"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?


Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it
were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

Being in denial the Sea Ray name isn't the Sea Ray of old isn't going to
change the slipshod workmanship and lousy, cheap designs. Yacht
standards,
my ass. Sue me.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.


Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and go
fast", or something to that effect.

He has to defend them.......SeaRay paid him to do so.

Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it

were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast
his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

********

That's funny. You're still on line, spreading the Pascoe lie, and
Brunswick hasn't sued your hat off. Why is that? Could it be that
Brunswick has better things to do than argue with every kook that comes
along? If you believe everything simply because its online, you are one
confused guy.

Do you have any opinion about the material you viewed (assuming you
did) on the link I provided, (showing exactly how the hull in question
is built) or will you continue to spread the lie that Sea Ray hulls are
built up with "putty"?

It's too bad your SeaDoo or whatever didn't work out better for you.
It's disingenuous to report you experience as typical of a Sea Ray
"boat", and you know (or should know if you're going to presume to
render an informed opinion) that the hull on the Pascoe site is not
representative of
current production- yet you respond to a guy asking about a brand new
Sea Ray with some dubious information about a long defunct hull
standard with "see how they're made......".

I've got no problem with somebody who knows their butt from first base
expressing a negative opinion about a boat. The operative standard
should be, "Brand X boats are crap...BECAUSE (insert factual, current,
technical reason here)." What will we hear next? "All Sea Ray owners
wear too many gold chains and have small sexual organs!"? (actual
quote from a recent "classic" post from a non-boater in this NG)

Tell us, Larry, when you owned your Sea Ray, did you wear a lot of gold
chains? Do you consider yourself inadequately endowed? Assuming one
or both answers are "no", it goes to show that people who don't know
kkkrap about boats, or at least a specific boat, can post all kinds of
stuff on the internet without having their hats sued off.

JimH wrote:

Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no
problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and
go
fast", or something to that effect.

*************************


I've got no problem with somebody who knows their butt from first base
expressing a negative opinion about a boat. The operative standard
should be, "Brand X boats are crap...BECAUSE (insert factual, current,
technical reason here)." What will we hear next? "All Sea Ray owners
wear too many gold chains and have small sexual organs!"? (actual
quote from a recent "classic" post from a non-boater in this NG)

You might ask Larry if he wore a lot of gold chains and needed a double
dose of Viagra while he owned his Sea Ray branded glorified jet ski.
Wouldn't it be fun to be right about something for a change?

As far as this ridiculous claim of yours goes,

"He has to defend them.......Sea Ray paid him to do so."

I am sure you know that's a lie. I'm also sure you do not care. Why let
truth get in the way of a good old-fashioned JimH patented personal
attack?

My "defense" of Sea Ray involved nothing more than exposing Larry's
dubious link to a site with long-ago outdated information about Sea Ray
hull construction as the bogus advice it was. It's one thing to say, "I
don't like that brand," but it's another to point to some badly
outdated information and maliciously insist that it represents current
technology.

Would it be better to let the lie stand unchallenged?
Isn't there some group where you're actually capable of participating
without tearing everybody and everything down all the time? That knock,
knock, knock, crap is for people who don't have the ability to discuss
the subject matter and so turn instead to bithcing about personalities.
What a shame.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:13:53 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?


Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it
were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

Being in denial the Sea Ray name isn't the Sea Ray of old isn't going to
change the slipshod workmanship and lousy, cheap designs. Yacht
standards,
my ass. Sue me.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.


Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and go
fast", or something to that effect.

He has to defend them.......SeaRay paid him to do so.


First, Jim, I can't believe you're crossposting this crap. Second, yeah, Chuck
gets paid by his publisher who gets some advertising dollars from Sea Ray, so
indirectly your statement has a *very little* basis in fact.

Your assertion that Chuck shouldn't post his fluff piece here because newbies
might see it, also has *very little* basis in fact. In all your time here, have
you *ever* heard anyone say, "I bought my boat 'cause Chuck said it was nice and
it's a piece of ****?" Me neither.

I would hope that one who has earned enough money to buy a boat has more sense
than to buy one based on one article he's read.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:13:53 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

While you're at it, are you willing to admit that the shocking photo on
David Pascoe's site actually represents a failed repair, and not OEM
construction?


Notice how that website is STILL, after all these years, ONLINE? If it
were false, Brunswick's lawyer clan would be on David Pascoe so fast his
hat would have sailed off. They haven't and it's STILL ONLINE!

Being in denial the Sea Ray name isn't the Sea Ray of old isn't going to
change the slipshod workmanship and lousy, cheap designs. Yacht
standards,
my ass. Sue me.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined
in
chalk.


Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely no problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look good and go
fast", or something to that effect.

He has to defend them.......SeaRay paid him to do so.


