Hey Jerry, How are you planning the gate on your new 16? sal In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:40:16 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, SALGLESSER@aol.com writes: Hi Joe, sorry to be confusing. The original "cut-out" (gate) was eliminated. The slot goes from the lower gate up. There is no gate for the slugs to slip out of. John reformed the original gate to just be part of the slot. I don't know how he did it, but it seemed to be an improvement. John gets these messages, maybe we can get him to chime in? I'm not very good at the picture thing, but I do need to learn, this message board could be an impetus to learn. I've learned a lot here, much with pics. In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:20:58 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes: Sal, I'm still a little confused on how John "hammered" the gate closed?? What I'm trying to do is to allow the sail slides to slidedown the mast past the cutout without slipping out. I have a new cutout at the base of the mast for the boom and slides. Thanks, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:37 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hi Joe,
John "hammered" the gate closed, keeping the slot the same size, and made a new gate by spreading the slot in a new location just above the deck.
We use the cotter keys to keep the slugs above a certain point while working with the main. It was quite frustrating until we figured this out. I don't know if that's the way John did it, but it worked for us.
sal
In a message dated 9/15/2009 8:14:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
I understand the cotter pins to keep the boom in place but how was the gate closed?? Maybe I'm a little dense Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hi Joe,
on our 15, John closed up the gate and made a new one lower, almost to the deck house. He has holes drilled in the mast and uses cotter pins to keep the slugs as well as the boom in position. It's simple, but it saved messing with the slugs when reefing. John also said that by pulling down the boom almost to the deckhouse, it acted as a first reef.
sal
In a message dated 9/14/2009 7:52:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
Tom, When you find the solution for coming up with a gate to fill that %$#& cutout PLEAASE let me know. I just finished a 4 day 120 mile trip. I made a real simple reefing system that I could do completely from the cockpit but I had to go to the mast every time to futz around with the slot and the slugs. If that cutout had a gate I wouldn't have had any problems.
But the way it is set up now, I procrastinate on making reefing changes. And heaven help me when I have to reef from the first to second. It's a strange design. I still can't figure out why the cut out is so high. Must be a bolt rope thing. Joe Seafrog M17
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Jenkins" <tjenk@gte.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:05 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Jim,
Within tolerances at E/P, we probably have the same sail. I will measure it today if the wind doesn't blow me off the boat.
Mind if I ask how you secure your reefing lines? I like cam cleats, but the boom is pretty small and roundy even for a Harken micro. I have also considered medium Ronstan V-cleats with leads, and 4" Schaefer jam cleats. Any could be made to work after a fashion, but I don't know if I have considered all the angles. Frankly, it is fun to do these mods, because little things can make the boats so user-friendly. The "big one" will be gating the cutout on the mast so I won't have to get on the deck and feed the sail slugs across it by hand.
Tom
On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:18 AM, James Poulakis wrote:
Tom,
Just for reference: After surgery my final boom extrusion length came out to exactly 93.75". Again, this is just the aluminum extrusion without ANY
end
fittings on it. In retrospect, it could have been cut down to Jerry's 93" (7'9"). But in my case, that would have been a little too close for comfort. Your mainsail foot length may be different from mine.
By the way, that is exactly how I used my extra cheek block.
Jim
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Thomas Jenkins wrote:
Jim,
Your verbal description did the trick. There they are in
catalogs and
in my can of stainless fittings, but I never knew they had a special name. I will need a new location for the topping lift shackle, but your solution will work for me. I will even get a free block for my reefing system. Thanks again for your advice.
Tom Jenkins M17 Scintilla
On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:17 PM, James Poulakis wrote:
Tom,
A bow shackle is just like a U-shaped pin shackle except it is
more
rounded - like a horseshoe (I'll email you a picture of my setup tomorrow). The bow shackle itself doesn't do anything to adjust tension, it simply provides a "loop" to pass a few turns of 3/16" line through. The line runs through the bow shackle and the sail clew grommet a few times to give a purchase so it can be easily pulled taut (unlike the stock setup). It is then tied off in a reef knot. There's really nothing elegant about it. In fact, its the kind
of
simple, strong rigging that would look right at home on a 19th century fishing boat.
With the boom extrusion cut down to about 7'10" there simply isn't room for fancy outhaul fittings (not even a cheek block). The thing
to consider carefully is the foot of YOUR particular sail. Pulled drum-taut, the clew of my stock EP main is left with over an inch to spare for old age stretch (Jerry M. recommended 1/2").
