I'm about halfway through grinding out an item for the next issue of a regional
boating magazine. Late last week, I had the chance to try out a new 48 footer.
(Brand name withheld for reasons soon to be obvious).

With the photos back from the processor, my notes carefully reviewed, and
statistics checked, I began trying to create an interesting "snapshot" of the
boat.
I was uncertain about a measurement I had written down, so I went to the mfgr's
website to double check the number. Just for grins, I read a few reviews on the
same boat from the high dollar national mags. The mfgr had posted the reviews
on the corporate website. Ai, yi, yi!

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases. Several of the photos used in
competing publications are identical. It would be possible to write some of
those articles without ever setting foot on the boat, (not saying that anybody
did).

One of the reviewers (a licensed master) described the trolling valves as a
fall back, mechanical control system redundent to the standard electronic
engine controls. Oh, my.

Little wonder so many boating writers have mixed reputations. I suppose that by
current standards, (in most occupations), if you make a solid effort to do a
good job you're guilty of working too hard.

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases.

========================================

I'm shocked. I'll bet they really liked the boats also, and found no
nits to pick whatsoever.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:09:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases.

========================================

I'm shocked. I'll bet they really liked the boats also, and found no
nits to pick whatsoever.

Ya think?

Try "Trailer Boats" sometime - now there's a shill for manufacturers.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:09:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Two of them used almost identical verbiage and phrasing to describe
the
engines. Either that was the most remarkable coincidence of all
time, or
somebody is simply rehashing press releases.

========================================

I'm shocked. I'll bet they really liked the boats also, and found no
nits to pick whatsoever.

Ya think?

Try "Trailer Boats" sometime - now there's a shill for manufacturers.

Later,

Tom

I always assumed that if the mag didn't like the boat it didn't print
the review.
Didn't Karen get some flack over saying this same thing a while back?
Looks like she had a point, eh?

del cecchi

On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Little wonder so many boating writers have mixed reputations. I suppose that by
current standards, (in most occupations), if you make a solid effort to do a
good job you're guilty of working too hard.

You think that was bad, you should have worked for the American Radio
Relay League.

A rewritten press release is a standard operating practice.

Later,

Tom

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 03:27:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~


Little wonder so many boating writers have mixed reputations. I suppose that by
current standards, (in most occupations), if you make a solid effort to do a
good job you're guilty of working too hard.


You think that was bad, you should have worked for the American Radio
Relay League.

A rewritten press release is a standard operating practice.

Later,

Tom


Gee one of those rare threads where I can agree with most everything,
great stuff. I'll readily accept it's all being put much more politely
than me also .............

Chuck you can still do a good review & not accept or even correct the
marketing line, indeed most boats are OK on their own merit & it's
always sad to see the marketers degrade the genuine merits with spruik.



K


K

Chuck you can still do a good review & not accept or even correct the
marketing line, indeed most boats are OK on their own merit & it's
always sad to see the marketers degrade the genuine merits with spruik.

You've hit the nail on the head. Rather surprising, since most of the heads you
hit aren't connected to nails. :-)

I've never seen a major mfgr. boat that is a totally unsafe, unworkable,
ridiculous piece of crap. Every boat has something to recommend it to somebody,
for some purpose, under proper conditions.

Some of the difficulty stems from the difference beween fact and opinion.
People who have a negative, personal opinion about a boat naturally feel that
their opinion is a proven, objective fact and are not pleased when another
person fails to hold the same opinion, or consider it a proven, objective fact.

Most boat reviews are written to communicate a few specific ideas. A general
description of the boat, a list of the
product's high points, and a description of the experience underway. You
generally won't find a David Pascoe type article: ("Here's why every boat on
the market is a piece of crap and you're risking your life to leave the dock in
any of them"). If a boat review concentrates on "Here's what this boat does
particularly well......" and the information is based on reasonable
observations and factual data, that's absolutely legitimate. I nearly always
toss in a couple of slight negatives if they seem objectively apparent, (i.e. I
was slightly critical of the heads on the 46 Grand Banks- too small and mundane
compared to most of its competitors).

