guy, with very, very limited experience in real vee-bottomed power
boats.

Take a look here and see if you can figure out any of the answers you
are seeking:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-08-080001.jpg


Note that the round stainless steel drain on the port side next to the
engine is above the waterline.

Note that the transom cutout portion is 25" high.

Note the areas of the boat's bottom outboard of the trim tabs.

Any wheels turning up there between your ears?


Maybe this photo will help allay your fears:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...olisparker.jpg

Here's another bottom photo for you to ponder:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...C/IMG_0441.jpg

And another:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-factory-3.jpg


Get to work, grasshopper.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
Which boat will dip into a wave??

Hummmmmm....

http://www.yaimkool.com/imjustsayin.htm

;)

I included the link again cause I do have a question. I have been
looking at low transom boats and accepted Harrys assertion of the
benefits of a LT (ie. quick empty cockpit etc.) as I also have a LT
boat even if it is worth less than Harrys guage cluster;) Anyway, I
was watching my transom ride way above everything I could throw at it
and with my wide flat (primary stability/bouyancy) hull it makes a lot
of sense as it takes a great amount of pressure to dip my transom,
right from the start. What I can't understand is how a LT is good on a
deep vee (with secondary or in this case, delayed stability/bouyancy).
In rough water the transom can rise and fall. The deep vee does not
provide nearly as much bouyancy high in the water and the momentum of
the drop to sea level comes much more slowly. The momentum of such a
heavy hull, and narrow surface presence could much more easily allow a
deep vee to submerge. Much more easily that a flat or relatively flat
bay boat the same way a deep vee rolls more in relation to the surface
compared to a flat boat. Remember, bouyancy is only relational to the
surface area of contact with the hull. After considering this I am
wondering why anyone would really build a LT into a deep Vee, big
water type boat? Or is a Parker really a bay boat, not intended for
rough water? Kind of like a Suzuki Samuri, looks like it's built for
the trails, but really built for the urban dweller?

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...




I'm not "****ed" at your attempts to educate yourself. I think you're a
funny guy, with very, very limited experience in real vee-bottomed power
boats.

Take a look here and see if you can figure out any of the answers you
are seeking:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-08-080001.jpg



Note that the round stainless steel drain on the port side next to the
engine is above the waterline.

Note that the transom cutout portion is 25" high.

Note the areas of the boat's bottom outboard of the trim tabs.

Any wheels turning up there between your ears?


Maybe this photo will help allay your fears:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...olisparker.jpg


Here's another bottom photo for you to ponder:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...C/IMG_0441.jpg

And another:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-factory-3.jpg



Get to work, grasshopper.

Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them in
the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and mildew.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them in
the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and mildew.


Gee, Reggieturd...next time I need the opinion of a know-nothing flaming
asshole, I'll be sure to contact you.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them in
the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and mildew.


Gee, Reggieturd...next time I need the opinion of a know-nothing flaming
asshole, I'll be sure to contact you.

Do you keep the boots in the boat or inside?

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Oct 13, 8:16 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
Which boat will dip into a wave??

Hummmmmm....

http://www.yaimkool.com/imjustsayin.htm

;)

I included the link again cause I do have a question. I have been
looking at low transom boats and accepted Harrys assertion of the
benefits of a LT (ie. quick empty cockpit etc.) as I also have a LT
boat even if it is worth less than Harrys guage cluster;) Anyway, I
was watching my transom ride way above everything I could throw at it
and with my wide flat (primary stability/bouyancy) hull it makes a lot
of sense as it takes a great amount of pressure to dip my transom,
right from the start. What I can't understand is how a LT is good on a
deep vee (with secondary or in this case, delayed stability/bouyancy).
In rough water the transom can rise and fall. The deep vee does not
provide nearly as much bouyancy high in the water and the momentum of
the drop to sea level comes much more slowly. The momentum of such a
heavy hull, and narrow surface presence could much more easily allow a
deep vee to submerge. Much more easily that a flat or relatively flat
bay boat the same way a deep vee rolls more in relation to the surface
compared to a flat boat. Remember, bouyancy is only relational to the
surface area of contact with the hull. After considering this I am
wondering why anyone would really build a LT into a deep Vee, big
water type boat? Or is a Parker really a bay boat, not intended for
rough water? Kind of like a Suzuki Samuri, looks like it's built for
the trails, but really built for the urban dweller?

