Refurbishing CCA boats - Page 21 - SailNet Community
 163Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #201 of 296 Old 11-17-2015
Senior Moment Member
 
SloopJonB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 13,240
Thanks: 91
Thanked 129 Times in 124 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by albrazzi View Post
Disposable income, remember that its something we all had until the 80s.
Fixed.
seaner97 likes this.

I, myself, personally intend to continue being outspoken and opinionated, intolerant of all fanatics, fools and ignoramuses, deeply suspicious of all those who have "found the answer" and on my bad days, downright rude.
SloopJonB is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #202 of 296 Old 11-17-2015
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Thanks: 1
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Rep Power: 6
 
Owning an old boat can be many things. It might be an inexpensive way of spending time on the water or it could be a fun refurbishment project if you like that.
I like older boats and believe they are prettier and generally better built. There are opportunities to buy some very good boats for a fraction of new. Today we are lucky to have the choice of purchasing new or old boats that meet or likes and pocketbooks.
seaner97 and SloopJonB like this.
Shockwave is offline  
post #203 of 296 Old 11-17-2015 Thread Starter
Less Senior Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bangor, Maine
Posts: 1,442
Thanks: 39
Thanked 50 Times in 50 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by albrazzi View Post
I've heard this argument many times. Its just as ridiculous every time I hear it. With this logic nobody would ever buy a new car they would just find a used one to move around in. Truth is people want new, that's not a bad word. Disposable income, remember that its something we all had in the 80s.
Wow. That's some loaded statement.

Ocean- that which covers 3/4 of a world made for man, who has no gills.
seaner97 is offline  
 
post #204 of 296 Old 11-17-2015
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Thanks: 1
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Rep Power: 6
 
I don't really relate cars to boats, cars are a requirement in today's world, a tool we all need. Boats are for pleasure unless we earn a living with them. That changes the calculus.
seaner97 likes this.
Shockwave is offline  
post #205 of 296 Old 11-17-2015
Senior Moment Member
 
SloopJonB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 13,240
Thanks: 91
Thanked 129 Times in 124 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by albrazzi View Post
With this logic nobody would ever buy a new car they would just find a used one to move around in. Truth is people want new, that's not a bad word.
That's exactly what I do - I much prefer nicer to new. I like letting someone else eat that huge bite of initial depreciation. I bought my wife a lowish mileage Jag XJR for less than the sales tax on a new one. When I bought my last Corvette it was barely broken in and cost about the same as a new Honda Fit - $40K less than new.

A friend is in a group that bought a new Hunter 38 a few years ago - it has depreciated more than the combined cost of all the boats I've ever owned

The only things I must have new are food & underwear.
seaner97 likes this.

I, myself, personally intend to continue being outspoken and opinionated, intolerant of all fanatics, fools and ignoramuses, deeply suspicious of all those who have "found the answer" and on my bad days, downright rude.

Last edited by SloopJonB; 11-30-2015 at 01:14 AM.
SloopJonB is online now  
post #206 of 296 Old 11-18-2015
Senior Member
 
JimPendoley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 107
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 15
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Seldom post here, but can't resist given my infatuation with CCA era designs. After 20 years of ownership and "unreasonable" expeditures on restoration, bought a newer design and gave my 1966 Vanguard to my daughter. Over the years, I've rebuilt the A4, insulated the hull, reinsulated and installed refrigeration, solarized and installed new battery bank, paneled over the old formica finish, laid a teak and holly floor, installed a furler and traveller, slab reefing, washdown pump,holding tank, new head, shower and hotwater, a propane oven, converted to LEDs, built a seahood,paid for a superb dodger, new interior and exterior cushions bookcases, new countertops-it has been endless...and fun new upgrade every season.- the whole time I sailed Moonraker all around the New England coast from Cape Cod to Castine Maine. I lived aboard for ten years.

