Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:32:15 -0500, HK wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:49:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I believe you. I just did not know what you East Coast snobs were
referring
to.

Imagine this..........sport fishing in the Gulf, the Great Lakes, the
Pacific. Wow, how can I think such a thing exists.

Eh?
Shhh, Jim. Don't burst that bubble. Don't you know that a 15 knot
breeze on the E Coast blows 2-3 times as hard as anywhere else (and
according to some sources generates 11-foot breakers)? The sea itself
is particularly nasty, erratic, and unforgiving in the western
Atlantic, so only the manliest of men in the roughest, toughest hand
laid hulls inspected by "old guys" dare venture out? No boat suitable
for use on the E Coast could even be considered desirable on any other
body of water, and nothing built outside of Jersey or the Carolinas
has any business trying to tackle the world's most challenging boating
conditions. :-)

You have been in the NorthWet entirely to long, and Jim is just being
Eerie (again). I once had a business colleague from Indiana who was
always waxing poetic about his state. One day I told him that he was
no doubt correct, but that if I were to move to Indiana I'd want to be
in the mountains or along the sea shore. It took him a moment to get
my point. All that by way of saying that the great Pacific NorthWet
could meet those requirements easily, which means that they need to be
ammended - to include sunshine.




Indiana sucks. Big time. I have been to that state many times, and
concluded years ago it really had almost nothing to offer. The little
bit of shoreline it has along Lake Michigan incorporates several of the
crummiest cities in America.

There's hardly a worse place to be in the summer than in inland Indiana.

Having been through there many times, on trips to the west, I think
Indiana
has a lot to offer.

It's thin.

Try it from Florida to Chicago, it ain't short....

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Nov 6, 7:06 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:34:07 -0000, wrote:
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!

You're right, I misremembered. Though I did find one example, it was
a defunct sub-par mfg using sub-par foam, so it doesn't count.
What I should have said is that pounding often causes delamination of
FRP from cores of any type if the mfg/workers aren't top quality.
Another issue with cored hulls is water intrusion, which can
cause/accererate delamination.
There are weight/strength/insulation benefits to cored hulls.
Its up to the owner to decide what trade-offs he will make.
Buying a known good quality boat is important, but I've read that
most Boston Whalers and Carolina Skiffs have to some degree
waterlogged cores. You can easily verify that.
Some of that water gets in because owners don't seal their work
correctly, and some leaks are from the factory.
Anyway the integrity of a cored hull poses different issues than
that of a solid FRP hull.
I can understand why some people won't have a cored hull.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, cored hulls are different from composite construction, though.
You can make a composite out of more than one of anything! Come to
Atlanta, and I'll show you a pedestrian bridge I participated in that
was designed by GT students and the structural frame is made
completely out of composite material. Very sturdy, half the weight of
a steel structure. There are many, many lightpoles in use today that
are carbon fiber composites, and I dare say that if you made one out
of FRP construction, it would snap like a twig!

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:02:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

Because of appearance, or structural concerns?

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:35:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:02:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

Because of appearance, or structural concerns?

There are advantages to these large bracket setbacks - in effect they
are lengthen the boat which increases performance for any given
horsepower. Cockpit room is gained by moving the engine back and
there is a minor advantage with noise. Looks aren't as important, but
they don't add much to appearance. Mechanically, as long as they are
properly installed with appropriate backing plates, they are fine.

The major problem, in my opinion, is that they change the CG
bow-to-stern and the attack angle coming on and off plane. There is a
lot of leverage with the stern acting as the fulcrum which, again in
my opinion, can't be good for the transom over time unless it's an
extremely well built and connected stern. I have nothing to back the
later up by the way, just an opinion.

Operationally the main problem to me is that they tend to bury out
outboards up to the cowling on take off and coming off plane with the
exhaust ports exposed to incoming water. Back a few years ago, I
stalled a FICHT on a 23 Fish Hawk CC coming off plane because of
exhaust/water problems. On take off, I could actually bury the engine
about halfway up the engine cowling at certain trim angles. I've heard
reports of that happening with other engines, but nothing I can link
to or report on other than my own experience.

In my opinion, which is worth whatever, jack plates can accomplish the
same thing and they are adjustable.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:14:23 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:17:39 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

HK wrote:


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.
You should have considered one of these if you really believe hull
weight is that much of an advantage. Note the *full* transom complete
with a bracket.

http://www.dusky.com/boats/dus203xf.html

BTW- They come in white.

I like the looks of that 33 Fisharound.

Don't care much for the brackets.

You wouldn't like the fit and finish on those boats, or the aluminum
railings on most of the models.

I've never seen one.

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

A few of the guys around here have bought Defiance Boats
http://www.defianceboats.com/
They are happy with them and about $25k less than a Parker. And they have a
Transom.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:14:23 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:17:39 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

HK wrote:

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.
You should have considered one of these if you really believe hull
weight is that much of an advantage. Note the *full* transom complete
with a bracket.

http://www.dusky.com/boats/dus203xf.html

BTW- They come in white.
I like the looks of that 33 Fisharound.

