Production Boats and the Limits - Page 27 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > Out There > Cruising & Liveaboard Forum
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree64Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #261  
Old 02-01-2010
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,162
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
I think one of the problems with production boats being "offshore ready" has a lot to do with the market and pricing. If 99% of the market will not go offshore, and the boat is not sold as an "offshore ready ocean crossing boat" why would the builder... spend the money to make it so. It would price the boat out of its intended market.

Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions.
Let me be a little more specific:

Yes, I agree but one thing is a boat having an offshore capability, another is a boat designed primarily for it.

As you have said, 99% of the boats are never used offshore and even the ones that are used sometimes for that, are used most of the time onshore. Between the optimization for the two uses, there are some design criteria that are contradictory (sailing and living aboard in bad weather or sailing with weak winds and living aboard anchored or in a marina). That means that a production boat will be always a sort of compromise because simply there is not a market big enough for sailing boats designed with the sole purpose of offshore work.

Of course you can have one made; it will be probably a steel one, cutter rigged, heavy (with almost half of its weight in ballast), slow, with few openings, with a relatively small and dark interior, and of course, the bigger the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post

Most boats can go offshore with relatively minor changes and additions.

Things like handholds added, minor rig changes, extra tankage and other changes/additions as required for the individual boat. On the other hand if the bulkheads are not tabbed, furniture is only held in with a few screws, and the companionway opens to the cockpit floor and is a lot wider at the top than the bottom I'd suggest another boat be chosen. A boat like this would require way too much in both dollars and time to make it "offshore ready". Maybe I'm wrong but at the moment I can't think of any mainstream boat in the mid price range that is specifically advertised as an ocean crosser. The basic design has to be compatible with the idea of offshore use, the small non structural things can be modified.

Yes, I agree, but even in what regards compromises on the boats available on the market there is a big difference between several categories of sailboats, regarding seaworthiness and stability. Unfortunately those categories have a close correspondence in price levels.

Seaworthy boats, the ones that are generally called oceangoing boats are more expensive for a number of reasons: They have a Weight/ballast ratio bigger (more final stability) than the ones normally considered as coastal, they are stronger and heavy (they have to be because the extra weight on the ballast generates bigger forces to be distributed on the hull that has to be stronger). Because they are heavier they need to carry more sail and therefore they need bigger winches. They also have hatches and portlights stronger and more expensive.

Because these boats are more expensive and most of the people don’t need what they offer, the demand is limited and they are built in small numbers. Those numbers don’t justify expensive robots on the production line. Most of the work is manual and that contributes heavily to the final cost. As the boats are expensive anyway and only wealthy people can buy them, these manufacturers finish the boats with the level of interior sophistication that appeal to their buyers and, of course, all this costs even more money.

That’s why Najads, Malos, Halberg-Rassys, Moody’s, Southerlies and the like are more expensive. Much more, sometimes more than 2x a similar size mass production boat.

They are 2x more seaworthy? I don´t think so. If you pick a less expensive bigger good mass production boat, properly equipped for the job and compare it with a smaller “called” oceangoing boat, you can end up with a more seaworthy boat.

What’s that difference in size? I would say that the stability of a Malo 37 roughly corresponds to the one of a mass production modern 42ft, as for instance, a Dufour 425. The 42ft will cost about 1/3 less than the 37ft. We are talking about 60 or 70 000 euros and that’s a lot of money, at least for me and the Dufour will be a lot faster.

Sorry about the long post but I would like to say one more thing about what Jeff calls the”performance way” to have an offshore boat.

Most cruiser-racers have better overall stability, better final stability a better weight/Ballast ratio and are stronger than the correspondent cruiser boats from the same brand. I mean, a First against an Oceanis, a Performance line Dufour against a Grand Large Dufour.

As modern boats are very easy to reef (and anyway, if you want you don’t need to carry all the sail) the cruiser-racers are generally more seaworthy than the correspondent boats from the cruiser line. They offer also a much better control of the mainsail (nearer the wheel) and that is important for a solo sailor. If you are a relatively experienced sailor, they are a better choice to go offshore, comparing with the sibling cruisers ( even considering that if you sail them on the limit, they tend to be a lot more nervous than a cruising boat).

