JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats
built with no transom at all........)


No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You said
the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will take on
water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not built to take
on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point because in your
review you never said anything about these deficiencies. ;-)

The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles"
are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews. They
are articles designed to peak the readers interest in the boat and
boating in general. As we have discussed many times previously, all
boating and speciality magazines in general, write these kind of
articles to promote their hobbies, interest and to increase their
readership, so they can increase their ad revenue.

When Chuck posts them in rec.boats he encourages boating discussions,
but no one should ever assume Chuck's, or any boat magazine boat
article, is a critical review of a boat. Most people (probably all
people) who buy boating magazines understand the articles are not
critical reviews, so when you read Chuck's reprints of those articles in
rec.boats you really need to understand he does not pretend they are
critical reviews, why do you?

Harry Krause wrote:
I wouldn't have felt very safe in that overgrown
bubble boat.

Then you certainly should never own one. Is that the new universal
standard for a good boat? It has to be suitable for Harry Krause's
occassional use, whether or not one boats in the same conditions? I
personally wouldn't have your Parker up my keister if I had room in
there for Barnum and Bailey's entire circus- but that doesn't mean it
isn't a good boat nor that people who would be in a position to enjoy
and appreciate its characteristics shouldn't own one.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats
built with no transom at all........)


No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will
take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not
built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point
because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies.
;-)

The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are
not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to
accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than
an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and
5 foot seas.

JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats
built with no transom at all........)

No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will
take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not
built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point
because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies.
;-)
The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are
not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to
accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than
an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and
5 foot seas.


The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion,
the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a
waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you
are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can
you let this one go.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:22:41 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:

I wonder how much water gets into the cabin when the cockpit starts to
flood? Lets hope it has some monster bilge pumps.


Since you seem so fixated on this, how well does your own boat handle
following seas breaking over the transom?


I don't know as I don't venture out in those types of seas and keep my eye
on the weather so I do not get caught in conditions that would result in
following seas crashing over my transom. It is a 20 foot runabout Chuck,
not a 32 foot cruiser. ;-)


(If you don't know, that
probably says more for your seamanship than if you do).


Why are you turning this personal Chuck? I thought you wanted a discussion
of the boat you reviewed.


He gave you a compliment...

Try reading for comprehension just one time!

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find
where you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be
well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to
a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing
sailboats
built with no transom at all........)

No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will
take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not
built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my
point because in your review you never said anything about these
deficiencies. ;-)
The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles"
are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing
to accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more
than an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water
and 5 foot seas.


The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion,
the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a
waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are
begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let
this one go.


I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up
on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults
without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then
that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself.

BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-)

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:38:55 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats
built with no transom at all........)


No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will
take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not
built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point
because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies.
;-)

The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are
not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to
accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than
an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and
5 foot seas.


Did I miss something? Where did Chuck say the boat couldn't take 5 foot
seas? Hell, my 21'er can take 5 foot seas.

You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though
they were stated by the OP.

Anne Arundel County Schools are also facing a reading comprehension
problem.

JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:12 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
groups.com...

JR North wrote:
They should shoot that rear shot at the bottom of the page with about a
2 foot following sea.
JR


If a following sea broke across the swimstep there could be some
flooding of the cockpit, but not as much as you might expect. ( There
is a huge, recessed deck drain just outside the companionway door). The
sunpad and locker substitutes for a traditional transom, and the
passages to port and starboard are partially protected with
what would be, in effect, "reduced flow" transom doors. If the
following sea wasn't breaking, the boat would just ride up and over the
top like any other and the increased pressure and effect on steering
would all be taking place below the waterline.

Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhat sheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop.


A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where you
mention that in your review though. ;-)


Do you never tire of it?


John, it is truly a shame that your *contribution* to the NG has sunk to
Kevin's level.

Hey, Jim, I love it how you are such a little ****ing cry baby!!!! Care
to wager that I'm not Kevin? Grow up.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find where
you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing sailboats
built with no transom at all........)

No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will
take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not
built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my point
because in your review you never said anything about these deficiencies.
;-)
The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles" are
not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing to
accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more than
an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water and
5 foot seas.


The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion,
the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a
waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you
are begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can
you let this one go.

Jim's just on yet another of his monthly period bipolar rants. Same
old, same old!

JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
A shame that a 32 footer can handle only sheltered water because the
cockpit
will flood, especially in following seas. I can't seem to find
where you
mention that in your review though. ;-)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Bluewater boaters routinely see water on deck. That's why scuppers are
built into bulwarks.

This boat is relatively shallow draft, moderate freeboard, and fairly
light displacement.
Nobody would recommend this boat for offshore use under "small craft
warning" weather conditions, certainly including the manufacturer.
Wouldn't matter if it had a transom 4 feet high.

A following sea would not routinely flood the cockpit. Anybody who
would panic if a strong following sea broke across the swim platform
and momentarily put a half inch of water into the cockpit would be
well
advised to choose a heading that doesn't expose the stern directly to
a
following sea.

(I could probably dig up a link to an entire series of racing
sailboats
built with no transom at all........)

No one said anything about open bluewater or offshore use Chuck. You
said the boat was built only for calm sheltered water as the boat will
take on water in rough or following seas. A shame a 32 footer is not
built to take on some moderately rough conditions. And that was my
point because in your review you never said anything about these
deficiencies. ;-)
The post by Chuck Gould was an well written article for a boating
magazine. As we have discussed many many times these "info-articles"
are not reviews and don't pretend to be critical boating reviews.



If he chooses to post the advertisements here then he should be willing
to accept criticism on them.

And a review of a boat without bringing out it's flaws is nothing more
than an advertisement. ;-)

The points I brought up are valid and the result of a poorly engineered
boat. I cannot imagine a 32 footer not capable of taking on open water
and 5 foot seas.


The points you mentioned are ones that worthy of any boating discussion,
the fact that you prefered to make it a discussion on his review is a
waste of bandwidth. To anyone reading your posts it appears that you are
begging for another fight with Chuck. If Chuck tells you "win" can you let
this one go.


I am not begging for a fight. He asked for a discussion and I took him up
on it. If the weaknesses of a boat design cannot be discussed like adults
without getting personal or thinking a party is trying to start a fight then
that is a problem you will have to work out for yourself.

BTW: Like others, I believe Chuck's info-mercials are well written. ;-)

How do you know ANYTHING about "the weaknesses of the boat's design"?
Have you been on one? Have you took it out in the types of seas you are
mentioning? Have you even seen one up close?