The actual surgery is really simple, but I went through a measure... think... measure... think... process that lasted over a month before I finally got the courage to cut into my brand-new boom. I'm happy with the result.
Jim
On Sep 12, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Thomas Jenkins wrote:
> Jim, > > Thanks for the excellent information. > I did not known how high the boom should be set, but with trial and > error I coincidentally came up with exactly 19" above the tabernacle > base. My boom measures 8' 2.5" long from the mast to the end of the > aft fitting, or about 8' even without fittings. This setup overlaps > the backstay about an inch if the boom rises, so trimming off 2.25"
> would be perfect, with no drawbacks that I can foresee. I too prefer > to dispense with a vang if I can help it. > Incidentally, what is a "bow shackle" ? Your solution sounds > elegant, but I can't visualize a shackle that adjusts tension. Maybe > a small turnbuckle would also work. > > Tom Jenkins > > > > On Sep 11, 2009, at 1:26 PM, James Poulakis wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> This is another rigging oddity with late model M-17s (I think you >> said yours was a 2004). According to Jerry M. the aluminum boom >> extrusions should be about 7'9" (without the end fittings). >> The >> newer boom extrusions are over 8' long and can hang up on the >> backstay. This is with the gooseneck correctly positioned at 19" >> off the deck (per Bob Eeg). >> >> My solution was to cut 2-1/4" off the boom, which allows it to >> barely clear the backstay at all angles. I would have cut it down
>> to Jerry's 7'9" but that would have been too short to >> accommodate >> the foot of the now stock Elliot Pattison mainsail. >> >> This mod also means doing away with the clew outhaul cheek block. I >> now lash the clew to a bow shackle attached to the boom end fitting. >> I actually like this better because it gives me more control
>> over >> the foot tension and is stronger and simpler. >> >> A properly tensioned boom vang should keep you out of trouble
>> as >> well. However, Spirit is docked in my driveway and I find that more >> stuff to rig at the launch ramp = less time (and energy) for >> sailing. >> >> Batten hang-ups are another common issue with the later rigs. So >> far this has just been a minor annoyance for me in light winds. >> >> Jim >> >> On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Thomas Jenkins wrote: >> >>> I'm just a learner with my 17, so surprises still abound. I found >>> that an accidental gybe (always a risk in the fluky winds where I >>> am sailing) can hang the boom in the backstay if the main is >>> single-reefed. I generally pull the boom across by hand to cushion >>> the shock of a gybe, so the boom does not ride up, but big gusts >>> can be unpredictable if they are not touching the lake surface. >>> Anyway, a vang seemed unnecessary with the mainsheet in >>> mid-cockpit, but now think a small four- part might hold the
>>> boom >>> down enough to keep it clear of the backstay under unusual >>> conditions. Any thoughts? >>> >>> On another sail subject, I arbitrarily set the boom at a >>> height >>> that put the head of the main maybe 6 inches from the masthead. I >>> tried raising the main to the top of the slot, but the roach
in
my
>>> (presumably stock) Elliot-Pattison main puts a good chunk of >>> the >>> sail--and the upper batten--a few inches outside the backstay. Has >>> anyone had a broken batten or a hung sail during tacking with this >>> configuration? I prefer not to learn the hard way. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tom Jenkins >>> 2004 M17 Scintilla >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>> montgomery_boats >>> >>> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >> montgomery_boats >> >> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ montgomery_boats > > Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
I can't think that far ahead, but I'll probably ask for a concensus. Personally, I kind of like the bent-out gate because it's pretty foolproof with a bolt rope, which is what I prefer because of simplicity and the fact that it's a bit faster because it seals behind the mast better. I've never had a problem feeding a bolt rope into the mast. It would be neat to come up with a system that would be foolproof with either a rope or slugs; maybe that is something some of you smart guys could work on. In the mean time I'm wearing the skin of my knees off doing the lofting. First things first! jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:45 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hey Jerry,
How are you planning the gate on your new 16?
sal
In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:40:16 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, SALGLESSER@aol.com writes:
Hi Joe, sorry to be confusing.
The original "cut-out" (gate) was eliminated. The slot goes from the lower gate up. There is no gate for the slugs to slip out of. John reformed the original gate to just be part of the slot. I don't know how he did it, but it seemed to be an improvement.
John gets these messages, maybe we can get him to chime in?
I'm not very good at the picture thing, but I do need to learn, this message board could be an impetus to learn. I've learned a lot here, much with pics.
