Hi Jerry W, glad to see you here. Cool boat, thanx for the link. Interesting study. I think Jerry M is seeking exceptional upwind performance. Don't know if "Chine Runners" would deliver. I'd like to hear Jerry M's thoughts on "Chine Runners". Did you get "Robin's Nest" in the water yet? sal '86 M15 #361 - "Justus" In a message dated 3/17/2012 5:34:58 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jerrywlinux@comcast.net writes: 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 > > >
I'm in the process of getting a barrier coat and 3 coats of anti-fouling paint put on her. As soon as that's done - she's going in the water. As for chine runners, this Matt Layden fellow is a legend of sorts and has cruised all over the place - at least on the East Coast. Another chine runner believer is: http://www.yrvind.com/ The study plans for Layden's "Paradox" are rather amazing. I built a Phil Bolger "Nymph" and use a leeboard which stays on one side of the boat on either tack. I actually talked to Dynamite Payson about a leeboard used as such...and in his rather "Maine" sort of way he thought it would work fine...."Ayyyup". Or at least that's what I think he said. Bolger liked leeboards on both sides held with stout rope - and if you visit the small boat museum in Amsterdam, that's a pretty standard method. Phil Bolger designed a boat for the "Wooden Boat" magazine skiff competition and I have a copy of the plans. He has an off-center dagger board, but a previous poster talked about damaging the dagger board case in a hard knock. I can see that. I'm a novice sailer...but some stubby twin keels sounds like a good fit for those of us on the "right" coast. Chine runners on steroids! Jerry Warrenton, VA On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 21:59 -0400, SALGLESSER@aol.com wrote:
Hi Jerry W, glad to see you here. Cool boat, thanx for the link. Interesting study. I think Jerry M is seeking exceptional upwind performance. Don't know if "Chine Runners" would deliver. I'd like to hear Jerry M's thoughts on "Chine Runners".
Did you get "Robin's Nest" in the water yet?
sal
'86 M15 #361 - "Justus"
In a message dated 3/17/2012 5:34:58 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jerrywlinux@comcast.net writes:
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 >> >> >>
participants (2)
-
Gerald Wolczanski -
SALGLESSER＠aol.com