I bought a Pearson 365-bigger, roomier, faster and honestly, easier to sail than my Vanguard. I believe the glasswork is probably better, certainly thinner and requiring more stringers, but the level of finish in glasswork seems better. I will need to do similar amounts of upgrading on Troipicbird as shes old and tired.The bulkheads seem too thin coming from the Vanguard.

But, I have first right of refusal if my daughter tires of Moonraker. I gave it to her because I couldn't bear to sell the boat. Through all kinds of weather, that little Vanguard kept my crew safe. The interior is small enough below that finding a bracing spot was easy. The little cabin heater made heating it a snap and we were always warm and dry. The boat is dead simple, good on a reach or run- uncomplicated and actually sails well enough. Unlike Jeff, I found she hove to quite well. I don't see my new 365 pointing much higher at all and the 365 is slower under 10 knots. There is no disputing the 365 is more comfortable and carries more water and stores, but she also costs a lot more. If and when I go cruising, if I go solo, I may have to buy Moonraker back.

Year after year, the local paper features a photo of Moonraker on the front page as a herald of the oncoming boating season. Both boats are on my own moorings side by side, but when I row away, its the Vanguard my eyes are drawn to-the 365 looks blocky and monolithic alongside the Vanguard. And while I paid a low price for the 365, I could buy three Vanguards for the price-and all of that saved money could be put into upgrades.

In the end, boats are not investments. For some they are machines to get you from point A to point B. For others, they are vehicles for our passions, our artistic sensibility married to our sense of adventure.

Faster is not always better.
Faster and seaner97 like this.
JimPendoley is offline  
post #207 of 296 Old 11-18-2015
al brazzi
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lower Chesapeake bay
Posts: 2,062
Thanks: 1
Thanked 81 Times in 81 Posts
Rep Power: 6
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by SloopJonB View Post
That's exactly what I do - I much prefer nicer to new. I like letting someone else eat that huge bite of initial depreciation. I bought my wife a lowish mileage Jag XJR for less that the sales tax on a new one. When I bought my last Corvette it was barely broken in and cost about the same as a new Honda Fit - $40K less than new.

A friend is in a group that bought a new Hunter 38 a few years ago - it has depreciated more than the combined cost of all the boats I've ever owned

The only things I must have new are food & underwear.
To be clear I did mean "Some" people. That's why I don't think you can group all thoughts together.

If people didn't buy some new stuff from time to time we wouldn't have all these nice used boats to choose from.
albrazzi is offline  
post #208 of 296 Old 11-18-2015 Thread Starter
Less Senior Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bangor, Maine
Posts: 1,442
Thanks: 39
Thanked 50 Times in 50 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

