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

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.

HK wrote:


Sitting in an oversized old tub of a GB is not my kind of boating. It
wasn't then, and it isn't now.

So the lobster boat was...a LIE?

Who would have thought...




Since you have a reading problem, I snipped out the confusing stuff for you.

Dan 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.


Maybe *you* would, but I like nicely finished boats with visible
quality. Dusky boats are sturdy, but they are not finished that well,
and they use cheesy hardware. Good enough for Dingy Dan, but not for me.

As always, Dan, go f*** yourself, and have fun doing it.

Dan wrote:
HK wrote:


Sitting in an oversized old tub of a GB is not my kind of boating.
It wasn't then, and it isn't now.

So the lobster boat was...a LIE?

Who would have thought...




Since you have a reading problem, I snipped out the confusing stuff for
you.


As always, Dan, go f*** yourself, and have a nice time.

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.

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.

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.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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.


I've seen only a few on Chesapeake Bay, but they do have a "following"
as reasonably priced, sturdy fishing boats. Used to see them all the
time in Florida, of course. Hey...I think they come with, horrors, eTecs!

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.