Carver boats - a big mistake?
Richard C. Belanger
I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
am more than a little concerned.
He points out major problems in the fabrication of Carver boats - and
essentially says they are unworthy of any consideration.
We have been comparing Carver's to Maxum and SeaRay and have liked the
Carver's better - partly because they seem to be more solidly put
together. Some friends who have newer Carver's and cruise them heavily
have also had good things to say about the seaworthiness of the boat.
I hadn't considered the more hard-core boats like Bertram and Hatteras
since I believed they were completely out of my price range.
Any opinions out there? Would I be making a huge mistake with a
Carver? Should I just keep saving for a better quality boat? My
primary goal is cruising the boat in Massachusetts waters - based out of
Boston.
Thanks,
Rich
Phoenix
Dave Pascoe is a surveyor with high standards, who rates boats based upon
their ability to be a true offshore boat. Carver is a good middle of the
road boat, (similar to SeaRay, probably a little better than Maxum). If you
want the boat for Coastal Cruising you will have no problems and will enjoy
any of the boats you listed. If you want a boat similar in quality to the
Hatteras or Bertram you will have to pay the price of a Hatteras or Bertram.
One option many of the regulars in this group suggests is buying a good
quality used boat. You will be able to get more boat for you money (someone
else has already taken the initial 20% 1st yr. depreciation) and someone
else has "debugged" the new boat for you. It is common for new boats to
have minor problems that need to be corrected by the dealer. The key is to
find a boat that looks like it is in good shape and make an offer on the
boat based upon a satisfactory survey.
Dave Pascoe points out many excellent points on his web page and is a great
place to become a more educated consumer, but few boats will ever live up to
his "ideal boat".
--
Jim
"Richard C. Belanger" <rbel...@forrester.com> wrote in message
news:38D383E1...@forrester.com...
Harry Krause
>
> Hi:
>
> I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
> for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
> been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>
> David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
> off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
> am more than a little concerned.
>
> He points out major problems in the fabrication of Carver boats - and
> essentially says they are unworthy of any consideration.
>
> We have been comparing Carver's to Maxum and SeaRay and have liked the
> Carver's better - partly because they seem to be more solidly put
> together. Some friends who have newer Carver's and cruise them heavily
> have also had good things to say about the seaworthiness of the boat.
There are many things to consider in a 40' boat. As an example, you note
right away that the Carver you are considering, a plush multi-level
cabin cruiser with lots of glass, is *not* a hard-core offshore design.
Neither are similar looking boats from the two other manufacturers you
mention, SeaRay and Maxum. If offshore performance and safety are
important to you, you are barking up the wrong tree with these boats.
However they are put together and with whatever materials, their designs
alone disqualify them for serious offshore use. Too much glass, too
slab-sided.
Several paragraphs later, you say that friends with Carvers have told
you that they have "good things" to say about the seaworthiness of their
boats.
These two statements are not in conflict. Used in near-shore and
protected waters, the style of boat you are considering can be
seaworthy. Used offshore in miserable but not necessarily dangerous
ocean conditions, well, you're going to wish you were inshore.
Pascoe is a conservative boat surveyor. He's not easily impressed. A
friend of mine was looking at SeaRays, tumbled across Pascoe's site, did
a lot more exploring and in the past week, bought a Tiara instead. Tiara
builds some of the very best boats made these days, and I'm using "best"
in design and qualitative terms. If you bought a Tiara smaller than the
Carver you're considering, you'd have a far better boat, although it
would not be as "condo-like" on the interior.
I read the one Carver "review" on Pascoe's site, and, if I were in your
shoes, I'd be concerned, too. He obviously does not like Carvers. Did
you see the article on the used 38' Hatt? Now *that* is one hell of a
boat.
I flipped over to the Carver page and looked at the specs for the 396.
There wasn't a lot of data there. Couple of things stood out: I'd expect
to see a fuel capacity of at least 400 gallons for a boat that size, and
I'd expect to see larger engines. Oh...and I would not expect to see
twin gas engines as an option. That boat needs a pair of 400 hp diesels
for proper performance and reasonable fuel economy.
You are in an area of the country where there are lots of smaller boat
manufacturers turning out high quality stuff, some at "Carver" prices.
I'll bet you can do better than Carver.
--
Harry Krause
------------
If things improve with age, I'm nearing MAGNIFICENT!
wf...@ptd.net
<rbel...@forrester.com> wrote:
>Hi:
>
>I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
>for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
>been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>
>David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
>off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
>am more than a little concerned.
>
dont forget, pascoe's articles, although wel written, are the kind of
reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
garyjwilliams
comparables for over a year. I agree that the primary consideration should
be your desired use for the boat. We're in the lower Chesapeake and for
inshore, coastal cruising, you should be very satisfied.
We kicked a lot of tires and kept coming back to Carver for attention to
detail, features we liked, and of course, value.
Regards,
Gary (and Colleen)
Fred Konchan
aft cabin. I read this article and looked at the pictures. hasn't happened
to either of my Carvers. In fact, my 28 is as new.
Buy the Carver...
"Richard C. Belanger" <rbel...@forrester.com> wrote in message
news:38D383E1...@forrester.com...
> Hi:
>
> I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
> for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
> been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>
> David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
> off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
> am more than a little concerned.
>
> essentially says they are unworthy of any consideration.
>
> We have been comparing Carver's to Maxum and SeaRay and have liked the
> Carver's better - partly because they seem to be more solidly put
> together. Some friends who have newer Carver's and cruise them heavily
> have also had good things to say about the seaworthiness of the boat.
>
Karl Denninger
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:26:06 GMT, "Richard C. Belanger"
><rbel...@forrester.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
>>for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
>>been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>>
>>David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
>>off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
>>am more than a little concerned.
>>
>
>reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
Yeah, well, a 40-footer with crap for hull construction where you cannot
expect it to survive even light to moderate impacts is outrageous.
Further, inadequate structural integrity where you get delamination such as
Pascoe documented is an outrage regardless of how old the boat is. There's
simply no excuse for this, and unless you want to end up having to sue the
builder a few years down the road you're crazy to buy something like this.
Stuff like this on a $20,000 boat is one thing. On a quarter-million-plus
investment its another, particularly when you've got the kind of
engineering flaws that render the hull unrepairable.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
Harry Krause
>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:26:06 GMT, "Richard C. Belanger"
> <rbel...@forrester.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi:
> >
> >I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
> >for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
> >been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
> >
> >David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
> >off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
> >am more than a little concerned.
> >
>
> dont forget, pascoe's articles, although wel written, are the kind of
> reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
Not true.
--
Harry Krause
------------
NEWS! Iraqi head seeks arms
Skipper
>> Don't forget, Pascoe's articles, although well written, are the kind of
>> reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
>
> Not true.
I can remember when Pascoe passed off pictures of hurricane damaged
boats implying they were *typical* of the builder's products until he
was called on it. He meekly pulled those pictures and stories from his
website. While there is some good information on his site, many of his
conclusions are indefensible in an open forum, IMO.
Carver's are fine recreational boats with many proud and repeat owners.
Pascoe is a winey cowardly ambusher thus far unable to belly up to the
bar. Hopefully, some day he will find the courage of his convictions and
test his rather myopic views in free and open discussion.
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
>
> >> Don't forget, Pascoe's articles, although well written, are the kind of
> >> reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> I can remember when Pascoe passed off pictures of hurricane damaged
> boats implying they were *typical* of the builder's products until he
> was called on it. He meekly pulled those pictures and stories from his
> website.
Another in the series of bullshippy, bold-faced lies from Skipper. The
photos, I believe, showed the absolutely, incredibly crappy construction
of a Bayliner 26-footer, a boat with 1" (that's right, one inch!)
stringers forward held onto the hull with 1" fiberglass tape. And the
stringers curved inward!!!
The boat was an absolute piece of trash, construction wise. And Pascoe
said so. He had numerous photos showing precisely how crappily it was
built.
Pascoe pulled those Bayliner photos because he was tired of seeing his
EMAIL box filled with whining letters from Bayliner huggers.
Some of the info is still there if you know where to look for it. Or it
was the last I looked.
There's nothing specific about Bayliners on the site now, I believe.
While there is some good information on his site, many of his
> conclusions are indefensible in an open forum, IMO.
"Indefensible in an open forum?" What the hell does that mean? You mean,
Pascoe won't openly debate boating know-nothings like you? Why would he
want to?
> Carver's are fine recreational boats with many proud and repeat owners.
How would you know that, Skippy?
> Pascoe is a winey cowardly ambusher thus far unable to belly up to the
> bar. Hopefully, some day he will find the courage of his convictions and
> test his rather myopic views in free and open discussion.
You mean, like you don't?
--
Harry Krause
------------
I saw Elvis. He sat between Bigfoot and me on the UFO.
Skipper
> Skipper wrote:
>> I can remember when Pascoe passed off pictures of hurricane damaged
>> boats implying they were *typical* of the builder's products until he
>> was called on it. He meekly pulled those pictures and stories from his
>> website. While there is some good information on his site, many of his
>> conclusions are indefensible in an open forum, IMO.
>> Carver's are fine recreational boats with many proud and repeat owners.
>> Pascoe is a winey cowardly ambusher thus far unable to belly up to the
>> bar. Hopefully, some day he will find the courage of his convictions
>> and test his rather myopic views in free and open discussion.
> Another in the series of bullshippy, bold-faced lies from Skipper...
> Pascoe pulled those Bayliner photos because he was tired of seeing his
> EMAIL box filled with whining letters from Bayliner huggers. ...
Mr. Pascoe was invited to discuss his views in this open forum as there
are many contributors and lurkers with equally valid credentials and
opinions. He issued one brief personally insulting flame response and
then turned tail. He did pull those pictures and fictitious stories from
his website. Have no idea who sent him "whining" email. I certainly did
not.
I would like to see him bring his views to the crucible of open debate,
just like the rest of us. If his intention is to improve our boating
knowledge, he should have no problem showing us the error of our ways.
> "Indefensible in an open forum?" What the hell does that mean? ...
Perhaps he is not up to the challenge. IMO, his blanket statements about
boat styles are most appropriate to a very small segment of the total
boating community. An open discussion might show us all just how small.
Your backing down to a real test of your boating views is understandable
considering the severity of the challenge. However, your position that
Pascoe's participation in an open discussion would not be informative is
much more difficult to understand.
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
>
> > Skipper wrote:
>
> >> I can remember when Pascoe passed off pictures of hurricane damaged
> >> boats implying they were *typical* of the builder's products until he
> >> was called on it. He meekly pulled those pictures and stories from his
> >> website. While there is some good information on his site, many of his
> >> conclusions are indefensible in an open forum, IMO.
>
>
> > Pascoe pulled those Bayliner photos because he was tired of seeing his
> > EMAIL box filled with whining letters from Bayliner huggers. ...
>
> Mr. Pascoe was invited to discuss his views in this open forum as there
> are many contributors and lurkers with equally valid credentials and
> opinions. He issued one brief personally insulting flame response and
> then turned tail. He did pull those pictures and fictitious stories from
> his website. Have no idea who sent him "whining" email. I certainly did
> not.
Uh-huh. Skipper, this Pascoe tale of yours you retell every three months
does not gain in credibility, no matter how many times you cough it up.
And everytime you bring it up, someone pounds you on the head over it.
You'd think by now you might have learned.
Pascoe knows a lot about boats. *You* don't. It's as simple as that.
--
Harry Krause
------------
According to the Weather Channel, Hell just froze over.
