31' Bertram Clone-Craigslist

jackryan · Post by **jackryan** » Apr 3rd, '17, 10:21

This looks pretty similar to the Bertram 31' Sportfish model.

https://neworleans.craigslist.org/boa/6069715750.html

Navatech · Post by **Navatech** » Apr 3rd, '17, 13:39

jackryan wrote:This looks pretty similar to the Bertram 31' Sportfish model.

Pretty similar?!... That looks like what I would expect a Chinese knockoff to look like... Granted, the pictures aren't that great but this looks like somebody used an old B31 as a plug to create some molds...

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 3rd, '17, 20:49

Not Chinese. Was actually built in Florida. The company that built this boat showed up I want to say 5 to 10 years ago. They tried to claim it was better than the 31. It was lighter, but that had to hurt the ride.

If I remember right, when they first started advertising they used the picture of Capt. Pat running Buddy Boy. I believe he sent them a letter telling them to remove the picture or else.

I believe it was a huge flop.

I found this if you want a quick peak.

http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/boats ... assau-3204

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 3rd, '17, 20:55

http://www.bright-side.net/marine/

I take that back they are still around. Found this at the bottom of the link I provided above.

Bertramp · Post by **Bertramp** » Apr 4th, '17, 07:53

I too think that they flopped.
If someone really wants a minted out 31, they buy one or build one. If you desire a 63 split window coupe, you don't get a kit car that looks like one.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Apr 4th, '17, 11:14

Bertramp wrote:I too think that they flopped.
If someone really wants a minted out 31, they buy one or build one. If you desire a 63 split window coupe, you don't get a kit car that looks like one.

But if you want a Cobra chances are you'll be buying a kit car.

It's a nice knock off for sure, but at those bucks it's a knockoff without character and no name recognition.
Also think the boat is a bit stark...stripped down and clean is one thing.

Wonder if rebirth of Bertram and the BIG 31 AKA, the 35 came into play...

I know IF I had the coin to toss for either boat which I'd choose.

Yannis · Post by **Yannis** » Apr 4th, '17, 15:42

When I saw it, I thought it was a B31 alright.
Nothing Chinese etc, to the contrary , I liked the plastic fantastic aspect.
But then again, I could never own a 31, so I wouldn't be able to see the minor differences, if any.
Sure it could pass as a 31 though, if you removed the name initials.

Howesounder · Post by **Howesounder** » Apr 4th, '17, 17:52

Let's also remember the line about imitation being the most sincere form of flattery:)

Steve

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 4th, '17, 20:01

I know that Bertram has changed hands and the 31 has not been built for quite a while, but I am surprised that Bertram has not tied to shut them down.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Apr 5th, '17, 06:00

Tony Meola wrote:I know that Bertram has changed hands and the 31 has not been built for quite a while, but I am surprised that Bertram has not tied to shut them down.

I think around the time these boats were being made, Bertram had their hands more then full with lackluster sales and delamination problems of their flagship boats. Before that happened I don't think they gave a poop about a small company making knockoffs of an ancient line they seemed to try and distance themselves from. If I recall Ferretti yachts...this was to be their low end fishing boat line that they would bring up to their standards.
At least at one particular boat show I felt that way...Buddy mentioned I had a 31, thats an old boat as one sales guy walked past to meet another attendee. Walked past us rambling about Mediterranean sleek and fabrics. True I was on their flagship, queen of the show and at the time couldn't have paid the fuel bill for an offshore trip on that boat...but the response was not welcoming.

Do have to say, one sales guy did pick up the ball and started showing us what interested me, the heart, the engine room and the cockpit, bridge talking a little about keeping the heritage.

I also could be totally off base, my timelines are all getting mushed as the years go by.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 5th, '17, 21:12

Carl

I agree they have had many distractions, but for Bertram to treat an owner even an old one that way is no excuse. As I used to tell my coworkers, when I worked for a big Insurance Company, "My former client just became a prospect."

Now it would be interesting to see what would happen if the new owners found success in the new models and some place down the road they decided to come out with a 31 of some type. Oh my it could get interesting.

JP Dalik · Post by **JP Dalik** » Apr 8th, '17, 18:24

The price isn't terrible considering what some of our older boats have been sold for. You'd be hard pressed to buy one and bring it up to that standard of modern for any less.

You just have to like green and oyster

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 8th, '17, 22:03

JP

Since it is a lot lighter, I would think the ride would not be as good as our 31's.

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Apr 9th, '17, 09:35

Weight can always be added, I would be more worried about quality.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 9th, '17, 22:47

You would need to add at least 2000 lbs.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Apr 10th, '17, 06:09

Light 31's run pretty good too, just different.
It's going over the seas instead of through them.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 10th, '17, 21:18

Carl wrote:Light 31's run pretty good too, just different.
It's going over the seas instead of through them.

Just bolt everything loose down.

I have never been in one, but I am told that the 31's with the 3208 Cats ride the best. No offense to Mr. Lilco. I have not been on his boat either so can't compare them.

