Re: montgomery_boats Digest, Vol 21, Issue 22
Rachel...It's called the M23! Find one and go now!! Theo M23 "Sails Increase" On Nov 13, 2004, at 9:42 AM, montgomery_boats-request@mailman.xmission.com wrote:
Send montgomery_boats mailing list submissions to montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to montgomery_boats-request@mailman.xmission.com
You can reach the person managing the list at montgomery_boats-owner@mailman.xmission.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of montgomery_boats digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: track lube (William B. Riker) 2. RE: track lube (Steve R.) 3. Re: Web Pictures (BILLAMICASR@aol.com) 4. i don't understand what's . . . (Craig F. Honshell) 5. History Question #1 (BILLAMICASR@aol.com) 6. Re: Web Pictures (Bob) 7. Rail bolts (Rotortom2@aol.com) 8. Re: Rail bolts (Sandyal55@aol.com) 9. Re: Rail bolts (Larry E Yake) 10. Re: History Question #1 (Rachel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:13:43 -0500 From: "William B. Riker" <wriker@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: M_Boats: track lube To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <E1CSkbu-0007MM-00@barry.mail.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Right, the sail falls on the deck. Then you roll, fold and/or flake it into a tidy package, and tie it to the boom. It took me a while to perfect the technique, but I never could get the main to flake nicely when it had slugs, so this works for me.
Bill Riker M15 #184 Storm Petrel
-----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces+wriker=mindspring.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats- bounces+wriker=mindspring.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Sandyal55@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:05 PM To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: M_Boats: track lube
In a message dated 11/11/2004 7:02:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time, shawn@ori.org writes:
. Simple is best.
When you anchor for the night and don't want to put the main away, slugs are the only way to go. Otherwise the main falls all over the deck. Try using a
bolt rope on a 23 or a boat larger. The thought is ludicrous. The bolt rope
is fine for a small sail on a little boat, but is a burden when the main is
much bigger. _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:46:13 -0800 (PST) From: Steve R. <stever@mail.saabnet.com> Subject: RE: M_Boats: track lube To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <20041113024613.894447269@sitemail.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain
Bolt rope good.
Lazy jacks make bolt rope better.
No sail on deck.
No learning curve.
The helm has unobstructed vision. (When mama is happy...) There is only so much room in the cockpit for two people and their accoutrements. Why drop the main there?
The best part is, I give power boaters the impression I know what I am doing.
$20 in parts. Two minutes to set-up or take down.
(Posted wirelessly from Hagerstown, MD. Almost close enough to the Chesapeak to smell the marine air. While I am not on a boat I am wet enough to have been turtled today.)
steve
Steve R. M-15 #119 Lexington, KY
"William B. Riker" <wriker@mindspring.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: M_Boats: track lube
Right, the sail falls on the deck. Then you roll, fold and/or flake it into a tidy package, and tie it to the boom. It took me a while to perfect the technique, but I never could get the main to flake nicely when it had slugs, so this works for me.
Bill Riker M15 #184 Storm Petrel
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:13:08 EST From: BILLAMICASR@aol.com Subject: Re: M_Boats: Web Pictures To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <d8.191201ec.2ec6e3d4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Thanks Don for the Compliments. Regarding the Orion. They are a favorite of mine also. Amazing how much they've kept the resale value. A nice one twenty years old being usually over 30 or 40K. Here in SF, There are several of the early Orions with the port lights like the Dana, you know just two on each side. I think they went to three in 81 or 82. Ilike the early ones the best. Anyway, you're right, there's lots of them on SF Bay. Thanks again, Bill
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:19:29 -0500 From: "Craig F. Honshell" <chonshell@ia4u.net> Subject: M_Boats: i don't understand what's . . . To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <004e01c4c937$f85faae0$2263b3cf@D89X0M51> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
. . . complicated about slugs . . . They're quicker to feed, slide more easily, and as Wayne points out, allow you to drop the sail without removing it . . . My halyards are external . . . The only extra hardware on the mast itself is a quick-release stop-pin across the groove . . . The mast-mod was only necessary because the throat to the boltrope groove was an absurd umpteen-zillion feet above the deck: Closing the old throat, re-bending the new, would've been a useful mod even if I hadn't switched to slugs . . . I've stored my boat on her trailer, mast-up near a launch ramp, the last two seasons and the ability to drop the sail without removing it from the groove has been an exceptional convenience . . . Ready to sail: Undo the sail-ties and pull the halyard, the sail sliding so easily it can be raised one-handed . . . Ready to store: Release the halyard, flake the sail and lash it to the boom . . . Nothing complicated, no extra moving parts.