First, Jim, I can't believe you're crossposting this crap. Second, yeah,
Chuck
gets paid by his publisher who gets some advertising dollars from Sea Ray,
so
indirectly your statement has a *very little* basis in fact.

Your assertion that Chuck shouldn't post his fluff piece here because
newbies
might see it, also has *very little* basis in fact. In all your time here,
have
you *ever* heard anyone say, "I bought my boat 'cause Chuck said it was
nice and
it's a piece of ****?" Me neither.

I would hope that one who has earned enough money to buy a boat has more
sense
than to buy one based on one article he's read.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

Chuck just did a fluff review of a SeaRay and found absolutely
no
problems
with it. His final impression was that you need one to "look
good and
go
fast", or something to that effect.

*************************


I've got no problem with somebody who knows their butt from
first base
expressing a negative opinion about a boat. The operative
standard
should be, "Brand X boats are crap...BECAUSE (insert factual,
current,
technical reason here)." What will we hear next? "All Sea Ray
owners
wear too many gold chains and have small sexual organs!"?
(actual
quote from a recent "classic" post from a non-boater in this
NG)

SeaRay owners wearing too many gold chains??? Imho, after they
make the down payment for the boat, they have to give them all
up in payment for the their lobotomy. Just observing after
cruising in Florida waters. I don't know if it is just arrogance
or too much Budweiser, but they tend to be the most
inconsiderate folks on the water.

Leanne

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
zeebop wrote in
:

Hi,

I am about to purchase a
Sea Ray 215 EC 1997 (I am in the UK)

Here is an example:
http://tinyurl.com/b2m2f

I am interested to know if anyone has any experience with one of these
and what you thought of it.


Thanks

zeebop


Piece of crap. See for yourself what's inside a Sea Ray boat:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/Fiberglass_Boats.htm
It's made of "putty"??....

I had the jetboat. Light came through the hull. Seats mildewed because
they were made of COTTON-BACKED plastic with cheap furniture foam by some
furniture company in Tennesee. The side panel mildewed because the
cotton-
backed plastic was over a cotton pad all stapled to a piece of packing
crate wood. It rotted out twice in 3 years.

There was no way to get to the fuel tank INLET or INLET VENT because they
were stuffed into the hull before the top was put on with no access hatch.
You couldn't even check to see if the fuel tank inlet hoses had a clamp on
them because you couldn't see it unless you tore the boat apart. The
polyethelene (milk bottle plastic) tank was kept in place with two 1" long
plastic angle brackets screwed into the stringer with one sheet metal
screw. The two little brackets supported a 25 gallon gas tank! NOT!
They
were eating into the polyethelene, which is very soft, so I had to build
some proper brackets to stop it. The Mercury Sport Jet, considered by CG
as an inboard engine, has a 5/16" hose barb for the fuel hose. Sea Ray
attached a 3/8" fuel hose because that's what the gas tank fitting had on
it. They used two hose clamps to try to squeeze the hose over the smaller
barb to keep it from leaking. Didn't work. The fuel hose from the tank
to
the engine, a 3/8" marine gas line, was supported and held to the engine
compartment bulkhead with the same 3" diameter clamps used for the big
inlet hose. This meant when the 3/8" hose fell off the 5/16" barb into
the
bilge, it pulled the hose through these huge clamps far enough the suction
of the siphon effect overcame the anti-siphon valve, if it had one, and
filled the enclosed up hull with about 6" of GASOLINE! The fumes were
strong enough to roughly run the engine sucking its air supply from in the
compartment. Why it didn't explode is simply a miracle. I won't admit to
where I pumped 10 gallons of gasoline way up a river in the swamp. I was
not amused. Sea Ray sent me a lifetime supply of 5/16" gas hose, proving
they actually knew what 5/16" hose looked like. I still have a whole roll
if you need it. I solved the problem with a proper fuel filter/water
separator with 3/8" inlet and 5/16" outlet fittings the damned company
should have used in the first place if they hadn't been so damned greedy.

Sea Ray of Charleston, a bigshot marine dealer......

I didn't buy my boat from my local dealer because I bought it in
Birmingham, Alabama for $3500 less money from a dealer there. OK, so I'm
a
bad boy getting it for wholesale from an overstocked dealer. I had the
boat serviced a couple of times at the local dealer when someone noticed
the dealer sticker from Dead Ahead Marine on the back of the boat. I was
informed my Sea Ray boat was no longer welcome at my Sea Ray dealer for
warranty service as the local dealer didn't sell this boat. I called Sea
Ray and was told that was correct. The Sea Ray dealer didn't have to
service my Sea Ray boat if he didn't sell it. Isn't that nice?! How
supportive of the company....

Nope...no thanks. Sea Ray (or Brunswick's other boat companies) don't
have
to worry about selling me another boat. I'll pass. Just thought you
should know.....

England sure has some beautifully made boats. Why buy a piece of American
made crap??

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.