]Unfortunately and for the reasons I had explained these boats are more expensive than the cruisers even if the interiors are poorer.

That is ridiculous? Yes, as the name of the lines “Oceanis” and “Grand Large”. Those names imply boats designed primarily for offshore work and certainly that is misguiding, to say the least. Of course, by definition a purely cruising boat should be safer than a cruiser-racer that supposedly is meant to be sailed with a full crew.

That’s a distortion of the market that has to do with all that has been said and has to do with the use the vast majority of buyers give to their boats, and with PRICE, not to mention marketing.

But not all the boat manufacturers misguide their clients. If you have a look at the line of x-yachts you are going to see that their cruisers, compared with their cruiser-racers have a bigger Weight/Ballast ratio, a better overall and final stability. In a word they are more seaworthy, but also a lot more expensive than their cruiser-racers (that are already among the more seaworthy).

I have seen last weekend at the Dussoldorf Messe the new Xc-42. What a boat!!! If I had the money I would not hesitate. But I don’t and I believe not many would have the 450 or 500 000 euros that are needed to have that boat. But if you dream higher than me, you can pic the Xc-45. That one is more seaworthy

[URL="http://www.x-yachts.com/seeems/40086.asp[/URL]

X-yachts is a Danish medium production boat builder, the boats are very well made but not with the luxury touch you find on the Najads or Rassys. I believe that price is the price that you have to pay for an almost perfect fast bluewater cruiser and that´s why there are so few on the market and that’s why me and the other less fortunate sailors have to look to mass production boats and to their compromises to afford a boat with offshore capability.

Regards

Paulo

Last edited by PCP; 02-01-2010 at 06:57 PM. Reason: stupid smiles
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #262  
Old 02-01-2010
mitiempo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 7,054
Thanks: 0
Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts
Rep Power: 7
mitiempo will become famous soon enough mitiempo will become famous soon enough
Paulo

I think first you have to define offshore. Offshore from Newport to Bermuda or Miami to the Caribbean. Or offshore from Newport to the UK or from Los Angeles to the the Tahiti. Or around the three Capes. I don't believe any but custom boats and the most expensive semi-custom would be said by their builders to be built for the three Capes.

All boats are a compromise unless built for a specific voyage. All cruisers spend more time in port or alongshore than truly offshore so living space is needed by all. So in this respect all designs have to compromise between offshore use and acommodation. The sole design criteria of offshore use really doesn't exist I don't think.

Your mention of a steel boat with 50% ballast/disp ratio won't exist unless it's pretty large.

Ballast is rarely 50% of the displacement except on a racing boat with a stripped out interior. Form stability is a good portion of the righting ability on any but the very narrow UK designs of 50 years ago. Most wholesome cruisers, for offshore or not, have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40%. Here's a link to a custom aluminum offshore cruiser with a ratio of about 37%.
infidien'sspecifications,equipmentandinf (infidien)
Steve Dashew's Sundeer 60 design has a ballast/disp ratio of only 30% and was definitely designed for offshore use. And it is not a beamy boat either.

Most boats designed for offshore or inshore use have a point of vanishing stability of about 115 to 120 degrees unless an extreme design.
I think most non extreme boats in Europe would be in this category. I think they would have to be to receive the EU offshore approval.

I think it comes down to build quality and equipment unless the boat is designed to be a dock queen primarily.

As far as mainsail control near the wheel, ease of reefing, setting of storm sails, anchoring etc these are the kind of things many owners change or modify before sailing offshore.

But no the teak decks and luxury of the Scandinavian boats (HR, Malo et all) and others is certainly not a necessary part of "offshore ready" but it certainly adds to the price.
__________________
Brian
Living aboard in Victoria Harbour
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #263  
Old 02-02-2010
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,162
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
Paulo
Your mention of a steel boat with 50% ballast/disp ratio won't exist unless it's pretty large. Ballast is rarely 50% of the displacement except on a racing boat with a stripped out interior. Form stability is a good portion of the righting ability on any but the very narrow UK designs of 50 years ago.
Brian,
Not exactly. What I have said was: “..heavy (with almost half of its weight in ballast)..”.
When I said almost half I meant over 40% and less than 50%, but there are some small steel bluewater boats with more than 50% Ballast and certainly a lot of them with more than 40%.

