1982 MONTAUK 17 Ride in Chop - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  1982 MONTAUK 17 Ride in Chop

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1982 MONTAUK 17 Ride in Chop

Brianswhaler posted 10-01-2014 07:37 AM ET (US)
In a chop how is the ride [of a 1982 Boston Whaler MONTAUK with a 2005 Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE]? This is my first Boston Whaler boat. I am just getting started. Thank you
jimh posted 10-01-2014 08:19 AM ET (US)
The ride characteristics of a Boston Whaler 1982 MONTAUK 17 depends on the sea state. The height of the waves and the distance between wave crests are the primary influences. If the distance between waves is short enough so that the hull is encountering two wave crests at all times, the ride improves. If the wave height is small compared to the waterline length, the ride improves. The course of the boat relative to the wind direction and wave direction also affects the ride. Going upwind and into head seas is generally more difficutlt than going down wind and with the seas.
I don't know of any particular standard of comparison or metric for judging the ride characteristics of a small boat. Generally one tends to see vague descriptions of ride characteristics based on making planing speeds into head seas of sufficient height to cause the bow of the boat to be deflected upwards on encountering each wave.
It may be more useful to consider the ride characteristics of a particular hull based on the popularity of the hull. The hull used in a 1982 MONTAUK was first introduced in 1961 and then modified slightly in 1976. I think that hull form has probably been manufactured and sold in greater number than any other boat of similar size. The hull form was superseded in Boston Whaler's recreational boat line in c.2003, but I believe it continued to be made afterward in the commercial division, and it might still be available now. Based on that extremely long life and very high sales volume, it seems reasonable to conclude that the hull form of the Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 provides good ride.
If making way at high speeds into large head seas is the only consideration for a hull form, there may be hull forms that differ from the Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 that might produce a better ride for those conditions. If you anticipate that all of your boating will be done trying to make way into head seas at planing speed, you might consider a different boat. If you anticipate using the boat for general purposes, you might anticipate that the long life and great popularity of the Boston Whaler MONTAUK are indicative of the hull's ride characteristics in a variety of conditions.
jimh posted 10-01-2014 08:38 AM ET (US)
I don't have any first-hand experience with the particular combination of hull and outboard engine that you request, but as a general observation the weight of a Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE is considerably higher than the weight of outboard engines in use when the Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 was initially designed. As a result, I would expect that a 1982 MONTAUK with a Mercury 90-FOURSTROKE will be carrying more weight on the transom than it was designed for, and this may affect the ride characteristics of that boat compared to the general ride characteristics of a MONTAUK 17 with an outboard engine of less weight.
ASIDE: regarding the Mercury 90 FOURSTOKE, can you described that engine in more detail? There have been four different engines sold by Brunswick under the model name Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE, and the model name itself is ambiguous. Mercury also eliminated the use of model year designators, but I don't recall the precise date when that practice began. Thus model year designators may not be of much value.
Some of the ambiguity about the exact engine weight of the engine you are describing could be removed if you gave more details. In that epoch, I think Brunswick was transitioning to making their own Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE. Previously Brunswick was buying their engines from Yamaha and selling them as Mercury branded engines. I believe those engines weighed about 410-lbs.
It is often seen that when heavy engines are used on a MONTAUK the arrangement of gear on the boat is changed to take as much weight as possible from the stern of the boat, including moving the engine cranking battery to amidship, usually inside the center console. The weight and location of the engine cranking battery will also be a factor in affecting the ride characteristics.
jcdawg83 posted 10-01-2014 09:03 AM ET (US)
I have a 1877 Montauk; it has the same hull as a 1982 Montauk. The ride in chop depends on the chop. In 1-foot to 2-fot seas in an inland environment where the waves are totally wind driven, the ride is fine. In more open waters or offshore with 2-foot waves that are spaced a little further apart, you will need to slow down. The hull length of a Montauk 17 is only 16-feet 7-inches so, regardless of hull design, the ride is not going to be completely smooth in any real chop. I think you will find it acceptable in most cases, but, if the seas get nasty, you will want to reduce speed considerably. I have traveled far offshore in a Montauk 17 and been caught in some really big seas. I never felt in danger, but I have had to come back in at speeds barely above trolling speed. The Montauk is a great little boat but it was not designed to be in really rough water.
