Incredible "Secrets of Yacht Design" website located... [Archive]

pkoken

01-06-2005, 09:48 PM

Nuggets of wisdom...

On MacGregor Yachts Quality

there are no weak points on the X or M hulls. Both vessels are produced in a manner where points of stress are reinforced with up to 17 layers of fiberglass. This reinforcement is not being done on hulls of lengths under 30 feet by other US based manufacturers (such as Hunter and the J-Boat manufacturers) and is likely the main reason those manufacturers do not market their under 30 foot sail boats as ocean going.

On Hull Freeboard:

It is not possible to have enough freeboard in a cruising sail boat to generate the head room needed for ventilation in the humid tropics, unless perhaps if the deck is made of porous wood.

For a sailboat, low freeboard on the lee side can cause flooding. But the high freeboard on the windward side can also be used like a lever by the wind to flip the vessel over

On complete lunacy (Forget CE and CLR... just make stuff up!)

Because the rudders of the X are on the keel lines, the windward one is not very rudder like when the boat is on heel. In winds over 17 MPH you see behavior involving lateral drift supporting the conclusion that the second rudder, the one on the windward, functions as a centerboard. What is currently called a centerboard, or jibing board, may (at least at planing speeds) be better described as a canard.

MacGregor 26X is really a multihull in disguise:

The additional observation that the Mac26x dances like a butterfly when on the anchor supports the notion that the vessel is a form of trimaran. Both a multihull and the Mac26x are pushed by wind or water on the hull and sail off to one side until the anchor road pulls the bow back repeating the process. Bow rollers help multihulls and Mac26x cruisers reduce this behavior as will a bridle and or a stern anchor. The point is that the behavior at anchor probably means X owners can expect multihull behavior when underway as well. Behavior like 17 MPH under sail.

I don't what the hell this is:

There are four modes of sailing. Displacement mode, forced mode, planing, and the 4th mode

Smoking Crack right before writing things on aformentioned website:

http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/drug_war/cocaine/images_cocaine/crack_smoker.jpeg

Franksadork

01-06-2005, 09:59 PM

Just our luck. The author of the site is available for book signings in the TP52 thread.

pkoken

01-06-2005, 10:06 PM

I see! I am not surprised such a gifted person is also discussing an old, low performance "Traditional Sailboat Built To Fool The Masses" like the TP52.

Luckily, due to the rating structure the slow, ponderous TP52s are adequately protected from the threat of an overtaking fleet of MacGregor 26Xs.

After all, Multihull craft race in a different class altogether- right?

D'ARTOIS

01-07-2005, 02:17 PM

Many, many years ago, Leonard Wibberley, wrote a book. A book called: "The Mouse That Roared."

A very tiny country, hardly visible on the map of Europe, felt insulted by the US of A and did send an army consisting of a few archers and a loudmouth.

The book is friendly, the loudmouth was friendly, and it all was no more than a hilarious event, (thanks to Peter Sellers) as it was meant to be.

Don't take those things too serious, the poor guy has nor the means, nor the guts to buy himself a proper boat. Armed with Radar, Autopilot, 50 hp Outboard, GPS and yhe inventory of the USS Iowa he storms the racingfields; that to the majority of the international sailing community is no more than a minor holiday event.

There are numerous sailors, singlehanders, crossing the sealanes of the world, no loudmouthes, who go their own way not disturbed by maintaining the longest and most useless post in internet history.

Let's consider other things.

Wynand N

01-07-2005, 05:18 PM

There are numerous sailors, singlehanders, crossing the sealanes of the world, no loudmouthes, who go their own way not disturbed by maintaining the longest and most useless post in internet history.

Let's consider other things.

You have my vote on this one.

And still it goes on........................

mighetto

01-20-2005, 05:32 PM

I have been blown away at the information I have discovered... I almost feel as if everything I have EVER LEARNED about the science of sailing and of sailing boat design is wrong!** Somebody contact NASA!

Check this website out and tell me if you agree. Secrets of yacht design (http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm)

**Then I woke up from my nightmare

Brother, I call you brother, for you have been baptized by finding the Secrets of Yacht design and you appear to be from the town in which I was raised. The town of Tubby, of 18 foot Potters that sail accross the Pacific.

The URL above has been rigorously reviewed by sailnet.net (t shirts now available) by sailing anarchy (burgees now available) and by the MacGregor yacht's web sites. It is as accurate as such review can make possible. (Highly accurate)

It has not been reviewed by boatdesign.net.

