Full or fin keel? - Page 51 - 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 Tree241Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #501  
Old 10-02-2012
fallard's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mystic
Posts: 901
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Rep Power: 6
fallard is on a distinguished road
Re: Full or fin keel?

BryceGTX must have missed my point. We all make tradeoffs to suit our needs. The cabin layout and storage space of our Clearwater 35 is less than that of an IP 35/350 (and many other 35 footers) but it is not "extremely" restrictive. Unless you needed the shoal draft, you would likely pass it over for a boat with a more conventional layout. We wish we didn't get shoal draft at the expense of interior space, but that's life. We--that includes my wife--like our boat overall and after 16 years aren't about to trade it in.

Having the boat at our shallow water dock about 150' from my front door is a lot more convenient and a lot less expensive than keeping it at a marina. The reality is that there is limited choice in ocean-capable boats that can come to our dock at a normal low tide (2.5' @ MLW). The Shannon Shoalsailer, the smaller Southerlies, the Seawards might get to our dock most of the time, or maybe some of the smaller catamarans. But, since we get to see our boat every day in season, looks matter. The Clearwater 35 is arguably one of the prettiest shoal draft boats in this size range and that matters to us

Comparing the Clearwater to an IP is apples and oranges. A clear differentiator between our boat and an IP--other than the interior space--is sailing performance. My Clearwater 35, as with most well-designed fin keel boats in this size category, will outpoint the IPs. Coming home to Mystic from Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, Cuttyhunk, or Newport, this is the difference between sailing and motoring. This is very important to us--particularly my wife, who hates to motor.

Another factor is that anchorages are bigger when your boat can float in 2' of water. Cuttyhunk is one example, where the shallow end of the rental pilings is 4' at low water. Also, there are Cuttyhunk town slips with less than 4' that are the last to be taken on a busy weekend. And don't forget the increased opportunity for gunkholing, like in Hadley's Harbor.

I've seen my share of high winds, but unless we are talking off the wind, I'll stick with my Clearwater, which is much easier to control than the IPs I've sailed. I attribute this to the keel/rudder configurations--with the fin keel providing more responsiveness when needed. When it come to safety below in a seaway, the more confined space in my Clearwater becomes an advantage. When it comes to tropical storm weather, you won't get me out there on any boat, including the Mirabella V.
chef2sail and SeaQuinn like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #502  
Old 10-02-2012
chucklesR's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pasadena Md - Magothy side
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 10
Thanked 31 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 10
chucklesR is a jewel in the rough chucklesR is a jewel in the rough chucklesR is a jewel in the rough
Re: Full or fin keel?

So,

What's the deal with the 'high performance wing keel' on the late 80's Irwin's ?

Is it possible to have a high performance shape in a 3 foot stub with wings?
__________________
Lessons learned are opportunities earned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #503  
Old 10-02-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Oregonian is on a distinguished road
Re: Full or fin keel?

Quote from BLT2SKI

Quote:
"My wife would also prefer one a bit less cramped than what we have. BUT, even a full keeler would not have a lot more room. I was on boar an Eric jr awhile back. Half the room of my boat, with the same length etc. Not sure it would do any better in a blow either."

Eric Jr. LOA= 25'2"; Beam= 7'7"; Draft= 4'

Jeanneau 30 LOA= 29'6"; Beam= 10'5"; Draft= 5'6"

Last edited by Oregonian; 10-07-2012 at 10:52 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #504  
Old 10-02-2012
fallard's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mystic
Posts: 901
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Rep Power: 6
fallard is on a distinguished road
Re: Full or fin keel?

To ChucklesR question about a late 80's 3ft' stub keel with a wing: First of all, the Australians created quite a stir with their wing keel in the America's Cup in the 80's and it seemed to create a marketing angle for some boatbuilders. There obviously was some merit, but there are several factors at play when translated to the recreational market.

First of all, the wing keel provides an end plate for the primary keel to reduce tip vortices--for the same reason you see winglets on the later versions of commercial jets--to reduce drag. Also, adding the wing shape produces a fatter (i.e., heavier) "bulb" to provide more of a righting moment for a given keel length.

That said, you may notice that the more efficient racing keels are like glider wings: deep, high aspect foils. The downside is the deep draft required to pursue this approach.

But, getting back to ChucklesR's Irwin, it's all about a real world compromise. A short stub keel is not going to provide the lift of a longer, high aspect foil, but, by adding the wing (for added ballast) it can offer reduced draft.

Oh, by the way, a full keel is the antithesis of an efficient, high aspect keel, for those who care to think about keel compromises. You might look to aircraft design for a reference point. The only aircraft I can think of with low aspect wings are "wing-in-ground" (WIG) craft, like the one built by Merrifield Roberts in Rhode Island about 20 years ago or the huge, "Caspian Sea Monsters" built by the Soviets several decades ago. That said, I am not a hydrodynamicist or naval architect/boatbuilder, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #505  
Old 10-03-2012
VK540's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Blind River Ontario, Canada
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 4
VK540 is on a distinguished road
Re: Full or fin keel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
I do think that there is something wrong with his statement beyond being incomplete and that you are mistaken when you say that "the rotation of the water in a wave causes the full keel boat to heel toward the wave rather than heel with the wave as with other keel designs."

Perhaps I can explain the basis of my comments and we might be able to reach agreement.

I will start with the first quote by Pvajko:
"The most important reason is that a full keel with its bigger surface area damps the rolling motion better."

Here is the problem with that statement, dampening (the ability of a boat to dynamically to resist rotational motion) is directly proportional to a moment of inertia the amount of which results from the resistive force of the rotation and the distance that resistive force is from the instanteous rotational axis. In calculating a dampening moment, the force is a linear factor, but distance from the center of that force to the instanteous rotational axis is to the third power.

So that when you talk about the amount of dampening moment generated by a specific keel or keel type, the amount of area of the keel is a certainly significant factor, but the distance between the center of its rotational resistance and the instanteous rotational axis can be even more significant.

So, if we talk about the fin keels in the era when 'Seaworthiness' was written, these keels had perhaps a quarter of the surface area of a full keel on a similar length boat (and here I am not talking about the boats with long overhangs, an extreme cut away forefoot and raked rudder posts which had little more area than fin keels with separate rudders).

In the era that Marchaj wrote his book, between the shape of the fin keel, and the vertical height of the instanteous roll axis on fin keel boats of that era, the distance between the center of its rotational resistance and the instanteous roll axis was similar between a fin keel boat and a full keel boat and so the greater area of a full keel meant that there was significantly more dampening generated which is what Marchaj concludes.

But in the years since, several things have changed. Modern fin keel boat have greater draft, and differently shaped keels so that a greater portion of their area is deeper in the water, and their hull forms are such that their roll centers are slightly higher. That combination means that there can easily be a several time greater lever arm between the center of rotational resistance and the instanteous roll axis. So if we think that a modern keel has perhaps 20% of the area of a full keel but 2 or 3 times greater lever arm taken to the third power (in other words something like 8 to 27 times more leverage) it is easy to see that a modern fin keel boat could easily develop much higher dampening moments and so have better dampening than a full keel boat, making Pvajko statement incorrect that "The most important reason is that a full keel with its bigger surface area damps the rolling motion better."


In terms of Pvajko statement: "While a fin keel performs much better in ideal conditions (flat water), stormy weather with big seas is a whole different story."

I might agree with you that this is in part a true statement. All keels generate more lift in flat water than they do in disturbed conditions, but since fin keels tend to stall out much more quickly than longer chord keels, they lose a larger percentage of their lift, in other words, "stormy weather with big seas is a whole different story" for all keels but especially for fin keels.

But here is where that statement is misleading, in the years since 'Seaworthiness' the better modern fin keel shapes and corss sections have been developed to perform across broader range of conditions while losing a smaller percentage of their performance advantage. The impact of better dampening, the endplate effect of the bulb, foil shapes which more quickly establish flow and respond to it, means that fin keel boats may lose some small amount of their advantage over full keels in heavy going, depending on the course relative to the waves(i.e.beating upwind), but the modern fin keels still retain a significant performance and motion comfort advantage over a traditional full keel of similar length and displacement.

This last sentence is where it gets tough to make an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. In a broad general sense, full keeled boats tend to be heavier for their length (I know this is a ‘duh statement) and have different hull forms than most modern fin keel boat. Because of that disparity it is easy to ascribe attributes to a full or fin keel which have nothing to do with the keel type and everything to do with the boat’s design as a system. But even taking that into account, the statement seems to imply that a boat with a full keel will out perform a fin keel boat in heavy conditions, and while that may be true for some fin keels vs. full keels, it is not a universally accurate statement.

Regarding your statement: “It has been well documented in 100 year old yacht design books that full keels have the advantage in big water because the rotation of the water in the wave causes the full keel boat to heel toward the wave rather than heel with the wave as with other keel designs.”

I personally don’t know of any 100 year old yacht design book that says anything like that, but when I go back and look at my earliest copy of Skene’s and Kunhardt, I find no reference of the sort so it might be helpful if you could provide a source for that. But even so, the idea that full keels heel toward a wave while fin keels rolls away flies in the face of what is known about the motion of boats in big waves.

What the science would suggest is that there are a number of factors which determine whether a boat heels into a big wave or away from the wave. First of all there is the rotational force. If you dissect the surface of a large wave, the water at the surface is moving faster than the water deeper in the wave nearer to the wave center. This progressive difference in speed between the surface and the center of the wave, means that the deeper the keel, the greater the sheer in the water speed acting on the boat trying to rotate the boat so that it heels away from the surface of the wave. Similarly, a keel with a greater side area will experience greater rotational force and so will have a greater tendency to heel away from the surface of the wave. But also, fin keels stall at very steep angles of attack, as might be experienced beam to on the side of big wave, thereby reducing the side force per unit area that the deeper keel may experience. This combination of factors means that in any specific case, either a fin keel or a full keel could experience the greater rotational force.

Resisting the roll force are stability and the roll moment of inertia. In the case of the fin keel vs. full keel discussion, modern fin keels, with their deeper drafts and densely concentrated ballast bulbs, generally generate much higher proportional stability than full keels. That was not the case at the time when ‘Seaworthiness’ was written but since modern designers have paid attention to the lessons of seaworthiness, and modern racing rules do not penalize stability as much as they did back then, it is true on the better modern fin keeled designs of today.

This greater stability means that a modern design would generate proportionately greater force to keep them upright and therefore greater force trying to heel the deck back toward the wave face.

The other factor, roll moment of inertia is similar to the discussion on dampening. The two factors impacting the amount of roll moment of inertia is weight and the distance between that weight and the instantaneous roll axis. While modern fin keeled boats tend to be lighter, they also tend to be deeper and taller so that due to their weigh distributions, they develop a disproportionately large roll moments of inertia.

In big waves, a large roll moment of inertia does two things, at the top of the wave, it delays the rotation of the boat relative to the rotational force. A good thing, but at the bottom of the wave, its greater stored kinetic energy, tends to cause it to get out of phase with angle of the wave face and continue to roll as the bottom of the wave flattens out so that there is a greater danger of dipping a spar in the water (never a good thing).

But to look at your statement fairly, we might also look at factors that have nothing to do with keel type. Modern designs tend to have greater form stability. Greater form stability tries to keep the waterline of the boat parallel to the wave face. At the top and middle of the wave, that would tend to roll the deck of the boat away from the face of the wave, the behavior that you describe in your quote. But that has nothing to do with the keel type. Two boats of equal form stability, similar draft and ballast stability, and roll moment of inertia would have the same angle of heel whether the boat had a full or fin keel.

And lastly, at the bottom of the wave, the boat with greater form stability would generate more righting force, remaining in sync with the wave surface and so would be less likely to dip a deck or spar and keep rolling.

What all of this suggests is that the specifics of the boat design and the conditions will determine whether it heels relative to the wave surface, but that the use of a fin keel or full keel is but one minor factor.



Strictly speaking that is not always or even usually correct as it is written. While it is easier to keep the weight lower in a longer keel of an equal draft. But modern fin keels generally are deeper and have a bulb which makes it easier for them to carry their ballast with its vertical center lower than most full keels. But also there are a lot of factors that make a boat ‘forgiving’. A modern fin keel boats relatively greater stability, lighter helm loads, more forgiving rig and sail handling gear, and more easily driven hull form might work in its favor ‘forgivingness’ wise. The typically better directional stability and lower vertical center of effort work in the favor of a typical full keel boats ‘forgivingness’.

Respectfully,
Jeff
Holy WOW! I hope Smack takes some of Jeff's posts and slips them over to the "Old Salts" thread from this post!
__________________
"BLISS II"
1977 38 foot C&C Mark 1
Hull #92
Sailing the Exuma Islands, Bahamas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #506  
Old 10-03-2012
skygazer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: western Maine
Posts: 389
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Rep Power: 4
skygazer is on a distinguished road
Re: Full or fin keel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
........And lastly, at the bottom of the wave, the boat with greater form stability would generate more righting force, remaining in sync with the wave surface and so would be less likely to dip a deck or spar and keep rolling.

What all of this suggests is that the specifics of the boat design and the conditions will determine whether it heels relative to the wave surface, but that the use of a fin keel or full keel is but one minor factor.........

Respectfully,
Jeff
I always enjoy Jeff's informative and thought provoking discussions.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the modern boat remains in sync with the wave surface by generating more righting force (due to it's flatter wider shape). The greater righting force is also generating more rapid and continuous (rotational) acceleration. This greater acceleration would be more exhausting to the human occupants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #507  
Old 10-03-2012
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,682
Thanks: 5
Thanked 105 Times in 81 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
Re: Full or fin keel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skygazer View Post
I always enjoy Jeff's informative and thought provoking discussions.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the modern boat remains in sync with the wave surface by generating more righting force (due to it's flatter wider shape). The greater righting force is also generating more rapid and continuous (rotational) acceleration. This greater acceleration would be more exhausting to the human occupants.
First of all thank you for the kind words. To address your comment, to some extent you are correct that that a boat with greater form stability will stay in sync with the wave face, and in some conditions will be less comfortable and tiring for the occupants. But the the reality of whether the boat is more comfortable to the occupant is also dependent on other factors.

So for example, depending on wave size, steepness and frequency, on the boat with less form stability, the delay in the change in direction may be such that the boat actually continues moving past the point the wave shape changes at the crest or trough. In those conditions, being out of sync. the boat experiences a harder impact with the wave surface and so actually experiences a harsher deacceleration than the boat with more form stability, and so can be harder on the occupants.

Mitigating against the harshness of the motion, dampening from the keel and rig can greatly improve rotational motion comfort, slowing changes in direction without adding the kind of inertia, which tends to make the boat more dramatically over shoot the wave face and so experience grater impact forces.

And this is where the specifics of the design come into play. Too much form stability and the boat will throw its occupants around mercilessly. Too little form stability and the boat will roll and pitch the occupants to death. Which is why I personally advocate a more moderate design philosophy than seems to be the case with the more extreme current design practices.

Coming back to the Full keel vs Fin topic, this another area where the specifics of the design come into play. A full keel would tend to have a comparatively large area which helps to increase dampening force thereby slowing roll rates, but full keels a shallower draft which works against creating as large a dampening moment. So depending on the design, a deep fin, although generating less sideforce, may in fact generate an equal or greater dampening force.

Jeff
__________________

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #508  
Old 10-03-2012
chucklesR's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pasadena Md - Magothy side
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 10
Thanked 31 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 10
chucklesR is a jewel in the rough chucklesR is a jewel in the rough chucklesR is a jewel in the rough
Re: Full or fin keel?

Ted Brewer's Motion Comfort Ratio might be germane:
MCR = Disp / (2/3*((7/10 * LWL)+(1/3 *LOA))*Beam4/3 )

Now for me that's a little too much math so I go here The roll acceleration: What´s the best for crossing oceans? - Boat Design Forums
and look up a boat. Unfortunately mine is not listed.


Note the formula does not take in keel shape at all - a surprising lack considering the effect of lift and weight, moment arms and all that other 'stuff' that has kept this thread growing.
Of course it also shows Brewer designs as being seriously comfortable.

I also can't see where LOA comes in - my bow spit adds nothing to comfort - that should be LO deck.
__________________
Lessons learned are opportunities earned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #509  
Old 10-03-2012
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,682
Thanks: 5
Thanked 105 Times in 81 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
Re: Full or fin keel?

(I apologize in advance for the cut and paste of something I wrote a long time ago)

The Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index tells almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on these surrogate forumlas for real information borders on the dangerous.

Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such critical factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize.

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth.

And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.

There are some better indicators of a vessel’s likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the ‘AVS’, ‘limit of positive stability’, ‘LPS’, or ‘Latent Stability Angle’ ):
Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 )
Where;
BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )
HD: Hull Draft
DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula:
Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168
The Beam and Hull Draft in this formula are in meters. These values are entered in feet on the webpage and are converted to meters before SSV calculation.
Angle of Vanishing Stability approximately equals 110 + ( 400 / (SSV-10) )

There is a convenient calculator at http://www.sailingusa.info/formula.htm

It should be noted that the AVS is only one indicator in evaluating the likelihood of capsize, meaning it only predicts the point at which the vessel wants to turn turtle. It does not predict the amount of force that would be required to heel the vessel to that limit, nor does it predict how the shape of the boat might encourage wave action to roll the boat closer to the angle at which it no longer wants to return.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #510  
Old 10-03-2012
chucklesR's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pasadena Md - Magothy side
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 10
Thanked 31 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 10
chucklesR is a jewel in the rough chucklesR is a jewel in the rough chucklesR is a jewel in the rough
Re: Full or fin keel?

Quote:
The Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index tells almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on these surrogate forumlas for real information borders on the dangerous.
I agree 100%

On the AVS - you still need to add righting moment curves, accurate displacement and center of gravity.
It's still a best quesstimate.

My big bulwark, fully enclosed center cockpit, thin (12.3 beam on a 38ft) 4.5 foot draft, Low density (lead pigs in slurry) stubby ballast should roll over if I stand on a rail. Especially considering the 300 feet of chain and 45 pound anchor, Dinghy on the davits and other weight high up (my big head) etc..
I think adding on a couple square yards of solar panels should do it.

Unfortunately the link doesn't work.
__________________
Lessons learned are opportunities earned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
Reply

Tags
boat buying , newbee advice

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full Keel Vs. Fin or Modified Full Keel AjariBonten Sailboat Design and Construction 51 11-16-2013 03:52 AM
Full Keel vs. Wing Keel small boats Kyhillbilly General Discussion (sailing related) 4 07-26-2011 12:51 PM
4 ft draft, full keel, 30' and over? birdlives Boat Review and Purchase Forum 6 09-18-2010 12:00 AM
Older Full Keel boats JerryO39 General Discussion (sailing related) 30 06-09-2010 10:06 AM
Bristol 32'' full keel johnblsc Boat Review and Purchase Forum 2 12-13-2002 06:37 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 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.