Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 23-05-2015, 10:20   #616
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Boat: Moana 33
Posts: 681
Re: The criteria of "blue"

I think most would agree that 'blue' requires at least a bridge deck between cockpit and cabin - the Fisher (thanks for providing such a clear photo Barnakeil) has no bridge deck, not even a step-up from the cockpit. That puts it smack in the category non-blue. That square of ply in the bottom half of the sliding door - that too is non-blue. Then to cap it all, the whole stability of the yacht depends on the wheelhouse remaining intact - that's non-blue. Three strikes - it's out.

Difficult to define 'blue' - easier to picture what isn't. The reason those Volvo 60s are non-blue is that they rely on race management to send out the rescue chopper whenever anything breaks off, which happens far too frequently - all part of the drama of raceboats.

In-mast furling is non-blue simply because it reduces stability by 20 degrees, though what one does when it fails is likely even more critical. Can you imagine being unable to reef the main until you reach the next marina? Wow!

There really shouldn't be too much disagreement on features that contribute towards blue and features to avoid. Wide saloons with lots of handholds? Miss one and you'll likely break your neck - it does not contribute towards blue. Of course many may decide a wide saloon suits their requirements admirably - but that is not an argument suggesting such a feature is 'blue' - only that, having weighed up the options, the benefits are worth the inherent risk.
__________________

__________________
NevisDog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 10:59   #617
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 31
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwcolby54 View Post
While I understand and truly do appreciate that idea it is helpful to me to look it a little differently.

A little scene setting.

Supposed I am an experienced backwoodsman. I love to jump in my truck and go camping. I have done it for 50 bajillion years and I know exactly what I can do with what I have and I can get places you would not imagine. Yet there are places my truck won't safely get me.

My friend buys a military surplus tricked out hummer. It has intake and exhaust piped up into the air and can go through water above the doors. It has 36 inches of clearance, and yet it is real balanced clearance, not some "jacked up about to capsize" clearance. It has gearing and tires that will get him safely up (and down) the sides of shear cliffs covered in trees.

His hummer will simply flat out go places that my very rugged 4X that I have driven for 20 years, know and love, simply won't go, never mind go safely.

My friend goes with me on a journey, and even though he doesn't have 20 years of outback experience, he laughs hysterically when I am forced to stop. He just leads the way, breaking down a path for me and tows me up the mountain.

That my friends is what I really wanted to discover in this thread.

It is not that one can't grab a 12 foot dingy, throw a sail on it and head off to Hawaii. He MAY get there, or may not. It is simply that the dingy surely is NOT as safe for such an undertaking as boat xyz, which we consider "blue" for the following list of reasons...

So to throw out "sailor J sailed to location asdfg in boat qwerty and that proves zxcvbnm" is not useful to me. All that it proves is that "sailor J sailed to location asdfg in boat qwerty". It in no way proves zxcvbnm, in fact it doesn't prove anything, other than perhaps the man (or woman) went off his meds and was feeling suicidal.

It absolutely is quite feasible to discuss the relative merits of MY 4X relative to the tricked out Hummer. We can compare the horsepower, the gearing, the ground clearance, the intake / exhaust venting, the ...

And we can discuss that, sitting in the parking lot, simply anticipating some theoretical trip across the wilderness.

So no, the fact that sailor J managed to survive some trip in boat qwerty most assuredly does NOT make it a blue water boat. It just means he didn't sink on THAT trip, though it is entirely likely that he will sink on the next trip. And it proves that he is an Adrenalin junkie.

IMHO neither of those things is really relevant to this discussion.
I think there is Blue and Blue what is comfortable in the tropics may not perhaps will not be comfortable and suitable higher than 40 degrees latitude but both may be seaworthy.

What is definitely the case is that the Fisher is nothing more than a capable offshore motor sailor. I don't like to criticise anyones boat but if anyone would consider it a Blue water cruiser they should look at it very carefully and even sail in one, I have!
__________________

__________________
Vancouver Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 14:18   #618
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Punta Arenas ahorra
Boat: 39' Westerly Sealord
Posts: 3,948
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by NevisDog View Post
I think most would agree that 'blue' requires at least a bridge deck between cockpit and cabin - the Fisher (thanks for providing such a clear photo Barnakeil) has no bridge deck, not even a step-up from the cockpit. .......
In-mast furling is non-blue simply because it reduces stability by 20 degrees, though what one does when it fails is likely even more critical. Can you imagine being unable to reef the main until you reach the next marina? Wow!
......
I have no bridge deck on my boat...... but I do have substantial washboards... and she is CC.