In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:20:58 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
Sal, I'm still a little confused on how John "hammered" the gate closed?? What
I'm trying to do is to allow the sail slides to slidedown the mast past the cutout without slipping out. I have a new cutout at the base of the mast for the boom and slides. Thanks, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:37 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hi Joe,
John "hammered" the gate closed, keeping the slot the same size, and made a new gate by spreading the slot in a new location just above the deck.
We use the cotter keys to keep the slugs above a certain point while working with the main. It was quite frustrating until we figured this out. I don't know if that's the way John did it, but it worked for us.
sal
In a message dated 9/15/2009 8:14:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
I understand the cotter pins to keep the boom in place but how was the gate closed?? Maybe I'm a little dense Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hi Joe,
on our 15, John closed up the gate and made a new one lower, almost to the deck house. He has holes drilled in the mast and uses cotter pins to keep the slugs as well as the boom in position. It's simple, but it saved messing with the slugs when reefing. John also said that by pulling down the boom almost to the deckhouse, it acted as a first reef.
sal
In a message dated 9/14/2009 7:52:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
Tom, When you find the solution for coming up with a gate to fill that %$#& cutout PLEAASE let me know. I just finished a 4 day 120 mile trip. I made a real simple reefing system that I could do completely from the cockpit but I had to go to the mast every time to futz around with the slot and the slugs. If that cutout had a gate I wouldn't have had any problems.
But the way it is set up now, I procrastinate on making reefing changes. And heaven help me when I have to reef from the first to second. It's a strange design. I still can't figure out why the cut out is so high. Must be a bolt rope thing. Joe Seafrog M17
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Jenkins" <tjenk@gte.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:05 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Jim,
Within tolerances at E/P, we probably have the same sail. I will measure it today if the wind doesn't blow me off the boat.
Mind if I ask how you secure your reefing lines? I like cam cleats, but the boom is pretty small and roundy even for a Harken micro. I have also considered medium Ronstan V-cleats with leads, and 4" Schaefer jam cleats. Any could be made to work after a fashion, but I don't know if I have considered all the angles. Frankly, it is fun to do these mods, because little things can make the boats so user-friendly. The "big one" will be gating the cutout on the mast so I won't have to get on the deck and feed the sail slugs across it by hand.
Tom
On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:18 AM, James Poulakis wrote:
Tom,
Just for reference: After surgery my final boom extrusion length came out to exactly 93.75". Again, this is just the aluminum extrusion without ANY
end
fittings on it. In retrospect, it could have been cut down to Jerry's 93" (7'9"). But in my case, that would have been a little too close for comfort. Your mainsail foot length may be different from mine.
By the way, that is exactly how I used my extra cheek block.
Jim
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Thomas Jenkins wrote:
Jim,
Your verbal description did the trick. There they are in
catalogs and
in my can of stainless fittings, but I never knew they had a special name. I will need a new location for the topping lift shackle, but your solution will work for me. I will even get a free block for my reefing system. Thanks again for your advice.
Tom Jenkins M17 Scintilla
On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:17 PM, James Poulakis wrote:
> Tom, > > A bow shackle is just like a U-shaped pin shackle except it is more > rounded - like a horseshoe (I'll email you a picture of my setup > tomorrow). The bow shackle itself doesn't do anything to adjust > tension, it simply provides a "loop" to pass a few turns of 3/16" line > through. The line runs through the bow shackle and the sail clew > grommet a few times to give a purchase so it can be easily pulled taut > (unlike the stock setup). It is then tied off in a reef knot. > There's really nothing elegant about it. In fact, its the kind
of
> simple, strong rigging that would look right at home on a 19th century > fishing boat. > > With the boom extrusion cut down to about 7'10" there simply isn't > room for fancy outhaul fittings (not even a cheek block). > The thing
> to consider carefully is the foot of YOUR particular sail. Pulled > drum-taut, the clew of my stock EP main is left with over an inch to > spare for old age stretch (Jerry M. recommended 1/2"). > > The actual surgery is really simple, but I went through a measure... > think... measure... think... process that lasted over a month before I > finally got the courage to cut into my brand-new boom. I'm happy with > the result. > > Jim > > On Sep 12, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Thomas Jenkins wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> Thanks for the excellent information. >> I did not known how high the boom should be set, but with >> trial and >> error I coincidentally came up with exactly 19" above the tabernacle >> base. My boom measures 8' 2.5" long from the mast to the end >> of the >> aft fitting, or about 8' even without fittings. This setup overlaps >> the backstay about an inch if the boom rises, so trimming off 2.25"