Some things are not absolutely cut and dried, and even naval architects can
disagree on theories and applications. Real life example: I just finished an
item on a very nice boat. The boat sells for just under $900k. Under most
circumstances, it would be my personal opinion that the stringers were
undersized - but that would be under most circumstances and it would be my
personal opinion. I don't have any way to know for sure that the stringers are
inadequate, and in any case this particular vessel has the engines mounted on
some stout powder coated beams that run immediately above the stringers and are
suspended between two bulkheads. With the weight (and torque) of the engines
removed from the stringers, would it be factual for me to state, categorically,
that the boat was underbuilt- or is it more likely that the mfgr ran a long
series of engineering studies before building a boat of this magnitude and that
somebody, somewhere, (most likely with a college degree in naval architecture)
is well satisfied that the stringers are adequate?

The hull was designed by a naval architect who also does work for Rybovich and
Palmer Johnson, so I'm not certainly not qualified to discuss the design on his
level and more or less inclined to trust in his expertise.

The result was a comment about the engine mounts, but no particular mention of
the stringers. It would be wrong to write
"The stringers are enormously overbuilt and very impressive!" It would be
equally wrong to state as a proven fact that they are too small for the boat.

Once somebody begins seriously looking at a boat, there will be no shortage of
negative feedback about the vessel. Everybody from shorebound dock walkers to
salespeople for competing brands will GD the boat unmercifully- whatever the
make and model. A salesperson selling against the boat I just finished writing
up, might ask a prospect to take a careful look at the stringers in the
salesperson's boat- and then go take a careful look at the stringers in this
particular brand. In the end, the consumer will make up his or her own mind-
maybe taking into account the difference between a strnger that has to bear the
weight and torque of the engine as well as provide longitudinal rigidity- and
maybe not.

On 22 Dec 2004 16:40:03 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

The result was a comment about the engine mounts, but no particular mention of
the stringers. It would be wrong to write
"The stringers are enormously overbuilt and very impressive!" It would be
equally wrong to state as a proven fact that they are too small for the boat.

Would it be wrong to say "The engine mounts were attached to stringers
which seemed smaller that those I've seen on other boats of this
class."?

Later,

Tom

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:06:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Would it be wrong to say "The engine mounts were attached to stringers
which seemed smaller that those I've seen on other boats of this
class."?

=========================================

Not wrong, but it doesn't really speak to the real issue which is
intended purpose. What is really needed is a tactful way of saying
that a boat is built adequately for flat water cruising on rivers and
small lakes, as well as serving as a dock side condominium.
That is a perfectly valid statement of use for some, perhaps many
people, and there is no reason they should pay more for blue water
capability. The problem arises when the manufacturer would like you
to believe that everything they build is capable of going anywhere.

Gould 0738 wrote:
Chuck you can still do a good review & not accept or even correct the
marketing line, indeed most boats are OK on their own merit & it's
always sad to see the marketers degrade the genuine merits with spruik.


You've hit the nail on the head. Rather surprising, since most of the heads you
hit aren't connected to nails. :-)


Really!!!!:-) Careful Chuck is this as scary for you as it is for me:-)

The following is in the spirit of saying how I think things should be,
but knowing you are constrained by commercial realities.

Surveyors check for defects not for "is this a good boat" & they don't
check the claims of sellers, any magazine that did I'd say would be very
popular with readers & yes I accept not so with sellers, advertisers,
but there should be a compromise such that a properly crafted article
can avoid offending your lifeblood the boat & advertising suppliers, but
equally not make experienced boaters cringe when they read blatantly
false claims.

The fact that inexperienced non boat owning lying idiots like Krause
accept any & all BS served up is no reason to force feed everyone the
same stuff:-)

I've never seen a major mfgr. boat that is a totally unsafe, unworkable,
ridiculous piece of crap. Every boat has something to recommend it to somebody,
for some purpose, under proper conditions.

Agreed.

