Toyota Ski Boats
RonEmery
its official introduction on August 1. The distribution will be limited to
about ten dealers. Another ten to fifteen will be added by December, just
in time to show at the winter boat shows. The Epic 22 is scheduled to be in
dealers showrooms around the beginning to the middle of September. Maybe
sooner in some dealerships. Log on to the Toyota Marine website at
http:///www.toyota.marine.com for more information. This site will be
updated as information becomes available.
RE
Tom Ruta
>Contrary to some postings, the Toyota Epic 21 Closed Bow is on schedule for
>its official introduction on August 1. The distribution will be limited to
>about ten dealers.
Ten whole dealers? Wow! that's about what we have in
canada for all other brands combined. (only slight
exaggeration). Not much of service network, is it?
>Another ten to fifteen will be added by December, just
>in time to show at the winter boat shows. The Epic 22 is scheduled to be in
>dealers showrooms around the beginning to the middle of September. Maybe
>sooner in some dealerships. Log on to the Toyota Marine website at
>http:///www.toyota.marine.com for more information. This site will be
>updated as information becomes available.
The correct URL is http://www.marine.toyota.com/ , BTW.
Tom
RonEmery
>Ten whole dealers? Wow! that's about what we have in
>canada for all other brands combined. (only slight
>exaggeration). Not much of service network, is it?
When your production is limited to 500 boats first year that only allows us
to go to the areas in which we feel are the biggest markets for inboard ski
boats. As production becomes available we will be able to expand into more
and more markets. We have the opportunity to go into more markets but our
production just will not allow it.
RE
>>http:///www.toyota.marine.com for more information. This site will be
>>updated as information becomes available.
>
>The correct URL is http://www.marine.toyota.com/ , BTW.
Sorry about the typo!
Tom Ruta
>
>>Ten whole dealers? Wow! that's about what we have in
>>canada for all other brands combined. (only slight
>>exaggeration). Not much of service network, is it?
>
>When your production is limited to 500 boats first year that only allows us
>to go to the areas in which we feel are the biggest markets for inboard ski
>boats. As production becomes available we will be able to expand into more
>and more markets. We have the opportunity to go into more markets but our
>production just will not allow it.
Fair enough. But that means other than Florida and
California they won't be seen. Unless Toyota wants to
tackle the largest boat market of Michigan. But that's
American Iron country.
I'd love to see/drive/ski one of these things, but I suspect
that it'll be years before they are available even
nationally, let alone in Canada. Unless of course, all
those rumours about the Toyota mill being used by a certain
high volume inboard maker switching to the Lexus engine
come to pass...
Tom
ray_pulley
>
>
>>Ten whole dealers? Wow! that's about what we have in
>>canada for all other brands combined. (only slight
>>exaggeration). Not much of service network, is it?
>
>When your production is limited to 500 boats first year that only allows us
>to go to the areas in which we feel are the biggest markets for inboard ski
>boats. As production becomes available we will be able to expand into more
>and more markets. We have the opportunity to go into more markets but our
>production just will not allow it.
>
>
Don't mind Tom, he means well but just cannot resist sometimes ;-).
Ray
Frank Maier
RonEmery wrote in message ...
>
>>Ten whole dealers? Wow! that's about what we have in
>>canada for all other brands combined. (only slight
>>exaggeration). Not much of service network, is it?
>
>When your production is limited to 500 boats first year that only allows us
>to go to the areas in which we feel are the biggest markets for inboard ski
>boats. As production becomes available we will be able to expand into more
>and more markets. We have the opportunity to go into more markets but our
>production just will not allow it.
>
>RE
As long as one of 'em is near Seattle!
Frank - That's one openbow, please. What's the tradein for my 95 MC 205? :-)
Mark Kovalcson
http://www.marine.toyota.com/nr3.htm
They are using an aluminum engine mount of which the pylon mount is an
integral part like CC and American Skier.
Of a curiousity, they said one thing that wet my appetite. They mention
"A unique bonding process melds the deck to the fiberglass hull."
Could this be another high pressure adhesive like MC uses ?
They also mention an aluminum front floor and that they put the battery
under the engine cover instead of the passenger storage area.
(Interesting idea)
Although it is not a sure bet, I would guess they are using AME 5000 as
well. Since their designer worked for both American Skier and Hydrodyne
each of which used AME 5000, and they appear to have taken the best
traits from a number of boat companies.
I just called their 1-800 number and was promised promotional material
within 2 weeks. More surprising was that the number was maned at 9:00 PM
on a Sunday.
Copying the best of the best is one thing, but they appear to innovating
as well or at least breaking new ground.
Steve Roberts
that Cobalt ended up with some rights to the inventory and design.)
-steve-
RonEmery wrote:
> Contrary to some postings, the Toyota Epic 21 Closed Bow is on schedule for
> its official introduction on August 1. The distribution will be limited to
> about ten dealers. Another ten to fifteen will be added by December, just
> in time to show at the winter boat shows. The Epic 22 is scheduled to be in
> dealers showrooms around the beginning to the middle of September. Maybe
> sooner in some dealerships. Log on to the Toyota Marine website at
> http:///www.toyota.marine.com for more information. This site will be
> updated as information becomes available.
>
> RE
Frank Maier
Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <35A96066...@usit.net>...
...snip...
>Of a curiousity, they said one thing that wet my appetite. They mention
>"A unique bonding process melds the deck to the fiberglass hull."
>Could this be another high pressure adhesive like MC uses ?
>
...snip...
I dunno what MC is doing now, nor do I know what their process was when they
built my '95 205; BUT the hull/deck joint on that boat leaked like the
proverbial sieve. The dealer had to (re?)caulk it to stop the leaking. If
that's "high pressure adhesives" at work, gimme good ol' marine caulk, and
lots of it.
Frank
Ed Dunn
Sounds like a winner, but what's the big secret; How much $$$? Where are these mysterious
dealers? The ad's tout a "proven hull design", proven where by whom? And again, How Much $$$???
Mark Kovalcson
>
> I dunno what MC is doing now, nor do I know what their process was when they built my '95 205; BUT the hull/deck joint on that boat leaked like the proverbial sieve. The dealer had to (re?)caulk it to stop the leaking. If that's "high pressure adhesives" at work, gimme good ol' marine caulk, and lots of it.
MC uses a a typical shoebox deck/hull joint using stainless steel
screws. I'm not sure if they use caulk when they put their rub rail on.
The glue MC uses has to do with putting the floor and stringers down.
They use an "aerospace" glue that bonds under high pressure as part of
this process.
Mark Kovalcson
If they are using all fiberglass, aluminum and stainless steel, could
they be the first ski boat manufacturer to advertise "No rot, No rust" ?
ray_pulley
>
>Good comments (as usual) from Mark. I have one comment to one of 'em ...
>
>Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <35A96066...@usit.net>...
>...snip...
>>Of a curiousity, they said one thing that wet my appetite. They mention
>>"A unique bonding process melds the deck to the fiberglass hull."
>>Could this be another high pressure adhesive like MC uses ?
>>
>...snip...
>
>built my '95 205; BUT the hull/deck joint on that boat leaked like the
>proverbial sieve. The dealer had to (re?)caulk it to stop the leaking. If
>that's "high pressure adhesives" at work, gimme good ol' marine caulk, and
>lots of it.
>
>
>
Frank,
is the hull/deck joint a shoe box style on your boat? Just curious. I get some
small leakage in a few spots on my Malibu, all of which seem to be rivits that
hold the rubrail on.
Ray
ray_pulley
>
>They have an interesting news release from June 15th
>
>http://www.marine.toyota.com/nr3.htm
>
>They are using an aluminum engine mount of which the pylon mount is an
>integral part like CC and American Skier.
>
>"A unique bonding process melds the deck to the fiberglass hull."
>Could this be another high pressure adhesive like MC uses ?
>
>under the engine cover instead of the passenger storage area.
>(Interesting idea)
>
>Although it is not a sure bet, I would guess they are using AME 5000 as
>well. Since their designer worked for both American Skier and Hydrodyne
>each of which used AME 5000, and they appear to have taken the best
>traits from a number of boat companies.
>
>I just called their 1-800 number and was promised promotional material
>within 2 weeks. More surprising was that the number was maned at 9:00 PM
>on a Sunday.
>
>Copying the best of the best is one thing, but they appear to innovating
>as well or at least breaking new ground.
I'm not sure that incorporating ideas and methods built into other designs
(albeit, maybe the best of) constitutes innovation. Now, if they were
vac-bagging the hull while injecting the resin (someone owns this fairly new
boat making process, I cannot remember who) and were able to get a 50/50 glass
to resin ratio we would be looking at a much stronger and lighter boat that
would truly be different and better than the rest.
Ray
Mark Kovalcson
since they say it will be competing with the best of the best.
So much for dumping on the market.
August's Magazine has a 2 page article on the Epic 21.
Their impressions on its performance are pretty vague. In typical WSM
form they say lots of nice things without being too comparitive.
They did say they were getting consistant sub-6 second runs with the
test skier drone (Historically these runs were to 36mph) and found a top
speed of 47 mph using their radar gun and other equipment. This should
put any torque worries to rest.
From the pictures you can see that they have the two dash storage areas
like the 1996 SN did, thick and solid looking doors on hydrolic lifts.
One is an insulated ice chest the other is for dry storage. Sounds
familiar.
The instrument cluster looks better than any I have ever seen in a ski
boat.
Mark Lenox
> So much for dumping on the market.
You thought they were going to give them away?
