Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Nov 5, 6:10 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Why?

I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

--Vic

I'd like to see some data, pictures, etc. backing that claim up!
Whoever wrote such sounds just like some old fart that's afraid of new
technology no matter what!

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:21:41 -0500, HK wrote:

D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less" to
run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

The boat originally in question was a 34 footer with twin outboards.
The numbers are pretty conclusive that the break even point on cost is
less than 200 hours of operation. Maintenance cost on the diesels
should not become a factor until well beyond 2,000 hours.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK
wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of
those diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost
of a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots
of hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a
long time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in
maintenance $/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the
initial cost. The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels
engines financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less"
to run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Since I have not run a diesel engine, (and don't run my engine enough
to see the cost savings) I can not speak from personal experience, but
I have always heard truckers and working fisherman use diesels because
it does cost less, even with the high maintenance and repair charges.


Yeah, everyone hears that. I have a old friend who has a 36-footer with
two Cat engines. The boat is maybe eight years old, and it doesn't have
high hours. He maintains the boat by the book. He's spent tens of
thousands of dollars keeping the engines running. If memory serves, he
had a turbocharger failure this year.

Not that outboards would help him because the boat is too large and too
heavy.

If you read any of the serious boating message boards, you'll note how
easy it is to find diesel horror $torie$.


Or aftercooler...I forgot which component he said failed.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:13:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I've seen a couple of insurance boats that would make good candidates
for this approach.

If you want to end up with a great boat at a reasonable price
(reasonable is relative), I'd start out with something better than an
insurance boat so that you can spend most of the money on cosmetic
stuff. The Berts have great electrical systems so that's not usually
a problem. The 8V92TIs can be completely refurbed for $30K each, a
new genset for another 20K. Figure another 30K for new controls,
instruments and electronics. A good awlgrip job will run about 30 to
50K, complete interior refurb 50 to 100K, new canvas 10K, new props
and shafts 10K.



In Short Wave's case, I think you are a little light in the new controls,
instruments and electronics.

Ever see his daily driver?

http://www.eisboch.com/instruments.jpg

Eisboch


Tom would be right at home in those 'Mad Max' movies out of Australia.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..

Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a long
time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in maintenance
$/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the initial cost.



Last May I decided I didn't need a big pickup truck anymore so I traded in
a '05 Ford 4x4 Superduty diesel F-350 crew cab for a '07 Ford Ranger 4x4
extended cab with a 4.0L gas engine.

The 325 hp diesel truck weighed over 7,000 lbs and got 17 mpg around town
and 19-20 mpg on the highway.

The Ranger, at about half the weight and with just over 200 hp gets poorer
mileage, in both around town and highway driving.

Eisboch

Yeah but... just think how cool you look sporting around town now. You did
get a red Ranger?

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:13:25 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..

Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a long
time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in maintenance
$/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the initial cost.
Last May I decided I didn't need a big pickup truck anymore so I traded in a
'05 Ford 4x4 Superduty diesel F-350 crew cab for a '07 Ford Ranger 4x4
extended cab with a 4.0L gas engine.

The 325 hp diesel truck weighed over 7,000 lbs and got 17 mpg around town
and 19-20 mpg on the highway.

The Ranger, at about half the weight and with just over 200 hp gets poorer
mileage, in both around town and highway driving.

If my 7.3 had not been totaled, I'd still be driving it.

This F-150 with the 5.4 Triton, 3.85 "tow" package sucks in gas milage
and in horsepower.

Mine works just fine. The gas sucking thing works really well. Hwy 19,
City 15. When the oxygenated gas is used is drops to Hwy 15 and City 12.

Towing 5000# I get about 12.

I hate it.

I love mine. It's paid for only costs me gas, insurance, maintenance.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:21:41 -0500, HK wrote:

D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less" to
run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

The boat originally in question was a 34 footer with twin outboards.
The numbers are pretty conclusive that the break even point on cost is
less than 200 hours of operation. Maintenance cost on the diesels
should not become a factor until well beyond 2,000 hours.


