113 gallons per hour...
 

Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin center
console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT (67 mph)
but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who buys
one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel wastage
tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for owning
such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

The problem Harry is where do you draw the line? To some, your fuel usage
on a "non-essential" luxury such as your Parker is wasteful.

I think these things tend to self-goven .... as they should in a free
society.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:

Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...RUISE-SHIP.jpg


That is one ugly ship. Looks like a wedding cake.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:

Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...RUISE-SHIP.jpg

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:08:37 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:

Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...RUISE-SHIP.jpg


That is one ugly ship. Looks like a wedding cake.

Once I figure out how to use Reggie's picture site, I'll post a picture of
a pretty ship.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

113 gallons per hour...
 

That is one ugly ship. Looks like a wedding cake.

Maybe, but the food is good!

--Mike

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:

Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...RUISE-SHIP.jpg


That is one ugly ship. Looks like a wedding cake.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

John H. wrote:

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...RUISE-SHIP.jpg


That is one ugly ship. Looks like a wedding cake.



Like some other brands, it is "purpose built".

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:08:37 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:

Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.
Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...RUISE-SHIP.jpg

That is one ugly ship. Looks like a wedding cake.

Once I figure out how to use Reggie's picture site, I'll post a picture of
a pretty ship.

Download http://www.webshots.com/samplers/

Open a free account and easily upload the photos.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



I also remember when Harry was building his custom 36 ft'er, GPH or MPG
were not including in his criteria, speed to his fishing area was his
only criteria.

The trawler seems to be a great option for those who are spending a lot
of time boating and enjoy the experience of boating. Like life, it is
the journey not the destination.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?




What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



I also remember when Harry was building his custom 36 ft'er, GPH or MPG
were not including in his criteria, speed to his fishing area was his
only criteria.

The trawler seems to be a great option for those who are spending a lot
of time boating and enjoy the experience of boating. Like life, it is
the journey not the destination.

Didn't he get a sweet heart deal on ULLICO or WorldCom stock that
enabled him to pay for his 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat. I wonder why
he doesn't talk about it now?

113 gallons per hour...
 

BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just
for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



I also remember when Harry was building his custom 36 ft'er, GPH or
MPG were not including in his criteria, speed to his fishing area was
his only criteria.

The trawler seems to be a great option for those who are spending a
lot of time boating and enjoy the experience of boating. Like life,
it is the journey not the destination.

Didn't he get a sweet heart deal on ULLICO or WorldCom stock that
enabled him to pay for his 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat. I wonder why
he doesn't talk about it now?



Wow...a circle jerk.

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000
just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the
hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



I also remember when Harry was building his custom 36 ft'er, GPH or
MPG were not including in his criteria, speed to his fishing area was
his only criteria.

The trawler seems to be a great option for those who are spending a
lot of time boating and enjoy the experience of boating. Like life,
it is the journey not the destination.

Didn't he get a sweet heart deal on ULLICO or WorldCom stock that
enabled him to pay for his 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat. I wonder
why he doesn't talk about it now?



Wow...a circle jerk.

Harry lies never die on Usenet even when you get all of your posts
deleted from Google. All of the responses are still there.

Do you want me to catalog your lies for you? This will enable you to say
yes it is still an active lie or it is one that you don't want to
perpetuate anymore.

What ever happened to the 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat? Do you still
have it, have you sold it? Just what did you do with it.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?




What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...


You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch




There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch


There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel usage
in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used for
recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously the
auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million gallons
of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of that was
in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Does your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat waste huge amounts of
dwindling resources for your fun?

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:33:23 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:55:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch


There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel usage
in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used for
recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously the
auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million gallons
of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of that was
in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

That was before the advent of ETEC. :)

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:12:38 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Does your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat waste huge amounts of
dwindling resources for your fun?

Give it up man - it's not going anywhere.

We get the point.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch


There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.




But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Nov 10, 9:49 am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000
just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the
hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

I also remember when Harry was building his custom 36 ft'er, GPH or
MPG were not including in his criteria, speed to his fishing area was
his only criteria.

The trawler seems to be a great option for those who are spending a
lot of time boating and enjoy the experience of boating. Like life,
it is the journey not the destination.

Didn't he get a sweet heart deal on ULLICO or WorldCom stock that
enabled him to pay for his 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat. I wonder
why he doesn't talk about it now?

Wow...a circle jerk.

Harry lies never die on Usenet

Unfortunately neither do you, Fritz.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?




What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

--Vic

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel usage
in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used for
recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously the
auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million gallons
of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of that was
in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch



That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of
a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch



Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

--Vic


Fox News. hehehehe.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:10:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

I love this "adjusted for inflation" crap.

It's nonsense.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It
is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used
for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously
the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million
gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of
that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of a
dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for burning
50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..



Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to that.
But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing is what
they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in it.

Unfortunately, the only fair way to deal with it is to have a across the
board fuel surcharge that applies to everyone. Use more, pay more. Heck,
congress is pushing to raise federal cigarette taxes to discourage smoking.
Everyone that smokes will pay with no special consideration to those who can
afford it and those that can't.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to that.
But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing is what
they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in it.




Let them complain.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

113 gallons per hour...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations set
up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve the
public's trust.

Good grief Harry, haven't you learned by now that government distributed
funds (usually grants) for more research and development of anything rarely
yields anything? Boondoogles mostly.

Real advancements will come from private industry when there is a financial
reward or return for the investment cost and effort.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It
is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used
for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million
gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of
a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot less
fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

I can tell you put a lot of thought into this matter.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch




There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

Why? If they are on it for pleasure, they're burning one hell of a lot of
fuel. The folks on cruise ships are burning one hell of a lot of fuel.
They're doing it for 'fun'. Driving to a ski resort burns fuel, for fun.
Maybe there should be a big 'fun tax' in addition to the tax on everything
over 49%.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch



Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

I have two concerns with nuclear.

1) We need a better alternative to the fate of spent fuel than
sweeping it under the rug.

2) It isn't cheap. I pay one utility bill to a fossil fuel(coal)
electric company and another to a nuclear fuel company. The nuclear
kwh is about 30% higher in cost than the fossil fuel.

It is a tough question, but one we are going to have to come to terms
with... I'm damn near willing to do anything to remove us from the
teat of arab oil.....


I am for nuclear power, but I am not sure I understand how it will help in
getting us off of oil.
Nuc power will reduce fossil fuel use but it is primarily coal I think.

Eisboch