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 it’s a better boat because of you. The checks are in the mail! We’re starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and I’d 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 don’t 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. I’d 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 17’s performance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isn’t 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 70’s 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 there’s 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
love to see a daysailer with room to sleep/tent and waterproof storage, but JM fast! On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:04 PM, jerry montgomery wrote:
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 it’s a better boat because of you. The checks are in the mail!
We’re starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and I’d 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 don’t 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.
I’d 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 17’s performance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isn’t 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 70’s 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 there’s 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
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 it’s a better boat because of you. The checks are in the mail! We’re starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and I’d 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 don’t 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. I’d 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 17’s performance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isn’t 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 70’s 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 there’s 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I've owned both daggerboard and centerboard small boats and I am not a fan of daggerboards. I think you have a keeper with the current keel/centerboard combo, but if you really wanted to reduce the trailering draft you could draw it up into the hull a bit more, have the pin still outside to avoid leaks there. I'd rather a ridge a few inches high inside the cabin than a daggerboard trunk dividing it in two. Open transom is fine. Some kind of cleats for a small gas tank w/ webbing hold-down just fwd of rudder head. Nearly Bare interior with small mounts for an optional single berth (something that any owner could build the base of (ply + some stiffeners screwed to it) and buy a (hopefully off-the-shelf) rectangular cushion or a camping pad. and a place for a porta-potty would be fine. Maybe a few bins for duffles that would double as hull stiffeners. Owner could add hooks for a cargo net to retain stuff in the bins if desired. Minimal hull liner. Forward hatch for flow-through ventilation. (I've slept in a cockpit a couple of times (open boat) and around here you always wake up covered in dew and frequently mosquitoes are an issue, so I NEVER do it given a choice. Might be different thing out west.) Tod
-----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of James Poulakis Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:04 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat
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
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
On 17-Mar-12 2:54 PM, Tod wrote: Hi Jerry, I agree with Tod. I've had a Dwyer 7'-9" sailing dinghy as well as a 9' Dutch sailing dinghy we used in Europe. Both had dagger boards. When you run aground with a dagger board, your boat comes to a sudden stop. The forces with the long dagger board lever arm act on the dagger board trunk against the weight of the occupants in the dinghy. The weak spot is the dagger board / hull connection. In both boats, after I, or the children sailing around the harbor, hit a rock or the ground, I had a fracture cracks at the dagger board / hull joint that caused leakage. Those experiences were enough for me. I'd never buy another boat with a dagger board. I want a centerboard that pivots, so that if there is a grounding, the board can be lifted up by the obstruction, and not cause damage to the hull. Dagger boards may be the cheapest way to go while building boats, but the resultant damage to the boat caused by dagger boards hitting rocks or other hard places, and the resultant leaks that you can never quite stop from leaking, is not the way to go. Neither do I buy into the idea of frangible, disposable, dagger boards to solve the problem. The M15 is ideal. I can get close enough to a beach to just step into the water. What more do you want? My Bolger MICRO could be beached and even had steps at the bow so that you could climb aboard again. We never used that feature as long as we owned the MICRO. It was far easier to drop the swim ladder off the side of the boat and get into the water that way. Katrina and I both loved your M15 interior layout. The large double bed was referred to as our "suenden wiese" (a meadow for sinning!) in German. I think you are going to have great difficulty trying to improve the existing M15 with a new design. Connie & Katrina Benneck ex M15 #400 LEPPO
I've owned both daggerboard and centerboard small boats and I am not a fan of daggerboards. I think you have a keeper with the current keel/centerboard combo, but if you really wanted to reduce the trailering draft you could draw it up into the hull a bit more, have the pin still outside to avoid leaks there. I'd rather a ridge a few inches high inside the cabin than a daggerboard trunk dividing it in two.
Open transom is fine. Some kind of cleats for a small gas tank w/ webbing hold-down just fwd of rudder head.
Nearly Bare interior with small mounts for an optional single berth (something that any owner could build the base of (ply + some stiffeners screwed to it) and buy a (hopefully off-the-shelf) rectangular cushion or a camping pad. and a place for a porta-potty would be fine. Maybe a few bins for duffles that would double as hull stiffeners. Owner could add hooks for a cargo net to retain stuff in the bins if desired. Minimal hull liner.
