Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece they are
not important.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Larry W4SC wrote:

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"??....

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

If you're going to slam a brand, please try to use information that is
up to date. That chunk of Sea Ray hull is probably at least 15 years
old, and does not represent the way the boats are currently built.
Using that as an example is like telling people to stay away from Ford
Motor Company vehicles because the Pinto isn't much of a car.

Here's a factual look at the modern manufacturing process used by Sea
Ray, rather than one basher quoting another and using a 15-year old
hull as evidence.

http://www.netcomposites.com/downloads/RTMaut04.pdf


Are you going to disclose to the group that your "Sea Ray boat" was a
glorified jet ski, offered for only a year or two, (and quite possibly
built by some outside company and rebadged as a Sea Ray), or not?

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?

Every time somebody brings up that David Pascoe link to slam Sea Ray,
they fail to point out that there are hull chunks from a wide variety
of very "high end" boats. Very few runabout boats are built with a
cored hull these days. Larger cruisers often use Divynicell or other
cores (hardly putty) but normally only above the waterline.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Why is this not a factual statement? Does SeaRay run ads in your magazine?
Does your magazine live and die by the ad revenue generated by boat builders
and suppliers? Does the retail price of your magazine cover a tiny faction
of the cost to produce your magazine? Does your editor pay you to write
fluff pieces "selling the sizzle" of boats and boating? If you insisted on
writing unbiased reviews of the boats you discuss, would any of the articles
ever get published and would you earn any money?

Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and
other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least
David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The
fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit
of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective
boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece
they are
not important.

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

?????????

I never submitted anything I ever wrote as a rebuttal to Larry's
insinuation that Sea Ray boats are made from "putty".

Do you have a comment on the actual evidence I submitted, (the website
showing photos of a Sea Ray layup and a description of the mfg
process), or is that also suspect because it appeared in print?

And while you're at it, oh wise one, please don't leave us dangling: If
you're in a position to dispute Pascoe's site as well as the European
article about Sea Ray layup schedules- please do so. Speak right up, no
need to keep it a secret.
Here's your opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the
talk:_______________

By the way, Pascoe does not claim that his items are "sureys". He
admits they are very negatively oriented opinion pieces. He has stated
that it is his mission to attemprt to "balance" any and all positive
opinion pieces. Try reading the introduction to his site sometime.

Gene Kearns wrote:
Your link seems to describe a European robotic application of Pascoe's
complaints... therefore, I suspect his position is still valid....

Some of Pascoe's comments about hull construction are valid, in the same
way that some of his comments about diesel powerplants are valid. OTOH
some of his comments on both subjects are absurd & highly misleading (if
taken seriously by the uninformed). He's a surveyor, not an engineer.

wrote:
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.

Pascoe (and a lot of pother people) seem to have a Luddite approach to
fiberglass. It's the same nonsense as declaring that if God had wanted
us to build boats out of fiberglass, He would have given us fiberglass
trees. Only 'good old-fashioned' fiberglass is given approval, and the
fact that some cored hulls have had problems (often due to maintenance
lapses more than anything else, but never mind that) is supposed to be
given as PROOF that *ALL* cored hulls are bad.

In the same way, the fact that some boats have had engine problems might
be declared as PROOF that no boat should ever have an engine at all,
every boat should be propelled by sails alone....


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........"

Yeah, well, it's still coming from an industry shill. The reason for the
award, just like most awards (as I understand it), is that it improves
profits, not the final product.


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.

Doubt they use Kevlar, it's expensive and not much good for that kind of
structure anyway unless a lot of specific engineering goes into it.



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).


Yeah, Pascoe's web site is about as misleading as some advertising, only
in the opposite direction. Not useful or reliable as technical info, but
it is a good reminder for the alert buyer.

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.

Hey, it works in politics. Seems to be coming from the same side, too.



Gene Kearns also wrote:
My personal experience with Brunswick is that they trash (cheapen)
everything that they touch.


I'd agree to some extent, it seems to be a common trait of many business
conglomerates.

Fair Skies
Doug King

wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and
other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least
David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The
fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit
of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective
boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece
they are
not important.

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

?????????

I never submitted anything I ever wrote as a rebuttal to Larry's
insinuation that Sea Ray boats are made from "putty".

Do you have a comment on the actual evidence I submitted, (the website
showing photos of a Sea Ray layup and a description of the mfg
process), or is that also suspect because it appeared in print?

And while you're at it, oh wise one, please don't leave us dangling: If
you're in a position to dispute Pascoe's site as well as the European
article about Sea Ray layup schedules- please do so. Speak right up, no
need to keep it a secret.
Here's your opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the
talk:_______________

By the way, Pascoe does not claim that his items are "sureys". He
admits they are very negatively oriented opinion pieces. He has stated
that it is his mission to attemprt to "balance" any and all positive
opinion pieces. Try reading the introduction to his site sometime.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

LOL. That would explain us bass boat owners. 70.9 MPH Bass Cat under ideal
conditions with a full (tournament) load. 72 plus lightly loaded and out of
control. On the other hand my GPS indicates an average speed of les than 1
MPH when actually fishing. LOL.