Professional designers of boats are not unlike professional designers of churches. Both groups of designers are expected by their customers to be well researched in the history of the design of boats or churches.

However both groups have respectively formed circles where they hold each others hands. The circles are closed. Even to lessons from history.

We outside of the circle are anarchists. Amatures to be marginalized. Especially when we ask why. Like why water ballast (a form of ballast used through out the history of sailing) is not used more frequently in sail boat design or why should a boat sink when swamped. Or if canters were so great why were they not used until ten or so years ago?

Those of the circle value being part of that circle. They fear free thought and expression because it may result in exclusion, excommunication from a club, a politically-correct party, that is closed to all but those who think like they do. To all that think other than monohull or lead on a long fin.

We outsiders, we anarchists, have a new and powerful voice. The voice of the Internet. It is that voice which has brought you an others like you AT LAST to this forum.

The Church of FOYD is now open (Future of Yacht Design). Huzzah Hazzah, There is much work to do. May I suggest reading the TP52 thread and the special issue of Sail on the future of sailboat design. (pay attention to the advertisements) Be prepared to be saved.

The Mac26x has the most widely accepted and scrutinized movable ballast system in the world. Its hull shape is the most widely accepted shape for those that make a living from the sea. The work boat hull form is far from slow. To avoid hazards (like pirates) and to get to market in a timely fashion they just had to be and are fast under sail.

I encourage those who are in the circle and wonder why to get a new email address and join in the discussions. We value FREEDOM and can be free to speak our minds here. The URL mentioned will be updated. There is a lot more.

Oh: Seattle Boat Show Saturday.

pkoken

01-20-2005, 05:56 PM

mighetto

01-20-2005, 10:03 PM

Huh?

I have read the opinions of other dedicated Sailors, Yachtsmen and various Yacht Club bar seat warmers of your site on SailingAnarchy as well as in this forum and a nameless multihull community... I would state that the vast (vast vast vast) majority of responders to these various threads do not agree with self described "Accuracy" of your "Review" of the Mac26X. Perhaps we are all mind numbed sailing robots... but I digress~

Perhaps it is the majority opinion voiced within the TP52 and other threads that could be regarded as "Highly Accurate".

As for hull forms designed and proven through the ages, I question the logic of this as nobody used a 50hp outboard to outrun "pirates" in golden age of sail... Nevertheless I am struck by the notion that a modern yacht should in some resemble a sailing ship yore~ Hemp & Tar for your rigging sir?

Oh we are going to have a good time! First the majority opinions (the opinion of the market place and the GP RWP, not to mention the mathematicians at US Sailing and SNAME) have spoken on the TP52s. These were tagged correctly as red herrings for ocean racing from day one - which was either 4 or 7 years ago, depending on how much of a failure in boat design you care to paint them. Their only hope of a margin of success is on the buoy race courses and then not on the Olympic style ones - only on the slow windward leeward beginner courses. Only those closed in a circle similar to a wagon train under attach by heathons would say otherwise today. (Look I am playing devil's advocate here - do not be inhibited, blast back if you care to - just keep it clean please because I do not post what I do not believe.)

And they would say they in the closed circle are the smart ones!. There be none dumber than the dead and designers stuck on TP52s be dead. Be they the lucky ones because they can not read my dripple.:) Lets keep this fun - note smily.

The connection of the TP52s to the Mac26x was well documented at the start of the TP52 thread. Perhaps folks find revisting the last presidential election productive. I do not. When it is over it is over. The TP52s are over. No reputable designer - especially Farr - is sticking with them.

However, one of the requirements for a TP52 is that the motor be an inboard. Perhaps we need to discuss the Why of that. Why not an outboard? There is no currently valid explanation. In fact there are multiple negatories. I would not go as far as to say you are better off without.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/handCrank.jpg

First consider the maintenance of an inboard vs outboard, next consider the added space below decks, the prop being out of the water while sailing, the ease of upgrade and replacement. Then add in the fact that most ocean crossing vessels carry propane which is just as volatile as gas if not more so and that gas is more available world wide than diesel. You will find gas everywhere. You may find none if the fishing fleet beats you to the supply. Do you consider it safe to sail with out fuel for the auxiliary? Probably not. You wait for the next delivery. Not if running a gas outboard. You cut a deal with any auto owner. Gas is more environmentally friendly. That is important. These are the facts of modern cruising under sail. Designers need to acknowledge them.

nameless multihull community? I have not posted on a multihull site. Regarding my "Review" of the Mac26X, it is not mine. It is my cruising log. I put it up for public review to get specific examples of what is wrong with my observations and research. Please get specific. What is incorrect?

