HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmi@iat.holonet.net (David M. Ilstrup)
Subject: Re: Wire/Rope splice on Main Haylard
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:51:23 GMT

in regards to the issue of wire halyards vs. rope halyards, you should realize
that wire is the least expensive way to get a halyard that does not stretch.
if you choose to go to rope, you're looking at either a lot of money or a lot
of stretch.  for instance, to obtain stretch characteristics similar to 3/16"
wire in a halyard, you need 7/16" Yale ULS (ultra low stretch) dacron double
braid, and realistically, you should be using Spectra 3/8 or 7/16" line.  
Spectra halyard on a 33' boat will run $300-350, ULS will run somewhere around 
$150-200, the wire-rope halyard will cost $110 (or less, if you splice it  
yourself).  For my money, if you're cruising, stick with wire/rope halyards -
they last the longest, have the least stretch, and are cheap.  If you're flat-
out racing then you should consider spectra with a wire pigtail, or maybe just
spectra all by itself.  I tend to use wire/rope for my jib & main halyards, 
Yale ULS 3/8" for the spinnaker halyards.  If you use Kevlar, DON'T.  If you
do, you need to redesign the shivs at the masthead to prevent the line from
breaking - the strands do not like to turn or bend; the bending radius of the
shiv is something like 15 or 20 times the diameter of the line.  So, go cheap, 
go good, keep the jib halyard tight, and have fun.
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: mroberts@ptdcs2.intel.com (Mark Roberts ~)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Organization: Intel Corporation -- Aloha, Oregon
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:51:04 GMT

In article <72433611213187@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov> gbanks@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Gregory Banks) writes:
>Good news! The ripp-off fee that the government imposed on boaters
>that used water accessed by the coast guard is no more as of 1993!
>Boats 20' and under will no longer be required to pay the $25.00 fee
>and for boats over 20', it will be fazed out in the next 2 years. It
>was shot down in congress (its about time boaters stopped getting
>screwed). 
>


A little more good news ... The U.S. Coast Guard will *not* enforce
the extortion fee against boats that are longer then 20' as long as
they are licensed as commercial fishing vessels.  Last year we not 
only had to pay roughly $700 in commercial licenses, state boat fees
and personal licenses to do our jobs, but if we were going to
sport fish even once during the year we had to pay the extortion tax.
Keep in mind, these are not pleasure boats ... these are work boats.

This legacy of the Bush administration really needed to be handled
and congress actually did something *half* right for a change.  The
repeal of this tax-called-a-user-fee should have been extended to
*all* boats without exception.

				Fish to Live, Live to Fish
				   'Fish Assassin' Mark
				     Pacific City, OR

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: EPLUS17@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boardings and TQM
Organization: C.C.S.O.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:57:14 GMT

In article <8017@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>
alany@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Alan Yelvington) writes:
 
>
>If you have CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions, please post them as a
>RE: to this posting.
>
I would suggest appropriately compensating individuals who suffer
real or imagined losses in the general public's interest.  I, for
one, would willingly experience anything reported so far in this
discussion for an appropriate sum of money; compensation seems
possible.  My reasons for believing it appropriate go as follows:
 
I believe that 1. society should act to maximize the collective
benefits gained net of the costs incurred in obtaining
those benefits, and 2. all members of the society should share
any net gains.
 
Making a small subset of innocent individuals suffer loses
"for the greater public good" violates #2; simply put, its unfair.
 
That brings us to #1: Does society benefit from actions such as
warrantless searches?  Given how easy it is to destroy evidence
at sea in the time necessary to obtain a warrant, I could imagine
that waarantless searches on the high seas might be in society's
best interest even if they are not on land.  If the Coast Guard
compensated the affected individuals appropriately and still
felt that warrantless searches were a cost effective tool in the
war on drugs, I would have to say "fine, go ahead."  But, under
the current system, there is no evidence of cost effectiveness.
 
I believe that if the Coast Guard were given a set of goals, a
budget, and the obligation to compensate innocent victims, it
would come up with a much more cost effective way of achieving
the goals than the current program.  If not, then fine...we must
conclude that the current program is the best way to proceed,
and the current methods could be defended.  (Note: I take the goals
as given, and express no opinions about them.)
 
Finally, for those who ask "how to determine appropriate
compensation?"  My business is studying auctions and competitive
bidding with an eye toward advising those wishing to quickly
price something seemingly unlike anything previously sold.  Off
the top of my head comes the following suggestion:  Before the
Coast Guard boards me, it asks "how much do you want to be paid,
if you are innocent, to allow us to search without a warrant?"
The Coast Guard then decides how to proceed...drop the matter,
get a warrant, or risk paying the requested amount.  A little
more thought might come up with better schemes, but the point
remains: there are ways to price people's loses, even when they
consist of "violated" rights.
 
Richard E+17
 
 
Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans     Those who can, teach;
                                those who can't, don't;
eplus17@uiuc.edu                and too many who think they can teach
or EPLUS17@UIUCVMD              neither can nor do.
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: dev@rye.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:59:44 GMT

mroberts@ptdcs2.intel.com (Mark Roberts ~) once wrote: 
> cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU writes:
>> HORSEPUCKY!  As long as the Coasties are conducting armed,
>> warrantless boardings and searches of US ships in US waters (under
>> the pretext of drug interdiction) they're no friends of mine.
>
> If the Coasties are no friends of yours ... don't expect them to be
> your buddies when you get in trouble.  I'll put up with the occasional
> 'warrantless boardings and searches' in thier nasty little drug war
> because I'll tell you what ... I'm real glad that they *are* there
> when we have need of them.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

The solution is make the government start obeying the law. Why dontcha
read my .sig quote too. There's something called "rule of law" and
principle involved here. We have a constitution which forbids the
government from searching private property without a warrant, and
forbids seizure of property unless paid for it, or *convicted* of a
crime by a jury. These portions of the highest law of the land are
being broken daily. If you just complacently sit around and let it
happen without complaining, because "it doesn't affect me, only the
bad guys" then you most certainly don't deserve the freedoms and
liberties our ancestors fought to give us. Your attitude is pretty
damn sick. It's how we lose *all* of our rights. Ignorant complacency.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "They came first for the Communists and I didn't
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they
-------------------+  came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because
 I wasn't a Jew. ... Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
 speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me and by
 that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoeller
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: scott@prodplan.Columbia.NCR.COM (Scott Bridges)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 13:28:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.141656.1172@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>gbanks@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Gregory Banks) writes:
>
>>Good news! The ripp-off fee that the government imposed on boaters
>>that used water accessed by the coast guard is no more as of 1993!
>
>I'm probably the only person who's going to disagree with you here.
>The user fee is a terrific idea. My momma taught me to pay for what I
>use, and not to slop at the government trough.
>
>Why tax the poor to provide a service to the rich? As for commercial
>fisherman, it's a cost of doing business. Only now it's going to be
>paid by someone else.
>
>Grow up and shoulder your responsibilities.
>
>dhs   spencer@panix.com
>
>

I know that this thing has been beaten to death on this newsgroup, but
I can't let the above go without comment.  I agree with you whole-heartedly.
I would support a measure that collected a user fee from me and gave it
to the USCG.  Unfortunately, that was the problem with the current
"user fee".  It DID NOT go the the Coasties.  It went into the general
fund and in no way increased appropriations for the USCG, or enhanced my
boating experience.  Shoulder my responsibilities?  You bet.  But, this
was a miserable, blatant attempt by "our representatives" in Washington 
stick it to the boating community.

I challenge Congress to come up with a REAL, workable user fee.  I am 
willing to bet that boaters would really get behind such a measure.

Scott
 




-- 
Scott Bridges                               Phone (803) 791-6387
NCR Corp-MCPD Columbia                      Fax (803) 739-7362
3325 Platt Springs Rd                       scott@prodcntr.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
West Columbia, SC 29170
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: bjames@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Caribbean Cruising
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:11:54 GMT

Can anyone recommend a guide book to read as preparation for cruising in 
the Caribbean?  We're looking for information on marinas, anchorages,
sight-seeing on shore, food & drink, currency, things to know about 
customs and immigration for the various islands -- everything to make a 
stay of several months enjoyable.

Thanks, 
	Bonnie
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes)
Subject: Marelon fittings (was Re: Zincs on boats)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:17:45 GMT

In article <724251339snx@mmp.UUCP> mmp@mmp.UUCP (Lou McIntosh) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec11.162955.17672@progress.com> gerard@progress.COM writes:
> >                                   A positive cure for electrolysis is the
> > use of Marelon type through hulls.  Some surveyors love them, other look 
> >  askance.
> > You decide.  For my money, Marelon is fine as long as it's protected from
> > hard knocks.  In most modern pleasure craft this is a non-issue.
>  
>        I don't see anything wrong with Marelon, as long as not only the 
> fitting but the attached hoses are mechanically isolated (and, at least for
> the smaller sizes, protected from being stepped on in the course of one's 
> descent into the machinery spaces ...) -- one of the advantages of Marelon
> in wooden hulls is that because it doesn't transmit heat as well as metal, 
> [which reduces condensation...]

Practical Sailor had a fine report on Marelon fittings, noting that one of
the main problems is (duh!) that the little handles that control the valves
are not nearly as tough as they should be. The valve gets a little sticky,
the user tries to close it by turning the handle hard, and the handle breaks
off. Bummer. 

What lesson do we learn? Well, really we learn the same thing for Marelon
*and* for all the other valves on through-hull fittings: it's worth it
to lubricate these at least during the winter haulout (if any) and to
exercise all valves periodically and lube those that need it. How do you lube
a nice Groco ball valve when it's underwater? I'm not certain. Probably
the best I could do is to dive overboard with a little vegetable oil in a
squeeze tube and squirt it up into the valve opening. It should rise above
the water, so that operating the valve will coat it with the oil. I dunno.
Any suggestions?  Actually, vegetable oil is what's recommended for the
Marelon fittings. Something more like lithium grease or teflon goop 
(SuperLube?) is probably the right thing for the brass valves. 

How often do I exercise my valves? Well, not often enough. About once a year.
It ought to be about once a month when the boat is in the water, I figure.
So, this is another item that goes on the "periodic maintenance" list. 

Some of my valves, by the way, get exercised all the time: the head intake
and outlet get opened and closed every time they are used, as does the head
sink drain valve and the galley sink drain valve. The cockpit drains remain
open at all times, and the engine raw water intake is always open too. The
exhaust and bilge pump outlets, being above the water line, remain open as
well. If I happen to be digging around in the lazarette and think about it, I
give both of them a quick turn. But the cockpit drains? Well, they're down
beneath all the sails in the cockpit locker, and it's a pain to get to them,
and ...

-John
From: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 05:28:21 EST
Reply-To: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Distribution: na
Organization: G.T.M. Incorporated, Kingston, ON (613) 546-3078
Content-Type: Text

gbanks@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Gregory Banks) writes:

> Good news! The ripp-off fee that the government imposed on boaters
> that used water accessed by the coast guard is no more as of 1993!
> Boats 20' and under will no longer be required to pay the $25.00 fee
> and for boats over 20', it will be fazed out in the next 2 years. It
> was shot down in congress (its about time boaters stopped getting
> screwed). 
> 
> 
> 
Well I am happy to hear that, as a Canadian living in a area where our
two countries are seperated by a 1/2 mile of water. Every year paying
$25.00 for user decal was a pain in the butt. Two more years you say.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry A. Gerritsen         |  G.T.M. Incorporated              (613) 384 0162
Transportation Consultant  |  Kingston, Ontario           Fax: (613) 389 4594
Air/Rail/Road         "Transportation is our business"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: gbanks@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Gregory Banks)
Subject: User fee no more
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:22:09 GMT

I read this in B.A.S.S. Times in this months issue. Boats over 16' and
under 20' will no longer have to pay the $25.00 fee to use water that
the Coast Guard uses.The sticker is no longer required.Boats over 20'
will be required to pay applicable fees for the next 2 years. 











Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: zielke@hemlock.nrl.navy.mil (David Zielke)
Subject: Re: Confused (was: Zincs on boats)
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:50:45 GMT

I for one would love to hear your 'war stories' about lightning.  I have
been looking at this problem for some time and think I have a reasonably
good understanding but hearsay evidence is better than none...

(becomes hearsay when I pass it on to the next person ;-) )
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: steve@bcrvmpc2.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Marelon fittings (was Re: Zincs on boats)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:54:01 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: steve@bcrvmpc2.vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina


..........
> hulls.  Haven't any idea how or whether the grease reacts with Marelon;  I
> suspect it doesn't react at all.  But a teflon grease certainly would be
> better.
I have been using silicone and teflon based greases for a long time,
they are the best for not washing off, sticking to the lubricated part,
helping the seal (I was first exposed to these materials for use
in high vacuum systems, now I use them for my plastic pool valves ;-),
and not hurting anything (including the environment).  They are not
for all applications, I wouldn't use them for wheel bearings, but
they are great for cold, slow, wet surfaces



Steve                   Steve Weingart        IBM Boca Raton
                        steve@bcrvmpc2.vnet.ibm.com

It's bad enough that I think these things, please don't think it's
my employer's opinion too.
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Mercruiser questions
From: hal@kaos.declab.usu.edu (000200 Lynch)
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:17:34 MDT
Reply-To: hal@kaos.declab.usu.edu (000200 Lynch)
 <1992Dec15.131508.22928@nynexst.com> <1992Dec15.180407.9792@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Dec15.180407.9792@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, dsmith@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec15.131508.22928@nynexst.com> jsh@icslab.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John Hirth) writes:
|>>>On 11 Dec 92, torsten@unisql.UUCP wrote:
|>>>
|>>> My boat has a strange tendency to "fishtail" while bumbling along at
|>>> 1200 RPM.  It runs straight as an arrow at speed.
|>>>
|>>My '92 Century 21' (deep V) does the same thing.  Stable as a rock when on a
|>>plane, but yaws like a drunk when off plane.
|>
|>Ditto my SeaSwirl deep-V.  Another SeaSwirl owner said, "They don't call them
|>SeaSwirls for nothing!"
|>
|>My 1956 near-flat-bottomed outboard didn't do it.
|>
That sounds right.  It is my understanding that low speed wander is
characteristic of deep (semi deep) V boats.  My bayliner does it too.
--
Hal Lynch

	US Mail:  Utah State University
	          Office of Computer Services
	          Logan, Utah 84322-4410
	Internet: Hal@cache.declab.usu.edu
From: rrusk@ssd.csd.harris.com (Bob Rusk)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Mercruiser questions
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:32:18 GMT
	<1992Dec15.131508.22928@nynexst.com>
	<1992Dec15.180407.9792@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> <BzBp10.91o@metaflow.com>
Reply-To: rrusk@ssd.csd.harris.com
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:55:48 GMT, mgm@metaflow.com (Gary A. Gibson) wrote:

>>On 11 Dec 92, torsten@unisql.UUCP wrote:
>>
>> My boat has a strange tendency to "fishtail" while bumbling along at
>> 1200 RPM.  It runs straight as an arrow at speed.

>  I have never experienced (noticed ?) this "fishtailing" effect on larger
>deep-Vs.  I wonder if that is because the ones I have been on were all inboards
>(probably all twins too).  Does this low speed effect only occur with
>outboards or I/Os ?  Or just some particular hull designs ?

I believe it's affected (worsened) by excess weight in back.  I've
noticed that the wander is worse on some hulls when they have I/O's
instead of outboards.  And an 18' Center Console that we used to sell
lots of wandered more with a 135hp V6 outboard than it did with a 90hp
3-cyl model.

I mentioned before that this phenomenon seemed to be confined mostly to
deep-V hulls, but now I remember three other boats that wandered at low
speeds:

   1976 23' Mako, twin 135hp Johnson outboards (considered to be a 
        Modified-V or shallow Deep-V)

   1973 16' Glasspar tri-hull runabout, 65hp Mercury outboard.

   198? 17' Pro-Line center console, 70 hp Johnson outboard (Modified-V)

If anybody knows the cause of this problem, or a good predictor as to
whether a boat is likely to exhibit the problem, I'd love to know about
it.

--
 Bob Rusk
 rrusk@ssd.csd.harris.com
 My thoughts, probably not Harris'.
From: bsmith@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Brian Smith)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:19:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Automatic or manual transmission for towing?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.boats

In rec.boats, rrusk@ssd.csd.harris.com (Bob Rusk) writes:

    As long as people are sitting around shouting "{stick,automatic}
    RULES!", I'll state that I prefer the automatic at the launching ramp,
    but I prefer the stick shift everywhere else.  If the clutch is sturdy
    enough and 1st gear is low enough to keep from overstressing the
    clutch on the ramp, I'll put up with the stick shift at the ramp in
    order to have the extra control and efficiency that it gives me in
    other situations.

Amen to that!  When is there going to be an automatic that *really*
slows you down on hills?  Or does one actually exist now?  I drove my
old Dodge Maxivan, which had a shift, down that really windy hill
from Mount Palomar with no trouble at all coasting in 2nd.  Used the
brakes rarely, and then only when approaching one of the really sharp
switchbacks.  Tried the same thing in my new one, which has an
automatic, and even going down to lowest gear did not slow the vehicle
nearly enough--I was rarely able to take my foot off the brake for
more than 20 seconds or so, although I did so whenever I could.  I
stopped about halfway down and I couldn't get near the brakes--that
was the first time I had ever experienced such hot brakes.  It was
pretty scary.  Just how hot can those things get without failing
altogether?  Fortunately, most hills are not that bad, but we do have
plenty around here that are.

B.S!
 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: dean@MorningStar.Com (Dean Schell)
Subject: Re: British Steel results 17 DEC 92.
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:58:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.221940.29968@lut.ac.uk> O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk (OBSchou) writes:
>
>My comments on the press report: the write of this piece does not seem
>to be a sailor - a forestay being a "wire from the front of the boat",

Maybe he was writing from the point of view that some people might not
know what the pointy end of the boat is called :-).

>and winds 15000 FEET below the Southern Ocean..

He left out a comma, but I understood what he meant when he wrote:

>Zealand over 2000 miles away.  Any thoughts of New Years Eve in Hobart,
>a relistic possiblility given favorable winds lie 15000 feet under the
>Southern Ocean [ed: What??] at a little spot called 56 degrees north,
>131 degrees west.  We will still enjoy Christmas and New Years Eve and

And that is that the rig lies 15000 feet under the ocean at the
coordinates he states.  The phrase "a realistic possibility given
favorable winds" is a dependent clause that comes in the middle of a
sentence.  His mistake was in leaving out the comma after "winds".  Take
out the dependent clause and you have "Any thoughts of New Years Eve in
Hobart lie 15000 feet under the ....".

-dean
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante)
Subject: Re: Automatic or manual transmission for towing?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:47 GMT

Would some kind soul done in SoCal please send me the address of
Santana's (the magazine)?  I need to get a copy to check out boat
prices.

Thank you.

Kaygee@u.washington.edu
From: paul@ee.rochester.edu (Paul Osborne)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:29:32 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1gnputINNlae@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU writes:
>In article <7975@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alany@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Alan Yelvington) writes:
>>PLEASE!  No matter what you think, the
>>Coast Guard is our friend.
>
>HORSEPUCKY!  As long as the Coasties are conducting armed, warrantless
>boardings and searches of US ships in US waters (under the pretext of
>drug interdiction) they're no friends of mine.
>
>
	Yea, and the time that you are out there and in trouble and need 
	the help, you pick up the mike and shout for the CG, and they 
	show up in 40+ knot winds and 15+ footers you will be glad to 
	say thank you.