Forward hatch for flow-through ventilation. (I've slept in a cockpit a couple of times (open boat) and around here you always wake up covered in dew and frequently mosquitoes are an issue, so I NEVER do it given a choice. Might be different thing out west.)
Tod
-----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of James Poulakis Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:04 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat
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
> 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
I find Matt Layden's designs to be intriguing. Who needs a keel when you have "chine runners". See: http://www.microcruising.com/paradox1.htm Jerry W Warrenton VA M-23 "Robin's Nest" On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 17:16 -0400, Conbert Benneck wrote:
On 17-Mar-12 2:54 PM, Tod wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I agree with Tod.
I've had a Dwyer 7'-9" sailing dinghy as well as a 9' Dutch sailing dinghy we used in Europe. Both had dagger boards.
When you run aground with a dagger board, your boat comes to a sudden stop. The forces with the long dagger board lever arm act on the dagger board trunk against the weight of the occupants in the dinghy.
The weak spot is the dagger board / hull connection.
In both boats, after I, or the children sailing around the harbor, hit a rock or the ground, I had a fracture cracks at the dagger board / hull joint that caused leakage.
Those experiences were enough for me. I'd never buy another boat with a dagger board. I want a centerboard that pivots, so that if there is a grounding, the board can be lifted up by the obstruction, and not cause damage to the hull.
Dagger boards may be the cheapest way to go while building boats, but the resultant damage to the boat caused by dagger boards hitting rocks or other hard places, and the resultant leaks that you can never quite stop from leaking, is not the way to go.
Neither do I buy into the idea of frangible, disposable, dagger boards to solve the problem.
The M15 is ideal.
I can get close enough to a beach to just step into the water. What more do you want?
My Bolger MICRO could be beached and even had steps at the bow so that you could climb aboard again.
We never used that feature as long as we owned the MICRO. It was far easier to drop the swim ladder off the side of the boat and get into the water that way.
Katrina and I both loved your M15 interior layout. The large double bed was referred to as our "suenden wiese" (a meadow for sinning!) in German.
I think you are going to have great difficulty trying to improve the existing M15 with a new design.
Connie & Katrina Benneck ex M15 #400 LEPPO
I've owned both daggerboard and centerboard small boats and I am not a fan of daggerboards. I think you have a keeper with the current keel/centerboard combo, but if you really wanted to reduce the trailering draft you could draw it up into the hull a bit more, have the pin still outside to avoid leaks there. I'd rather a ridge a few inches high inside the cabin than a daggerboard trunk dividing it in two.
Open transom is fine. Some kind of cleats for a small gas tank w/ webbing hold-down just fwd of rudder head.
Nearly Bare interior with small mounts for an optional single berth (something that any owner could build the base of (ply + some stiffeners screwed to it) and buy a (hopefully off-the-shelf) rectangular cushion or a camping pad. and a place for a porta-potty would be fine. Maybe a few bins for duffles that would double as hull stiffeners. Owner could add hooks for a cargo net to retain stuff in the bins if desired. Minimal hull liner.
Forward hatch for flow-through ventilation. (I've slept in a cockpit a couple of times (open boat) and around here you always wake up covered in dew and frequently mosquitoes are an issue, so I NEVER do it given a choice. Might be different thing out west.)
