Four-stroke PWC engines
cruz3
I'd bet it will be a couple (maybe '01-'02) of more years before the mfgs
issue a 4 stroke. They will have to spend some big R&D $$$ and ultimately
increase the price of a PWC. After ownining both 2-4 strokers, I think the
best choice for PWC is more efficient 2 strokers. The SD GTX RFI is a great
example.
Besides, 4 strokers are more complicated and will prevent many people from
doing their own maintenance. I think there are a lot of PWCers (like me)
that like wrenching on stuff, but want to avoid the extra hassle and
complexity of 4 strokers.
Sean Prange wrote in message <358F1329...@home.com>...
>Have any of the manufacturers hinted at the possibility of introducing
>four-stroke engines in the near future?
>Perhaps a better question would be: why has the PWC industry remained
>with the nauseating two-stroke?
>I am aware that there have been many advancements in the technology,
>imparting some of the qualities of
>four-stroke engines (lower HC emissions, for example) while maintaining
>more power output at a given
>RPM and displacement, however I feel the current state is still
>antiquated. I still enjoy PWC, even if they're
>somewhat noisy and occasionally foul smelling. I'll more than likely
>purchase one this year (preferably new)
>but would hold off for a year if a four-stroke were to be introduced. I
>could be very wrong about my
>perception of the marine two-strokes..I'd like some feedback.
>
>Sean
>
Jim R.
What! I love the smell of two stroke fumes! Maybe thats why I only have 2
brain cells left.
Ride Safe
Jim
Sean Prange
snapper
banger PWC ...
Rob Munach
> Just a comparison: a 2.8 liter V-6 Chevy is less hp than ~1 liter, 2 or 3
> banger PWC ...
Just a comparison: isn't it a 400 cc 4 stroke Yamaha motocrosser that
currently is kicking ass on the 250 cc two strokes?
________________
Rob Munach
Larry
Just put the Honda flat-6 Valkerie 4-stroker in a HONDA PWC and call
me when it's ready for pickup. Think of how LOW the center of gravity
will be without the engine sticking UP out of the hull! The 6 is too
quiet to hear run, the tires make more noise! Smooooth, quiet,
powerful and if you take a peek at one the next time you're at your
Honda shop you'll see it's EXACTLY they 8000 RPM the pump needs to
BLOW YOU AWAY.
I have a neighbor who owns one. His idea of shifting is when the
valves float. I know he winds it past redline every time he leaves a
light. The only time its been in the shop is for an oil
change....(sigh).
Just call me when it's ready.....
Larry
BUILD THE DAMNED PWC HONDA! GET ON THE STICK! YOU CAN HAVE THE
MARKET IF IT'S RELIABLE, FAST AND THAT'S BEEN EASY FOR YOU!
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 20:57:48 -0700, "cruz3" <cr...@bmi.net> wrote:
>I'd bet it will be a couple (maybe '01-'02) of more years before the mfgs
>issue a 4 stroke. They will have to spend some big R&D $$$ and ultimately
>increase the price of a PWC. After ownining both 2-4 strokers, I think the
>best choice for PWC is more efficient 2 strokers. The SD GTX RFI is a great
>example.
>
>Besides, 4 strokers are more complicated and will prevent many people from
>doing their own maintenance. I think there are a lot of PWCers (like me)
>that like wrenching on stuff, but want to avoid the extra hassle and
>complexity of 4 strokers.
>
>
>Sean Prange wrote in message <358F1329...@home.com>...
Larry
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:15:54 GMT, snapper <urh...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Just a comparison: a 2.8 liter V-6 Chevy is less hp than ~1 liter, 2 or 3
>banger PWC ...
Then, go read the Toyota Boat thread on rec.boats. Toyota has put the
300 HORSEPOWER, 500#, Lexus engine in a skiboat. They have a webpage
with pictures of the engine. The boat is made in FL by a company that
makes the fastest bassboats built.
4-strokes CAN be built that would make a PWC haul ass....smoothly,
reliably, on 1/3 the fuel, without $30/gallon oil.
Larry
Harry Krause
Without major hull design changes, I don't see stock PWC's going much faster
than they do today. If you up the stock horsepower on today's three-seaters from
130 to...oh, 200, you'll pick up a few miles an hour and increase the death rate
by many percentage points. I don't see the public tolerating mass numbers of 100
mph PWC's.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"You know much that is hidden, oh Tim." -- King Arthur
Drew
Larry wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:15:54 GMT, snapper <urh...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just a comparison: a 2.8 liter V-6 Chevy is less hp than ~1 liter, 2 or 3
> >banger PWC ...
>
> Then, go read the Toyota Boat thread on rec.boats. Toyota has put the
> 300 HORSEPOWER, 500#, Lexus engine in a skiboat. They have a webpage
> with pictures of the engine. The boat is made in FL by a company that
> makes the fastest bassboats built.
>
> 4-strokes CAN be built that would make a PWC haul ass....smoothly,
> reliably, on 1/3 the fuel, without $30/gallon oil.
>
> Larry
Will it run on it's side? What happens if you flip it upside down then
restart it? There are a few other issues, I think.
--
________
___ __ \_____________ ___ __
__ / / /__ ___/_ _ \__ | /| / /
_ /_/ / _ / / __/__ |/ |/ /
/_____/ /_/ \___/ ____/|__/
Rokybuster
Hair-E wrote:>From: Harry Krause <hkr...@gate-nospam.net>
>Date: Tue, Jun 23, 1998 08:57 EDT
>Message-id: <358FA5F3...@gate.net>
>Without major hull design changes, I don't see stock PWC's going much faster
>than they do today. If you up the stock horsepower on today's three-seaters
>from
>130 to...oh, 200, you'll pick up a few miles an hour and increase the death
>rate
>by many percentage points. I don't see the public tolerating mass
>numbers of 100
>mph PWC's.
The logic that you apply is with out any question *brilliant*.In a bovine kinda
way.
Harry Krause
--
Very helpful, Roky. Which parts do you disagree with and why?
1. The part that current PWC hulls won't be going much faster than they do today
without major design changes? You think today's hulls are suitable for
production consumer boats exceeding 80 or 90 mph? How many product liability
lawsuits do you think the PWC manufacturers will entertain, when it is proved
that their boats are unsafe at those speeds?
2. You think the general public will stand for swarms of PWC's being driven
around beaches at 80+ miles an hour? That, more than anything else, will assure
passage of manadatory insurance laws, mandatory licensing and banishment of
PWC's to less-populated waters.
You think I'm wrong? Tell me where. And with specifics, if you please.
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"The living are the dead on holiday." -- Maeterlinck
bryan....@bigfoot.com
In article <358FD0...@infi.net>,
fo...@infi.net wrote:
>
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:15:54 GMT, snapper <urh...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Just a comparison: a 2.8 liter V-6 Chevy is less hp than ~1 liter, 2 or 3
> > >banger PWC ...
> >
> > Then, go read the Toyota Boat thread on rec.boats. Toyota has put the
> > 300 HORSEPOWER, 500#, Lexus engine in a skiboat. They have a webpage
> > with pictures of the engine. The boat is made in FL by a company that
> > makes the fastest bassboats built.
> >
> > 4-strokes CAN be built that would make a PWC haul ass....smoothly,
> > reliably, on 1/3 the fuel, without $30/gallon oil.
> >
> > Larry
>
Wow... 500lbs. - oh, that's sooooo impressive and relevent....let's
see...I've got a 140HP or so weighing in at under 200lbs including
exhuast....let's see what kind of 4-stroke you come up with that's in the
same weight ballpark as our current 2-cycles - a.k.a. lawn tractor
engines...try again...
Yeah, that's just what I want - a 750lbs 5-up Sea-Doo Super-Banana-Limited
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Larry
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:58:02 -0400, Drew <fo...@infi.net> wrote:
>Larry wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:15:54 GMT, snapper <urh...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Just a comparison: a 2.8 liter V-6 Chevy is less hp than ~1 liter, 2 or 3
>> >banger PWC ...
>>
>> Then, go read the Toyota Boat thread on rec.boats. Toyota has put the
>> 300 HORSEPOWER, 500#, Lexus engine in a skiboat. They have a webpage
>> with pictures of the engine. The boat is made in FL by a company that
>> makes the fastest bassboats built.
>>
>> 4-strokes CAN be built that would make a PWC haul ass....smoothly,
>> reliably, on 1/3 the fuel, without $30/gallon oil.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Will it run on it's side? What happens if you flip it upside down then
>restart it? There are a few other issues, I think.
>--
> ________
> ___ __ \_____________ ___ __
> __ / / /__ ___/_ _ \__ | /| / /
> _ /_/ / _ / / __/__ |/ |/ /
> /_____/ /_/ \___/ ____/|__/
Motorcycles have been flipped over, started up, and run just fine for
years. How do they do it on a dirt bike?
Larry...
Rokybuster
Hair-E wrote:>Very helpful, Roky. Which parts do you disagree with and why?