Mark Lenox
ray_pulley
>
>WaterSki Magazine puts the figures at low to mid 30's sticker price,
>since they say it will be competing with the best of the best.
>
>
>
>Their impressions on its performance are pretty vague. In typical WSM
>form they say lots of nice things without being too comparitive.
>
>They did say they were getting consistant sub-6 second runs with the
>test skier drone (Historically these runs were to 36mph) and found a top
>speed of 47 mph using their radar gun and other equipment. This should
>put any torque worries to rest.
>
>From the pictures you can see that they have the two dash storage areas
>like the 1996 SN did, thick and solid looking doors on hydrolic lifts.
>One is an insulated ice chest the other is for dry storage. Sounds
>familiar.
>
>The instrument cluster looks better than any I have ever seen in a ski
>boat.
So, ya see anything worth $30k +? Sounds like ho-hum, why take the risk on new
product shakeout to me. Unless of course, ya just have to be the first on the
block..... As for torque, were there any spec.s? I did read that they were at
1.33:1 on the tranny (if I remember right). Makes sense given the small
displacement and high power band nature of the motor (fits pretty well with
those not so best of the best performance numbers as well). Makes me wonder just
exactly what best of the best is.
Only time will tell. It never hurts to have a new player with a bankroll and a
history of quality and efficiency. We will all benefit if more players enter the
field, I think.
Ray
Mark Kovalcson
> So, ya see anything worth $30k +?
Well, yes I do. I hope the selling price is actually in the mid to high
20's, but this boat appears to have fit/finish/features of the more
expensive inboards.
>(fits pretty well with those not so best of the best performance numbers as well). Makes me wonder just exactly what best of the best is.
Well since my boat only goes 42 mph, since I installed the 4-blade prop
on it and I haven't ever needed more speed than that, I don't see the
issue. Barefooters I can understand, but unless we are in a race why
would I care if it went as fast as 47 ? This starts sounding like penis
envy wars.
> Only time will tell. It never hurts to have a new player with a bankroll and a history of quality and efficiency. We will all benefit if more players enter the field, I think.
That is what is interesting about this boat. I could care less if my
boat has the best 41 off wake or wins a WaterSki Magazine 0-36 contest.
If it has a really good 15 through 32 off wake at 32-34 mph, good
accelleration,and good tracking and is built like a Toyota, that could
be enough to be a winner. It wouldn't get to pull many tournaments but
it might be a favorite among the rest of us.
Robert Muse
>like the 1996 SN did, thick and solid looking doors on hydrolic lifts.
>One is an insulated ice chest the other is for dry storage. Sounds
>familiar.
This is a real sore spot with me. I looked so forward to having a
boat with a cooler in the floor to avoid having one taking up floor
space. After using our 96 Nautique for the first few times, we
discovered that it really wasn't a cooler but just a plastic box with
a drain. A bag of ice will not last more than 5 or 6 hours. My dads'
Ranger bass boat ($27,000) has a cooler that will hold ice for several
DAYS. How hard could it be when that foam gun is fired up to shoot
some around the cooler? And yes I crawled under the bow and the one
in the dash is just fiberglass too with no insulation.
--------
Bob Muse
Remove the ""to reduce my spam intake
Mark Lenox
makes with all the ice & stuff sloshing around while you're driving.
Some foam would probably help that.
I don't use either the floor cooler or the dash cooler as a cooler, they
are full of equipment. If I need a cooler, I stow a small one with
drinks behind the driver's seat.
Mark Lenox
life_...@hotmail.com
kova...@usit.net wrote:
> Well since my boat only goes 42 mph, since I installed the 4-blade prop
> on it and I haven't ever needed more speed than that, I don't see the
> issue. Barefooters I can understand, but unless we are in a race why
> would I care if it went as fast as 47 ? This starts sounding like penis
> envy wars.
I would suggest that alot of skiers, and barefooters, *do* care if their boat
goes faster than 42. Hell, I slalom ski at 40 mph. 2 mph would not be enough
of a margin for added weight, water conditions, etc.
Everyone has their own requirements.
- Lifespeed
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mark Kovalcson
>
> I would suggest that alot of skiers, and barefooters, *do* care if their boat goes faster than 42. Hell, I slalom ski at 40 mph. 2 mph would not be enough of a margin for added weight, water conditions, etc.
>
> Everyone has their own requirements.
Barefooters I can definitely understand.
Out of curiousity why would you want to salom at 40-42 mph ?
I understand that everyone has their own requirements, but I noticed
that Water Ski Magazine just posted their 20th Aniversary issue and for
most of that time period ski boats wouldn't go 47 mph. So we are really
dealing with speeds that have just become obtainable recently.
I guess all inboard ski boats built before the mid-90's must be pretty
sorry in your eyes. Maybe some of the Ski Sangers and 454 equiped ski
boats could go faster than 47, but the rest of them couldn't.
Let's look way back in time to 1994
Top Speeds from WSM BBG January 1994
Then Now
American Skier TBX 43.7 44.3
Brendella Pro Comp 44.4 51.0
CC Ski Nautique 46.6 45.8
Malibu Echelon 44.8 52.2
ProStar 190 45.7 48.3
MB Boss 190 46.1 44.6
Sanger Ski Sanger 46.4 55.5
Ski Ray Spitfire 43.9
Tige' 2000 43.5 46.9
Toyota 47.0
The point is a that a top speed of 43 mph which my vintage 1981 boat had
before the 4 blade prop was not far of the mark for top speeds just 4
years ago. In other words most people aren't used to going 50+ in an
inboard.
So if 1.2 mph faster than a 1998 SN and 1.3 mph slower than a ProStar
with LT1 isn't a good starting point for a new entry into this market
considering they are the competitors in this price point, I don't know
what is.
ray_pulley
>
>> So, ya see anything worth $30k +?
>
>Well, yes I do. I hope the selling price is actually in the mid to high
>20's,
Yeah right.
>>(fits pretty well with those not so best of the best performance numbers as
>>well). Makes me wonder just exactly what best of the best is.
>
>Well since my boat only goes 42 mph, since I installed the 4-blade prop
>on it and I haven't ever needed more speed than that, I don't see the
>issue. Barefooters I can understand, but unless we are in a race why
>would I care if it went as fast as 47 ? This starts sounding like penis
>envy wars.
>
Just finish freshman psych course or what? What is important to you may or may
not be important to anyone else. If there were no differences between boats, why
would we buy one versus another? In fact, you obviously do not need a new boat
at all from your statements.
>>Only time will tell. It never hurts to have a new player with a bankroll and a
>>history of quality and efficiency. We will all benefit if more players enter the
>>field, I think.
>
>That is what is interesting about this boat. I could care less if my
>boat has the best 41 off wake or wins a WaterSki Magazine 0-36 contest.
>If it has a really good 15 through 32 off wake at 32-34 mph, good
>accelleration,and good tracking and is built like a Toyota, that could
>be enough to be a winner. It wouldn't get to pull many tournaments but
>it might be a favorite among the rest of us.
See statement above.
I'm not sure what "built like a Toyota" means with regards to a boat, as this is
their first boat in our market and they are not even building it. To use you
arguments, almost any Tournament boat currently on the market will satisfy the
requirements you list, many far cheaper than $30k.
Ray
ray_pulley
The progress in many areas of these boats is smilar IMO. Unfortunately, so is
the price!
>
>So if 1.2 mph faster than a 1998 SN and 1.3 mph slower than a ProStar
>with LT1 isn't a good starting point for a new entry into this market
>considering they are the competitors in this price point, I don't know
>what is.
In my experience, "me too" marketing and design is just that. The point is to
set your product apart, if possible, especially when going head to head in a
well established market. If you read the WS article closely you will note that
Toyota is not trying to steal market share. They believe that the market can be
widened and that they have the worldwide network of support, dealerships,
logistics, etc.. to do it. This may explain, in part, the marketing logic.
As for speed, well it is only one thing, that's for sure. Also, I think there
were Tournament boats into the 50's in '93 or so or earlier. They were big block
specials, if I remember right (Malibu President's edition, a Ski Centurion,
maybe Sanger, etc...). The current speeds are a simple by-product of the Chevy
engine upgrades on the small block a few years ago, and some changes to other
engine lineups as well (GT40 Fords). The hulls/props/weights account for any
other minor speed differences.
Ray
life_...@hotmail.com
kova...@usit.net wrote:
> life_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest that alot of skiers, and barefooters, *do* care if their
boat goes faster than 42. Hell, I slalom ski at 40 mph. 2 mph would not be
enough of a margin for added weight, water conditions, etc.
> >
> > Everyone has their own requirements.
>
> Barefooters I can definitely understand.
> Out of curiousity why would you want to salom at 40-42 mph ?
I like the quick, hard reaction of the ski against the water at 40. 36 mph
feels too mushy. (I'm 170 lbs on a 68" '92 Kidder Redline). I don't compete
at slalom, just ski racing, so all I care about is having fun, not the course
or rules.
> I understand that everyone has their own requirements, but I noticed
> that Water Ski Magazine just posted their 20th Aniversary issue and for
> most of that time period ski boats wouldn't go 47 mph. So we are really
> dealing with speeds that have just become obtainable recently.
>
> I guess all inboard ski boats built before the mid-90's must be pretty
> sorry in your eyes. Maybe some of the Ski Sangers and 454 equiped ski
> boats could go faster than 47, but the rest of them couldn't.
