Jerry, I've been reading all the posts to your request for opinions/comments. A lot to take in and consider given the varying opinions on thing like cabin size vs cockpit size, etc. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is to keep a lapstrake hull. I love my 23 and the traditional looks of the lapstrake hull. I get compliments on it and some people think it is a wooden boat. I do think monty owners are a bit biased however and it may be beneficial to look at some of the disadvantages to lapstrake. There is always pros and cons to anything. Since everyone is so pro-lapstrake let me be the one to point out a few of the cons (even if there aren't many or might be considered by some as trivial). Also, I am attracted to boat designs whether they are lapstrake or not! There are boats that are not lapstrake that are just as appealing to my eye. The 2 cons I have come up with are: 1. Lapstrake can be noisy at anchor. I have had people on my boat that commented on this. 2. Its more difficult to maintain. Sanding, buffing, painting, cutting in waterlines, fiberglassing anything to the inside of the hull all is more difficult. This may not be an issue with a new boat but as a boat ages it is one of the cons in my opinion. not too many cons but at least it is something to consider. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "jerry" <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:25 PM 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!