On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:33:23 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:55:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch


There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel usage
in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used for
recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously the
auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million gallons
of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of that was
in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

That was before the advent of ETEC. :)

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:12:38 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Does your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat waste huge amounts of
dwindling resources for your fun?

Give it up man - it's not going anywhere.

We get the point.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch


There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.




But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch

On Nov 10, 9:49 am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:35?pm, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000
just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the
hole to
the Saudi pigs.

1nmpg isn't all that unusual for a 42-footer traveling at any sort of
speed. Heck you're lucky to do any better than 4nmpg in a single
screw, 7-knot, 42-foot trawler. And just like any other boat, fuel
consumption at WOT is almost obscene.

One man's fuel "wastage" is somebody elses' "gawd-given right to
recreate" and pursue the American dream.

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

I also remember when Harry was building his custom 36 ft'er, GPH or
MPG were not including in his criteria, speed to his fishing area was
his only criteria.

The trawler seems to be a great option for those who are spending a
lot of time boating and enjoy the experience of boating. Like life,
it is the journey not the destination.

Didn't he get a sweet heart deal on ULLICO or WorldCom stock that
enabled him to pay for his 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat. I wonder
why he doesn't talk about it now?

Wow...a circle jerk.

Harry lies never die on Usenet

Unfortunately neither do you, Fritz.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?




What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

--Vic

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel usage
in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used for
recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously the
auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million gallons
of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of that was
in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch



That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of
a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch



Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?



What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

--Vic


Fox News. hehehehe.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:10:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

I love this "adjusted for inflation" crap.

It's nonsense.