Richard C. Belanger
Thanks so much for the feedback, pro and con. I have been in touch with
dealer and Carver. We are going to do a preliminary sea trial on the
same model boat in the next few weeks - and a complete walk through. I
will report back on the results, if anyone seems to be interested.
I am also widening my search to encompass other boats, with an emphasis
on learning more about what makes a good design.
Does anyone have good sources on what to look for in a well designed
boat today (other than Pascoe. I have already printed out his stuff).
Thanks,
Rich
"Richard C. Belanger" wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
> for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
> been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>
> David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
> off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
> am more than a little concerned.
>
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:26:06 GMT, "Richard C. Belanger"
>> <rbel...@forrester.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi:
>> >
>> >I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
>> >for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
>> >been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>> >
>> >David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
>> >off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
>> >am more than a little concerned.
>> >
>>
>> dont forget, pascoe's articles, although wel written, are the kind of
>> reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
>
>Not true.
>
thats what he said when he called $150K for the carver inexpensive...
Harry Krause
I recall some comments about "cheaply built." Pascoe has boats on his
site that sell for a lot less than $150,000 that he considers well-made
craft.
I don't know beans about Carvers. I climbed aboard one at a recent boat
show. In all honestly, I couldn't tell it from a half-dozen other
houseboats at the show.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Deja brew: the feeling that you've had this beer before.
Karl Denninger
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:53:40 -0500, Harry Krause <hkr...@capu.net>
>wrote:
>
>>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:26:06 GMT, "Richard C. Belanger"
>>> <rbel...@forrester.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi:
>>> >
>>> >I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
>>> >for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
>>> >been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>>> >
>>> >David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
>>> >off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
>>> >am more than a little concerned.
>>> >
>>>
>>> dont forget, pascoe's articles, although wel written, are the kind of
>>> reviews where $150K is considered cheap.
>>
>>Not true.
>>
>
>thats what he said when he called $150K for the carver inexpensive...
Well, Pascoe pretty-well documented his findings on the Carver. Pictures
speak a thousand words. A boat that was less than 5 years old with
progressive delamination problems that were *visible* behind a removable
vent, and worse, a hull thin enough to puncture due to a light impact
(realize that a "light" impact in boat terms is a rock or other hard
object on the bottom that you hit with the hull while moving at 20 knots!)
The prospect of being holed and sinking as a consequence of such an impact
ought to dissuade anyone from buying a boat such as this.
"Light" impacts (due to deadheads, other junk in the water, etc) happen ALL
THE TIME and are basically unavoidable risks in the boating world. If you
boat in a region where you're more than a comfortable swim away from shore
(or where the water is cold enough to kill you even if you'd otherwise
survive) then I would consider such a boat to be an INSANE purchase
decision.
One thing Pascoe should manage to impart to anyone who is considering a
boat purchase - insist on being able to determine the overall thickness of
the hull and what that thickness is made of, and discount as non-structural
any core material because such does NOT add to impact resistance (although
it might add to torsion and shear strength, providing the bonding holds)
Further, if you DO have a cored hull (even above the waterline only; I'd
dismiss as insane any hull cored below the waterline) there had better be
layers of roving on the OUTSIDE of the core material. If there isn't (eg:
chopper gun or nothing) on the outside you have pretty close to ZERO impact
resistance.
Skipper
>> I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
>> for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
>> been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>> David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
>> off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
>> am more than a little concerned.
> Well, Pascoe pretty-well documented his findings on the Carver... A
> boat...with a hull thin enough to puncture due to a light impact
> (realize that a "light" impact in boat terms is a rock or other hard
> object on the bottom that you hit with the hull while moving at 20 knots!)
> The prospect of being holed and sinking as a consequence of such an impact
> ought to dissuade anyone from buying a boat such as this.
> "Light" impacts (due to deadheads, other junk in the water, etc) happen ALL
> THE TIME and are basically unavoidable risks in the boating world. If you
> boat in a region where you're more than a comfortable swim away from shore
> (or where the water is cold enough to kill you even if you'd otherwise
> survive) then I would consider such a boat to be an INSANE purchase
> decision.
Now many Carvers have been sunk do to these "light" impacts you
describe? I thought so. Both you and Pascoe are short of *real* facts.
Try walking the dock telling the proud owner of a Carver that his boat
is a POS and unsafe. Yes, you and Pascoe have a lot in common ...both
Assholes.
--
Skipper
RICHARD POELSTRA
motor quits running? But yet you stupid people that think boats should
be built to withstand huricanes and tornadoes still fly on them. Why
don't you go buy a cement or solid iron boat, then you can bitch about
the HP not enough to get your "Well Built" barge out of the water.
Rich
http://community.webtv.net/RJgonfshin/WELCOMETOMYHOMEPAGE
Karl Denninger
Skipper <Ski...@kscable.com> wrote:
>Karl Denninger wrote:
>> boat...with a hull thin enough to puncture due to a light impact
>> (realize that a "light" impact in boat terms is a rock or other hard
>> object on the bottom that you hit with the hull while moving at 20 knots!)
>
>> The prospect of being holed and sinking as a consequence of such an impact
>> ought to dissuade anyone from buying a boat such as this.
>
>> "Light" impacts (due to deadheads, other junk in the water, etc) happen ALL
>> THE TIME and are basically unavoidable risks in the boating world. If you
>> boat in a region where you're more than a comfortable swim away from shore
>> (or where the water is cold enough to kill you even if you'd otherwise
>> survive) then I would consider such a boat to be an INSANE purchase
>> decision.
>
>Now many Carvers have been sunk do to these "light" impacts you
>describe? I thought so. Both you and Pascoe are short of *real* facts.
How relavent are the prior sinkings (or lack thereof) when you're the one
doing the swimming?
That's what I thought.
>Try walking the dock telling the proud owner of a Carver that his boat
>is a POS and unsafe. Yes, you and Pascoe have a lot in common ...both
>Assholes.
>
>--
>Skipper
I wouldn't go out on one beyond the range that I could swim back in -
and in water warm enough to be able to do so.
If you want a cocktail cruiser for use in the ICW or an inland area that's
fine and in that service they might be ok boats.
But in "deep blue water"? You're nuts to trust a boat that can be holed
clear through with the impact of *one* swing of a common carpenter hammer.
For what you'd spend on one of these things you can get a boat with a
real hull that has more strength than an eggshell.
But heh, its your money Skip.
Larry W4CSC
Denninger) wrote:
>
>Further, if you DO have a cored hull (even above the waterline only; I'd
>dismiss as insane any hull cored below the waterline) there had better be
>layers of roving on the OUTSIDE of the core material. If there isn't (eg:
>chopper gun or nothing) on the outside you have pretty close to ZERO impact
>resistance.
>
Speaking of impact resistance.....
Have you ever looked at one of Brunswick's bowling pins? It takes a
beating from the hard balls thrown at it. It has a very tiny impact
area that must absorb this hit. It has to put up with being dragged
over, pinched by, scraped over and beat upon sharp metal parts in the
bowling pinsetter machine. Even after YEARS of this abuse, the
surface of the pin is, although quite dirty, smooth, undented, and if
you clean it off, unscratched!
Question - If Brunswick can produce this bowling pin that will take
this kind of constant abuse....why is it Brunswick, or anyone else,
can't produce a BOAT with a hull this way....instead of one you have
to treat like it's made of eggshells?
Hell, the bowling pin is even CORED!
Larry....
Karl Denninger
You look at the shit some Hats and Bertrams get put through during storms
(including being blown into pilings, other structures and boats) and you'll
find exactly that kind of ruggedness.
Skipper
>
> Nope....not me. I just think that a $100,000 boat should be able to
> bang into a dock and come out without a SCRATCH.
Absolutely! And if it gets a scratch you should receive a $250,000
settlement from that black hearted boat builder and dealer. Sheesh...
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
>
>
> A friend of mine has a Hunter 34 sloop. The race committee insists
> everyone have a hand-operated bilge pump permanently installed. So, I
> installed Joe a Whale into his cockpit's starboard side where someone
> could sit and pump for hours on its handle. I stood on the dock with
> my cordless drill and hole saw to put the 1 1/4" thru-hull fitting
> into the starboard side of the hull about 2' above the water line.
> Some, on the dock, were skeptical that my little B&D could drill the
> hole. They watched in horror as I easily drilled the pilot hole and
> let the saw kiss the gelcoat, grinding its hole in the side of the
> boat. Took only about 20 seconds and the deed was done. I handed Joe
> the plug from the inside of the hole saw. "That's all there is to the
> hull?!!", he exclaimed. "Yep, about 1/2" thick, only 2' off the
> waterline. We looked close and it looks like there's only one layer
> of cloth, or at the most 2, in the epoxy, left really rough on the
> inside. I guess this will be thick enough until he slams into the
> dock from the tide, someday. Can't we afford more for a hundred
> grand??
Some years ago in this very newsgroup I mentioned how I was really
unimpressed with a "popular" line of smaller fishing boats made by "the
world's largest manufacturer" of pleasure boats. I pointed out that if I
pushed hard against the hullsides, I could noticably deflect the
fiberglass, and that I therefore thought there wasn't much to that
laminate. I have seen "plugs" from the laminate of that brand of boat.
There's no question that there isn't much to these boats, and that that
is the major reason why they appear to be less expensive than some
competing brands.
My "favorite" model of this brand of boat has to be the 26 footer, the
one in which the stringers are 1" strips, curving inward and held onto
the inside of the hull by a little piece of fiberglass tape.
--
Harry Krause
------------
My favorite mythical creature? The compassionate modern-day Republican.
Harry Krause
Hmmmm. What's the best way to sink a $100,000 Bayliner?
Dock it a little too hard.
--
Harry Krause
------------
So easy to use a child can do it. Child sold separately.
L8apex
whenever i leave the marina. i think it is for sale since he left the price
decal on the transome $201936.00. i think that qualifies it as an expensive
boat. or maybe he is just showing off.
david
wf...@ptd.net wrote in message <38d3ae2d....@news.ptd.net>...
>>for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
>>been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>>
>>David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
>>off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
>>am more than a little concerned.
>>
>
Harry Krause
>
> there is someone with a new 39-something carver for sale that i pass
> whenever i leave the marina. i think it is for sale since he left the price
> decal on the transome $201936.00. i think that qualifies it as an expensive
> boat. or maybe he is just showing off.
> david
>
--
Harry Krause
------------
Never leave diskettes in the disk drive, as data can leak out of the
disk and corrode the inner mechanics of the drive. Diskettes should be
rolled up and stored in pencil holders.
Jim Donohue
problems with hull damage I did not hit anything significant either.
I would however suggest a considerable tendency to problems that I would
associate with less than adequate design. Engine mounts shifted on a
relatively minor wake collision. Transmission mounted in such a way that it
had to be literally cold chiseled from the engine block. Persistent stern
leaks do to shaft logs and unexplainable plug. A rudder locked hard a
port. Rudder shaft logs that are non serviceable with the boat in the
water. Multiple minor structural failures - sagging deck in cockpit, failed
cover supporting rear bunk, seperating partitions in head, busted wooden
support for forward bunk, unworkable mechanism to set up forward bunk, etc.
etc. Basically a nice design (kept it all those years because it worked so
well as we used it) cheaply executed.
I do offshore sailing on occasions and would not consider this a rational
boat in any kind of a big sea. Its strength was that it was fast enough you
should not get caught in one. However I have been in trying conditions with
it and found it at least survivable in 10 ft seas and 35 knots. Without
power that might well have been too much and I don't know if I could have
handled a sea much larger or much more wind. These floating condos are not
rough water boats.
