Hi Jerry, I have a comment regarding ballast and aux power. We all know electric power is coming...and some of us may prefer it anyway. So, working from the current Monty keel design (which I think is terrific) it would be great if a provision could be made for removable ballast accessible from within the boat. A battery tray internal to the keel (forward and aft of the swing keel) where either heavy batteries OR lead plates could be secured. Want the electric power option? Fine, no lead plates for your order and battery trays instead (Torqeedo or equivalent electric outboard on transom). Want the gas power option? Fine, lead plates in the keel with your order OR battery tray for electrical package. That's as good as my idea's get. You can see I have never wrestled with the constraints of design :) Also, my sense is that your reputation is quality construction and good design. Stick with that. Wrinkles? I love'em but come on we're all biased on this list. You have a reputation with the Potter owners too (mostly good I think :0 ). You should poll them too. It would be interesting to see their responses to your inquiry. Good luck with your research. I hope you find what you're after. Cheers, Jason Smith M-15 #411 -----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of jerry Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:25 PM To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Subject: M_Boats: market research Something more pleasant! I've been in a dialog with a builder to design a "Montgomery style" boat; probably 16', and I'd like to ask you for some opinions and comments. Lapstrake: How do you think the average buyer, looking for a boat in this size range, would look at a lapstrake hull as opposed to a smooth hull? You and I are probably prejudiced so we don't count. People can see that a lapstrake hull is dryer (but not much, really) and they can see that it's stiffer- again, not much. A lapstrake hull is a bit heavier but weight in a hull doesn't really slow the boat down enough to matter even to me. There is a cost factor, partly because of taking longer to lay up, a little more material, and because it takes a bit better molder, but not much, and really, the deck has more man hours in it than a hull so cost is a small factor. I don;'t believe there is a performance factor of any import. Maybe I'm saying too much; and the simple question is: which would sell best to the average buyer? I'm thinking the interior would be a roomier version of the 15, with a little more storage, and more comfortable sitting headroom. Also, the 15 cockpit is about 5.5' long, and when i'd take a 15 cruising I'd cleat the drop hatches to bridge the cockpit benches and sleep at a diagonal. This worked fine for me but would not work for most couples, especially if they fight a lot. The 17 cockpit, being over 6', was much better for sleeping in the cockpit. Here's the question : where would you like to see the extra foot of length- in the cockpit or the interior, or what combination of both? Any other comments would be welcome. My ex-wife used to call me a know-it-all but we all know I'm not! I think these subjects would be good for the list, but if you don't like speaking to a crowd feel free to email me directly at jerry@jerrymontgomery.org. jerry _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!