Catalina31 · Post by **Catalina31** » Apr 14th, '17, 07:22

Here's a 2010 "Empowered Bertram 31" for $379,000
https://orangecounty.craigslist.org/boa/6077657819.html

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Apr 17th, '17, 15:36

That is an "empowered" price too!!! LOL!

conchy joe · Post by **conchy joe** » Apr 24th, '17, 12:03

This boat is about two miles from me. I spotted it about two weeks ago and talked to the dealer. He said the boat is built in NC from the original 31 mold.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 24th, '17, 20:57

conchy joe wrote:This boat is about two miles from me. I spotted it about two weeks ago and talked to the dealer. He said the boat is built in NC from the original 31 mold.

I would think they would have had to remake the mold. I don't believe this boat has the tumble home ours have. Otherwise, they would need to build the hull in two sections and put them together. That is how the original was made. Due to the Tumble home they could not just pop the hull out of the mold. That is one other reason they stopped production. It was getting too expensive to continue that process.

They may have used an old mold to get the design for the hull but anything is possible.

Raybo Marine NY · Post by **Raybo Marine NY** » Apr 25th, '17, 08:40

it was a split mold, boat was in one piece but the mold was unbolted to remove the boat

Did they only make one of these? seems everytime I come across this copy its always the same green boat

Craig Mac · Post by **Craig Mac** » Apr 25th, '17, 10:41

A two piece mold does not mean the boat is built in 2 sections and put together.

The mold is in two pieces that are bolted together and the boat is laid up as one piece. As the tumble home prevents the the hull from being pulled vertically out of the mold---the mold needs to be unbolted and moved away form the hull.

I have seen that quote that it makes the production process more expensive--but I do not buy that-------if you were making thousands of hulls---I understand the extra labor---but laying up a hull is a not the biggest expense in building a boat and the labor to separate a mold can't add up to a lot.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 25th, '17, 21:25

Craig Mac wrote:A two piece mold does not mean the boat is built in 2 sections and put together.

The mold is in two pieces that are bolted together and the boat is laid up as one piece. As the tumble home prevents the the hull from being pulled vertically out of the mold---the mold needs to be unbolted and moved away form the hull.

I have seen that quote that it makes the production process more expensive--but I do not buy that-------if you were making thousands of hulls---I understand the extra labor---but laying up a hull is a not the biggest expense in building a boat and the labor to separate a mold can't add up to a lot.

If I remember correctly, the glass guys at Bertram had to do extra work when she came out of the mold and it was explained to me that it was because of the two piece mold. So not sure why they would have to reinforce the keel after it came out, unless it was gelcoat work do to a seam.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Apr 25th, '17, 21:31

http://bertram31.com/newbb/viewtopic.ph ... y+up#p6894

Well seek and ye shall find. Here is the answer to the two part mold.

jackryan · Post by **jackryan** » May 2nd, '17, 15:48

I just took a look at their site. Interesting that they say their hull is lighter and 10x stronger.

JR

Yannis · Post by **Yannis** » May 2nd, '17, 21:58

I read through Tony's attachment and learned how the 2 mold principle worked for the 31, as Cpt. Pat explained it.

Can anybody please explain how the 28 was laid-up?
I understand it was most probably a single mold lay-up, since there is no tumble home shape aft, however, I cannot see why they wanted to add that centerline bump which suggests (?) some sort of two sides brought together.
What is the use of that longitudinal protrusion? Is it structural to the boat's integrity? Was it perhaps an overkill in the lay-up process, based on the technical knowledge of the time? What is the reason for a boat that is already twice as thick, compared to today's constructions*, to also need (?) yet an additional reinforcement?
I guess these questions will plague me until I find a plausible answer. Thanks.

* If you enter the cabin of a modern boat and manage to find an uncovered hull portion (by opening a drawer or cupboard,or by removing an internal liner), you WILL see the sunlight coming through, suggesting a slim hull. I do not think this is possible in any of our boats.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » May 3rd, '17, 07:31

Yannis wrote:
* If you enter the cabin of a modern boat and manage to find an uncovered hull portion (by opening a drawer or cupboard,or by removing an internal liner), you WILL see the sunlight coming through, suggesting a slim hull. I do not think this is possible in any of our boats.

There is a good reason my 55 year old boat is still around and structurally sound while some much newer boats, ones you can see the light of day through are in landfills.

I have heard that in years gone bye they didn't know how strong fiberglass was; so they made to what they thought was strong enough then added more. Maybe for some boats...but my Bertram is far from overly heavy for a 31'. I'd go as far as to say its pretty light for its size. I think they knew what they where doing and just did it right. Right as in the way it should be done before the bean counters come in and shave a little here, add a little wood coring there.
Then again, dads got a 66 Hatteras, its cored and still running strong. Maybe a little different story on house side where there's more wood to deal with...but hull is structurally solid. Cored, but solid. And that boat is fricken heavy... A kind of Ying and Yang of boats; both old boats, very different in building techniques and layout, but both quality boats that have held together for years. Used and used pretty hard in some tricky weather situations racking up tons of hours in use...