Let me give you some Zen from the Church of FOYD before closing tonight. The closed minded get that way because they want to belong. They want to belong to a group so badly that they train themselfs to think incorrectly so they might not accidently get caught speeking truth that may brand them a heretic. Captains of sailing vessels can not be associated with groop think. They must decide and judge for themselves. It is their responsibility to do so. By Right, By Tradition, By Law.

By By. Tune in tomorrow. The Church of FOYD is now closed.

Murrelet,
1999 Mac26x
Olympia Wa
Sail 79020

mistral

01-21-2005, 06:27 AM

However, one of the requirements for a TP52 is that the motor be an inboard. Perhaps we need to discuss the Why of that. Why not an outboard? There is no currently valid explanation. In fact there are multiple negatories. I would not go as far as to say you are better off without.

of course there are a LOT of good reasons to have inboard engine, but i won't do a mistake trying to explain you these obvious facts. You're just trying to change this thread into a kind of Frankestein made up with rotten and stinky pieces of YOUR dead thread "TP52".
So by bye Frankie-Mighetto-stain , i'm leaving, have a good time with the smell of your stinking old arguments

bye bye
Mistral

mighetto

01-21-2005, 12:11 PM

of course there are a LOT of good reasons to have inboard engine, but i won't do a mistake trying to explain you these obvious facts. You're just trying to change this thread into a kind of Frankestein made up with rotten and stinky pieces of YOUR dead thread "TP52".
So by bye Frankie-Mighetto-stain ,i'm leaving, have a good looooong your stinking old arguments on your own

bye bye
Mistral

Mistral, I suppose you know that in the film Perfect Storm, the sailors aboard the boat named Mistral abandoned the vessel as you are abandoning any thread that involves ideas you have been trained to reject without analysis.

In real life the sailing ship portrayed as the Mistral in the film sailed the perfect storm crewless and eventually made a soft grounding. She survived and was recovered intack as will the ideas that are presented through the Church of FOYD, which is now open. The Church has a track record of success and is powerful owing to that track record. As always, the timid may contact me at mighetto@eskimo.com. They shall inherent the sea.

Let us start the day by stating that experience is not enough. You learn from evaluating your work. There is no learning, unless you understand what you are doing, why you are doing it, and whether or not it is helpful, and why.

Mistral and folks like Mistral will always find it is easy to dismiss things that sound wacky. But does the above sound wacky? Mistral may have 30 years of experience but that probably really is 1 year of experience 30 times and you know what, without the evaluation I don't think that first year was all that useful. I could be all wet on Mistral. He/She will always be welcome. Let us not denigh Mistral fellowship for we are all God's creatures. I told you this was going to be fun. Tell me that wasn't fun :) May Mistral find a sailor's wit and respond. :D

Now for new business.

The first observation is that the major advertisor for the Sail Special Issue The Future of Sailing Is fordvehicles.com. Specifically the Integrated Trailer Brake Controller technology.

Couple this with Volvo and BMW's interest in sailing and you can conclude that transportability is a huge requirement for the future of yacht design. It is.

Not only is the value of the vessel preserved when it is transported rather than sailed to a destination but the cost of crew durring and after the voyage (should a crew member sustain an injury) is avoided. Furthermore, with modern reporting there is usually enough time to move a transportable boat from port to the relative safety of the hard tiedowns or even 100 miles inland. The future is bright for boats that can be transported. They will still be sailed across oceans - but only for racing purposes.

