Potter hulls?

[yankee]

1st Let me express my admiration for the 23' Seacraft and say some of my best days have been spent frshing from these boats.

I have a very pointed question towards the bias for Potter built hulls.

It appears that often stringers, transoms and cored parts need to be replaced in both Potter and later built hulls. If I were going to restore or purchase a restored Seacraft that involved such major structurial repairs, is a Potter hull any better than say a Tracker built boat. It would seem with a restoration that involved such a major repair the original design would remain, but the quality differences between the years would be erased. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Thanks
J

[RS]

It appears that often stringers, transoms and cored parts need to be replaced in both Potter and later built hulls.

I don't think that is true. Transoms, yes; sometimes floors or areas of floors; rarely stringers on Potter boats. Of all three, stringers are the most expensive to replace.

[Doghouse4x4]

I'm sure I'll get grief for this, but I can say as an owner of an 87 hull, that it's as well built as any Seacraft I've ever been on. Even though it's ex owner let the thing sink in a hurricane, it has absolutely zero soft spots or water damage anywhere. I do not know anything about the new ones other that what's been said on here, which is not generally good to say the least, but I've been on more 70's and 80's hulls than I can remember, and what it boils down to IMHO is hardware and finish issues are really what set the Potter boats ahead. They have a level of care not seen in the Tracker boats, but structurally, I'd put mine up against any. Anyhoo, just my 2 pennies

[Capt Chuck]

and what it boils down to IMHO is hardware and finish issues are really what set the Potter boats ahead. They have a level of care not seen in the Tracker boats, but structurally, I'd put mine up against any.

I'm not trying to start another "Old vs New" bashing thread, although, I would have to agree that the fit and finish on the Potter hulls is plain to see. It's what you CAN'T see that scares the sheet out of me [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Doghouse, you might have a structually sound hull that was produced by Tracker but the problem here is consistency. Unlike the Potter builts, you never know what your going to see when you open up a Tracker hull----> "Was it built right or not"
Riding around on several SeaCrafts will not provide you with a blueprint of it's craftmanship

[Doghouse4x4]

I agree totally that consistency is definitely a fault with Tracker, but I can tell you with all certainty that 80's tracker hulls were built totally different than the current ones.. I 've been inside two potter hulls and three tracker hulls( 2 86's and a 84) and have yet to find an appreciable difference.

[ScottM]

three tracker hulls( 2 86's and a 84)

Actually, those years fell under SeaCraft Industries, not Tracker. Tracker began producing in '87.

[Scott]

I'm not trying to start another "Old vs New" bashing thread....

sure you're not [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[BA17]

"Can't we all just get along?"

BA

[Doghouse4x4]

I vote we all get along! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]Seriously though, I think all owners of Potter boats should be proud of what they have, cause they're great boats. I think that 80's hulls are good too, just through personal experience. My understanding is that seacraft industries was a tracker subsiderary, that was absorbed into tracker in july of 87. any clarification by more knowlegdable people would be greatly appreciated!

[Finster]

Pretty funny, the crappy Tracker reputation is even found here in Finland....Go figure. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Cheers guys. I'll be back next week and catch up on all this stuff.