>
>1. The part that current PWC hulls won't be going much faster than they do
>today
uped the HP on today's * stock* three-seat PWC's they wouldn't be going more
than a" few" miles per hour faster even if they had 200 (two hundred) HP. Add
70hp to any of "todays" three seaters and prop it correctly and it will net a
much better top end gain than a" few" mph over OEM stock. " >2.You think
today's hulls are suitable for production consumer boats exeeding 80 or 90
mph?.How many product liability
>lawsuits do you think the PWC manufacturers will entertain, when it is proved
>that their boats are unsafe at those speeds?<
or 90 mph in stock form just the way it's delivered to the consumer and then
we can talk about dangerously unstable high speed three seaters " hehehe .If
you want to hypothesis lets talk about how far you can swim handcuffed to a
75lb bar bell.Hell I'll talk all day about that. " <3.You think the general
public will stand for swarms of PWC's being driven
word "swarms" in this context.This has nothing to do with the top speed of the
boats .Just your hateful views of guys/gals riding around the beaches. "
>3. That, more than anything else, will assure
>passage of manadatory insurance laws, mandatory licensing and banishment of
>PWC's to less-populated waters.< "No Hair-E it is the stuff your mirror is
made of that makes the IJSBA spend money to protect my rites and the rites of
everyone out there having a good responsible time on the water ." Hey have you
thought about spending more time on rec.sport.hippocrates ? ya your real
interested in my and everyone elses sport on the N/G,thats why your always
posting about the good times you had riding the other day."YA RIGHT"It's alway
the politicial agenda or some crap with you.NEGITIVE NEGITIVE NEGITIVE.But then
again the "BOVINE" has rites also.Knock your self out !LITERLLY.
Dixie Chicken
Normal 4 strokes don't like to run at odd angles, like upside down, because
they run out of oil from the wet sump, although the manufacturers could work
out a dry sump like many race cars. 4 strokes are heavier and more expensive
to rebuild. A valve job is hard enough on a sport bike, it would be real
tough in the confines of a hull. The beauty of a 2 stroke is its simplicity,
although RAVE engines and EFI are making them just about as complicated as a
4 stroker.
Another question is why no one has tried a rotary engine in a watercraft.
Strip all of the a/c and power accessories off of a Mazda RX-7 engine and it
is amazingly small and light. And talk about some rpms! Hey, its just an
idea!
Harry Krause
Rokybuster wrote:
>
> Hair-E wrote:>Very helpful, Roky. Which parts do you disagree with and why?
> >
> >1. The part that current PWC hulls won't be going much faster than they do
> >today
> >without major design changes?< " (NO), The part where you stated that if you
> uped the HP on today's * stock* three-seat PWC's they wouldn't be going more
> than a" few" miles per hour faster even if they had 200 (two hundred) HP. Add
> 70hp to any of "todays" three seaters and prop it correctly and it will net a
> much better top end gain than a" few" mph over OEM stock. "
Hmmm. Seems to me that the max speed I've read about in this newsgroup is on a
PWC just kissing 80 mph, and I doubt if much on that boat is stock from the
factory. You suppose its engine generates a few more ponies than the 135 in the
larger three-seaters?
Further, you can't just add horsepower without taking into account hull design,
strength and handling capabilities. You cannot assume a manufacturer can just
drop a 200 hp engine into one of his current production run hulls. There would
have to be substantial changes, because none of the current consumer PWC's are
designed for the speeds we are discussing. No sane manufacturer would use one of
his current design boats for consumer use.
>2.You think
> today's hulls are suitable for production consumer boats exeeding 80 or 90
> mph?.How many product liability
> >lawsuits do you think the PWC manufacturers will entertain, when it is proved
> >that their boats are unsafe at those speeds?<
> " Hair-E, You show me an OEM production three seat water craft that goes 80
> or 90 mph in stock form just the way it's delivered to the consumer and then
> we can talk about dangerously unstable high speed three seaters "
Do you understand the concept of hypothetical? I said *if* there were one. I
don't believe there will be one. Not because it is impossible, but because of
common sense. PWC'ing is under serious attack on many fronts...dumping a 90-mph
production boat out on boobus Americanus would drive the nails right into the
coffin.
You think the general
> public will stand for swarms of PWC's being driven
> >around beaches at 80+ miles an hour?<
"I take offence to your use of the
> word "swarms" in this context.This has nothing to do with the top speed of the
> boats .Just your hateful views of guys/gals riding around the beaches. "
I don't believe PWC'ers should be operating their boats near swimmers. I don't
believe ANY power boaters should be operating their boats near swimmers. Most
conventional power boaters give swimmers a wide berth. Many PWC'ers do not. That
is why PWC's have been banned from a number of beaches and inlets in parts of
Florida. Too many complaints from moms scared by swarms of PWC'ers buzzing
around their kids. You don't like it? Deal with the moms. They have more clout
than you do.
> >3. That, more than anything else, will assure
> >passage of manadatory insurance laws, mandatory licensing and banishment of
> >PWC's to less-populated waters.
< "No Hair-E it is the stuff your mirror is
> made of that makes the IJSBA spend money to protect my rites and the rites of
> everyone out there having a good responsible time on the water ."
No trade association is going to protect reckless and careless PWC'ers from the
wrath of their communities. A few thousand 90 mph PWC's in the hands of certain
types of PWC'ers, and you're likely to find that your favorite kind of boat is
banned universally.
There's nothing wrong with having a good, reasonable time on the water. The
possibilities, however, are seriously hampered where there are dozens of tiny
boats zipping around in a small area at 90 mph.
Tell you this, though. A couple of PWC's colliding at 90 mph will make some
spectacular footage on the evening news and 60 minutes. Will you be among the
first to volunteer?
Rokybuster
Bryan wrote :>Yeah, that's just what I want - a 750lbs 5-up Sea-Doo
Super-Banana-Limited<
Well said Bryan
PWC ridr1
Not going to be any four stroke motors in any pwc, period. This thread has
already been run in every R/D department, and the concensus is the same. If it
could be done, it is likely that the pre-production models would be something
created by guys like Harry (groupK that is) or any of the other highly
qualified mechanics that now make the boats we have scream.
Most new models are just highly refined, finished products based on the hard
work of some garage mechanic who had a brainstorm. A great example of this
would be the new EX400 (atv) from Honda. It is a hybrid of sorts between the
very popular EX300 (4stroke) and the even more popular TRX250R (two stroke) The
frame is based on the race proven 250R, and the motor is based on the
XR400/300EX engine (4 stroke). This is likely to be the beginning of a new
revolution for atv's.
Now, among your many questions, one must be, who cares? Well, over the years,
many atv enthusiasts have been building machines just like what is now being
offered by Honda. If the pwc world had this vast number of participants doing
the same, you might well eventually see a 4 stroke pwc. Rest assured though,
the companies will not, if they have not already, make a 4 stroke pwc. The
government has not mandated it, therefore, IMHO, it will not happen. If they do
mandate it, then that may very well be the end of pwc as we know it. The reason
I say this is because even the biggest baddest 4 stroke atv/motorcycle (stock
that is) I have ever seen could not run with my little stock 350 Banshee (atv).
Apples to oranges you say, not really. A four stroke pwc does not even sound
appealing to me, except for the good gas milage and the reduced noise. The
riding would definitely be unlike anything we have ever seen, or would want to
see.
I wish they could find a way to institute a 4 stroke into a pwc, but right now,
the big push seems to be leaning towards a cleaner running two-stroke. This I
can live with.
John Hill
Actually Sea Doo and Honda had a joint 4 cycle engine project going on for
a number of years that went nowhere and was killed just a couple of years
ago. That 130hp, 4 cycle Honda outboard goes for $13K... can't imagine why
the project was killed? he he he he $18K base price PWCs might be a
reason...
John
PWC ridr1 <pwcr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806232104...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Rokybuster
>likely to find that your favorite kind of boat is
>banned universally.
>
>There's nothing wrong with having a good, reasonable time on the water. The
>possibilities, however, are seriously hampered where there are dozens of tiny
>boats zipping around in a small area
>at 90 mph.
>
>Tell you this, though. A couple of PWC's colliding at 90 mph will make some
>spectacular footage on the evening news and 60 minutes. Will you be among the
>first to volunteer?
Your rambling crap about water craft is based on ass-umptions that you think
make sense based on what you read on the N/G. Not real experience. That is why
you don't understand why such a bright guy like yourself is removing all doubt
as to whether or not he is a jackass.
Naturally you wouldn't address the only thing interesting that we could talk
about.*How far you can swim with a 75lb barbell handcuffed to your wrist.*
Later tool
Harry Krause
Rokybuster wrote:
>
> H
> Your rambling crap about water craft is based on ass-umptions that you think
> make sense based on what you read on the N/G. Not real experience. That is why
> you don't understand why such a bright guy like yourself is removing all doubt
> as to whether or not he is a jackass.
> Naturally you wouldn't address the only thing interesting that we could talk
> about.*How far you can swim with a 75lb barbell handcuffed to your wrist.*
> Later tool
I'm glad you explained it to me. I guess my problem is that I stayed in school
and you didn't. Perhaps one of the super PWC builders here could explain to you
in language you might understand why today's pure stock PWC hull would not be
viable for a stock production boat for sale to the general public with a 200-hp
engine pushing the boat at or close to 90 mph.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of PWC manufacturers being named in
liability death/injury suits, based solely on the speeds their boats go. Not
that there aren't faster boats. There are. But of new boats, only PWC offers
the ability to attain 60+ mph for such a little amount of money and so little
skill. And since age and other restrictions do not exist in many places, a
plaintiff could easily name the PWC manufacturer as a defendent in a suit
brought about because of the death of a minor involved in a PWC accident.
Might that plaintiff win?
I wouldn't bet against it.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Dittoheads"? Think for themselves? Hah hah hah hah!
Rob Munach
PWC ridr1 wrote:
>
> Not going to be any four stroke motors in any pwc, period. This thread has
> already been run in every R/D department, and the concensus is the same. If it
> could be done, it is likely that the pre-production models would be something
> created by guys like Harry (groupK that is) or any of the other highly
> qualified mechanics that now make the boats we have scream.
No offense to Harry, but there ain't no way in the world he has the
resources to create a 4 stroke with the power to weight ratio and
reliability for a PWC. If this happens it will come from one of the big
4 motorcycle companies or Rotax.