Tod
-----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of James Poulakis Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:04 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat
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
>> 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 > > >
jerry, I'd make a small boat like this specifically designed to be oar-ready. Any new boats I'm thinking about lately, especially beachable ones, don't have motors, or don't count on motors for primary propulsion. t
Looks more and more like a Norseboat with a cuddy cabin.. Is that even doable?? ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Smith To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:25 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat jerry, I'd make a small boat like this specifically designed to be oar-ready. Any new boats I'm thinking about lately, especially beachable ones, don't have motors, or don't count on motors for primary propulsion. t
Hi Tom! One of the issues with rowing is freeboard. I helped sail an old planked wooden keelboat of maybe 30' once, from Dana Pt to Newport, back in the 70's probably. It was kind of like a Dragon but wasn't. It had one long oar; the lock was on the coaming, and you rowed standing up, facing forward, with the tiller between your legs. Worked fine- good excercise for an hour or so, then I think it would get old. I know people have done this on eith a 15 or a 17, but no personal experience. You might want to make a removable seat just the right distance forward of the tiller so you could steer with your knees. How you guys doing? Still frozen in? I hoped you might make it Havasu last month to thaw out a bit. Give Jane my love. jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Murphy" <seagray@embarqmail.com> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:35 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat Looks more and more like a Norseboat with a cuddy cabin.. Is that even doable?? ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Smith To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:25 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: a smaller boat jerry, I'd make a small boat like this specifically designed to be oar-ready. Any new boats I'm thinking about lately, especially beachable ones, don't have motors, or don't count on motors for primary propulsion. t -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6309 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message
I see your point regarding freeboard. That guy John Letcher did a descent job with his twin keeler Aleutka. But yeah, different ballgame. We're beginning to thaw out. M17 out in the shop getting tuned up for the season. New sails. Woohoo. Grand Ronde river trip next month. Come on up. Jane sends a big smooch. t On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM, jerry montgomery <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> wrote:
Hi Tom!
One of the issues with rowing is freeboard. I helped sail an old planked wooden keelboat of maybe 30' once, from Dana Pt to Newport, back in the 70's probably. It was kind of like a Dragon but wasn't. It had one long oar; the lock was on the coaming, and you rowed standing up, facing forward, with the tiller between your legs. Worked fine- good excercise for an hour or so, then I think it would get old.
I know people have done this on eith a 15 or a 17, but no personal experience. You might want to make a removable seat just the right distance forward of the tiller so you could steer with your knees.
How you guys doing? Still frozen in? I hoped you might make it Havasu last month to thaw out a bit. Give Jane my love.
jerry
Hi all, I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work? Thanks in advance for the help! -Ted
Just stripped the varnish off of all the teak (excet companionway) on my "new to me" Monty 15. Refinishing with Sikkens Natural Teak finish. Oils attract dirt and grime, varnish eventually cracks, blisters, etc., requiring much sanding and refinishing. Sikkens, when you wish a bit of "spiffing up" just requires a quick recoat. And it looks great -grain and all (not a gloss though). Sikkens makes a gloss, just have never used it. Just my 2¢ worth from mucho teak work over many years. Padre Jeff On Mar 18, 2012 6:49 PM, "Ted Weidenbach" <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
I assume you are referring to Sikken's Cetol Natural Teak, eh? I second your vote. Good, bullet proof stuff, and minus the annoying orange cast the other Cetol products produced. I don't like oil for outside wood trim. Inside? Great. t On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnston <frjeff@gmail.com> wrote:
Just stripped the varnish off of all the teak (excet companionway) on my "new to me" Monty 15. Refinishing with Sikkens Natural Teak finish. Oils attract dirt and grime, varnish eventually cracks, blisters, etc., requiring much sanding and refinishing. Sikkens, when you wish a bit of "spiffing up" just requires a quick recoat. And it looks great -grain and all (not a gloss though). Sikkens makes a gloss, just have never used it.
Just my 2¢ worth from mucho teak work over many years.
Padre Jeff On Mar 18, 2012 6:49 PM, "Ted Weidenbach" <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
Exactly. Jeff On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Tom Smith <openboatt@gmail.com> wrote:
I assume you are referring to Sikken's Cetol Natural Teak, eh? I second your vote. Good, bullet proof stuff, and minus the annoying orange cast the other Cetol products produced.
I don't like oil for outside wood trim. Inside? Great.
t
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnston <frjeff@gmail.com> wrote:
Just stripped the varnish off of all the teak (excet companionway) on my "new to me" Monty 15. Refinishing with Sikkens Natural Teak finish. Oils attract dirt and grime, varnish eventually cracks, blisters, etc., requiring much sanding and refinishing. Sikkens, when you wish a bit of "spiffing up" just requires a quick recoat. And it looks great -grain and all (not a gloss though). Sikkens makes a gloss, just have never used it.
Just my 2¢ worth from mucho teak work over many years.
Padre Jeff On Mar 18, 2012 6:49 PM, "Ted Weidenbach" <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
-- *Jeff+* Molōn labe!
