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
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
