August 2005 - montgomery_boats - mailman.xmission.com

RE: M_Boats: re: Setting Up the M15
by Tom Smith 14 Aug '05

14 Aug '05

I'm totally on board with this competition. Please note: we will test for steroids. t Tom Smith & Jane VanWinkle M15/345--Chukar M17/064--Unnamed

6 7

(no subject)
by jerry 14 Aug '05

14 Aug '05

Could one of you kind M-15 owners take some mast measurements? What I need it the distance from the butt of the mast to the two 1/4" holes at the hounds that the shrouds and forestay hang on. Then, could you verify that the slot on the front of the mast (that the forestays goes thru) is centered 3 3/4" below the measurement of the two side holes? Then could you verify that the opening for the bolt rope entry is 32 to 38" from the butt? That's the way I remember these things, but it was a long time ago. Thanks very much, and please put it on the list because Norm Bundik needs it also. Jerry jerrymontgomery.org

3 3

Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint
by krahnke＠comcast.net 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

Thanks for the reply. The boat has a metal toe rail. Inboard of the bolts, where the hull begings to curve downwards, there is a crack that, as I said, runs pretty well all around the perimeter of the hull. It appears as a balckened (dirt? mold?) cracking and is visible in much of the interior as a simple crack in the glass, with leak marks in a few places. The more I think about it, it seems pretty serious to me. Since the cracking is below the bolts, it would seem to indicate major structural weakness in the hull, just below the joint. Odd in a well-built boat. How could this happen? Karl Krahnke Ft. Collins, CO krahnke(a)comcast.net

4 9

Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint, p.s.
by Craig F. Honshell 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

Visually, I can't tell the difference between a '76 aluminum-toe-rail hull-deck joint, http://www.funtigo.com/MSOG?b=197153&c=1789789&p=start&cr=1&rfm=y , and my '84's ... ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig F. Honshell To: montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint Hey, Rachel ... Thanks for the details ... I thought the boat in question, however, was one of those with the new deck: I thought you were comparing the new deck/teak with the new deck/aluminum ... I'll send a pic ... I can't remember for sure, but there may be a close-up among the pics Bill has posted of 389 at http://www.funtigo.com/MSOG?b=195276&c=1789789&p=start&cr=1&rfm=y Fair winds, Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: Rachel To: Craig F. Honshell ; For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint On Aug 13, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Craig F. Honshell wrote: > I have hull 389 > with the metal toe-rail, and though I have a little hull-to-deck > separation near the > starboard bow, I have nothing like the cracking you're describing. Hi Craig, Just for the record, if your boat is #389, it would have come out of the "new" mold and would have the improved hull-deck joint, regardless of which toe-rail it has. > > I think the overlapping joint with teak was done for cosmetic, not > structural reasons > (per Jerry's "History of the M-17 on the MSOG.org site) ... It was > only an > improvement insofar as anyone might prefer damage-prone teak to a > perforated aluminum > rail, and their fiberglass deck exposed to the dock (with the > overlap), rather than > having a built-in rubrail ... I'd have to differ here (although clearly I'm not Jerry). I think the newer hull-deck joint was a huge improvement, structurally-speaking. That's not to confuse the aluminum rail with the teak; I'm talking about the actual joint method. That is to say, I think the teak was added to the newer rail as per consumer preference (cosmetic), but the actual joint design was changed as a strength/leak improvement. The transom is certainly much stronger with that reinforced overlap running its full width as opposed to the older one, which does not run full-width (due to the motor cut-out), nor have as strong a shape. In the new shape both the hull and deck make a sort of sideways I-beam together - it's more than just a "shoebox" top. > That said, I'm not trying to start an argument, just > saying the aluminum-toe-rail boats are fine, extremely structural > sound, models ... Me neither on the argument - and I agree that the earlier boats are *fabulous* boats and certainly not all of them have problems. But I can't agree that the new joint was only a cosmetic change. > Mine was built when both the aluminum and teak were options, and, as > much as I have a > "classic boat aesthetic" and love lots of wood and bronze, I'm glad my > boat's > original owner chose aluminum. The perforations, the bullet-proof > strength (stand on > it while walking forward, don't worry about cosmetically marring it), > the low > maintenance and built-in rubrail are great features ... Yep, if I had my choice I'd take aluminum too for the same reasons. You know, I'd love to see a close-up photo of your boat. I've never seen the aluminum rail mated to the newer hull-deck joint, so I can't picture how it would make a built-in rubrail -- does it extend down over the outside "lip" of the hull-deck joint somehow? On #334 the outer lap of the joint was prone to cosmetic abrasion while docking and such (okay, perhaps it's the captain who should be described as prone to problems... ;-) Okay, I'm opinionated ;-) --- Rachel Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517