Three years ago I did the full eight-coat Epifanes gloss thing and bought a cover from Sailors Taylor. The varnish still looks like new. Rick M17 #633 Lynne L On Monday, March 19, 2012, Jeffrey Johnston <frjeff@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly.
Jeff
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Tom Smith <openboatt@gmail.com> wrote:
I assume you are referring to Sikken's Cetol Natural Teak, eh? I second your vote. Good, bullet proof stuff, and minus the annoying orange cast the other Cetol products produced.
I don't like oil for outside wood trim. Inside? Great.
t
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnston <frjeff@gmail.com> wrote:
Just stripped the varnish off of all the teak (excet companionway) on my "new to me" Monty 15. Refinishing with Sikkens Natural Teak finish. Oils attract dirt and grime, varnish eventually cracks, blisters, etc., requiring much sanding and refinishing. Sikkens, when you wish a bit of "spiffing up" just requires a quick recoat. And it looks great -grain and all (not a gloss though). Sikkens makes a gloss, just have never used it.
Just my 2¢ worth from mucho teak work over many years.
Padre Jeff On Mar 18, 2012 6:49 PM, "Ted Weidenbach" <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
-- *Jeff+* Molōn labe!
i like Daly's SeaFin teak oil - http://www.dalyspaint.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&pro... after 7+ coats it begins to take on a warm, varnish, like glow with a hard-ish finish. during the sunny season requires a coat about every three-ish weeks. some pictures showing before and after - http://m17-375.webs.com/apps/blog/show/prev?from_id=1089840 easy to touch up if you 'ding' the wood. after a couple of coats you don't see the 'ding'. experience comes from being in charge of the teak on my parents' Cheoy Lee 32 ... a boat with LOTS of teak.
Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
i recommend you duplicate the thickness you currently have the the 'slot' formed between the drop in hatch teak guides (jerry M. calls these teak guides 'cleats') and the cabin bulkhead. :: Dave Scobie :: M17 #375 SWEET PEA - www.m17-375.webs.com :: Sage Marine - www.sagemarine.com --- On Sun, 3/18/12, Ted Weidenbach <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
Anything but oil. I tried Penofin and another brand (name excapes me) on my P/O NorSea27. In less than a month it turn ugly grey, had a billion black mold specs. I stipped it and went back to Bristol Finish, a two part polyurethane. It's bullet proof and will last 3 years. It's gorgeous but it's a lot of work. Even though you can add new coats without waiting until it's dry, you still have to mix the two and there's no saving what you don't use. That's what I have on my M17. And like I said, it's beautiful. However.. when I get ready to replace it I will go with the Sikken's Cetol Natural. I saw the before/after on friends Morgan 44. It looked great after 2 years and the re-apply, from what I understand is a lot easier than varnish or the 2 parters. Joe SeaFrog M17 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Weidenbach To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:48 PM Subject: M_Boats: Varnish or oil? Hi all, I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work? Thanks in advance for the help! -Ted
Cetol Natural has worked well for us. Like any film (varnish, polyu, cetol, etc), maintainance will extend the life. We carry an old glue bottle, that has a small brush attached to the lid. If we notice a nick etc, just touch it up right then. Bill Makin'Time M17 #622 On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Joe Murphy <seagray@embarqmail.com> wrote:
Anything but oil. I tried Penofin and another brand (name excapes me) on my P/O NorSea27. In less than a month it turn ugly grey, had a billion black mold specs. I stipped it and went back to Bristol Finish, a two part polyurethane. It's bullet proof and will last 3 years. It's gorgeous but it's a lot of work. Even though you can add new coats without waiting until it's dry, you still have to mix the two and there's no saving what you don't use. That's what I have on my M17. And like I said, it's beautiful. However.. when I get ready to replace it I will go with the Sikken's Cetol Natural. I saw the before/after on friends Morgan 44. It looked great after 2 years and the re-apply, from what I understand is a lot easier than varnish or the 2 parters. Joe SeaFrog M17
----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Weidenbach To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:48 PM Subject: M_Boats: Varnish or oil?
