JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats
built with no transom at all........)


No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said
the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on
water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take
on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your
review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-)

The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles"
are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. They
are articles designed to peak the readers interest in the boat and
boating in general. As we have discussed many times previously, all
boating and speciality magazines in general, write these kind of
articles to promote their hobbies, interest and to increase their
readership, so they can increase their ad revenue.

When Chuck posts them in rec.boats he encourages boating discussions,
but no one should ever assume Chuck's, or any boat magazine boat
article, is a critical review of a boat. Most people (probably all
people) who buy boating magazines understand the articles are not
critical reviews, so when you read Chuck's reprints of those articles in
rec.boats you really need to understand he does not pretend they are
critical reviews, why do you?