Take a look at the picture. It’s a design from Dick Koopmans, one of the most prominent Dutch naval architects, specialized in very seaworthy bluewater boats, normally in steel or aluminum. This one has a 11.4 T displacement and has a 6T ballast.

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...rvalho/240.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
Form stability is a good portion of the righting ability on any but the very narrow UK designs of 50 years ago.
Yes, but form stability gives mainly initial stability and serves nothing in what regards final stability (also called reserve stability). That is, if you have your boat heeled at 90 or 100 degrees, form stability doesn’t exist anymore. The only righting force is provided by the ballast.

Bluewater boats can be heeled by breaking waves in storms and therefore, for safety measure, they should have more reserve stability and that means also, more ballast or a deeper one.

Form stability gives you power to carry sail, but unfortunately that same form stability will translate itself in inverted stability, if the boat is capsized. That inverted stability will make it difficult to right up the boat again. The only way to diminish that inverted stability is (again) with a low center of gravity and that is obtained with ballast or with a deep keel. In what regards cruising, the depth of the keel is limited by cruising needs, so it will have to be ballast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
Most wholesome cruisers, for offshore or not, have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40%.……Most boats designed for offshore …. use have a point of vanishing stability of about 115 to 120 degrees unless an extreme design. I think most non extreme boats in Europe would be in this category.
Here I don´t follow you.
I certainly agree that a good bluewater boat (I am talking of a relatively small boat, mainstream design) should have at least a Ballast/displ. ratio of 30%. I would say that in my opinion 33% instead of 30% is a more adequate number for a lower limit. And if we are really talking about an ideal passage maker, closer to 40% would be better.
But a mainstream sail boat with 35% ballast (about 2m draft) will have an AVS of around 130. You say that such a boat is an extreme boat and I don’t agree.

All boats that I have considered (in the previous post) as generally addressed as oceangoing sailboats (Malos, Najad, Moody, Southerlies) have an AVS around 130 degrees (or bigger).

Many mainstream cruiser-racers (with a displ/ Ballast ratio of around 33% and around 2 M draft) have an AVS between 120 and 135 and they are not certainly extreme boats.

Between 110 to 120 degrees of AVS, ( with 26 to 30% Disp/Ballast ratio and 2M draft) you will find the so called “cruisers”, the Oceanis line, the Bavarias, the Jeanneaus and the Dufour Grand Large line.

By the way, talking about misinformation, “Grand Large” in French means Bluewater, in what regards boats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
But no the teak decks and luxury of the Scandinavian boats (HR, Malo et all) and others is certainly not a necessary part of "offshore ready" but it certainly adds to the price.
Teak decks are extras on those boats. If you don’t want them you don’t pay them. The very good quality of the interior is however standard and I am afraid you have to pay for that


Finally I would like to say that not mentioning American boats is not any form of depreciation. I would not mind to have a 43ft Tartan or a Morris 45, but simply I don’t know American boats as well as European boats...and I prefer not to talk if I don’t know enough, and that’s the case.

Regards

Paulo

Last edited by PCP; 02-02-2010 at 05:12 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #264  
Old 02-02-2010
mitiempo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 7,054
Thanks: 0
Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts
Rep Power: 7
mitiempo will become famous soon enough mitiempo will become famous soon enough
Paulo
Either you misunderstood or I didn't explain it properly. What I should have said was that most wholesome cruisers, offshore or not, would have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40% or slightly higher. Most boats designed for offshore have a point of vanishing stability of 115 to 120 degrees or higher. I think all except the more extreme designs will have numbers like the above. I don't think you will find many boats with a cruising interior and gear that have a 50% ballast/disp ratio.
As far as a steel boat having a large ballast/disp ratio there aren't too many I don't think, at least among the more moderate displacement boats. Van De Stadt's Samoa design, which has proven popular with several offshore cruising couples, has a ballast/disp ratio of 37% in aluminum and is the same in fiberglass. But the steel version has a ratio of only 28% and less weight of ballast as the steel hull's weight is such a handicap. Weight is only good if it's in the correct place and the hull is not the place. Most of the Hallberg Rassy and Malo boats I looked at are 37 to 38% with the Morris 38 at 41% and the X 40 at 43%.
For a custom boat I would certainly look at aluminum for it's strength, ease of maintenance and durability but not steel both for its increased upkeep and weight penalty in most cases.
__________________
Brian
Living aboard in Victoria Harbour
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #265  
Old 02-02-2010
smackdaddy's Avatar
Last Man Standing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,996
Thanks: 81
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Rep Power: 9
smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough
I just want to say that the conversation you guys are having is great. I'm learning a ton. Seriously great stuff.