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
....and that's the nice part about Cetol. You can easily touch it up. Unlike the Bristol Finish that I posted earlier about, you have to mix up a batch....impossible to do for small jobs. Joe SeaFrog M17 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Wickett To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:34 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Varnish or oil? Cetol Natural has worked well for us. Like any film (varnish, polyu, cetol, etc), maintainance will extend the life. We carry an old glue bottle, that has a small brush attached to the lid. If we notice a nick etc, just touch it up right then. Bill Makin'Time M17 #622 On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Joe Murphy <seagray@embarqmail.com> wrote:
Anything but oil. I tried Penofin and another brand (name excapes me) on my P/O NorSea27. In less than a month it turn ugly grey, had a billion black mold specs. I stipped it and went back to Bristol Finish, a two part polyurethane. It's bullet proof and will last 3 years. It's gorgeous but it's a lot of work. Even though you can add new coats without waiting until it's dry, you still have to mix the two and there's no saving what you don't use. That's what I have on my M17. And like I said, it's beautiful. However.. when I get ready to replace it I will go with the Sikken's Cetol Natural. I saw the before/after on friends Morgan 44. It looked great after 2 years and the re-apply, from what I understand is a lot easier than varnish or the 2 parters. Joe SeaFrog M17
----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Weidenbach To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:48 PM Subject: M_Boats: Varnish or oil?
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
I just made new companion way boards using 3/8" marine ply. Fit like the previous (unknown if they were the originals). If you wanted to use 1/2" boards (would recommend over the 1/4" thick material), you could route or table saw a rabbet the edges to fit the teak guide slots. Chuck - in the water for 1/2 and hour On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Ted Weidenbach <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
-- Prescott Stone Fabricators, Ltd. *20 YEARS SERVING THE TRIANGLE* www.prescottstone.com email: info@prescottstone.com 607 ELLIS ROAD, BLDG. 49-A, DURHAM, NC 27703 (919) 598-7509 • FAX (919) 598-3927
3/8 was original equipment. jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prescott, Charles" <chuck@prescottstone.com> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:59 AM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Varnish or oil? I just made new companion way boards using 3/8" marine ply. Fit like the previous (unknown if they were the originals). If you wanted to use 1/2" boards (would recommend over the 1/4" thick material), you could route or table saw a rabbet the edges to fit the teak guide slots. Chuck - in the water for 1/2 and hour On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Ted Weidenbach <weid0069@umn.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I took off most of the wood on my Monty 15 and am currently sanding it all down to get ready to make look good again. I am debating whether to do varnish or oil, does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on the matter? I would greatly appreciate some input. Also, my companion way boards are in disrepair and I am going to just make new ones. Are the monty's only set up to have 1/4" companion way boards or would 1/2" work?
Thanks in advance for the help!
-Ted
-- Prescott Stone Fabricators, Ltd. *20 YEARS SERVING THE TRIANGLE* www.prescottstone.com email: info@prescottstone.com 607 ELLIS ROAD, BLDG. 49-A, DURHAM, NC 27703 (919) 598-7509 • FAX (919) 598-3927
Jerry, I own an M15 and am very happy with her. However, if I didn't have her already, I would be interested in a 14 or 15 foot boat that was light enough to be launched and pulled safely up hill by a small car, and which could be beached without sacrificing ballast or decent upwind ability. I like also the concept of both water ballast and lead slug/ daggerboard. I would also be very interested in the simplicity of a cat rig if the loss of windward ability weren't too much. I would pay the extra money for a carbon deck to achieve the strength and lightness of the carbon. Regards, Ron C. ________________________________ 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 it’s a better boat because of you. The checks are in the mail! We’re starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and I’d 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 don’t 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. I’d 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 17’s performance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isn’t 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 70’s 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 there’s 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
