wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.

Gene, I ran across this discussion of Grady-White vs Pursuit on another
forum while searching for the lay-up schedule of SeaRay boats.

You and Tom may enjoy it. Nice forum too so don't be afraid to join.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...rt=41&posts=41

JimH,

I have not looked at a SeaRay in the last few years, when I did their larger
boats were middle of the road boats, their smaller ones were price point
boats there were at the bottom of the barrel. I don't believe SeaRay has
changed their marketing strategy from trying to be a middle of the road boat
builder. The reason for the robots is to save money and hopefully provide
consistent middle of the road if quality. Using a fiberglass chop gun has
always been a preferred method of low end boat builders, so I would look
very closely before buying a SeaRay. The fact that Gould uses the robot
manufacturer as his source of technical info concerning the fiberglass
lamination schedule amazes me. Especially since the web site does not
discuss anything concerning a fiberglass lamination schedule.

Gould has become a victim of actually believing his PR pieces.


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.

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.

Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to the
dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you start
writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in the whole
chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go buy the other
manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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. :-)

And, avoid boat manufacturer that Chuck has reviewed.

But, Pascoe gets paid for an objective opinion of the boat's condition,
where you get paid to say everything is alright all of the time regardless
of the real qualitiy of the product you are pushing.

You shouldn't call your articles boat reviews you should call them
advertisements.


wrote in message
oups.com...
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. :-)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:26:11 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Again... this has more to do with opinion than anything else. I have
seen very few boats that have failed structurally... in fact... I only
have proof of one.... a Trophy that sunk off Wrightsville Beach, NC a
few years ago, while taking part in a fishing tournament. It was a
dealer boat and I got pictures of the thing when it was dumped back at
the dealership.... Yep, you guessed it.... chopper gun...

I'm in agreement, although I must admit that I beat the hell out of an
MFG "tri-hull" back in the day and that was all chopped glass.

Bluefin, over in Bristol RI, uses a combination hand lay up and
chopped glass approach - the chopped glass is used to build up
strength in areas that don't need cosmetic hand layup. I've talked to
their engineer and he makes the point that from a practical
standpoint, there isn't much difference beyond costs.

I do know that my Ranger is all hand laid except for the transom which
is an extruded under pressure fiberglass mat/resin sandwich - the damn
boat is solid as a rock which is part of the problem - there is no
flex in the boat at all. That extruded transom is so hard, it's cut
with a high pressure water jet and a bitch to drill into.

As in most things, there are compromises to be made no matter what
brand of boat.

To make his reviews more believable Pascoe also posted many positive
comments about SeaRay boats, as well as others he has reviewed.. He has a
balance of showing the positives and the negatives, as a boat *review*
should do.

Yes, they are not surveys, as Chuck contends, but they are accurate reviews
showing evidence (positive or negative) to substantiate his claims

On the other hand I have only seen pie in the sky fluff from the *reviews*
of boats Chuck has posted here. In fact I cannot ever remember reading any
negative comments in Chuck's *reviews*.

*Reviews*? Bullcrap....they are no more reviews than the OEM advertising of
their products.

But I guess, according to Chuck, it is all about "going fast and looking
good" when it comes to SeaRay boats....sort of like the 1960's thinking that
the clothes make the man.

OMG!! Can you image folks really buying into that back then? I really
feel for the folks stuck in that time warp.


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
But, Pascoe gets paid for an objective opinion of the boat's condition,
where you get paid to say everything is alright all of the time regardless
of the real qualitiy of the product you are pushing.

You shouldn't call your articles boat reviews you should call them
advertisements.


wrote in message
oups.com...
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. :-)

Bert Robbins wrote:


Chuck you need to understand that the money flows from the boat buyer to the
dealer to the manufacturer to the advertiser to the magazine. If you start
writing boat reviews that **** off the manufacturer everybody in the whole
chain is looses money except the boat buyer because he will go buy the other
manufacturer's boat.

Oh, and you won't be writing anymore "boat reviews" for the magazine
anymore.


....so now Bert is dispensing advice in the magazine business. Quite a
talented fellow............

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:41:49 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:58:41 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

Bluefin, over in Bristol RI, uses a combination hand lay up and
chopped glass approach - the chopped glass is used to build up
strength in areas that don't need cosmetic hand layup. I've talked to
their engineer and he makes the point that from a practical
standpoint, there isn't much difference beyond costs.


He was a good *company man* but a poor engineer.....

see (specifically CHOPPED STRAND FIBERGLASS MAT):
http://www.fibreglast.com/content.ph...rksrc=FreeInfo

The fact that fabrics are anisotropic explains the importance of the
warp clock.... but also explains their greater strength since the
fibers are quite long....

Interesting. So having strength in one direction is more important to
you than strength in all directions - speaking about reinforcement
that is.