John H wrote:


What was incorrect in Bert's comments, Don?


Don't believe I said he was right or wrong...just commented on how
'talented' he was...

Bert Robbins wrote:


Thank you Don, I knew you would finally see the blinding brilliance of my
capabilities soon enough.



Well...that calls for another 'western beer'!

"*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.




Silence.

Newsgroup Reader wrote:
JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the Four
Winns web site.



Gould never offered to provide the "detailed layup schedule" for Sea
Ray.
It will be news to many of course, but the layup schedule will actually
vary from one model of Sea Ray to the next. (It will be consistent for
boats of the same model in the line-up). There is no "Sea Ray" layup
schedule, but there are manufacturing principles. What I did provide
was actual evidence that the Sea Ray 215 is a fiberglass boat, not
something made of "putty" as David Pascoe implies and Larry WS---
rushes to confirm.

So, Smithers, I provided what I said I would and could provide. You
retort that the "truth is somewhere in the middle" between the photos
of a Sea Ray hull being laid up and the allegations of Pascoe and
Larry---- (that it isn't even really a fiberglass boat). If we're still
waiting for anything, it would be for you to come forward with your
revelation of just how much "putty" and how much fiberglass is utilized
when building a Sea Ray runabout. You choose instead to make bitchy
remarks about boating magazines and dance around the subject. Please,
tell us just where in the middle between "the boats are made of putty"
and "the boats are made from fiberglass with a technique that is
descrived and can be viewed on this website" the truth falls........

Are you yet another of the crowd that cat-calls and criticizes from the
edge of the crowd, but when called upon to demonstrate some actual
knowledge is shown as one who can only talk the talk, not walk the
walk? What a relief it would be if just once a few of you non-boaters
who hang out here and holler "wrong" at every turn would offer some
technical rebuttal rather then personal insults to
back up your so-called arguments.

I'm glad this discussion has prompted you to begin researching the
basic differences among techniques in fiberglass fabrication. That will
come in handy when you disclose your version of the truth, "somewhere
in the middle."

As far as chop goes, I too prefer a hand laid, hand rolled hull. Two of
the biggest disadvantages of chopped hull construction are eliminated
with the RIMFIRE system, however. The application of chop into a mold
is a job that has been traditionally assigned to some very low
dollar-per-hour entry level workers. As a result, the chopped
fiberglass strands were not always skillfully and evenly applied and
were often inconsistently wetted out with the proper amount of resin.
The RIMFIRE system, and other automated approaches, controls the
glass/resin ratio very precisely, controls the temperature of the
material being applied, and the robotic application exactly duplicates
the application process on every hull. (You don't wind up with a thick
spot where the 17-year old applicator got distracted by the long legs
and short skirt of the company secretary).

When comparing chop construction to hand laid and hand rolled
laminations, it's important to remember that the ultimate goal is the
same in both cases. The builder needs to combine "glass" or other
engineered fabrics with resin to create a solid plastic shape inside a
mold. Whether the fabric is laid in subsequent layers to conform to the
mold and wetted out, or whether the fabric is shredded into indivdual
strands and sprayed onto the gelcoated surface of the mold, some basic
principles apply. The fabricator wants to create a hull with a
controlled consistent density and without voids. (Getting the density
controlled and consistent has been a challenge with chop, building
without voids has been a challenge with hand rolled) Either technique
should be fine for building the hull of a 21-foot boat when properly
executed. Either technique will turn out a crappy boat when sloppily
done.

I'm sure your research will soon inform you that blistering and
delamination are both more common on hand-laid, hand-rolled hulls than
on hulls built with chopped strand technique. Don't fall for the old
noise where a properly and skillfully executed hand laminated hull is
compared to a crappily done chopped strand hull and the obvious
difference is quality assigned to differences in technique, rather than
the bigger variable- the skill of the workman.

Again, I personally prefer a well-done hand rolled hull but I recognize
that it's a personal preference rather than a universal and absolute
constant.

wrote in message
ups.com...


Newsgroup Reader wrote:
JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any
information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still
the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to
SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the
Four
Winns web site.



Gould never offered to provide the "detailed layup schedule" for Sea
Ray.
It will be news to many of course, but the layup schedule will actually
vary from one model of Sea Ray to the next. (It will be consistent for
boats of the same model in the line-up). There is no "Sea Ray" layup
schedule, but there are manufacturing principles. What I did provide
was actual evidence that the Sea Ray 215 is a fiberglass boat, not
something made of "putty" as David Pascoe implies and Larry WS---
rushes to confirm.