Some of the difficulty stems from the difference beween fact and opinion.
People who have a negative, personal opinion about a boat naturally feel that
their opinion is a proven, objective fact and are not pleased when another
person fails to hold the same opinion, or consider it a proven, objective fact.

Not agreed. Some things are just facts end of story;

(i) the dimensions are facts?? it's always good to run a tape over
things (NB over, not around gunwales:-))

(ii) the draft is a fact?? a little tricky for you to "measure" on the
day I accept but it's very weight dependent as in,

(iii) the displacement (weight) is a fact??, related to (ii), if it's a
trailer boat then tell them you like to check launch & recovery setup
(not a bad idea anyway) but take it to a weighbridge, then take the
empty trailer after launch, you can say what the boat displaced "as
tested". If it's not a trailer boat & you can see a set of lines
drawings, all manufacturers will have them to hand, but if testing for a
straight out marketer even just the marketing drawings will have to do.
(a) If the drawing doesn't have a scale that's OK just note the
boat's drawn length in mm (sorry I've been almost fully metricated years
ago, this NG is the only place I have to switch back & forth, hurry up
you blokes get with the program!!!:-))

(b) From the drawing quickly measure & note the distance from the
gunwale to the "designed" waterline in mm & note a few along the boat's
length say from transom, midships, forward quarter (pick spots you know
you can easily measure on the real boat).

(c) While looking at the drawing you'll notice that all properly
designed boats have the bottom of the boat traveling through the water
parallel to the waterline, if a planing hull the aft 40%, if a
displacement despite the bottom being curved all along, you'll see the
forward & aft buttocks are both the same distance from the waterline, if
"semi" planing same as displacement but the stations aft will be flatter.

(c) When you are running your tape over the real boat note the
measurements (mm), accuracy is the trick here & later in 10 mins back at
your office you'll know exactly where the waterline "should" be.

If it's as designed it's a good article piece, you can comment the boat
seems to displace exactly as the designer intended, it's trim is correct
& this is a mark of a boat executed by people who know what they're
about. However if you find it's low in the water (remember even a little
bit is lots of weight, even a medium sized boat will need a ton to
settle it an inch or so) or even worse the trim is structurally not
correct, say bow high so the boat presents it's bottom to the water flow
almost as a huge trim tab with the same resultant excess drag, a flat
square profile, then what you say in your article is up to you.

(iv) Speeds are facts??? but now everyone has a handheld GPS it's easy,
I've noticed in your articles you mention you've checked with a GPS so
you already know how powerful an article can be if the reader
experienced or not, can know how you checked what you are passing on.

(v) Fuel consumption is a fact??? It's not really "hard" to check but
does require some effort.
(a) Firstly petrol engines; a flowmeter is probably OK & some OBs come
already equipped, if not there's not much you can do really to verify
WOT fuel usage, because if you run any engine at WOT long enough to
count it will stop using fuel outright (don't believe the dealer's BS on
this , be warned:-)). The consumption of petrol 2 strokes at WOT is
"about" divide claimed HP by 2 & take off 10% = ltrs/hr, 4 strokes
divide by 3 = ltrs/hr (3.79 ltrs=usgal) Any seller claims
"substantially" below these numbers & you need to investigate howso,
over propped?? so not making max revs &/or HP??? or just a seller
selling.........

Cruise consumption can be checked by filling up then go for a short (or
long but just maintain cruise speed) run say 1/2 hr, then top it up. You
can even take a 20ltr placky petrol (red) drum to top it up with if you
like.

Your article can then say you find the petrol consumption claimed at
top speed is consistent with expectations or not so for a motor of that
HP & then explain how you actually checked the cruise consumption. If
you find it's not within coooeee of the claims, what you write is up to you.

