I was envisioning a semi-rigid but deformable container that would return to it's original shape after impact. When pulling the boat out, the water would empty out of the container the same way it would empty out of your water ballast. My problem with daggerboards on cruisers is that, unlike a centerboard, the daggerboard becomes sacrificial upon impact. Anyway, I'm an admirer of both your and Sal's products and I'm eager to see your next creation. Jim M-17 "Spirit" On Mar 16, 2012, at 7:18 PM, jerry montgomery wrote:
How would you drain the bags when pulling the boat out of the water? Don't see where making the trunk a lot stronger than the DB will be much of a problem, and that's all it needs to be.. If you think of a way, let me know!
jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Poulakis" <picfo@comcast.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:48 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat
Jerry; Just thinking about DBs, and beaching, and water ballast. What if part of the water ballast was held in a rubber or plastic container behind the DB? It would act as a cushion against a hard grounding. Kinda the same idea as those water barrels in front of toll booths (they're called Fitch Barriers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_attenuator ). Since the force of a 800# boat moving at 5 mph is a lot less than a 2500# car moving at 55 mph, perhaps the container could be engineered so that it wouldn't be damaged. So: Sail slowly up to the beach until a squirt of water shoots up out of your DB trunk, then pull up the DB and jump in with the bow line.
Yes, i do have too much time on my hands today.
Jim M-17 "Spirit"
On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:35 PM, jerry montgomery wrote:
I'm with you on that- the two reasons we're considering a bulb DB on the smaller Sage is to sit lower on the trailer, and also for the sake of beaching. I have a scheme in mind to make the bulb so that it won't be a kelp catcher and will only hang down from the bottom of the hull by two or three inches.
This will be a tough decision; a DB would need a very strong trunk in case you hit a rock, but it's the same problem a zillion keelboats have. Also cockpit drainage. The m-15 and Sage both drain forward into the CB turnk and they drain much better than the M-17, which drains aft. When I re-tooled the M-17 in '81 I thought long and hard about changing this, but because the CB on the 17 was so thin I decided that I couldn't get the volumn that the boat deserves. I did raise the cockpit sole I think an inch, but it really didn't make much difference. Draining forward is more better, I think.
jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Jenkins" <tjenk@gte.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:11 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat
Interestinng discussion. The smaller Potter (mine is a 14' Gunter gaff model) is wondrous for poking around in coves and pulling up on beaches, and I towed it many miles with a VW bug. On the other hand, the centerboard trunk takes up too much space, and my M17 sails better in most conditions, and is arguably easier on the eyes. If physical laws could be circumvented, I would like an M15 or 17 with a deep kick-up centerboard that could be pulled flush with the bottom, and no center keel to interfere with beaching. It might need something like the twin beaching keels on British and Dutch boats that are stranded daily on tidal mudflats. Come on, designers, get 'er done.
n Mar 16, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Daniel Rich wrote:
I really think the idea of the smaller boat is a good one. The Montgomery 15 is about perfect. My only complaint is that you cannot beach it easily. This is where the Potter has an advantage. In every other way the Montgomery is a superior boat. In terms of carbon on the deck, I think it is reasonable to try to reduce costs, and would probably skip that. It would seem like you would sell more boats that way. These cruising boats are really not built for speed anyway. I would keep it simple. They have sold a gazillion of those potters. They are not fast boats. But they're really fun.
Daniel
On Mar 16, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Tod <htmills@zoominternet.net> wrote:
Given the aging demographics of sailors, Stan might be onto something.
I haven't seen the interior of the Sage, but have often thought a Spartan-but-comfortable interior in a 21-23 footer would be nice.
It would be a lighter boat than the M23 and with more of a M17 interior except with better cabin ergonomics for comfort. Just separate settee bunks for two, a spot for a porta-potty behind a curtain or possibly bulkhead at the mast, and a little counter space. Open bin stowage for duffles.
Tod
-----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Stan Susman Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:53 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: Re: M_Boats: (no subject)
Hey jm, what about a bigger boat? I'm too damn fat for a smaller one
________________________________ From: jerry montgomery <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> To: montgomery forum <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:04 PM Subject: M_Boats: (no subject)
Hi- Almost three years ago I asked the members of the M list for advice and opinions on ideas that we had regarding a new project that eventually became the Sage 17. We gave great consideration to your opinions and ideas and there is absolutely no doubt that its a better boat because of you. The checks are in the mail!
Were starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and Id like to ask you for your help again. What we have in mind is a simple, three-stay rig, maybe even a cat rig, and possibly a dagger keel with a bulb in order to make it sit lower on the trailer and be beachable. We dont want purely water ballast because of the performance limitations, but a combo of water and a lead slug on the end of the daggerboard might be worth considering in order to hold down trailering weight.
We might be able to squeeze in a couple of low places to sit, by dropping the aft end of the interior down a few inches and for sleeping, fill in with thicker foam cushions. There would be storage under the settees, but not as much as otherwise.
Id also like to hear your comments on the carbon deck like on the 17. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is one of the secrets of the S 17s performance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isnt really free in that it will make the boat cost at least a thousand dollars more. (After that it's free)! In your mind, is it worth the extra money? In the early 70s Montgomery Marine, in the Montgomery 17 was the first American builder of production boats to use end-grain balsa in the deck. (C&C Yachts, in Canada, was the first, I believe) Now, pretty much all but the cheepie builders use it. I think theres a good chance that carbon will do the same thing.
jerry
-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6308 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message