So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.

Newsgroup Reader wrote:
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.


Wow. Are you ever confused. I *never* said I was providing a detailed
layup schedule, only a link to a site that detailed how (as in the
general technique) the boats are laid up.

Tell us, please, where "in the middle" between Pascoe's assertion that
Sea Ray boats aren't really fibergalss at all, but made of "putty"
instead and the photos of a Sea Ray hull being constructed from chopped
strand doed the "truth" reside? Why do you now concentrte on personal
attacks rather than come forward with this information you claim to
possess?

I guess the answer is obvious, isn't it?

*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.

If I told you the boat was built with alternating layers of Velveeta
and potato chips, you wouldn't know or appreciate the difference.

I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule. The technique
("uses no putty") is what is important to this discussion. I have
contacts
that could provide me with more technical information about the Sea Ray
hull than you or your buddy Smithers have the capacity to understand-
but why bother? A long, detailed, technical analysis would be
immediately dissed by you guys as it was "provided by Sea Ray, and who
can believe the mfgr?".

I think I'll sit and watch Smithers turn slowly on his own hook,
claiming I promised to provide something I never agreed to provide and
insisting that the truth is "somewhere in the middle" between Pascoe's
assertion that Sea Rays aren't really fiberglass boats and the photos
and description of the manufacturing process that are commonly and
publicly available. All the paniced insulting and finger pointing he
can muster aren't going to let him ge away without either 1)
establishing how much "putty" vs. how much fiberglass is in a Sea Ray
runabout hull or 2) admitting that he is speaking through his West
Marine "captain" hat and doesn't really know schidt from shine about
how Sea Ray hulls are built. So far, he's hooting down all sources that
don't agree with his bizarre position- but failing to provide a single
shred of evidence for his own, "in the middle" position.

I do commend him for doing some "research" into fiberglass fabrication
methods. Too bad he doesn't do such research before he fires off his
nonsense.

Chuck,
My comment about SeaRay being in the middle was in reference to the boat
being a middle of the road quality. Since I have looked into process, it
looks like SeaRay has decided to follow Bayliner as being a price boat. If
you want a cheap boat, I am sure it would meet your needs in protected
waters.

I am glad your article prompted a detailed discussion concerning the PR
fluff pieces written for boating magazines. You have done a great service
to any newbie's reading boating magazines.




wrote in message
ups.com...


Newsgroup Reader wrote:
JohnH,
Bert didn't say anything that was incorrect. I am sure Don will quietly
disappear from this thread. I keep waiting for Gould to show us the
detailed lay-up schedule shown on the SeaRay and the robot builders web
site. I looked but could only find pretty pictures without any
information
on the lay-up schedule.

From what I have read since this post started is a chopper gun is still
the
worst method of applying fiberglass. While it is a cost savings to
SeaRay,
It lacks the strength of conventional fiberglass lay-up as shown on the
Four
Winns web site.



Gould never offered to provide the "detailed layup schedule" for Sea
Ray.
It will be news to many of course, but the layup schedule will actually
vary from one model of Sea Ray to the next. (It will be consistent for
boats of the same model in the line-up). There is no "Sea Ray" layup
schedule, but there are manufacturing principles. What I did provide
was actual evidence that the Sea Ray 215 is a fiberglass boat, not
something made of "putty" as David Pascoe implies and Larry WS---
rushes to confirm.

So, Smithers, I provided what I said I would and could provide. You
retort that the "truth is somewhere in the middle" between the photos
of a Sea Ray hull being laid up and the allegations of Pascoe and
Larry---- (that it isn't even really a fiberglass boat). If we're still
waiting for anything, it would be for you to come forward with your
revelation of just how much "putty" and how much fiberglass is utilized
when building a Sea Ray runabout. You choose instead to make bitchy
remarks about boating magazines and dance around the subject. Please,
tell us just where in the middle between "the boats are made of putty"
and "the boats are made from fiberglass with a technique that is
descrived and can be viewed on this website" the truth falls........

Are you yet another of the crowd that cat-calls and criticizes from the
edge of the crowd, but when called upon to demonstrate some actual
knowledge is shown as one who can only talk the talk, not walk the
walk? What a relief it would be if just once a few of you non-boaters
who hang out here and holler "wrong" at every turn would offer some
technical rebuttal rather then personal insults to
back up your so-called arguments.

I'm glad this discussion has prompted you to begin researching the
basic differences among techniques in fiberglass fabrication. That will
come in handy when you disclose your version of the truth, "somewhere
in the middle."