Don't care much for the brackets.
You wouldn't like the fit and finish on those boats, or the aluminum
railings on most of the models.
I've never seen one.

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

A few of the guys around here have bought Defiance Boats
http://www.defianceboats.com/
They are happy with them and about $25k less than a Parker. And they have a
Transom.




Kind of an ugly house, though.

http://tinyurl.com/2kv63

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:14:23 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:17:39 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

HK wrote:

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.
You should have considered one of these if you really believe hull
weight is that much of an advantage. Note the *full* transom
complete
with a bracket.

http://www.dusky.com/boats/dus203xf.html

BTW- They come in white.
I like the looks of that 33 Fisharound.

Don't care much for the brackets.
You wouldn't like the fit and finish on those boats, or the aluminum
railings on most of the models.
I've never seen one.

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

A few of the guys around here have bought Defiance Boats
http://www.defianceboats.com/
They are happy with them and about $25k less than a Parker. And they
have a Transom.



Kind of an ugly house, though.

http://tinyurl.com/2kv63r


Weird...that shortened url ain't workin'

http://tinyurl.com/2kv63r

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:18:23 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:14:23 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:17:39 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

HK wrote:


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.
You should have considered one of these if you really believe hull
weight is that much of an advantage. Note the *full* transom complete
with a bracket.

http://www.dusky.com/boats/dus203xf.html

BTW- They come in white.

I like the looks of that 33 Fisharound.

Don't care much for the brackets.

You wouldn't like the fit and finish on those boats, or the aluminum
railings on most of the models.

I've never seen one.

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

A few of the guys around here have bought Defiance Boats
http://www.defianceboats.com/
They are happy with them and about $25k less than a Parker. And they have a
Transom.


Read the 'Why Defiance' link and you'll see why they are boat builders and
not English teachers!

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:31:35 -0500, HK wrote:

HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:14:23 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:17:39 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

HK wrote:

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.
You should have considered one of these if you really believe hull
weight is that much of an advantage. Note the *full* transom
complete
with a bracket.

http://www.dusky.com/boats/dus203xf.html

BTW- They come in white.
I like the looks of that 33 Fisharound.

Don't care much for the brackets.
You wouldn't like the fit and finish on those boats, or the aluminum
railings on most of the models.
I've never seen one.

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

A few of the guys around here have bought Defiance Boats
http://www.defianceboats.com/
They are happy with them and about $25k less than a Parker. And they
have a Transom.



Kind of an ugly house, though.

http://tinyurl.com/2kv63r


Weird...that shortened url ain't workin'

http://tinyurl.com/2kv63r



Both worked for me, and if I had to choose, money being no object, I'd
choose the Parker.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:54:09 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:32:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:35:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:02:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm not a big fan of brackets though and those look like the kind that
I particularly don't like.

Because of appearance, or structural concerns?

There are advantages to these large bracket setbacks - in effect they
are lengthen the boat which increases performance for any given
horsepower. Cockpit room is gained by moving the engine back and
there is a minor advantage with noise. Looks aren't as important, but
they don't add much to appearance. Mechanically, as long as they are
properly installed with appropriate backing plates, they are fine.

Agreed.

The major problem, in my opinion, is that they change the CG
bow-to-stern and the attack angle coming on and off plane. There is a
lot of leverage with the stern acting as the fulcrum which, again in
my opinion, can't be good for the transom over time unless it's an
extremely well built and connected stern. I have nothing to back the
later up by the way, just an opinion.

Agreed. I think you are entirely correct. My transom is every bit of 3
inches thick.... and I am sure it is to support the stresses imposed
by the bracket. The newer "eurotransom" allows an extra 50hp in the
same hull.

I ran a 23 Hydra-Sport Vector CC (same hull as Fishhawk) that also had
a hydraulic jack plate installed at the end of the bracket. That was
really interesting. You could move the bow/stern CG just up raising
and lowering the engine. Add in the trim adjustment and you had
virtually infinite adjustment for just about any running condition.
The day that I took the boat out, I ran outside of the Westerly/Watch
Hill Reef from Fisher's Island to Watch Hill with 1-3 foot seas - at
one point, I could get the Hydra-Sports so it wouldn't even see the
sea state at about 40 MPH.

That didn't last long, but it proves the point.

Operationally the main problem to me is that they tend to bury out
outboards up to the cowling on take off and coming off plane with the
exhaust ports exposed to incoming water. Back a few years ago, I
stalled a FICHT on a 23 Fish Hawk CC coming off plane because of
exhaust/water problems. On take off, I could actually bury the engine
about halfway up the engine cowling at certain trim angles. I've heard
reports of that happening with other engines, but nothing I can link
to or report on other than my own experience.

All this is true, though, on my boat, not to that extreme. It does
make one more careful about the transition to and from plane.

Another thing about brackets is that they can make slow speed
maneuvering a real experience... especially in a brisk cross wind....

Yep - the whole power/weight dynamic ratio is changed with a bracket.

In my opinion, which is worth whatever, jack plates can accomplish the
same thing and they are adjustable.

They are probably the better choice.... if given one.....

Also true.