1 0

Re: M_Boats: Re:Battery Location M17 and trim
by Larry E Yake 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

Hey, that nice white M17 at Vashon Island was probably Dik and Ann Lang's "Sweet Pea" and that gas engine hanging on the stern would be their new Suzuki 4hp 4stroke. (The engine I would like to get.) They were on the San Juan trip this year. Tullamore sits pretty level when loaded for a trip. I move the ice chest into the cabin and shove the duffel bag forward on the V berth when I start sailing. If I have a passenger or 2, that's not enough and the stern drags some. Larry On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:05:43 -0700 Frederick M Berthrong <fthrong(a)juno.com> writes: > Thanks Larry, > > Yes, I am using an electric trolling motor and so far it has worked > very > well (though I still tell everyone interested ... or not .. that it > is > an experiment). It weighs about 17 lbs or the entire package > including > batteries weighs about 120 lbs. Probably not too far different than > a > small gas 4-stroke plus extra fuel just the location of the weight > is > different. > > She sails very nicely trimmed as she is with the batteries forward. > With > two medium sized humans in the cockpit the trim is about neutral. > It > just looks a bit funny to see this beauty nose down a bit on the > buoy or > for that matter when I am motoring solo. Under sail she seems to > look > and act right smart. > > I guess my real question is ... How do the other M17s float with all > the > gear on board ready for a short sail but absent the Lord and Master > and > the various mates? ( I was recently in Puget Sound and in > particular in > Quartermaster Harbor on Vashon Island (terrific wind!) and there in > the > Dockton public marina sat a lovely white hull M17. I didn't have > time to > look closely but she seemed to be sitting nice and level and, yes, > Larry, > she did have a gas engine hanging off the stern.) > > Thanks for your input. I'll continue fussing with this to see what > combination works best. > > Fred > Dulce > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:48:02 -0700 Larry E Yake <leyake(a)juno.com> > writes: > > Fred, > > I didn't see any other replies on this, so I'll give it a shot. > > According to Jerry and the speed guys, the rule of thumb on both > the > > M17 > > and the M15 is get the weight as far forward as possible. You > want > > to > > have the transom out of the water as much as possible for good > boat > > speed, as it causes drag. 3 inches seems like a lot, but you're > > carrying > > a lot of battery weight there. Are you using an electric motor? If > > > you > > don't have an outboard hanging on the transom, that would explain > > > the > > difference in trim. I wouldn't think you'd want to move the weight > > > much > > further back than the mast support. > > Larry > > > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:38:05 -0700 Frederick M Berthrong > > <fthrong(a)juno.com> writes: > > > M-17 ers, > > > > > > I have two, frame 24 batteries which I installed on a platform > > which > > > is > > > glassed in just forward of the mast support strattling the > > > centerline and > > > under the bunks. I haven't weighed them but that is about 100 > lbs > > > > > total. > > > The problem is Dulce sits in the water heavy by the bow (about > > > > three > > > inches lower in the bow) . I concluded that the two batteries > are > > > > > the > > > reason. I temporarily, just to check it out, moved the > batteries > > > > > aft and > > > on either side of the CB trunk. This helped the trim but did > not > > > > > correct > > > it entirely. It is clear that the bow section displaces less > > water > > > than > > > the stern part so it is logical that heavy stuff be stowed aft. > > > But > > > even > > > with the 100 lbs of battery further aft she sits with the stern > > > > about an > > > inch or more higher than the bow as indicated by the factory > > > located > > > water line (boat fully rigged but with no humans on board). > > > > > > Does anyone else have this issue? > > > > > > Once I get a couple of folks in the cockpit everything evens > out. > > > > > Is > > > that by design? > > > > > > Fred Berthrong > > > Dulce M17 #300 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:06:05 -0700 "jerry" > > > <jerry(a)jerrymontgomery.org> > > > writes: > > > > If I can comment- that's probably the best place for a > battery. > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > jerrymontgomery.org > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Brian Gilbert" <hammerguy(a)mindspring.com> > > > > To: <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 3:01 PM > > > > Subject: M_Boats: Re:Battery Location M17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Steve: > > > > > > > > > > The original battery location on my M17 was under the port > > > berth, > > > > but it > > > > was > > > > > too small for the monster battery I just bought for Tiny > > > > Dancer.(1000AH- > > > > at > > > > > least it's a monster to me) Since the battery weighs 55 lbs, > I > > > > > > figure it's > > > > > pretty good ballast, so I've built a high-sided box of epoxy > > > and > > > > > glass-covered plywood, and epoxied that along the centerline > > > of > > > > > > > the boat > > > > > just forward of the mast support under the Vberth. The > battery > > > > > is > > > > a little > > > > > harder to get to, but it should work a little better than > the > > > > > > stock setup > > > > > with regards to trim. It'll be harder to check the water in > > > it's > > > > > > > new > > > > > location, but it's well secured and should stay in place. > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > BG > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Brian Gilbert > > > > > Marine Media > > > > > Author, Fix It and Sail > > > > > (423)876-9990 > > > > > 3404 Hartford Drive > > > > > Chattanooga, TN 37415 > > > > > www.sailingsmall.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > >

3 2

Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint
by krahnke＠comcast.net 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

Again, thanks to all for your replies. The boat is 40 miles down the road, but I may go down there and get some pictures and post them. My description may be a bit off, but that is how I remember it, and it did strike me as very odd. I too wonder how it could have happened. In any case, I'll keep listening to your collective wisdom and try to get more data. But I am getting scared off. Unfortunately, I don't know where I could find a good surveyor in Colorado. Karl Krahnke

1 0

Re: M_Boats: unsticking centerboard on M15
by JazzYachts＠aol.com 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

Without launching the boat to be sure that the board is going up and down smoothly, there's no way to tell whether the board is moving freely or not. I jammed my board in the trunk once by grounding on mud and shells. It stayed good and stuck and I had to abandon a sailing trip. Determined that it would never happen again, I drilled a hole in the trunk in the cabin and installed a $3.00 waterproof drainplug. If the board ever jammed again, I could remove the drainplug, drive the board down with a piece of aluminum rod, and screw the plug back in. John

1 0

M boats for sale
by brooke townsend 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

There is a M15 and a M17 for sale in this months Latitude 38 Magazine Their website is www.latitude38.com

1 0

unsticking centerboard on M15
by B. Mayer 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

We took my boat up to Saddlebag Island (NE of Anacortes, WA) yesterday and managed to get the centerboard stuck into the up position, probably by getting a rock into the slot. There was no wind so it didn't make much difference with sailing, and I think (but am not sure) it may have popped loose while we were retrieving the boat as after we got it up I noticed the centerboard line was now in the down position (although the centerboard, obviously, was up on the trailer. So, here's are the problems: Scenario A, the centerboard is wedged up with a rock. How do we get it loose? Scenario B, the centerboard is no longer wedged by a rock, but the line is in the down position, so presumably is somewhere down the centerboard slot (also wedged? it won't pull up.) It isn't easy to launch it and check whether it goes up and down as we have no easy place to launch (ramps here are not great, and subject to tides, waves, and wind.) Is there any other way to tell? Bobbie

1 0

Hull-deck joint
by krahnke＠comcast.net 13 Aug '05

13 Aug '05

I am considering buying M17 #325, but the hull-deck joint is cracked all around the boat, including the transom, which shows some repair. The boat has not been used for some years and is in reasonably good shape otherwise. How serious is this cracking? Can it be dealt with by cleaning/grinding and good quality caulking? Or is it evidence of more serious structural problems? I'd appreciate any advice, privately or on the list. Karl Krahnke Ft. Collins, CO krahnke(a)comcast.net

2 1