>
> Most new models are just highly refined, finished products based on the hard
> work of some garage mechanic who had a brainstorm. A great example of this
> would be the new EX400 (atv) from Honda. It is a hybrid of sorts between the
> very popular EX300 (4stroke) and the even more popular TRX250R (two stroke) The
> frame is based on the race proven 250R, and the motor is based on the
> XR400/300EX engine (4 stroke). This is likely to be the beginning of a new
> revolution for atv's.
>
> Now, among your many questions, one must be, who cares? Well, over the years,
> many atv enthusiasts have been building machines just like what is now being
> offered by Honda. If the pwc world had this vast number of participants doing
> the same, you might well eventually see a 4 stroke pwc. Rest assured though,
> the companies will not, if they have not already, make a 4 stroke pwc. The
> government has not mandated it, therefore, IMHO, it will not happen. If they do
> mandate it, then that may very well be the end of pwc as we know it. The reason
> I say this is because even the biggest baddest 4 stroke atv/motorcycle (stock
> that is) I have ever seen could not run with my little stock 350 Banshee (atv).
Check out Yamaha's new 400cc 4 stoke motorcrosser and watch Doug Henry
ride it.
> Apples to oranges you say, not really. A four stroke pwc does not even sound
> appealing to me, except for the good gas milage and the reduced noise. The
> riding would definitely be unlike anything we have ever seen, or would want to
> see.
>
> I wish they could find a way to institute a 4 stroke into a pwc, but right now,
> the big push seems to be leaning towards a cleaner running two-stroke. This I
> can live with.
I doubt four strokes will enter the PWC market anytime soon due to cost
and many technical hurdles. But hey, they got 4 stroke weed eaters now,
competitve 4 stroke dirt bikes, 600cc rice rockets with 100 hp so it may
just happen.
________________
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
Carrboro, NC
Sean Prange
Perhaps, owing to my obviously different perception--I view travelling
50+ mph on open water as 'fast'--the constant drive for more horsepower
seems almost reckless, to both the operator and possibly the
environment. I will admit, however, the prospect of a 15K PWC is not
very attractive, especially if it possessed the power equal to the craft
that existed ten years ago. I can only hope that factors other than
top-speed and acceleration will be considered in powerplant R&D
decisions. Speaking of which, any thoughts on as to how much an
‘advancement' towards a cleaner-burning, quieter pwc the SD GTX RFI is?
Although I'm not exactly in the market for a 3-seater, this beast may
just be for me. I cringe, though, at the thought of mechanical problems
and the plethora of mis-diagnoses they would undoubtedly generate.
Sean
PWC ridr1 wrote:
>
> Not going to be any four stroke motors in any pwc, period. This thread has
> already been run in every R/D department, and the concensus is the same. If it
> could be done, it is likely that the pre-production models would be something
> created by guys like Harry (groupK that is) or any of the other highly
> qualified mechanics that now make the boats we have scream.
>
> Most new models are just highly refined, finished products based on the hard
> work of some garage mechanic who had a brainstorm. A great example of this
> would be the new EX400 (atv) from Honda. It is a hybrid of sorts between the
> very popular EX300 (4stroke) and the even more popular TRX250R (two stroke) The
> frame is based on the race proven 250R, and the motor is based on the
> XR400/300EX engine (4 stroke). This is likely to be the beginning of a new
> revolution for atv's.
>
> Now, among your many questions, one must be, who cares? Well, over the years,
> many atv enthusiasts have been building machines just like what is now being
> offered by Honda. If the pwc world had this vast number of participants doing
> the same, you might well eventually see a 4 stroke pwc. Rest assured though,
> the companies will not, if they have not already, make a 4 stroke pwc. The
> government has not mandated it, therefore, IMHO, it will not happen. If they do
> mandate it, then that may very well be the end of pwc as we know it. The reason
> I say this is because even the biggest baddest 4 stroke atv/motorcycle (stock
> that is) I have ever seen could not run with my little stock 350 Banshee (atv).
Jim R.
I work at American Honda Motor Company in Torrance, CA. They have an R&D
department right on the premisses there. Very tight security there though
so I haven't been able to get in but the motorcycle guys tell me there are
prototype PWC's in there. Some supposedly have 4 stroke engines in them
since Honda is big on 4 Stroke marine engine technology. I'm going to be
the first to own one if they release it to the public. One note, I was told
that the reason they haven't gotten into the market yet is because of the
liablility beating they took with the 3 wheelers. Alot of people sued over
injuries recieved on the ATC's. Honda is affraid of the same think
happening with PWC's.
Ride Safe
Jim
Larry wrote in message <358f9ad9...@news.mindspring.com>...
Harry Krause
Jim R. wrote:
>
> I work at American Honda Motor Company in Torrance, CA. They have an R&D
> department right on the premisses there. Very tight security there though
> so I haven't been able to get in but the motorcycle guys tell me there are
> prototype PWC's in there. Some supposedly have 4 stroke engines in them
> since Honda is big on 4 Stroke marine engine technology. I'm going to be
> the first to own one if they release it to the public. One note, I was told
> that the reason they haven't gotten into the market yet is because of the
> liablility beating they took with the 3 wheelers. Alot of people sued over
> injuries recieved on the ATC's. Honda is affraid of the same think
> happening with PWC's.
> Ride Safe
> Jim
>
there have been any significant liability or damages lawsuits against PWC
manufacturers, distributors or dealers. If there are, it might explain the
reluctance of other manufacturers from getting into the field.
Rokybuster
Hair-E the tool wrote:>I'm glad you explained it to me. I guess my problem is
that I stayed in
>school
>and you didn't. Perhaps one of the super PWC builders here could explain to
>you
>in language you might understand why today's pure stock PWC hull would not be
>viable for a stock production boat for sale to the general public with a
>200-hp
>engine pushing the boat at or close to 90 mph.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of PWC manufacturers being named
>in
>liability death/injury suits, based solely on the speeds their boats go. Not
>that there aren't faster boats. There
>are. But of new boats, only PWC offers
>the ability to attain 60+ mph for such a little amount of money and so little
>skill. And since age and other restrictions do not exist in many places, a
>plaintiff could easily name the PWC manufacturer as a defendent in a suit
>brought about because of the death
>of a minor involved in a PWC accident.
>
>Might that plaintiff win?
>
>I wouldn't bet against it.
>
>
Actually * Tool*, I think it would be more entertaining to have you explain
*WHY* in your stupid ("gee I didn't know that because the N/G doesn't talk
about it way").Some of the pro mod1200 class factory race teams are achieving
over 200hp and have yet to approach "at or close to 90mph".I'm sure any of the
"super PWC builders here could explain to you in a language you might
understand" (perhaps farting into a megaphone).Why your ramblings don't make
sense. BTW *Tool* your little dig about education is equally entertaining here
on rec.sport jetski where we can all clearly see you and your *dunce* cap
shining brightly.Rec.sport spelling.grammar.jetski there U-B-DU-man.Why don't
you quit shooting spit balls around the room and listen for a change.Later
Tool. Hey let me run out to the book store and pick up something with
a bunch of cute little anecdotes so I can be *smart* like you.#@$%#jackass
Harry Krause
Rokybuster wrote:
>
>
> Actually * Tool*, I think it would be more entertaining to have you explain
> *WHY* in your stupid ("gee I didn't know that because the N/G doesn't talk
> about it way").
I'm sorry. I can write at many grade levels, and do, but not down in the
primordial level where your synapses reside.
Some of the pro mod1200 class factory race teams are achieving
> over 200hp and have yet to approach "at or close to 90mph".
Subject change? We were discussing unmodified, stock boats that anyone could
buy...and whether a 200 hp engine would work in one. Now you're talking "pro
mod?" Sorry. Not the same.
I'm sure any of the
> "super PWC builders here could explain to you in a language you might
> understand" (perhaps farting into a megaphone).
Perhaps if you spent less time fa*ting in the megaphone and listening to your
teachers, you might have been able to put together a simple sentence that parses
and has a subject and a predicate.
Why your ramblings don't make
> sense. BTW *Tool* your little dig about education is equally entertaining here
> on rec.sport jetski where we can all clearly see you and your *dunce* cap
> shining brightly.
Funny. I thought you had retired the dunce cap.
Rec.sport spelling.grammar.jetski there U-B-DU-man.Why don't
> you quit shooting spit balls around the room and listen for a change.Later
> Tool.
Listen for change? Loose change? Listen to you? What do you know? There are some
folks in here who know a lot and I sure listen to them. But you?
Hey let me run out to the book store and pick up something with
> a bunch of cute little anecdotes so I can be *smart* like you.#@$%#jackass
For you, I heartily recommend "Increasing Intelligence through Chicken Brain
Transplants," by Franklin Xavier Perdue. For a small additional fee, you can
hire someone to read it to you.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." -- Hebrews 13:5
Mark Clemons
I still like the idea of a rotary engine. Any ideas?
Jim R.
At the Honda building in Torrance there are 3 engines on stands in the
lobby. These are out of their CART series race cars. They are only about
150-200 cubic inch V-8's I believe and are cranking out over 700 HP. Every
time I look at them I think "That thing might fit in my XPL". Hmmmm......a
700 HP XPL. 100% assured death.
Ride Safe
Jim
WHardy1902 wrote in message
<199806240335...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Just put the Honda flat-6 Valkerie 4-stroker in a HONDA PWC and call
>>me when it's ready for pickup. Think of how LOW the center of gravity
>>will be without the engine sticking UP out of the hull! The 6 is too
>>quiet to hear run, the tires make more noise! Smooooth, quiet,
>>powerful and if you take a peek at one the next time you're at your
>>Honda shop you'll see it's EXACTLY they 8000 RPM the pump needs to
>>BLOW YOU AWAY.
