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