Actually, the numbers you are were "pretty conclusive," but nothing more
than speculation, and you had gas prices a buck more a gallon than
diesel. That's not the case at my favorite marina, where the last time I
filled up, diesel and gas were much closer in price than that.

Further, I'm not aware of any "longevity" stats (hours between major
rebuilds?) on high horsepower four cycle outboard engines that could be
used for comparison with diesels of similar horsepower under similar
use. Are you? I do know that the newer diesels that are turning fairly
high RPMS and are equipped with air/fuel "boost" gear (turbos and the
like) don't have the MTBF stats of the older, slower diesels.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:13:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I've seen a couple of insurance boats that would make good candidates
for this approach.
If you want to end up with a great boat at a reasonable price
(reasonable is relative), I'd start out with something better than an
insurance boat so that you can spend most of the money on cosmetic
stuff. The Berts have great electrical systems so that's not usually
a problem. The 8V92TIs can be completely refurbed for $30K each, a
new genset for another 20K. Figure another 30K for new controls,
instruments and electronics. A good awlgrip job will run about 30 to
50K, complete interior refurb 50 to 100K, new canvas 10K, new props
and shafts 10K.


In Short Wave's case, I think you are a little light in the new controls,
instruments and electronics.

Ever see his daily driver?

http://www.eisboch.com/instruments.jpg

Eisboch


Tom would be right at home in those 'Mad Max' movies out of Australia.


Playing either the title role, or the Tina Turner role.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:32:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the
bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know
they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat.
Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to
anything Hinckley is putting out.....right?
I'll admit it right up front - I had my doubts about vacuum bagging
with foam core up and until I saw the process being done.

I'm convinced now that it's a pretty good method given the proper
materials in the manufacturing process. In my opinion, which matters
little I realize, it's a better method than the Ranger hand laid
glass, foam fill method.

Stratos has been using the technique for a while using Kevlar/Carbon
composite weave and those boats are tough.

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Nor would I....and the numbers quoted in support of these infusion
technologies, when compared to a more traditional cored construction,
is a meaningless comparison.

The process yields a sound structural assembly, but a lot of the hype
is to promote licen$ing of the SCRIMP portions of the process.

Note that the subject boat is injected with vinyl ester resin..... not
epoxy.... and makes no mention of the type of fibers or warp schedule
used.

Similarly, the hype from the NSWC is meaningless because it gives no
meaningful comparative measures. The NSWC's numbers may have looked
really good because they were paying the bill for development.

A boat that weighs as much as a cork will float, but you better hang
on to your teeth and your kidneys.....



One of the most appealing aspects of my little 21' Parker is that the
bare hull weighs about 2900 pounds. Lighter deep vee boats of the same
length and width "bounce" a hell of a lot more.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

HK wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:32:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the
bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know
they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat.
Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to
anything Hinckley is putting out.....right?
I'll admit it right up front - I had my doubts about vacuum bagging
with foam core up and until I saw the process being done.

I'm convinced now that it's a pretty good method given the proper
materials in the manufacturing process. In my opinion, which matters
little I realize, it's a better method than the Ranger hand laid
glass, foam fill method.

Stratos has been using the technique for a while using Kevlar/Carbon
composite weave and those boats are tough.

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy
any boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Nor would I....and the numbers quoted in support of these infusion
technologies, when compared to a more traditional cored construction,
is a meaningless comparison.

The process yields a sound structural assembly, but a lot of the hype
is to promote licen$ing of the SCRIMP portions of the process.

Note that the subject boat is injected with vinyl ester resin..... not
epoxy.... and makes no mention of the type of fibers or warp schedule
used.

Similarly, the hype from the NSWC is meaningless because it gives no
meaningful comparative measures. The NSWC's numbers may have looked
really good because they were paying the bill for development.

A boat that weighs as much as a cork will float, but you better hang
on to your teeth and your kidneys.....



One of the most appealing aspects of my little 21' Parker is that the
bare hull weighs about 2900 pounds. Lighter deep vee boats of the same
length and width "bounce" a hell of a lot more.

What is the hull of your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat made of.