>
>It is quite an engine Larry. It's a high performance version of the Gold
wing
>engine. Individual carbs, a hotter cam, solid lifters.
>
>Now for the down side,, It's heavy, It's expensive, gas milage sucks for a
MC.
>and it's maxxed out at 105hp.
>
>Great engine for a bike, not a boat.
>
>
>Not Harding
>It's Hardy
>As in Hardy Har Har
ABLE2SKI
I posted this at least a year ago............
You guys need to go to any commercial lawn equipment dealer that carries Honda
equipment and check out the new Honda Mini-4-Strokes. Currently they use these
motors on a line of weedeaters and mini-tillers.
They are true 4-strokes, and operate in any position. Too bad they weigh more
than their 2-stroke counterparts of comparable horsepower and they are slower
to rev.
I see no reason why this design can't be applied to watercraft; granted it may
not be an equal performer, but 4-stroke jet skis motors are possible, TODAY!
Andrew
Carl McKim
See that wall, go smash your head into it, then come back and talk.
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Rokybuster <rokyb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806231958...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Hair-E wrote:>Very helpful, Roky. Which parts do you disagree with and
why?
> >
> >1. The part that current PWC hulls won't be going much faster than they
do
> >today
> >without major design changes?< " (NO), The part where you stated that if
you
> uped the HP on today's * stock* three-seat PWC's they wouldn't be
going more
> than a" few" miles per hour faster even if they had 200 (two hundred) HP.
Add
> 70hp to any of "todays" three seaters and prop it correctly and it will
net a
> much better top end gain than a" few" mph over OEM stock. " >2.You
think
> today's hulls are suitable for production consumer boats exeeding 80 or
90
> mph?.How many product liability
> >lawsuits do you think the PWC manufacturers will entertain, when it is
proved
> >that their boats are unsafe at those speeds?<
> " Hair-E, You show me an OEM production three seat water craft that
goes 80
> or 90 mph in stock form just the way it's delivered to the consumer and
then
> we can talk about dangerously unstable high speed three seaters " hehehe
If
> you want to hypothesis lets talk about how far you can swim handcuffed to
a
> 75lb bar bell.Hell I'll talk all day about that. " <3.You think the
general
> public will stand for swarms of PWC's being driven
> >around beaches at 80+ miles an hour?< "I take offence to your use of
the
> word "swarms" in this context.This has nothing to do with the top speed
of the
> boats .Just your hateful views of guys/gals riding around the beaches. "
>
> >3. That, more than anything else, will assure
> >passage of manadatory insurance laws, mandatory licensing and banishment
of
> >PWC's to less-populated waters.< "No Hair-E it is the stuff your
mirror is
> made of that makes the IJSBA spend money to protect my rites and the
rites of
Carl McKim
I dunno about harry, but the one jackass I see is the one I am responding
to.
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Rokybuster <rokyb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806232150...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Hair-E wrote : >Rokybuster wrote:
> >>
> >> Hair-E wrote:>Very helpful, Roky. Which parts do you disagree with and
why?
> >> >
> >> >1. The part that current PWC hulls won't be going much faster than
they do
> >> >today
>
> >>without major design changes?< " (NO), The part where you stated that
if you
> >> uped the HP on today's * stock* three-seat PWC's they wouldn't be
going
> >more
> >> than a" few" miles per hour faster even if they had 200 (two hundred)
HP.
> >Add
> >> 70hp to any of "todays" three seaters and prop it correctly and it
>
> >will net a
> >> much better top end gain than a" few" mph over OEM stock. "
> >
> >Hmmm. Seems to me that the max speed I've read about in this newsgroup
is on
> >a
> >PWC just kissing 80 mph, and I doubt if much on that boat is stock from
the
> >factory. You suppose its engine
>
> >generates a few more ponies than the 135 in the
> >larger three-seaters?
> >
> >Further, you can't just add horsepower without taking into account hull
> >design,
> >strength and handling capabilities. You cannot assume a manufacturer can
just
> >drop a 200 hp engine into one of his
>
> >current production run hulls. There would
> >have to be substantial changes, because none of the current consumer
PWC's
> >are
> >designed for the speeds we are discussing. No sane manufacturer would
use one
> >of
> >his current design boats for consumer use.
>
> > >2.You think
> >> today's hulls are suitable for production consumer boats exeeding 80
or 90
> >> mph?.How many product liability
> >> >lawsuits do you think the PWC manufacturers will entertain, when it
is
> >proved
> >> >that their boats are unsafe at those speeds?<
>
> >> " Hair-E, You show me an OEM production three seat water craft that
goes
> >80
> >> or 90 mph in stock form just the way it's delivered to the consumer
and
> >then
> >> we can talk about dangerously unstable high speed three seaters "
> >
> >Do you understand the concept of hypothetical? I said *if* there were
>
> >one. I
> >don't believe there will be one. Not because it is impossible, but
because of
> >common sense. PWC'ing is under serious attack on many fronts...dumping a
> >90-mph
> >production boat out on boobus Americanus would drive the nails right
into the
> >coffin.
>
> >You think the general
> >> public will stand for swarms of PWC's being driven
> >> >around beaches at 80+ miles an hour?<
> >
> > "I take offence to your use of the
> >> word "swarms" in this context.This has nothing to do with the top
speed of
> >the
> >> boats .Just your hateful views of
>
> >guys/gals riding around the beaches. "
> >
> >I don't believe PWC'ers should be operating their boats near swimmers. I
> >don't
> >believe ANY power boaters should be operating their boats near swimmers.
Most
> >conventional power boaters give swimmers a wide berth. Many
>
> >PWC'ers do not. That
> >is why PWC's have been banned from a number of beaches and inlets in
parts of
> >Florida. Too many complaints from moms scared by swarms of PWC'ers
buzzing
> >around their kids. You don't like it? Deal with the moms. They have more
> >clout
> >than you do.
>
> >> >3. That, more than anything else, will assure
> >> >passage of manadatory insurance laws, mandatory licensing and
banishment
> >of
> >> >PWC's to less-populated waters.
> >
> >< "No Hair-E it is the stuff your mirror is
> >> made of that makes the IJSBA spend money to protect my rites
>
> >and the rites of
> >> everyone out there having a good responsible time on the water ."
> >
> >No trade association is going to protect reckless and careless PWC'ers
from
> >the
> >wrath of their communities. A few thousand 90 mph PWC's in the hands of
> >certain
>
> >likely to find that your favorite kind of boat is
> >banned universally.
> >
> >There's nothing wrong with having a good, reasonable time on the water.
The
> >possibilities, however, are seriously hampered where there are dozens of
tiny
> >boats zipping around in a small area
>
> >at 90 mph.
> >
> >Tell you this, though. A couple of PWC's colliding at 90 mph will make
some
> >spectacular footage on the evening news and 60 minutes. Will you be
among the
> >first to volunteer?
GSXer2
4 strokers are too heavy, bulky and not cost effective for pwc.I believe
Toyota,Honda or mazda would even be capable of developing a motor this size.At
that hp for a 250 lb.4 stroke may only be 70 hp.It may be a long way off if it
does come.Orbital is testing a nifty 2 stroker now .
Harry Krause
Smartest thing you ever wrote:
Carl McKim wrote:
>
> I dunno
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"I don't see no points on your ears, boy." - Adm. McCoy
Carl McKim
Sorryy rocky, but hes got you there, go back to your real life as sylvester
stallone, and you think that a 6 foot hull is going to work on 200hp motor?
I dunno what the hell planet you are on, but on earth, if you put that big
of an engine into a 6foot hull, NEWS FLASH, its gonna sink. Plus, if you
upped the hp to 200, you are going to need another cylinder. Sea Doo can't
even pull that one off. Now you are talking about a 1600cc engine which is
going to weigh over 800 pounds. In a 3 1/2 high 6ft long hull? HAHAHAHHAHA,
GOOD F**KING LUCK
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Harry Krause <hkr...@gate-nospam.net> wrote in article
<359049CD...@gate.net>...
> --
>
> Harry Krause
> EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
> - - - - - - - - - -
Carl McKim
Almost :-)
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Harry Krause <hkr...@gate-nospam.net> wrote in article
<35905631...@gate.net>...
> Smartest thing you ever wrote:
>
> Carl McKim wrote:
> >
> > I dunno
>
> --
>
> Harry Krause
> EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
> - - - - - - - - - -
Larry
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:23:09 -0700, "Jim R." <jim...@msn.com> wrote:
>I work at American Honda Motor Company in Torrance, CA. They have an R&D
>department right on the premisses there. Very tight security there though
>so I haven't been able to get in but the motorcycle guys tell me there are
>prototype PWC's in there. Some supposedly have 4 stroke engines in them
>since Honda is big on 4 Stroke marine engine technology. I'm going to be
>the first to own one if they release it to the public. One note, I was told
>that the reason they haven't gotten into the market yet is because of the
>liablility beating they took with the 3 wheelers. Alot of people sued over
>injuries recieved on the ATC's. Honda is affraid of the same think
>happening with PWC's.
>Ride Safe
>Jim
>
Thanks, Jim. Honda makes the finest 4-stroke engines on the planet in
ANY vehicle. I've been trying to destroy their motorcycles for many
years...(c;
Thank the guys in R&D for me. My first Honda was a 305 Dream I wish I
had never traded in. I had 350's, 750's, and an Interstate before I
got out of street bikes. Only Honda at the moment is a Hurricane Hugo
special EX5000M 5KW one-lunger. It starts at the first pull, even
though it sat for 2 years in the cold and heat...a great credit to
Honda engineering.