I would not have bought another Carver before reading Pascoe and absolutely
would not after. These boats are appealing designs but just too cheaply
put together.
Jim
Richard C. Belanger <rbel...@forrester.com> wrote in message
news:38D4C30F...@forrester.com...
> Hi:
>
> Thanks so much for the feedback, pro and con. I have been in touch with
> dealer and Carver. We are going to do a preliminary sea trial on the
> same model boat in the next few weeks - and a complete walk through. I
> will report back on the results, if anyone seems to be interested.
>
> I am also widening my search to encompass other boats, with an emphasis
> on learning more about what makes a good design.
>
> Does anyone have good sources on what to look for in a well designed
> boat today (other than Pascoe. I have already printed out his stuff).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rich
>
> "Richard C. Belanger" wrote:
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
> > for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
> > been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
> >
> > David Pascoe has a post on Carver's that makes me feel I would be better
> > off lashing together some logs than getting a Carver. Needless to say I
> > am more than a little concerned.
> >
Larry W4CSC
bang into a dock and come out without a SCRATCH.
Larry W4CSC
Denninger) wrote:
>
>You look at the shit some Hats and Bertrams get put through during storms
>(including being blown into pilings, other structures and boats) and you'll
>find exactly that kind of ruggedness.
>
Some Yankees abandoned their Hatt 43 sport fisherman at Buzzard's
Roost Marina in the Stono River at Charleston as one of our numerous
little hurricanes approached, I forget which one. The big Hat shook
loose the stupid mooring lines that had been improperly set. It
backed itself out of its slip and around the corner out of the marina,
without touching another boat during the BAD part of the storm. Once
out in the river, the current carried it towards the pilings of the
Maybank Highway/Stono Bridge where it spent the night banging up
against the pilings and the concrete edge of the bridge until someone
dared go get it. I was aboard it 3 days later. The tuna tower was
destroyed by the overhanging bridge parts. There was 4 places on the
rubrail that were "dented", but not seriously damaged. The hull, too
heavy for a l'il ole bridge to crack, was not damaged in any way in
spite of the 5' waves and 200 mph winds smashing it into the bridge
for hours and hours.
A friend of mine has a Hunter 34 sloop. The race committee insists
everyone have a hand-operated bilge pump permanently installed. So, I
installed Joe a Whale into his cockpit's starboard side where someone
could sit and pump for hours on its handle. I stood on the dock with
my cordless drill and hole saw to put the 1 1/4" thru-hull fitting
into the starboard side of the hull about 2' above the water line.
Some, on the dock, were skeptical that my little B&D could drill the
hole. They watched in horror as I easily drilled the pilot hole and
let the saw kiss the gelcoat, grinding its hole in the side of the
boat. Took only about 20 seconds and the deed was done. I handed Joe
the plug from the inside of the hole saw. "That's all there is to the
hull?!!", he exclaimed. "Yep, about 1/2" thick, only 2' off the
waterline. We looked close and it looks like there's only one layer
of cloth, or at the most 2, in the epoxy, left really rough on the
inside. I guess this will be thick enough until he slams into the
dock from the tide, someday. Can't we afford more for a hundred
grand??
Larry
Karl Denninger
Larry W4CSC <W4...@lostonthe.net> wrote:
>On 19 Mar 2000 19:26:58 GMT, ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net (Karl
>Denninger) wrote:
>
>>
>>You look at the shit some Hats and Bertrams get put through during storms
>>(including being blown into pilings, other structures and boats) and you'll
>>find exactly that kind of ruggedness.
>>
>Some Yankees abandoned their Hatt 43 sport fisherman at Buzzard's
>Roost Marina in the Stono River at Charleston as one of our numerous
>little hurricanes approached, I forget which one. The big Hat shook
>loose the stupid mooring lines that had been improperly set. It
>backed itself out of its slip and around the corner out of the marina,
>without touching another boat during the BAD part of the storm. Once
>out in the river, the current carried it towards the pilings of the
>Maybank Highway/Stono Bridge where it spent the night banging up
>against the pilings and the concrete edge of the bridge until someone
>dared go get it. I was aboard it 3 days later. The tuna tower was
>destroyed by the overhanging bridge parts. There was 4 places on the
>rubrail that were "dented", but not seriously damaged. The hull, too
>heavy for a l'il ole bridge to crack, was not damaged in any way in
>spite of the 5' waves and 200 mph winds smashing it into the bridge
>for hours and hours.
Yep. That's pretty much it. Pascoe has a photo of a Bertram that broke
loose during Andrew and wiped out a whole *line* of lesser boats - it had
some damage to the superstructure, but the hull remained un-holy :-)
There ARE some builders who take hull construction seriously.
The reason I worry about it is the impact forces when you're crusing around
at even moderate (15-20 knot) speeds. A 25,000lb mass (your boat) striking
an object a few inches in diameter at 20 knots can exert a force of several
*tons* PSI at the impact point (depending on how much mass - and therefore
inertia - the object you strike has). This, of course, assumes that what
you hit is not IMMOVABLE; if it is, then the mass of the struck object
becomes irrelavent too (all that matters then is how elastic the collision
is.)
Its all nice and well to say "don't run over things". Its also not
rational; not only do people run aground, but there is trash in the water
all the time, not all of which is visible under all conditions (particularly
in weather or at night) prior to striking it.
Further, this IGNORES the fact that boats do bang into pilings and docks.
Even when tied up, and even when you have "boat condoms" (fenders) out. It
is simply irrational to expect that the average boat is never going to strike
an object with any significant force. With the mass involved of even a small
cabin boat you're talking about impact forces in the many tons.
This is why the first rule of handling docklines and assisting in docking
is to NEVER put any part of your body between a boat and a dock or other
solid object. NEVER. (The second is to never get in the "snap-back" path
of a line.) Many years ago I saw someone damn near lose a leg that way
trying to fend off. Fiberglass is a LOT cheaper to replace than human
limbs, and the the human WILL lose that fight reliably. This guy was lucky
in that the broken leg was repairable by the local hospital :-).
I often take people out who are not "nautically savvy". I prefer to dock
SINGLE HANDED with them in the boat than have them assist, for precisely
this reason. Yes, I'm pretty good handling my vessel. But I'm not
perfect, and some clown coming through the no-wake at high speed (they do
that sometimes, 'ya know) could cause me to be pushed up against the
pilings. If your arm or leg is between the boat and the dock when that
happens you're going to suffer a serious injury, and I prefer that my
guests not have that happen - so I single-hand the docking and undocking
maneuvers unless I *KNOW* that the others assisting me know what they're
doing.
If the boat gets banged in that situation I can fix it; that's just money.
If YOU get banged its a much more serious matter.
>A friend of mine has a Hunter 34 sloop. The race committee insists
>everyone have a hand-operated bilge pump permanently installed. So, I
>installed Joe a Whale into his cockpit's starboard side where someone
>could sit and pump for hours on its handle. I stood on the dock with
>my cordless drill and hole saw to put the 1 1/4" thru-hull fitting
>into the starboard side of the hull about 2' above the water line.
>Some, on the dock, were skeptical that my little B&D could drill the
>hole. They watched in horror as I easily drilled the pilot hole and
>let the saw kiss the gelcoat, grinding its hole in the side of the
>boat. Took only about 20 seconds and the deed was done. I handed Joe
>the plug from the inside of the hole saw. "That's all there is to the
>hull?!!", he exclaimed. "Yep, about 1/2" thick, only 2' off the
>waterline. We looked close and it looks like there's only one layer
>of cloth, or at the most 2, in the epoxy, left really rough on the
>inside. I guess this will be thick enough until he slams into the
>dock from the tide, someday. Can't we afford more for a hundred
>grand??
>
>Larry
One layer of cloth - figures. And let me guess - it was on the INSIDE of
the core, right? :-(
(Being on the inside it contributes ZERO to the impact resistance of the
hull. It will help prevent a full hull breach, but not the exterior damage)
This is what you get when 50k of that went into the builder's pocket as
"profit". It would have cost at least another $10k to lay down a PROPER
hull.
(BTW, I don't care if its rough on the inside. THAT doesn't bother me, as
long as its not TOO rough. What DOES bother me is when there's only one
or two layers of glass in the ENTIRE hull structure.
Fiberglass hulls get their strength from the LAMINATION of MULTIPLE layers
of the roving, which is just a square weave of fibers. When several layers
are put together with epoxy binding them you end up with an incredibly
strong structure due to the bonding of the layers together with the epoxy.
This is particular true if the builder uses offsets (so you get a cross
pattern in the layers), which is the STRONGEST way to lay up a hull like
this.
The problem is that you need at least THREE layers to do this right. Fewer
than three and you don't get the "interlocking" nature of the roving that
gives it strength. Two layers, laid at 45 degree angles, will be ok IF
the bond is perfectly even - but it never is, and as a result you really
want at least three. More, of course, is better.
The "chopper gun" frequently used doesn't do spit for structural integrity.
It makes for a HARD surface (all epoxy), but not a STRONG surface. There's
a hell of a difference, and when you suffer an impact it shows.
Properly laid, a hull has *hardness* from the epoxy and *strength* from
the glass cloth. That's the combination you're looking for, and when
backed with a proper stringer and bulkhead design you wind up with, well,
one of those Hatteras' that can batter bridges and pilings in a storm
and not fail.
Lots of these clowns put either a foam core or worse, a putty-like substance
between layers (deadens sound, makes the hull SOUND solid, but again, adds
basically NOTHING to structural integrity). Some of them are INTENTIONALLY
misleading people by putting ONE layer of roving INSIDE the putty, so if
you look at the INSIDE of the hull, you can see the cloth pattern (its
easily visible). The problem with this is that you can't see what's
beneath the gelcoat, and the answer is frequently just chopper gun
crap.
A surveyor CANNOT detect this kind of subterfuge (unless he cores the
hull - which is going to be rather unpopular with sellers and buyers alike!)
Bang one of these hulls up against something solid and you're going to do
major damage and worse, if WATER gets in there (and it WILL if the core
goes below the waterline) the "sandwich" will eventually come apart.
Guaranteed.
That kind of delamination is not repairable.
At any price.
I don't mind lightweight construction in a lightweight boat. On a 20 foot
open bow or cuddy its one thing; the boat only weights a couple thousand
pounds dry anyway, perhaps 3500lbs loaded. It has far less mass itself,
which means that its inertial quotient is lower and therefore it won't
have the strength of impact that a larger boat will. Further, a boat like
that is usually kept out of the water, so delamination issues (unless the
stringer/bulkhead design, or the lay-up is REALLY shitty) will tend not
to arise.
But when you're talking about 35-footers its an ENTIRELY different situation.
Those boats not only inherently have a shitload of mass but they spend
their entire life in the water. Below-waterline cores in those hulls
WILL get wet and once they do trouble is inevitable.
FixinBones
>
>Have you ever looked at one of Brunswick's bowling pins? It takes a
>beating from the hard balls thrown at it. It has a very tiny impact
>area that must absorb this hit. It has to put up with being dragged
>over, pinched by, scraped over and beat upon sharp metal parts in the
>bowling pinsetter machine. Even after YEARS of this abuse, the
>surface of the pin is, although quite dirty, smooth, undented, and if
>you clean it off, unscratched!
>
>Question - If Brunswick can produce this bowling pin that will take
>this kind of constant abuse....why is it Brunswick, or anyone else,
>can't produce a BOAT with a hull this way....instead of one you have
>to treat like it's made of eggshells?
>
>Hell, the bowling pin is even CORED!
>
>Larry....
