August 2004 - montgomery_boats - mailman.xmission.com

RE: M_Boats: More on towing vehicles... 4X4 or Not?
by Smith, Tom 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

I've pulled our M17 out of the water twice with my 91 Toyota 4WD pickup. It's a 4 banger and I always turned in the hubs and use 4-low to do the job. I didn't like the experience. The truck works fine with the M15, but the M17 is nearly too much--lots of slipped clutch. It towed okay, but again, bigger would be better. Long and short, this small truck works fine for the 750 pound M15, but is weak for the 1500 pound M17. t Tom Smith and Jane Van Winkle M15--345 Chukar M17--064 Unnamed

1 0

Re: M_Boats: More on towing vehicles... 4X4 or Not?
by bownez＠juno.com 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Hi Bill, My 97 S-10, 2 wheel drive, with the V6 and auto works fine. If the ramp is VERY steep or slippery with sea grass or moss, there may be an issue with the 2 wheel drive. Perhaps a manual come-along as a back up is prudent to have on hand. I belive my towing limit is 4000 lbs. Later, Bones ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

2 1

Re: M_Boats: More on towing vehicles... 4X4 or Not?
by Saltm17＠aol.com 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Bill, I pull my M17 with a long bed,1984 F150, 300 cubic inch, 6 cylinder engine, 2 wheel drive with a 4 speed manual transmission. I've launched and retrieved my sailboat on many ramps and haven't ever had a problem with traction. However, first gear is a real "granny" and it helps a lot on steep ramps. John Edwards

1 0

Re: M_Boats: More on towing vehicles... 4X4 or Not?
by David Thomason 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

I've seen & heard comments from people who got their vehicle off the end of the ramp due to folks "powering" their outboard & stern drive boats onto the trailer, (which is illegal in Michigan). Doing this digs a hole at the bottom of the ramp. At that point, a 4x4 is the only thing that will get you out short of a tow-truck. On the same note, in Michigan, with all of the snow, any truck that is not a 4x4 is not really valued. Front-wheel drive cars are great in the snow, but a rear-wheel drive truck is no fun, and more than a bit dangerous. I wouldn't recommend a 4x4 truck to anyone who doesn't need one, but if you've got a good use for one, they're nice in every way. Even fuel is not so bad, I recently drove from Lansing to Marquette (390+/- miles) in my '04 Chevy half-ton Z71 4x4 with the 5.3L V8 (295 hp, 330 ft/lbs torque), and got 23.5 miles to the gallon (about the same as my badly tuned '67 bug). Granted, I drove 60 mph, but that's pretty much my pace anymore. Don't try this in a new half-ton Ford, they're lucky to get 16 MPG. The truck will tow the M23 with ease, and would do OK pulling the 27, although 10,000 lbs. would exceed the rated capability by a few pounds.

1 0

Cattle Pass
by Wilsometer＠aol.com 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Hi Dick, We missed you by exactly a week! We did our annual cruise (on the Flicka this year) to Vancouver Island to see family, and returned via the west side of San Juan Island and through Cattle Pass on Friday the 23rd. We decided to wait the turn of current through the pass, and drifted off of Eagle Point for dinner. We weren't there for more than 10 minutes when an entire pod of Orcas ('K' pod maybe?) came right at us (I am aware of the restrictions regarding maintaining distance, but there is not much you can do when they insist on coming to you!). They put on quite a show--spy hopping, breaching, and finally, swimming right up to, and under, the boat. At least two youngsters and a really big male were present in the estimated 5-8 whales immediately around the boat. 6-7 others stayed a few hundred yards away. Quite moving, to say the least! We lingered for about an hour until they finally moved on. It was one of those amazing, flat, hot evenings (80 degrees F. at 7:00p) in the Strait, and we rode the flood all the way through Cattle Pass and back to Friday Harbor (9+ knots over the bottom per the GPS!). Ditto your comments regarding being careful out there. In contrast to our surreal summer evening, I have seen waves so steep and short in duration just south of Cattle Pass as to really put the fear in me. It can be deadly out there when there is a southerly blowing against an ebb current. Even riding the relatively benevolent flood in through the pass saw the Flicka dancing all around in the eddies and tide rips! Drop me a line when you are back in Silicon Valley. Scott M15 #478 'bebe' PSC Flicka In a message dated 8/1/04 11:14:10 PM, montgomery_boats-request(a)mailman.xmission.com writes: >Larry, on Friday I returned to Port Townsend from the Gulf Islands via > >Cattle Pass between Lopez and San Juan Islands. As I exited the pass in > >smooth water but a 4 kt ebbing current I could see what appeared to the > >naked eye to be white cliffs about 2 miles ahead, using the binoculars > >I could see that it was really a giant tide rip and a 40' cruiser was >showing it's rudder and propellors as it tried to negotiate the >maelstrom. I could see that about 30 deg east the "cliffs" were somewhat > >lower and then beyond the waves was a fog bank so I installed the radar > >display, battened everything down inserted the hatch boards and donned > >my life vest. The lesser rip lasted for some 5 nm with Swoose rolling >and pitching violently, I considered raising the sail to damp the >rolling but on going forward to do so I found the deck to be dropping >away from under my feet and decided it wasn't a prudent move at my >advanced age and just motored steering to best quarter the waves. My dog > >Bonita didn't like it one bit! Just north of Smith Island I spotted a >big radar return about 5 miles away over my right shoulder, turned out > >to be a Korean frieghter overtaking me at about 20 kt, no communication > >on the VTS channel, thank goodness I had fired up the radar. >As they say on the cop shows, "be careful out there". >Dick