In-mast furling .... you only have to see one or two turn up in town with the sail jammed half in half out to know that in mast furling is non-blue.
El Pinguino is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 14:51   #619
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,511
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Not all in-mast furling systems are created equal. If designed well, and the boom is maintained at the proper angle, some wind is maintained in the sail while furling and the sail is being rolled in the correct direction... they work just fine. You also need to pay attention to what you're doing when furling or unfurling.

With ours, i can furl or unfurl the sail in 10-20 seconds, its no trouble to maintain the proper amount of sail. We've had a standard main with reef points on our first boat, the second had a furling boom and not we have in mast furling. We much prefer the in-mast furling for many reasons including safety.

Ken
__________________
Kenomac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 16:15   #620
Registered User
 
FastCruiser's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 54
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by NevisDog View Post
This began as a discussion of what helps make a boat suitable for blue-water cruising.

We need to look beyond "feel-good" and "looks fine" and "warm and dry" (but totally insecure) for this thread to be worth following. Somehow you knowledgable cruisers have lost the plot - you should stop drooling over sexy interiors and superficial appearances and stick to discussion of blue/non-blue. There must be plenty other threads to discuss what looks nice lying snug in a marina.
I think somehow you've lost the plot on WHY you go cruising, as I am one of many on this forum that are, infact cruising. And durring the voyage to Alaska, i would have paid highly for a Fisher to stay warm and comfy while we traveled. and now that we are heading south, there is only a couple boats I would rather have, and one being a Hylas.
What the criteria of a "Blue Water Boat" means to some, dosent have to be the same as yours.
And I look over the anchorage here, with over 20 boats anchored for the weekend and I would guess there are no more than a couple alike. And all of them by definitation are "Blue Water Boats"
Because I like the slanted decks on my FIRST 42, and you do-not, it dosent make it a non blue water boat, fact is, its designed for Off-Shore Racing which is more than capable than needed.
If its the far north or sailing the southern oceans, than it might be best to start a thread to state as such but to down grade the Fisher and the Hylas for not falling into your criteria, All its doing is giving those of us already cruising on the open water, "Blue" if you so desire calling it, a great Laugh....
__________________
FastCruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 16:23   #621
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Punta Arenas ahorra
Boat: 39' Westerly Sealord
Posts: 3,948
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastCruiser View Post
If its the far north or sailing the southern oceans, than it might be best to start a thread to state as such but to down grade the Fisher and the Hylas for not falling into your criteria, All its doing is giving those of us already cruising on the open water, "Blue" if you so desire calling it, a great Laugh....
The Hylas was raised in the context of being suitable for high southern latitude long distance sailing... just saying.

The Fisher? I am in love with a Chilean pilot house boat based in Pta Arenas... but its not a Fisher...
El Pinguino is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 16:44   #622
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by NevisDog View Post

(...)

I think most would agree that 'blue' requires at least a bridge deck between cockpit and cabin

(...)

In-mast furling is non-blue simply because it reduces stability by 20 degrees, though what one does when it fails is likely even more critical.

(...)
Re. bridgedeck or lack of one: look up IMOCAs then we can talk again.

Re. in-mast furling: weight aloft increases roll resistance adding to security in cases like e.g. when hit by a breaking wave, it also reduces windage when sails are stowed thus adding to blue.

And as far as failures are concerned: what do you do when your rudder fails? And yet, all boats I have sailed on had rudders...

Few will claim a furling jib is not blue. Not sure why people get so picky with furling mains.

Otherwise I am 100% with you that we both want blue. I am more like trying to show that what is commonly seen as non blue can also be seen as blue. In fact, part of the time it is (and part of the time it probably is not!)

Looking back at this thread I think if we were to employ only 50% of our concepts ... we would end up with a very ugly, and pretty useless, boat!

;-)

cheers,
b.
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 18:15   #623
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Boat: Moana 33
Posts: 681
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
Re. bridgedeck or lack of one: look up IMOCAs then we can talk again.
...
Looking back at this thread I think if we were to employ only 50% of our concepts ... we would end up with a very ugly, and pretty useless, boat!
;-)
cheers,
b.
Interesting versin of blue - the IMOCA 60 raceboat - not for man and wife crews! It has a step-up from cockpit to cabin and a truly watertight door, not a sliding piece of plywood. Also has a shallow cockpit which will drain from astern as quick as you fill it - nothing like the deep well seen on the Fisher. I think El Pinguino also has a cockpit that doesn't hold water, so it won't hold down the stern when filled and won't fill the cabin - nice way to avoid the risks of deep cockpit and no bridge deck. Point taken.