I'll be standing in line right behind you for the big 4-stroker PWC.
Man what a boat Honda would be!
Larry...
Larry
On 23 Jun 1998 21:04:50 GMT, pwcr...@aol.com (PWC ridr1) wrote:
>
>I wish they could find a way to institute a 4 stroke into a pwc, but right now,
>the big push seems to be leaning towards a cleaner running two-stroke. This I
>can live with.
I believe the Lake Tahoe Committee may be the start of your 4-stroke
PWC. And, with California set to outlaw all 2-stroke engines right
down to the weedeater on the lawn, I think you'll see 4-stroke PWC for
the sheer reason of SURVIVAL of the companies, before this legislation
binge is over.
Larry...
Harry Krause
Larry wrote:
>
> O> >
> Thanks, Jim. Honda makes the finest 4-stroke engines on the planet in
> ANY vehicle. I've been trying to destroy their motorcycles for many
> years...(c;
>
> Thank the guys in R&D for me. My first Honda was a 305 Dream I wish I
> had never traded in. I had 350's, 750's, and an Interstate before I
> got out of street bikes.
Uh oh. I had a 250 cc Dream, traded that for a Chevy and then traded the Chevy
for a 305 cc SuperHawk. Fun to ride out there in the wide open spaces of eastern
Kansas.
WHardy1902
>Have any of the manufacturers hinted at the possibility of introducing
>four-stroke engines in the near future?
>Perhaps a better question would be: why has the PWC industry remained
>with the nauseating two-stroke?
>I am aware that there have been many advancements in the technology,
>imparting some of the qualities of
>four-stroke engines (lower HC emissions, for example) while maintaining
>more power output at a given
>RPM and displacement, however I feel the current state is still
>antiquated. I still enjoy PWC, even if they're
>somewhat noisy and occasionally foul smelling. I'll more than likely
>purchase one this year (preferably new)
>but would hold off for a year if a four-stroke were to be introduced. I
>could be very wrong about my
>perception of the marine two-strokes..I'd like some feedback.
>
>Sean
Four stroke outboards have been on the market in the U.S. for over 25 years but
still don't hold much of the market share. Why? Too heavy for the same HP and
much more complicated. Look for more boats w/ fuel injection and emission
controls. Look for the elimination of crankcase scavenging for engine intake
and the addition of a blower. With oil in the crankcase where it belongs,, not
in the fuel.
Four stroke PWC? Don't hold your breath, you look terrible in blue.
WHardy1902
>Just put the Honda flat-6 Valkerie 4-stroker in a HONDA PWC and call
>me when it's ready for pickup. Think of how LOW the center of gravity
>will be without the engine sticking UP out of the hull! The 6 is too
>quiet to hear run, the tires make more noise! Smooooth, quiet,
>powerful and if you take a peek at one the next time you're at your
>Honda shop you'll see it's EXACTLY they 8000 RPM the pump needs to
>BLOW YOU AWAY.
It is quite an engine Larry. It's a high performance version of the Gold wing
engine. Individual carbs, a hotter cam, solid lifters.
Now for the down side,, It's heavy, It's expensive, gas milage sucks for a MC.
and it's maxxed out at 105hp.
Great engine for a bike, not a boat.
REDZFAM
Honda has been playing with the 750 and 1000 v4 motor but the pwc market has
slowed down so things were put on hold
so i have been told Big
Red Tech Dude And Snappy Dresser
Larry
Nuts...they'll figure something out....I'm hurt...(snif).
bar...@nospam.texas.net
WHardy1902 <whard...@aol.com> wrote:
:>Just put the Honda flat-6 Valkerie 4-stroker in a HONDA PWC and call
:>me when it's ready for pickup. Think of how LOW the center of gravity
:>will be without the engine sticking UP out of the hull! The 6 is too
:>quiet to hear run, the tires make more noise! Smooooth, quiet,
:>powerful and if you take a peek at one the next time you're at your
:>Honda shop you'll see it's EXACTLY they 8000 RPM the pump needs to
:>BLOW YOU AWAY.
: It is quite an engine Larry. It's a high performance version of the Gold wing
: engine. Individual carbs, a hotter cam, solid lifters.
: Now for the down side,, It's heavy, It's expensive, gas milage sucks for a MC.
: and it's maxxed out at 105hp.
Well...why not the 1100 in my CBR1100 XX ? 165HP inline 4. Might be a bit
long for a PWC....
Jonah
--
Jonah Barron Yokubaitis
http://www.texas.net <--- The ISP
http://www.giganews.com <--- News Outsourcing
PWC ridr1
>No offense to Harry, but there ain't no way in the world he has the
>resources to create a 4 stroke with the power to weight ratio and
>reliability for a PWC.
Harry does not have to "create" the motor, he just has to improve something
already being used.
>If this happens it will come from one of the big
>4 motorcycle companies or Rotax
If a new motor is produced, pwc will only be considered as an after thought. Of
all of the "personal" type vehicles, pwc are the least popular and from a
financial perspective, it makes no sense to me that a company would spend the
kind of money needed to produce such a motor with such limited application.
>Check out Yamaha's new 400cc 4 stoke motorcrosser and watch Doug Henry
>ride it.
First, consider Doug Henrys outrageous amount of talent. Secondly, it takes far
less power to move a vehicle across the dirt, as compared to the water. The
horse power really isn't the problem anyway, it is the amount of time required
to reach the rpm range that it takes to propel a pwc out of the hole.
>600cc rice rockets with 100 hp so it may
>just happen.
Matter of fact, I am picking up my new 600cc bike tomorrow. Not sure which one
yet, but it will either be a YZF600, or a CBR600F3. No sleep tonight.
PWC ridr1
>I see no reason why this design can't be applied to watercraft
Because the ride would suck, that's why. PWC need acceleration, right now. By
the time your 4 stroke gets around to revving, you will have fallen off the
darn thing.
X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer)
"Jim R." <jim...@msn.com> wrote:
>Hmmmm......a 700 HP XPL. 100% assured death.
You'd have to get that thing to stay in the water, even as heavy as it
would be, first. And if it was stock and reasonably priced, I'd still
be hoping you'd get me one on the employee discount and up toward the
front of the line (right behind you of course).
Jim...in NO way is this intended as a slam, but there are old farts
out there who would have said the same thing about today's Corvette,
Z28, or even Northstar Seville just 50+ years ago.....not to mention
what they'd have said about 100+ mph bass boats. Another 50 years and
you'd have even more people agreeing with them.
By the time we'll see a stock 700 hp PWC, they'll probably have
anti-collision and auto-navigation programming installed......maybe
even something useful like speed andwave-sensing automatic trim
control. And even though I might buy one, it still NOT a SKI. :)
dc
Friends don't let friends ride ignorant!
Larry
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:55:26 -0700, "Jim R." <jim...@msn.com> wrote:
>At the Honda building in Torrance there are 3 engines on stands in the
>lobby. These are out of their CART series race cars. They are only about
>150-200 cubic inch V-8's I believe and are cranking out over 700 HP. Every
>time I look at them I think "That thing might fit in my XPL". Hmmmm......a
>700 HP XPL. 100% assured death.
>Ride Safe
>Jim
>
But WHAT A RUSH until you die!
Sure'd be fun to watch the GP Mafia mess in their wetsuits. That
engine SCREAMS!
Larry
Rokybuster
Will all *tools please speak know.Cark (wish I knew what I was talking
about)Mckim wrote:>(Sorryy rocky, but hes got you there)< , go back to your
real life as sylvester
>stallone, and you think that a 6 foot hull is going to work on 200hp motor?
>I dunno what the hell planet you are on, but on earth, if you put that big
>of an engine into a 6foot hull, NEWS FLASH, its gonna sink. Plus
>if you
>upped the hp to 200, you are going to need another cylinder. Sea Doo can't
>even pull that one off. Now you are talking about a 1600cc engine which is
>going to weigh over 800 pounds. In a 3 1/2 high 6ft long hull? HAHAHAHHAHA,
>GOOD F**KING LUCK
Yes *Tool* #2 I do think exactly that.Do you think the boat is going to
suddenly explode if you responsibly installed a 200 hp engine in one. Are you
ass-uming that a engine that has a wieght no greater than that of currant
watercraft engines can't produce 200+ hp.Is that what your trying to say
*Tool*#2 ? The point *you* two *tools*aren't getting is your not going to go
90mph on a OEM three seat jetski with 200hp.Even if you got off the back and
just let your moms ride alone with out you yelling to slow down.*Tool*#1 is
talking about things that can't and won't happen.*Tool*#2 is to stupid to even
serve as damage control. Later *Tool*#2
Rokybuster
Hair-E wrote : >I'm sorry. I can write at many grade levels, and do, but not
down in the
>primordial level where your synapses reside.< Dear *Tool* no need to apologize
for your inability to write (I understand what your saying). HOWEVER since
*your* apologizing.It would be appropriate at this time to apologize to the
entire N/G rec.sport.jetski for your constant disruptions and irritating self
serving posts.*Tool* you have single handedly caused more disruption than any
twenty people in this N/G.Unfortunately for anyone sitting in front of thier
PC scrolling threw the N/G they like my self can't just walk away or ignore you
or escort your ass to the door.It takes time to click over your posts.(TIME
YOUR NOT INTITLED TO !) Tool
then wrote: >Subject change? We were discussing unmodified, stock boats that
anyone could
>buy...and whether a 200 hp engine would work in one. Now you're talking "pro
>mod?" Sorry. Not the same<
with 200hp engines in them.My analogy was to show you that your concernes
(based on your ignorance) are unobtainable with 200hp.