>> would be perfect, with no drawbacks that I can foresee. I too prefer >> to dispense with a vang if I can help it. >> Incidentally, what is a "bow shackle" ? Your solution sounds >> elegant, but I can't visualize a shackle that adjusts tension. Maybe >> a small turnbuckle would also work. >> >> Tom Jenkins >> >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2009, at 1:26 PM, James Poulakis wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> This is another rigging oddity with late model M-17s (I >>> think you >>> said yours was a 2004). According to Jerry M. the aluminum boom >>> extrusions should be about 7'9" (without the end fittings). >>> The >>> newer boom extrusions are over 8' long and can hang up on the >>> backstay. This is with the gooseneck correctly positioned at 19" >>> off the deck (per Bob Eeg). >>> >>> My solution was to cut 2-1/4" off the boom, which allows it to >>> barely clear the backstay at all angles. I would have cut it down
>>> to Jerry's 7'9" but that would have been too short to >>> accommodate >>> the foot of the now stock Elliot Pattison mainsail. >>> >>> This mod also means doing away with the clew outhaul cheek block. I >>> now lash the clew to a bow shackle attached to the boom end fitting. >>> I actually like this better because it gives me more control
>>> over >>> the foot tension and is stronger and simpler. >>> >>> A properly tensioned boom vang should keep you out of trouble
>>> as >>> well. However, Spirit is docked in my driveway and I find that more >>> stuff to rig at the launch ramp = less time (and energy) >>> for >>> sailing. >>> >>> Batten hang-ups are another common issue with the later rigs. So >>> far this has just been a minor annoyance for me in light winds. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Thomas Jenkins wrote: >>> >>>> I'm just a learner with my 17, so surprises still abound. >>>> I found >>>> that an accidental gybe (always a risk in the fluky winds where I >>>> am sailing) can hang the boom in the backstay if the main is >>>> single-reefed. I generally pull the boom across by hand to cushion >>>> the shock of a gybe, so the boom does not ride up, but big gusts >>>> can be unpredictable if they are not touching the lake surface. >>>> Anyway, a vang seemed unnecessary with the mainsheet in >>>> mid-cockpit, but now think a small four- part might hold the
>>>> boom >>>> down enough to keep it clear of the backstay under >>>> unusual >>>> conditions. Any thoughts? >>>> >>>> On another sail subject, I arbitrarily set the boom at a >>>> height >>>> that put the head of the main maybe 6 inches from the masthead. I >>>> tried raising the main to the top of the slot, but the roach
in
my
>>>> (presumably stock) Elliot-Pattison main puts a good chunk of >>>> the >>>> sail--and the upper batten--a few inches outside the backstay. Has >>>> anyone had a broken batten or a hung sail during tacking with this >>>> configuration? I prefer not to learn the hard way. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Tom Jenkins >>>> 2004 M17 Scintilla >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>>> montgomery_boats >>>> >>>> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>> montgomery_boats >>> >>> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ montgomery_boats >> >> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ montgomery_boats > > Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
Jerry, How 'bout getting someone to start video taping or at least photo shooting your process of creating the next great Monty.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "jerry" <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:48 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
I can't think that far ahead, but I'll probably ask for a concensus. Personally, I kind of like the bent-out gate because it's pretty foolproof with a bolt rope, which is what I prefer because of simplicity and the fact that it's a bit faster because it seals behind the mast better. I've never had a problem feeding a bolt rope into the mast.
It would be neat to come up with a system that would be foolproof with either a rope or slugs; maybe that is something some of you smart guys could work on.
In the mean time I'm wearing the skin of my knees off doing the lofting. First things first!
jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:45 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hey Jerry,
How are you planning the gate on your new 16?
sal
In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:40:16 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, SALGLESSER@aol.com writes:
Hi Joe, sorry to be confusing.
The original "cut-out" (gate) was eliminated. The slot goes from the lower gate up. There is no gate for the slugs to slip out of. John reformed the original gate to just be part of the slot. I don't know how he did it, but it seemed to be an improvement.
John gets these messages, maybe we can get him to chime in?
I'm not very good at the picture thing, but I do need to learn, this message board could be an impetus to learn. I've learned a lot here, much with pics.
In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:20:58 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
Sal, I'm still a little confused on how John "hammered" the gate closed?? What
I'm trying to do is to allow the sail slides to slidedown the mast past the cutout without slipping out. I have a new cutout at the base of the mast for the boom and slides. Thanks, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:37 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hi Joe,
John "hammered" the gate closed, keeping the slot the same size, and made a new gate by spreading the slot in a new location just above the deck.