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...

I'm not "****ed" at your attempts to educate yourself. I think you're a
funny guy, with very, very limited experience in real vee-bottomed power
boats.

Take a look here and see if you can figure out any of the answers you
are seeking:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...00CC/DSC_02352...

Note that the round stainless steel drain on the port side next to the
engine is above the waterline.

Note that the transom cutout portion is 25" high.

Note the areas of the boat's bottom outboard of the trim tabs.

Any wheels turning up there between your ears?

Maybe this photo will help allay your fears:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...00CC/annapolis...

Here's another bottom photo for you to ponder:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...C/IMG_0441.jpg

And another:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...00CC/parker21-...

Get to work, grasshopper.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am on it sensi... Having trouble with some of the links, probably on
my end...

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

wrote:

I am on it sensi... Having trouble with some of the links, probably on
my end...


Me, too. Let's try these.

http://tinyurl.com/2tvej7

http://tinyurl.com/2juohq

http://tinyurl.com/2sgr9v

http://tinyurl.com/3yshww

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them in
the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and mildew.


Gee, Reggieturd...next time I need the opinion of a know-nothing
flaming asshole, I'll be sure to contact you.

Do you keep the boots in the boat or inside?



Since you insist upon acting as if you were a junior high a**hole,
there's no reason to treat you as if you were not.

I keep the boots in the Atlanta area. When I want to store them, I bring
them down to your area, along with a tube of trailer bearing grease, ask
two pansies to bend you over a rail, and watch them shove the boots up
your butt.

Now, you want to behave decently, or you want to continue acting like a
little twerp?

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Oct 13, 11:26 am, HK wrote:
wrote:

I am on it sensi... Having trouble with some of the links, probably on
my end...

Me, too. Let's try these.

http://tinyurl.com/2tvej7

http://tinyurl.com/2juohq

http://tinyurl.com/2sgr9v

http://tinyurl.com/3yshww

I am starting to see the flaw in my thinking... I am noting that other
than up on plane, the water level at the transom would probably not be
below the chine logs (into the vee)... Hummmmm... I'm lernin;)

As to LT on an off shore boat, I guess it can be done safely, but I am
still trying to figure out why when there are probably better options
in most conditions, on most hull configurations... Hummmm, I'll be
back;)

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them
in the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and
mildew.


Gee, Reggieturd...next time I need the opinion of a know-nothing
flaming asshole, I'll be sure to contact you.

Do you keep the boots in the boat or inside?



Since you insist upon acting as if you were a junior high a**hole,
there's no reason to treat you as if you were not.

I keep the boots in the Atlanta area. When I want to store them, I bring
them down to your area, along with a tube of trailer bearing grease, ask
two pansies to bend you over a rail, and watch them shove the boots up
your butt.

Now, you want to behave decently, or you want to continue acting like a
little twerp?

Harry,
It looks like you need to take your own advice.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:26 am, HK wrote:
wrote:

I am on it sensi... Having trouble with some of the links, probably on
my end...
Me, too. Let's try these.

http://tinyurl.com/2tvej7

http://tinyurl.com/2juohq

http://tinyurl.com/2sgr9v

http://tinyurl.com/3yshww

I am starting to see the flaw in my thinking... I am noting that other
than up on plane, the water level at the transom would probably not be
below the chine logs (into the vee)... Hummmmm... I'm lernin;)

As to LT on an off shore boat, I guess it can be done safely, but I am
still trying to figure out why when there are probably better options
in most conditions, on most hull configurations... Hummmm, I'll be
back;)



You're learning, grasshopper. The chines are there to add stabilization
at rest and to knock down spray at speed.

Every "configuration" is a compromise. As an example, the "eurotransoms"
found on many boats cut down on interior space, make it more of a reach
to handle a fish off the stern, and...despite the fact that they look
like they might block backwash, don't in many cases. The water comes
right aboard when it "wants" to do so. A transom with scuppers in the
right place and large enough for their intended purpose is just fine.

A bracket, as I had on my former Parker, stops most backwash, period.
But...it gets in the way of fishing and when you drop off plane, the
water level tends to be, at least for a moment, right at the bottom of
the powerhead cover.

I like the cut-out transom on smaller boats like the one I have now.
Boat balances better (boat floats more level at rest), easy to fish off
the stern, boat drains fast.

There is a splashguard option. I saw it at the dealership. My feeling
was that it would not be necessary.

You know, I used to "go offshore" in 12 to 15 foot wood boats with
slablike 15" transoms. Should I have been worried?

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them
in the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and
mildew.


Gee, Reggieturd...next time I need the opinion of a know-nothing
flaming asshole, I'll be sure to contact you.

Do you keep the boots in the boat or inside?



Since you insist upon acting as if you were a junior high a**hole,
there's no reason to treat you as if you were not.

I keep the boots in the Atlanta area. When I want to store them, I
bring them down to your area, along with a tube of trailer bearing
grease, ask two pansies to bend you over a rail, and watch them shove
the boots up your butt.

Now, you want to behave decently, or you want to continue acting like
a little twerp?

Harry,
It looks like you need to take your own advice.


Virtually everyone here is "behaving" reasonably, R., Except for you,
the usual turds, and sometimes Wayne. Is it beyond your capability to
keep your snarkiness in check?

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,

Do you keep your knee-high boots in the boat or bring them
inside? I would recommend you bring them inside, if you keep them
in the boat during the winter, you can have problems with mold and
mildew.


Gee, Reggieturd...next time I need the opinion of a know-nothing
flaming asshole, I'll be sure to contact you.

Do you keep the boots in the boat or inside?



Since you insist upon acting as if you were a junior high a**hole,
there's no reason to treat you as if you were not.

I keep the boots in the Atlanta area. When I want to store them, I
bring them down to your area, along with a tube of trailer bearing
grease, ask two pansies to bend you over a rail, and watch them shove
the boots up your butt.

Now, you want to behave decently, or you want to continue acting like
a little twerp?

Harry,
It looks like you need to take your own advice.


Virtually everyone here is "behaving" reasonably, R., Except for you,
the usual turds, and sometimes Wayne. Is it beyond your capability to
keep your snarkiness in check?

Harry,
I would recommend you look at your own behavior, I am the epitome of
behaving reasonable, when compared to you.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Oct 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...

I'd say that if the LT parkers were unsafe they wouldn't be selling
them.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Tim wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...

I'd say that if the LT parkers were unsafe they wouldn't be selling
them.



The transoms aren't low, they're notched. Whichever newsgroup idiot
started this doesn't know the difference. The model Parker I have has
been in continuous production (except for one year) for more than 25
years, with very minor changes. The one year it was out of production
was the year the company introduced a cabin pilothouse model on the same
hull, and it didn't have enough 21' deep vee molds to keep up with
demand for the latter.

Parker makes notched transom models to 25'. They are by far the
company's most popular boats among their fishermen customers.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:14:02 -0400, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:

I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...

I'd say that if the LT parkers were unsafe they wouldn't be selling
them.



The transoms aren't low, they're notched. Whichever newsgroup idiot
started this doesn't know the difference. The model Parker I have has
been in continuous production (except for one year) for more than 25
years, with very minor changes. The one year it was out of production
was the year the company introduced a cabin pilothouse model on the same
hull, and it didn't have enough 21' deep vee molds to keep up with
demand for the latter.

Parker makes notched transom models to 25'. They are by far the
company's most popular boats among their fishermen customers.

Harry, did you ever consider that about 99.9% of the posts about your low
transom are made simply to get a rise out of you? No one seriously believes
the low (or notched) transom is unsafe or unseaworthy. They're pulling your
chain, and you're letting them.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:14:02 -0400, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...
I'd say that if the LT parkers were unsafe they wouldn't be selling
them.


The transoms aren't low, they're notched. Whichever newsgroup idiot
started this doesn't know the difference. The model Parker I have has
been in continuous production (except for one year) for more than 25
years, with very minor changes. The one year it was out of production
was the year the company introduced a cabin pilothouse model on the same
hull, and it didn't have enough 21' deep vee molds to keep up with
demand for the latter.

Parker makes notched transom models to 25'. They are by far the
company's most popular boats among their fishermen customers.

Harry, did you ever consider that about 99.9% of the posts about your low
transom are made simply to get a rise out of you? No one seriously believes
the low (or notched) transom is unsafe or unseaworthy. They're pulling your
chain, and you're letting them.