(b) Diesel engines, mostly don't lend themselves to flowmeters because
they have return flows to the tank & the sort of high performance diesel
we're talking about mostly all have high bypass injector pumps to cool
the pump itself, this can't readily be factored out, the injector bypass
actually goes down per stroke at speed but the pump bypass increases per
rev at speed. (dreaming I know, but if only Ficht had the feintest
bloody clue what's actually involved in quickly imparting a sudden &
serious increase in pressure to a liquid)

Before you go to the test see what you can find about the engine(s)
from the core engine supplier's site, trouble is these special super
high output "pleasure craft only" engines are not usually covered in
detail. Coincidence?? maybe but who knows it seems the sellers depend on
the public not having access to any real numbers.

A good site I stumbled on when defending myself in the albin thread is;

http://www.gce.cummins.com/mce/mce_4...curves_4.2.htm

Click on the es 320 it's bc9119 & grab then print the pfd.

You'll find 3 really informative general application graphs in the
performance curves section.
(1) the top graph line shows the HP the engine can make if the
throttle is left wide open & the bottom graph line shows the HP required
to turn an appropriate propeller, you'll note that the only time the
propeller is able to absorb all the engine's power is at max. or, boat
motors do run at high revs, however other than max they are well off
power or, when you drop a marine engine back to say 3/4 rev cruise you
actually reduce the power & fuel consumption, not by 1/4 but by well
over 1/2. The real boat owners here can confirm this in your own
throttle settings.

(2) is the torque graph & even better illustrates the huge gap between
the engine's ability compared to what is needed to turn the prop. (I
digress but hey this is my post:-) it's this "fact" Ficht were hoping
would let them get away with running engines lean right up to mid revs,
thinking the prop wouldn't give the engine enough load to matter, they
hadn't factored in that very fast top end fishing rigs, run very high
pitch props, so even at lower revs heavily ploughing along a Ficht can
still be required to make lots of torque which is fatal on a lean
mixture because heat will build up)

(3) The interesting fuel usage graph, note Chuck even a small
reduction in power & the fuel usage to turn the prop compared to what
the engine could use at WOT goes down much more than the lower revs
would indicate, for the reasons given in 1&2 above.
So say the engine is cruising at 3500 not that much lower than max of
3900, you note the fuel usage has dropped from 19 gal/hr to around 10
gal/hr or nearly half.

Modern MARINE DIESELS WILL USE ABOUT 0.05-0.07 gal/hr/HP, so you can
see that armed with this graph, suitably modified for different diesel
engines max HP & revs, you can reasonably estimate the fuel usage at
various revs. The high reving high output diesels are not as efficient
as the slow rev engines so the Cats only use 0.05gal/hr/HP.

One last thing to keep in mind with these high output diesels of all
brands, they can only be run at WOT for a few minutes at a time
(literally) just to get the boat planing etc, otherwise they are very
short life. It's not "advertised" but dig deep enough & you'll always
find the restrictions in the fine print, a "rating" of pleasure craft,
or high output or similar is a warning to be heeded.

We check actual fuel usage with a graduated container, we plumb the
delivery AND return lines into it & go for a run, it's very accurate &
oft surprising, given the beliefs we all have about sweet spots & best
cruise etc. I know you can't go pulling fuel lines off engines etc &
don't expect you to. Equally the fill go for a timed run at cruise speed
then refill isn't practical with lots of diesel boats because most will
hold lots of fuel.


Most boat reviews are written to communicate a few specific ideas. A general
description of the boat, a list of the
product's high points, and a description of the experience underway. You
generally won't find a David Pascoe type article: ("Here's why every boat on
the market is a piece of crap and you're risking your life to leave the dock in
any of them"). If a boat review concentrates on "Here's what this boat does
particularly well......" and the information is based on reasonable
observations and factual data, that's absolutely legitimate. I nearly always
toss in a couple of slight negatives if they seem objectively apparent, (i.e. I
was slightly critical of the heads on the 46 Grand Banks- too small and mundane
compared to most of its competitors).

I agree & your observations about the size of the toilets is fine, the
carpets the rolling all that is subjective & people will respect your
judgement much more if you put more effort into the real factual stuff
that matters to people, like fuel usage at cruise speed etc.