The notion that there can be comfort in an ocean crossing is just a wacky one. It is like saying there is comfort in prison. You want to do the time fast. You, or at least your significant other, get comfort from shore based accomodations which means the faster you get there the more comfortable. Does anyone really disagree? In an age where shore accomodations did not exist it made sence to design boats with creature comforts similar to land based homes. But we do not live in that age. Speed now equals comfort. Transportability is a requirement in a modern boat design. But of course there is no absolute requirement for it. Those who do not wish to master a sailing craft can alway charter different craft at different locations. It takes half a life time to truly master a single sailing craft, however. Given this, a boat that is not transportable (typically a wide design or a weakly constructed vessel) represents a big compromise that should be reflected in its price.

mistral

01-21-2005, 12:34 PM

come on , Frankie don' waste a such huge amount of words for me; in Italy we say "it ain't a worse deaf than the one who don't want to listen"; you have CLEARLY demonstrate that you're not interested in any opinion or rational explanation; of course you reject experience's role as you have NONE; i'm not deeply experienced, but i've learned enough about its importance, specially in sea-involving issues. And i have enough humility to study past experiences, ask people professionally involved in boats AND LISTEN THEM, kick my ass around in the shipyards to see how REAL THINGS take place, TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHY 90% of people MAKE THINGS IN A GIVEN WAY, make calculations about all this; after doing all his, just after, i elaborate an opinion; I may agree or not with widespread solutions, i may chose different solutions, i may find traditional issues stupid, but i KNOW them; that is the difference between you and me, you know nothing and you keep on preaching!!!!!!
I've just wasted five minutes of my life and a a decent amount of words, i hope this is enough to satisfy your ego.
By the way, you spent half million word talking 'bout engine on a race boat.....just two words: WHO CARES???? engine is just for mooring or get back to harbour on those boats, they're sailboat NOT A MAC26

Mistral

mighetto

01-21-2005, 12:45 PM

Thanks for the email. No this is not me

http://www.funpic.hu/swf/numanuma.html

WoW nonetheless. Get the man on Lano. I believe the stater of this thread is or was a Catalina owner as well as a biker. A powerful force this one. Aha-He.
Aha-Ha.

Old business. Catalina Yachts has a powerful advertisement in "The World's Leading Sailing Magazine" Sail Special Issue The Future of Sailing. It is the Morgan 440 that a friend has asked me to look at tomorrow. Hope she is there. We will be floating about from 10 am on at the Seattle boat show. Anyway the power in the advertisement is that I believe the following is accurate.

"Listen to (Catalina) boat owners and they will tell you more about building boats than a room full of naval architects."

You can say the same thing about a MacGregor Yacht owner. In fact, is this a new Catalina slogan because it sounds like a mighetto-ism. Catalina and Macgregor Yacht owners have been taught to think differently. Independently. Let me try to explain.

In the US, the population understands teachers but they do not understand intelectuals. If you value questions, self-reflection, the open expression of ideas, and trying to figure out why things are the way they are then you are in intelectual. That is the mark of the intelectual.

If you do not then you might be a teacher. The expression those that can do, those that can't teach and those that can't teach teach owner driver is a migheto-ism.

We of the Church of FOYD intend this thread to be the best single analysis of the transition of Americans to modern sailing, otherwise known as sailing anarchy, that we know of. We do not intend to teach. Please feel free to comment on or off list. Again - loved the URL.

mighetto

01-21-2005, 02:06 PM

Mistral,

come on , Frankie don' waste a such huge amount of words for me; in Italy we say "it ain't a worse deaf than the one who don't want to listen";

To which I reply, you can not listen to a fellow who refuses to speak. Thanks for the post.

you have CLEARLY demonstrate that you're not interested in any opinion or rational explanation; of course you reject experience's role as you have NONE; I'm not deeply experienced, but I've learned enough about its importance, specially in sea-involving issues. And i have enough humility to study past experiences, ask people professionally involved in boats AND LISTEN THEM, kick my ass around in the shipyards to see how REAL THINGS take place, TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHY 90% of people MAKE THINGS IN A GIVEN WAY, make calculations about all this; after doing all his, just after, i elaborate an opinion; I may agree or not with widespread solutions, i may chose different solutions, i may find traditional issues stupid, but i KNOW them;

You are an intellectual then. By the way, it is considered bad to use the word clearly in a sentence. To you it is clear, to others it may not be. Usually there is never clearity. We must filter everthing.

that is the difference between you and me, you know nothing and you keep on preaching!!!!!!

I will get on the box and preach if that is needed. It is preaching to the choir that I object to. You Europeans have no idea what a repressive society those of us who live in the USA tolerate. You are so lucky.

I've just wasted five minutes of my life and a a decent amount of words, i hope this is enough to satisfy your ego.

Oh yea, I have one. A swelled head that gets bigger and bigger until it feels like it is going to explode with I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. But then -- must there be a winner and a loser in open discussion? The world is far from black an white to me. If I come off that way knock me down. It is not on purpose. