who do you trust??

S

starcrafttom

Active member
So I was reading a local west coast marine mag today. It covered a lot of subjects that I don’t know anything about. I mean that’s why I read mags like this, to learn about what I don’t know and learn more about what I do know. What upsets me was a short article on jet pump outboards that was pure fantasy. I mean they got the history wrong, the details wrong and the maker wrong. They even made a stupid commit about rather jet pumps where more or less polluting. A jet motor is the same as any other out board, two cycles or four, and nothing makes it pollute more or less. So if they get something basic like this wrong and I only know it because I’m familiar with the subject, then what else am I reading that is wrong that I don’t know about?? Make me not trust the mag at all. It’s a free mag so I’m not losing money on it but it pisses me off.
 
Thomas,

One way to judge unknown sources is to look up a known fact and see what the reference has to say about it. This can be used to test both the validity as well as the relevance of the reference. For instance, if you want to travel, first read travel guides for an area you live in and know well. Then, when you have found out which publisher works best for you, get that publishers guide to where you are going. It's much harder to erase bad data from our brains then to carefully check the sources we learn from.

David B.
 
Hey, Tom, ol' buddy. This would be a good time for you to write down your concerns about the mis-information and submit it to the magazine. Most periodicals are looking for content; and with free distribution there may be less concern for fact-checking. I'd suggest you keep your tone less pissed and more concerned and state the facts correctly. You'd be doing a service to your fellow boaters and feel better in the process.

Years ago, I paid good money for Practical Sailor; it was not inexpensive. Going through their index, I came across a review for a boat I was interested in - sent them my money for a back issue, and I was appalled at the article. The reviewed the boat, including the sailing characteristics, without actually sailing the boat! :roll: I never gave them any more of my $$$. It's especially annoying to get mis-information that you paid for. :wink:

Oh, and you better have Susan get your blood pressure medicine ready if you read the newspaper or watch the news... how often do they get it wrong? :mrgreen:

Best wishes,
Jim
 
Tom, Hey Brother! Now, just how long has it been since you have been on your boat man? It is WAY WAY too early in the C-Brat season to get that mad.... That and those type of post generally do not start for another month yet.

So, maybe you should contact the free publication, attempt to write a similar article with your knowledge base and have them print that.

Only thing I can think of.... AND I DO NOT KNOW DIDLY SQUAT ABOUT JET DRIVES....other than I have heard they are not as efficient with fuel simply due to not having a prop. Saying here, that for a 50hp with prop to push the same type boat, loaded the same way in same water, would take more power from the same motor to push it while being a jet drive...because it has no prop. So, if this is true, then using more to accomplish the same amount of "work"...or push... then, the prop would be more efficient, thus using less fuel, and then that making it better on the environment....maybe.

So there brother... I have tossed ya a fish on this one. Chew on which ever you wish....and go get Miss Susan and get on Susan E.

Your laughing friend down in the SE....

Byrdman
 
Byrdman's absolutely correct on this one! (How often does that happen?) HA!!!

But the dumb writer/magazine ought to explain the WHY involved in such generalizations, otherwise a lot of confusion/misinformation results.

That's why I try to be so thorough in the way I tediously explain things, so that others can learn from the reading.

It's part of my training as a teacher, but comes even more from my own learning about how to get things across to people.

When you're communicating only with one other person or a small group and you know what they understand, you can make a lot of quick generalizations, use a lot of acronyms, specialized terms, make a lot of assumptions about how they'll link information and cause-effect together, etc.

But in talking to a larger audience, especially one that's new to the subject, you have to explain all the details and relationships carefully, otherwise they get nothing out of it.

Consider that our purpose here is to learn and help each other understand and solve problems, and that we have all levels of boating experience represented here, and you'll see that you need to be thoughtful of the various types of readers when writing something. At least if you want to be understood by everyone.

One more thing: although we seem to get a lot of the same questions over and over, I like to think I'm writing something that will be referenced later by others and needs to be written clearly and broadly enough to be reference material, not just an answer that is as short as possible, and would leave many later readers just mostly confused and hanging, so to speak.

So Tom's point is a good one, and illustrates a common problem in communication, and one well worth discussing. Thanks for your patience and consideration!