Well that sucks. I am looking to buy a new boat in September and SeaRay was
on the top of my list. Maxum being second.

Thanks,

Duke

Well that sucks. I am looking to buy a new boat in September and
SeaRay was
on the top of my list. Maxum being second.

Thanks,


Duke


**********

Avoid buying a late 80's, early 90's Sea Ray, or a discontinued jet-ski
model like Larry owned, and it won't suck - at least not in the same
way. :-)

This didn't appear to post the first time, sorry if it's a repeat:

Gene Kearns wrote:

Your link seems to describe a European robotic application of Pascoe's
complaints... therefore, I suspect his position is still valid....
though the build-up is more precise. In fact, very little is devoted
to marine application.


*************

Nonsense.

First, Pasoce's inflammatory piece is titled "Fiberglass?" Boats, or
something similar, and his theme bash throughout is that many
manufacturers sell boats that are primarily some weird coring material
beneath a very thin layer of fiberglass and the gel coat. There is a
chance you do not understand the nature of "Pascoe's complaint," but
the RIMFIRE technology used by Sea Ray to build these small runabouts
does remotely approach the process Pascoe describes.

As far as the "European application"...No, that's a European article
about how the Sea Ray process is being exported from the US to Europe
and it's written from the perspective of an FRP manufacturer. Sea Ray
won some sort of industry award for technical innovation with this
RIMFIRE process. I thought this might be more convincing than something
that reads
"Sea Ray says........"

If you read the article with an open mind, you will see how the chopped
strand hull is reinforced at critical points with engineered *fabrics*,
which are biaxial and triaxial glass cloth, kevlar, and other materials
in the modern layup.

Show of hands: how many people in the NG have ever been in a Brunswick
layup facility? Funny, staring intensely at the monitor I see almost no
hands except my own. (Once again, the hand in Ohio is disqualified due
to finger position). The description in the European article which
notes a chopped hull with glass mat reinforcements is spot on. Pascoe's
alleged practices are nowhere to be seen. The boats are not built up
with "putty" (as his photo of the failed, "bondo" repair job is
supposed to imply).

If a guy doesn't like Sea Ray, that's his right. But to post stuff
that's ridiculously out of date in response to an inquiry about a new
boat along with the comment
"See how they're made" is done either because the poster doesn't know
any better or because the poster can't find anything (true or untrue)
that appears to be more damaging. In either case, when the "advice" is
bogus it needs to be called for what it is- sheer bs hate mail and
nothing more.

****************

Gene Kearns also wrote:

My personal experience with Brunswick is that they trash (cheapen)
everything that they touch.

***********

Remember, the OP was asking for advice about new boats in the year
2005. Impressions formed in the mid-90's or before may no longer be
relevant. In the last several years, Bayliner quality control has
improved
substantially, the larger Bayliner models supplanted with a line of
boats easily built to the prevailing industry standards (Meridian), and
some of the reasons that one could bash Brunswick in the past have just
simply disappeared.

I don't put much stock in the JD Power awards, but those who find them
very important barometers of product quality would want to note that in
a category just above runabouts, Sea Ray was either the top finisher or
rated extremely highly in the latest release.

You don't suppose Pascoe's wierd chunk of "Sea Ray" putty hull came off
of Larry's old jetski, do you?

We're halfway through the 00's, and some folks seem stuck in the late
80's, early 90's. :-)

JimH wrote:

I stand by my comments John, including the fact that fluff reviews do
potential buyers a disservice.

"It's all about looking good and going fast" to some *boaters*.

**************

There's a bright fella. Sticks by his lie that I'm "paid by Sea Ray to
defend Sea Ray boats" when even his normally close allies point out the
absurdity.

And yeah, JimH, for a lot of boaters it is very much about going fast
and looking good.
You think that's "beneath" your own non-use, as a non-owner, or
something? My boat will do 10kts (when pressed hard) but that doesn't
mean I'm unable to appreciate the thrill of jumping into a small
runabout and zipping up and down the lake on a hot, sunny day. Ask a
waterskier
why they engage in the sport and "going fast and having fun" will be up
near the top of the list.
Some of them will fantasize that they look good in the process, and
sure enough- some of them acutally do.

You have to be the snobbiest non-boater in the crowd. Last week you
diss'd all Sea Ray owners with a comment that they all had large
inventories of gold chains and small manhoods. This week you imply that
owing a sporty looking boat for the sheer joy of looking good, going
fast, and having fun is somehow beneath the definition of a true
"boater". What in the Sam H would qualify a guy who doesn't even own a
boat to cast dispersion on the motivations of people who do?

This thread is supposed to be about Sea Ray boats. What prompted your
personal attack?
Go ahead and launch your last, limp "zinger" (talk about inadequately
endowed), and smirk away thinking you had the "last word". I won't help
you screw up this thread any worse by responding to more of your
classic JimH personality attack in this particular thread.