*Tool*feeling insecure about about all of his previous ramblings resorted to
his same old tune by saying.>Perhaps if you spent less time fa*ting in the
megaphone and listening to your
>teachers, you might have been able to put together a simple sentence that
>parses
>and has a subject and a predicate.<
sport jetski.No one here *that counts*gives a sh_t about spelling or subjet
(when relevant to sentance structure)or predicates.Dude your coming to a gun
fight with a knife.I have WASTED enough time reading your posts to this group
to be sure that *you* have a very limited understanding of water craft .*You
are a *Tool* that will never understand the satisfaction of modifying your ski
and going faster as a result.*You* will never realize the fun of racing a
friend down a river,across a lake or on a closed course.You will never feel the
pain of watching a irresponsible rider blow threw a no wake zone (Knowing it is
killing the sport).WHY? WHY? WHY? Because *you Tool*have no genuine interest
other than "swarming" over a few N/G s and trying to stir the pot.Jumping
in and out of posts flaming and making accusations that piss off 90 percent of
the people here trying to talk and enjoy *thier* sport with similar people.
*Tool* then said it all.>Listen for change?
Loose change? Listen to you? What do you know? There are
>some
>folks in here who know a lot and I sure listen to them. But you?
>
>
"A man that knows it all learns nothing"Later *Tool*
Jim R.
I looked again today....they are 750+ HP and 165 cubic inches turning 14000
rpm's. Nasty! They are light as hell too. I don't think it would fit with
the big ass cam thats on it. Oh well.
Jim
Larry wrote in message <35910322...@news.mindspring.com>...
Irv Fisher
Harry Krause wrote:
Rokybuster wrote:
>
> H
> Your rambling crap about water craft is based on ass-umptions that you think
> make sense based on what you read on the N/G. Not real experience. That is why
> you don't understand why such a bright guy like yourself is removing all doubt
> as to whether or not he is a jackass.
> Naturally you wouldn't address the only thing interesting that we could talk
> about.*How far you can swim with a 75lb barbell handcuffed to your wrist.*
> Later tool
I'm glad you explained it to me. I guess my problem is that I stayed in school
and you didn't. Perhaps one of the super PWC builders here could explain to you
in language you might understand why today's pure stock PWC hull would not be
viable for a stock production boat for sale to the general public with a 200-hp
engine pushing the boat at or close to 90 mph.Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of PWC manufacturers being named in
liability death/injury suits, based solely on the speeds their boats go. Not
that there aren't faster boats. There are. But of new boats, only PWC offers
the ability to attain 60+ mph for such a little amount of money and so little
skill. And since age and other restrictions do not exist in many places, a
plaintiff could easily name the PWC manufacturer as a defendent in a suit
brought about because of the death of a minor involved in a PWC accident.Might that plaintiff win?
I wouldn't bet against it.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Dittoheads"? Think for themselves? Hah hah hah hah!
Harry Krause
Irv Fisher wrote:
>
> Hahahaha. Guess you didn't read my post that said Bombardier was named in a
> suit. I spent an hour last night with the investigator hired by one of the
> defendants, (not Bombardier), and had to go over all the accusations made
> about Bombardier as well as the other defendants. Bombardier is not being
> sued for excessive speed in this case, just the fact that the craft was unsafe
> and they did not take reasonable steps to make either the craft or the
> training of its use safe, (personally, you really have to laugh at the safety
> video they produce--I think the word 'safety' is a little exagerated). I
> figure the trial is about 2-3 years away so you can all argue about it until
> I've got a verdict to report to you. Oh, by the way, the kid that was charged
> criminally, (unsafe operation of a water vessel causing death or something
> like that), goes to preliminary hearing in November. The defense will try to
> get the charges thrown out. If they're not successful, expect a full scale
> criminal trial in the spring, just in time for the media getting into PWC
> season.
>
>
You might be interested to know that Bombardier has been cited for recall
campaigns for safety problems more than ANY other boat manufacturer, as near as
I can tell from the US Coast Guard database. The USCG has ordered Bombardier to
recall its boats for a wide variety of serious safety problems, such as:
steering cables letting go
safety lanyards not working
fuel tank problems
seats falling off
intake grates falling off
cracks in the fuel fills
emergency cutoffs not working
problems with the steering arm
And there are many more. In fact, almost every USCG cite of Bombardier for
safety violations resulted in a recall campaign. Other boats get inspected and
written up too, of course, but, among ALL boats made, including conventional
boats, no one seems to have racked up more recalls than Bombardier.
To whatever the issues in the suit you mentioned must be added Bombardier's
record of USCG recalls.
Sounds to me like an out-of-court settlement.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Hello, Jean-Luc... So glad you could come." -- Lwaxanna
Irv Fisher
With all due respect, I dont think so Harry. I've had 5 new SeaDoos over the past 4
years including my newest addition, the Challenger 1800. I can only remember the
one recall about the seat on the 96 GSX. As a matter of fact, it was really funny
because mine came off before I received the recall. Hurt like hell getting back to
my marina in 3 footers. hahahahaha. To add to my miseries, I had spilled some
synthetic on the side of the Doo and I couldn't grip it with my legs either. I know
you're telling the truth with the other recalls but I can't attest to more than the
one.
Recalls don't equal liability wrt injury or death. They may be true in some
instances but it's not guaranteed. In this case, we're dealing exclusively with
driver error. I dont think a judge, (there's no way this goes jury), will buy into
exotic arguments like the brakes were defective or something like that. Both
machines showed no signs of mechanical problems causing the accident. Now if the
seat had come off and that caused the accident, well maybe then.
As odd as it sounds, I'm not really a SeaDoo person. I just seem to find the models
I bought the best choice for my personal tastes. Even the Challenger 1800 was
picked over the Exciter because I couldn't personally stand it's looks. Couldn't
stand the looks of the Speedster either. So since I'm unbiased, I suspect that at
least two things account for Bombardier's overwhelming popularity with the USCG.
Market share and innovation as in new products. In my business that makes me my
living, there is a mfgr in Canada that has nearly dominated North America in it's
particular industry, (like Bombardier). It's always being targeted for product bugs
and widgets that fail, etc. But literally everything they produce, they're the
first out of the box and because they cycle so quickly, they get double whammied.
Rapid development and new technology.
Well, like I say, we'll see in about two years. I've read Bombardier's defense and
I'm as close to the facts as anybody. Bombardier wont be there when it goes to
trial. It'll be my partner's insurer, him and me. Just the three of us.
Harry Krause wrote:
> Irv Fisher wrote:
> >
> > Hahahaha. Guess you didn't read my post that said Bombardier was named in a
> > suit. I spent an hour last night with the investigator hired by one of the
> > defendants, (not Bombardier), and had to go over all the accusations made
> > about Bombardier as well as the other defendants. Bombardier is not being
> > sued for excessive speed in this case, just the fact that the craft was unsafe
> > and they did not take reasonable steps to make either the craft or the
> > training of its use safe, (personally, you really have to laugh at the safety
> > video they produce--I think the word 'safety' is a little exagerated). I
> > figure the trial is about 2-3 years away so you can all argue about it until
> > I've got a verdict to report to you. Oh, by the way, the kid that was charged
> > criminally, (unsafe operation of a water vessel causing death or something
> > like that), goes to preliminary hearing in November. The defense will try to
> > get the charges thrown out. If they're not successful, expect a full scale
> > criminal trial in the spring, just in time for the media getting into PWC
> > season.
> >
> >
>
> You might be interested to know that Bombardier has been cited for recall
> campaigns for safety problems more than ANY other boat manufacturer, as near as
> I can tell from the US Coast Guard database. The USCG has ordered Bombardier to
> recall its boats for a wide variety of serious safety problems, such as:
>
> steering cables letting go
> safety lanyards not working
> fuel tank problems
> seats falling off
> intake grates falling off
> cracks in the fuel fills
> emergency cutoffs not working
> problems with the steering arm
>
> And there are many more. In fact, almost every USCG cite of Bombardier for
> safety violations resulted in a recall campaign. Other boats get inspected and
> written up too, of course, but, among ALL boats made, including conventional
> boats, no one seems to have racked up more recalls than Bombardier.
>
> To whatever the issues in the suit you mentioned must be added Bombardier's
> record of USCG recalls.
>
> Sounds to me like an out-of-court settlement.
>
> --
>
> Harry Krause
> EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
> - - - - - - - - - -
WHardy1902
>: Now for the down side,, It's heavy, It's expensive, gas milage sucks for a
>MC.
>: and it's maxxed out at 105hp.
>
>
>Well...why not the 1100 in my CBR1100 XX ? 165HP inline 4. Might be a bit
>long for a PWC....
>
>Jonah
>
>--
>Jonah Barron Yokubaitis
>http://www.texas.net <--- The ISP
>http://www.giganews.com <--- News Outsourcing
Is it liquid cooled?
Larry
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:32:18 -0700, "Jim R." <jim...@msn.com> wrote:
>I looked again today....they are 750+ HP and 165 cubic inches turning 14000
>rpm's. Nasty! They are light as hell too. I don't think it would fit with
>the big ass cam thats on it. Oh well.
>Jim
>
Hmm...3:1 reduction gearing, 9" prop around 18-38 pitch....I learned
the bigger prop turning slower DOESN'T cavitate at all in the
jetboats!
Larry...Will we need G-suits??
Harry Krause
Irv Fisher wrote:
>
> With all due respect, I dont think so Harry. I've had 5 new SeaDoos over the past 4
> years including my newest addition, the Challenger 1800. I can only remember the
> one recall about the seat on the 96 GSX. As a matter of fact, it was really funny
> because mine came off before I received the recall. Hurt like hell getting back to
> my marina in 3 footers. hahahahaha. To add to my miseries, I had spilled some
> synthetic on the side of the Doo and I couldn't grip it with my legs either. I know
> you're telling the truth with the other recalls but I can't attest to more than the
> one.
