| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or
electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said anchor. This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA. So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better. Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means downsizing. This means simplicity. There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts). Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the failing old body. Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into service to do the steering. But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about. Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in
anews.com: Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said anchor. This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA. So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better. Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means downsizing. This means simplicity. There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts). Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the failing old body. Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into service to do the steering. But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about. Wilbur Hubbard Would you be interested in a good government job in our News Media Liason Department. You seem to know your stuff. The more old folks we can get to go sailing in small, unseaworthy boats means more likely loss of life. This could reduce the burgeoning cost of government services to the aged. Scientific studies indicate that the U.S.A. will be crushed economically by the growing tide of aged Americans because of the payment of government entitlements they have been promised. However, what we got here is a ponzi scheme. This house of cards will tumble and fall unless we can flood the country with young illegal aliens and put them to work so they pay Medicare and Soach Security but deny or delay them citizenship so they cannot collect benefits. This will swell the coffers but anything the government can do to increase the retirement age or facilitate the passing on of the elderly will be even more helpful from the standpoint of increasing funds by decreasing payouts. This one/two punch approach will ensure continued healthy and growing government. And a hefty luxury tax should be immediately assessed on every recreational boat sold. The function of any populace is to grow government because a large involved government knows what is best for its citizens. This benefits society in the long run. -- W. Mouch, State Science Institute |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said anchor. This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA. So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better. Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means downsizing. This means simplicity. There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts). Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the failing old body. Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into service to do the steering. But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about. Wilbur Hubbard I guess a Coronado 26 would be fine if you only cruised mosquito infested Florida swampland. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Strikes me as silly to size your boat to the mass of the maximum anchor
/ rode you can handle when reliable windlasses are easily available. I recommend a different rant - that of sail size. Most people are defeated more by sail handling than anchor handling. BTW, if you wish to further rant on anchors, I suggest you rant on Fortress rather than Danforth hi tensile as the Fortress are even lighter. For those of you who wish information, a Danforth or Fortress is a fine anchor in some conditions such as sand, but not nearly as good in oyster or rock. Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? -paul |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Paul Cassel wrote:
Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). The worst case scenario that I can think of (and have no idea if it's ever happened) is that the anchor failing to set and the crew unable to pull it up for another try. .... I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? Are you going to ask "Wilbur Hubbard" to justify his irrational dislikes & prejudices? What's next, asking him to rationalize his behavior? DSK |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
wrote in message
... Paul Cassel wrote: Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). The worst case scenario that I can think of (and have no idea if it's ever happened) is that the anchor failing to set and the crew unable to pull it up for another try. .... I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? Are you going to ask "Wilbur Hubbard" to justify his irrational dislikes & prejudices? What's next, asking him to rationalize his behavior? DSK I'm trying to remember ever being on a boat that had a windlass that didn't have the ability to use a winch handle and do it manually. I suppose they're out there, but it seems like an inexpensive backup. And, even if it didn't I suppose you could use the biggest winch you have. I just wouldn't use it for breaking free. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Apr 13, 12:13*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Wilbur Hubbard My honored poster, I agree however I would also suggest an alternative: A much large boat with a crew. Say 80'+ with a crew to do all the work. The problme as I see it is the infirm and unable simply want to live beyond their means. so they get the biggest boat they can not handle. Another case of unrealistic expectatoins. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats. Bob |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Paul Cassel" wrote in message . .. Strikes me as silly to size your boat to the mass of the maximum anchor / rode you can handle when reliable windlasses are easily available. I recommend a different rant - that of sail size. Most people are defeated more by sail handling than anchor handling. BTW, if you wish to further rant on anchors, I suggest you rant on Fortress rather than Danforth hi tensile as the Fortress are even lighter. Sail size is also important. But, it is often stated by competent sailors who write about such things that a man in good physical condition can hand and/or reef individual sails up to 500 square feet each even in strong winds. This size sail can be found on boats up to about forty feet LOA which vessels require anchors in the 50-60 pound range to be held securely in a storm. Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum. A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel and sized on the heavy end of the spectrum for added safety even when just anchoring for lunch in seeming benign conditions. It is often truly stated that it's not the water that usually damages or destroys boats but the hard stuff around the water's edge and weather is fickle and unreliable so why trust to luck? But, let's examine the folly of large yachts for the elderly and those others of diminished physical capacity. Large yachts do indeed, require large heavy anchors. These then require large, heavy, high-amperage windlasses, long lengths of heavy chain which in turn require a large heavy battery bank, generator or heavy diesel with heavy alternator, heavy thick wiring etc. All these things are failure-prone in the salt water environment. And, when one has a large heavy generator and auxiliary one usually has large heavy tankage and perhaps one or two large heavy refrigerators/freezers and all sorts of other electrical systems all of which require proper and constant maintenance. Is this how an elderly crew of a too-large vessel wants to spend their majority of their time? Or do they really wish to enjoy sailing in a more pure form. Small yachts allow more sailing time for the buck. They allow more enjoyable sailing because of the reduced physical effort required. In that regard they can be said to be safer because time spent learning how to sail the vessel competently is increased because maintenance and trouble-shooting time is decreased. If you've been following the soap opera that is the Skip Gundlach show you will know exactly what I'm talking about as the bulk of his time seems to be spent as an aground (and sometimes water-borne) grease monkey, electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc. While some of you who are on the younger side of the spectrum find this interesting and challenging, I would argue than elderly folks have been there/done that and would rather be sailing than mucking around with grease up their elbows squinting at things they can hardly see anymore and busting their fragile skin and knuckles on sharp objects or straining their skeletons and musculature attempting to squeeze into awkward positions or lifting heavy objects. On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal conditions. If there is a stout current running which is the case in many anchorages the damned things are worst than useless. They fly like a kite in the current and likely will never grab bottom. People who are sold on Fortress anchors are duffers who are obviously inexperienced lake and calm water sailors. People like that certainly are NOT to be considered qualified blue water sailors for their disregard for prudence and safety is readily apparent. For those of you who wish information, a Danforth or Fortress is a fine anchor in some conditions such as sand, but not nearly as good in oyster or rock. One should carry a variety of anchors suited to a variety of bottom types. That's quite obvious but each and every one should be of a size that a crewman or woman can hand without mechanical/electrical assistance because sooner or later systems will fail and the safety of the yacht compromised. This means a smaller yacht is called for when smaller abilities are contained therein. Light aluminum anchors have no place on a well-found ocean going yacht. They are a joke, an illusion and a travesty. That they continued to be sold is a commentary on how sailing has become just another bastion of the sloppy and inept. Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? Permanent, no! Delayed, yes oftentimes. Real sailors brook no delay based on the frivolous or an imagined necessity that, in reality, is little more than a ball and chain? Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:18:48 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote: "Bob" wrote Another case of unrealistic expectations. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats. OK, I'll fess up. I only left Bob and Wilbur in the killfile until after my next nap. The stress, fatigue, and drugs of my first hospitalization in 45 years had me a bit cranky last week and my perspective was not all it usually is. In a group like this, as long as the subject actually is boats and cruising, we should expect and tolerate some profanity, stupidity, putting words in others mouths and then attacking them. I was stunned to find myself agreeing with Wilbur on something, not the I'm-the-only-real-sailor-here, you're-an-idiot-if-you-don't-agree-with-me, tone of the OP (and most of his posts) but the essential point about boat size. After my first season with "Strider", when I realized that I wanted to go back to my roots and give up flying so I could get her ready to do extensive cruising in my retirement, I thought about selling her before I was too deep in the hole with upgrades and getting a larger boat. I quickly realized though that economically and physically, I would be able to sail the 32 footer years longer than something in the 40 - 45 foot range and that was a good trade off for less space and comfort. Lesser boats have gone around the world with not a significantly smaller success ratio than larger ones. This is a personal choice, not an absolute. If you must have refrigeration, Internet, air conditioning, separate cabins, etc., the years you spend ashore instead of cruising make the larger boat a valid choice. My choice is largely colored by having been away from sailing and cruising for nearly two decades. If I had been sailing and cruising all those years, I might well feel differently. As for the quoted portion above, I have never heard of the river in Egypt sinking boats that weren't actually on it. As one who has professionally spent more of his professional life studying the loss of sailing vessels than I'm sure anyone in this group ever even heard of, I would say that *denial* is a link in may accident chains. One of the things that annoys me about Wilbur's "Bob" personna, along with putting his words in to other's mouths and then attacking them, is simply pretending not to have heard the answers. I previously pointed out that I misspoke, not being quite as sharp these days as usual. The doctor did not say that I have the back, or anything else, of a 30 year old; just the spine and specifically the disks. I do have one damaged disk but he said he sees those in 20 something fitness buffs. It is quite clear to me that I am a lot more failure prone and maintenance intensive than I was in youth and will get more so every year. That's why I agree with Wilbur about boat size. I have been down to see and contemplate the Titanic. Despite some primitive features in her construction, she was a more seaworthy and survivable ship than most vessels that have put to sea since. There are books about sailing vessel accidents with long index entries after my name referencing my investigation and analysis of their demise. I have had friends lost at sea, among them two women that I loved in separate incidents. Could anyone seriously suggest that I am in denial about the danger and power of the sea? I think that the problem lies with the definition of the word "cruising". What is a cruising boat? Noticeably to a lot of the denizens of this group it is a boat that you can spend the night on; make a week, maybe a two week, "cruise" on. But to a lot of us it is a boat that we can live on for months at a time and there is a big difference in a boat that you spend Easter weekend on and a boat that is your home for months. Try it sometime. Take all the duds you want down to the boat and stow them. Now move aboard and you can't go home for six months. If it ain't there you either do without or go and buy a new one. Ah Ha! This changes the equation just a little. You play the Banjo? Well, find a place to store it. You might need a pair of clean pants - find a place to store them. No keeping boat parts at the garage either. They got to be aboard. Right at the moment I have my wife's sister and her girlfriend staying on the boat (in addition to my wife and I) and we damned near have to go to bed by the numbers. Have you ever sat and watched three women get ready for bed? The amount of stuff that they smear on their faces would lubricate my engine for then next six months. The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. You don't believe me? Try it. Move on the boat and don't got home for six months. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Bob" wrote in message ... My honored poster, I agree however I would also suggest an alternative: A much large boat with a crew. Say 80'+ with a crew to do all the work. The problme as I see it is the infirm and unable simply want to live beyond their means. so they get the biggest boat they can not handle. Another case of unrealistic expectatoins. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats. Bob How right you are, sir! But add the word, "competent." Take my Swan 68, for example. My crew can handle her and win races with her. But, they do so because I've chosen them wisely. If they do not demonstrate competence, strength, endurance and finesse they are not allowed to participate. I insist upon a crew that delivers what I ship them for - winning. If they don't win they don't ride! People get into bad habits. In the typical boating lifespan individuals (Bobsprit comes to mind) often buy boats that increase in size, purchase after purchase, simply because the individual is more concerned with imagined prestige, comfort and convenience than reality. Never mind they already couldn't competently handle the smaller yacht because it was already too large for them, they imagine that a larger yacht will solve all their self-imposed problems while the opposite is true - it magnifies all their existing deficiencies! It's the water-borne Peter Principle. The owner and crew rises to the level of greatest ineptitude. Elderly folks and the infirm need to use good and common sense and at some point reverse the trend towards larger and larger. The yacht needs to fit the abilities of the crew and an elderly couple should realize that they need to downsize at some point or they will find themselves, like Bruce in Bangkok, stuck in some backwater with their cruising plans on permanent hold - defeated by size and complexity that's beyond their limited means to handle. Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. You are soooo wrong! If your first priority is a sailboat large enough to make it a seaborne reflection of your shoreside residence filled will all the luxuries and frivolity of said lubberly abode then please STAY ashore. Leave the waters of this world to those of us who know how to enjoy them in a fashion that is concordant with life at sea and not some *******ization of it with a mini-commercial cruise ship that belches noise, pollution and danger 24/7. If I wish to live in a smelly, noisy truck stop I will buy an RV and park in truck stops. But I wish to live and enjoy the clean, quite and sane waters in a realistic, simple manner that is in harmony with my chosen path. You people who think you have to take the land to sea ruin it for those of us who understand and enjoy the cruising life as it was meant to be - simple, quiet, trouble-free and sane. One other thing. Your philosophy has been proven to be bankrupt. Your example is one of being stuck at a dock in your dotage because your floating home with all its out of place shoreside amenities is now proven unsuited to cruising. You are no longer able to sail because you can no longer handle the size and complications you unnecessarily imposed. Try as you might any other excuse for your self-imposed retirement from sailing won't wash. It's the size and complication of your vessel that has retired you - nothing else. So don't proselytize to me! I am approximately your age and I still live aboard and cruise precisely because my vessel is not some big, opulent, system-laden, floating condominium that's beyond my means to get under way, let alone voyage. Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:20 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. You are soooo wrong! If your first priority is a sailboat large enough to make it a seaborne reflection of your shoreside residence filled will all the luxuries and frivolity of said lubberly abode then please STAY ashore. Leave the waters of this world to those of us who know how to enjoy them in a fashion that is concordant with life at sea and not some *******ization of it with a mini-commercial cruise ship that belches noise, pollution and danger 24/7. If I wish to live in a smelly, noisy truck stop I will buy an RV and park in truck stops. But I wish to live and enjoy the clean, quite and sane waters in a realistic, simple manner that is in harmony with my chosen path. You people who think you have to take the land to sea ruin it for those of us who understand and enjoy the cruising life as it was meant to be - simple, quiet, trouble-free and sane. One other thing. Your philosophy has been proven to be bankrupt. Your example is one of being stuck at a dock in your dotage because your floating home with all its out of place shoreside amenities is now proven unsuited to cruising. You are no longer able to sail because you can no longer handle the size and complications you unnecessarily imposed. Try as you might any other excuse for your self-imposed retirement from sailing won't wash. It's the size and complication of your vessel that has retired you - nothing else. So don't proselytize to me! I am approximately your age and I still live aboard and cruise precisely because my vessel is not some big, opulent, system-laden, floating condominium that's beyond my means to get under way, let alone voyage. Wilbur Hubbard I thought you have a 68 foot Swan, Wilbur. ~~ SNERK ~~ |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:20 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. You are soooo wrong! If your first priority is a sailboat large enough to make it a seaborne reflection of your shoreside residence filled will all the luxuries and frivolity of said lubberly abode then please STAY ashore. Leave the waters of this world to those of us who know how to enjoy them in a fashion that is concordant with life at sea and not some *******ization of it with a mini-commercial cruise ship that belches noise, pollution and danger 24/7. If I wish to live in a smelly, noisy truck stop I will buy an RV and park in truck stops. But I wish to live and enjoy the clean, quite and sane waters in a realistic, simple manner that is in harmony with my chosen path. You people who think you have to take the land to sea ruin it for those of us who understand and enjoy the cruising life as it was meant to be - simple, quiet, trouble-free and sane. One other thing. Your philosophy has been proven to be bankrupt. Your example is one of being stuck at a dock in your dotage because your floating home with all its out of place shoreside amenities is now proven unsuited to cruising. You are no longer able to sail because you can no longer handle the size and complications you unnecessarily imposed. Try as you might any other excuse for your self-imposed retirement from sailing won't wash. It's the size and complication of your vessel that has retired you - nothing else. So don't proselytize to me! I am approximately your age and I still live aboard and cruise precisely because my vessel is not some big, opulent, system-laden, floating condominium that's beyond my means to get under way, let alone voyage. Wilbur Hubbard I thought you have a 68 foot Swan, Wilbur. But, I don't live aboard my Swan. She's a racer and a thoroughbred made for going fast and kicking ass. I live aboard my Allied Seawind 32, "Sea Isle." She is simple, seaworthy and a competent circumnavigator. So, as you can see, I practice what I preach. I do "cheat" a little bit, though, with the anchors. I don't have a windlass on the foredeck but I do have a large Barlow, Stainless Steel, two-speed manual sheet winch with which to facilitate breaking out the anchor. Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:08:09 -0400, Gogarty
wrote: One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't think they would handle chain very well. The sailing battleships had a hemp rode something like four inches in diameter, They would attach a length of smaller stuff to the rode and lead that to the capstan. Casady |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... heavily snipped-Wilbur seems to think that older people are all decrepit and unfit On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal conditions. Wilbur got that right anyway. And Fortress anchors are not even solid. some parts are held on with little screws! |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Edgar" wrote in message
... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... heavily snipped-Wilbur seems to think that older people are all decrepit and unfit On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal conditions. Wilbur got that right anyway. And Fortress anchors are not even solid. some parts are held on with little screws! So what Neal is saying is... use an anchor appropriate to the bottom. Duhhh... not exactly rocket science to figure that out. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Edgar" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... heavily snipped-Wilbur seems to think that older people are all decrepit and unfit Because they all ARE! It's a biological fact that the elderly are much diminished from their mental and physical capacites they embodied in their prime. It's nothing to be ashamed of but it IS something that should be taken into consideration. To deny aging equates to diminished capacity is to deny reality. On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal conditions. Wilbur got that right anyway. And Fortress anchors are not even solid. some parts are held on with little screws! At least there still remains to you some common sense. When I stated that Fortress anchors are a joke I meant every word of it. An aluminum anchor is tantamount to a lead balloon! There exists a market for such garbage only because of stupid, ignorant or crazy people. Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Apr 14, 4:18*am, "Roger Long" wrote:
OK, I'll fess up. *I only left Bob and Wilbur in the killfile until after my next nap. *The stress, fatigue, and drugs of my first hospitalization in 45 years had me a bit cranky last week and my perspective was not all it usually is. *In a group like this, as long as the subject actually is boats and cruising, we should expect and tolerate some profanity, stupidity, putting words in others mouths and then attacking them. Roger Long My Dearest Roger, I accept you appology. Thank you :) Bob |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Gogarty wrote:
My Lumar Concept 1 can let the anchor go in free fall so even if the windlass fails one can anchor the boat. But you can't use a winch handle to bring it back up. With a Delta 35 and all chain rode, we pray a lot that the windlass does not fail. One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't think they would handle chain very well. The old square riggers used an endless line on the capstan that attached to the anchor cable via "nippers". Could be done that way with lines on the winch hooked to the chain? |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Roger Long" wrote in message ... Thank you. I have also just been informed privately by a source I trust that you are not, in fact Wilbur. I therefore owe you another apology and will treat you with more respect in the future. -- Roger Long Does that mean you will continue to disrespect me, Wilbur Hubbard? And please stop acting like a girly-man with your meaningless apologies. Wilbur Hubbard |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Apr 14, 2:49 am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. Curiously, stuff seems to accumulate to fill all the available space. Lots of couples live aboard full time and cruise widely in 35 ish feet of moderate displacement. I tend to think that 36' is close to the magic compromise in terms of space and cost and workability for a voyaging couple on a monohull. I'd take ten feet off that for day- sailing and the occasional extended weekend. Cats need a bit more size offshore. But, YMMV big time. -- Tom. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
wrote in message
... On Apr 14, 2:49 am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. Curiously, stuff seems to accumulate to fill all the available space. Lots of couples live aboard full time and cruise widely in 35 ish feet of moderate displacement. I tend to think that 36' is close to the magic compromise in terms of space and cost and workability for a voyaging couple on a monohull. I'd take ten feet off that for day- sailing and the occasional extended weekend. Cats need a bit more size offshore. But, YMMV big time. -- Tom. I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and several overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to make single-handing a breeze in most conditions. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:42:37 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap: Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum. A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel Wilbur Hubbard I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get 40 foot or larger. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Bloody Horvath" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:42:37 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote this crap: Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum. A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel Wilbur Hubbard I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get 40 foot or larger. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. For your perusal: Your thirty-five foot yacht, subject to where your are cruising, requires at least a primary anchor of about 35 pounds and a secondary one of about the same size. You may be able to get away with an aluminum anchor like the Fortress or equivalent of about 18 pounds. Not mention the weight of the chain you have a fair load to hoist. Compound this with a fresh wind when you lift your anchor and you will not have to go to Body Plus (Gym) that evening). The other way is to use an undersize anchor and lifting become much easier as well as dragging when the wind starts to freshen up. I never had a windlass for decades with my previous boat using a 13 pounds Danford. Now, with my new boat I carry three anchors, two of 35 pounds each and one of 18 pounds. Having pulled my old Danford for decades I appreciate the electric windlass. My windlass will not work unless the boat engine is on. Should the windlass becomes not operational I can always return to my basic training to pull the anchor or use one of the winches. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:51:23 -0300, wrote
this crap: I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get 40 foot or larger. For your perusal: Your thirty-five foot yacht, subject to where your are cruising, requires at least a primary anchor of about 35 pounds and a secondary one of about the Yeah. So what? same size. You may be able to get away with an aluminum anchor like the Fortress or equivalent of about 18 pounds. Not mention the weight of the chain you have a fair load to hoist. Compound this with a fresh wind when you lift your anchor and you will not have to go to Body Plus (Gym) that evening). 35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand. If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out. My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Sail size is also important. But, it is often stated by competent sailors who write about such things that a man in good physical condition can hand and/or reef individual sails up to 500 square feet each even in strong winds. This size sail can be found on boats up to about forty feet LOA which vessels require anchors in the 50-60 pound range to be held securely in a storm. Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a limiting factor as anchor weight. My personal experience does not agree. My 42' boat has a displacement of roughly 33,000 lbs. It has a mainsail area of roughly 450 feet. I have no problems weighing anchor of 65 lbs with a reasonable lead of chain / rope rode, but I do have a serious issue handling the mainsail in heavy weather. Even with jiffy reefing, taking in a reef or furling the mainsail for running bare is a major issue while anchoring has always been rather simple. I have never tried anchoring in, say, 15 fathoms with an all chain rode, but then the mass of the anchor isn't really the issue as much as the rode. So a 10 lb anchor with that rode would be as difficult as the 65 (pretty much) meaning a Mac 26 would be as much a problem as my Tayana 42. Thus, as I said, the limiting factor isn't boat size or anchor weight but really, sail area. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:07:45 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote: That is an excellent point. I think the real distinction is between "cruising" and "living aboard". Being a northerner who has spent his life in the cycle of the seasons and planning cruises north where the seasons are even shorter, a shore base is a given for me. Being in love with a woman who likes gardens and neighbors more, and cruising in *slightly* less than I do is also a factor. I expect to spend some long periods essentially living aboard but my needs are simple as long as I can keep moving and see new things. If I planned to abandon all physical presence ashore, I expect I would decide I need a larger boat. I don;t like the term "live aboard" as it has the connotation of being tied to the dock. Rather, imagine setting off on a, say five or six year circumnavigation and what you would want to bring along on the trip....You'll need the torque wrench in case you overhaul the engine. A small welder is handy for fixing broken chain plates, of course you will need your carpenter's tool chest and the mechanic's tool box and a few gallons of epoxy. Those left over bronze plumbing fittings will come in handy and probably better have enough tubing to replace the gas line to the stove in case it breaks. A spare shroud might be handy. Oh, yes, a white shirt, necktie and long trousers and a pair of shoes, in case you get invited to a wedding. 40 feet is marginal for two..... Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
|
