Thanks for the reply. The boat has a metal toe rail. Inboard of the bolts, where the hull begings to curve downwards, there is a crack that, as I said, runs pretty well all around the perimeter of the hull. It appears as a balckened (dirt? mold?) cracking and is visible in much of the interior as a simple crack in the glass, with leak marks in a few places. The more I think about it, it seems pretty serious to me. Since the cracking is below the bolts, it would seem to indicate major structural weakness in the hull, just below the joint. Odd in a well-built boat. How could this happen? Karl Krahnke Ft. Collins, CO krahnke@comcast.net
Before I bought my M-17, I looked at one that had problems very similar to what you're describing. At least I think so, as I take your description: it had numerous scallop-shaped cracks on the outside of the hull, just below (some of) the bolts of the hull-deck joint. At first I thought it might just be cosmetic cracks in the gelcoat but then inside I could see evidence of persistent leakage running down the inside of the hull from the hull-deck joint area. I decided to keep shopping and although I never saw another with that much of a problem, I did see numerous boats of the older hull-deck design (pre-1981) that had sealants/caulks around the hull-deck joint, so I suppose the leaking was not a totally isolated problem. Note that in 1981 the hull-deck joint was changed/improved to one with overlapping flanges. At the same time there were a number of other changes/improvements - they cast new molds for the boat then, so it was a good opportunity. Just goes to show that there's always room for improvement, even in a great boat design like the Montgomery :-) That being said, I do like the aluminum toe-rails of the older designs - they're so handy and functional. I do believe that a few of the newer boats were made with them; perhaps it was an option on the earlier new-design boats. I think it was actually an expensive and labor-intensive toe-rail -- but I have a feeling the wooden rail was more popular with boat-buyers for cosmetic reasons. In the end it just so happened that I bought 1981 M-17 hull #334, which was the first of the new-toerail-design boats. Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517 On Aug 13, 2005, at 11:45 AM, krahnke@comcast.net wrote:
The more I think about it, it seems pretty serious to me. Since the cracking is below the bolts, it would seem to indicate major structural weakness in the hull, just below the joint. Odd in a well-built boat. How could this happen?
I think the overlapping joint with teak was done for cosmetic, not structural reasons (per Jerry's "History of the M-17 on the MSOG.org site) ... It was only an improvement insofar as anyone might prefer damage-prone teak to a perforated aluminum rail, and their fiberglass deck exposed to the dock (with the overlap), rather than having a built-in rubrail ... That said, I'm not trying to start an argument, just saying the aluminum-toe-rail boats are fine, extremely structural sound, models ... Mine was built when both the aluminum and teak were options, and, as much as I have a "classic boat aesthetic" and love lots of wood and bronze, I'm glad my boat's original owner chose aluminum. The perforations, the bullet-proof strength (stand on it while walking forward, don't worry about cosmetically marring it), the low maintenance and built-in rubrail are great features ... ----- Original Message ----- From: Rachel To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:11 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint Before I bought my M-17, I looked at one that had problems very similar to what you're describing. At least I think so, as I take your description: it had numerous scallop-shaped cracks on the outside of the hull, just below (some of) the bolts of the hull-deck joint. At first I thought it might just be cosmetic cracks in the gelcoat but then inside I could see evidence of persistent leakage running down the inside of the hull from the hull-deck joint area. I decided to keep shopping and although I never saw another with that much of a problem, I did see numerous boats of the older hull-deck design (pre-1981) that had sealants/caulks around the hull-deck joint, so I suppose the leaking was not a totally isolated problem. Note that in 1981 the hull-deck joint was changed/improved to one with overlapping flanges. At the same time there were a number of other changes/improvements - they cast new molds for the boat then, so it was a good opportunity. Just goes to show that there's always room for improvement, even in a great boat design like the Montgomery :-) That being said, I do like the aluminum toe-rails of the older designs - they're so handy and functional. I do believe that a few of the newer boats were made with them; perhaps it was an option on the earlier new-design boats. I think it was actually an expensive and labor-intensive toe-rail -- but I have a feeling the wooden rail was more popular with boat-buyers for cosmetic reasons. In the end it just so happened that I bought 1981 M-17 hull #334, which was the first of the new-toerail-design boats. Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517 On Aug 13, 2005, at 11:45 AM, krahnke@comcast.net wrote:
The more I think about it, it seems pretty serious to me. Since the cracking is below the bolts, it would seem to indicate major structural weakness in the hull, just below the joint. Odd in a well-built boat. How could this happen?