As far as chop goes, I too prefer a hand laid, hand rolled hull. Two of
the biggest disadvantages of chopped hull construction are eliminated
with the RIMFIRE system, however. The application of chop into a mold
is a job that has been traditionally assigned to some very low
dollar-per-hour entry level workers. As a result, the chopped
fiberglass strands were not always skillfully and evenly applied and
were often inconsistently wetted out with the proper amount of resin.
The RIMFIRE system, and other automated approaches, controls the
glass/resin ratio very precisely, controls the temperature of the
material being applied, and the robotic application exactly duplicates
the application process on every hull. (You don't wind up with a thick
spot where the 17-year old applicator got distracted by the long legs
and short skirt of the company secretary).

When comparing chop construction to hand laid and hand rolled
laminations, it's important to remember that the ultimate goal is the
same in both cases. The builder needs to combine "glass" or other
engineered fabrics with resin to create a solid plastic shape inside a
mold. Whether the fabric is laid in subsequent layers to conform to the
mold and wetted out, or whether the fabric is shredded into indivdual
strands and sprayed onto the gelcoated surface of the mold, some basic
principles apply. The fabricator wants to create a hull with a
controlled consistent density and without voids. (Getting the density
controlled and consistent has been a challenge with chop, building
without voids has been a challenge with hand rolled) Either technique
should be fine for building the hull of a 21-foot boat when properly
executed. Either technique will turn out a crappy boat when sloppily
done.

I'm sure your research will soon inform you that blistering and
delamination are both more common on hand-laid, hand-rolled hulls than
on hulls built with chopped strand technique. Don't fall for the old
noise where a properly and skillfully executed hand laminated hull is
compared to a crappily done chopped strand hull and the obvious
difference is quality assigned to differences in technique, rather than
the bigger variable- the skill of the workman.

Again, I personally prefer a well-done hand rolled hull but I recognize
that it's a personal preference rather than a universal and absolute
constant.

Gould,
If you read my comment, I said many boat builders will use putty to correct
any problems found when the boat is removed from the mold. Do you disagree
with this? While I have not made any insults, you seem to be getting
yourself worked up into a tizzy and hurling insults my direction.

I don't believe anything I have said concerning the PR pieces written for
boating magazines is incorrect.


wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


So what is the layup schedule of the SeaRay you did the fluff *review* on
Chuck? You called it a great boat and well constructed, so surely you
can
fill us in with the hull and deck construction layup schedule.

If I told you the boat was built with alternating layers of Velveeta
and potato chips, you wouldn't know or appreciate the difference.

I can describe the layup technique, but not the schedule. The technique
("uses no putty") is what is important to this discussion. I have
contacts
that could provide me with more technical information about the Sea Ray
hull than you or your buddy Smithers have the capacity to understand-
but why bother? A long, detailed, technical analysis would be
immediately dissed by you guys as it was "provided by Sea Ray, and who
can believe the mfgr?".

I think I'll sit and watch Smithers turn slowly on his own hook,
claiming I promised to provide something I never agreed to provide and
insisting that the truth is "somewhere in the middle" between Pascoe's
assertion that Sea Rays aren't really fiberglass boats and the photos
and description of the manufacturing process that are commonly and
publicly available. All the paniced insulting and finger pointing he
can muster aren't going to let him ge away without either 1)
establishing how much "putty" vs. how much fiberglass is in a Sea Ray
runabout hull or 2) admitting that he is speaking through his West
Marine "captain" hat and doesn't really know schidt from shine about
how Sea Ray hulls are built. So far, he's hooting down all sources that
don't agree with his bizarre position- but failing to provide a single
shred of evidence for his own, "in the middle" position.

I do commend him for doing some "research" into fiberglass fabrication
methods. Too bad he doesn't do such research before he fires off his
nonsense.

Gould,
I have not made any person attacks, that seems to be your bailiwick
wrote in message
ups.com...


Newsgroup Reader wrote:
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.


Wow. Are you ever confused. I *never* said I was providing a detailed
layup schedule, only a link to a site that detailed how (as in the
general technique) the boats are laid up.

Tell us, please, where "in the middle" between Pascoe's assertion that
Sea Ray boats aren't really fibergalss at all, but made of "putty"
instead and the photos of a Sea Ray hull being constructed from chopped
strand doed the "truth" reside? Why do you now concentrte on personal
attacks rather than come forward with this information you claim to
possess?

I guess the answer is obvious, isn't it?