One benefit of the classic hull is that it planes very easily. I have a 90-HP Evinrude on my boat and it will plane very nicely and run well at around 2,800 to 3,000-RPM. This is very useful in rougher water. I can maintain about 15 to 17-MPH and not be plowing through the water if the seas get rough. The weight of your engine and the load in the boat may affect your minimum planing speed somewhat.
Jefecinco posted 10-01-2014 10:54 AM ET (US)
Brian--since you own the boat, just give it a try. You'll find that load distribution and most important speed and engine trim will be keys to ride quality in a chop.
Butch
kwik_wurk posted 10-01-2014 01:52 PM ET (US)
Chop is a relative term. For me, 2-foot wind waves means about 15 to 20-knots of breeze, and, if you are pounding dead upwind or on the forward quarter, it's a damn rough ride. Increase the wind wave height with short period, and gets worse still. Running downhill is different story--but that's true in any boat. I have found most ocean swell condition to be pleasant compared than tight wind chop.
What makes a Montauk is the handling or stability. I feel safer in my Montauk than other much larger boats of comparable quality (Grady, Parker). I've been in snotty ocean condition and just bobbed along in the Montauk, while larger companion boats rolled pretty hard due to their deep Vee's. The trade off came when it was time to head in. They sliced through the slop at 25-nautical miles per hour, and I had to hold at 8 to 10-nautical-miles-per-hour, occasionally getting on plane to about 16-nautical-miles-per-hour. The same when crossing river-to-ocean bars. Some boats were ending up with bows shooting off the top of stacking wave crests and rolling due to (LOA and deep Vee), where the Montauk simply broke through and landed square with no rolling.
And yes, the aft end of a Montauk with its broad surface area, makes holding a plane at 15-nautical-miles-per-hour fantastic. The lowest I can hold my fully loaded boat is abut 13.5 to 14-nautical-miles-per-hour on slightly rippled water (and that's with a Merc 90 two-cycle outboard with stainless steel 19-pitch re-cupped propeller).
Trimming a Montauk is likely the most important thing relative to ride comfort. Extra weight in the bow is key, and I often move coolers on top of the bow hatch, along with down rigger balls, and lots of chain for the anchor.
Dave Sutton posted 10-01-2014 03:19 PM ET (US)
Cutting thru all of the pep talk: in a wind driven short period chop, especially with the wind on the bow, a 'Tauks ride can be described in one word:

************** Miserable ***************

Safe? Absolutely.
Comfortable? Uhh... <no>.

Love my Whalers, but against a head sea wind chop even my 25 rides badly. A 17 is worse. Have one of each and love them both. But keep your knees bent, one hand on the throttle, and plan to work to get home. You'll get there, it's just a matter of when.
The advice to add weight up forward is dead on. I added a factory original casting platform to my 'Tauk and it helped. I then load my diving weight belts and all my stuff up forward and it continues to help.

Dave
,.
EJO posted 10-01-2014 04:04 PM ET (US)
If it gets "snotty" on Lake Michigan known for its short period and high waves I throw out a bucket and fill up my anchor locker in the bow by keeping the plug in. In my 15' Montauk this easily holds 10 plus gallons x 8.4 = approx 80 to 85 lbs right at the bow and than she rides pretty good.
All I have in that locker is anchor, chain and rode which are meant to get wet.
Sometimes I do that when alone too, when no crew can sit in front of the CC or on the pad like my wife likes. Doing this improves the ride considerably at planing speeds.
GRAND NUSSIE posted 10-01-2014 06:29 PM ET (US)
Put your four daughters on the platform with lying with their noses about even with the bow. Mine loved it and so did Mom and I.
By the way, is there ANY boat that will ride nice in a Lake Michigan 2'-3' afternoon headsea chop other than a Mainship 30 or some other very large or semi-displacement hull? We watched a 29' Tiara go by on plane in 3 footers and the two in the boat were bouncing up and down like ping pong balls.
Dick
Dave Sutton posted 10-01-2014 09:11 PM ET (US)
^^ True.
Having just run my 25 foot Frontier (Outrage hull with forward pilothouse) 45 miles home from a shipwreck sonar-hunt in Lake Michigan into a head sea like that, I can tell you that it was a LONG ride back. We ran out in about two hours. It took FIVE to get home.
Narragansett Bay RI, Delaware Bay, The Chesapeake Bay, Tampa Bay... any fairly shallow body of water plus a 15-20 knot wind = a hard ride in any of the classic hulls.

Dave
.
jimh posted 10-01-2014 10:33 PM ET (US)
Dave's comments are very honest. If you want to be able to go upwind into head sea with total comfort, get a much larger boat than a MONTAUK 17. Maybe a older, narrow beam, displacement hull boat with about 85-feet of water line will smooth out the chop.
fno posted 10-02-2014 12:13 AM ET (US)
Dave will probably agree that any Whaler under a 22' Classic or not your going to get Whalerbutt from the ride into any sort of chop. Whalerbutt is best described as intense back pain, numbness in the lower extremities, or just a sore backside that is well known from a day spent on small Boston Whalers. Lets face it, smaller Boston Whalers are designed to be tenders for larger boats and or a platform for the youthful crowd to develop a sense of responsibility while waterskiing and sun tanning their girl friends.
jcdawg83 posted 10-02-2014 08:49 AM ET (US)
Excellent point fno. Whalers are great, really phenomenal, boats but they are not magical in their ability to smooth out rough water. Any center console whaler that does not have "Outrage" in it's name is going to give a rough ride in any appreciably rough sea or short, vertical chop. It will be safe and it will get you home as long as you have some basic boat handling skills and a modicum of common sense but you will not be sitting down, sipping on a cocktail as you ride back to port at 25 knots.
EJO posted 10-02-2014 03:57 PM ET (US)
The best riding boat on Lake Michigan for me were my 30' and larger sailboats drafting 5'+ but that is expected from a sailboat.
My best motor boat for snotty weather was my old 1962 Chris-Craft 27' all wood Sea-Skiff open with 350HP inboard V-8. 2'-3' waves or 9ft waves it didn't matter that boat plowed and planed thru any weather.
Never should have traded it for the larger 32' Chris-Craft cabin cruiser as that with its two V-8 inboards did not run good in 3' or more seas.
[Ride characteristics] depend on the design. Size does matter.
Dave Sutton posted 10-02-2014 07:31 PM ET (US)
Actually, "Entry Matters" ;-)
For that, entry is the rate of change of buoyancy as the hull form enters the water after pitching partially out of the water.
Flat bottom? The buouyancy rate change is fast and the decelleration loads (G forces) are high. Bottom line is that the boat SLAMS down and decellerates rapidy when the bow drops down in chop. Welcome to how a Montauk rides.
Softer entries are gained by running a vee shaped hull that allows the required buoyancy to be gained more slowly, giving lower peak G forces when the boat goes over the chop and re-enters the water. The shape of the bow flare affects this. A boat with a wider flare well above the waterline has more reserve buoyancy the deeper and deeper the bow plunges into the water.
If you run a plot of draft in inches on one axis of a piece of graph paper and bouyancy on the other, a flat bottom boat will show a very straight line and a boat with a softer entry will plot out with a curve.
It's all physics... and the physics of a basically flat bottom skiff will always work against comfort in conditions that force the boat to go partially airborne and then re-enter the water.
Classic Whalers are NOT confortable in chop when run at speeds that put the bow airborne *at all*. Slowing down is the only real option. Running it at displacement speeds is your last resort.

Dave
.
endus posted 10-03-2014 12:15 PM ET (US)
Dave Sutton's first reply is dead on. We had an older Montauk at the place I worked at as a teenager, and I definitely experienced some ugly weather in that thing. I never felt unsafe for a second, not one second, but you get going too fast in decent waves and you're asking for a "spine crusher". We had that thing half full of water pulling a Soling off the rocks with our stern to the oncoming sea, which was fine, but if you're going to try to plane in waves "knees bent and hand on the throttle" is definitely crucial.
The 170 we have now is a *lot* better, but definitely still not a boat that was meant for high speed in big waves...we've taken some hits.
jimh posted 10-03-2014 08:19 PM ET (US)
We have heard nothing from Brianswhaler. Are we just talking amongst ourselves?
martyn1075 posted 10-03-2014 10:23 PM ET (US)
Well my early days of hockey seem to remind me of the ride of 17 Montauk slap but as kids we never complained in fact we were thirsty for more punishment laying down on our front side clinging to the railings. Good boat for tidal water where there are back eddies.
Dave Sutton posted 10-04-2014 09:13 AM ET (US)
"Are we just talking amongst ourselves?"

As is the case in so many forums.... very likely.

Dave
.
PeteB88 posted 10-06-2014 07:46 PM ET (US)
Agree with all of this and having witnessed experienced boaters over the weekend in Outrages turn back from nasty chop on a certain lake while others driving pre-smirked wood console Nauset type boats throttle down and "go for it" - it's captain's discretion. The boat will take it - you might not like the ride so strap stuff down, assume wrestler or skier's stance, one hand on the throttle, the other on the wheel, warn your passengers and freaking go for it. We were in a 210 Outrage and playing bam bam just like every other boat out there.
As regards my 17 Outrage classic - I gained major respect for my boat after that experience last weekend. She can do the same only not as fast. The 210 was making 25, 27 no problem, at 30 it got fun and if only cap't and me on board, screw it, throttle down, but we were not the Queen Mary 2.
At home we're often in the same and even snottier conditions on Lake Michigan for sure, sometimes bigger wave height and same snot frequency. Our's is similar ride as 210 but making only 17, 18, 20 maybe 22 MPH best not 27-34 like that incredible 210. Passengers confident. And we are always dry in our Outrage 17.
You will figure it out - you have a terrific boat.
Brianswhaler posted 10-10-2014 05:17 PM ET (US)
No, you are not just talking to yourselves. I just wanted to average what everyone said. I think I have a better perspective of what to expect. Lake Michign has short, close chop, and I'm unfamiliar with different hull styles. A deeper-V would probably suit me better than a skiff--maybe a 20 -foot or bigger OUTRAGE. Thanks, everyone, for the input.--Brian

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 1982 MONTAUK 17 Ride in Chop
Brianswhaler	posted 10-01-2014 07:37 AM ET (US) In a chop how is the ride [of a 1982 Boston Whaler MONTAUK with a 2005 Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE]? This is my first Boston Whaler boat. I am just getting started. Thank you
jimh	posted 10-01-2014 08:19 AM ET (US) The ride characteristics of a Boston Whaler 1982 MONTAUK 17 depends on the sea state. The height of the waves and the distance between wave crests are the primary influences. If the distance between waves is short enough so that the hull is encountering two wave crests at all times, the ride improves. If the wave height is small compared to the waterline length, the ride improves. The course of the boat relative to the wind direction and wave direction also affects the ride. Going upwind and into head seas is generally more difficutlt than going down wind and with the seas. I don't know of any particular standard of comparison or metric for judging the ride characteristics of a small boat. Generally one tends to see vague descriptions of ride characteristics based on making planing speeds into head seas of sufficient height to cause the bow of the boat to be deflected upwards on encountering each wave. It may be more useful to consider the ride characteristics of a particular hull based on the popularity of the hull. The hull used in a 1982 MONTAUK was first introduced in 1961 and then modified slightly in 1976. I think that hull form has probably been manufactured and sold in greater number than any other boat of similar size. The hull form was superseded in Boston Whaler's recreational boat line in c.2003, but I believe it continued to be made afterward in the commercial division, and it might still be available now. Based on that extremely long life and very high sales volume, it seems reasonable to conclude that the hull form of the Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 provides good ride. If making way at high speeds into large head seas is the only consideration for a hull form, there may be hull forms that differ from the Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 that might produce a better ride for those conditions. If you anticipate that all of your boating will be done trying to make way into head seas at planing speed, you might consider a different boat. If you anticipate using the boat for general purposes, you might anticipate that the long life and great popularity of the Boston Whaler MONTAUK are indicative of the hull's ride characteristics in a variety of conditions.
jimh	posted 10-01-2014 08:38 AM ET (US) I don't have any first-hand experience with the particular combination of hull and outboard engine that you request, but as a general observation the weight of a Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE is considerably higher than the weight of outboard engines in use when the Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 was initially designed. As a result, I would expect that a 1982 MONTAUK with a Mercury 90-FOURSTROKE will be carrying more weight on the transom than it was designed for, and this may affect the ride characteristics of that boat compared to the general ride characteristics of a MONTAUK 17 with an outboard engine of less weight. ASIDE: regarding the Mercury 90 FOURSTOKE, can you described that engine in more detail? There have been four different engines sold by Brunswick under the model name Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE, and the model name itself is ambiguous. Mercury also eliminated the use of model year designators, but I don't recall the precise date when that practice began. Thus model year designators may not be of much value. Some of the ambiguity about the exact engine weight of the engine you are describing could be removed if you gave more details. In that epoch, I think Brunswick was transitioning to making their own Mercury 90 FOURSTROKE. Previously Brunswick was buying their engines from Yamaha and selling them as Mercury branded engines. I believe those engines weighed about 410-lbs. It is often seen that when heavy engines are used on a MONTAUK the arrangement of gear on the boat is changed to take as much weight as possible from the stern of the boat, including moving the engine cranking battery to amidship, usually inside the center console. The weight and location of the engine cranking battery will also be a factor in affecting the ride characteristics.
jcdawg83	posted 10-01-2014 09:03 AM ET (US) I have a 1877 Montauk; it has the same hull as a 1982 Montauk. The ride in chop depends on the chop. In 1-foot to 2-fot seas in an inland environment where the waves are totally wind driven, the ride is fine. In more open waters or offshore with 2-foot waves that are spaced a little further apart, you will need to slow down. The hull length of a Montauk 17 is only 16-feet 7-inches so, regardless of hull design, the ride is not going to be completely smooth in any real chop. I think you will find it acceptable in most cases, but, if the seas get nasty, you will want to reduce speed considerably. I have traveled far offshore in a Montauk 17 and been caught in some really big seas. I never felt in danger, but I have had to come back in at speeds barely above trolling speed. The Montauk is a great little boat but it was not designed to be in really rough water. One benefit of the classic hull is that it planes very easily. I have a 90-HP Evinrude on my boat and it will plane very nicely and run well at around 2,800 to 3,000-RPM. This is very useful in rougher water. I can maintain about 15 to 17-MPH and not be plowing through the water if the seas get rough. The weight of your engine and the load in the boat may affect your minimum planing speed somewhat.
Jefecinco	posted 10-01-2014 10:54 AM ET (US) Brian--since you own the boat, just give it a try. You'll find that load distribution and most important speed and engine trim will be keys to ride quality in a chop. Butch
kwik_wurk	posted 10-01-2014 01:52 PM ET (US) Chop is a relative term. For me, 2-foot wind waves means about 15 to 20-knots of breeze, and, if you are pounding dead upwind or on the forward quarter, it's a damn rough ride. Increase the wind wave height with short period, and gets worse still. Running downhill is different story--but that's true in any boat. I have found most ocean swell condition to be pleasant compared than tight wind chop. What makes a Montauk is the handling or stability. I feel safer in my Montauk than other much larger boats of comparable quality (Grady, Parker). I've been in snotty ocean condition and just bobbed along in the Montauk, while larger companion boats rolled pretty hard due to their deep Vee's. The trade off came when it was time to head in. They sliced through the slop at 25-nautical miles per hour, and I had to hold at 8 to 10-nautical-miles-per-hour, occasionally getting on plane to about 16-nautical-miles-per-hour. The same when crossing river-to-ocean bars. Some boats were ending up with bows shooting off the top of stacking wave crests and rolling due to (LOA and deep Vee), where the Montauk simply broke through and landed square with no rolling. And yes, the aft end of a Montauk with its broad surface area, makes holding a plane at 15-nautical-miles-per-hour fantastic. The lowest I can hold my fully loaded boat is abut 13.5 to 14-nautical-miles-per-hour on slightly rippled water (and that's with a Merc 90 two-cycle outboard with stainless steel 19-pitch re-cupped propeller). Trimming a Montauk is likely the most important thing relative to ride comfort. Extra weight in the bow is key, and I often move coolers on top of the bow hatch, along with down rigger balls, and lots of chain for the anchor.
Dave Sutton	posted 10-01-2014 03:19 PM ET (US) Cutting thru all of the pep talk: in a wind driven short period chop, especially with the wind on the bow, a 'Tauks ride can be described in one word: ************ Miserable ************* Safe? Absolutely. Comfortable? Uhh... <no>. Love my Whalers, but against a head sea wind chop even my 25 rides badly. A 17 is worse. Have one of each and love them both. But keep your knees bent, one hand on the throttle, and plan to work to get home. You'll get there, it's just a matter of when. The advice to add weight up forward is dead on. I added a factory original casting platform to my 'Tauk and it helped. I then load my diving weight belts and all my stuff up forward and it continues to help. Dave ,.
EJO	posted 10-01-2014 04:04 PM ET (US) If it gets "snotty" on Lake Michigan known for its short period and high waves I throw out a bucket and fill up my anchor locker in the bow by keeping the plug in. In my 15' Montauk this easily holds 10 plus gallons x 8.4 = approx 80 to 85 lbs right at the bow and than she rides pretty good. All I have in that locker is anchor, chain and rode which are meant to get wet. Sometimes I do that when alone too, when no crew can sit in front of the CC or on the pad like my wife likes. Doing this improves the ride considerably at planing speeds.
GRAND NUSSIE	posted 10-01-2014 06:29 PM ET (US) Put your four daughters on the platform with lying with their noses about even with the bow. Mine loved it and so did Mom and I. By the way, is there ANY boat that will ride nice in a Lake Michigan 2'-3' afternoon headsea chop other than a Mainship 30 or some other very large or semi-displacement hull? We watched a 29' Tiara go by on plane in 3 footers and the two in the boat were bouncing up and down like ping pong balls. Dick
Dave Sutton	posted 10-01-2014 09:11 PM ET (US) ^^ True. Having just run my 25 foot Frontier (Outrage hull with forward pilothouse) 45 miles home from a shipwreck sonar-hunt in Lake Michigan into a head sea like that, I can tell you that it was a LONG ride back. We ran out in about two hours. It took FIVE to get home. Narragansett Bay RI, Delaware Bay, The Chesapeake Bay, Tampa Bay... any fairly shallow body of water plus a 15-20 knot wind = a hard ride in any of the classic hulls. Dave .
jimh	posted 10-01-2014 10:33 PM ET (US) Dave's comments are very honest. If you want to be able to go upwind into head sea with total comfort, get a much larger boat than a MONTAUK 17. Maybe a older, narrow beam, displacement hull boat with about 85-feet of water line will smooth out the chop.
fno	posted 10-02-2014 12:13 AM ET (US) Dave will probably agree that any Whaler under a 22' Classic or not your going to get Whalerbutt from the ride into any sort of chop. Whalerbutt is best described as intense back pain, numbness in the lower extremities, or just a sore backside that is well known from a day spent on small Boston Whalers. Lets face it, smaller Boston Whalers are designed to be tenders for larger boats and or a platform for the youthful crowd to develop a sense of responsibility while waterskiing and sun tanning their girl friends.
jcdawg83	posted 10-02-2014 08:49 AM ET (US) Excellent point fno. Whalers are great, really phenomenal, boats but they are not magical in their ability to smooth out rough water. Any center console whaler that does not have "Outrage" in it's name is going to give a rough ride in any appreciably rough sea or short, vertical chop. It will be safe and it will get you home as long as you have some basic boat handling skills and a modicum of common sense but you will not be sitting down, sipping on a cocktail as you ride back to port at 25 knots.
EJO	posted 10-02-2014 03:57 PM ET (US) The best riding boat on Lake Michigan for me were my 30' and larger sailboats drafting 5'+ but that is expected from a sailboat. My best motor boat for snotty weather was my old 1962 Chris-Craft 27' all wood Sea-Skiff open with 350HP inboard V-8. 2'-3' waves or 9ft waves it didn't matter that boat plowed and planed thru any weather. Never should have traded it for the larger 32' Chris-Craft cabin cruiser as that with its two V-8 inboards did not run good in 3' or more seas. [Ride characteristics] depend on the design. Size does matter.
Dave Sutton	posted 10-02-2014 07:31 PM ET (US) Actually, "Entry Matters" ;-) For that, entry is the rate of change of buoyancy as the hull form enters the water after pitching partially out of the water. Flat bottom? The buouyancy rate change is fast and the decelleration loads (G forces) are high. Bottom line is that the boat SLAMS down and decellerates rapidy when the bow drops down in chop. Welcome to how a Montauk rides. Softer entries are gained by running a vee shaped hull that allows the required buoyancy to be gained more slowly, giving lower peak G forces when the boat goes over the chop and re-enters the water. The shape of the bow flare affects this. A boat with a wider flare well above the waterline has more reserve buoyancy the deeper and deeper the bow plunges into the water. If you run a plot of draft in inches on one axis of a piece of graph paper and bouyancy on the other, a flat bottom boat will show a very straight line and a boat with a softer entry will plot out with a curve. It's all physics... and the physics of a basically flat bottom skiff will always work against comfort in conditions that force the boat to go partially airborne and then re-enter the water. Classic Whalers are NOT confortable in chop when run at speeds that put the bow airborne at all. Slowing down is the only real option. Running it at displacement speeds is your last resort. Dave .
endus	posted 10-03-2014 12:15 PM ET (US) Dave Sutton's first reply is dead on. We had an older Montauk at the place I worked at as a teenager, and I definitely experienced some ugly weather in that thing. I never felt unsafe for a second, not one second, but you get going too fast in decent waves and you're asking for a "spine crusher". We had that thing half full of water pulling a Soling off the rocks with our stern to the oncoming sea, which was fine, but if you're going to try to plane in waves "knees bent and hand on the throttle" is definitely crucial. The 170 we have now is a lot better, but definitely still not a boat that was meant for high speed in big waves...we've taken some hits.
jimh	posted 10-03-2014 08:19 PM ET (US) We have heard nothing from Brianswhaler. Are we just talking amongst ourselves?
martyn1075	posted 10-03-2014 10:23 PM ET (US) Well my early days of hockey seem to remind me of the ride of 17 Montauk slap but as kids we never complained in fact we were thirsty for more punishment laying down on our front side clinging to the railings. Good boat for tidal water where there are back eddies.
Dave Sutton	posted 10-04-2014 09:13 AM ET (US) "Are we just talking amongst ourselves?" As is the case in so many forums.... very likely. Dave .
PeteB88	posted 10-06-2014 07:46 PM ET (US) Agree with all of this and having witnessed experienced boaters over the weekend in Outrages turn back from nasty chop on a certain lake while others driving pre-smirked wood console Nauset type boats throttle down and "go for it" - it's captain's discretion. The boat will take it - you might not like the ride so strap stuff down, assume wrestler or skier's stance, one hand on the throttle, the other on the wheel, warn your passengers and freaking go for it. We were in a 210 Outrage and playing bam bam just like every other boat out there. As regards my 17 Outrage classic - I gained major respect for my boat after that experience last weekend. She can do the same only not as fast. The 210 was making 25, 27 no problem, at 30 it got fun and if only cap't and me on board, screw it, throttle down, but we were not the Queen Mary 2. At home we're often in the same and even snottier conditions on Lake Michigan for sure, sometimes bigger wave height and same snot frequency. Our's is similar ride as 210 but making only 17, 18, 20 maybe 22 MPH best not 27-34 like that incredible 210. Passengers confident. And we are always dry in our Outrage 17. You will figure it out - you have a terrific boat.
Brianswhaler	posted 10-10-2014 05:17 PM ET (US) No, you are not just talking to yourselves. I just wanted to average what everyone said. I think I have a better perspective of what to expect. Lake Michign has short, close chop, and I'm unfamiliar with different hull styles. A deeper-V would probably suit me better than a skiff--maybe a 20 -foot or bigger OUTRAGE. Thanks, everyone, for the input.--Brian