I think low 40's is perfectly acceptable for a ski boat, hope you didn't
think I was laughing at your inboard. They really aren't able to go a whole
lot faster. I'm amazed that they can get 50 with alot of power.
I wouldn't even be happy with a 48 mph ski boat. That's not to say that they
aren't great boats for alot of people. I love the spin-turns and quick
steering. They just aren't for me. That's why you still see avid water skiers
buying outboards, V-drives and I/O's.
EFW5414
They are quite obviously
ON DRUGS
Who the hell do they think are buying boats these days. They wont be "kickin
ass" on anybody with those prices. Looks nice, but not at 30grand.Have I missed
the boat the boat? Or am I only one that is poor? I guess if their making a
statement ,I must be broke.
Mark Kovalcson
> I'm not sure what "built like a Toyota" means with regards to a boat, as this is their first boat in our market and they are not even building it. To use you arguments, almost any Tournament boat currently on the market will satisfy the requirements you list, many far cheaper than $30k.
If you can't see the difference, vote with your wallet, and yes my
current boat fits my needs well. Unfortunately, it is getting old and
will need a new floor and stringers soon, manifolds this fall, and with
nearly 1000 hours on the engine it will have more maintenance needs.
This can all be fixed for about 1.5 x the tax on a new boat, and I may
end up going that route. Unfortunately the old fused wiring, old style
trailer, aging vinyl that is just starting to crack, and already
repaired once platform that I would like to replace, etc... are starting
to get to me a little. Knowing everything that separates my poorly built
ancient boat from a well made modern boat doesn't help.
Many can't see why a CC, American Skier, MB or the deceased Hydrodyne
are(were) built in a manner that justifies additional cost. The Toyota
appears to embrace many solid design features of the above and appears
to be making small improvements on many of the ideas it has borrowed
from the industry.
As enthusiastic as I am about their progress, I will be patient about a
purchase and keep the old sawdust ride going for a while yet. I will no
doubt sink many thousands into my houseboat before I have it where I
want it and I will only consider a new ski boat purchase after my
houseboat is in the condition I want it. I'm not sold on Toyota just
like I'm not sold on CC, but I like what I have seen from both of them.
ray_pulley
>If you can't see the difference, vote with your wallet, and yes my
>current boat fits my needs well. Unfortunately, it is getting old and
>will need a new floor and stringers soon, manifolds this fall, and with
>nearly 1000 hours on the engine it will have more maintenance needs.
>This can all be fixed for about 1.5 x the tax on a new boat, and I may
>end up going that route. Unfortunately the old fused wiring, old style
>trailer, aging vinyl that is just starting to crack, and already
>repaired once platform that I would like to replace, etc... are starting
>to get to me a little. Knowing everything that separates my poorly built
>ancient boat from a well made modern boat doesn't help.
>
>Many can't see why a CC, American Skier, MB or the deceased Hydrodyne
>are(were) built in a manner that justifies additional cost. The Toyota
>appears to embrace many solid design features of the above and appears
>to be making small improvements on many of the ideas it has borrowed
>from the industry.
>
>As enthusiastic as I am about their progress, I will be patient about a
>purchase and keep the old sawdust ride going for a while yet. I will no
>doubt sink many thousands into my houseboat before I have it where I
>want it and I will only consider a new ski boat purchase after my
>houseboat is in the condition I want it. I'm not sold on Toyota just
>like I'm not sold on CC, but I like what I have seen from both of them.
Sounds like you have gotten good service from the sawdust, generally speaking.
It always boils down to priorities, doesn't it?
I, for one, tend to crawl around and peek in places that are not meant to be
seen and decide for myself how I feel about a boat's construction vs. it's
price. I am, however, a reasonably good wrench, and have spent 21 years in
various manufacturing environments so I have a feel for how things go together
and can make a fairly accurate judgement based upon what I see. This does not
mean that there are not unseen attributes that may be equally as important
overall, it's just that many people buy emotionally, aesthetically, or from the
advice of a buddy without really knowing very much about the product.
Although I am a 2x Malibu owner, and am happy with my choice in general, I
really beleive that there is little real difference in the more well know
Tournament boat brands in terms of overall quality. Some are better here, some
there, but all are head and shoulders above that which was for sale just 5 - 7
years ago.
As an example, my sister has a Centurion, which, by all accounts that I have
heard, isn't in the top tier in terms of quality. This boat has not had problem
one since 1994, and has the lowest slalom wake I have ever seen. I met a guy
this weekend with the same hull, circa 1990, same story (his boat gets a serious
workout as one of the main tugs in a local ski club). For every story like this,
there is probably one about a MC, CC, Malibu or whatever having nothing but
trouble.
BTW, the manifold issue, as well as maintenance issues at 1000 hours (speaking
of the engine) or more would be basically the same in any inboard produced then
or now. 1000 - 1500 hours is about it for most marine motors (we just work them
too hard in a rough environment, I guess).
Ray
Bob Muse
>buying outboards, V-drives and I/O's.
>- Lifespeed
I only know one avid skier not in an inboard and he only barefoots. I
can appreciate your difference in taste Lifespeed, but I seriously
think you are a distinct minority.
Mark Lenox
>
> > They just aren't for me. That's why you still see avid water skiers
> >buying outboards, V-drives and I/O's.
>
> >- Lifespeed
>
> I only know one avid skier not in an inboard and he only barefoots. I
> can appreciate your difference in taste Lifespeed, but I seriously
> think you are a distinct minority.
It really depends on which coast you're on. Out west, speed skiers have
a pretty substantial "market share". Of course, in the east, they
almost don't exist.
Mark Lenox
Mark Lenox
Price a new CC or MC lately? This is what they cost. And people wonder
why Malibu is growing so fast...
Mark Lenox
life_...@hotmail.com
crmuse"@"mindspring.com wrote:
> > They just aren't for me. That's why you still see avid water skiers
> >buying outboards, V-drives and I/O's.
>
> >- Lifespeed
>
> I only know one avid skier not in an inboard and he only barefoots. I
> can appreciate your difference in taste Lifespeed, but I seriously
> think you are a distinct minority.
Yup. Although I know lots of people here in northern california that ski
race, I don't think many of them slalom as well. I enjoy both.
life_...@hotmail.com
Mark Lenox <le...@nospam.cti-pet.com> wrote:
> > I only know one avid skier not in an inboard and he only barefoots. I
> > can appreciate your difference in taste Lifespeed, but I seriously
> > think you are a distinct minority.
>
> It really depends on which coast you're on. Out west, speed skiers have
> a pretty substantial "market share". Of course, in the east, they
> almost don't exist.
I've noticed that. In Australia, speed skiing is incredibly popular, even as a
spectator sport. You should see some of the lightweight, pad-bottom, V-hull
outboards they build over there. Appropriately named "Bullets".
EFW5414
Look long enough and hard enough and you can beat those prices very badly.
ray_pulley
>
>In article <35ad748e....@news.mindspring.com>,
> crmuse"@"mindspring.com wrote:
>> > They just aren't for me. That's why you still see avid water skiers
>> >buying outboards, V-drives and I/O's.
>>
>> >- Lifespeed
>>
>> can appreciate your difference in taste Lifespeed, but I seriously
>> think you are a distinct minority.
>
>race, I don't think many of them slalom as well. I enjoy both.
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Lifespeed,
where are ya (if you do not mind my asking)? I'm in Fairfield CA and boat mainly
in the Northen CA lakes and the Sac river.
Ray
RonEmery
copies of any other hull design.
Toyota is also using a deck and hull bonding process unlike any other boat
manufacturer has ever done. As you will all see as soon as the boats are
released.
RE
Steve Roberts wrote in message <35A95FFB...@watchmark.com>...
>Is it true that the boat is based on the old Hydrodyne grand sport hull? (I
know
>that Cobalt ended up with some rights to the inventory and design.)
>
>-steve-
EFW5414
Nautique for 24 grand. NO #$&*%!^ WAY!
I hope the US mfrs fight them tooth and nail Yeah , that is a very nicely done
boat. But hey man they "aint" head& shoulders above Nautique or any of them
for that matter. I'll take "American Iron" or fiberglass anyday of the week. If
that boat flat out SUCKED ---Waterski Mag. would praise it to the China Sea,
not with Toyota putting out 2 page color glossies in their mag. As long as
that keeps up everything they ever do will be "golden".
Something about this whole deal I dont like,this huge giant corporation
(TOYOTA) decides for some ungodly reason that the Tournament inboard market is
now going to be their new playing field. This isnt like going head to head w/
GM, FORD&CHRYSLER in the automotive. What is the corporate agenda here. A niche
mkt .at best.
Oh well America's done it before.I guess we will have to do it again
"Climb Mt. Fuji"
life_...@hotmail.com
Ray Pulley wrote:
> >> I only know one avid skier not in an inboard and he only barefoots. I
> >> can appreciate your difference in taste Lifespeed, but I seriously
> >> think you are a distinct minority.
> >
> >Yup. Although I know lots of people here in northern california that ski
> >race, I don't think many of them slalom as well. I enjoy both.
> Lifespeed,
>
> where are ya (if you do not mind my asking)? I'm in Fairfield CA and boat
mainly
> in the Northen CA lakes and the Sac river.
I'm in Santa Rosa. I often ski on the delta, near Rio Vista. I go to
Clearlake for several ski races, and East Park reservoir for longer
waterski trips.
ray_pulley
Oh sure, tease us, see if we care! Seriously, with a limited introduction and
production, how are most of us joe public's going to see one before the winter
shows? I'd love to crawl all over one and decide on all of the hype for myself.
Ray
Mark Kovalcson
>
> It'll be a cold day in HELL before I give Japan 30+,when I can buy a new Nautique for 24 grand. NO #$&*%!^ WAY!
> I hope the US mfrs fight them tooth and nail Yeah , that is a very nicely done boat.
I wondered how long we could talk about this newcomer to the tournament
ski boat market before we would start getting into an "US" vs "THEM"
discussion.
In today's global economy I think this is patriotic BS !!!!
> Oh well America's done it before.I guess we will have to do it again
> "Climb Mt. Fuji"
Isn't that the point behind CAPITALISM. People buy what they want. If
some else builds a better mouse trap than people start to buy it and if
the competitors want to stay in buisness they learn to improve their
products too.
Toyota doesn't appear to have any hidden agendas here. They have stated
that this is a low volume, high exposure market that they are hoping to
use to help launch them into other boat markets. This is the perfect
place for them to start. That is not a conspiracy, its good buisness
sense.
ray_pulley
>
>I wondered how long we could talk about this newcomer to the tournament
>ski boat market before we would start getting into an "US" vs "THEM"
>discussion.
>
>In today's global economy I think this is patriotic BS !!!!
>
Well, I for one have no real problem with patriotism, especially when it
concerns the reason that someone spends their own money.
I'm not sure what a global economy has to do with patriotism or horse dung, but
without a free market there is no real global economy. Anyone who thinks truly
free markets exist between most nations to any great degree has not been paying
attention.
>> Oh well America's done it before.I guess we will have to do it again
>> "Climb Mt. Fuji"
>
>Isn't that the point behind CAPITALISM. People buy what they want. If
>some else builds a better mouse trap than people start to buy it and if
>the competitors want to stay in buisness they learn to improve their
>products too.
>
The bedrock of capitalism is a free market, period. This in turn allows freedom
of choice by us, the consumers. The Japanese have been notorious for closing
their domestic market through every trick in the book while taking advantage of
the rest of the world's market for their goods. Do they make good products? In
general, yes. Have we all benefitted from the competiition? Mainly, yes. Have
the Japanese markets benefitted from open and free trade? In general, no. They
pay very high prices and have fewer choices because the
government/financial/business complex protects their market from true
competition. I suppose one could say that the Japanese have practiced much of
that patriotic bs you were talking about.
>Toyota doesn't appear to have any hidden agendas here. They have stated
>that this is a low volume, high exposure market that they are hoping to
>use to help launch them into other boat markets. This is the perfect
>place for them to start. That is not a conspiracy, its good buisness
>sense.
Only time will tell if starting in a low volume high price market will buy them
anything. It is interesting in that it is the opposite of all of the car
marketing strategies. There they started in small, low (some would say no)
margin fuel efficient cars, and have moved steadily upscale, to the point of
nearly abandoning the econo market. This has worked very well overall, I would
say.
Ray
EFW5414
I think you got it ass backwards
Them vs.US
>this is patriotic BS !!!! What's patriotic
BS?
The global economy? Thats patriotic BS!
Oh sure the japs love the global economy.Our doors wide open while they slam
the door in our face. The cards are stacked in their favor.
> If
>some else builds a better mouse trap than people start to buy it and if
>the competitors want to stay in buisness they learn to improve their
>products too.
That's what happened in to the auto industry
not tournament inboards. I dont see to many embarssing boats floating off the
assembly lines.
>Toyota doesn't appear to have any hidden agendas here
Yeah right- I just crawled out of the crib.
The japanese motorcycle giants didnt have a agenda against Harley either. Why
they even told the courts that. ( thank GOD the courts didnt fall for that one)
Harley was within hours of filing for bankrauptcy. I'll bet Japan was all teary
eyed.
>That is not a conspiracy, its good buisness
I believe its called "easy pickens"or the "Domino Effect"
Mark,
I have one question ?
Am I still going to get an invitation to your houseboat party?
EFW5414
Absolutely- I forgot to mention as I was banging on the keys that I've owned
many japanese products. I am not prejudiced -PERIOD. The playing field is not
level in this case. Someday soon -there wont be a middle class left in this
country . The lights are going to go on and people will say
"what happened"--Daaaaaaaaaaaa
I mean really- next time you are driving down the streets and you see an
oreintal person driving just see what kind of car they are riding in. 9out 10
times they will be in a asian product. Did you ever wonder why? I dont think
they hate Americans, thats not the reason. Day-in and day out I see this.( and
I spend a whole lot of time on the highway watching white lines fly by.)
Everybody is free to do what they want with their money I am simply getting
tired how it is a one-way street.
Shawn
my buck unless I have my heart set on a particular item.
--
Aloha
Shawn Donahue
sdon...@lava.net
EFW5414 wrote in message
<199807180038...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Mark Kovalcson
>
>
> I mean really- next time you are driving down the streets and you see an oreintal person driving just see what kind of car they are riding in. 9out 10 times they will be in a asian product. Did you ever wonder why?
For what it is worth my boss who speaks Chinese and recently got his
citizenship owns a Buick. Unfortunately, he complains that his car
breaks down more then his sons very used Honda. He has had to replace
the starter, alternator and had the transmission worked on within one
year.
EFW5414
out of 10" is unrealistic. Hard as it may seem to believe I actually have seen
Asisns driving a Ford ( an it wasn't pushing a 1:1) If it hits 6 out of 10 then
am I wrong? I think you get the point.
You still got that Toyota truck?
You know how many Toyotas I've owned?
4 of them. -bulletproof .
I am not knocking the product, I am quite sure it is topshelf.
By the way- you wouldn't happen to remember the name of the guy that said that
this boat wasn't going to have enough torque do you? I said then that there was
no way the japs were going to come to play with an underpowered Sam-pan and
they havent.
They know exactly what they're doing. Its a one-way street trading with them.
We are supposed to open our doors and bend over while they peek through theirs.
We dont want offend anybody now. I am so tired of hearing about the poor
products America makes-this guys buick just happens to puke .( you know this is
starting to sound like a conspiracy now) I have never in my life wasted a motor
or a tranny just what the hell are these people doing to them?
Wow -----I'll never buy another Buick again.
Just answer the question- are you going to invite me or not?
Mark Kovalcson
>
> Well lets do this Mark , You keep a tally and I'll tally and we'll see if my "9 out of 10" is unrealistic. Hard as it may seem to believe I actually have seen Asisns driving a Ford ( an it wasn't pushing a 1:1) If it hits 6 out of 10 then
> am I wrong? I think you get the point.
I think you are probably right. And the fact that he complains about his
one American car sort of proves your point too.
> You still got that Toyota truck?
No I drive a Ford F150, because it cost me little, I don't drive it much
and it has been paid for well over 4 years.
> You know how many Toyotas I've owned? 4 of them. -bulletproof.
Absolutely, I've had an Avalon for almost 3 years and not had one
problem yet. I've had to replace the tires once and that's it besides
oil and filters.
> I am not knocking the product, I am quite sure it is topshelf.
> By the way- you wouldn't happen to remember the name of the guy that said that this boat wasn't going to have enough torque do you? I said then that there was no way the japs were going to come to play with an underpowered Sam-pan and they havent.
Over the last year a number of people have said it wouldn't be powerful
enough.
> They know exactly what they're doing. Its a one-way street trading with them. We are supposed to open our doors and bend over while they peek through theirs. We dont want offend anybody now.
Japan's trade policy and internal policies are definitely designed to
favor their country dramatically. Of course the US has a HUGE levy on
pickup trucks that are imported. So Uncle Sam gets a good chunk every
time you buy a Toyota Pickup. This is how we even the odds. The
automotive companies collectively complain to congress that they can't
compete and Congress imposses huge taxes on them. What is the current
levy 2,000 dollars ?
I wonder what our policy is with boats ?
>I am so tired of hearing about the poor products America makes-this guys buick just happens to puke .( you know this is starting to sound like a conspiracy now) I have never in my life wasted a motor
> or a tranny just what the hell are these people doing to them?
> Wow -----I'll never buy another Buick again.
Saturn is American made, reliable and has great service. GM took a big
step learning how to reinvent the big beauracracy that is GM when they
branched of the Saturn brand. They also have had trouble actually
turning a profit with Saturn, but all vehicles are becoming more
reliable. Ford has finally hit average reliability with their F150's.
This is a first for an American full sized pickup going by Consumer
Reports. That is quite a jump from 40% below average reliability.
Toyota, Honda, BMW, and now Mercedes are building cars in America. For
the Germans, believe it or not, American labor is cheap. This is the
global economy at work. We put jobs in Mexico, Germany puts jobs in the
US, we buy cars from Japan etc.. etc...
BTW Japan imports Cadillacs in reasonable numbers. Would you believe
they tear all the body panels off and re-align them to get a better fit
so Asian buyers won't leave the show room floor. Did you also know the
the US car makers have frequently been unwilling to build right hand
drive cars to export to places like Japan. There are a lot of variables
in this equation.
> Just answer the question- are you going to invite me or not?
Are you seriously asking me to spend time trying to figure out who
driving around me is asian and then make a note of what they are driving
? I think I would prefer to pay attention to the road and not cause an
accident.
ray_pulley
ray_pulley
Uh, rec.sport.economics? Maybe alt.protectionism? Or how about
rec.sport.lets.go.skiing.and.forget.the.politics?
Ray ;-)
Farmer Brown
jecker
> Did you also know the
> the US car makers have frequently been unwilling to build
right hand
> drive cars to export to places like Japan. There are a lot of
variables
> in this equation.
This is THE single biggest reason US cars aren't exported!!!!!
Maybe we should teach the rest of the world how to drive ;)
Mark Kovalcson
>
> Uh, rec.sport.economics? Maybe alt.protectionism? Or how about
> rec.sport.lets.go.skiing.and.forget.the.politics?
>
> Ray ;-)
Variety is the spice of life. I skied 3 of the last 5 days, how about
you. Politics, Economics and everything else are interesting in the
context of waterskiing.
BTW I got my advertising material from Toyota. They are currently
sending out a copy of the Boating Magazine article. It was interesting
but I hope they are still going to send me some real broshures when they
are available.
Tom Ruta
...
>I'm not sure that incorporating ideas and methods built into other designs
>(albeit, maybe the best of) constitutes innovation.
The Japanese are masters of improving on others' innovation
(anyone for a Sony?)
>Now, if they were
>vac-bagging the hull while injecting the resin (someone owns this fairly new
>boat making process, I cannot remember who) and were able to get a 50/50 glass
>to resin ratio we would be looking at a much stronger and lighter boat that
>would truly be different and better than the rest.
Trek (Wisconsin) has been making their carbon bikes this way
- OCLV (Optimum Compaction - Low Void) for a while now.
Tom
Tom Ruta
>No it is not true. All Toyota Boats are original designs. They are not
>copies of any other hull design.
>
Er... then explain the fact that they used someone else's
hull and sprayed foam over it and glassed it!!!
Tom
Mark Kovalcson
Read carefully and you will see that was just to get a surface to work
with or a test mule if you will. It would be one thing to start tweaking
someone elses hull, but to foam and glass over it to get a starting
surface is just a shortcut to a test boat that didn't require someone to
layup a boat hull. And if you remember they said they kept the original
deck so as not to attract attention.
Initially, they were mostly working on marinizing the engine and they
could have put the engine in any number of boats for that.
RonEmery
>Er... then explain the fact that they used someone else's
>hull and sprayed foam over it and glassed it!!!
>
>
Er... Where do you get your information? Aaaa!
Tom Ruta
..
>Read carefully and you will see that was just to get a surface to work
>with or a test mule if you will. It would be one thing to start tweaking
>someone elses hull, but to foam and glass over it to get a starting
>surface is just a shortcut to a test boat that didn't require someone to
>layup a boat hull.
So you are saying if I take a BMW Z3 convertible, spray a
little foam on the fenders and add some Bondo then "I"
designed a new roadster? Some Teutonic mind decided the
basic dimensions and shape and all I did is add some (more)
panache and call it a completely new from the ground up
design? Sorry, Mark, I don't buy it.
>And if you remember they said they kept the original
>deck so as not to attract attention.
That being the case they could have built a hull and used
someone else's deck. Or built a new boat and disguised it
by painting the hull to look like a <insert your favorite
brand here>.
I'd bet that Gambler boats could have had a "new" hull in a
few weeks. (Pete - comment?). That is if they wanted to.
They certainly had the money to do so. As good as Toyota
and the Japanese are, they are masters of improvement, not
of innovation.
Tom
Tom Ruta
>
>>Er... then explain the fact that they used someone else's
>>hull and sprayed foam over it and glassed it!!!
>Er... Where do you get your information? Aaaa!
From Toyota Marine's glossies mailed to me earlier this year
by Glenn Sandridge (TM's Nat'l Mktg Mgr.). The information
says that boat designer Mark McNeil (and I quote...)
""designed the running surface on an existing boat". He
took the bottom of another inboard of similar dimensions to
those planned for the Toyota boat and sprayed it with a 4"
to 6" layer of high-density foam which was then glassed
over".
Comment?
Tom
Dan Hoffmann
>
>The Japanese are masters of improving on others' innovation
>(anyone for a Sony?)
>
Innovation is neat and cool of course, but execution matters much more. I
don't see a great deal of innovation in the best inboards today from MC, CC,
or Malibu. Those hulls are the result of continual refinement, tweaking, and
other incremental changes in some cases over a period of 20+ years. The
engines in those three boats are hardly innovative. The marine business is
incredibly conservative - witness the late adoption of EFI, oil injection
(outboards, PWC), etc.
With volumes so low and startup costs so high, the smart thing to do
entering a market like inboard ski boats is to reduce risk where you can -
modifying an existing hull makes perfect sense. Toyota can focus on its
engines which many suspect is the real motivation behind the boat anyways.
I'd focus on workmanship and reliability first. Cobalt did the same thing
with their inboard.
I forecast the impact of Toyota's boat to be something like:
"The hull/wake is pretty good, not quite as good as a CC/MC/Malibu, but man
what an engine." Then CC/MC/Malibu will look at their own boats and say
"We've already got the best hulls/wakes but it sure would be nice to have a
state of the art engine." Or it could be some other inboard boat maker that
wants something to stand out - going with a Toyota engine over PCM, Indmar,
or Merc would be a very unique option. Has anyone considered whether
CC/MC/Malibu might someday offer the Toyota engine as a "premium option?"
Yeah CC is exclusively PCM and MC is exclusively Indmar, but Malibu offers
both Indmar and Merc (plus the Callaway). The next few years will be
interesting for marine engines as the supply of GM and Ford engines evolves.
The stern drive market is still dominated by Merc but Volvo is gaining at
the high end while OMC struggles.
Dan
Tom Ruta
...
>Innovation is neat and cool of course, but execution matters much more. I
>don't see a great deal of innovation in the best inboards today from MC, CC,
>or Malibu.
If you look at the history of the boats you mention, there
is _true_ innovation. MC's swim platform. Malibu's
"hydrophonic" dampening system and Wedge. CC's clamshell.
>Those hulls are the result of continual refinement, tweaking, and
>other incremental changes in some cases over a period of 20+ years. The
>engines in those three boats are hardly innovative. The marine business is
>incredibly conservative - witness the late adoption of EFI, oil injection
>(outboards, PWC), etc.
>
I agree that the engines aren't exactly innovative - but
that is a GM/Ford constraint. Sure they could build their
own, but that's a good way to go broke.
>With volumes so low and startup costs so high, the smart thing to do
>entering a market like inboard ski boats is to reduce risk where you can -
>modifying an existing hull makes perfect sense. Toyota can focus on its
>engines which many suspect is the real motivation behind the boat anyways.
>I'd focus on workmanship and reliability first.
Agreed. But what Toyota did is decidedly NOT innovation.
>Cobalt did the same thing
>with their inboard.
>
Nah,.. they just picked up the pieces of someone else's
work. But they sure do build a good boat.
>I forecast the impact of Toyota's boat to be something like:
>
>"The hull/wake is pretty good, not quite as good as a CC/MC/Malibu, but man
>what an engine." Then CC/MC/Malibu will look at their own boats and say
>"We've already got the best hulls/wakes but it sure would be nice to have a
>state of the art engine." Or it could be some other inboard boat maker that
>wants something to stand out - going with a Toyota engine over PCM, Indmar,
>or Merc would be a very unique option. Has anyone considered whether
>CC/MC/Malibu might someday offer the Toyota engine as a "premium option?"
>Yeah CC is exclusively PCM and MC is exclusively Indmar, but Malibu offers
>both Indmar and Merc (plus the Callaway). The next few years will be
>interesting for marine engines as the supply of GM and Ford engines evolves.
Yup! My thinking too. I bet we see Toyota engines in
Malibu or MC within two years.
Tom
Mark Kovalcson
>
> From Toyota Marine's glossies mailed to me earlier this year
> by Glenn Sandridge (TM's Nat'l Mktg Mgr.). The information
> says that boat designer Mark McNeil (and I quote...)
> ""designed the running surface on an existing boat". He
> took the bottom of another inboard of similar dimensions to
> those planned for the Toyota boat and sprayed it with a 4"
> to 6" layer of high-density foam which was then glassed
> over".
And you think that 4" to 6" inches of clearance between the old and
protype hull is not enough to let him be creative??? So if Mark McNeil
took a hull that was about the right size and had all the other stuff
already done, you don't think that would make a good test boat to
marinize the engine and test a new running surface. I still don't see
the problem. Cobalt has the recent Hydrodyne hulls and they are straked
and very different in design than what Toyota is using. Since it appears
they started with a Hydrodyne as their test mule, I don't see the
correlation.
Tom Ruta
...
>And you think that 4" to 6" inches of clearance between the old and
>protype hull is not enough to let him be creative??? So if Mark McNeil
>took a hull that was about the right size and had all the other stuff
>already done, you don't think that would make a good test boat to
>marinize the engine and test a new running surface. I still don't see
>the problem.
The statement Ron Emery made (a Toyota employee???) was "All
Toyota Boats are original designs. "
>Cobalt has the recent Hydrodyne hulls and they are straked
>and very different in design than what Toyota is using. Since it appears
>they started with a Hydrodyne as their test mule, I don't see the
>correlation.
I don't see Cobalt advertizing them as being "original
designs".
Tom
ray_pulley
>
>Ray, Pulley wrote:
>>
>> Uh, rec.sport.economics? Maybe alt.protectionism? Or how about
>> rec.sport.lets.go.skiing.and.forget.the.politics?
>>
>> Ray ;-)
>
>Variety is the spice of life. I skied 3 of the last 5 days, how about
>you. Politics, Economics and everything else are interesting in the
>context of waterskiing.
>
Sometimes I suppose, but the last few posts in this thread had no relation to
the sport that I could see. BTW, It is considered good manners to post "Off
Topic" or something similar in your title if you are having a discussion that
has wandered completely off the mark.
Lastly, I am sorry you felt that neener-neener ("I skied...") was necessary.
Obviously you have no sense of humor.
Ray
Todd M
Maybe we'll see a Lexus edition in a few years too:)
Todd M
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:46:59 -0500, "Dan Hoffmann"
<dan_ho...@bmc.com> wrote:
>Tom Ruta wrote in message <35ba11d9...@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>>The Japanese are masters of improving on others' innovation
>>(anyone for a Sony?)
>>
>
>
>Innovation is neat and cool of course, but execution matters much more. I
>don't see a great deal of innovation in the best inboards today from MC, CC,
>or Malibu. Those hulls are the result of continual refinement, tweaking, and
>other incremental changes in some cases over a period of 20+ years. The
>engines in those three boats are hardly innovative. The marine business is
>incredibly conservative - witness the late adoption of EFI, oil injection
>(outboards, PWC), etc.
>
>With volumes so low and startup costs so high, the smart thing to do
>entering a market like inboard ski boats is to reduce risk where you can -
>modifying an existing hull makes perfect sense. Toyota can focus on its
>engines which many suspect is the real motivation behind the boat anyways.
>I'd focus on workmanship and reliability first. Cobalt did the same thing
>with their inboard.
>
>I forecast the impact of Toyota's boat to be something like:
>
>"The hull/wake is pretty good, not quite as good as a CC/MC/Malibu, but man
>what an engine." Then CC/MC/Malibu will look at their own boats and say
>"We've already got the best hulls/wakes but it sure would be nice to have a
>state of the art engine." Or it could be some other inboard boat maker that
>wants something to stand out - going with a Toyota engine over PCM, Indmar,
>or Merc would be a very unique option. Has anyone considered whether
>CC/MC/Malibu might someday offer the Toyota engine as a "premium option?"
>Yeah CC is exclusively PCM and MC is exclusively Indmar, but Malibu offers
>both Indmar and Merc (plus the Callaway). The next few years will be
>interesting for marine engines as the supply of GM and Ford engines evolves.
ray_pulley
>
>"RonEmery" <rone...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Er... then explain the fact that they used someone else's
>>>hull and sprayed foam over it and glassed it!!!
>
>>Er... Where do you get your information? Aaaa!
>
>by Glenn Sandridge (TM's Nat'l Mktg Mgr.). The information
>says that boat designer Mark McNeil (and I quote...)
>""designed the running surface on an existing boat". He
>took the bottom of another inboard of similar dimensions to
>those planned for the Toyota boat and sprayed it with a 4"
>to 6" layer of high-density foam which was then glassed
>over".
>
>
>Tom
Tom, who's hull? (or will you have to be killed if you tell?) <g>
Anyway, not a big surprise to me, the Japanese have often designed and marketed
products this way. The surprise will be if the owner of the copied hull takes no
action, or if Toyota pays a royalty or one time fee for the obvious benefit of
years of design and refinement.
As for innovation in the existing product lines, just looking at Malibu, CC, and
MC, Sanger, Centurion, or other hulls ought to tell anyone that they have their
own ideas (maybe not all exclusive or original) and incorporate them quite
differently along with refinements and tweaks as they go. And yes, there seems
to be a few other "copies" or knock offs out there as well.
It will be interesting to read further posts trying to justify this type of
business behavior from a multi-billion dollar company. I, for one, consider it
unethical, at best. If you can design a competing product, so be it. Otherwise,
if you are interested in selling engines, just sell them. Interesting that they
were so willing to publicize this.
Ray
ray_pulley
>
>Tom Ruta wrote:
>>
>> From Toyota Marine's glossies mailed to me earlier this year
>> by Glenn Sandridge (TM's Nat'l Mktg Mgr.). The information
>> says that boat designer Mark McNeil (and I quote...)
>> ""designed the running surface on an existing boat". He
>> took the bottom of another inboard of similar dimensions to
>> those planned for the Toyota boat and sprayed it with a 4"
>> to 6" layer of high-density foam which was then glassed
>> over".
>
>protype hull is not enough to let him be creative??? So if Mark McNeil
>took a hull that was about the right size and had all the other stuff
>already done, you don't think that would make a good test boat to
>marinize the engine and test a new running surface. I still don't see
>and very different in design than what Toyota is using. Since it appears
>they started with a Hydrodyne as their test mule, I don't see the
>correlation.
If I understand Tom's post, the 4" - 6" is thickness of faom sprayed over the
hull. Glass was applied to the inside, in effect making a nearly exact copy of
the hull that was foamed, which could then be used as a basis to make a new
hull. As close to an exact copy as you could get.
Ray
Tom Ruta
...
>Tom, who's hull? (or will you have to be killed if you tell?) <g>
>
LOL! Actually, I don't know. But I'd put my money on CC.
>Anyway, not a big surprise to me, the Japanese have often designed and marketed
>products this way. The surprise will be if the owner of the copied hull takes no
>action, or if Toyota pays a royalty or one time fee for the obvious benefit of
>years of design and refinement.
>
Assuming the boat is around that long. I still think it is
an entrance to the engine market.
As for patents, look at the Regal patent issue. It is for
real.
>It will be interesting to read further posts trying to justify this type of
>business behavior from a multi-billion dollar company. I, for one, consider it
>unethical, at best. If you can design a competing product, so be it. Otherwise,
>if you are interested in selling engines, just sell them. Interesting that they
>were so willing to publicize this.
Surprised me too. What could they have gained by
advertizing such things? (Except maybe that knowing they
based it on a proven hull removes some FUD?)
As to ethics, do you really think that one auto maker
doesn't buy another's cars to see what they can scoff?
Tom
Tom Ruta
...
>If I understand Tom's post, the 4" - 6" is thickness of faom sprayed over the
>hull. Glass was applied to the inside, in effect making a nearly exact copy of
>the hull that was foamed, which could then be used as a basis to make a new
>hull. As close to an exact copy as you could get.
Perhaps, but I'm sure that the designer tweaked the hull.
But whatever he did, it is a looonnnggg way from a
clean-room design. Too bad - especially when you look at
the engine.
Tom
Dan Hoffmann
ordinary to me. The '97 model Malibu I rode in last summer with the
hydrophonic system was noisier than my MC although the "buzz" was different.
I agree that Malibu's Wedge seems like a better way to achieve a chameleon
quality for the wake than adding water weight.
Every brand of quality boat has some distinct personality and quality. For
Malibu maybe it is the combination of high quality and value. For MC, a
history of firsts (all-fiberglass and EFI) and an evolution towards all
around boats like the Maristar? For CC, the combination of fine workmanship,
conservative (Christian??) management, and gaudy styling like the Air
Nautique? For Toyota the crown jewel without a doubt is the engine. If the
engine holds up like their Lexus cars, a certain class of boat buyers will
clamor to boats with a "Powered by Toyota Marine" sticker.
Dan
Tom Ruta wrote in message <35b5b2d3...@news.supernews.com>...
>...
>If you look at the history of the boats you mention, there
>is _true_ innovation. MC's swim platform. Malibu's
>"hydrophonic" dampening system and Wedge. CC's clamshell.
>
>
>I agree that the engines aren't exactly innovative - but
>that is a GM/Ford constraint. Sure they could build their
>own, but that's a good way to go broke.
>
>
Tom Ruta
>Is there something innovative in the MC swim platform? It seems pretty
>ordinary to me.
It wasn't when they introduced it to the ski market back in
the 70's.
>The '97 model Malibu I rode in last summer with the
>hydrophonic system was noisier than my MC although the "buzz" was different.
FWIW, I saw a couple of Supras, man were they quiet!
...
>Every brand of quality boat has some distinct personality and quality. For
>Malibu maybe it is the combination of high quality and value. For MC, a
>history of firsts (all-fiberglass and EFI) and an evolution towards all
>around boats like the Maristar? For CC, the combination of fine workmanship,
>conservative (Christian??) management, and gaudy styling like the Air
>Nautique? For Toyota the crown jewel without a doubt is the engine. If the
>engine holds up like their Lexus cars, a certain class of boat buyers will
>clamor to boats with a "Powered by Toyota Marine" sticker.
Think about this: Toyota says 500 boats in the first year
or so. Maybe they really want 5000 (thousand!) engines by
year three. And then there's the 100,000 or so I/Os...
Where do you think the money is? A couple of hundred boats,
or a hundred thousand engines (which are rolling off
assembly lines anyway?)
Tom
Dan Hoffmann
whatever hull is the base of their boat it was ethically obtained. Toyota
has too many lawyers to let them get into a legal mess right from the
beginning. If I thought Toyota had stolen something from me, I'd find the
best lawyer and go right after them.
I always chuckle when I read a boat ad that champions their "revolutionary
award-winning delta-23" or some such hull when it is merely a combination of
different angles, strakes, etc. driven as much by the different interior and
engine package offered by each brand. Is the sloping nose of a Supra or Tige
something really special?
Ray Pulley wrote in message <6p2fqc$9...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <35b67b2...@news.supernews.com>, ru...@cadvision.com
says...
>>
>>"RonEmery" <rone...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Er... then explain the fact that they used someone else's
>>>>hull and sprayed foam over it and glassed it!!!
>>
>>>Er... Where do you get your information? Aaaa!
>>
>>From Toyota Marine's glossies mailed to me earlier this year
>>by Glenn Sandridge (TM's Nat'l Mktg Mgr.). The information
>>says that boat designer Mark McNeil (and I quote...)