1 0

Re: M_Boats: More on towing vehicles... 4X4 or Not?
by Sandyal55＠aol.com 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

In a message dated 8/4/2004 10:40:01 AM US Mountain Standard Time, BILLAMICASR(a)aol.com writes: Do I really need the 4X4? No you don't, but a wet ramp can make a small pickup spin the tries. If someone sits in the bed over the back tires, there's no problem. If you find a Ranger with posi traction, that solves the problem too. I don't recommend front wheel drive as a primary vehicle. Trannies aren't made for the job.

1 0

Re: M_Boats: speed . . .
by Wilsometer＠aol.com 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Craig, As you know, I have both an M15 and a Flicka, and would not willingly give up either! I know that your query was M17 vs. Flicka, but perhaps some extrapolation would apply. As for speed, I would say that, subject to conditions, my M-15 is generally faster than the Flicka--especially in light air. The M15 (and I would assume the M17) tend to defy the rule of theoretical hull speed (1.34 x square root of waterline length) on account of light weight, a relatively flat bottom, and slight wetted area. In other words, they can (and do) act as a planing or semi-planing hull when pushed. Bert Felton and I would regularly hit M15 speeds well in excess of six knots on San Francisco Bay (sometimes with white knuckles). The Flicka will regularly and reliably obtain 5 to 5.5 knots in the right conditions, but that is about the limit. The M15 and M17, like most Hess designs (or Hess derived designs), have fine entries that slice through the water with minimum bow wave. The Flicka, on the other hand, has a fairly bluff bow, and pushes quite a bit of water. In short/steep chop, the Flicka will suffer some loss of speed as a result. A look at the relative sail area to displacement numbers for the M15 vs. the Flicka is telling. The M15 has 122 sq. ft. of working sail area for 750 lb. of displacement. The Flicka has 250 sq. ft. or working sail area for 6000lbs. (5500-6000lbs depending on year/configuration). Looking only at these numbers, you would think that the Flicka would be, to use the vernacular, a real dog. In fact, the Flicka can do reasonably well in light air, but not without a good/large light-air headsail such as a drifter. In very light conditions, the Flicka's momentum (AKA 6000#) will sometimes allow it to carry some way between puffs when lighter boats stop. My M15, on the other hand, seems to love light air. I am still amazed at how well this boat does with just the standard working sails. In heavier air, the M15 continues to perform well provided that sail area is shortened commensurately. We have sailed in 30-35 knots under double reefed main and storm jib in relative comfort and safety. The Flicka really comes into her own at wind above 15 knots. At anything above 35 knots, I think I would rather be on the Flicka, though I suspect the M15 is capable of more abuse than I am. I guess I would summarize as follows: The Flicka is a heavy, quality, purpose-built small trailerable cruiser intended for, and capable of, offshore cruising for one or two people. It has a short, stout rig, and is relatively undercanvassed for its displacement. It has a full keel and slack bilges (translates to a lot of wetted area), and a bluff bow. That it performs as well as it does is something of a miracle, and it continues to amaze me. I would, however, take stories of Flicka's beating J-24's around the marks with a very large grain of salt. It does very well indeed for its hull and sail area, but it is no racing machine. The M15 is, well, the best small boat I have ever sailed! I am sure I would feel similarly about the M17. I don't think you can find a better combination of performance, ease of transport, accommodations (relative to size), aesthetics, and build quality. How is that for an evasive answer? Scott M15 #478 'bebe' PSC Flicka In a message dated 8/3/04 4:04:33 AM, montgomery_boats-request(a)mailman.xmission.com writes: >No one wants to field this one? > >The M17 has an L.W.L. of 15' 10" . . . > >The M17 displaces 1,550 lbs . . . > >The Flicka 20' has an L.W.L. of 18' 2" . . . > >The Flicka 20' displaces 6,000 lbs . . . > >I know the Flicka has the L.W.L. advantage, speed-wise, but that WEIGHT >. . . > >And it's reported that M17's can outrun Catalina 22's . . .