----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Yeargain To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: track lube
Granted the boltrope is all you say it is, plus more aerodynamic, the advantage in sail slugs is that you can drop the sail without removing it.
Wayne
----- Original Message ----- From: "William B. Riker" <wriker@mindspring.com> To: "'Craig F. Honshell'" <chonshell@ia4u.net>; "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:18 PM Subject: track lube
Just for a contrasting opinion, I think you're all nuts! For me, the boltrope is easier to deal with than slugs. The original sail that came with Storm Petrel had slugs, but I ordered my new main (5 years old now) without them and haven't looked back.
In the spring, a shot of silicone spray in the mast groove keeps the boltrope sliding freely all season, and I don't need a mechanism to keep the sail from dropping out of the slot. I can let go of the halyard to tend to something else and the sail stays put. Of course, it's also more aerodynamic.
The boltrope is a strong, simple and secure system.
Bill Riker M15 #184 Storm Petrel
-----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces+wriker=mindspring.com@mailman.xmission.com
[mailto:montgomery_boats- bounces+wriker=mindspring.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Craig F. Honshell Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:26 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: track lube
I had such a mod made this past spring (close the old throat, open a new, lower throat) . . . However, I had my groove opened right above where the boom rests when the downhaul is cinched . . . I have a 1/4" quick-release stop-pin that runs across the groove once the slugs are fed into place . . . I can flake the sail without allowing the slugs to drop out of the groove . . . This also works pretty well . . . Perhaps not as tidy as Busca's mod . . .
----- Original Message ----- From: htmills@bright.net To: 'For and about Montgomery Sailboats' Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: track lube
Bill,
Rod, the previous owner, had the following solution:
He closed up the original spread section of the groove and opened up a new one BELOW the normal operating position of the boom.
When setting up, I feed the slugs all in and then the gooseneck slide and raise it up towards its normal operating position. A stop (slug w/ thumbscrew) below the gooseneck keeps it from falling down. A line to the mast foot holds the boom from raising when the sail is hoisted. Sounds complicated but it works pretty well.
I'll get the measurements for you hopefully by the weekend.
Tod
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:23:43 EST From: BILLAMICASR@aol.com Subject: M_Boats: History Question #1 To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <13f.63e06d0.2ec6e64f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Looks to me like there have been some changes made to the 17 over the years... Does anybody know when the motor cut out went away? When was the forward hatch changed from a smooth hatch to a raised hatch? What other major cosmetic changes have there been? Inquiring minds want to know Bill www.msog.funtigo.com
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:49:44 -0800 From: Bob <Bobeeg@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Web Pictures To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <41959268.20309@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The Orion. Good looking boat but the reason they stopped building them was because on some days you had to start the inboard to tack.
Upwind they just don't do well. A sailor I know tried to get one back from Hawaii and after several days just couldn't get out of site of the Islands. They turned back and shipped the boat on a freighter to Los Angeles.
But, like I said, its a good looking boat.
Bob
BILLAMICASR@aol.com wrote:
Thanks Don for the Compliments. Regarding the Orion. They are a favorite of mine also. Amazing how much they've kept the resale value. A nice one twenty years old being usually over 30 or 40K. Here in SF, There are several of the early Orions with the port lights like the Dana, you know just two on each side. I think they went to three in 81 or 82. Ilike the early ones the best. Anyway, you're right, there's lots of them on SF Bay. Thanks again, Bill _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:35:23 EST From: Rotortom2@aol.com Subject: M_Boats: Rail bolts To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <df.65ef066.2ec6f71b@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I have a couple of questions for the group. I have the aluminum toe rail (I hope that is the correct terminology) on my M-17, and I was polishing the boat today in preparation for a trip to either San Carlos Mexico or Loreto Mexico. I was trying to clean up the anodized toe rail and did not have much luck with the regular polish I was using for the hull. What product should be used to shine it up? Second question: I noticed that the spacing between the SS bolts at the stern and the bow along the Hull to deck joint was about 3 inches, whereas toward the middle the spacing was reduced to about 2 to 2 1/2 inches. What is the reason for the change in spacing?
Tom Woodworth M-17 #330 "Wild Hare"
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:45:52 EST From: Sandyal55@aol.com Subject: Re: M_Boats: Rail bolts To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <1ea.2f678301.2ec6f990@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
The toe rail amidships is where jib sheet blocks are usually attached. There's more stress on them in this area. That's why the bolt spacing is closer together. Most aluminum rails are anodized. I would suggest a good cleaning but don't try to polish too vigorously. If you go thru the anodizing, corrosion could set in.
------------------------------
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:37:48 -0800 From: Larry E Yake <leyake@juno.com> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Rail bolts To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com Message-ID: <20041112.223748.1092.4.leyake@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I was trying to clean up the anodized toe rail and did not have much luck with the regular polish I was using for the hull. What product should be used to shine it up?
Mine shined up nice using Penatrol.
Larry
------------------------------
Message: 10 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:42:34 -0600 From: Rachel <penokee@cheqnet.net> Subject: Re: M_Boats: History Question #1 To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <A38F87E3-358A-11D9-AAC5-0003938281E0@cheqnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Hi Bill and other M-ers,
Okay, I'll take a stab at this one - although I think some of it might already be mentioned in Jerry Montgomery's "History of the M-17," which is ... I can't remember where to find it - must be on MSOG somewhere.
I think most of the major changes took place in 1981, when they made a new mold because the old one was getting a bit worn from use. My old hull #331 was apparently the first "new" boat. I say this because I found an older-style M-17 which was also a 1981 and also had hull #331. At any rate, it was 1981 sometime.
I'll list what I remember as the changes:
1) Improved hull-to-deck joint. Not sure exactly how the old one worked, but the new one protrudes more on the outside and takes both the hull and deck and folds them into an upside-down U-shape together. I believe that all of the old boats had the perforated aluminum toe-rail, whereas most of the new ones had the teak toe-rail, but a few had the perforated aluminum (which was apparently more expensive and harder to install, and probably more functional; but apparently "the public" preferred teak). The improved hull-to-deck joint also ran all the way across the transom (thus the motor cut-out was eliminated), giving it much more strength (I have seen a number of the older boats that had small cracks running vertically at the place where the transom turns into the topsides.)
2) In the cockpit, the cooler was eliminated from the "benches," and the benches were made completely flat (I believe, but am not sure, that the older model had some diagonal grooves at the forward corner of the benches for drainage? That's what I was trying to say when I said the new ones were flatter.)
3) In addition to the motor cut-out being eliminated, a "wet locker" was created across the back of the cockpit. Essentially a continuation of the cockpit "benches" across the stern, but isolated from all other lockers and inside spaces. It had a lifting lid, just like the other bench lockers.
4) Cockpit drainage: IIRC, the older boats had copper tubing glassed into the hull for cockpit drains (or just one drain?). My early-new-style 1981 had what I believe were fiberglass tubes glassed into the bilge for cockpit drainage, but the tubes were below the waterline. I think that newer-new-style boats went to above-the-waterline transom drainage, but I don't know exactly when. I think the newest boats utilize a one-way valve to allow water to go out but not come in ... ?
5) Forehatch: The pre-1981 boats had a forehatch that was flush with the deck, whereas the 1981-and-later boats have a hatch that sits "on top" of the deck.
6) Ports: The pre-1981 boats had ports with aluminum trim rings around them, whereas on the new mold there were recesses molded into the coach-roof sides, and the ports just bolted right into the recesses, with no trim rings.
7) Backstay attachment: I don't remember how the backstay was attached on the older boats (perhaps stainless tangs bolted to the transom?), but on the newer boats - with the rolled hull-to-deck joint - (hazy memory alert!) there is a short piece of what looks like re-bar (but which must be stainless of some kind) tucked into the groove created under the hull-to-deck joint's lip, and the backstay fittings are anchored in that way.
8) Below-decks layout: I'm fairly sure that all of the pre-1981 boats had the one settee (quarter berth) + galley layout, whereas starting in 1981, you had a choice between that and two settees (which both doubled as quarter berths). Now I'm really straining my memory, but I think with the two settee layout, the cockpit lockers were small, ie: you lost the great cockpit-locker stowage you had with the galley model (unless you cut them out later on) (more on this below in "later mods").
9) Things I'm not so sure about: ...
At some point, the centerboard-raising winch might have been moved outside? Or maybe it was eliminated with the fiberglass board? (See below). I also think that the main-sheet traveler might have been moved around a bit in the cockpit. Were earlier ones closer to the companionway? I believe mine on hull #331 was about 9" to 12" abaft the companionway.
I always wondered if the "turn" from the coachroof to the coachroof-sides might have been a squarer profile on the pre-1981 boats -- or perhaps it was something I just *thought* I noticed when looking at a shot of the bulkhead at the rear of the cabin (as in a photo looking from the tiller towards the bow).
10) Later mods: Starting around 1986, you could get a "short settee berth" instead of either the galley or the second full quarter berth. Then you had the advantage of two people being able to sit facing each other below AND the huge cockpit locker of the galley model. Also in 1987 (IIRC), the centerboard went from iron to fiberglass with lead (early on maybe steel?) ballast encapsulated in it. The new board is wider than the old iron one, so the keel stub was modified at the same time to accommodate the new board. Also, whereas the old, iron board had a "stop tang" to keep in from dropping too far, the new fiberglass board utilizes a knot in the rope, like the M-15 does.
