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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.