My thoughts on this-

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
Sean,
I think that the above thread should be useful in exploring the issues surrounding early fiberglass boats constructed during the 1950’s through the early 1970’s. At this point, reading your comments, I agree that your view of this has ended up much closer to mine than when this thread began.
In the quote above, I definitely would not say that there are “that NO boat of this era is likely to be up to hard use any longer.” What I would say that the majority of boats in this era (like in most eras) were built to be affordable rather than of a high quality, and that to keep costs down the larger builders of this era cut corners that impacted the strength and overall lifespan of the boat. While some of these cost saving measures can be reversed, albeit at a cost which might not make these ‘bargain boats’ much of a bargain, some of these issues are ‘baked in’ in ways that cannot be reversed.
I do think that the emphasis on the term “hand-made” may present an incomplete understanding of this issue. While it is true that the lamination of these boats was predominantly ‘by hand’, in the better factories of the era resin formulations were carefully measured out, and quantities of resins were carefully monitored as well. Lay-up procedures were standardized and performed carefully by skilled technicians, vs factories who employed the lowest cost labor and poorly monitored the quality of their work. Even within a hand-made item, there can be very large differences in the level of care and the quality of the item produced.
True. But as someone that has been the purchaser, maker or QI person involved in many handmade goods, I can tell you that the quality coming out of any handmade place varies by the artisan. The casualness of monitoring increases the risk of a cruddy product, but does not insure it. The flip side is that the closer the monitoring when trying to cut costs on materials would insure the lower quality of a product. It is always easier to force a product to be poorer than to force people to make one better when you are talking about hand made goods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
And while even a higher quality boat may have been subjected to harder use and poorer care than a inferior made boat, and therefore not have much life left in it, as a broad generality, more expensive boats tend to be bought by people who can afford to put a little more care into their maintenance and updating and so may actually be in better shape than for no other reason than that. Which gets to my central point in most of these discussions. If a person is looking to purchase a boat in any given general price range there are better built, better laid out and sailing designs, and better maintained boats. Given the options, in my mind it only makes sense to steer away from the more poorly constructed, inferior designed, or badly worn out versions.
Agree, if there is a similarly priced, higher quality option on the market. My 'thought experiment' earlier in the thread pointed out that that isn't always as easy as this is made to sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
But to get to the thrust of your question, I think it may be helpful to differentiate ‘better practices’ vs. ‘questionable practices’ and sort them into categories of ‘those which cannot be reversed’ vs. ‘those which are very hard to reverse’, vs. ’those which may be considered long term maintenance or updating’. And while not all of these may apply to any single boat, some may apply to most boats from this era, and all may apply to the worst examples.
Questionable practices which cannot be reversed:
• Carelessly mixed resin and catalyst:
Mixing procedures varied but they were pretty casual in many of the value oriented plants. Not enough catalyst was not a problem long term, but too much resulted in a brittle matrix. I have no information on which factories were careful and which were careless other than a single story that I heard from a fellow who did laminating at Columbia who claimed that they were careless enough that they literally had a pot catch fire it got so hot (too much accelerator). That is not a verifiable story and so I would not hang my hat on it, but when I worked at the boat show in 1965, I was privy to a discussion between the folks at Hinterhoeller and Grampian about measures they were going through to be more precise in their metering procedures in which they were talking about sloppy practices at Paceship.
• Accelerators:
Accelerators were very common during the 1960’s and into the 1970. The popular accelerators helped the manufacturer in two ways, they retard the initial reaction of the resin to allow a longer working time and also cause the resin to achieve a higher portion of its ultimate compressive strength sooner. To explain this second aspect, resins cure over a comparatively long period of time and the sooner they reach a higher portion of their ultimate strength the sooner the boat can be removed from the molds. Molds are a significant portion of the cost of producing a boat so the quicker the boat can be removed from the mold the quicker the mold could be reused. Ironically, accelerators actually gave the workers a longer pot life to do the lay-up since they altered the cure curve on the set time.
• Resin rich/ resin lean laminate:
The importance of proper resin ratios was not fully accepted in this era. It took time, skill, and care too properly wet out the laminate with just the right amount of resin. When there is too little resin, (lean or dry glass) the laminate was not properly adhered creating an area with minimal compressive strength and ripe for delamination due to horizontal sheer, impact, or fatigue. But the good news is that dry glass was fairly obvious visually and so was comparatively rare. More common was resin that was resin rich. Resin does poorly in sheer and tension, so resin rich laminates tend to brittle, create a failure plane for a sheer failure, are more prone to fatigue, further reducing the strength of the laminate. When resin was cheap, resin rich lay-ups were common since they were a quick way to bulk up the laminate and assure that there was a complete saturation with less expensive, less skilled, and less motivated workers.
• Lack of internal framing:
Early value oriented fiberglass boat manufacturers avoided having internal framing largely so that they could rightly claim that their boats had larger interior volumes than similar design wooden boats. They chose to use thicker hulls to make up for some of the stiffness lost to wooden boat construction. They were trying to achieve largely ‘monocoque’ construction with the shell taking the bulk of the loads axially. Because fiberglass is so much denser than most wood planking materials, and is not all that much stronger per unit of area, and is not much stiffer per unit area, a compromise was made in the thickness of the hull that matched or slightly exceeded the strength of a fully framed wooden boat, but did not match the stiffness or lighter weight of most planking.

The net result is that the panels of these boats flex a lot more than the framed hulls on the better built boats of that era and in the eras that followed. Fiberglass is a fatigue prone material and so losses strength by the cyclical flexing which takes place in all boats, but is especially prevalent in unframed boats.

The better builders of that era included comparatively closely spaced hat-frames and hand-glassed frames that reduced the panel size and reduced flexure. This was especially popular with British boat builders and in the Commonwealth countries. It was also a very labor intensive way to build a boat.

• High ratios of non-directional fabrics:
Pretty much all production boats have some non-directional fabrics in them. Non-directional fabrics (mat) are used to hide the courser fabrics from showing through the gelcoat, but structurally more importantly to bridge between the individual layers of courser roving. It does not take much mat to bind the layers together, and the better manufacturers would use ¾ oz. mat for that purpose. But mat was a cheap way to build bulk in the laminate and cheaply get thickness without the higher cost of woven roving. Mat was seen as acting like the web in a I beam and so it was thought that its inherently greater weakness was not a problem. Value oriented factories would use 1 ½ and multiple layers of matt within the middle of the matrix.
No argument that these are not current practice and that some factories got these better done even in that era. My concern is that the data on the handing of these is, at this point, hearsay and in the spirit of Smack, not fully supported by the data (sparse as it is) of boat hull failures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
• Poor reinforcing fabric handling practices:
• Poorer quality fiberglass: (Length of fibers, brittleness, edge condition)

Description of how these items impact the life of the boat and why they cannot be reversed.
I won't do this as much justice as Jeff would-
In addition to not paying attention to directionality of the stranding and alternating the direction, thereby increasing the force distribution where beneficial, or aligning them when the forces were more often to be seen in a single plane, the fibers were often folded (sometimes intentionally) into squares, which would 'break' them on a microscopic level and therefore limit their ability to disperse the forces, or force the binding resin to perform in a more structural role than intended. This was exacerbated by the shorter, more brittle fibers in the woven cloth of the era, and poorer manufacturers would pay less attention to the 'frayed' edges where the loss of directionality and 'fuzziness' of the fibers would exacerbate this issue.