That's all I can think of right now. There's probably more - and I've certainly erred in some of my "facts," so feel free to correct me!
--- Rachel Boat shopping for something a little bigger than the M-17 (to live aboard), but darn! you have to go SOOO big to get much more than the M-17 offers - it's especially hard to beat that fine cockpit layout.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ montgomery_boats mailing list montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
End of montgomery_boats Digest, Vol 21, Issue 22 ************************************************
Chef Theo Petron DinnerWhere-A Personal Chef Service "Eat Well or Don't Eat at All!" kitchen line: 651-696-0032 on-the-go: 612-730-6109
On Saturday, November 13, 2004, at 10:37 a.m., Chef Theo Petron wrote:
Rachel...It's called the M23! Find one and go now!! Theo M23 "Sails Increase"
Theo, I know, I know, you're right. In fact, I've kicked myself numerous times over that issue. See, the very first sailboat I ever looked at, when I started my first-boat search, back in early 1998, was Randy Palmer's M-23 "Early Light." Why on earth didn't I buy it? I guess it was just a case of not buying the very first thing you see - feeling like a bit more looking would be the right thing to do. It was just bad luck that the first boat I saw was such a good one... Now my budget is quite a bit smaller (yes, I'm downwardly-mobile ;-), so that kind of rules out an M-23. But I agree, they are fabulous. --- Rachel Still a qualifying member of the Hess family with my Fatty Knees 7' :-)
That Yankee Dolphin at Hooper's is gone now. I'm pretty pleased with my Tartan 26, but she's gonna need a lot of work before she's in good shape, and I got one of the better ones on the market. Price was right. Cockpit is NOT as comfy as a 17's. My nephew climbed up aboard Busca the other night and first thing he said was, "wow, NICE cockpit!" Tod -----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces+htmills=bright.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces+htmills=bright.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Rachel Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:02 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: Re: M_Boats: Re:M-23 On Saturday, November 13, 2004, at 10:37 a.m., Chef Theo Petron wrote:
Rachel...It's called the M23! Find one and go now!! Theo M23 "Sails Increase"
Theo, I know, I know, you're right. In fact, I've kicked myself numerous times over that issue. See, the very first sailboat I ever looked at, when I started my first-boat search, back in early 1998, was Randy Palmer's M-23 "Early Light." Why on earth didn't I buy it? I guess it was just a case of not buying the very first thing you see - feeling like a bit more looking would be the right thing to do. It was just bad luck that the first boat I saw was such a good one... Now my budget is quite a bit smaller (yes, I'm downwardly-mobile ;-), so that kind of rules out an M-23. But I agree, they are fabulous. --- Rachel Still a qualifying member of the Hess family with my Fatty Knees 7' :-) _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
. . . too many different sailboats . . . M17, Cal 25', Flicka 20', Sandpiper 525, Contour 34' (not including boat shows) . . . The M17, far and away, has the most comfortable cockpit . . . ----- Original Message ----- From: htmills@bright.net To: 'For and about Montgomery Sailboats' Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:12 PM Subject: M-23 That Yankee Dolphin at Hooper's is gone now. I'm pretty pleased with my Tartan 26, but she's gonna need a lot of work before she's in good shape, and I got one of the better ones on the market. Price was right. Cockpit is NOT as comfy as a 17's. My nephew climbed up aboard Busca the other night and first thing he said was, "wow, NICE cockpit!" Tod -----Original Message----- From: montgomery_boats-bounces+htmills=bright.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces+htmills=bright.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Rachel Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:02 PM To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats Subject: M-23 On Saturday, November 13, 2004, at 10:37 a.m., Chef Theo Petron wrote:
Rachel...It's called the M23! Find one and go now!! Theo M23 "Sails Increase"
Theo, I know, I know, you're right. In fact, I've kicked myself numerous times over that issue. See, the very first sailboat I ever looked at, when I started my first-boat search, back in early 1998, was Randy Palmer's M-23 "Early Light." Why on earth didn't I buy it? I guess it was just a case of not buying the very first thing you see - feeling like a bit more looking would be the right thing to do. It was just bad luck that the first boat I saw was such a good one... Now my budget is quite a bit smaller (yes, I'm downwardly-mobile ;-), so that kind of rules out an M-23. But I agree, they are fabulous. --- Rachel Still a qualifying member of the Hess family with my Fatty Knees 7' :-)
participants (4)
-
Chef Theo Petron -
Craig F. Honshell -
htmills＠bright.net -
Rachel