Now - back to ripping each other's throats out. (I'm joking of course.)
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/V Dawn Treader - 1989 Hunter Legend 40

Last edited by smackdaddy; 02-02-2010 at 07:14 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #266  
Old 02-06-2010
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,162
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Now - back to ripping each other's throats out. ...
Fat chance

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
Either you misunderstood or I didn't explain it properly. What I should have said was that most wholesome cruisers, offshore or not, would have ballast/disp ratios between 30 and 40% or slightly higher. Most boats designed for offshore have a point of vanishing stability of 115 to 120 degrees or higher. I think all except the more extreme designs will have numbers like the above. I don't think you will find many boats with a cruising interior and gear that have a 50% ballast/disp ratio.
Brian,

Probably I have misunderstood you because you have said between 115 and 120, when obviously you wanted to say 115 and 120 or higher, as you have clarified.

Anyway, if a boat is designed for offshore, the 115 AVS seems to me too low. That’s true that a boat with a 115 AVS (if the rest of the criteria are met) can be CE certified as a class A boat (Offshore) but if such a boat is capsized by a wave, the probability is that it will take several minutes to be righted by a suitable sized wave.

You have also to consider that if you mount a radar on the mast and have a furling one, that AVS will drop significantly and that will worsen the time needed to re-right the boat and can also lead to a difficult recovery of a simple 90 degree crash.

But I agree with you that, unfortunately (in my opinion), there are a lot of boats certified as Class A with an AVS lower than 115 and many with an AVS of around 115.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post

As far as a steel boat having a large ballast/disp ratio there aren't too many I don't think, at least among the more moderate displacement boats. Van De Stadt's Samoa design, which has proven popular with several offshore cruising couples, has a ballast/disp ratio of 37% in aluminum and is the same in fiberglass. But the steel version has a ratio of only 28% and less weight of ballast as the steel hull's weight is such a handicap. Weight is only good if it's in the correct place and the hull is not the place. Most of the Hallberg Rassy and Malo boats I looked at are 37 to 38% with the Morris 38 at 41% and the X 40 at 43%.
For a custom boat I would certainly look at aluminum for it's strength, ease of maintenance and durability but not steel both for its increased upkeep and weight penalty in most cases.
About this, it seems to me that this time it is you that have misunderstood me, or perhaps I was not clear enough.

What you say about the Rassy, Malo and Morris Ballast/Displ confirms what I have said on the previous post.

Regarding the Steel boat versus an Aluminum boat, I was talking about a boat made exclusively for offshore use, maximizing seaworthiness over all other criteria. I agree there are not too many like that.

If you have a custom designed boat (same design) made in steel and Aluminum, both with the same Ballast/displacement ratio you will have two boats with a close GZ curve, a similar AVS but the Steel one will be more seaworthy (more stability) simply because the RM curve will be a lot bigger.

It will be bigger because the steel boat will have a considerable bigger displacement and RM=GZXDispl. As the energy needed to capsize the boat equals the area under the positive part of the RM curve, it will be necessary a lot more energy (bigger wave) to capsize the Steel one.

Of course such a boat will be a heavy and slow one. That’s why on Samoa design Van De Stadt has opted by a smaller Ballast/Displ on the steel one. Probably that way the energy required to capsize both versions will be about the same, but in that case the Aluminum version will have a better final stability, because the AVS will be a lot better (better overall GZ curve).

Personally, as speed is an important criterion for me, like you, I would prefer an aluminum one over a steel one. I have posted on other thread a photo of a boat that I have started to design (taking as base a Dick Zall design) to be my next boat. It’s an aluminum one:

Your perfect boat?