These issues certainly make a layup less than ideal, but some would consider them to be more theoretical than practical issues depending on how much stress you are placing on the structure. There is no guarantee that this stuff didn't slip through in some of the better yards, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
Questionable practices which are very hard to reverse:
• Encapsulated ballast (non-structural bilge encapsulation, delamination and water intrusion)
• Plastic laminate encapsulated bulkheads
• Inadequate width, depth and continuity tabbing
First two are almost impossible, but not death to any boat. They are certainly still used in some currently produced boats and can have the same issues. They do warrant very close survey. The bonus is many (most?) of the boats of the era at least used lead, so not as much issue with the dreaded 'iron expansion delam' issues. The last can be dealt with, not easily, but certainly not insurmountable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
• Mast supporting structure, mast step/ mast heel, deck to bulkhead tension connections, and mast hold downs on deck stepped masts
• Roll-out hull-to-deck joints and shoe box deck joints or deck joints through core materials.
Not sure about this one. Most of the more modern deck stepped rigs I've seen seem similar in construction to the older ones I've seen. Bob Perry pointed out in another thread that the hull to deck joints thing may be a bit overdone. While I'll agree these things aren't optimal, many of the current production boat practices are either the same, similar or variants of these practices, so other than being less aged, aren't necessarily better. Some of the boats that were 'better' builds (Allied being one that comes to mind) have the same issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
• Glassed in tanks
• Lighter than currently required standards for rudder posts especially on keel hung rudders (plus fatigue, crevice corrosion, and connection issues)
• Steel and stainless steel keel bolts
• Poorly constructed deck cores and deck core materials (plywood)
• Use of non-marine grade materials on interiors
• Failed gelcoat
Can't fix the tanks. The rudder posts could be fixed by a decent machine shop when and if they become an issue, but even in the 'moderate build quality boats', I've not seen that as a repeatedly reported issue either in my asking around to other sailors and surveyors or in poking around on the internet. I would think it might be more of an issue up here where the boats are out of the water for half the year.
The keel bolts would be big for me. One of the reasons I like the CB models. Those add pennants and winches, but are surprisingly easy to repair and maintain.
The deck cores are what gets most boats, but recore or selective deck maintenance and doing what Roverhi suggests really does work. Messy and a pain, but not overly skill intensive to fix.
The interiors shouldn't be that much of an issue if the boat has been dry, and much of them are elbow grease related issues.
Failed gelcoat is a problem on some older boats, but seems to be worse during the 73-86 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
Items which can be relatively easily repaired, upgraded or reversed and which may be considered as long term maintenance or updating: (discuss minor and elective nature of some of these items vs. safety and long term maintainability of others)
• Chainplates and standing rigging, running rigging
• Mast hardware such as sheaves, wooden spreaders, and failing component connections on masts and booms
• Roller reefing Booms and mainsails
• Replacement and upgrading of sail handling gear and other missing or out of date hardware due to sizing, ease of use, and convenience (reefing, winch sizes and gearing, control lines and positions), and safety issues. (jack line strong points, engine fire extinguisher ports)
• End of life steering gear
• Engine installations which do not meet current Safety standards
• End of life sails, and/or engines
• Localized damage to the laminate (Lifeline bases, cleats, impact damage, etc)
• Electrical systems which do not meet current Safety standards or patterns of use
• Past their use by date plumbing systems and components or which do not meet current Safety standards or patterns of use
• Normal safety measures such as latch down hatches and lashed down batteries
• Instrumentation and other electronics
• Galley and cooking equipment
• Backing plates and reinforcing of high stress areas
• End of life exterior wooden trim items
• Aesthetic issues (Gelcoat crazing, fading, worn out non-skid, interior finishes, upholstery, etc.)
I'd put all the above in the category of any boat older than 15 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
Discussion of boats with construction related damage beyond repair:
• Pearson Ariel- Torn topsides and hull joint failure
• Coronado: Keel area failure in glasswork
• Article in ‘Sail’ about the Triton whose hull tore parallel to the hull deck joint.
• Alberg bow failure
Add the Allied Seabreeze or Seawind or whatever that was abandoned by an author on an attempted Atlantic crossing earlier this year (see the rescue by the MMA articles) due to reported hull to deck joint failure. The Catalina smile would be similar to the Coronado issue. The fact that the hulls tore on the Ariel and the Triton are interesting and indicate that the hull to deck joint was stronger than the hull, so either they were victims of the shoddy practices of Pearson or the above worries about the hull to deck joints are misplaced. I'd be interested to know what the bow failure was on the Alberg. One of the issues I could see is how the rig strapping is attached to Alberg bows.
But this isn't just an old boat thing, and while they are examples that could be related to the above, they do not impugne the entire class of the boats of the era.
There are numerous reports of cleats ripping out sections of deck, dismastings, or other structural issues on newer boats, some pointed out with a bit of perverse glee by people in other threads on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaner97 View Post
Concluding summary discussion of the economic and physical lifespan of a boat
• Physical limitations vs economic limitations on these older boats.
• First cost vs ‘improved cost’ vs long term cost
• Discussion of best bargain in the short and long run
• ‘Like working on boats’ vs buying a boat as a perceived ‘deal’ and sweat equity
• Cost of boat during restoration process (immediate restoration vs long term restoration vs use as is)
• The argument for ‘cheap boats’ vs better quality cheap boats. Given similar pricing buying the best designs, why it only makes sense to buy the boat with the best build, and best condition from an era vs buying a mediocre design with mediocre build quality, or a boat in poor condition, and why the argument that ‘I can’t afford to buy better’ rarely makes sense, except from an upfront purchase price.
• Accepting the risks vs mitigating the risks, the role of personal tastes vs the science, vs the more general marketplace.
• Painting the bilges white.
I think this is where we've been for a few pages now. The one thing I'd point out is the ‘I can’t afford to buy better’ thing may be that the initial price that gets you out on the water where you can then gradually bring the boat back to Bristol is different for everyone, and there is no guarantee in these old boats that a more expensive boat, a better reputation of boat, or a 'better' design will have an entry price that will allow you to do the latter. If someone can put in 15K and then spend another 15 over 3-4 seasons, they may end up with a better boat than one they could buy now for 30, at a price they can better afford. You've got 100? Maybe the H B-40 is your cup of tea. Maybe you want a newish Hunter. But we're talking cash, not financed. It makes a difference. Maybe you like new and soulless. Maybe you've got Bob bucks (but I doubt you're reading this if you do) and you can buy whatever you want. More power. I suggest a new Morris or Hinkley or get Bob to do a CC. But for those of us either daysailing, short to moderate coastal cruising, or that want a heck of a boat for short money that we can gradually bring back and be happy with for decades more, this sure seems like a good way to do it.