We use the cotter keys to keep the slugs above a certain point while working with the main. It was quite frustrating until we figured this out. I don't know if that's the way John did it, but it worked for us.
sal
In a message dated 9/15/2009 8:14:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
I understand the cotter pins to keep the boom in place but how was the gate closed?? Maybe I'm a little dense Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <SALGLESSER@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Hi Joe,
on our 15, John closed up the gate and made a new one lower, almost to the deck house. He has holes drilled in the mast and uses cotter pins to keep the slugs as well as the boom in position. It's simple, but it saved messing with the slugs when reefing. John also said that by pulling down the boom almost to the deckhouse, it acted as a first reef.
sal
In a message dated 9/14/2009 7:52:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, seagray@embarqmail.com writes:
Tom, When you find the solution for coming up with a gate to fill that %$#& cutout PLEAASE let me know. I just finished a 4 day 120 mile trip. I made a real simple reefing system that I could do completely from the cockpit but I had to go to the mast every time to futz around with the slot and the slugs. If that cutout had a gate I wouldn't have had any problems.
But the way it is set up now, I procrastinate on making reefing changes. And heaven help me when I have to reef from the first to second. It's a strange design. I still can't figure out why the cut out is so high. Must be a bolt rope thing. Joe Seafrog M17
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Jenkins" <tjenk@gte.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:05 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: boom vang
Jim,
Within tolerances at E/P, we probably have the same sail. I will measure it today if the wind doesn't blow me off the boat.
Mind if I ask how you secure your reefing lines? I like cam cleats, but the boom is pretty small and roundy even for a Harken micro. I have also considered medium Ronstan V-cleats with leads, and 4" Schaefer jam cleats. Any could be made to work after a fashion, but I don't know if I have considered all the angles. Frankly, it is fun to do these mods, because little things can make the boats so user-friendly. The "big one" will be gating the cutout on the mast so I won't have to get on the deck and feed the sail slugs across it by hand.
Tom
On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:18 AM, James Poulakis wrote:
Tom,
Just for reference: After surgery my final boom extrusion length came out to exactly 93.75". Again, this is just the aluminum extrusion without ANY
end
fittings on it. In retrospect, it could have been cut down to Jerry's 93" (7'9"). But in my case, that would have been a little too close for comfort. Your mainsail foot length may be different from mine.
By the way, that is exactly how I used my extra cheek block.
Jim
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Thomas Jenkins wrote:
> Jim, > > Your verbal description did the trick. There they are in catalogs and > in my can of stainless fittings, but I never knew they had a > special > name. > I will need a new location for the topping lift shackle, but your > solution will work for me. I will even get a free block for my reefing > system. > Thanks again for your advice. > > Tom Jenkins > M17 Scintilla > > > On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:17 PM, James Poulakis wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> A bow shackle is just like a U-shaped pin shackle except it is more >> rounded - like a horseshoe (I'll email you a picture of my setup >> tomorrow). The bow shackle itself doesn't do anything to adjust >> tension, it simply provides a "loop" to pass a few turns of 3/16" line >> through. The line runs through the bow shackle and the sail clew >> grommet a few times to give a purchase so it can be easily pulled taut >> (unlike the stock setup). It is then tied off in a reef knot. >> There's really nothing elegant about it. In fact, its the >> kind
of
>> simple, strong rigging that would look right at home on a 19th century >> fishing boat. >> >> With the boom extrusion cut down to about 7'10" there simply isn't >> room for fancy outhaul fittings (not even a cheek block). The thing
>> to consider carefully is the foot of YOUR particular sail. Pulled >> drum-taut, the clew of my stock EP main is left with over an inch to >> spare for old age stretch (Jerry M. recommended 1/2"). >> >> The actual surgery is really simple, but I went through a measure... >> think... measure... think... process that lasted over a month before I >> finally got the courage to cut into my brand-new boom. I'm happy with >> the result. >> >> Jim >> >> On Sep 12, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Thomas Jenkins wrote: >> >>> Jim, >>> >>> Thanks for the excellent information. >>> I did not known how high the boom should be set, but with >>> trial and >>> error I coincidentally came up with exactly 19" above the tabernacle >>> base. My boom measures 8' 2.5" long from the mast to the end >>> of the >>> aft fitting, or about 8' even without fittings. This setup overlaps >>> the backstay about an inch if the boom rises, so trimming off 2.25"
