Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

The occasional wake or cross wake that sneaks up on you
will make the boat pound, but that's true for the hull of any
manufacturer.

Ahem ...

Not so fast, there Short Sport.

Eisboch




Occasional wave? I'm talking about hard chop, the kind that makes a flat
bottomed boat bounce pretty continuously, even at slow planing speeds.

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:53:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

The occasional wake or cross wake that sneaks up on you
will make the boat pound, but that's true for the hull of any
manufacturer.

Ahem ...

Not so fast, there Short Sport.

What? :)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:53:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The occasional wake or cross wake that sneaks up on you
will make the boat pound, but that's true for the hull of any
manufacturer.

Ahem ...

Not so fast, there Short Sport.


Ayyup.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:42:55 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The occasional wake or cross wake that sneaks up on you
will make the boat pound, but that's true for the hull of any
manufacturer.

No, not true at all. It is true for all planing hulls however.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:42:55 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The occasional wake or cross wake that sneaks up on you
will make the boat pound, but that's true for the hull of any
manufacturer.

No, not true at all. It is true for all planing hulls however.

Indeed, one's boat has to be moving fast enough for its bow to be out of
the water, in a plane. My canoe doesn't pound.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:38:52 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:42:55 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

The occasional wake or cross wake that sneaks up on you
will make the boat pound, but that's true for the hull of any
manufacturer.

No, not true at all. It is true for all planing hulls however.

Not if you are in a boat that is longer than my house and half as wide
- I mean we're talking real boats here.

Ok, that didn't come out right. :)

Allow me to rephrase.

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

There - much bettererer... :)

On Oct 9, 3:45 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
Which boat will dip into a wave??

Hummmmmm....

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



Which one will bounce hard enough in a real chop to loosen your fillings?

Actually now that I think about it, maybe both would loosen your
fillings as I did "design" them both with 12 degree deadrise... In
comparison to your Parker, they are both "flat bottom" boats for all
practical purposes. I was just comparing a boat with primary stability
to one with secondary.

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...

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.

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.