Some things are not absolutely cut and dried, and even naval architects can
disagree on theories and applications. Real life example: I just finished an
item on a very nice boat. The boat sells for just under $900k. Under most
circumstances, it would be my personal opinion that the stringers were
undersized - but that would be under most circumstances and it would be my
personal opinion. I don't have any way to know for sure that the stringers are
inadequate, and in any case this particular vessel has the engines mounted on
some stout powder coated beams that run immediately above the stringers and are
suspended between two bulkheads. With the weight (and torque) of the engines
removed from the stringers, would it be factual for me to state, categorically,
that the boat was underbuilt- or is it more likely that the mfgr ran a long
series of engineering studies before building a boat of this magnitude and that
somebody, somewhere, (most likely with a college degree in naval architecture)
is well satisfied that the stringers are adequate?

The hull was designed by a naval architect who also does work for Rybovich and
Palmer Johnson, so I'm not certainly not qualified to discuss the design on his
level and more or less inclined to trust in his expertise.

The result was a comment about the engine mounts, but no particular mention of
the stringers. It would be wrong to write
"The stringers are enormously overbuilt and very impressive!" It would be
equally wrong to state as a proven fact that they are too small for the boat.


I accept your problem; you see something you are uncertain of?? before
writing ring the architect?? they're always chuffed to tell you how
great their design is & if you are just getting more background for a
magazine article & wondering if they'd mind their name being used &
how????, why not?? I know you can't ask outright but you may find in
conversation there's a valid explanation & if there is then you, the
article, the seller & the architect are all the better for the telling.


Once somebody begins seriously looking at a boat, there will be no shortage of
negative feedback about the vessel. Everybody from shorebound dock walkers to
salespeople for competing brands will GD the boat unmercifully- whatever the
make and model. A salesperson selling against the boat I just finished writing
up, might ask a prospect to take a careful look at the stringers in the
salesperson's boat- and then go take a careful look at the stringers in this
particular brand. In the end, the consumer will make up his or her own mind-
maybe taking into account the difference between a strnger that has to bear the
weight and torque of the engine as well as provide longitudinal rigidity- and
maybe not.



I know here it gets a bit rough & tumble but hey I get attacked too,
so..... whatever we're amongst friends; yes???:-)

You can do what you did in the motor trade, use euphamisms, vague
references etc, so the arm chair magazine non boaters like Krause can
stay complacent in their delusions, however a real boater reading the
article will at least be put on notice that you've looked at the issue &
it's an issue. If you do your writing job as we all know you can, nobody
should be able to point to your article & say see it's a dog.

e.g. You find the boat is low on it's designed lines??? so it's
overweight & usually never low equally so it's out of trim also. Almost
certainly then you'll find the performance well off in all regards, so
maybe you can say you checked it floating against it's lines & found
this test boat was a bit heavy?? but given the load it was carrying as a
test boat it isn't totally unexpected & hey this would mean other
examples probably might perform as claimed:-)

Fuel consumption particularly diesels?? is a hard one because it seems
to me that sellers there use fuel savings as the basis of charging much
much more for a diesel & given your cheap fuel prices compared to the
rest of the world that's always going to be a hard road to hoe,
especially when equally valid reasons are longevity & safety. Again if
you find yourself noting that say a 315HP diesel boat (i.e. as sure as
Krause is an uneducated union thug liar that engine is using 18-20
gal/hr at max) at cruise, say 400 rpm down from max you can be pretty
sure the engine is sipping 11-12+ gal/hr NB fair enough too, it's now
still making 215-220HP), if the seller insists you are cruising at 18kts
on 6 gal/hr then it's up to you how you write it up. I accept fully self
preservation & eating means you can't just tell the truth, but equally
you don't have to perpetuate the deception, by all means say what you've
been assured then equally point out what astounding fuel economy that
really is given the current state of the art in marine diesel engines,
you can hint to the experienced without scaring the seller's advertising
away.

Regular readers would love it because just as you did in the car trade
you develop a nudge nudge wink wink language, when you found things as
they are claimed you can make it clear you checked the claim, your
method & reasoning & how pleased you are that this boat doesn't need
exaggerated claims:-)


K