>>""designed the running surface on an existing boat". He
>>took the bottom of another inboard of similar dimensions to
>>those planned for the Toyota boat and sprayed it with a 4"
>>to 6" layer of high-density foam which was then glassed
>>over".
>>
>>Comment?
>>
>>Tom
>
>Tom, who's hull? (or will you have to be killed if you tell?) <g>
>
>Anyway, not a big surprise to me, the Japanese have often designed and
marketed
>products this way. The surprise will be if the owner of the copied hull
takes no
>action, or if Toyota pays a royalty or one time fee for the obvious benefit
of
>years of design and refinement.
>
>As for innovation in the existing product lines, just looking at Malibu,
CC, and
>MC, Sanger, Centurion, or other hulls ought to tell anyone that they have
their
>own ideas (maybe not all exclusive or original) and incorporate them quite
>differently along with refinements and tweaks as they go. And yes, there
seems
>to be a few other "copies" or knock offs out there as well.
>
>It will be interesting to read further posts trying to justify this type of
>business behavior from a multi-billion dollar company. I, for one, consider
it
>unethical, at best. If you can design a competing product, so be it.
Otherwise,
>if you are interested in selling engines, just sell them. Interesting that
they
>were so willing to publicize this.
>
>Ray
Tom Ruta
>Does anyone have evidence that Toyota "stole" a hull design? I bet that
>whatever hull is the base of their boat it was ethically obtained. Toyota
>has too many lawyers to let them get into a legal mess right from the
>beginning. If I thought Toyota had stolen something from me, I'd find the
>best lawyer and go right after them.
>
Problem is that even if they did blatantly "steal" a hull,
who could really go after them? Any idea how much it costs
to get a lawyer on these things? Of course, they just went
out, bought an older boat (used?) and glassed it up to serve
as the mule. Probably done a lot.
Tom
p.s. As to theft of ideas in the auto industry, patent case
law is pretty think on that.
Dan Hoffmann
>
>Think about this: Toyota says 500 boats in the first year
>or so. Maybe they really want 5000 (thousand!) engines by
>year three. And then there's the 100,000 or so I/Os...
>Where do you think the money is? A couple of hundred boats,
>or a hundred thousand engines (which are rolling off
>assembly lines anyway?)
>
>Tom
I agree totally long term that the money for Toyota is in engines.....
JMDJEANNE
is making a tournament boat, this is way too good to be true.(clicking my
heels)!
Just imagine, a boat with an engine that won't start acting up after a couple
of years, (Fords, ya know)?!
Better start saving for my next Toyota ski boat. :>)
Jeanne
ray_pulley
>
>I always chuckle when I read a boat ad that champions their "revolutionary
>award-winning delta-23" or some such hull when it is merely a combination of
>different angles, strakes, etc. driven as much by the different interior and
>engine package offered by each brand. Is the sloping nose of a Supra or Tige
>something really special?
>
>
Yeah, the Japanese never stole or copied anything 'cause someone might sue them.
Maybe you better ask Texas Instruments about the basic semiconductor patents
they own that some Japanese companies still refuse to honor, even when
confronted by TI's legal team. To be fair, some have negotiated settlements and
royalties with TI.
As for "a combination of different angles" what else makes up a hull? Stingray
got a patent on a strake design that is very sinple (underline very) and quite
similar to the old lapstrake effect. This design is extremely efficient for
various reasons and sets their runabout hulls apart from the rest. Everyone
takes the deep V for granted, but this innovation revolutionized offshore, and
later, runabout speed boats by allowing a better ride in chop and more freeboard
and room inside (also cleaned up in offshore racing 'till others caught up).
Ray
ray_pulley
>
>As to ethics, do you really think that one auto maker
>doesn't buy another's cars to see what they can scoff?
>
>Tom
Sure, but I do not know any that duped the complete shape and then had the nerve
to call it their own (oh, yeah, with "refinements").
Ray
ray_pulley
>Problem is that even if they did blatantly "steal" a hull,
>who could really go after them? Any idea how much it costs
>to get a lawyer on these things?
Tons-o-dough. Last place of employment was working on a clear infringement in
Finland for about six months, and had spent better than $60k. It clearly was not
going to pay for itself overall, but sometimes you have to do it to protect
yourself and your business. Much time (almost 2 years) was spent prior trying to
negotiate a royalty, etc... and this guy did not have any money to speak of! It
is really easy (especially over national boudaries) to just stall and waste time
and make the other guy spend money. The lawyers are usually the only real
winners.
Ray
Tom Ruta
>
>>
>>As to ethics, do you really think that one auto maker
>>doesn't buy another's cars to see what they can scoff?
>Sure, but I do not know any that duped the complete shape and then had the nerve
>to call it their own (oh, yeah, with "refinements").
Ray, a couple of years back one of the car mags did an
"expose" on style. They showed how supposedly new cars were
really rip-offs of things like the 54 Nash. Wish I could
remember where I saw it. It was pretty interesting.
"Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose".
Tom
Hammrski
>the high end while OMC struggles.
>
>
Volvo and OMC are the same drive(hence the model name SX-Cobra drive) and yes
they are gaining tremendously, it's simple it's a better outdrive.
Jim
www.hammerski.com
Hammer's Ski & Marine, inc.
Petaluma-Rancho Cordova Ca.
life_...@hotmail.com
hamm...@aol.com (Hammrski) wrote:
> Volvo and OMC are the same drive(hence the model name SX-Cobra drive) and yes
> they are gaining tremendously, it's simple it's a better outdrive.
> Jim
It doesn't take much to beat the humble Alpha. But what about Merc's
venerable Bravo drive? Isn't this still the drive of choice, if you want to
go fast with a 500+ HP big-block? Will the OMC/volvo handle this level of
horsepower?
- Lifespeed
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Bob Scibienski
was the sole possession of Volvo (their 280 series outdrives) until the patent
period expired, and that the Alpha was the mainstay of MerCruiser during that
period - (their racing drives, I believe, all had inboard transmissions).
Bob
ray_pulley
>
>In article <199807221321...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> hamm...@aol.com (Hammrski) wrote:
>
>> Volvo and OMC are the same drive(hence the model name SX-Cobra drive) and yes
>> they are gaining tremendously, it's simple it's a better outdrive.
>> Jim
>
>venerable Bravo drive? Isn't this still the drive of choice, if you want to
>go fast with a 500+ HP big-block? Will the OMC/volvo handle this level of
>horsepower?
>
>- Lifespeed
>
Humble Alpha? I think that Merc has sold over 2 million of these worldwide, OMC
and Volvo can only dream of these kinds of sales. Not only that, a OMC Master
Tech acquaintance tells me that they have had reliability problems, and that the
parts network has been a pain (JIT or Just in Time parts philosophy, I hear).
The speed issue has favored the more hydrodynamically efficient Merc lower units
in general.
Ray
ray_pulley
>
>Did you know - - - that the heart of the Bravo (the cone clutch transmission)
>was the sole possession of Volvo (their 280 series outdrives) until the patent
>period expired, and that the Alpha was the mainstay of MerCruiser during that
>period - (their racing drives, I believe, all had inboard transmissions).
>
>Bob
>
>
>life_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
was best (in the upper housing). Merc. has been weird that way since day one.
First they were not interested in the I/O, so the designer up and took it to
Volvo, then Volvo does the dual prop thing while Merc is sleeping (this is, IMO,
Volvo's best innovation by far), then they decide to market a shift prop that
has been on the shelf for awhile, they also all but ignored the Tournament boat
market for years with a puny underpowered 5.7 ski carb motor while the based
independents built better motors (EFI, etc...) I guess ya go to sleep when ya
control a large portion of the market!
Ray
Dpmontana
>> >copies of any other hull design.
>> >
>>
>> Er... then explain the fact that they used someone else's
>> hull and sprayed foam over it and glassed it!!!
I've jsut came in on this one, let me get this straight, I can spend 30k on a
Mastercraft, a company with 30+ years of experience or Correct Craft, with 74
years of experience, each one will obviously be around at least another 20
years for my warranty. Or I can blow the same amount on a Toyota. An unproven
construction, designed by someone who has not had the best track record in the
boat business, and service departments miles away?(3 hours for me)
Well I got to keep asking myself, do I feel lucky?
Sorry for my common sense kicking in but, I'll put my money in something I knwo
will have resale value.
Doug
ray_pulley
>I've jsut came in on this one, let me get this straight, I can spend 30k on a
>Mastercraft, a company with 30+ years of experience or Correct Craft, with 74
>years of experience, each one will obviously be around at least another 20
>years for my warranty. Or I can blow the same amount on a Toyota. An unproven
>construction, designed by someone who has not had the best track record in the
>boat business, and service departments miles away?(3 hours for me)
>
>Well I got to keep asking myself, do I feel lucky?
>
Oh what a feeling?
Hey you could have bought a BMW stern drive, or a Chrysler when they were around
(not long)!
Ray
life...@my-dejanews.com
Ray Pulley wrote:
> >It doesn't take much to beat the humble Alpha. But what about Merc's
> >venerable Bravo drive? Isn't this still the drive of choice, if you want to
> >go fast with a 500+ HP big-block? Will the OMC/volvo handle this level of
> >horsepower?
> >
> >- Lifespeed
> >
>
> Humble Alpha? I think that Merc has sold over 2 million of these worldwide,
OMC
> and Volvo can only dream of these kinds of sales. Not only that, a OMC Master
> Tech acquaintance tells me that they have had reliability problems, and that
the
> parts network has been a pain (JIT or Just in Time parts philosophy, I hear).