I'ld have to say in my personal experience those people who can afford and
choose to buy a nice boat are either about looking good and going fast or
looking good and being comfortable. In my case I bought my Bass Cat after
reading hundreds of articles and listening to many other people with hands
on personal expereince of different boats, and having owned three used
beater bass boats so I could compare features and decide what I truly wanted
out of a Bass Boat.

In the case of my dad's two Searays. They are older models. Pre-Brunswick
so I guess my experience with them does not apply. I can say those old
Phoenix made Searays are rock solid rough water handlers. Stable and safe
at displacement speeds and pretty darned impressive when properly handled at
planing speeds. No flex and accurate tracking in the worst conditions we
have run them in. No, we have not run them offshore, but I think people who
call them an OK lake boat are really doing them a disservice. We have run
ahead of (and a few times trailing) storm driven waves in huge lakes with
these and they kept us safe and drive. Anybody who has run Lake Mead or
Lake Powel in the afternoon on a windy day will understand the type of
conditions I am talking about.

So, I guess I have no relevant opinion on modern Searay boats, but the odler
ones were incredible. At the time my dad bought his Searays they had a top
notch reputation in the industry. He also has an early 90s 22' Bayliner
walk around cuddy which had a transom rot out in just a couple years. (it
was kept on a trailer, covered and dry except for a few weeks each year.
They also sold it way under powered with a single Force 150. He had the
transom rebuilt by an independent shop, and set it up with twin 150s. It is
now a decent boat. If Searay in the early 90s was truly similar in quality
and construction.to the Bayliner then I would have to agree with their
detractors, and any current Seray would be subject to severe scrutiny by
myself before I would consider purchasing one.

Personally I love the look of that 68 footer they have on their website. If
I was able to afford something like that I'ld certainly consider my options
carefully. On the other hand. Do you think that thing could outrun pirates
off the coast of Yemen with the over 3 thousand (claimed) horsepower using
that pair of optional Cat diesels? LOL. Don't need no stinking guns. Just
catch us if you can. LOL. On the other hand with only a thousand gallons
of fuel capacity I doubt it would ever make it that far. LOL. I'ld never
make it across the Pacific with it.
--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

Chuck,
I agree completely with your premise that neither Pascoe article, your
boating reviews nor Sea Ray's web site accurately reflect the quality of Sea
Ray's boats.

The putty shown in Pasco's article was not part of SeaRay's lay up schedule,
but the putty could have been applied by the builder to correct a problem
noticed after the hull was removed from the mold.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and
other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least
David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The
fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit
of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective
boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece
they are
not important.

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

?????????

I never submitted anything I ever wrote as a rebuttal to Larry's
insinuation that Sea Ray boats are made from "putty".

Do you have a comment on the actual evidence I submitted, (the website
showing photos of a Sea Ray layup and a description of the mfg
process), or is that also suspect because it appeared in print?

And while you're at it, oh wise one, please don't leave us dangling: If
you're in a position to dispute Pascoe's site as well as the European
article about Sea Ray layup schedules- please do so. Speak right up, no
need to keep it a secret.
Here's your opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the
talk:_______________

By the way, Pascoe does not claim that his items are "sureys". He
admits they are very negatively oriented opinion pieces. He has stated
that it is his mission to attemprt to "balance" any and all positive
opinion pieces. Try reading the introduction to his site sometime.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Really?


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.

But do you look good doing so Chuk?

Ask a
waterskier
why they engage in the sport and "going fast and having fun" will be up
near the top of the list.

Gee, I knew the spin would start soon. And it has.


Some of them will fantasize that they look good in the process, and
sure enough- some of them acutally do.

And that is why they boat a SeaRay....eh?



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.

And you said for SeaRay owners it all just about "looking good and going
fast".....I would take more of an offence to that if I was a SeaRay owner.

Pot-kettle-black.

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".

Don't exagerate what I said. I repeated words that you used when reviewing
a SeaRay boat...."going fast and looking good." Are you now saying you
never said this?

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?

If you took it as a personal attack (repeating what you wrote) then that is
your problem.

Duke,
I would not write off Sea Ray from your short list. I would suggest you
place very little credence in any articles you read in any of the boating
magazines that sell ads from the boat builders. If you read a review of the
best built boat and then read an article of the worst built boat, they both
will sound like the best thing since sliced bread. Boat magazine publishers
and those who write the articles have sold their soul to boat builders and
suppliers. The cover price of the magazine do not begin to cover the
expense and profit of any of the commercial magazines. They make their
money by selling ad space to the very same boat builders they are reviewing.

I would recommend you invest in a survey on any boat you buy, either new or
used. It is not unheard of for a builder to make a patch (similar to the
one shown on Pascoe's web site) to correct a problem found after the hull
was pulled from the mold.




"Duke" wrote in message
m...

"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

Newsgroup Reader wrote:
Duke,
I would not write off Sea Ray from your short list. I would suggest you
place very little credence in any articles you read in any of the boating
magazines that sell ads from the boat builders.

I'd also suggest placing very little credence in people who don't give
their name and who insist that dentists are the same as doctors.

DSK