But there are sailors to whom speed is not really important and max seaworthiness and resistance to impact are the decisive criteria and, for those, a steel boat would be the natural choice for the perfect offshore boat (meaning by offshore boat a boat that is designed to be used mostly offshore, a passage maker).

Regards

Paulo

Last edited by PCP; 02-07-2010 at 04:46 PM. Reason: stupid smiles
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #267  
Old 04-28-2011
smackdaddy's Avatar
Last Man Standing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,996
Thanks: 81
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Rep Power: 9
smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough
Interesting...Hunters might not suck after all! Seriously, this is a great article I ran across on another forum:

HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A

An excerpt:

Quote:
CWBB: It has been pointed out that Hunter has received the highest level of the EU's new seaworthiness ratings. This rating category indicates that the vessel is designed to withstand conditions of approximately 40 knot. winds and 12-foot seas. Hunter's ads, however seem to suggest that the rating implies that the boats are designed to take anything that they might encounter in open ocean cruising. Are Hunters designed for the kind of conditions they might encounter in some of the nastier areas of the world, such as the major Capes or a North Atlantic passage?

JB: All current Hunter boats 34' and larger built for European delivery are certified by IMCI to be in compliance with the relevant parts of the Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/CE. The CE mark means that the craft meets or exceeds all current standards and directives of the International Organization for Standardization in effect at the time of construction. All Hunters 34' and larger comply with the CE A design category. Those built for US delivery would have to have a serial number change that is not accepted by the US Coast Guard documentation service and lack various safety placards, stove shielding, and VHF radio specs required by the IMCI. Otherwise the construction is identical. The specific language used by the IMCI is: "Category A Ocean: Craft designed for extended voyages where conditions experienced may exceed wind force 8 and include significant wave heights of 4m, for vessels that are largely self sufficient." The key you're missing is the word "exceed." Yes, we believe the boats capable of rounding the major capes and of North Atlantic passage; several have. All our boats delivered over the past 5-6 years to our Cape Town South Africa dealer have been on their own bottoms. The skill of the captain and crew, proper preparation, appropriate safety equipment are of course essential to safe sailing and are not included when the boat leaves our plant but can be added.
Rounding a Horn ain't so bad.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/V Dawn Treader - 1989 Hunter Legend 40
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #268  
Old 04-28-2011
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,162
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Going back to the subject of the thread: Production boats and the limits


Name of the boat: Perithia, 2002 Bavaria 44

Bought by Katrin and Uwe, two years ago, used and standard in Corfu after 7 years of charter service.

Now, 22 months later they have circumnavigated, made the Northwest passage, explored Greenland and Alaska and are back to Greece after making 38 000nm.

How about that for an old mass production charter boat

Perithia - The story about a world trip with a sailing ship along the Amundsen-Route (north-west)

Regards

Paulo
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #269  
Old 04-28-2011
smackdaddy's Avatar
Last Man Standing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,996
Thanks: 81
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Rep Power: 9
smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough
Now that's impressive:



Gotta love those super-stout charter boats.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/V Dawn Treader - 1989 Hunter Legend 40
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #270  
Old 04-28-2011
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,559
Thanks: 5
Thanked 92 Times in 69 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
The Hunter interviews.

That is amazing....The endless lifespan of the Internet never ceases to floor me. I compiled, re-wrote the questions, conducted and edited that series of interviews and discussions almost 12 years ago, and the amazing part is that it still exists on-line.

The one thing that does not appear in your quote and I did not see on the webpage was the discussion about the purpose of Hunters. The jist of that discussion was that Hunter was targeting the budget oriented, coastal cruising marketplace. That should come as no surprise. As a result, where compromises were required they were biased toward that goal rather than offshore capabilities. The compromises are in areas that are not covered by ABYC or the CE ratings such as interior layouts, hand holds and footholds.

Signed,
Shaking my head in Annapolis....

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Interesting...Hunters might not suck after all! Seriously, this is a great article I ran across on another forum:

HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A

An excerpt:



Rounding a Horn ain't so bad.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay and part-time purveyor of marine supplies
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:01 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.