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » May 3rd, '17, 21:37

Carl

What you say about building the boat is true. They used more glass at one time so the pre 73 boats are heavier by a couple of thousand pounds. They do ride a little different.

Back in those days, even 75 which mine is, they were considered heavy for their size.

Tail Chaser · Post by **Tail Chaser** » Jan 2nd, '20, 17:29

Are there more or less desirable years to buy?
Would a lighter boat be better for outboards?
Where is the bulk of the extra glass or is it generally more everywhere?

Thanks

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Jan 2nd, '20, 21:45

All of the 31's are fine. There were no bad years. Now as far as glass thickness, pre 1973 were heavier hulls, more glass. After the 73 oil shortage they thinned out the glass, but that did not compromise anything on the boat.

The weak spots are the strut pads and the area around the shaft log. Those of us that have made updates have beefed up the strut pad area and have moved from bronze shaft logs to glass logs. I was surprised how thin the area around the shaft log was when I repowered. The hull still takes a beating and those areas never really came up as an issue unless you ran hard aground or hit something that would cause the strut to crack the hull.

Tail Chaser · Post by **Tail Chaser** » Jan 3rd, '20, 09:31

Makes sense thank you

Tommy · Post by **Tommy** » Jan 3rd, '20, 16:20

Tony is correct (as usual); you don't need to worry about production years for the 31 as all of the hulls that left the factory were built under strict quality control measures. Regarding your other post, Carl and Tony are spot on: find a clean 31 on the market that has already been re-powered with diesels (that have a good maintenance history) and you will be way ahead towards boating pleasure.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Jan 6th, '20, 07:31

On some of the bigger diesel repowers...if the strut pads were not beefed up the strut hull would flex the hull.

Funny, we call the hull thin by the struts and shaft log...but mine at a 1/2" thick solid glass is not all that thin. At least considering some other boats I have worked on...my 19' bayliner was only 1/8 thick on the bottom. I think the problem with ours is not so much it not very thick, but its large unsupported area's and fiberglass flexs. Its almost scary when running the boat in seas to put your finger on some of the joints...say between the bulkhead and dash under the front window. There is a good amount of travel going on.

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Jan 6th, '20, 20:45

Carl wrote:On some of the bigger diesel repowers...if the strut pads were not beefed up the strut hull would flex the hull.

Funny, we call the hull thin by the struts and shaft log...but mine at a 1/2" thick solid glass is not all that thin. At least considering some other boats I have worked on...my 19' bayliner was only 1/8 thick on the bottom. I think the problem with ours is not so much it not very thick, but its large unsupported area's and fiberglass flexs. Its almost scary when running the boat in seas to put your finger on some of the joints...say between the bulkhead and dash under the front window. There is a good amount of travel going on.

One other note on the flexing. These boats were designed to flex. I believe Capt. Pat said the stringers really did not add a lot of structure to the hulls. Some of the flex can be removed by glassing in the front windows and believe some members have beefed up the area supporting the rear bridge area. That is the area that the wiring and steering cable runs through. The flexing is why those dam windows keep on leaking.

John F. · Post by **John F.** » Jan 7th, '20, 06:56

I had a pre-oil embargo 1969 B31 and now have a 1977 B31. The Bertram 31 hull is solidly built regardless of year. I believe Captain Pat's view was that the bulkheads didn't really matter structurally. The stringers do matter. The hulls do "work" when running.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Jan 7th, '20, 10:15

Only problem is when the hull works around the strut, the alignment goes to hell.

scot · Post by **scot** » Jan 16th, '20, 09:31

I wonder if they would add the 3,000# back to the boat if requested? 7,800# is WAY too light for a 31' boat = beat you to death in a chop or tight seas. I guess it's really fast in the river or ship channel?

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Jan 16th, '20, 18:39

My guess-

If you buy the boat they’ll toss as much weight in it as your willing to pay for.

Going lighter gives a different kind of ride where you get up on top of waves jumping top to top

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Jan 16th, '20, 21:24

Carl wrote:My guess-

If you buy the boat they’ll toss as much weight in it as your willing to pay for.
Going lighter gives a different kind of ride where you get up on top of waves jumping top to top

Plus after jumping from wave to wave you need to pay for a spinal adjustment and a new set of teeth.

scot · Post by **scot** » Jan 16th, '20, 22:45

you need to pay for a spinal adjustment and a new set of teeth.

Yep... that's always been my experience with light boats.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Jan 17th, '20, 07:05

Lighter with flat bottoms, yes most definitely.

Jumping and crashing down, yes most definitely.

Jumping with sudden stop and goes after each wave, uncomfortable for sure.

But...if you get the right speed, in the right sea the boat rides over the tops of the waves. Till of course the pattern breaks...but thats another story.