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Apr 14, 2:49 am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. Curiously, stuff seems to accumulate to fill all the available space. Lots of couples live aboard full time and cruise widely in 35 ish feet of moderate displacement. I tend to think that 36' is close to the magic compromise in terms of space and cost and workability for a voyaging couple on a monohull. I'd take ten feet off that for day- sailing and the occasional extended weekend. Cats need a bit more size offshore. But, YMMV big time. -- Tom. I've been aboard some of those 35 ft. cruising boats that have been sailing for several years. The ones that entertain guests in the cockpit because there isn;t room down below for four people to sit down. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:01:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 14, 2:49 am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts, cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water. Curiously, stuff seems to accumulate to fill all the available space. Lots of couples live aboard full time and cruise widely in 35 ish feet of moderate displacement. I tend to think that 36' is close to the magic compromise in terms of space and cost and workability for a voyaging couple on a monohull. I'd take ten feet off that for day- sailing and the occasional extended weekend. Cats need a bit more size offshore. But, YMMV big time. -- Tom. I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and several overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to make single-handing a breeze in most conditions. My point exactly. But you don;t have two year's supply of engine spares, a spare propeller, a complete set of mechanics tools, a fair sized chest of carpenter's tools and all the other bits and pieces that you "might need" if it breaks in PagoPago, or some other remote place. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:51:23 -0300, wrote:
"Bloody Horvath" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:42:37 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote this crap: Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum. A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel Wilbur Hubbard I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get 40 foot or larger. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. For your perusal: Your thirty-five foot yacht, subject to where your are cruising, requires at least a primary anchor of about 35 pounds and a secondary one of about the same size. You may be able to get away with an aluminum anchor like the Fortress or equivalent of about 18 pounds. Not mention the weight of the chain you have a fair load to hoist. Compound this with a fresh wind when you lift your anchor and you will not have to go to Body Plus (Gym) that evening). The other way is to use an undersize anchor and lifting become much easier as well as dragging when the wind starts to freshen up. I never had a windlass for decades with my previous boat using a 13 pounds Danford. Now, with my new boat I carry three anchors, two of 35 pounds each and one of 18 pounds. Having pulled my old Danford for decades I appreciate the electric windlass. My windlass will not work unless the boat engine is on. Should the windlass becomes not operational I can always return to my basic training to pull the anchor or use one of the winches. I'll add a bit to that. You have, say a 40 pound of anchor, anchored in say 30 feet of somewhat exposed water so you have a 5:1 scope out. The wind is blowing onshore at say 7 MPH. You are single handed. I guarantee that you will appreciate having a powered windlass! Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On 2008-04-14 13:27:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said: Because they all ARE! It's a biological fact that the elderly are much diminished from their mental and physical capacites they embodied in their prime. It's nothing to be ashamed of but it IS something that should be taken into consideration. To deny aging equates to diminished capacity is to deny reality. But to assert that they are incapable is to deny reality as well. It's not an either-or, but a "both" solution. My wife can't manhandle systems on our boat the way I do. She needs winch handles, for instance, and couldn't easily haul our current anchor and chain by hand. She's a little girl and never had that sort of strength. But she can handle a properly set-up 46' cat as easily as our pocket cruiser once she learns the systems. All it takes is adapting your systems and techniques to the available skills. Sometimes the system needed *is* a smaller boat. We have a few people on our docks who aren't old or particularly incapable, but don't go out single-handed. They should have smaller boats. (Some got sailing dinks for knocking around.) -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:46:54 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote: I have no qualms about my Fortress standing up to the strains that sand, mud, or gravel can put on it. They're OK for certain conditions but I regard them as a special purpose anchor. They will frequently not set in adverse conditions such as: - from a moving boat (anchor planes through water or skips along the bottom). - strong currents (see above). - unfavorable bottom (hard, weedy, rocky, etc). All danforth type anchors have a strong propensity for becoming fouled in reversing tide or wind conditions. They excel however in high holding power for their weight *if* properly set, and if the load direction does not change more than a small amount. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:38:01 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote: Thus, as I said, the limiting factor isn't boat size or anchor weight but really, sail area. You need a better sail handling system. Do you have lazy jacks, dutch men, and/or a stack pack system? I have seen one person easily handle the mainsail on a 70 footer using all the above (and an electric halyard winch). It is also important to have your halyard and jiffy reefing lines run back to the cockpit with stoppers and winches, halyard on one side, jiffy reefing on the other. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:10:52 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: 40 feet is marginal for two..... We find that a 49 ft trawler is about right but even that has its limits. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On 2008-04-14 09:24:20 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said: You are soooo wrong! If your first priority is a sailboat large enough to make it a seaborne reflection of your shoreside residence filled will all the luxuries and frivolity of said lubberly abode then please STAY ashore. He's wrong only if he's alone doing it. Adding a second person at least doubles the "stuff", and very few mates (of either sex) are as dedicated, so the required few concessions add to the clutter. Add occasional family and friends and the requirements pretty much double again (though that space can be reclaimed between times). ----- At work, I'm training my replacements, will be outsourced by the end of the year. If it were just me, I'd sell the house, cut the lines and be in the Bahamas on Xan by this time next year. But having my lady with me makes it so much better, so at most we'll be on a sabbatical of a few months down there. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On 2008-04-14 17:01:58 -0400, "Capt. JG" said:
I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and several overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to make single-handing a breeze in most conditions. Pat and I find our 28' comfortable for about a month at a time, our max cruise so far. Pat thinks Xan's satisfactory for 2-3 months at a clip, but time will tell. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On 2008-04-14 19:58:04 -0400, Bloody Horvath said:
35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand. If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out. My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor. Don't forget the chain. We are a size (or maybe two) big on 30' of chain, so have an additional 30# to haul up. Mud can weigh a bit, too. I just imagine most 5'2" 125# women trying to haul that by hand. Yeah, we can lighten our anchor & chain, but would first get a windlass, as we sleep better with what we have mounted. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Apr 14, 3:19 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
I've been aboard some of those 35 ft. cruising boats that have been sailing for several years. The ones that entertain guests in the cockpit because there isn;t room down below for four people to sit down. Well our experience here differs. I've enjoyed a good number of dinners served below by cruising couples in their 30 something foot boats. Some on small 30 something boats. We sat six to dinner one night in Tonga on a 32 foot boat cruised by a couple. Four of us had dinner below on a 25' Pacific Seacraft that was half way between Hawaii and Oz with a couple aboard... I've got two sets of particularly dear friends who've fed us many times in their 36 and 37 foot boats and both pairs of them have been cruising very seriously for over 20 years. One of them is a professional boat builder and a talented sculptor and he keeps an extraordinarily complete set of tools and spares and there's still plenty of room below. Two folks can live and cruise full time on a moderate displacement monohull of 35 feet in some comfort (eg. with a computer, tv, books &c) and still have a place to entertain below, stow a few grand-kids for the occasional week or two and carry a lot of spares. If you absolutely refuse to ever take anything off the boat you'll eventually be entertaining on deck no matter how big your boat is. Of course, bigger boats can carry more, are generally faster, safer and more comfortable at sea, have more privacy, berths that are kinder to old backs and so on. The trade offs are that they're more expensive to keep, and either harder to work or more complex... So, there's an engineering compromise that juggles money, crew strength, tech ability and so on. There are also many aesthetic questions. For instance, I think its good for people to live on boat that gives them a buzz to behold. Some folks want to live with a Zen like simplicity and others want to be reminded of oak and tar... One size does not fit all. But, IMO, all things considered, 36 isn't a bad number. By the way, Pago is civilization. Heck Apia is civilization. They have currier service, hardware stores, engineering shops, you name it. I've had a broken boat in Apia. -- Tom. |
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041422261877923-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-14 19:58:04 -0400, Bloody Horvath said: 35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand. If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out. My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor. Don't forget the chain. We are a size (or maybe two) big on 30' of chain, so have an additional 30# to haul up. Mud can weigh a bit, too. I just imagine most 5'2" 125# women trying to haul that by hand. Yeah, we can lighten our anchor & chain, but would first get a windlass, as we sleep better with what we have mounted. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Jere... he doesn't actually sail and he certainly has never had to deal with an anchor/chain combo. 30 feet of chain ain't nuthin if you have a all-chain rode. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com