> The speed issue has favored the more hydrodynamically efficient Merc lower
units
> in general.
I'm sure they've made plenty of money. I was thinking of the
disadvantages of the slider "clutch" and ignition interrupter. Deep water
starts under heavy power, as well as loading/unloading the prop when the boat
comes out of the water, reveal insufficient strength of the gears and shafts
to handle the shock. I guess these units are fine for stock applications, and
even slightly modified boats. I agree that the merc lowers have less drag.
These are often replace in high-speed applications, tho. I was just
wondering if the OMC/volvo unit was capable of the hard use the Bravo can
take. It seems most of the fast stern drives I've seen run Bravos. I have
seen a couple 60+ mph alpha's with aftermarket lower units also. Haven't seen
any fast OMC's, but they're still relatively new.
Mark Kovalcson
>
> Hey you could have bought a BMW stern drive, or a Chrysler when they were around
> (not long)!
>
> Ray
I know a lot of people who still have Chrysler 360's. I understand they
are reliable and work well. The only thing I have heard is that they
develop a small leak by the rear main seal. You'll find them in
Marinettes, some old Blue Waters Cruisers and a number of other well
built boats.
Chrysler engines marinized fine, but there was not a whole lot of
difference between a 350/351/360 in power/HP etc... Most of the BMW
engines had been designed to be rev'd hard, but didn't generate enough
low end torque. If they tried again now with their 4.6 liter V8 they
would probably do alot better. It has a smoother curve like the Toyota,
and it is more powerful and has more torque. However, I would think the
price of the BMW engines would be enough to keep them out of this
market.
Tom Ruta
...
>... An unproven
>construction, designed by someone who has not had the best track record in the
>boat business, and service departments miles away?(3 hours for me)
>
At the risk of appearing to defend Toyota on this one <g>,
the construction by Maritec (Gambler Boats) should be right
up there. They are know in bass fishing circles for having
a heck of a boat.
The designer, McNeil _has_ done work for American Skier and
Supra, both of which are still around. They aren't the most
popular boats around and Supra continues to wax and wane...
And something tells me Toyota-san is not gonna let him
wander into uncharted (and un-engineered) waters.
The engine? What can I say. CR and my knowledge of the
Lexus engine (friends have them) is that it is a good an
engine as you'll get. A bit complicated perhaps, but in
marine trim it should do very well.
I agree on the dealer issue though. TEN whole dealers? I
guess you if you'll be in SoCal or Florida it might be a
useful network.
>Well I got to keep asking myself, do I feel lucky?
>Sorry for my common sense kicking in but, I'll put my money in something I knwo
>will have resale value.
There are lots of "one offs" that have resale value <smile>.
Besides, I suspect they'll sell them all in the first year
if only to curiosity/first-on-the-block seekers.
Tom
ray_pulley
I was primarily referring to having one now that they are long gone and trying
to get it serviced vs. buying Toyaota's new boat out of the chute. Sort of a
memorial to those willing to try the new stuff on the market. I, for one, would
love to see Chrysler back into racing (Nascar) and marine propulsion. They
always made motors with good horsepower and performance traits (the outboards
really sucked though, IMO, now the Merc FORCE lineup). On another note, I wonder
why OMC never pushed performance inboards?
For those that think Toyota is not buying in to the US marine market in general,
think about what this venture must be costing vs. selling 500 boats the first
year at whatever price level they choose. It would be years before the Tourney
market paid back the setup and R&D costs of the project. No, there is definitely
more afoot than our tiny market segment, and that should be good for the whole
market in the long run.
Would like to know more about the competition's plans for the next 2 years or
so. They have to have new motors in development, I would think.
Time to contact deepthroat, er, Tom and find out what's going on. <g>
Ray
Mark Kovalcson
>
> For those that think Toyota is not buying in to the US marine market in general, think about what this venture must be costing vs. selling 500 boats the first year at whatever price level they choose. It would be years before the Tourney market paid back the setup and R&D costs of the project. No, there is definitely more afoot than our tiny market segment, and that should be good for the whole market in the long run.
Toyota has never suggested they entered this market for this market. It
is a stepping stone. They have stated that they are "starting" in this
market because if its low production and high visibility. If they just
entered the I/O market they would be one of VERY many. In this market
making one thousand plus boats makes you a big player and they can do
that easily and get a lot of name recognition in the marine world. They
will then leap frog that into the I/O market where volume is etc..
>
> Would like to know more about the competition's plans for the next 2 years or so. They have to have new motors in development, I would think.
>
> Time to contact deepthroat, er, Tom and find out what's going on. <g>
Why do you keep suggesting a conspiracy or secrecy when they are being
so blatantly open about their plans. They plan to have a V drive ready
in 1999 and they are building their own boat because this initial splash
down will be watched and talked about for years and they want to make
sure they make the most of it.
Hopefully this will continue to be a high enough visibility market that
they continue to produce tournament boats for the advertising alone if
nothing else. If they start to sponsor a few tours and competitions
they can get all kinds of press. Notice how many Maristars and
non-competition boats that MasterCraft sells. How many of them are sold
because people are familiar with MC from their tournament boat history.
Little778
>There are lots of "one offs" that have resale value <smile>.
>Besides, I suspect they'll sell them all in the first year
>if only to curiosity/first-on-the-block seekers.
Do you suppose MC & CC will purchase a couple?
Jim
ray_pulley
>> Time to contact deepthroat, er, Tom and find out what's going on. <g>
>
>Why do you keep suggesting a conspiracy or secrecy when they are being
>so blatantly open about their plans. They plan to have a V drive ready
>in 1999 and they are building their own boat because this initial splash
>down will be watched and talked about for years and they want to make
>sure they make the most of it.
>
Yeah, including the origins of the hull.
Mark, get a sense of humor. This was a small poke at Tom's seemingly uncanny
ability to dig out pertinent facts on many subjects, and was actually directed
at the other manufacturers plans. I was not suggesting anything more than that.
If you would get off your Toyota high horse for awhile and really read the post,
that much would be clear. What I do wonder about are all of the people that
feel the need to defend Toyota when there is nothing to defend. They do not have
a boat yet, they do make good products, and they are following a fairly well
established marketing strategy to get wherever it is they want to go. So What?
Do you work for Toyota or what?
Ray
ray_pulley
> I'm sure they've made plenty of money. I was thinking of the
>disadvantages of the slider "clutch" and ignition interrupter. Deep water
>starts under heavy power, as well as loading/unloading the prop when the boat
>comes out of the water, reveal insufficient strength of the gears and shafts
>to handle the shock. I guess these units are fine for stock applications, and
>even slightly modified boats. I agree that the merc lowers have less drag.
>These are often replace in high-speed applications, tho. I was just
>wondering if the OMC/volvo unit was capable of the hard use the Bravo can
>take. It seems most of the fast stern drives I've seen run Bravos. I have
>seen a couple 60+ mph alpha's with aftermarket lower units also. Haven't seen
>any fast OMC's, but they're still relatively new.
>
>- Lifespeed
>
No question about the limitations of the dog clutch design for moderate to
severe applications. I thought the Volvo/OMC unit was several years old now (pre
1994?) anyone know? The real fast big buck boys run the specialized merc units I
think.
Ray
Mark Kovalcson
>
> Do you work for Toyota or what?
>
> Ray
That brings the total up to 3. I've been acused of working for Supra,
Correct Craft and now Toyota. Interesting. The fact is I normally own
old but servicable vehicles of all types. Luckily now that I have one of
every type vehicle I want to own, I can only upgrade from here. I have
also been accused (falsely of course ;) of taking everything too
seriously.
Tom Ruta
When Mazda was designing the Miata, apparently they bought a
whole whack of old British sports car so their exhaust
engineers t could get the right timber and pitch for the
exhaust.
I'm pretty sure all the big boat boys will have a couple
(complete and in pieces ASAP).
Tom
Sybil
Tom Ruta wrote:
<snip>
>
> There are lots of "one offs" that have resale value <smile>.
> Besides, I suspect they'll sell them all in the first year
> if only to curiosity/first-on-the-block seekers.
>
> Tom
Mark Kovalcson
Ford 351 Winsor, Corvette head lamps, electric gull wings and some Mopar
parts as well, it certainly was interesting. I looked at buying one
while I was in college, but I decided a DeLorean would be a better
investment although I didn't buy that either. That DeLorean would be
worth 3 times what the asking price was at the time and I think it can
be classified as a one off considering the 2 year manufacturing period.
The one I looked at was a 1982 stick with 2700 miles on it and was mint.
The DeLorean Volvo/Renault engine, stainless stain exterior and
hydrolically assisted spring loaded doors were all more reliable in the
long term than the Bricklin's Ford engine with fiberglass exterior and
electric doors that could leave you trapped in the car if your power
went dead.
Oh well, what I really needed was a daily driver and I ended up buying a
Honda Accord. <sob> Story of my life.
RonEmery
Tom Ruta wrote in message >
>The statement Ron Emery made (a Toyota employee???) was "All
>Toyota Boats are original designs. "
When you see the boat get out your tape measure and then tell me the boat is
a copy of a certain boat.
By my definition of original design, there is not another hull exactly like
it.
Tom Ruta
>By my definition of original design, there is not another hull exactly like
>it.
From the Mirriam-Webster dictionary: "ORIGINAL - a work
composed firsthand". Please explain how using someone else's
hull fits into that.
Tom