Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
They didn't cut it in half but ........
|Author||Topic: They didn't cut it in half but ........|
posted 10-27-2006 11:10 PM ET (US)
Another commercial ....... you'll like it got a ETEC on it.
posted 10-28-2006 12:13 AM ET (US)
I thought it was a clever ad until I saw this. I think we all recognize the "competitor's" boat.
posted 10-28-2006 01:24 AM ET (US)
Have you seen one of these boats? Better yet..have you seen a used one? What crap!!!
posted 10-28-2006 08:20 AM ET (US)
This is very deceptive! If you look at the hammers being dropped the whaler hammer has additional wight on it, and is hitting near the stern, where the fiberglass won't give and flex as much as the wide area of glass on the other boat! The wide area flexes more and diffuses the impact energy of the smaller hammer! Nice try though!-k
posted 10-28-2006 08:38 AM ET (US)
Very clever, I like the Bubba one best :)
That sledgehammered Whaler reminds me of the damage recently to one of our Hawaii CW posters, but it was from a kayak collision!
posted 10-28-2006 09:06 AM ET (US)
That second ad really is deceptive - the hammer being dropped on the Whaler appears *way* bigger than the one dropped on the Bubba Boat. Those boats are made out of polypropylene or something like it; like the material in plastic water buckets. It's soft and will absorb impact very unlike the fiberglass in *any* fiberglass boat. I'm not sure what happens when they stuff a really big wave at any kind of speed, though. Maybe they kind of fold up and collapse and have to be sort of re-inflated by pulling on each end??
posted 10-28-2006 03:24 PM ET (US)
I've got a dive buddy who's had a Triumph for a couple of
years, and it's holding up to Monterey so far.
posted 10-28-2006 03:32 PM ET (US)
I think the Triumph boats are interesting. They are made of plastic, not fiberglass. The plastic is soft/flexible. It will float even if broken into a hundred pieces.
But the boats are sort of strange to ride/drive. They “flex” when you hit any kind of wave. This actually provides for a relatively soft ride. One problem with the design is that the hull doesn’t seem to hold its shape well over time. I’ve seen lots of Triumphs with distorted hulls. I guess they still are functional but they look, once distorted, quiet cheap and damaged.
And yes, I agree, the second commercial (with the hammer) is deceptive and meaningless. Anyone fooled by this kind of marketing deserves to enjoy his or her Triumph.
posted 10-28-2006 08:01 PM ET (US)
Do they really think that nobody will notice the hammer is three times larger and probably accelerated toward the hull which is why thye don't show the "swing".
It is likely that the fiberglass hull of the Whaler because it is supported rigidly by the foam may well punture more easily because it cannot "give" being supported by the foam. Who cares, it is repairable damage and I noticed a hammer mark on that Triumph, now how do they fix that poc whren it is punctured and torn?
posted 10-29-2006 12:28 AM ET (US)
I agree: the hammer does look like it has had weight added to it in the test of the Boston Whaler hull. The hammer strikes right above the wheel. This would be the point of most resistance on the trailer for lateral movement, too.
posted 10-29-2006 01:52 AM ET (US)
Most likely when they swung the hammer with the same weight and method it bounced off of the Whaler without a mark. So, they added weight, picked the most damage prone area of the hull and then swung the crap out the hammer. If they had done that on the Triumph it would have punched right through.
posted 10-29-2006 05:52 PM ET (US)
The deceptive pseudo-testing aside, it's pretty cool that my boat is apparently the gold standard of strength.
I'd really like to see someone take off in the "Bubba" boat after that ride. Maybe head out offshore somewhere for a nice long troll.
posted 10-29-2006 10:28 PM ET (US)
just had to comment on this topic I've had several boston whalers over the last 30 year's along with a dozen or more other boats my first two were total wrecks I paid 75 dollars for a 16 footer and about the same for a 13 repaired both removed saturated foam refilled haul with two part marine foam and repaired numerous dents and holes then added new layer of glass and resin to bottom ,sprayed with automotive finish. Had to make interior for the 16 and was able to refinish interior on 13 used boats for a while then sold them and then bought another 16 about 15 years ago for about 1000 that had bottom damage and saturated foam this boat came with 70 evinrude that was suppose to be in good condition. This boat I took my time and did a nice job repairing also made a really nice center console from fiberglass and resin.The lower unit blew up on my maiden voyage and I bought a new 70 yamaha. What a great boat had it for 15 years along with a Baja that had supercharged premium fuel engines.I used the whaler mostly for diving and fishing and then I saw the triumph boat and somehow thought what a great material to make boats with and almost half the price of a new whaler and bought the 17 center console.Let me say this ,I couldn't get rid of the triumph fast enough,major complaints flexing of the haul kept bringing throttle back from set position,bow heavy when anybody upfront of center console,sides and bottom warped [nornal],cheap aluminum hardware,terrible steering torque[no clutch in steering helm],seat cushions poorly attached and blow out when trailering,higher speeds boat wanted to fall to the left or right,boat numbers and decals peeling off[,dirt and debri gets in the floor seams,more difficult to keep clean than normal finish,thickness of haul construction used up interior space boat very small for 17foot.I had sold my old whaler to a freind and I missed it so much that I sold my baja[just before gasoline went over 1.50 lucky me]and traded the triuph at a huge loss just to get rid of it on a new 170montauk which handles and performs like a dream in comparison and lots of room for a17foot boat.I should say something good about the triuph after all any boat is better than no boat it had a 70 yamaha.
posted 10-30-2006 06:07 AM ET (US)
It's clear that the weight hitting the 170 Montauk is almost twice the size of the one hitting the toy boat. Isn't it illegal making advertising like this?
posted 10-30-2006 01:06 PM ET (US)
Several years ago I was approaching a dock in the Mississippi River down in Venice, LA. The current was very strong. I was coming in too fast when the wake from a passing cargo ship threw the boat into the dock knocking the two front passengers from the cooler seat onto the bow locker. The dock was made of concrete and steel. I was amazed that the boat had very minor damage. The damage was limited to the rubrail and the gelcoat with a little bit of fiberglass missing. These boats are tough. I think that the Triumph's bow would have caved in.
posted 11-07-2006 08:54 PM ET (US)
The first hammer hitting the Triumph is smaller than the one hitting the BW. The second part of the clip where they hit the Triumph 3 times it is the same larger hammer and you can see the impression left by each hit. Not that it matters. I wouldn't want a plastic boat anyway.
posted 11-08-2006 09:08 AM ET (US)
Forget the hammer, they swing the boat in a fast turn with a truck and let it use its own weight and momentum to hit a tree! It is a very convincing commercial. I just wouldn't buy it.
posted 11-08-2006 01:48 PM ET (US)
They drove over a Whaler with a bulldozer. Try that with the Triumph!!!
posted 11-09-2006 09:31 AM ET (US)
I pointed out this video to Brunswick's General Counsel a week ago. He wasn't aware of it, but I'm sure Triumph will be getting a nasty letter shortly. It's just too obvious that both boats were not hit using the same method.
Livingwater, I'd like to see the bulldozer comparative testing done!
posted 11-10-2006 01:37 PM ET (US)
From the first hit, it looks as if the rub rail takes some of the impact away from the side.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.