To be blue, any door at main deck level must be a watertight door - sliding doors are for the decks above.

As for blue meaning ugly - take "the Valiant which without doubt fits firmly into everyones definition of a survival Blue Water boat" - I don't remember her being ugly but will stand corrected.
__________________
NevisDog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 20:07   #624
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Boat: Moana 33
Posts: 681
Re: The criteria of "blue"

This may or may not be helpful but I just came across it on the boatdesign.net forum and I don't think they would mind publishing it here. It just happens to be my size and price range, so anyone interested in Valiants and Tamayas, and anything smaller, may be interested in this list. ...boats posted by Guillermo and published on PBO magazine as examples of offshore boats:
- Vancouver 28
- Nicholson 32
- Victoria 34
- Vancouver 34
- Malö 34
- Moody 346
- Starlight 35
- Warrior 35
- Nicholson 35
- Rival 36


It definitely confirms what I have come to regard as 'blue' in that size range. Most of them I know and most are very easy on the eye, but then beauty is a moveable feast.
__________________
NevisDog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 22:06   #625
Registered User
 
Steady Hand's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Crewing All of 2017 Available Globally
Boat: OPB = Crewing in 2017
Posts: 4,851
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by NevisDog View Post
This may or may not be helpful but I just came across it on the boatdesign.net forum and I don't think they would mind publishing it here. It just happens to be my size and price range, so anyone interested in Valiants and Tamayas, and anything smaller, may be interested in this list. ...boats posted by Guillermo and published on PBO magazine as examples of offshore boats:
- Vancouver 28
- Nicholson 32
- Victoria 34
- Vancouver 34
- Malö 34
- Moody 346
- Starlight 35
- Warrior 35
- Nicholson 35
- Rival 36


It definitely confirms what I have come to regard as 'blue' in that size range. Most of them I know and most are very easy on the eye, but then beauty is a moveable feast.
_______________

Hello.

What follows is written in a truly friendly voice, with respect and with the sole intent to continue a friendly discussion.

I am not writing this to prove you wrong. I am simply offering a different view of the same topic we are discussing. You can have a different view (and you do).

I spent some time putting this post together, with the hope that it will help others here and perhaps shed some light on how "blue water" is harder to define than most will expect. I know, because I have tried before.
_________

You posted a list (above) of boats that you found on another site/forum. You mentioned above that these are boats you "know" and apparently they appeal to you ("easy on the eye"). I used that same list as my example or starting point. Why that list? Simply because you and someone else felt it was a good list of representative boats that are considered (by someone I don't know anything about) "blue water cruisers."

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I am NOT familiar with those boats (by brand), and several were unknown to me (never seen before) so I was truly curious about them. I took the time to look at Yachtworld for examples. I chose a boat that was moderately priced (not the highest if there was more than one) and not the oldest or least expensive (because some were built in the 1960s).

I was open minded, and sincerely curious. I looked at the photos for each model.

Here is your list (from above) with the prices I found in US Dollars (my familiar currency).

- Vancouver 28 = $38K (1990)
- Nicholson 32 = $32K
- Victoria 34 = $39K
- Vancouver 34 = $171K
- Malö 34 = $100K
- Moody 346 = $70K
- Starlight 35 = $124K
- Warrior 35 = $26K
- Nicholson 35 = $50K
- Rival 36 = $77K

_____________________

One thing was quickly apparent: The boats were all located in the UK (I may have picked one boat that was in the USA).

This is probably the reason I have not seen as many or any in the USA (where I live). Or, they do not appear to be as common as other brands (built here or more lately in France).

Again, I was curious, and open minded. I looked with the HOPE that I would see something remarkable or something special or something amazing. I suppose that is unrealistic. So, I would have been satisfied if I had seen something that seemed at least "obviously different from a typical coastal cruiser."

Notice the range of prices. From a low of $26K to $171K. That is HUGE range. Seriously! You could buy SIX of the lowest priced boats for the price of ONE of the highest priced boats. So, on price alone, some are not even close.

My general impression as I looked over the boats was that most of them (in general) looked "dated" or "tired." Some looked very plain. A few were frankly "unattractive" or even "ugly" to my taste. Most were made in the 1980s, some in 1970s. Some are obviously getting old. Of course at this price point, most boats of this size WILL be old boats.

Next, my general impression on most of the boats was a question that came to mind again and again: "What is so special about these boats???" In other words, I did not see anything that struck me as especially "blue water" designed. In fact, most looked like typical "coastal cruisers" to me and most looked very little different from most American built boats of that era (early 1980s).

So, I was disappointed to not see something that would make me think "THAT is a real blue water boat!"

So what? What do I know about "blue water boats?"

Well, there is the saying (and it was said earlier in this thread) "I know one when I see one."

My point is this: If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" then I also believe "blue water is in the eye of the beholder" too.

________________

Which boat did I like the most of the set?

The Malö 34 = $99K (1993) was the most appealing to me (my taste). I liked the saloon, cockpit (from what can be seen) and general appearance of the boat interior. Notice, it was NOT the most expensive boat I saw.

Well, it is a Swedish boat, after all.

Second most appealing? The Starlight 35 = $124K.
Notice that is a 1998 boat (newer than most on the list). It is also $124K so one of the two most expensive and MORE expensive than the Malö 34 = $100K

The most expensive on the list, Vancouver 34 (2007) = $171K, is really an outlier because it is MUCH newer (2007) boat. It is 14 years younger than the Malö 34 I liked. Being newer, and much more expensive, it looks nicer inside and outside than most of the other boats I link below. It does look like a nice cruiser. Comfy for the size. It has "Treadmaster" on the decks (a common sight on UK boats) and it has a nice looking cockpit (but the traveler is perhaps a little inconvenient in location). One thing did catch my eye, I saw several protected Dorades. You know I like Dorades.

________

I am going to post a few photos to show the Malö 34 = $99K (1993) and the Vancouver 34 (2007). I am only posting photos of the Saloon and Cockpit for comparison. The Malö 34 interior has the blue cushions, the Vancouver has the red cushions.

I am not going to get into features or characteristics seen in these boats. I will leave that to others or anyone.

________________

Here are the boats I viewed. I don't know if it is against the rules here on this forum to post so many links to boats for sale, if so the mods can remove this section of my post, as I don't have any skin in the game.

I have NO connection to these boats, their owners, or the brokers. I am merely posting these links and prices to further our discussion of what "blue water" criteria means.

Vancouver 28 = $38K (1990)
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1990.../Liguria/Italy

Nicholson 32 = $32K
1972 Nicholson 32 Mk X Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Victoria 34 $39K
1987 Victoria 34 Sloop/Cutter Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Vancouver 34 = $171K
2007 Vancouver 34 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Malö 34 = $100K
1993 Malo 34 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Moody 346 = $70K
1989 Moody 346 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Starlight 35 = $124K
1998 Starlight 35-82 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Warrior 35 = $26K
1980 Warrior 35 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Nicholson 35 = $50K
1983 Nicholson 35 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Rival 36 = $77K
1988 Rival 36 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Malö 34 1993 $99K Saloon.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	49.2 KB
ID:	102637   Click image for larger version

Name:	Malö 34 1993 $99K cockpit.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	74.1 KB
ID:	102638  

Click image for larger version

Name:	Malö 34 1993 $99K Saloon 1.jpg
Views:	54
Size:	42.9 KB
ID:	102639   Click image for larger version

Name:	Vancouver 34 2007 $171K Saloon.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	40.6 KB
ID:	102640  

Click image for larger version

Name:	Vancouver 34 2007 $171K Deck Dorades 1.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	52.4 KB
ID:	102641   Click image for larger version

Name:	Vancouver 34 2007 $171K Cockpit.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	55.3 KB
ID:	102642  

__________________
Ahoy All Sailors! Need experienced crew for a passage or delivery in Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, Med, PNW, ICW, coastal or across an ocean anytime in 2017? I am available on 24hr notice. See my CF Profile "About Me" page for details. Happy to lend a hand!
Steady Hand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 22:17   #626
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Boat: Moana 33
Posts: 681
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastCruiser View Post
I think somehow you've lost the plot on WHY you go cruising, as I am one of many on this forum that are, infact cruising... All (you're) doing is giving those of us already cruising on the open water... a great Laugh....
Harsh, but justified.
Okay, maybe our understanding of blue differs. If we recognize that around 90% of modern cruising boats are not suited to the worst weather conditions likely to be encountered, and yet they represent excellent value in cruising for the vast majority of cruisers (who will quite sensibly avoid those worst conditions), then we may find some common ground.

