High Tech vs traditional-Comments? - 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 > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related)
 Not a Member? 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-17-2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 114
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 14
Pangaea is on a distinguished road
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

Anybody care to comment on high tech vs early construction methods?

Dennis
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #2  
Old 04-18-2002
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
davidk is on a distinguished road
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

It might not be everybody''s cup of tea but we have just launched our second new classic shape wooden yacht built by craftsman using traditional skills and techniques except for all the fastenings and coatings. Essentially every face is covered with epoxy and every joint is glued with epoxy (usually as well as bolts, screws etc.). Even the teak decks are ''caulked'' with epoxy impregnated with graphite for the dark stripe effect. The epoxy type has some flexibility so the timber construction can still flex as it was designed to do.

Our first boat has been in the water for some 13 years and has not gained any weight. The danger of our methodology is that any deep gauges to the timber going into fresh wood can allow moisture to be sucked into the timber at an alarming rate. We have never had a problem but are just aware that if we did have a scrape we would need to get it fixed. in our view epoxying wooden hulls is great provided it is done comprehensively from new. This is the case with the second boat.

The first boat was essentially a rebuild/renovation. All the original timbers were disassembled and the moisture content was reduced to a consistant 5% before each timber was encased.

It just suits those of us who like traditional wood (for its strength as well as its beauty) but dislike the maintenance normally assoviated with it.

I''ll tell you about the carbon fibre spars coated in two colour clever clever paint to look like spruce another time.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #3  
Old 04-18-2002
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,503
Thanks: 3
Thanked 81 Times in 62 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
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

That all sounds very interesting. I do have a number of questions and comments. Am I right in interpreting that the first boat was carvel planked and you simply(disassembled and) surface sealed all of the frames, timbers and planking with epoxy then reassembled the boat with a form of edge glued construction? And that the second boat was constructed the same way but from scratch? Was the second boat conventionally framed? How big a boat are you talking about and what sort of design?

I too am a big fan of wooden construction having owned a number of wooden boats over the years, oddly enough each with a different construction technique. During my most rabid wooden boat days I had considered just the technique that you are using. From the research I had concluded that you did not have enough gluing surface area in the plank seams to develop the full stength or the wood over a long period of time. This is the reason for example that ''cove and bead'' strip planking works so well. The cove and bead, besides helping to align the planking, increases the surface area of the joint. When I had looked into the glued seams it looked like scarfed edges or splined edeges would have been required.

For myself I am a fan of a number of wooden boat building techniques which would include cold molding (perhaps over a strip planked core), glued modified ashcroft and to a lesser extent, glued double planking. With all of these I would epoxy saturate the wood all sides, even if it is only a surface saturation, and sheath in a glass/epoxy or kevlar/epoxy laminate for abrasion and impact protection of the surface.

I do beleive that if done well this would produce an extremely low maintenance boat that would offer a lot of strength for the weights involved. Certainly it would be one of the least expensive ways to build a one off.

Jeff
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #4  
Old 04-19-2002
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
davidk is on a distinguished road
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

Jeff, firstly please understand I am not the expert boatbuilder. The first boat is a 20ft half deck centreboard dayboat of carvel construction on frames and ribs. Yes everything was disassenmbed, dried out where necessary and planks which could be re-used were entirely coated. The planks were fastened and glued to the new ribs, frames etc and I believe these joints to be the main source of strength. The Epoxy between the plank edges was effectively caulking.

The new boat is a 42 ft yawl (technically she is a rebuild but only the lead and keelsom were retained). It started with the old boat, and the original plans which were found in a maritime museum. The old boat was checked for shape ref the plans and jacked back to her shape (some sag removed) - this was all measured with laser levellers. New frames were laminated up to fit the shape as old frames were removed one by one (for the order think like you were tightening down a cylinder head). Only when the old boat had new frames was the old planking removed and discarded. I have wondered if it wouldn''t have been easier to loft new frames from scratch since everything was being checked against the plans anyway (and the new boat is infact much closer to the plans than the old was anyway ... not just in hull shape). Whilst the carvel construction is edge to edge planking (i.e. no gaps designed-in unlike the first boat) of course the main strength must come from the plank/frame type bonds. These are all bolted as well as glued. Being a traditional shaped ''metre'' rating boat her wine glass shape is more white wine glass shaped than red wine glass!
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #5  
Old 04-20-2002
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,503
Thanks: 3
Thanked 81 Times in 62 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
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

Thank you for the additional information. Your construction technique on the second boat sounds almost like the Traditional New England rebuilding techniques from the early 20th century by which every other plank was removed. The remain planks were used as ribbands and then new frames were steam bent into place. Once the new frames were in place new floor timbers were constructed. Then working from the rail down and the garboard up the boat was replanked over the new frames. At the end of the planking the old frames were removed and you had a new reframed and planked hull. The problem with this technique in your case would be getting proper epoxy encapsulation.

Jeff
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #6  
Old 04-20-2002
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,503
Thanks: 3
Thanked 81 Times in 62 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
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

(This is a very long one- For those whose eyes glaze over, you might as well skip over this.)

We actually had this discussion a few weeks back but since I could not find it in the archives, here''s how I see this question.

Obviously, one of the most obvious differences between early fiberglass boats and more modern fiberglass construction is sheer weight and how it is distributed. There is a very popular myth that early fiberglass boats are as heavy as they are because early designers did not know how strong fiberglass actually was. That''s bunk!

During WWII the US government had done a lot of research on fiberglass composites and that information was pretty readily available. The properties were really pretty well understood. Carl Alberg was working for the Government designing fiberglass military gear when the Pearson''s hired him to design the Triton. He knew how fiberglass worked. What he knew, and as most designers of that era and as we know today, is that while fiberglass reinforced polyester laminates are pretty strong in bending, they are not very stiff. This means that when loaded like a beam, fiberglass laminates can with stand a large loading and bend without breaking but will bend farther than other materials such as the same weight piece of wood with the same loading. (That is why fiberglass fishing rods became so popular in the early 1950''s)

But they also understood that fiberglass is a pretty fatigue prone material and that flexing greatly weakens fiberglass over time and so building a flexible boat will greatly reduce the laminate''s strength over time.

Early designers understood stood all of this about fiberglass. In order to try to get fiberglass boats with close to the same stiffness as wooden boats, fiberglass hull thicknesses were increased beyond what was needed strictly for bending strength. That is why they were as thick as they were.

What was not understood very well was how to handle the raw materials, resins and fabrics, during construction to maintain the Fiberglass''s inherent strength. To achieve the full inherent strength of the various materials in fiberglass used in a fiberglass hull requires:
-Careful mixing of the resins,
-A surprisingly long cure time,
-Careful handling of the reinforcing fabrics (For example folding fiberglass mat or cloths weaken the individual fibers)
-And a proper proportion of resin to reinforcing fiber.

The difference in strength and durability between an ideal laminate and one that was laid up less than ideally can be enormous, especially if allowed to flex a lot over time (perhaps as much as 50% on a unit basis). The extra thickness in the hull might add as much as 30% to the overall bending strength of the hull but substantially less (perhaps between 5% and 10%) to its resistance to puncture (sheer).

One of the really striking things about early fiberglass boats is the almost total lack of internal framing compared to more modern design. Early fiberglass boats were a wonder in their simplicity of design and construction. Early designers viewed the fiberglass hull and deck as a monocoque structure and so really did not try to brace it with a systematic layout of longitudinal or athwartships framing.

Whatever internal framing there was used on these early boats was not tabbed into the hull with the same attention that was given to tabbing by the 1970''s. When I worked in boatyards in the 1970''s it was not all that unusual to see these 60''s era boats come in ''banana''d'', (as it was called which meant flexed until the tabbing on bulkheads, flats and risers had been loosened) by the extremely high rigging loads of that era. I spent a lot of times re-tabbing boats in those days.

Also when you work on these boats it is not unusual to find very resin rich laminations. Resin really adds almost no strength to fiberglass. It is really there to hold the fibers. In early boats, lots of resin was used because it made it easy to wet out the cloth and to get compartively smooth surfaces for layup to layup bonding. These resin rich laminates results in lower initial strength and a more fatigue prone laminate. In the 1970''s this became better understood and today even pretty inexpensive boats are careful to use better ballanced resin to fiber contents. It is quite routine to see vaccuum bagged (or injection/ vaccuum techniques like Scrimp) that produce very light, dense and strong parts within the industry.

While there were some internal elements glassed to the hull they occurred where convenient to the design and allowed shockingly large unsupported panels. When you sailed these older boats and a wave hit the hull, you would feel the vibration of the panel flexing. While this flexure does not equate to weakness, it does equate to the likelihood of more fatigue over time.

On a point by point basis I would compare early fiberglass to newer fiberglass this way:

Resins: Early boat builders tended to use a lot of accelerators in an effort to decrease curing time. The use of accelerators tends to produce a more brittle and fatigue prone laminate. In the Mid-1970''s and early 1980''s resin formulations changed producing resins that are especially prone to osmotic blistering. By the mid to late 1980''s resins were changed again reducing the likelihood of blistering. Today, it is not unusual to find more exotic resins (vinylester and epoxy) used in even mass production boats. Vinylester in particular offers a lot if used in outer laminates. Vinylester is nearly as water impermeable as Epoxy but is far less expensive. VE offers superior fatigue, and blister resistance. When used with higher tech fabrics (even higher tech fiberglass fabrics), VE dramatically increases the strength of lay-up. Boats like the new C&C 99 are using epoxy resins as well.

Reinforcing fabrics:
Early fiberglass fabrics have comparatively short fiber lengths and lower fiber strengths than current materials resulting in less strength. Beyond that they were often handled poorly (folded and stacked) so that the strength of the fibers were reduced further. In the 1970''s as better stress mapping was understood, directional fabrics were developed and even conventional materials were more properly oriented to improve their load capacities.

Today, we use higher strength conventional laminates, and have an arsenal of higher tech fibers range from Bi-axial and Tri- axial oriented fiberglass fabrics, to higher strength fiberglass fibers due to improved fiber manufacturing techniques, materials like Kevlar and Carbon fiber. (Even value oriented builders like Hunter and Beneteau are employing Kevlar in its newest boats for increased strength, stiffness and abrasion resistance.)

Framing, liners and Coring:
Early boats rarely had cored or framed hulls. They also rarely had either structural or cosmetic liners. This is an area that is a bit more complex with good and bad aspects to each of these options. To breifly touch on each type of construction, there is cored and non-cored and framed and non- framed with specialized types of each. You often hear people use the term ''Solid Glass Construction''. This is actually a very vague and not a terribly precise description of the structure of a FRP boat. As the term ''Solid Glass'' construction is typically used it means a boat that does not have a cored hull. A non-cored hull can be monocoque (the skin takes all of the loads and distributes them), like many small boats today and larger early fiberglass hulls. They can also be framed as most modern boats are constructed today.

A cored hull is a kind of sandwich with high strength laminate materials on both sides of the panel where they do the most good and a lighter weght center material. Pound for pound, a cored hull produces a stronger boat. Cored hulls can also be monocoque or framed construction. While cored decks are almost universally accepted in one form or another, cored hulls tend to be a very controversial way of building a boat. Done properly , pound for pound there is no stronger, stiffer, more durable way to build a boat. It''s the "done properly" that mekes coring so controversial. Ideally a hull is cored with a closed cell, non-out-gassing, high density foam, that is vacuum bagged into place. Thru-hull orface and bolting areas are predetermined and constructed of solid glass or reamed out and filled with epoxy. All of that makes proper coring expensive to construct. There is almost nothing better than a properly cored hull, and almost nothing worse than a poorly constructed cored hull.

Decks are typically cored with end grain Balsa. End grain balsa offers excellent sheer resistance for a given weight and cost. The orientation of the cells theoretically promote good adhesion with the laminate and also resists the spread of rot. Early boats often had plywood decks with glass over. This is the worst of all worlds. Because of the orientation of the cells plywood tends to distribute rot very quickly once rot starts. Plywood tends to be heavier than other deck cores and does not have as good adhesion to the laminate as other core choice. Plywood was a cheap but not very good way to go.

Framing helps to stiffen a hull, distribute concentrated loads such as keel and rigging loads, and reduce the panel size which helps to limit the size of the damage caused in a catastrophic impact. Framing can be in a number of forms. Glassed in longitudinal (stringers) and athwartship frames (floors and ring frames). Used in combination, all of which combined provide a light, strong and very durable solution but one that is expensive to manufacture and require higher construction skills to build precisely.

Molded ''force grids'' are another form of framing. In this case the manufacturer molds a set of athrwartship and longitudinal frames as a single unit in a mold in much the same manner as the rest of the boat is molded. Once the hull has been laid up the grid is glued in place. The strength of the connection depends on the contact area of the flanges on the grid and the type of adhesive used to attach the grid. This is a very good way to build a production boat but is not quite as strong or durable as a glassed in framing system.

Another popular way to build a boat is with a molded in ''pan''. This is can be thought of as force grid with an inner liner spanning between the framing. This has many of the good traits of a force grid but has its own unique set of problems. For one it adds a lot of useless weight. It is harder to properly adhere in place, and most significantly it blocks access to most of the interior of the hull. Pans can make maintenance much harder to do as every surface is a finished surface and so it is harder to run wires and plumbing. Adding to the problem with pans is that many manufacturers install electical and plumbing components before installing the pan making inspection and repair of these items nearly imposible.

Glassed-in shelves, bulkheads, bunk flats, and other interior furnishings can often serve as a part of the framing system. These items are bonded in place with fiberglass strips referred to as ''tabbing''. Tabbing can be continuous all sides (including the deck), continuous on the hull only, or occur in short sections. Continous all sides greatly increases the strength of the boat but may not be necessary depending on how the boat was originally engineered. The strength of the tabbing is also dependent on its thickness, surface area and the materials used. When these elements are wood they can often rot at the bottom of the component where the tabbing traps moisture against the wood.

Most early boats were non-cored hulls with minimal framing, this allowed a lot of flexure and really put a lot more stress on the minimal framed connections within the boats. Most had balsa or plywood cored hulls.

Hull to deck joints:
Early boats typically had a number of hull to deck joint. Most simply had an inward turning flange on the hull and that was bolted through the deck and toe rail. These thru-bolts were seen as the primary bond and varied widely in size and spacing. They rarely had backing plates even from the best builders of the era. Between the hull flange and the deck was either some form of bedding compound, such as polysulfide (like Boatlife) or organic compounds (like Dalphinite) or more commonly a polyester slurry. All of these are comparatively low adhesion and lifespan solutions.

In the 1970''s some offshore intended cruisers started glassing the joint from the interior but the big change was to higher adhesion caulking/ adhesives in the joint. 3M''s 5200 became a common adhesive for this purpose. Bolt spacing was increased as builders often considered the 5200 to be the primary connection. Outward facing flange connections became more popular because they permit quicker turn around time for the molds and less labor to prep the mold for the next boat. They are inherently weaker and more vulnerable.

Today, most manufacturers seem to be using any one of the earlier techniques with the ''Big Three'' using extremely high adhesion adhessives engineered for the aerospace industry. These produce extremely sturdy joints that should outlive most of the other joint types that have preceded them. You never hear of hull deck failures any more which back in the 1970''s seemed to be a fairly frequent occurance.

Rigging:

Early glass boats tended to use extremely stiff spars and extremely high rig tensions. Without adjustable backstays these high loads were imparted into the hull on a routine basis. They really can take a toll on a boat. It was not unusual to find these early boats so distorted by rigging loads that doors in passageways would not close on a beat.

In the late 1970''s and into 1980''s there was a real shift in turnbuckle design. Some of the more popular turnbuckle designs really had comparatively short life spans and resulted in lost rigs and rigging. By the 1990''s turnbuckle design had changed yet agaib and seemed to have moved toward a more durable engineering.

Over time rigs got lighter and more flexible. This is a mixed blessing. A slightly flexible rig imparts less load into the hull and deck and bend can be increased to depower sails. Taken to the extremes seen in late 1970''s through early 1990''s race boats, they make a rig that is hard to keep in the boat. In the early 1990''s IMS recognized this problem and shifted the ratings a bit to encourage stronger rigs and so rig losses in newer IMS type race boats are compartively uncommon these days. Some of this improvement is the use of Carbon Fiber spars. Carbon Fiber makes a really stiff and shocking light spar material but is very expensive and the jury is still out on the long term life expectancy of carbon spars.

In conclusion:
Early fiberglass boats were really engineered as if they were a wooden boat built out of fiberglass. They ended to be more flexible and although heavy, the poorer strength of materials that came from material and handling choices meant that they had very high stresses but they were not as sturdy as they appear. By the 1970''s designers better understood how to engineer fiberglass as fiberglass, but were faced with historically poor resins that resulted in real blister problems. By the 1980''s resins improved, as did fiberglass material handling techniques and rigging design and strength of materials. The blister problem was better understood and higher tech resins and fibers entered the industry. Today''s baots tend to be lighter and stronger than earlier boats. This weight savings is used to produce higher ballast ratios and to produce greater stability or carrying capacities. Hull deck joints have improved in some ways, but I hate the fact that outward flanges are becoming popular again. Blister problems have been reduced greatly and rigs are becoming easier to operate. That said I see popularity of inmast furling mainsails to be a serious negative trend.

At least that is how I see it.

Respectfully
Jeff
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #7  
Old 04-20-2002
paulk's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: CT/ Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,533
Thanks: 4
Thanked 20 Times in 19 Posts
Rep Power: 15
paulk is on a distinguished road
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

Long, but succint and a pleasure to read. Thank you, Jeff H.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #8  
Old 04-20-2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 13
thomasstone is on a distinguished road
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

Still not following you on this one.Are you still saying some of the early glass boats that have very thick hulls are not as strong as they appear to be.I dont think my boat (1965 )was a wood design built out of glass. It also seems to me being in a yard right now all of the boats with the blisters were built in the eighties. I just dont see how a 3/4"glass hull is not strong.Im sure glass building techniques are way better than they were in the sixties, but I also dont think thier is a strenghth issue with the overbuilt boats of the sixties. I would imagine with better engineering of today the glass does not need to be as thick.
thomas
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #9  
Old 04-21-2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 459
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 14
DuaneIsing is on a distinguished road
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

Jeff_H,

Thanks for the detailed explanations - always appreciated.

Your point about some builders making the wiring and plumbing inaccessible is important to me. Who wants to have to rip a boat apart to find and repair a system problem?

What is it about external flanges on the hull/deck joint that is inherently weaker?

Duane
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #10  
Old 04-21-2002
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,503
Thanks: 3
Thanked 81 Times in 62 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
High Tech vs traditional-Comments?

In the part of the posting that I believe that you are referring to, I said something to the effect that, while early fiberglass boats appear to be very strong because of their thicker hulls, in reality they are not as strong as they appear. The basis for this is that most people assume that fiberglass is uniformly strong and so if it is thicker it is also automatically stronger. What I am trying to explain is that in developing the strength of a structure there are a lot more factors than simply the thickness of the fiberglass. These factors include the strength of the actual laminate, the thickness of the laminate and composite section, and the spacing, method of connection and stiffness of the frames.

When you look at early fiberglass boats you typically find substanially weaker laminate and much more widely spaced framing (or no framing at all). This combination would lead to fatigue issues which further weaken the laminate.

So while most people generally assume that the thicker hulls of early boats have substantially greater strength than lighter modern boats that is not really the case. I know that intuitively most of us would say as you have "I just dont see how a 3/4" glass hull is not strong". Perhaps if we use this model it might help to explain my point. Visualize two beams that are equal in cross section and one is made of oak and one of cedar. Obviously, if you wanted both beams to be of equal stength the oak which is substantially stronger will need be reduced in thickness. But if you didn''t know that the cedar was not as strong as the oak you would assume that the cedar being substanially thicker must be stronger.

Similarly, assume we had these two beams set up so that the oak beam also spanned a substanially shorter distance than the cedar. Well if you wanted both beams to support equal loadings you would further need to reduce the thickness of the oak beam. Again if you did not take into account the smaller spans that the thinner beam had to bridge intuitively you could also assume that the cedar being substanially thicker must be stronger.

Whether your hull is not strong enough is not something that I can answer, but in my life I have seen hulls that have failed due to fatique, and if you look at modern boats and automatically say that they are not strong enough for your tastes than I am pointing out that since the thinner hull of a modern glass boat may have similar or greater strength to an earlier glass boat (even with the early boats 3/4" thick hull), perhaps that early glass boat may not have enough strength for your needs either.

To explain my point about early fiberglass boats originally being engineered like wooden boats built in a different material (and that would probably include your 1965 boat). In the 1950''s and early 1960''s wooden boats were designed using a number of different empirical scantling rules (Herreshoff and Nevins being quite popular). These rules established empirically the thickness and spacing of the various parts of a wooden boat structure. During the period of early fiberglass boats these formulas were simply adjusted for the relative strength properties of wood vs fiberglass. But fiberglass and wood have such different properties that by the 1970''s a different understanding of how to engineer fiberglass began to be developed to take advantage of its strengths and overcome its weaknesses. It is partially the evolution of that understanding that resulted in today''s lighter stronger boats.

Respectfully
Jeff
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


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
Windward performance deseely General Discussion (sailing related) 21 04-01-2012 02:42 PM
Ketch/Yawl Handling svsymphony Seamanship & Navigation 19 07-05-2008 01:19 AM
da versus high tech sailon2win Racing 5 10-05-2004 04:07 AM
High Tech on the High Seas Epiphany General Discussion (sailing related) 3 01-25-2004 02:32 PM
Genoa - high tech or traditional? buchner General Discussion (sailing related) 2 03-03-2002 04:18 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 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