>
>
Jay
Formula 400ss
Larry W4CSC
on the starboard side of the hull under the starboard hatch to the
main helm. It had a deflector installed so it wouldn't get swamped in
heavy seas (but curiously had no kind of flap to prevent seawater from
getting into the dryer!). When we removed the deflector from my
jetboat, I couldn't help but notice the hull, way up by the toerail,
was nearly 2" thick! It was VERY heavy and SOLID fiberglass. There
was a plug of dryer fuzz up against the hole in the hull, which,
unfortunately was SMALLER than the hose to the dryer, so it was bound
to repeat. One wonders how thick it is down by the keel!
I sure wouldn't want THAT beast to hit anyone's boat.....or
dock....taking out half the marina with it!
Larry
On 20 Mar 2000 01:45:14 GMT, ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net (Karl
Larry W4CSC
at some car shows fully restored. It's my favorite car. The sticker
price in 1972 with AC/AM-FM Radio/two-tone creme over burgundy paint
was $7,268. The Navy captain who bought it paid $6,500 for it,
delivered cheerfully to his door. I have the letter from Langston
Motors to him telling him his car was ready and he needed a check when
they arrived....COD. You can't trust those Navy sailors, you
know....(c;
My how times have changed and the money has become utterly worthless.
Larry....It's the ONLY two-tone 220D I've ever seen so we repainted it
in original colors but with better, more modern, paint....4 coats.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:56:42 -0500, "L8apex" <david....@netsrq.com>
ref
Skipper <Ski...@kscable.com> wrote:
>then turned tail. He did pull those pictures and fictitious stories from
>his website. Have no idea who sent him "whining" email. I certainly did
I don't understand, Skipper. I mean, what are you saying, exactly? Are
you saying those pictures of 1" stringers are fake? Like, maybe he
replaced the factory stringers with 1" stringers just for the picture,
or what?
Same thing with the cheap pop rivets. So you're saying they AREN'T
really there, and he just doctored the picture, or maybe took a
picture inside another boat, then passed it off as a Bayliner photo?
Please explain. I'm very confused here.
Ron M.
Harry Krause
It was worse than 1" stringers and pop rivets. Do you remember how those
1" stringers were fastened to the hull? A thin strip of tape. And it
wasn't clear what kind of tape was used.
Even if you dismiss the damage on that 26' Bilgeliner depicted in those
photos, you are left with the horror of the revelation of the actual
construction materials and methodology used, and that was just plain
awful.
What is sadder still is the denial of the Bilgeliner huggers, who seem
bent on shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. Once you see
photos like those, there's really not much else about that line of
boats, at least in that style, that you need to know.
Next time I'm anywhere near a Bilgeliner dealer, I'll stop in and take
notes.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Death is 99 per cent fatal to laboratory rats.
Rod McInnis
"Richard C. Belanger" wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I have been looking at a new Carver 396. Looks like a nice boat, good
> for the family, though not a hard-core offshore design. Everything has
> been looking good until I went to http://www.yachtsurvey.com
>
<snip>
> I hadn't considered the more hard-core boats like Bertram and Hatteras
> since I believed they were completely out of my price range.
>
> Any opinions out there?
Oh, lots of opinions!
>Would I be making a huge mistake with a Carver?
Depends on how you intend on using the boat.
I own a 36' Carver Mariner, 1986 model. I have had it for just over 5
years now, and have been very happy with it. It is not without its
faults, some of them by design in the sense of a tradeoff, some where I
think the engineers were asleep when they made that decision.
As you may have noticed, there are many mixed reactions to David
Pascoe's web site. David refers to Carvers as "floating Campers". OK,
so be it. My floating camper serves me very well. It gets me to where
I am going fairly quickly. It only drafts about 3-1/2 feet of water so
it suits the shallow waters of the California delta region very well.
It will plow through the nasty chop that can develop in the bay,
although the ride can get uncomfortable and things not fastened down
start to move about. So far, there have been no signs of hull
fractures, delaminations or major structural failure.
I am not sure how she would handle the open ocean. My impression is
that she might be a bit too top heavy for handling the 6+ foot seas that
are common off the California coast.
This is an example of getting what you pay for. If you need a boat
that will handle the open ocean, then you might want to reconsider your
budget. If you aren't going to subject your boat to the conditions that
a Bertram was built to handle, then you will get more for your money out
of the Carver.
Rod McInnis
Larry Weiss
its faults and flaws. Yeah, I wish the engine oil dipsticks were a
couple of inches astern so they'd fit through the engine hatch. And the
air conditioning and fresh water systems require a contortionist for
servicing. But, it's really comfy and has always gotten us where we
want to go reliably and completely dry. I use the boat on Long Island
Sound and occasionally on the South Shore, NY Harbor and the Hudson.
We're doing the Erie Canal this summer and I couldn't think of a more
perfect boat for the trip. Would I take her out on the ocean in rough
seas? No. But I also wouldn't take *me* out on the ocean in rough
seas, no matter what the boat. I prefer mellow, comfy boating, and
that's what Carver seems to be all about. Works for me.
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
Ed
wrote:
<SNIP>
>Neither are similar looking boats from the two other manufacturers you
>mention, SeaRay and Maxum. If offshore performance and safety are
>important to you, you are barking up the wrong tree with these boats.
>However they are put together and with whatever materials, their
>designs alone disqualify them for serious offshore use. Too much glass,
>too slab-sided.
<SNIP>
>
>I flipped over to the Carver page and looked at the specs for the 396.
>There wasn't a lot of data there. Couple of things stood out: I'd expect
>to see a fuel capacity of at least 400 gallons for a boat that size, and
>I'd expect to see larger engines. Oh...and I would not expect to see
>twin gas engines as an option. That boat needs a pair of 400 hp diesels
>for proper performance and reasonable fuel economy.
>
>You are in an area of the country where there are lots of smaller boat
>manufacturers turning out high quality stuff, some at "Carver" prices.
>I'll bet you can do better than Carver.
Not contradicting, as you yourself made the point about design issues
for offshore use, but with regard to your specific comments, Carver is
pretty popular here on Lanier. People on Lanier don't really need 400
gallons of fuel capacity. Since there's only one place to get diesel
on the lake, twin gas engines are also an advantage.
This said, I am not recommending them. I know a surveyor here that
doesn't like these boats either. I don't know why specifically, other
than one stated design issue with the positioning of the generator
exhaust. If I'm not mistaken, some of them exit amidships, spewing CO
next to the living spaces.
-Ed G
Skipper
> I like Mr. Pascoe's information, but he cannot be expected to provide the
> complete story behind every boat brand, so I can't blame him for missing the
> whole picture in that situation. He saw what he saw and reported it
> accordingly.
So did Chicken Little. But Chicken Little has more courage.
--
Skipper
RBStern
First, let me (re)state that I am a Carver owner and therefore, biased.
Second, don't take my word for it. Here's a link to another forum,
specifically, the opinion of a marine surveyor who sees a lot of Carvers on the
Great Lakes:
http://www.yachtingnet.com/community/forums/power/1051/0.html
With that out of the way, let me say that Carver quality has been on the rise
for a number of years. My understanding is the boat in David Pascoe's review
was actually bought back by Carver, having been one of a handful of boats
produced that year that were incorrectly built and *replaced*. I like Mr.
Pascoe's information, but he cannot be expected to provide the complete story
behind every boat brand, so I can't blame him for missing the whole picture in
that situation. He saw what he saw and reported it accordingly.
Carver has since invested a lot of money on quality control processes and
quality control people. And it flat out shows.
Carver has a solid reputation for good fit and finish, similar to Regal,
Chapparral, and othe mid-priced brands. I believe their use of interior space
is ahead of anybody making products in the same category. They've also had
some great innovations lately, such as frameless (no leak!) windows, very wide
sidedecks, and have recently eliminated all wood below the waterline on their
boats (they haven't made cored hulls since 1981).
Comparing it to a Hatteras is silly. Put a 2 inch thick hull on a Carver for
close-to-shore or lake or river duty? Yeah, that would make sense. Then it
needs big diesels. Might as well make it a deep-vee while we are at it. There
goes the space, the price, fuel economy, maintenance costs, etc. Who would
buy one? The same people who buy Hatteras. Not what Carver is after, I'm
afraid. And not what a lot of us Carver owners want.
I wouldn't hesitate to have anyone here who doubts the quality to take a close
look. They know how to build a decent boat. And the company is very good
about standing by the product. They are customer service oriented.
My wife laments about having to drive the family minivan every day because she
says she "doesn't look cool." In response, I usually say, "Well, do you want
to trade it in on a sportier car?" Her response is always the same: "No, I
need the functionality of the minivan." The point being that the product we
might idealize (a tough, diesel powered, wave slicing, ocean going battlewagon
like a Hatteras sportfish), is not often the product we can either afford or
live with.
To the original poster: You will not find a better 40' aft cabin boat with so
many amenities, high comfort level, quality, and resale value than the Carver
396, in that general price range. You can find better boats built for a
different audience, at different price points, usually higher, or you can buy
an older, higher end boat, but again, it won't touch the functionality of the
396. Just don't buy the 396 (or any aft cabin!) if rough conditions are part
of the boating you plan to do on a regular basis..
-- Rich Stern
Dale Peterson
32' and the other was a 28' 1993, they were both great in the Puget Sound
waters where we used them. The only problem we had was with the exhaust
manifolds on the 32' and excessive corrosion on the Merc outdrives on the
28' I thought they we going to disolve altogether.
Dale P..........
Retired in the Sierra/Nevada
"Skipper" <Ski...@kscable.com> wrote in message
news:38D85CE1...@kscable.com...
> RBStern wrote:
>
> > I like Mr. Pascoe's information, but he cannot be expected to provide
the
> > complete story behind every boat brand, so I can't blame him for missing
the
> > whole picture in that situation. He saw what he saw and reported it
> > accordingly.
>
Harry Krause
>
> Hey, one more Carver opinion, while we are at it?
>
> First, let me (re)state that I am a Carver owner and therefore, biased.
>
> Second, don't take my word for it. Here's a link to another forum,
> specifically, the opinion of a marine surveyor who sees a lot of Carvers on the
> Great Lakes:
>
> http://www.yachtingnet.com/community/forums/power/1051/0.html
There's nothing of value in that survey, Rich.
>
> Carver has since invested a lot of money on quality control processes and
> quality control people. And it flat out shows.
>
> Comparing it to a Hatteras is silly. Put a 2 inch thick hull on a Carver for
> close-to-shore or lake or river duty? Yeah, that would make sense. Then it
> needs big diesels. Might as well make it a deep-vee while we are at it. There
> goes the space, the price, fuel economy, maintenance costs, etc. Who would
> buy one? The same people who buy Hatteras. Not what Carver is after, I'm
> afraid. And not what a lot of us Carver owners want.
Perhaps boats of this type need a warning label on them. "Warning: even
though this boat is 40 feet long, it is designed and built only for
close to shore, lake or river duty, and we don't mean Lake Superior in a
squall."
>
> To the original poster: You will not find a better 40' aft cabin boat with so
> many amenities, high comfort level, quality, and resale value than the Carver
> 396, in that general price range. You can find better boats built for a
> different audience, at different price points, usually higher, or you can buy
> an older, higher end boat, but again, it won't touch the functionality of the
> 396. Just don't buy the 396 (or any aft cabin!) if rough conditions are part
> of the boating you plan to do on a regular basis.