Ocean- that which covers 3/4 of a world made for man, who has no gills.
seaner97 is offline  
post #209 of 296 Old 11-18-2015
Senior Member
 
TomMaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 957
Thanks: 6
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimPendoley View Post
In the end, boats are not investments. For some they are machines to get you from point A to point B. For others, they are vehicles for our passions, our artistic sensibility married to our sense of adventure.

Faster is not always better.
This is a very nice post. While the OP was about the build quality of older boats, CCA era boats have a passionate following that comes out when old boats are talked about.

I get how you feel about your families Vanguard. It came with history and you've added your own. And now your daughter is adding more and it doesn't look like she'll be the last owner.

It takes special qualities beyond top speed(which is important) for a sailboat -new or old design- to grow this type of history.
seaner97 likes this.

Tom Young sailing a 1961 38' Alden Challenger, CHRISTMAS out of
Rockport, Maine.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'I'd have written a shorter post, but I didn't have the time', Mark Twain.
TomMaine is online now  
post #210 of 296 Old 11-18-2015 Thread Starter
Less Senior Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bangor, Maine
Posts: 1,442
Thanks: 39
Thanked 50 Times in 50 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
Re: Refurbishing CCA boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomMaine View Post
This is a very nice post. While the OP was about the build quality of older boats, CCA era boats have a passionate following that comes out when old boats are talked about.

I get how you feel about your families Vanguard. It came with history and you've added your own. And now your daughter is adding more and it doesn't look like she'll be the last owner.

It takes special qualities beyond top speed(which is important) for a sailboat -new or old design- to grow this type of history.
Absolutely. And how you feel about your Vanguard is how I hope I feel about my P35 when the time comes to hand it off to my kids (a long time from now). Perhaps I will change my mind and decide to sail a newer design, perhaps I will sell this one and buy a different older design, but one thing I can almost assure is that unless I win the lottery, I won't be buying a new boat, and even if I did, I certainly would be buying one that has lines that harken back to or is reminiscent of the CCA rule era.

Ocean- that which covers 3/4 of a world made for man, who has no gills.
seaner97 is offline  
Reply

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:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Older CCA boats with rounded robust overbuilt booms...added boom vang needed? souljour2000 General Discussion (sailing related) 23 06-11-2016 07:43 PM
CCA - Cold Cranking Amps question The Sailing Podcast Diesel 13 09-23-2012 10:41 PM
CCA / MCA requirement for a Perkins 4/154M? TQA Electrical Systems 2 04-08-2011 07:15 PM
IOR...CCA... help! sherbet Boat Review and Purchase Forum 7 05-22-2006 09:38 PM
Morgan 33 (CCA) ricekrgr General Discussion (sailing related) 0 12-19-2002 09:41 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome