JimH wrote:


(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.

Look carefully, Jim. That was a potential compliment. I don't know how
to make those impersonal. :-)

Harry Krause wrote:


Considering what I would consider the miserable boating weather you have
up there (wet, cold, rainy, unswimmable), I can't imagine that Crownline
being too popular, though I did love the line about pulling waterskiers,
in wet suits, right?

Only during the winter months. You're overlooking the fact that we have
a lot of freshwater boating opportunities up this way. A lot of water
skiing is done on Lake Washington, for example, a huge freshwater lake
that is fully accessible to boats of all sizes via the Chittenden
Locks. The freshwater lakes are a little warmer than the sound, and
people commonly ski on them.

Heck, you could even tow this boat (with a wide load permit- $250 a
year and no night towing) and get to Lake Roosevelt or some other area
where it's actually *hot* in the summer. :-)

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

JimH wrote:


(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.

Look carefully, Jim. That was a potential compliment. I don't know how
to make those impersonal. :-)


You are correct Chuck. I was working on a report and I just skimmed your
post. Sorry for the confusion.

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


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
m...
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.

Yes John you missed something.

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

No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote:

"Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned
this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that
kicks up."



Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK?



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

Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-)

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"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. ;-)


32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of
large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the
North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating. a 50'
houseboat, is for large lakes. Lakes can get nasty, but not the 20' swells
plus of large oceans. The San Juans and Lake Washington are a large
sheltered area. Thousands of miles of protected, year round cruising. If
all large bodies of water required a large, Michelson type sport fisher,
then you would not have a boat suitable for the Great Lakes. Lots of
boaters do not fish, so they want a boat set up for comfort. Not easy
clean, hose down the tuna blood, from a day of slaughtering albacore
cockpit. Boats are designed for water types. Your 21' boat would have a
life expectancy of extremely short if you boated some of the waters I do.
The rocks would remove your outdrive and most of your bottom. Same as my
boat is not for long distance cruising, it does have a zippered in
enclosure, that protects the occupants from the weather, which is nice
fishing on the anchor in winter. Fault the boat for a marshmello interior
or an ugly arch, but base the design complaints on where the boat is
marketed for the waters that can be encountered in the same region.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"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. ;-)


32' and not a blue water boat is not a design defect. There are lots of
large boats that are not designed for the North Atlantic in winter, or the
North Pacific all year. They are designed for regional boating.


I agree and never said otherwise. But 32 feet and not able to take 5 foot
swells or 2 foot following seas without flooding the cockpit is a design
defect. ;-)

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


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


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
om...
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.

Yes John you missed something.

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

No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote:

"Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned
this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that
kicks up."



Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK?



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

Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-)


Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different
things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most
certainly is *capable* of doing so.

Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools
also, especially at the 4th grade level.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

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


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
om...
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.

Yes John you missed something.

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

No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote:

"Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned
this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that
kicks up."



Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK?



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

Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-)


I doubt very much that your boat would not cause major bung hole
constriction in a 5' chop. That is a lot different than 5' seas. The chop
is what is on top of the swells. slow to 5-8 knots when the seas get to 3'
and drive very carefully back to port. Most of the time I get back to safe
harbor before the seas get that nasty.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:38:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes John you missed something.
You misread, then misquote, than argue against your misquotes as though
they were stated by the OP.

No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote:

"Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned
this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that
kicks up."



Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK?


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

Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-)




Anne Arundel schools? Where did that come from?

Channel 4.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:21 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com
wrote:


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


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
news:cs2dnVYiYpQhQnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast. com...
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.

Yes John you missed something.

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

No I didn't. Here is exactly what Chuck wrote:

"Tha said, the most natual fit for this boat would be somewhatsheltered
waters. I don't think it was really intended to slop around in 30-kt
winds and 5-foot chop. You would want to be off the water if you owned
this boat- as well as most other boats, when something nasty like that
kicks up."



Read it twice......make that three times so you fully understand. OK?



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

Now what is that saying about people in glass houses? ;-)


Read closely. "Not intended for..." and "not capable of" are two different
things. My pickup is 'not intended for' carrying a 3/4 ton load. It most
certainly is *capable* of doing so.

Mince the words all you want John. He said you want to be off the water
with this boat if there are 5 footers. To me that mean it is not capable of
handling it. If it were, why get off?

Got it now?



Reading comprehension is a big problem in Prince George's County Schools
also, especially at the 4th grade level.


Perhaps you need to take some refreshers on your days off.


--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John