> Recalls don't equal liability wrt injury or death. They may be true in some
> instances but it's not guaranteed. In this case, we're dealing exclusively with
> driver error.
If you listed the particulars of the accident in question, I missed them. As far
as the number of Bombardier recalls, well, they're on the USCG database, and the
information on that database is all safety-related. I'm speculating that if the
plaintiffs raise the issue of a company's safety record, the recalls may come
up.
Rokybuster
Hair-E wrote: > I'm speculating that if the
>plaintiffs raise the issue of a company's safety record, the recalls may come
>up.
*Tool* I just came from rec.boats.It is blatantly obvious that your speculatons
(like bird sh_t falling from the sky) have managed to disrupt another
N/G.*Tool* did it ever accure to you that *YOU* are the common thread " Re:
Universal disruptance among the N/Gs "?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" A man with no friends is always alone. " Later
*Tool*
Harry Krause
E wrote:
>
> Irv Fisher wrote:
> >
> > Hahahaha. Guess you didn't read my post that said Bombardier was named in a
> > suit. I spent an hour last night with the investigator hired by one of the
> > defendants, (not Bombardier), and had to go over all the accusations made
> > about Bombardier as well as the other defendants. Bombardier is not being
> > sued for excessive speed in this case, just the fact that the craft was
> unsafe
> > and they did not take reasonable steps to make either the craft or the
> > training of its use safe, (personally, you really have to laugh at the safety
> > video they produce--I think the word 'safety' is a little exagerated).
>
> on the lives of everyone involved, but ...
>
> You have got to be kidding. Talk about a nuisance lawsuit.
Maybe I missed them, but I've seen no details in this string about the accident,
other than it took place. The particulars may well reveal some liability on the
part of the manufacturer or others. If the case actually is tried, a jury may
well find manufacturer liability. Or it may not. That's how it works here.
Carl McKim
So your sayinng, that you are a man who knows it all, but doesn't learn,
now I know you are F**ked in the head. Thats obvious. Where are you when
people have problems with their jetskis, o, thats right, you race people
down rivers.Just don't ask anyone here for help when you smash you ski into
a rock. Enjoy the cold hard surface.
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Rokybuster <rokyb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806242146...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
*You
> are a *Tool* that will never understand the satisfaction of modifying
your ski
> and going faster as a result.*You* will never realize the fun of racing a
> friend down a river,across a lake or on a closed course.You will never
feel the
> pain of watching a irresponsible rider blow threw a no wake zone (Knowing
it is
> killing the sport).WHY? WHY? WHY? Because *you Tool*have no genuine
interest
> other than "swarming" over a few N/G s and trying to stir the
pot.Jumping
> in and out of posts flaming and making accusations that piss off 90
percent of
> the people here trying to talk and enjoy *thier* sport with similar
people.
> *Tool* then said it all.>Listen for
change?
> Loose change? Listen to you? What do you know? There are
> >some
> >folks in here who know a lot and I sure listen to them. But you?
> >
> >
> - - - - - - - - - - -
Carl McKim
Stallone, ya see, there is thing called logic, check into it.
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Rokybuster <rokyb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806241850...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Rokybuster
*Tool* # (2) wrote:>So your sayinng, that you are a man who knows it all, but
doesn't learn,
>now I know you are F**ked in the head. Thats obvious. Where are you when
>people have problems with their jetskis, o, thats right, you race people
>down rivers.Just don't ask anyone here for help when you smash you ski into
a rock. Enjoy the cold hard surface.<
had failed to recognize your* true* intelligence.Hey if I gave you a dollar
would you promise to buy a clue? hehehe Later *Tool*# (2)
Harry Krause
Irv Fisher wrote:
>
> No offense intended but I was really surprised when so many members of the NG were
> so poorly educated in the real world legal system. What do they teach in school?
> Obviously not how the world works when you get out in it.
I'm shocked.
Irv Fisher
No offense intended but I was really surprised when so many members of the NG were
so poorly educated in the real world legal system. What do they teach in school?
serious injury or a fatality that even remotely could include a defendant with
really deep pockets goes after them. It's just the way it is. Very few, and I
mean very few people can look at a potentially large settlement and actually tell
their lawyers not to pursue it. Human beings are greedy by nature. Until you're
in a situation like that and react differently, dont automatically assume you
will. As for me, a $2 Mil lawsuit doesn't bother me because I know how the system
works. And it aint Perry Mason. :-).
E wrote:
> Irv Fisher wrote:
> >
> > Hahahaha. Guess you didn't read my post that said Bombardier was named in a
> > suit. I spent an hour last night with the investigator hired by one of the
> > defendants, (not Bombardier), and had to go over all the accusations made
> > about Bombardier as well as the other defendants. Bombardier is not being
> > sued for excessive speed in this case, just the fact that the craft was
> unsafe
> > and they did not take reasonable steps to make either the craft or the
> > training of its use safe, (personally, you really have to laugh at the safety
> > video they produce--I think the word 'safety' is a little exagerated).
>
> It goes without saying that I'm sorry to hear about the death and the effects
> on the lives of everyone involved, but ...
>
> You have got to be kidding. Talk about a nuisance lawsuit.
> The driver was stupid and you want to blame the manufacturer. Brilliant.
> If the people who rode the craft read the owners manual (which I completely
> doubt) they would have had all the basic safety and handling details down.
>
> Not enough time to read the manual, but plenty of time to start a lawsuit.
>
> Great.
>
> You've stated: "In this case, we're dealing exclusively with driver error."
>
> Which is exactly correct. But no, everyone's a victim, sue the world, blame
> everyone but the person who did it.
>
> --
> Eric
> (Remove CHANGE_EDU_TO_COM and do what it says when sending me mail.)
Carl McKim
Hell, if you gave me a dollar I would buy a sunday paper and follow you
around the whole day swatting it against your stupid ass.
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Rokybuster <rokyb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806252321...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Rokybuster
*Tool* # (2) wrote: >Hell, if you gave me a dollar I would buy a sunday paper
and follow you
>around the whole day swatting it against your stupid ass.
Thank you *Tool* # (2) for confirming that when given a *choice* you choose to
remain clueless.*Tool* # (2), would you like to *( burro )* a clue then ?
hehehe your to smart for your own good . Later *Tool*# (2)
X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer)
ea...@CHANGE-EDU-TO-COMgeocities.edu (E) wrote:
>In article <3592DE5E...@shaw.wave.ca>, ifi...@apialarm.com wrote:
>>No offense intended but I was really surprised when so many members of the NG
>> were
>>so poorly educated in the real world legal system. What do they teach in
>> school?
>>Obviously not how the world works when you get out in it. Anyone who's had a
>>serious injury or a fatality that even remotely could include a defendant with
>>really deep pockets goes after them. It's just the way it is.
Eric, maybe he's describing the world he lives in...it's not the US..
>That's great. Hope you can look yourself in the mirror without a problem.
>This is a perfect example of a nuisance lawsuit. You're the kind of idiot that
>make things, including items like insurance, more expensive for all of us.
>Thanks.
He's also not the one who is suing...he was also sued by the
family....his comments were about the fact that he doesn't expect SD
to pay it, nor does he expect to lose that large a sum, either. Being
good friends with the plaintiff will probably help.
Rokybuster
Rokybuster wrote:>*Tool* I just came from rec.boats.It is blatantly obvious
that your
>speculations
>(like bird sh_t falling from the sky) have managed to disrupt another
>N/G.*Tool* did it ever accure to you that *YOU* are the common thread " Re:
>Universal disruptance among the N/Gs "?
>
a dummy"crap didn't surprize me.(Your to smart to learn from your
mistakes).What did surprize me was theSICK,ABSCENE and SEXUALLY PERVERTED
content of this message that you *gutlessly* E-mailed me today. *Tool* I
SEVERLY recommend that you keep *all* of your collespondence with me in the
N/G,on the N/G.*Tool* I did notice that all the sick,abscene and sexually
perverted things that you *gutlessly* E-mailed me instead of putting on the
N/G were spelled perfectly.*Tool* you don't have to keep telling me how smart
you are, I can just read your last E-mail.BTW: *Tool* I have recieved 41
E-mails from people supporting me in what I've said to you .I had no idea
there were so many rec.sport.jetski. readers that HATE a good speller.GO
figure? Later *Tool*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
He is one bright guy, "when his clothing is on fire".
Carl McKim
Well you are obviously saying that I am smarting than you then, so shut the
hell up, and i am ignoring this half ass thread from now on.
--
**************************************
* Carl McKim *
* The-AgenT *
* (ca...@gte.net) *
* http://home1.gte.net/carlm *
* ICQ no. 1429224 *
**************************************
MTFBWY
(May The Force Be With You)
Shaken, not stirred.
Rokybuster <rokyb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806260059...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Irv Fisher
Thanks for the clarification Dennis. I couldn't help smile a little. Everyone
misreads a post now and then.
I dont really believe school teaches anyone how the world really works. I was just
funnin'. We might be worse off if it did. Teaching means doing what you're told,
not what the teller does. That's why some people become very rich. They're the
ones that figure this out better than the rest of us.
