How long ashore

[DavidBolger]

I bought my 1989 Sadler 34 in August 2001. Since then she has been in constant use and only taken out of the water to be antifouled annually. The previous owner had her epoxied and the survey when I bought her showed that she was perfect with below average moisture readings (from what I can remember). I am thinking about taking her out of the water and storing her on the hard for about a month. To my shock, it is an expensive proposition and I am wondering if this is really necessary task. Opinions please.

regards

David

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[greatspirit]

See no point in taking her out of the water other than for anti-fouling as you have been doing.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

imho, the taking ashore is only "good" insofar as it is surrounded by slightly less damp air, and elimnates any risk of damage by other boats or against pontoons etc. But other risks are damage during lift/drop of course

Strange that it is more expensive, though, unless they can't rent the berth whilst you are out, i suppose...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

I don't think there is a definitive answer, opinions seem divided. It is certainly true that older boats do not benefit from staying in the water all the time, and I speak from experience, and that younger boats do not seem to suffer moisture take-up in the same way, according to moisture meter readings.

Certainly no GRP boat is going to suffer as a result of being taken out of the water for several months per year, whatever her age, but that doesn't really help you. In your position, given her history, I'd consider leaving her in and taking annual moisture meter readings when she comes out for an antifoul.

Actually that's not strictly true, because if it were my boat I'd always have her out of the water for the 3-5 months that I don't sail her, but my costs are obviously different to yours, and I've seen what rampant osmosis does to an old hull if undetected and don't want to see it again.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gordonmc]

In general terms a boat will be safer in the water than standing in chocks or a cradle on the hard. For one thing her weight will be spread rather than being concentrated on four cradle points.
The unstepping and following stepping of the mast is the most likely time for rig damage. Leaving the mast up while the boat is on the hard for months at a time just isn't an option, IMHO. Some work is easier without having to negotiate ladders and scaffolding. I took the gearbox out last weekend on my own, quite straightforward to swing it overboard onto the pontoon.
No matter how hard you try and keep the surroundings clean on the hard, the boat is constantly filthy from stuff being carried in on people's feet and by the wind.
Lastly... winter sailing can be great.
If you don't need to dry the hull (my hull's wooden, so its not an issue) and you don't need to inspect the rigging, leave her in.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatmike]

See my last post below regarding Survey Epoxied Hull. Might help you decide...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Tim_Bennett]

A surveyor once told me 'older' (10 years or more?) GRP boats must be dried out for at least a couple of months a year. NB 'must' not 'should'. IMHO, if you have to take her out to antifoul anyway, why not leave her ashore for a few months to dry out. Don't understand why it costs more - shop around if possible.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rick]

With all due respect Tim, hearsay from an unnamed surveyor about indeterminate aged grp must be dried out doesn't seem to be terribly relevant.

Here in Australia, most boats stay in the water all year round - I've missed sailing my boat 3 weeks in the last 12 months, as our weather is suited to year round use. At 30 years old, my boat is not exhibiting any problems from constant immersion.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Tim_Bennett]

Well that's good to hear. Just goes to show there's a lot of differing views, folklore and legend.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

> The previous owner had her epoxied and the survey when I bought her
> showed that she was perfect with below average moisture readings

Did your surveyor obtain the moisture readings by scraping away some epoxy to expose the underlying hull surface?

I ask because there is another YBW debate raging with polarised opinions, some suggest that removing epoxy patches for inspection is a criminal act of vandalism. I think it is routine part of due diligence when buying a second-hand yacht.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DavidBolger]

I am not sure whether he removed the epoxy layer. I know that he did remove the antifoul. I will double check the report again.

Conclusion seems to be there is no good reason to keep her out of the water. Of all the replies only one suggested to dry her out but that had no firm supporting view. I think I will save my money and spend it on the more expensive antifoul paint to see if that makes any difference.

Thanks

David

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[whisper]

We are keeping ours in this Winter for 2 reasons.
1) we're hoping to get a lot of lovely days use over the next 4-5months.
2) the awesome cost of craneage and storage ashore. The latter does seem to be over the top at the larger marinas.

We've got a deal on a drying (mud) berth on an isolated pontoon about 80metres from our normal drying quayside berth. The theory being that the boat will be safer on the pontoon rather than against the wall - hope we're right.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PhilF]

could you spot osmosis withour taking the boat out of the water -

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[andy_wilson]

An un-epoxy coated hull that is susceptible to moistue absorbtion would benefit from 6 months out in the winter, whereas 1 month would be of no use for 'drying out' unless external, additional methods were adopted beyond cold dry arctic airflows.

The only reason for taking yours out for a month is if you have some underwater tasks to do that can't be done between the tides against the wall.

<hr width=100% size=1>