Let's say our best mate, an experienced and capable offshore sailor, asks for advice on buying a boat to fulfill her ambition to sail round the great capes. If we recommend she buy a standard Bene, Jenneau, Hunter, Haylas 54, would we not be criminally negligent in steering her towards such a yacht?

I don't know, but before declaring some aspect of yacht design to be blue, isn't this question a reasonable test to apply? Take care with the advice we offer here - better err on the side of caution, when it may put our best friend's life at risk.
__________________
NevisDog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2015, 22:34   #627
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Boat: Moana 33
Posts: 681
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steady Hand View Post
... Why that list? Simply because you and someone else felt it was a good list of representative boats that are considered (by someone I don't know anything about) "blue water cruisers."
Thanks for the analysis - I'll read it again carefully. Just wanted to add, the person who made the list is (like me) very keen on analyzing stability - he seems to undertake an analysis of any vessel when asked - a most generous gift of his time and skills. He is 'taken to task' (given a darned good roasting) for the occasional mistake but still he tries to provide unbiased, objective information, so I've come to respect him a great deal. (Maybe that's just because we hold similar views.)

And I'll be looking at the bottom end of the price range - trying to sort the superficial gloss from the solid and reliable - unless someone has a Vancouver 34 at an unbelievable price? I'm a sucker for a 'bargain'.
__________________
NevisDog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2015, 00:56   #628
Registered User
 
TeddyDiver's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arctic Ocean
Boat: Under construction 35' ketch
Posts: 1,826
Images: 2
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Quote:
Originally Posted by NevisDog View Post
the person who made the list is (like me) very keen on analyzing stability - he seems to undertake an analysis of any vessel when asked - a most generous gift of his time and skills. He is 'taken to task' (given a darned good roasting) for the occasional mistake but still he tries to provide unbiased, objective information, so I've come to respect him a great deal. (Maybe that's just because we hold similar views.)
Yes, the information and knowlegde Guillermo shares with us is very good. All boat's are "judged" with same criterions. There's but thou, which Guillermo has pointed too. The information is based on the data which the manufacturer has provided to public, and considering some boats this data is inadaquate so some details are second hand knowledge. But in general, very good comparision.

There's an other aspect seaworthines, or "blue" which we don't know becouse you can't find that knowledge. They are the safety factors used with in the structural calculations. We do know that newer low end boat's fullfill the ISO or RCD requirements barely, and in some places below them (brass seacocks IMHO) Neither we can't know how much the age has taken it's toll in older boats. Basicly anything, no matter how well it's been build, will eventually detoriate..

So even if we knew what the "blue" boat should be, it still very hard to determine of an individual boat fullfills these blue requirements or not. What we can is to exclude boat's with obvious "nonblue" characteristics or bad history like dropping keels, impossible maintenance etc..
BR Teddy
__________________
TeddyDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2015, 02:39   #629
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia
Boat: Adams 35ft, round bilge steel, SV Saaremaa
Posts: 56
Re: The criteria of "blue"

Well this thread has turned into a bit of a 'blue' (Aussie term for a fight or argument) here and there. So just to be 'true blue' (Aussie term for something that is real Australian) I had better add my 2 cents worth.
It would seem that a BLUE BOAT is different things to different people and could be debated for a long time, as in this thread.
Anyone traveling into the wide blue yonder would do well to aquaint themselves with a bit of wide reading on the matter of sailing vessels that are safe for a long ocean passage. There has been a fair bit of wide reading in this thread already so you are on your way.
Then go with your own thoughts on what one accepts as safe.
A fair and safe passage into the BLUE.
Michael
__________________
Saaremaasailson
micknor51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2015, 03:34   #630
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 6,880
Re: The criteria of "blue"

I love the passion and investigative industry of some of these posts, however this truth has been proven again and again when ALL vessels are tested to the extreme.

Build execution trumps poor design.....not in the cosmetics you see, but in the construction of the substrate that holds everything together AND KEEPS THE WATER OUT.
__________________

__________________
Pelagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: "Santa Cruz Sails" 26' 8" x 24' 10" x 15' 3" Genoa Cut Sail Joy Devlin Classifieds Archive 0 19-06-2012 17:22
Form or Function, what Ruled Your Boat-Buying Criteria ? Johnathon123 General Sailing Forum 51 16-03-2011 23:49
Help Refine My Purchase Criteria sweetsailing Monohull Sailboats 21 07-08-2009 15:08
"recent price reduction""owner anxious""bring all offers" sailorboy1 Dollars & Cents 10 22-01-2009 12:25



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 13:46.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.