1 0

Re: M_Boats: Yamaha 2.5-cost
by Randy Watkins 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

hi Rich, think you'll enjoy your 2.5. I like the neutral. service opinions- alas what's a sailor to believe. take care, Randy W. M15 Becca Anne >>> rc2222(a)pacbell.net 8/4/04 10:08:27 AM >>> Response to costs: I could have purchased a new Honda 2 hp, with clutch, for $ 710. or wait for the boat Sept boat show and pay $ 699. I purchased the Yamaha 2.5 hp at the Boat Shop in Fremont for $ 785. The additional hp, true neutral, and what seems to be an excellent outboard for my M15, was worth the additional 10% cost, to me. The added 10 pounds keeps the prop in the water when going forward. Carrying the motor is more difficult but I have carried it 100 feet before taking a break. The weight advantage of the Honda 2hp is a real benefit. However, since most the carrying is only from the tailgate of the pickup to the transom at the end of the trailer, it's not a problem for me. My Yamaha only has 2 hours on it so I've not been able to test at full speed. Incidentally, Randy, the dealer's service man told me to run the engine after use to drain the carburetor. Rich Cottrell _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

1 0

RE: M_Boats: Yamaha 2.5-cost
by Hughston, Larry 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Rich, is that Fremont as in Fremont, California? If so it may be worth a drive for me from Sacramento, CA. ---Larry M-15 hull # 189 -----Original Message----- From: Richard Cottrell [mailto:rc2222@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:08 AM To: Montgomery Boats Subject: M_Boats: Yamaha 2.5-cost Response to costs: I could have purchased a new Honda 2 hp, with clutch, for $ 710. or wait for the boat Sept boat show and pay $ 699. I purchased the Yamaha 2.5 hp at the Boat Shop in Fremont for $ 785. The additional hp, true neutral, and what seems to be an excellent outboard for my M15, was worth the additional 10% cost, to me. The added 10 pounds keeps the prop in the water when going forward. Carrying the motor is more difficult but I have carried it 100 feet before taking a break. The weight advantage of the Honda 2hp is a real benefit. However, since most the carrying is only from the tailgate of the pickup to the transom at the end of the trailer, it's not a problem for me. My Yamaha only has 2 hours on it so I've not been able to test at full speed. Incidentally, Randy, the dealer's service man told me to run the engine after use to drain the carburetor. Rich Cottrell _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

1 0

Yamaha 2.5-cost
by Richard Cottrell 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Response to costs: I could have purchased a new Honda 2 hp, with clutch, for $ 710. or wait for the boat Sept boat show and pay $ 699. I purchased the Yamaha 2.5 hp at the Boat Shop in Fremont for $ 785. The additional hp, true neutral, and what seems to be an excellent outboard for my M15, was worth the additional 10% cost, to me. The added 10 pounds keeps the prop in the water when going forward. Carrying the motor is more difficult but I have carried it 100 feet before taking a break. The weight advantage of the Honda 2hp is a real benefit. However, since most the carrying is only from the tailgate of the pickup to the transom at the end of the trailer, it's not a problem for me. My Yamaha only has 2 hours on it so I've not been able to test at full speed. Incidentally, Randy, the dealer's service man told me to run the engine after use to drain the carburetor. Rich Cottrell

1 0