>>> would be perfect, with no drawbacks that I can foresee. I too prefer >>> to dispense with a vang if I can help it. >>> Incidentally, what is a "bow shackle" ? Your solution >>> sounds >>> elegant, but I can't visualize a shackle that adjusts tension. Maybe >>> a small turnbuckle would also work. >>> >>> Tom Jenkins >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2009, at 1:26 PM, James Poulakis wrote: >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> This is another rigging oddity with late model M-17s (I think you >>>> said yours was a 2004). According to Jerry M. the aluminum boom >>>> extrusions should be about 7'9" (without the end fittings). >>>> The >>>> newer boom extrusions are over 8' long and can hang up on the >>>> backstay. This is with the gooseneck correctly positioned >>>> at 19" >>>> off the deck (per Bob Eeg). >>>> >>>> My solution was to cut 2-1/4" off the boom, which allows it to >>>> barely clear the backstay at all angles. I would have cut it down
>>>> to Jerry's 7'9" but that would have been too short to >>>> accommodate >>>> the foot of the now stock Elliot Pattison mainsail. >>>> >>>> This mod also means doing away with the clew outhaul cheek block. I >>>> now lash the clew to a bow shackle attached to the boom end fitting. >>>> I actually like this better because it gives me more >>>> control
>>>> over >>>> the foot tension and is stronger and simpler. >>>> >>>> A properly tensioned boom vang should keep you out of >>>> trouble
>>>> as >>>> well. However, Spirit is docked in my driveway and I find that more >>>> stuff to rig at the launch ramp = less time (and energy) >>>> for >>>> sailing. >>>> >>>> Batten hang-ups are another common issue with the later rigs. So >>>> far this has just been a minor annoyance for me in light winds. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Thomas Jenkins wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm just a learner with my 17, so surprises still abound. I found >>>>> that an accidental gybe (always a risk in the fluky winds where I >>>>> am sailing) can hang the boom in the backstay if the main is >>>>> single-reefed. I generally pull the boom across by hand >>>>> to cushion >>>>> the shock of a gybe, so the boom does not ride up, but big gusts >>>>> can be unpredictable if they are not touching the lake surface. >>>>> Anyway, a vang seemed unnecessary with the mainsheet in >>>>> mid-cockpit, but now think a small four- part might hold the
>>>>> boom >>>>> down enough to keep it clear of the backstay under unusual >>>>> conditions. Any thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> On another sail subject, I arbitrarily set the boom at a >>>>> height >>>>> that put the head of the main maybe 6 inches from the masthead. I >>>>> tried raising the main to the top of the slot, but the >>>>> roach
in
my
>>>>> (presumably stock) Elliot-Pattison main puts a good chunk of >>>>> the >>>>> sail--and the upper batten--a few inches outside the backstay. Has >>>>> anyone had a broken batten or a hung sail during tacking with this >>>>> configuration? I prefer not to learn the hard way. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Tom Jenkins >>>>> 2004 M17 Scintilla >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>>>> montgomery_boats >>>>> >>>>> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>>> montgomery_boats >>>> >>>> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ montgomery_boats >>> >>> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ montgomery_boats >> >> Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet! > > > _______________________________________________ > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
jerry: hope you have someone taking photos of the 'm16' as she comes together. will be great to have these historical shots for folks to review when she makes her first public appearence. remember - puget sound is a great location for sea trials ;-) dave scobie M17 #375 - SWEET PEA visit SWEET PEA's www-site- http://www.m17-375.webs.com --- On Sun, 9/20/09, jerry <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> wrote: In the mean time I'm wearing the skin of my knees off doing the lofting. First things first! jerry
I think she'd look better making her debut in front of the light houses here on the outer banks!! Joe Seafrog M17 ----- Original Message ----- From: "W David Scobie" <wdscobie@yahoo.com> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 1:15 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: 'm16' coming planning jerry: hope you have someone taking photos of the 'm16' as she comes together. will be great to have these historical shots for folks to review when she makes her first public appearence. remember - puget sound is a great location for sea trials ;-) dave scobie M17 #375 - SWEET PEA visit SWEET PEA's www-site- http://www.m17-375.webs.com --- On Sun, 9/20/09, jerry <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> wrote: In the mean time I'm wearing the skin of my knees off doing the lofting. First things first! jerry _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!
participants (4)
-
jerry -
Joe Murphy -
SALGLESSER＠aol.com -
W David Scobie