" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

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



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be
willing to accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more
than an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly
engineered boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking
on open water and 5 foot seas.


The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating
discussion, the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his
review is a waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it
appears that you are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck
tells you "win" can you let this one go.


I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him
up on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like
adults without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a
fight then that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself.

BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written.
;-)


32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of
large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or
the North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating.


I agree and never said otherwise. But 32 feet and not able to take 5 foot
swells or 2 foot following seas without flooding the cockpit is a design
defect. ;-)


5' swells on the Pacific would not be a problem for the boat. Would not
flood the deck. That is a nice day here.