>
> -- Rich Stern
No offense, Rich, but that 40' Carver, at least the one depicted on the
Carver website (396 motor yacht), is among the ugliest boats I have ever
seen. It looks like a doublewide manufactured home with a huge lifting
handle, with some canard of a back porch-diving board right behind that
radar arch. With all that windage, it must be a terror to dock. And the
standard engines on that 28,000-pound monster are a pair of big block
V-8 gasoline slurpers? Holy Batman, who makes the boat, OPEC?
Seriously, if you want a boat like that, why not buy a houseboat and be
done with it? At least a houseboat is honest in what it is.
--
Harry Krause
------------
File Copied... I Think.
JDavis1277
nice and seem to be as good as the Carvers but with more functionality and
lower cost.
From the comments of the many Carver owners I get the impression that they are
houseboats impersonating cruisers. No offense intended.
Butch
Karl Denninger
Carver, along with many other boats, are just fine for protected waters and
in the service of what is often called "cocktail cruisers".
HOWEVER, the Great Lakes is NOT a protected body of water. Perhaps Lake
Lanier might be - but Lake MICHIGAN? Ha!
I've seen HONEST ten-plus footers on Lake Michigan (after 10 feet or so
there's really no point in calling out how much worse they are IMHO).
Short-period, nasty, breaking waves that are quite a bit worse than you'll
find on the ocean. 10 footers on The Big Lake are a LOT worse than they
are on an ocean, due to the simple fact that they tend to be shorter in
period and far sharper; they'll break things (including breaking over your
bow or stern) where the same wave on the ocean you might ride up (or down)
without significant incident.
I've lived in Chicago now for close to 14 years, and on the Great Lakes
for all my life. I've seen pieces of Lake Shore Drive, along with the
sidewalks, *BEHIND THE BREAKWALL* ripped out by the water and tossed up
on the roadway like toys. This is *AFTER* those same waves crossed the
breakwater some thousand feet out!
I've also lived on the north-east shore of the Big Lake (the Leelanau
Peninsula) and in the Detroit River/Lake Erie area (which is where most
of the rest of my years thus far have been spent).
The other problem with the Great Lakes is that they kick up 4-6 footers REAL
fast, with very little advance warning. You can have 1-3 foot waves in the
morning, and by noon there are nasty whitecap-topped 4-6 footers out there
that, for many boats, are simply too much to handle. I listen to the WX
on my way out to where I boat most of the time - which is truly inland
and protected (Fox Waterway) and hear the reports from the Waukegan weather
buoy all the time, along with the forecasts.
I have no qualm with someone who wants a floating party barge. There's a
market for everything, and if that's what you want that's fine. But trying
to claim that these boats are suitable for cruising out in big water (and
the Great Lakes certainly qualify as big water) is dangerous to the health
of those who do so.
Amulyte
weekend.Lake Michigan is like every other large body of water it has its good
and its bad days.Ive seen everything from 16 ft bayliners to 100ft yachts on
the lake.
While your at it look to the southeast a lot of carvers in there, not to many
hatteras's.
Larry Weiss
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
RBStern wrote:
>
> Hey, one more Carver opinion, while we are at it?
>
> First, let me (re)state that I am a Carver owner and therefore, biased.
>
> Second, don't take my word for it. Here's a link to another forum,
> specifically, the opinion of a marine surveyor who sees a lot of Carvers on the
> Great Lakes:
>
> http://www.yachtingnet.com/community/forums/power/1051/0.html
>
> With that out of the way, let me say that Carver quality has been on the rise
> for a number of years. My understanding is the boat in David Pascoe's review
> was actually bought back by Carver, having been one of a handful of boats
> produced that year that were incorrectly built and *replaced*. I like Mr.
> Pascoe's information, but he cannot be expected to provide the complete story
> behind every boat brand, so I can't blame him for missing the whole picture in
> that situation. He saw what he saw and reported it accordingly.
>
> Carver has since invested a lot of money on quality control processes and
> quality control people. And it flat out shows.
>
> Carver has a solid reputation for good fit and finish, similar to Regal,
> Chapparral, and othe mid-priced brands. I believe their use of interior space
> is ahead of anybody making products in the same category. They've also had
> some great innovations lately, such as frameless (no leak!) windows, very wide
> sidedecks, and have recently eliminated all wood below the waterline on their
> boats (they haven't made cored hulls since 1981).
>
> Comparing it to a Hatteras is silly. Put a 2 inch thick hull on a Carver for
> close-to-shore or lake or river duty? Yeah, that would make sense. Then it
> needs big diesels. Might as well make it a deep-vee while we are at it. There
> goes the space, the price, fuel economy, maintenance costs, etc. Who would
> buy one? The same people who buy Hatteras. Not what Carver is after, I'm
> afraid. And not what a lot of us Carver owners want.
>
> I wouldn't hesitate to have anyone here who doubts the quality to take a close
> look. They know how to build a decent boat. And the company is very good
> about standing by the product. They are customer service oriented.
>
> My wife laments about having to drive the family minivan every day because she
> says she "doesn't look cool." In response, I usually say, "Well, do you want
> to trade it in on a sportier car?" Her response is always the same: "No, I
> need the functionality of the minivan." The point being that the product we
> might idealize (a tough, diesel powered, wave slicing, ocean going battlewagon
> like a Hatteras sportfish), is not often the product we can either afford or
> live with.
>
> To the original poster: You will not find a better 40' aft cabin boat with so
> many amenities, high comfort level, quality, and resale value than the Carver
> 396, in that general price range. You can find better boats built for a
> different audience, at different price points, usually higher, or you can buy
> an older, higher end boat, but again, it won't touch the functionality of the
> 396. Just don't buy the 396 (or any aft cabin!) if rough conditions are part
> of the boating you plan to do on a regular basis..
>
> -- Rich Stern
Karl Denninger
Karl's been around Waukegan harbor and lives a few miles from there :-)
Your point is what, exactly?
Amulyte
>
>Karl's been around Waukegan harbor and lives a few miles from there :-)
>
>Your point is what, exactly?
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
>Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
>a plan to do exactly that!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My point is.There is a lot of Carvers on Lake Michigan.They ride well in 3-6
footers.Anything bigger no one wants to be out in no matter what type of boat
he or she has.I've been boating Lake Michigan going on 25yrs you just live by
it.
Tom proud owner of 32 carver mariner and 35 Chris Craft catalina
Harry Krause
My 18.5' center console open fishing boat rides well in three to six
foot rollers offshore. You just go uphill and downhill a lot. That's no
test.
Now, if you are talking about three to six footer slop, with wave peaks
seemingly right next to each other, with some wavetops breaking and a
little foam in the air and shifting, gusty winds, well, my 18.5' open
fishing boat won't be doing so well. And neither will a Carver or a
Chris Craft Catalina or any other inshore condo.
Most boaters are no more accurate about wave heights and tapes than they
are about the length of their cigar.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Amulyte
>My 18.5' center console open fishing boat rides well in three to six
>foot rollers offshore. You just go uphill and downhill a lot. That's no
>test.
>
>Now, if you are talking about three to six footer slop, with wave peaks
>seemingly right next to each other, with some wavetops breaking and a
>little foam in the air and shifting, gusty winds, well, my 18.5' open
>fishing boat won't be doing so well. And neither will a Carver or a
>Chris Craft Catalina or any other inshore condo.
>
>Most boaters are no more accurate about wave heights and tapes than they
>are about the length of their cigar.
>
>
>--
>Harry Krause
>------------
>
>Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
>
>
>
>
>
>
So Harry you agree that every boat has its purpose.I would much rather have a
57 tolly just cant afford it right now. So I will continue to enjoy weekends on
what I have.
Harry Krause
Enjoying your time on the water is all that matters.
The second coldest day of my life was spent adjacent to Lake Michigan.
The coldest was spent adjacent to Lake Superior.
-
Harry Krause
------------
Infinity is just time on an ego trip.
Amulyte
>
>
>Enjoying your time on the water is all that matters.
>The second coldest day of my life was spent adjacent to Lake Michigan.
>The coldest was spent adjacent to Lake Superior.
>
>
>
>-
>Harry Krause
>------------
>
>Infinity is just time on an ego trip.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Harry that says it all good boating
Karl Denninger
Amulyte <amu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Karl's been around Waukegan harbor and lives a few miles from there :-)
>>
>>Your point is what, exactly?
>>
>>--
>>--
>>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
>>Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
>>a plan to do exactly that!
>>
>
> My point is.There is a lot of Carvers on Lake Michigan.They ride well in 3-6
>footers.Anything bigger no one wants to be out in no matter what type of boat
>he or she has.I've been boating Lake Michigan going on 25yrs you just live by
>it.
>Tom proud owner of 32 carver mariner and 35 Chris Craft catalina
I've been boating on it for essentially all of my years - which exceed your
25 significantly.
And no, I don't think that Carver's ride especially well in 3-6 footers,
and yes, I've been out in them and seen how Carvers ride in those
conditions.
Of course, what most people call 3-6 footers are really about 2'.
JAKE
They could not compare to the 392 silverton.
10 day and we'll be back on the "Zephyr"
RBStern
>There's nothing of value in that survey, Rich.
>
Harry, in your own words: "Read for content." What survey? It was an opinion
offered in a boating forum by a surveyor who happens to be familiar with
Carvers.
>Perhaps boats of this type need a warning label on them. "Warning: even
>though this boat is 40 feet long, it is designed and built only for
>close to shore, lake or river duty, and we don't mean Lake Superior in a
>squall."
I guess your boat needs a warning label that says: "Warning: You cannot sleep
comfortably, cook a meal, watch TV, get out of the weather, rest out of the
sun, have air conditioning, store food indefinitely in a refrigerator, carry 15
people comfortably, or any of a few dozen other things on this boat."
>No offense, Rich, but that 40' Carver, at least the one depicted on the
>Carver website (396 motor yacht), is among the ugliest boats I have ever
>seen. It looks like a doublewide manufactured home with a huge lifting
>handle, with some canard of a back porch-diving board right behind that
>radar arch. With all that windage, it must be a terror to dock. And the
>standard engines on that 28,000-pound monster are a pair of big block
>V-8 gasoline slurpers? Holy Batman, who makes the boat, OPEC?
No offense taken. You're entitled to your opinion. I expect Carver will sell
every one they can make, as seems to be the problem with a lot of their recent
models.
>Seriously, if you want a boat like that, why not buy a houseboat and be
>done with it? At least a houseboat is honest in what it is.
>
>--
>Harry Krause
That's a pretty ridiculous statement, even from you. You are essentially
saying that if a product's attributes don't appeal to you as functional for
your purposes, it's dishonest. Hey man, get a grip. The planet spins with or
without you.
-- Rich Stern
Harry Krause
>
> >
> >There's nothing of value in that survey, Rich.
> >
>
> Harry, in your own words: "Read for content." What survey? It was an opinion
> offered in a boating forum by a surveyor who happens to be familiar with
> Carvers.
Ok...nothing of value in the surveyor's opinion. Nothing was quantified,
there were no details. Nada.
> I guess your boat needs a warning label that says: "Warning: You cannot sleep
> comfortably, cook a meal, watch TV, get out of the weather, rest out of the
> sun, have air conditioning, store food indefinitely in a refrigerator, carry 15
> people comfortably, or any of a few dozen other things on this boat."
No such label needed. It is obvious from looking at my boat that you
cannot sleep on it, cook on it, et cetera or so forth. But to a
neophyte, that big Carver might look as if it might be up to more than
sheltered water use."
Interestingly, the psychotherapist in the family is pushing me towards
buying a new boat on which you can sleep comfortably, cook a meal, watch
TV, get out of the weather, rest out of the sun, have air conditioning,
store food and carry a lot of people. It's smaller than that Carver
under discussion, but it will safely handle offshore conditions.