I believe you are correct regarding those who understand what they see,
but we do have a few boating fools here, like Returdo, who don't know
any better.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

John H. wrote:

Harry, did you ever consider that about 99.9% of the posts about your
low
transom are made simply to get a rise out of you? No one seriously
believes
the low (or notched) transom is unsafe or unseaworthy. They're pulling
your
chain, and you're letting them.


I believe you are correct regarding those who understand what they see,
but we do have a few boating fools here, like Returdo, who don't know
any better.

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the reason for a notched transom on a
deep or modified deep V hull with decent deadrise.

It's so the standard length outboard legs will keep the prop in the water.

Eisboch

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

John H. wrote:
Harry, did you ever consider that about 99.9% of the posts about your
low
transom are made simply to get a rise out of you? No one seriously
believes
the low (or notched) transom is unsafe or unseaworthy. They're pulling
your
chain, and you're letting them.

I believe you are correct regarding those who understand what they see,
but we do have a few boating fools here, like Returdo, who don't know
any better.

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the reason for a notched transom on a
deep or modified deep V hull with decent deadrise.

It's so the standard length outboard legs will keep the prop in the water.

Eisboch



What's the "standard" length leg on an outboard these days?

Mine is 25". When I bought my first Parker, I was considering the 21'
pilothouse, and talked to Parker about the notched hull. Parker,
obviously, can design whatever it wants into its boats. I was told the
brackets threw the hull off balance. From what I have seen of smaller
boats with brackets, I believe that.

What I really don't like: eurotransoms.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:58:44 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:14:02 -0400, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...
I'd say that if the LT parkers were unsafe they wouldn't be selling
them.

The transoms aren't low, they're notched. Whichever newsgroup idiot
started this doesn't know the difference. The model Parker I have has
been in continuous production (except for one year) for more than 25
years, with very minor changes. The one year it was out of production
was the year the company introduced a cabin pilothouse model on the same
hull, and it didn't have enough 21' deep vee molds to keep up with
demand for the latter.

Parker makes notched transom models to 25'. They are by far the
company's most popular boats among their fishermen customers.
Harry, did you ever consider that about 99.9% of the posts about your low
transom are made simply to get a rise out of you? No one seriously believes
the low (or notched) transom is unsafe or unseaworthy. They're pulling your
chain, and you're letting them.

I believe you are correct regarding those who understand what they see,
but we do have a few boating fools here, like Returdo, who don't know
any better.

Trust me. He's quite knowledgeable about boats.

I've never seen any evidence of that.

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


What's the "standard" length leg on an outboard these days?

Mine is 25". When I bought my first Parker, I was considering the 21'
pilothouse, and talked to Parker about the notched hull. Parker,
obviously, can design whatever it wants into its boats. I was told the
brackets threw the hull off balance. From what I have seen of smaller
boats with brackets, I believe that.

What I really don't like: eurotransoms.

If not mistaken, I believe 21 to 25 inches is considered "standard" length.

I think a bracket is great if the boat is overall designed for it.

Eisboch

I'm just sayin' ;)
 

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:58:44 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:14:02 -0400, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:13 pm, wrote:
I know Harry wll be ****ed, but hopefully someone with a smaller chip
can answer my question rationally;) Sorry Harry, like your boat, but
still have my concerns...
I'd say that if the LT parkers were unsafe they wouldn't be selling
them.


The transoms aren't low, they're notched. Whichever newsgroup idiot
started this doesn't know the difference. The model Parker I have has
been in continuous production (except for one year) for more than 25
years, with very minor changes. The one year it was out of production
was the year the company introduced a cabin pilothouse model on the same
hull, and it didn't have enough 21' deep vee molds to keep up with
demand for the latter.

Parker makes notched transom models to 25'. They are by far the
company's most popular boats among their fishermen customers.

Harry, did you ever consider that about 99.9% of the posts about your low
transom are made simply to get a rise out of you? No one seriously believes
the low (or notched) transom is unsafe or unseaworthy. They're pulling your
chain, and you're letting them.


I believe you are correct regarding those who understand what they see,
but we do have a few boating fools here, like Returdo, who don't know
any better.

Trust me. He's quite knowledgeable about boats.