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
On Aug 13, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Craig F. Honshell wrote:
I have hull 389 with the metal toe-rail, and though I have a little hull-to-deck separation near the starboard bow, I have nothing like the cracking you're describing.
Hi Craig, Just for the record, if your boat is #389, it would have come out of the "new" mold and would have the improved hull-deck joint, regardless of which toe-rail it has.
I think the overlapping joint with teak was done for cosmetic, not structural reasons (per Jerry's "History of the M-17 on the MSOG.org site) ... It was only an improvement insofar as anyone might prefer damage-prone teak to a perforated aluminum rail, and their fiberglass deck exposed to the dock (with the overlap), rather than having a built-in rubrail ...
I'd have to differ here (although clearly I'm not Jerry). I think the newer hull-deck joint was a huge improvement, structurally-speaking. That's not to confuse the aluminum rail with the teak; I'm talking about the actual joint method. That is to say, I think the teak was added to the newer rail as per consumer preference (cosmetic), but the actual joint design was changed as a strength/leak improvement. The transom is certainly much stronger with that reinforced overlap running its full width as opposed to the older one, which does not run full-width (due to the motor cut-out), nor have as strong a shape. In the new shape both the hull and deck make a sort of sideways I-beam together - it's more than just a "shoebox" top.
That said, I'm not trying to start an argument, just saying the aluminum-toe-rail boats are fine, extremely structural sound, models ...
Me neither on the argument - and I agree that the earlier boats are *fabulous* boats and certainly not all of them have problems. But I can't agree that the new joint was only a cosmetic change.
Mine was built when both the aluminum and teak were options, and, as much as I have a "classic boat aesthetic" and love lots of wood and bronze, I'm glad my boat's original owner chose aluminum. The perforations, the bullet-proof strength (stand on it while walking forward, don't worry about cosmetically marring it), the low maintenance and built-in rubrail are great features ...
Yep, if I had my choice I'd take aluminum too for the same reasons. You know, I'd love to see a close-up photo of your boat. I've never seen the aluminum rail mated to the newer hull-deck joint, so I can't picture how it would make a built-in rubrail -- does it extend down over the outside "lip" of the hull-deck joint somehow? On #334 the outer lap of the joint was prone to cosmetic abrasion while docking and such (okay, perhaps it's the captain who should be described as prone to problems... ;-) Okay, I'm opinionated ;-) --- Rachel Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517
Hey, Rachel ... Thanks for the details ... I thought the boat in question, however, was one of those with the new deck: I thought you were comparing the new deck/teak with the new deck/aluminum ... I'll send a pic ... I can't remember for sure, but there may be a close-up among the pics Bill has posted of 389 at http://www.funtigo.com/MSOG?b=195276&c=1789789&p=start&cr=1&rfm=y Fair winds, Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: Rachel To: Craig F. Honshell ; For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint On Aug 13, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Craig F. Honshell wrote:
I have hull 389 with the metal toe-rail, and though I have a little hull-to-deck separation near the starboard bow, I have nothing like the cracking you're describing.
Hi Craig, Just for the record, if your boat is #389, it would have come out of the "new" mold and would have the improved hull-deck joint, regardless of which toe-rail it has.
I think the overlapping joint with teak was done for cosmetic, not structural reasons (per Jerry's "History of the M-17 on the MSOG.org site) ... It was only an improvement insofar as anyone might prefer damage-prone teak to a perforated aluminum rail, and their fiberglass deck exposed to the dock (with the overlap), rather than having a built-in rubrail ...