>
> >No offense, Rich, but that 40' Carver, at least the one depicted on the
> >Carver website (396 motor yacht), is among the ugliest boats I have ever
> >seen. It looks like a doublewide manufactured home with a huge lifting
> >handle, with some canard of a back porch-diving board right behind that
> >radar arch. With all that windage, it must be a terror to dock. And the
> >standard engines on that 28,000-pound monster are a pair of big block
> >V-8 gasoline slurpers? Holy Batman, who makes the boat, OPEC?
>
> No offense taken. You're entitled to your opinion. I expect Carver will sell
> every one they can make, as seems to be the problem with a lot of their recent
> models.
Well, there is no accounting for taste.
> >Seriously, if you want a boat like that, why not buy a houseboat and be
> >done with it? At least a houseboat is honest in what it is.
>
> That's a pretty ridiculous statement, even from you. You are essentially
> saying that if a product's attributes don't appeal to you as functional for
> your purposes, it's dishonest. Hey man, get a grip. The planet spins with or
> without you.
>
> -- Rich Stern
No, I'm saying if you want a floating condo, you ought to buy a floating
condo. I do believe that particular boat's design is intellectually
dishonest. Has nothing to do with my disdain for that type of boat.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Do not waste your time; it's the stuff life is made of.
Amulyte
>From: ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
>Date: 3/22/00 1:19 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <8bb6bc$19d$0...@dosa.alt.net>
Karl I would really like to here about all your lake michigan boating
experiance.
I'll be back in my slip on s in about 2-3 weeks. Seeing as how your so close
stop on by some weekend I'll buy you a drink at the club and you can tell me
all about it.Better yet bring your boat by theres always open slips for
visitors.
ref
ref <r...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote:
>In article <38D3E0CB...@kscable.com>,
>Skipper <Ski...@kscable.com> wrote:
>>then turned tail. He did pull those pictures and fictitious stories from
>>his website. Have no idea who sent him "whining" email. I certainly did
>
>I don't understand, Skipper. I mean, what are you saying, exactly? Are
>you saying those pictures of 1" stringers are fake? Like, maybe he
>replaced the factory stringers with 1" stringers just for the picture,
>or what?
>
>Same thing with the cheap pop rivets. So you're saying they AREN'T
>really there, and he just doctored the picture, or maybe took a
>picture inside another boat, then passed it off as a Bayliner photo?
>
>Please explain. I'm very confused here.
>
>Ron M.
>
Sorry to reply to my own post, but you notice how Skipper has
COMPLETELY ignored this message. Got'im, right in the cojones.
Ron M.
Harry Krause
I had a boat with 1" stringers once. Actually, I believe they were
frames...and a 1" rub strip for the keel. The material was oak, leftover
from a larger boat my father's shop built. They were used on a 9' rowing
dinghy my father built for me one Saturday when I was about seven years
old. Amazing to think that that little boat, covered in 1/4" marine ply
and fiberglassed the next day was built with more integrity than a 26'
Bayliner. No rivets, either; the fasteners, oarlocks and the little bit
of "deck" hardware were bronze. I remember he installed pin oarlocks so
I wouldn't oarlocks so I wouldn't lose the oars. The pin oarlocks were
bronze, too. Not the chrome plated zinc used on many Bayliners.
Great rowing boat. Flew with a 1-1/2 hp Evinrude, too. Well, I thought
it did.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Reality is for people who can't cope with drugs.
Rod McInnis
Harry Krause wrote:
>
>
OK Harry, now you got me riled! :-)
>
> No offense, Rich, but that 40' Carver, at least the one depicted on the
> Carver website (396 motor yacht), is among the ugliest boats I have ever
> seen.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I will concede this point.
Carver does make some damn ugly boats from the outside. But they are
damn nice on the inside, which is where the owner spends most of his
time looking at it.
I own a 36' Mariner, which is certainly an odd configuration. The lack
of any forward facing windows gives the boat a funny look to start with,
and the narrow flybridge sitting directly on the higher than normal deck
is certainly odd. But the odd looks have function: a large cabin, lots
of headroom. Easy access to the foredeck with wide walkways and good
secure rails. Plenty of seating on the flybridge.
> It looks like a doublewide manufactured home with a huge lifting
> handle, with some canard of a back porch-diving board right behind that
> radar arch.
What, you object to people diving off their boats?
> With all that windage, it must be a terror to dock.
A valid concern. It gets worse with the canvas enclosures that people
often add. Prospective buyers should be aware that a shallow draft,
high windage boat will be harder to dock in high winds than a deep vee,
lower profile model. It is a trade off that has to be made.
> And the
> standard engines on that 28,000-pound monster are a pair of big block
> V-8 gasoline slurpers? Holy Batman, who makes the boat, OPEC?
The Carver web page lists 7 different engine options for the 396: two
different Mercruiser gas engines, two different Volvo gas engines, two
different Cummins diesels, and a Volvo diesel. I don't see where they
state what the "standard" engine is.
Of course, you could buy a top of the line boat, like a Hatteras 50
foot convertible, which comes equipped with a pair of Cat 3412E
engines. Nothing like a 1400 Hp, 12 cylinder monster to make those V-8
Carver uses look puny.
>
> Seriously, if you want a boat like that, why not buy a houseboat and be
> done with it? At least a houseboat is honest in what it is.
Why should I operate at one end of the spectrum or the other?
A pontoon houseboat is roomy and comfy, but dog slow, and can not
handle even moderate chop.
A hull style houseboat, such as a Gibson, has more speed but is still
not suitable for rougher water. I would not consider taking one of
these style of boats out on the San Francisco Bay, for example. There
are boats that I call "trawler wanna-be's" that seem to combine the
worst features of trawlers and houseboats.
Then there are a whole series of boats that cater to the inland or
near shore crowd. Sea Ray, Carver, Silverton, Mainship. These are all
nice boats, but I am not sure that I would attempt a cruise to Mexico in
any of them. Since I don't anticipate ever cruising to Mexico, at least
with my current wife, I don't see the need to invest in a boat that
would be suitable for such a voyage.
Rod McInnis
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> >
>
> OK Harry, now you got me riled! :-)
>
> >
> > No offense, Rich, but that 40' Carver, at least the one depicted on the
> > Carver website (396 motor yacht), is among the ugliest boats I have ever
> > seen.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I will concede this point.
> Carver does make some damn ugly boats from the outside. But they are
> damn nice on the inside, which is where the owner spends most of his
> time looking at it.
Well, I didn't comment on its interior, nor did I comment on other
Carvers...just the 396.
>
> I own a 36' Mariner, which is certainly an odd configuration. The lack
> of any forward facing windows gives the boat a funny look to start with,
Uh, no. Most sportfish convertibles don't have forward glass.
>
> > It looks like a doublewide manufactured home with a huge lifting
> > handle, with some canard of a back porch-diving board right behind that
> > radar arch.
>
> What, you object to people diving off their boats?
Hell, I think you'd be taking a dive if you *bought* that boat. It
really is an ugly duckling.
>
> > With all that windage, it must be a terror to dock.
>
> A valid concern. It gets worse with the canvas enclosures that people
> often add. Prospective buyers should be aware that a shallow draft,
> high windage boat will be harder to dock in high winds than a deep vee,
> lower profile model. It is a trade off that has to be made.
You're trading, what, interior volume for handling ability and
seakindliness? Whoosh.
>
> > And the
> > standard engines on that 28,000-pound monster are a pair of big block
> > V-8 gasoline slurpers? Holy Batman, who makes the boat, OPEC?
>
> The Carver web page lists 7 different engine options for the 396: two
> different Mercruiser gas engines, two different Volvo gas engines, two
> different Cummins diesels, and a Volvo diesel. I don't see where they
> state what the "standard" engine is.
It's listed first. I dunno how many of this model Carver sells, but I
bet most are gas powered.
>
> Of course, you could buy a top of the line boat, like a Hatteras 50
> foot convertible, which comes equipped with a pair of Cat 3412E
> engines. Nothing like a 1400 Hp, 12 cylinder monster to make those V-8
> Carver uses look puny.
Absolutely.
--
Harry Krause
------------
IBM: Inferior But Marketable
Harry Krause
>
> >Ok...nothing of value in the surveyor's opinion. Nothing was quantified,
> >there were no details. Nada.
>
> and there are plenty of details. I guess this is where you'll tell me that you
> don't have time to waste on a subject you don't really care that much about. I
> understand. I know you are pressed for time. So many threads to interupt, so
> little time...
>
> >No such label needed. It is obvious from looking at my boat that you
> >cannot sleep on it, cook on it, et cetera or so forth. But to a
> >neophyte, that big Carver might look as if it might be up to more than
> >sheltered water use."
>
Really?
I don't think so. I toured a nicely used 38' Hatt aft cabin with a
friend who was boat shopping and who just bought a Tiara. I doubt that
396 is as sea-kindly as the old Hatt.
> >Interestingly, the psychotherapist in the family is pushing me towards
> >buying a new boat on which you can sleep comfortably, cook a meal, watch
> >TV, get out of the weather, rest out of the sun, have air conditioning,
> >store food and carry a lot of people. It's smaller than that Carver
> >under discussion, but it will safely handle offshore conditions.
>
> And while I might like the boat you pick for some reasons, I would probably not
> buy the same model because it wouldn't fit my needs. I don't have enough of an
> ego to call it an bad product just because it wouldn't work based on my boating
> value system.
I wouldn't call it "bad" because it doesn't suit my needs. It's an
ungainly walrus of a boat.
>>
> .> I do believe that particular boat's design is intellectually
> >dishonest.
>
> Huh? We are talking about a style of boat that has been extremely successful
> for a large number of boat builders, for well over a decade. The aft cabin
> style has been built by some of the "best" production builders in the industry.
> They hold resale as well or better than many other production boat styles.
> Obviously, people who buy them, like them.
You're talking about style. I am talking about design. They aren't the
same.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Experience enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.
Jeff C
>Sorry to reply to my own post, but you notice how Skipper has
>COMPLETELY ignored this message. Got'im, right in the cojones.
>
>Ron M.
He hangs around a thread until his head is just about to go under. It
appears as if you jumped in and made him sink.
He's *so* predictable.
--
Jeff C
Sorry, but email address disguised due to unscrupulous spammers.
Remove the "carrot" to reply.
RBStern
>there were no details. Nada.
Dig around that message board. The guy's experience comes across pretty well,
and there are plenty of details. I guess this is where you'll tell me that you
don't have time to waste on a subject you don't really care that much about. I
understand. I know you are pressed for time. So many threads to interupt, so
little time...
>No such label needed. It is obvious from looking at my boat that you
>cannot sleep on it, cook on it, et cetera or so forth. But to a
>neophyte, that big Carver might look as if it might be up to more than
>sheltered water use."
That 396 will be as sea-kindly as the next aft cabin. If a buyer about to drop
$300K on that boat thinks they are getting performance rather than plushness,
well, they are neophytes. There are many people who buy that style of boat
happily, having no interest spending rough days on the water, or venturing out
of sight of land. If it gets caught in a bit of a blow, it will get the folks
home, but not in a way that makes anyone want to repeat the experience.
>Interestingly, the psychotherapist in the family is pushing me towards
>buying a new boat on which you can sleep comfortably, cook a meal, watch
>TV, get out of the weather, rest out of the sun, have air conditioning,
>store food and carry a lot of people. It's smaller than that Carver
>under discussion, but it will safely handle offshore conditions.