Also, whether I'm friends with the plaintiffs or not, it's their lawyers not them,
that will pursue the biggest reward and it will be my insurer that will pay--not
me. Eric needs to understand that is the system. It's not them against me or
Bombardier. It's their attorneys, (designates), against my insurer's attorneys and
Bombardier's attorneys, and boy does Bombardier have some attorneys. I'm sitting
with $3Mil in personal liability coverage. Canadian juries never award more than is
asked for. That really means nothing more than a statement of fact. What I meant
when I said I wasn't worried was there is a range this case will either settle at or
be awarded at trial. It's somewhere between $50K-$75K (US$). Life isn't really
worth much in the justice system unless you've got a jury with an attitude, (that's
the US system--not the Cdn system). The way it really works is the plaintiffs could
settle quietly with the insurers for $60K and maybe pay $5-10K in legal fees. With
the high power attorneys, they'll get $75-$80K with legal costs around $25-$30K. Do
the math. Who wins? For that matter who always wins when one party sues another?
Lastly, to respond to a very naive statement by Eic?, (who may very well believe it
but it's still naive in my books), it's not greedy plaintiffs that make insurance
more expensive. Jury awards and fraud on the part of the insureds do this. I deal
with insured losses 2-5 TIMES A DAY. It's quite common for the insureds to 'clear
inventory' after a breakin or a loss. In otherwords, the bandit got $10K in goods
but the insured claims $30K. Before Eric accuses me of this, understand I'm
reporting on what I see on a daily basis, not what I do. Fortuntely, I haven't had
any insured losses in the past 10 years, (except for a fire at my poolhouse last
month). Juries in Canada are more like judges in the sense they're quite
conservative in awarding damages. They attempt to be fair to both parties. Juries
dont get even or get revenge in our system. Some of the jury awards in recent
years, (MacDonald's, the award in the funeral parlour affair last year), are so
scary, sometimes I feel sorry for the insurer.
In any case I'm simply sharing some observations with you after 30 years of
suffering through various levels of involvement with civil suits, murder and rape
trials, the police and regrettably, the governent. I suspect Eric would like the
system to work differently. Unfortunately for many, it doesn't.
Mark Mahoney
Irv Fisher wrote:
> < (MacDonald's, the award in the funeral parlour affair last year) >
Funeral parlor affair???Mark
Harry Krause
You didn't hear about the PWC'er last year who bought a six pack of miller lite,
went through the mickey d drive through, ate the burger, drank the beer and got
so smashed he crashed through the front window of a funeral parlor and landed on
top of the remains of a 90-year old woman, decided she was one hot dish and had
sex with her?
What newspaper do you read?
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Gee, look at all them indians!" - George A. Custer
X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer)
ea...@CHANGE-EDU-TO-COMgeocities.edu (E) wrote:
> I suspect Eric would like
>> the
>>system to work differently.
>
>You suspect correctly.
>
>>Unfortunately for many, it doesn't.
>
>Unfortunately, many parties starting nuisance lawsuits has changed how the
>system works.
Frankly, the system works fine.....it's the people involved that
sometimes screw things up. Greedy works both ways.....there are
people who run companies irresponsibly (and stockholders who let them)
that the system provides a balance against.
Point is in THIS case, it's not the company or their dealer who've
acted irresponsibly. Eric is right....the family who is suing can
turn off the ignition switch, even if you think the lawyers are
driving.
Rokybuster
*Tool* # (2) wrote: >Well you
are obviously saying that I am smarting than you then, so shut the
>hell up, and i am ignoring this half ass thread from now on.
*Tool* # (2) , See you did * burro* a clue. " I am (smarting) than you
then," hehehe Later *Tool* # (2)
Irv Fisher
OK. Do you think "greedy" individuals would litigate what you deem silly cases if
juries didn't reward them. If your chance of winning a race is small, you don't
invest the time and money to go to it, (couldn't resist the opportunity to cross
thread there). That's it, plain and simple. Change the laws so juries can't, (not
don't), reward the sleeze of this world and this world would be more to your liking,
(mine too).
If everyone was moraly responsible, you wouldn't need government. If government
sucks, the morally bankrupt 'manipulators' are successful. Then other folks, who
are decent, see these guys eating their lunch and they join. Who's guilty?
Morality is relative, not absolute. Screw with the goalposts and watch what
happens. Your beef's with your elected representatives, not the scum that feed off
those representatives' indecision and lack of balls.
And for the third time, I'm the guy on the wrong end of the $2 mil suit, so I'm not
quite sure how I got titled 'litigation crazy', unless you're referring to my
attitude as the recipient of all this attention. Hell, my Seadoo's been confiscated
by the cops for the next 4 years. My 'morally responsible' insurance company calls
this 'lawful seizure'. As a result, tough luck for me. But they said they will fix
the hull when it's returned to me. Nice guys.
I like the part about the plaintiffs calling it off. If they think they can win,
they wont. If they dont think they'll win, they will. Of course, they could fool
all of us by getting their $2 mil and donating it all to charity.
Lastly, of nuisance lawsuits. I stand to be corrected but the definition my
attorney friends attribute to this condition is one in which there is very little if
any likelihood of winning BUT it will cost the defendant less to settle it than to
fight it. A couple of my friends were sued, one in Dallas and one in N.Ca. Correct
me if I'm wrong but they told me if they successfully defended themselves, (one
did--the other's still pending), they had to pay their attorneys bill themselves.
In Canada, when this happens, the plaintiff must pay the defense attorneys' bill,
(at least most of it anyway). That's why we see a much smaller % of nuisance suits
up here. You better be right or it's gonna cost you a bundle. That's why it's not
likely this Bombardier thing will go to trial because the plaintiff's case is very
weak and the costs would be considerable should they lose. Also, for many years,
attorneys here could not take a % of the winnings. You had to pay everything
yourself. He was only entitled to his hourly rate. Now that we've become more
Americanized, I expect to see more suits as attorneys test new ways to increase
their incomes. Time isn't money if you've got nothing better to do. :-)
E wrote:
> In article <35946C04...@shaw.wave.ca>, ifi...@apialarm.com wrote:
>
> >Also, whether I'm friends with the plaintiffs or not, it's their lawyers not
> > them,
> >that will pursue the biggest reward and it will be my insurer that will
> > pay--not
> >me. Eric needs to understand that is the system. It's not them against me or
> >Bombardier. It's their attorneys, (designates), against my insurer's attorneys
> > and
> >Bombardier's attorneys, and boy does Bombardier have some attorneys.
>
> Eric does understand the system. The problem with the system is people like
> you. The whole world is litigation-crazy.
>
> >Lastly, to respond to a very naive statement by Eic?, (who may very well
> > believe it
> >but it's still naive in my books), it's not greedy plaintiffs that make
> > insurance
> >more expensive. Jury awards and fraud on the part of the insureds do this.
>
> Please. It is greedy plaintiffs, you said so yourself, re "human
> nature", combined with juries who almost always view the large corporation as
> the bad guy. In this case, if the plaintiffs wanted, they could call the
> whole thing off. They're driving the cycle.
>
> >In any case I'm simply sharing some observations with you after 30 years of
> >suffering through various levels of involvement with civil suits, murder and
> > rape
> >trials, the police and regrettably, the governent. I suspect Eric would like
> > the
> >system to work differently.
>
> You suspect correctly.
>
> >Unfortunately for many, it doesn't.
>
> Unfortunately, many parties starting nuisance lawsuits has changed how the
> system works.
>
X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer)
Irv Fisher <ifi...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>OK. Do you think "greedy" individuals would litigate what you deem silly cases if
>juries didn't reward them. If your chance of winning a race is small, you don't
>invest the time and money to go to it, (couldn't resist the opportunity to cross
>thread there). That's it, plain and simple. Change the laws so juries can't, (not
>don't), reward the sleeze of this world and this world would be more to your liking,
>(mine too).
Umm....problem with this theory is the guys who deserve a reward get
screwed out of it by your form of government limit. Other problem is
guys who get rich by screwing the little guys (as in the Board and
stockholders) have no rational penalty for their greed.
Irv Fisher
Yep, I agree totally. Life sucks. But it beats the alternative.
X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer) wrote:
Drew
Irv Fisher wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree totally. Life sucks. But it beats the alternative.
Which is why we always say that "high blood pressure is better than no
blood pressure." Please pass the salt and a Coke. (Just kidding George.)
--
________
___ __ \_____________ ___ __
__ / / /__ ___/_ _ \__ | /| / /
_ /_/ / _ / / __/__ |/ |/ /
/_____/ /_/ \___/ ____/|__/
cruz3
If I had my choice of the options described above, I would go for a 2-stroke
fed by a blower. Detroit Diesels have been doing this for EONS and they
really work. This is probably the best compromise of cost, efficiency,
reliability, and cleanliness.
Jeeeez. what a thread
WHardy1902 wrote in message
<199806240324...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Have any of the manufacturers hinted at the possibility of introducing
>>four-stroke engines in the near future?
>>Perhaps a better question would be: why has the PWC industry remained
>>with the nauseating two-stroke?
>>I am aware that there have been many advancements in the technology,
>>imparting some of the qualities of
>>four-stroke engines (lower HC emissions, for example) while maintaining
>>more power output at a given
>>RPM and displacement, however I feel the current state is still
>>antiquated. I still enjoy PWC, even if they're
>>somewhat noisy and occasionally foul smelling. I'll more than likely
>>purchase one this year (preferably new)
>>but would hold off for a year if a four-stroke were to be introduced. I
>>could be very wrong about my
>>perception of the marine two-strokes..I'd like some feedback.
>>
>>Sean
>
>
>Four stroke outboards have been on the market in the U.S. for over 25 years
but
>still don't hold much of the market share. Why? Too heavy for the same HP
and
>much more complicated. Look for more boats w/ fuel injection and emission
>controls. Look for the elimination of crankcase scavenging for engine
intake
>and the addition of a blower. With oil in the crankcase where it belongs,,
not
>in the fuel.
>
>Four stroke PWC? Don't hold your breath, you look terrible in blue.