Jerry IMO a lead encapsulated dagger board would allow the boat to be low on the trailer and also beachable. I have no opinion on the CF deck the M15 has a glass deck and no compression post, but I suppose same strength and lighter is better if the cost is right. Have you had your knee surgery? and how are you doing? Out of pain and getting around ,I hope Thank you again for driving my boat to 1st in M17 fleet Eldor -----Original Message----- From: jerry montgomery <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> To: montgomery forum <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 3:05 pm Subject: M_Boats: (no subject) Hi- Almost three years ago I asked the members of the M list for advice and pinions on ideas that we had regarding a new project that eventually became the age 17. We gave great consideration to your opinions and ideas and there is bsolutely no doubt that it’s a better boat because of you. The checks are in he mail! We’re starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and I’d like o ask you for your help again. What we have in mind is a simple, three-stay ig, maybe even a cat rig, and possibly a dagger keel with a bulb in order to ake it sit lower on the trailer and be beachable. We don’t want purely water allast because of the performance limitations, but a combo of water and a lead lug on the end of the daggerboard might be worth considering in order to hold own trailering weight. We might be able to squeeze in a couple of low places to sit, by dropping the ft end of the interior down a few inches and for sleeping, fill in with thicker oam cushions. There would be storage under the settees, but not as much as therwise. I’d also like to hear your comments on the carbon deck like on the 17. There is bsolutely no doubt in my mind that it is one of the secrets of the S 17’s erformance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isn’t really free in hat it will make the boat cost at least a thousand dollars more. (After that t's free)! In your mind, is it worth the extra money? In the early 70’s ontgomery Marine, in the Montgomery 17 was the first American builder of roduction boats to use end-grain balsa in the deck. (C&C Yachts, in Canada, as the first, I believe) Now, pretty much all but the cheepie builders use it. think there’s a good chance that carbon will do the same thing. erry -- am using the free version of SPAMfighter. e are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. PAMfighter has removed 6308 of my spam emails to date. et the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message
Thanks, Eldor, we done good (two firsts- one in your M-bote and one in the Sage). N o knee surgury yet, they want to wait until I'm recovered from the cancer surgery of three weeks ago. I know like I sound like a walking hospital! maybe see you guys in Monterey. jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: <eisenee@aol.com> To: <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:46 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: (no subject) Jerry IMO a lead encapsulated dagger board would allow the boat to be low on the trailer and also beachable. I have no opinion on the CF deck the M15 has a glass deck and no compression post, but I suppose same strength and lighter is better if the cost is right. Have you had your knee surgery? and how are you doing? Out of pain and getting around ,I hope Thank you again for driving my boat to 1st in M17 fleet Eldor -----Original Message----- From: jerry montgomery <jerry@jerrymontgomery.org> To: montgomery forum <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 3:05 pm Subject: M_Boats: (no subject) Hi- Almost three years ago I asked the members of the M list for advice and pinions on ideas that we had regarding a new project that eventually became the age 17. We gave great consideration to your opinions and ideas and there is bsolutely no doubt that it’s a better boat because of you. The checks are in he mail! We’re starting to get serious about a smaller version of the Sage, and I’d like o ask you for your help again. What we have in mind is a simple, three-stay ig, maybe even a cat rig, and possibly a dagger keel with a bulb in order to ake it sit lower on the trailer and be beachable. We don’t want purely water allast because of the performance limitations, but a combo of water and a lead lug on the end of the daggerboard might be worth considering in order to hold own trailering weight. We might be able to squeeze in a couple of low places to sit, by dropping the ft end of the interior down a few inches and for sleeping, fill in with thicker oam cushions. There would be storage under the settees, but not as much as therwise. I’d also like to hear your comments on the carbon deck like on the 17. There is bsolutely no doubt in my mind that it is one of the secrets of the S 17’s erformance, kind of like free horsepower except that it isn’t really free in hat it will make the boat cost at least a thousand dollars more. (After that t's free)! In your mind, is it worth the extra money? In the early 70’s ontgomery Marine, in the Montgomery 17 was the first American builder of roduction boats to use end-grain balsa in the deck. (C&C Yachts, in Canada, as the first, I believe) Now, pretty much all but the cheepie builders use it. think there’s a good chance that carbon will do the same thing. erry -- am using the free version of SPAMfighter. e are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. PAMfighter has removed 6308 of my spam emails to date. et the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6309 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message
participants (19)
-
Bill Wickett -
Conbert Benneck -
Daniel Rich -
eisenee＠aol.com -
Gerald Wolczanski -
James Poulakis -
Jeffrey Johnston -
jerry montgomery -
Joe Murphy -
judy casino -
Philip McCowin -
Prescott, Charles -
Rick Davies -
Stan Susman -
Ted Weidenbach -
Tod -
Tom Jenkins -
Tom Smith -
W David Scobie