And while I might like the boat you pick for some reasons, I would probably not
buy the same model because it wouldn't fit my needs. I don't have enough of an
ego to call it an bad product just because it wouldn't work based on my boating
value system.
>Well, there is no accounting for taste.
Right. Yours or anyone else's.
.> I do believe that particular boat's design is intellectually
>dishonest.
Huh? We are talking about a style of boat that has been extremely successful
for a large number of boat builders, for well over a decade. The aft cabin
style has been built by some of the "best" production builders in the industry.
They hold resale as well or better than many other production boat styles.
Obviously, people who buy them, like them.
Harry, the myopia you loath in conservative politics is pretty much your brand
of boat politics. "Intellectually dishonest?" I think you need to consider
the kind of konservative thinking you do about boats. Your boating rhetoric is
a faint echo of the kind of junk one hears from social conservatives. "If it
works in my life, based on my value system, it is good. All else is bad."
-- Rich Stern
RBStern
>
>I don't think so. I toured a nicely used 38' Hatt aft cabin with a
>friend who was boat shopping and who just bought a Tiara. I doubt that
>396 is as sea-kindly as the old Hatt.
>
Really. Once again, from the same surveyor:
"A 43 Hatteras is typical Hatt quality, well built and finished, but, without
stabilizers, you'll want to set one on fire after you've spent a few hours in
the mouth of the Chesapeake riding on one. Ditto for the old Sea Ray 360 aft
cabin. Same goes for the old Egg Harbor 40 MY. (terrible..drew lawsuits because
of rolling.) When you're buying an aft cabin cruiser, you are essentially
saying that you agree to make the trade-off in performance and comfort at sea
versus performance and comfort tied to the dock"
I'll accept that as a more qualified opionion than "I once knew a guy who
bought a Tiara, but that's another story because I also happened to stand near
a Hatteras with him..."
>I wouldn't call it "bad" because it doesn't suit my needs.
Ah. Then "intellectually dishonest" is praise?
>You're talking about style. I am talking about design. They aren't the
>same.
Time for you to mince words already? We're only a few posts into this.
What is it about the design of that aft cabin that sets it dramatically apart
from other aft cabins?
And "ungainly walrus" seems to be a style comment, since you are referring to
the lines of the boat.
Harry, face it: Aft cabin is to Harry Krause what homosexual is to Jerry
Fallwell. Not natural. To be feared. Shunned. Not in the creator's image (a
deep vee with lots of bow flare and diesels).
-- Rich Stern
Phoenix
I think he is upset because he doesn't have enough friends to invite aboard
a 38' Aft Cabin Boat.
--
Jim
"RBStern" <rbs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000323001605...@ng-dc1.aol.com...
Harry Krause
> What is it about the design of that aft cabin that sets it dramatically apart
> from other aft cabins?
A number of other after cabin boats I have seen were designed to be
boats, not floating condos.
> And "ungainly walrus" seems to be a style comment, since you are referring to
> the lines of the boat.
No, ungainly walrus refers to the way the boat must handle in crosswinds
or in the slow or while docking. You must have missed the comment from
another poster familiar with the line who agreed.
> Harry, face it: Aft cabin is to Harry Krause what homosexual is to Jerry
> Fallwell. Not natural. To be feared. Shunned. Not in the creator's image (a
> deep vee with lots of bow flare and diesels).
>
> -- Rich Stern
Well, I wouldn't buy one...but there are a couple out there that are
designed to be boats first.
--
Harry Krause
------------
The human race is still in beta test.
Bruce Friedell
RBStern
The follow up question I asked was: "What is it about the design of that aft
cabin that sets it dramatically apart from other aft cabins?"
Your answer:
>A number of other after cabin boats I have seen were designed to be
>boats, not floating condos.
Please name the boats and describe the design details that make them boats
first and foremost, in comparison to the Carver in question.
-- Rich Stern
Harry Krause
I'll name one that I've mentioned before: the Hatteras 38 double cabin
motoryacht, designed by Jack Hargrave. This boat was built with some
modifications between the late sixties and the late seventies. Hargrave,
as I am sure you know, was one of the best powerboat designers who ever
lived. Who designed the Carver 396?
The boat is well-balanced visually, and has a raised deck over the rear
cabin. The decks along each side of the cabin allow easy movement to the
bow and cockpit, and there are waist high safety railings. The hull form
is a modified vee, with sharp forward sections that make for easy entry
into head seas and choppy water. The hull is solid glass. While the Hatt
is a couple of feet shorter than the Carver, it is heavier because of
its more solid construction. The stringers are foam cored with steel
plates for the engines. There are serious bulkheads, bonded to the hull
with lots of glass cloth and resin. The water, fuel and holding tanks
are fiberglass. The joinery is mostly solid hardwood.
The Hatt is designed for coastal cruising. It looks like a boat and
handles like a boat. The Carver, I suppose, is for more protected
waters. To me, it looks like a curvilinear double decker houseboat that
stopped off in Italy for a facelift.
The Hatt 38 was designed by a man who practiced the belief that function
was the basis of good design, and that boats should look good without a
lot of "trick" decorative touches or trim.
The Carver was designed, probably by a committee and "focus groups, to
be just the opposite. The entire boat is tricked up. As an example of
the latter, I would point to the strange, eliptical and really ugly
windows on the hullsides of the Carver, and the "radar arch cum
fiberglass roof" structure on the Carver and the fact that there appears
to be no bimini top possibilities for the topside control station. And
the sharply sloping gunnels on the Carver do not inspire confidence if
you have to walk forward outside of the cabin.
I don't know what the Carver sells for new. The used Hatt in terrific
shape with fresh diesels is under $100,000.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Do not disturb. I am already quite disturbed, thank you.
RBStern
>motoryacht, designed by Jack Hargrave. This boat was built with some
>modifications between the late sixties and the late seventies. Hargrave,
>as I am sure you know, was one of the best powerboat designers who ever
>lived. Who designed the Carver 396?
Carver employs both naval architechts and designers. I don't know if they had
outside assistance with the 396. I don't think they should be embarrassed
because none of them are famous (yet?). Was Hargrave famous at the time he
penned the aft-cabin for Hatteras thirty years ago?
>The boat is well-balanced visually,
Highly subjective comment. I think it's a pretty ugly boat, like most
aft-cabins, particularly those from the early era of the style. The cockpit
versions are not much better. I feel the same is true of Carver's eary to
mid-90's cockpit motor yachts, which have very Hatteras CMY-like lines.
>and has a raised deck over the rear
>cabin.
Uh, yeah, so do all aft cabins.
>The decks along each side of the cabin allow easy movement to the
>bow and cockpit, and there are waist high safety railings.
Same as the Carver and many others.
>The hull form
>is a modified vee, with sharp forward sections that make for easy entry
>into head seas and choppy water.
Do you know of any aft-cabins that don't use a modified vee? I would expect
the Hatteras' entry to be a bit sharper than the Carver due to the boats'
different emphasis. You get a smaller front cabin and smaller day head as part
of the deal.
>The hull is solid glass. While the Hatt
>is a couple of feet shorter than the Carver, it is heavier because of
>its more solid construction. The stringers are foam cored with steel
>plates for the engines. There are serious bulkheads, bonded to the hull
>with lots of glass cloth and resin.
Can't compare the Hatt and Carver hulls. There is a lot more bulk in the Hatt
hull, because that was the norm in the era it was made. Most production boat
builders have made the decision to produce lighter boats than those of
yesteryear, and the reasons are many.
The Carver decks and bridge are built as a single unit, with integrated
aluminum trusswork to prevent flex. The windows have no frame and frames play
no structural role in holding up the bridge. The cabin sole and bridge deck
have integrated aluminum trusses. And there isn't any wood below the waterline
on all of the boats they are making. Not just the hull. Everything. Carver
is doing a lot to guarantee these boats will hold up. Oh, and they stand
behind it. They just upped the warranty to seven years on the hull AND the
superstructure. Maybe they feel confident in their engineering?
>The water, fuel and holding tanks
>are fiberglass.
Aluminum for fuel, plastics for water and holding. I would prefer the
fiberglass, but have no problem with the Carver choices for these components.
Having these in my own boat, I can see that they are quality materials, and
they are properly installed.
>The joinery is mostly solid hardwood.
Same is true on the Carver, which actually does better work in this area than
Cruisers, Sea Ray, Bayliner, Maxum, etc. IMO.
>The Hatt is designed for coastal cruising. It looks like a boat and
>handles like a boat. The Carver, I suppose, is for more protected
>waters. To me, it looks like a curvilinear double decker houseboat that
>stopped off in Italy for a facelift.
>
Taste preference, as we have already covered. As far as handling, I still
consider my previous reference to Gregg Group, CMS, on aft cabin
sea-kindliness, as more relevant than yours.
>The Hatt 38 was designed by a man who practiced the belief that function
>was the basis of good design, and that boats should look good without a
>lot of "trick" decorative touches or trim.
That's a philosophy that sells some people on a certain type of boat (you
included), and not others. Consider Sea Ray's success and tell me if you think
that yours is the predominant thinking in boatbuilding and buying today.
>The Carver was designed, probably by a committee and "focus groups, to
>be just the opposite.
So, customers should not be allowed to influence boat designs? That's who the
focus group participants are. I guess it's not wise to ask customers. Might
actually come up with innovations that defy konservative boat building.
>The entire boat is tricked up. As an example of
>the latter, I would point to the strange, eliptical and really ugly
>windows on the hullsides of the Carver,
Those eliptical windows are popping up all over the place. High end,
euro-styled boats like Viking, Sunseeker, Fairline, Azimut, Maxum, Sea Ray,
Jefferson, others. Regal and Silverton introduced four or five new models with
that styling in the last year, following Carver's lead with the 97 Mariner.
The boats with that styling are attracting a lot of attention. You don't have
to like it, but please don't deny that the market is embracing the styling.
and the "radar arch cum
>fiberglass roof" structure on the Carver and the fact that there appears
>to be no bimini top possibilities for the topside control station.
Not sure why you can't envision a bimini. They offer a full enclosure setup
for that model.
>And
>the sharply sloping gunnels on the Carver do not inspire confidence if
>you have to walk forward outside of the cabin.
Notice how the gunnels and the side rail form a line parallel to the deck? It's
about hip high for average height folks. The side deck slopes very gently
forward when the boat is at rest, to facilitate water run off over the bow
during a wash down or storm, instead of back onto the aft deck.
>I don't know what the Carver sells for new. The used Hatt in terrific
>shape with fresh diesels is under $100,000.
Wouldn't want one. I'd find it pretty unmodern. I don't look to tradition for
all of the answers, boats or otherwise. What can I say? I must be a liberal.
And thanks for this intellectually honest addition to the thread.
-- Rich Stern
Skipper
> Sorry to reply to my own post, but you notice how Skipper has COMPLETELY
> ignored this message. Got'im, right in the cojones.
Looking for testimony? Pick up the latest issue of Sea magazine. This
month's feature article is a rave review of the subject Carver 396.
While this boat may not be up to the standards of your mighty issue,
most of us would find it a step up.
Ref, have you ever noticed that those who do the most bashing tend to
own boats with wet pounding rides not up to the challenge. Think there's
a correlation?
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
>
> Ref (the Texas Wanderer) wrote:
>
> > Sorry to reply to my own post, but you notice how Skipper has COMPLETELY
> > ignored this message. Got'im, right in the cojones.
>
> Looking for testimony? Pick up the latest issue of Sea magazine. This
> month's feature article is a rave review of the subject Carver 396.
> While this boat may not be up to the standards of your mighty issue,
> most of us would find it a step up.