On Edit: Please be aware that my comments above are in relation to technical articles, not just for fun social discourse!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Byrdman has it right. Running a jet unit as opposed to a prop with the same powerhead are equal pollution-wise, for a
fixed period of time. The jet loses about 40% in efficiency vs
the prop so it takes longer to get point to point with the jet
thus timewise the jet will take longer to travel a given distance.
Results in more fuel burned.
 
Well guys let me show you how wrong they got this. They make the statement that honda and mercury have been " quietly developing 4 stroke jet powered outboards" Hell they have been available four 40 years. you see the jet drives are not made by the motor companys. they are all made by a company here in the Northwest, always have been. one company make all the drives to fit all the engines on the market. There is nothing different about the engine at all. The articles makes the bonehead statement that the jet is quieter, if anything a jet is loader then prop boat because you cant exhaust thru the hub and you mainly run jets at or near full throttle. Now I know that a jet gets less fuel milage then props. I have spent a lot of time on the river in jets. The article does not even go in to that fact but instead make the following statement. " initial evidence suggest these motors can directly address the issue of reducing pollutants in the water" HOW. these are the same motors that we have on our boats. there is nothing different about then. The article was written by some dork in a bathrobe that has never be in a jet boat. Oh maybe he's been on a jet ski but I doubt it. So this is the last time I pick up Dockside, even for free.
 
As someone who writes for a magazine, don't always be too quick to blame the writer. I've had editors change entire paragraphs of mine, muddying up the meaning, or changing it entirely!

I seem to recall seeing this article, and I agree, the way it is presented makes someone look less than informed. :oops:
 
What Matt said. And you can't always get proofing rites prior to publication.

By the way, Good to see Kitsap Marine taking an active part here.

Thanks,

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
I thought it was "trust, but verify" Brent.

Hardee- we've been lurking a bit, and I finally found a post or two I thought I could add to.

Now if I can keep the additions intelligent ones- that will be the trick!
 
Tom, does this magazine run letters to the editor? Every magazine I have written for did, and it was a crucially important avenue of feedback for me (plus I published my email address at the end of each of my columns.) However, especially in hobby publications, I have noticed a trend towards not giving the reader a chance to speak up. When I see a magazine without a readers' response column, the red flag goes up. It tells me they are not interested in a dialogue, only in filling the empty space between ads.

Warren
 
To answer the topic question: Trust the C-Brats!!

(With the possible exception of that one thread going on now from way up north.)
 
The only contact info I could find on line or in the mag was a phone number. I left a message but have not heard back. or a snail mail address. Not sure I remember how to close a envelope.
 
A few years ago it seemed like reports from the environmental friendly groups were referring to two strokes not burning completely in the combustion stroke, and were then referring to a oily discharge in the exhaust.

I was offended at first, but their is some truth to it. There articles were saying we were damaging the environment and that if you looked at the exhaust of a two stroke vessel there was a discharge that would be visible. I could not believe that but there is an oily build up on the exhaust components of my two stroke skis. No trail though when being ridden that I could notice. The oils for two strokes have been cleaned up and the premix uses less and less oil.

So maybe their is some truth to the two stoke polluting issue on jet drives, but the main argument of 30% drop in fuel efficiency is very true as well.

If you want to use that argument to justify knocking jet drives then I will throw out the argument that hull design could have a bigger impact on fuel use.

I have had several jet boats (all racing type or so I thought). One was a 14 ft alumaweld sprint boat and the other a 16 ft outlaw sprint boat. Power was about equal with FI 350 chev's running 350 horspower in the smaller boat and 325 in the larger boat. On a trip of around 70 miles the 14 ft boat would use around 35 gal of fuel and the same trip in the other boat around 16 gallons. Plus the 16 ft boat was usually running at least 50 mph were as the other boat was better at around 35 - 40 mph. I would run the 16 around 70 at the high end but the 14 rarely saw above 55.

Hull design was the biggest factor for the difference in speed and efficiency.
Neither engine burned oil so the boat that used the most fuel would have been the bigger polluter.

Now that gas is so expensive both of the jet boats are gone and I am happy driving my cdory at slower speeds on the ocean. Our hulls are very fuel efficient for slower speeds so our power requirements are a lot less which should settle well with the green group and our pocketbook.

If I have the need for speed I still have several jet skis. One is a supercharged ski that will do around 70. Its a 4 stroke though so Its clean.
 
Back
Top