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

" 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
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? ;-)


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.


Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop:

"The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is
called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting
from wind action on small bodies of water."

So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas.

I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the
definition. ;-)

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

"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. ;-)


5' swells on the Pacific would not be a problem for the boat. Would not
flood the deck. That is a nice day here.

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

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

" 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
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? ;-)


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.


Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop:

"The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is
called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves
resulting from wind action on small bodies of water."

So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas.

I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the
definition. ;-)


A sea or swell is a long period wave. Maybe 15 seconds from crest to crest.
I go out in up to 8' swells here off San Francisco. Running downhill with
the swells at 8' and no chop, I go about 25 mph or you hit the back of the
next swell. But after about 11:30 am in the summer, you want to be near the
harbor, as then the breezes are up and the wind waves or chop are building.
And you can go from calm water, swells only to 3' chop in about 20 minutes.
The chop can be going several directions in regards to the waves, and
sometimes the chops build on top of a swell for a really nasty, wet ride.
Chop is what causes the "sheep in the meadow" description when looking at
the ocean.

JimH wrote:

Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop:

"The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is
called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves resulting
from wind action on small bodies of water."

So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas.

I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of the
definition. ;-)


Most boats can easily handle a 5-foot, 10-foot, or even larger ocean
*swell* if the waves are far enough apart (defined as a "period"
between swells) that they aren't too steep. You just go uuuuuuuup,
pause a second, and then go doooooooown. No big deal, unless you're
subject to sea sickness.

You certainly experience chop on the lake where you boat, as it is a
much shorter and steeper wave form created primarily by wind. With
enough fetch, even a lake of moderate size and certainly any of the
Great Lakes can become pretty nasty in 30-knot conditions.

Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest
copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have
another edition it may be somewhere else in the book.

Look down the chart to Force 7 winds:

28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves
begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA
HEAVE-TO.
Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when
walking against wind.

The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those
would be swells.
There's no such thing as 18-foot chop- or if there is I never hope to
see it. :-)

Capable of structurally surviving such conditions and choosing to be
out in them are two different concepts.

Chop is like the fish somebody caught last week. The more times the
story of a stormy passage is told, the higher the waves seem to become.
There are probably a lot of guys who tell stories about 8-foot chop
that have never seen 5-footers. In places like Puget Sound or the
Chesapeake chop is usually very steep. Imagine hitting a 5-foot "speed
bump", and then imagine hitting another one every several seconds.
5-foot chop breaks just below the anchor pulpit on my 36-foot tug.
Those are some nasty and uncomfortable seas. 7-foot chop breaks over
the rail and floods the foredeck, and being out in that stuff is
insane.

Calif Bill wrote:
" 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.

Bill, don't waste your time. JimH won't get it, because he refuses to.
He's on his monthly period bipolar rant.

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

JimH wrote:

Interesting. I went to my Chapman's to look up their definition of chop:

"The confused water action found at places where tidal currents meet is
called a chop, a term also applied to small, closely spaced waves
resulting
from wind action on small bodies of water."

So it looks like a 5 foot chop can be the same as 5 foot seas.

I don't boat on the ocean so I was not familiar with the first part of
the
definition. ;-)

Before you put Chapman's away, look up the Beaufort scale. My latest
copy is a 1985 edition and the scale is on page 327, but if you have
another edition it may be somewhere else in the book.

Look down the chart to Force 7 winds:

28-33 knots (32-38 mph). "Near Gale". "White foam from breaking waves
begins to be blown in streaks" BOATS REMAIN IN HARBOR; THOSE AT SEA
HEAVE-TO.
Effects observed on land: Whole trees in motion, resistance felt when
walking against wind.

I have the same edition......1985/27th Edition

Interesting chart. Thanks. ;-)

On 21 Aug 2006 13:37:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those
would be swells.

Not necessarily so.

Force 7 over open water for a day or two will produce the real thing
with lots of breaking crests, nothing "swell" about them. Mix in a
little adverse current at the same time and you could produce some
really steep 4 to 6 meter waves. This happens fairly frequently in
the gulf stream between Florida and the Bahamas, especially in the
winter months.

Harry Krause wrote:

Gee, where does a sudden onset tostito fall, with its 30-foot waves?

On the Beaufort Scale, that would need to be about a Force 10 or Force
11.
Force 10, 48-55 knots, is classified as a "storm", with waves of 6-9
meters- and 9 meters is close to 30-feet.

Force 11, 56-63 knots, is classified as a "violent storn", with
"exceptionally high" waves of 9-14 meters.

Oh, and as I'm sure you know the only thing beyond Force 11 "violent
storm" is a Force 12 "hurricane".

I wouldn't recommend anybody go boating in any sort of boat in Force
10, 11, or 12 conditions. :-)

Being something of a wuss and remembering that this is supposed to
"pleasure boating", you won't find me out, except by accident or poor
planning, in much of anything above Force 6- and Force 6 only
reluctantly. Every once in a long while I find myself involved with the
Truly Nasties, and it always reminds me why I try to avoid those sorts
of conditions. The first level where I refuse to tread, Force 7 ("near
gale") is not for the faint of heart.

I thought Tostitos generated 50-foot waves, and were only survivable in
a 23-foot trailer boat with fuel cans lashed to the gunwales. See how
the mind plays tricks when it comes to remembering wave heights?

Wayne.B wrote:
On 21 Aug 2006 13:37:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

The chart refers to waves of 4-6 meters at Force 7, but again those
would be swells.

Not necessarily so.

Force 7 over open water for a day or two will produce the real thing
with lots of breaking crests, nothing "swell" about them. Mix in a
little adverse current at the same time and you could produce some
really steep 4 to 6 meter waves. This happens fairly frequently in
the gulf stream between Florida and the Bahamas, especially in the
winter months.

I would certainly defer to your local knowledge in that regard.
Good reason not to be on the water during a Force 7 in the winter
months down there.

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

Imagine hitting a 5-foot "speed
bump", and then imagine hitting another one every several seconds.

Now imagine doing that in a 30-36 ft. outboard-powered center console for 80
miles each way at 30-40 mph. Welcome to the SKA (Southern Kingfish
Association...a.k.a. "small kraft advisory").

Those guys are certifiably insane.

My Grady will run at 15-18 mph in 4-5 foot chop without pounding. I've run
it 22-26mph in those conditions, and it's murder. The secret to those SKA
boats (Contender, Yellowfin, Fountain, Sea Vee, etc) is that they get up and
run on top of the stuff.