I'd have to differ here (although clearly I'm not Jerry). I think the newer hull-deck joint was a huge improvement, structurally-speaking. That's not to confuse the aluminum rail with the teak; I'm talking about the actual joint method. That is to say, I think the teak was added to the newer rail as per consumer preference (cosmetic), but the actual joint design was changed as a strength/leak improvement. The transom is certainly much stronger with that reinforced overlap running its full width as opposed to the older one, which does not run full-width (due to the motor cut-out), nor have as strong a shape. In the new shape both the hull and deck make a sort of sideways I-beam together - it's more than just a "shoebox" top.
That said, I'm not trying to start an argument, just saying the aluminum-toe-rail boats are fine, extremely structural sound, models ...
Me neither on the argument - and I agree that the earlier boats are *fabulous* boats and certainly not all of them have problems. But I can't agree that the new joint was only a cosmetic change.
Mine was built when both the aluminum and teak were options, and, as much as I have a "classic boat aesthetic" and love lots of wood and bronze, I'm glad my boat's original owner chose aluminum. The perforations, the bullet-proof strength (stand on it while walking forward, don't worry about cosmetically marring it), the low maintenance and built-in rubrail are great features ...
Yep, if I had my choice I'd take aluminum too for the same reasons. You know, I'd love to see a close-up photo of your boat. I've never seen the aluminum rail mated to the newer hull-deck joint, so I can't picture how it would make a built-in rubrail -- does it extend down over the outside "lip" of the hull-deck joint somehow? On #334 the outer lap of the joint was prone to cosmetic abrasion while docking and such (okay, perhaps it's the captain who should be described as prone to problems... ;-) Okay, I'm opinionated ;-) --- Rachel Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517
On Aug 13, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Craig F. Honshell wrote:
Hey, Rachel ... Thanks for the details ... I thought the boat in question, however, was one of those with the new deck: I thought you were comparing the new deck/teak with the new deck/aluminum ...
Craig, The original poster specified hull #325, so I reasoned that it would be one of the original design (probably 1980). Here's the reason I know that my #334 was the first of the new design. Well, first of all, I knew that 1981 (my year) was when they made the changeover. Then I was looking at a crimson-hulled M-17 on a trailer in Superior, Wisc. (after I had my boat), and when glancing at the hull number I saw that *it too* was #334 (but was an "old-style" hull and deck). When I mentioned that on the board, Jerry said something to the effect of "Oops, we must have forgotten to change number for the first of the new boats." My boat also had something else funny about the hull number, although my memory is foggy - perhaps the "17" was missing - so it wasn't exactly the same serial number as the older #334, although they were both #334. Okay, on to your photo :-) --- Rachel Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517
I think I may be seeing, after study, how my '84 deck-joint overlaps, despite the aluminum toe-rail ... ----- Original Message ----- From: Rachel To: Craig F. Honshell ; For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint On Aug 13, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Craig F. Honshell wrote:
Hey, Rachel ... Thanks for the details ... I thought the boat in question, however, was one of those with the new deck: I thought you were comparing the new deck/teak with the new deck/aluminum ...
Craig, The original poster specified hull #325, so I reasoned that it would be one of the original design (probably 1980). Here's the reason I know that my #334 was the first of the new design. Well, first of all, I knew that 1981 (my year) was when they made the changeover. Then I was looking at a crimson-hulled M-17 on a trailer in Superior, Wisc. (after I had my boat), and when glancing at the hull number I saw that *it too* was #334 (but was an "old-style" hull and deck). When I mentioned that on the board, Jerry said something to the effect of "Oops, we must have forgotten to change number for the first of the new boats." My boat also had something else funny about the hull number, although my memory is foggy - perhaps the "17" was missing - so it wasn't exactly the same serial number as the older #334, although they were both #334. Okay, on to your photo :-) --- Rachel Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517
I'd like to see pictures of this. If the cracks are in the hull.....and not the deck, it would seem odd to have them show up inside, as I there is a liner inside....at least to the back end of the cabin. Hard to see how it would have cracked through both the hull and liner. Leak marks are easily explained by any leak in the hull deck joint.....which may mean it's not the crack that is leaking. Hard to understand how it might have gotten cracked all the way around. I can't imagine how you could do that if you wanted to. It would require something drastic like being lifted by the toerails, and/or dropped from a travel lift, or perhaps something fell on it....like a tree or a building. They don't do that on their own. Are you sure this is not a simple gel coat stress crack outside and you are seeing the hull/deck/liner joint inside and leaks coming from the joint? Either way, unless you are a whiz at glass repair, one should not purchase such a boat without a survey. On 8/13/05 11:45 AM, "krahnke@comcast.net" <krahnke@comcast.net> wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
The boat has a metal toe rail. Inboard of the bolts, where the hull begings to curve downwards, there is a crack that, as I said, runs pretty well all around the perimeter of the hull. It appears as a balckened (dirt? mold?) cracking and is visible in much of the interior as a simple crack in the glass, with leak marks in a few places.
The more I think about it, it seems pretty serious to me. Since the cracking is below the bolts, it would seem to indicate major structural weakness in the hull, just below the joint. Odd in a well-built boat. How could this happen?
Karl Krahnke Ft. Collins, CO krahnke@comcast.net
_______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Howard, I'd better clarify what I wrote:
... If the cracks are in the hull.....and not the deck, it would seem odd to have them show up inside, as I there is a liner inside....
You're correct - at least in my case I couldn't see the cracks inside. I could see the cracks outside, and evidence of persistent leakage inside (I say "persistent" because there were actual stains where the water ran down, not just trails like from one instance of leakage).
Leak marks are easily explained by any leak in the hull deck joint.....which may mean it's not the crack that is leaking.
Again, that's right. The leaks and the cracks might not have been related directly, although both might be indicative of a hull-deck joint that should be looked at closely.
Hard to understand how it might have gotten cracked all the way around. I can't imagine how you could do that if you wanted to. It would require something drastic like being lifted by the toerails, and/or dropped from a travel lift, or perhaps something fell on it....like a tree or a building. They don't do that on their own.
Are you sure this is not a simple gel coat stress crack outside and you are seeing the hull/deck/liner joint inside and leaks coming from the joint?
On the boat I'm speaking of, the cracks were all the way through the gelcoat (at least). I mean, unlike more superficial spidering, I could actually slip my fingernail all the way into them. They were scallop-shaped and under each fastener (not on every fastener on the boat though, but perhaps a dozen or so). I wondered if perhaps a PO had attempted to tighten the hull-deck fasteners to stanch the leaks, and if the tightening itself might have caused the cracking. I was never able to find out for sure though. I realize you were probably actually replying to the original poster, but it made me think I'd better clarify my post as well. --- Rachel Fatty Knees 7' #302 Former owner, M-17 #334 Former owner, M-15 #517
That does sound serious ... I'll defer to Jerry if he weighs in ... It sounds like the boat in question was subjected to extreme stress of some kind ... I have hull 389 with the metal toe-rail, and though I have a little hull-to-deck separation near the starboard bow, I have nothing like the cracking you're describing. I lost my boat and trailer off its hitch in 2001, the whole assembly sailed down a 10-foot embankment and well into a field where it was eventually halted by tall grass ... The boat suffered no damage whatsoever ... I merely broke the winch post. Monty 17's are indestructible, but it sounds like this one was hit by a train or something ... ----- Original Message ----- From: krahnke@comcast.net To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:45 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Hull-deck joint Thanks for the reply. The boat has a metal toe rail. Inboard of the bolts, where the hull begings to curve downwards, there is a crack that, as I said, runs pretty well all around the perimeter of the hull. It appears as a balckened (dirt? mold?) cracking and is visible in much of the interior as a simple crack in the glass, with leak marks in a few places. The more I think about it, it seems pretty serious to me. Since the cracking is below the bolts, it would seem to indicate major structural weakness in the hull, just below the joint. Odd in a well-built boat. How could this happen? Karl Krahnke Ft. Collins, CO krahnke@comcast.net _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
participants (4)
-
Craig F. Honshell -
Howard Audsley -
krahnke＠comcast.net -
Rachel