>
If I won a brand new one in a lottery, I'd sell it without ever
splashing it into the water.
I don't know what it sells for new, but if you trucked it to the right
place, you might realize enough to buy a new Cabo 31.
--
Harry Krause
------------
I hit the CTRL key but I'm still not in control!
Skipper
>> Looking for testimony? Pick up the latest issue of Sea magazine. This
>> month's feature article is a rave review of the subject Carver 396.
>> While this boat may not be up to the standards of your mighty issue,
>> most of us would find it a step up.
> If I won a brand new one in a lottery, I'd sell it without ever splashing it
> into the water. I don't know what it sells for new, but if you trucked it to
> the right place, you might realize enough to buy a new Cabo 31.
Newsstand price is $3.50. Very informative boating magazine. ...The
boat, base $248,495, as tested $257,920.
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
Ahh. Thanks. My guess was pretty close.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Editing is a rewording activity.
Skipper
>> Newsstand price is $3.50. Very informative boating magazine. ...The
>> boat, base $248,495, as tested $257,920.
> Ahh. Thanks. My guess was pretty close.
Not close at all. The Carver is a *huge* forty footer loaded with
creature features. The Cabo is a spartan thirty footer. The Carver has
two full staterooms while the Cabo has little more than a V-berth. Both
are good boats designed for differing purposes.
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
There's nothing Spartan about a Cabo 31. I've been on one. You've never
even seen one.
--
Harry Krause
------------
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -- Wolfe
Amulyte
>From: Harry Krause hkr...@capu.net
>Date: 3/23/00 9:51 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <38DAE637...@capu.net>
Damn hate to take skippers side on this one but so far youve been comparing
apples to oranges.40ft carver to a 31 cabo comon. In a storm 31 cabo at the
dock holding a martini 40 carver.For a new subject lets compare skippers
knowledge of boat to Karls.
Harry Krause
I'm not comparing the boats, just the prices. For the price of a new 396
Carver, you can buy a 31' Cabo. That tells me a lot about the relative
quality of the two boats. As for dockside imbibing, my buds drink beers
and margaritas, not martinis, and they'd be drinking them in the cockpit
of a sportfisherman, not the back porch of a two story floating condo.
But, as has been pointed out here many times, taste is subjective. Keep
in mind, however, that the 31' Cabo was designed by one of the best
naval architects in this country and the boat looks it. The Carver looks
like a committee-design boat and I suspect most of the members of the
committee spent most of their time drinking martinis dockside.
I've never spent a lot of time at the dock holding a martini.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Enter any eleven digit prime number to continue...
ref
Skipper <Ski...@kscable.com> wrote:
>Ref (the Texas Wanderer) wrote:
>
>> Sorry to reply to my own post, but you notice how Skipper has COMPLETELY
>> ignored this message. Got'im, right in the cojones.
>
>month's feature article is a rave review of the subject Carver 396.
>While this boat may not be up to the standards of your mighty issue,
>most of us would find it a step up.
>
>own boats with wet pounding rides not up to the challenge. Think there's
>a correlation?
>
>--
>Skipper
Well, Skipper, you're just verifying my point. You're not even
talking about the same BOAT, much less answering the simple
question I posed in the original message, and which continue
to collect dust while you indulge in nebulous, irrelevant
topic-switching.
Ron M.
Harry Krause
Skipper didn't understand the point. The 1" stringers in the 26'
Bilgeliner are a quarter inch larger than the stringers in his 22'
Bilgeliner.
--
Harry Krause
------------
I understand cats, but women remain a mystery!
Skipper
> Damn hate to take skippers side on this one but so far youve been comparing
> apples to oranges.40ft carver to a 31 cabo comon. In a storm 31 cabo at the
> dock holding a martini 40 carver.For a new subject lets compare skippers
> knowledge of boat to Karls.
Tried inputting your comments into the English to whatever translator at
http://babelfish.altavista.com/ When I translated them back from
whatever to English your statements still didn't make much sense. Are
you trying to start a flame war?
--
Skipper
Skipper
> Skipper wrote:
>>> Got'im, right in the cojones.
>> Looking for testimony? Pick up the latest issue of Sea magazine. This
>> month's feature article is a rave review of the subject Carver 396. While
>> this boat may not be up to the standards of your mighty issue, most of us
>> would find it a step up.
>> Ref, have you ever noticed that those who do the most bashing tend to own
>> boats with wet pounding rides not up to the challenge. Think there's a
>> correlation?
> Well, Skipper, you're just verifying my point. You're not even talking about
> the same BOAT, much less answering the simple question I posed in the
> original message, and which continue to collect dust while you indulge in
> nebulous, irrelevant topic-switching.
The subject of this thread is Carver boats. That's C-A-R-V-E-R. While
we're on that subject, would that Quarter million dollar C-A-R-V-E-R be
a step up for you, Ref?
BTW, did you stop by the newsstand to get that latest issue of Sea? Did
you notice the beautiful 396 on the cover? Good magazine, huh?
--
Skipper
Harry Krause
>
> Ref wrote:
>
> > Skipper wrote:
>
> >>> Got'im, right in the cojones.
>
> >> Looking for testimony? Pick up the latest issue of Sea magazine. This
> >> month's feature article is a rave review of the subject Carver 396. While
> >> this boat may not be up to the standards of your mighty issue, most of us
> >> would find it a step up.
>
> >> Ref, have you ever noticed that those who do the most bashing tend to own
> >> boats with wet pounding rides not up to the challenge. Think there's a
> >> correlation?
>
> > Well, Skipper, you're just verifying my point. You're not even talking about
> > the same BOAT, much less answering the simple question I posed in the
> > original message, and which continue to collect dust while you indulge in
> > nebulous, irrelevant topic-switching.
>
> The subject of this thread is Carver boats. That's C-A-R-V-E-R. While
> we're on that subject, would that Quarter million dollar C-A-R-V-E-R be
> a step up for you, Ref?
> --
> Skipper
I doubt it. Ref probably would do what I would do if either of us won a
new one in a lottery. We'd sell it before it every splashed into the
water and use the proceeds to fund the Bayliner Roadside Cleanup Fund, a
not-for-profit agency that arranges for the pickup and eventual grinding
down of Bayliners abandoned by their owners.
--
Harry Krause
------------
"More hay, Trigger?" "No thanks, Roy, I'm stuffed!"
BigBadJohn
Ohh was excited for a moment.
Thought Skipper was starting to figure out Life, the Universe,
and Everything. But alas it's just alta vista.
Have towel
BBJ
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jeff C
wrote:
>I doubt it. Ref probably would do what I would do if either of us won a
>new one in a lottery. We'd sell it before it every splashed into the
>water and use the proceeds to fund the Bayliner Roadside Cleanup Fund, a
>not-for-profit agency that arranges for the pickup and eventual grinding
>down of Bayliners abandoned by their owners.
GRIND EM??? Please don't. Just take them a few miles offshore and
pull the plug. They make good artificial reef material.
Harry Krause
Good point...
--
Harry Krause
------------
The computer revolution is over. They won.
Russ Glindmeier
BigBadJohn wrote in message <0f5c3254...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>...
>Re: BabelFish
>
>Ohh was excited for a moment.
>Thought Skipper was starting to figure out Life, the Universe,
>and Everything. But alas it's just alta vista.
>
>Have towel
>BBJ
>
Even a Babelfish would have difficulty translating Skip's posts. Worse than
Vogon poetry. Make sure you always know where your towel is, it's a tough
universe.
Russ
ref
>> >> boats with wet pounding rides not up to the challenge. Think there's a
>> >> correlation?
>>
>> > Well, Skipper, you're just verifying my point. You're not even talking about
>> > the same BOAT, much less answering the simple question I posed in the
>> > original message, and which continue to collect dust while you indulge in
>> > nebulous, irrelevant topic-switching.
>>
>> The subject of this thread is Carver boats. That's C-A-R-V-E-R. While
>> we're on that subject, would that Quarter million dollar C-A-R-V-E-R be
>> a step up for you, Ref?
No, Skipper. The subject is your response to the Pascoe photographs that
showed crummy 1" stringers held on by tiny pieces of tape, and cheap
pop-rivets. You said the photos were phony, and I asked for clarification,
e.g. "did they replace the stringers just for the photo?" and so on.
You have yet to reply, Skipper, and you won't, because you KNOW I've
caught you with your pants down. Face the music, Skipper. You've had
it. You're sunk this time. No way you can get out of this one.
Checkmate.
Ron M.
Skipper
>> The subject of this thread is Carver boats. That's C-A-R-V-E-R. While
>> we're on that subject, would that Quarter million dollar C-A-R-V-E-R be
>> a step up for you, Ref?
> I doubt it.
You do?
--
Skipper
Skipper
> No, Skipper. The subject is your response to the Pascoe photographs that
> showed crummy 1" stringers held on by tiny pieces of tape, and cheap
> pop-rivets. You said the photos were phony, and I asked for clarification,
> e.g. "did they replace the stringers just for the photo?" and so on.
>
> You have yet to reply, Skipper, and you won't, because you KNOW I've
> caught you with your pants down. Face the music, Skipper. You've had
> it. You're sunk this time. No way you can get out of this one.
>
> Checkmate.
Perhaps you *have* been walking those Texas coasts a bit too long.
--
Skipper
Skipper
> Ohh was excited for a moment.
> Thought Skipper was starting to figure out Life, the Universe,
> and Everything. But alas it's just alta vista.
Actually, there is something to be learned at that site by the valid.
--
Skipper
Don
Don
LOBO
ref wrote:
> >> >> Ref, have you ever noticed that those who do the most bashing tend to own
> >> >> boats with wet pounding rides not up to the challenge. Think there's a
> >> >> correlation?
> >>
> >> > Well, Skipper, you're just verifying my point. You're not even talking about
> >> > the same BOAT, much less answering the simple question I posed in the
> >> > original message, and which continue to collect dust while you indulge in
> >> > nebulous, irrelevant topic-switching.
> >>
> >> The subject of this thread is Carver boats. That's C-A-R-V-E-R. While
> >> we're on that subject, would that Quarter million dollar C-A-R-V-E-R be
> >> a step up for you, Ref?
>
> No, Skipper. The subject is your response to the Pascoe photographs that
> showed crummy 1" stringers held on by tiny pieces of tape, and cheap
> pop-rivets. You said the photos were phony, and I asked for clarification,
> e.g. "did they replace the stringers just for the photo?" and so on.
>
> You have yet to reply, Skipper, and you won't, because you KNOW I've
> caught you with your pants down. Face the music, Skipper. You've had
> it. You're sunk this time. No way you can get out of this one.
>
> Checkmate.
>
> Ron M.
JAKE
lets stop da ship
we all know the winner of best 39'-40' aft cabin is the 392 from
silverton......
and in 7 days i'll be on mine relaxing and enjoying being king..
ps Sea is one great mag, and i'm on the east coast.
Harry Krause
What engines did you get...and what's the engine room like? I didn't see
many spec's listed on the website.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Traduire veut dire mourir de rire
JAKE
Engine room is very well laid out, everything for routine maintenance is
located inboard of engines. kohler genny is located forward, again very
accessible.
Harry Krause
What's your estimated cruise speed and fuel burn at that speed?
--
Harry Krause
------------
Infinity is just time on an ego trip.
JAKE
20sog(by gps).
about 19gph.
my normal cruise is 10 knots (whats the rush!!)
JAKE
no good deed will go unpunished
WB
What's your fuel economy secret? My Bertram 33 with
twin 454 Crusaders burns 35 gph at 3400.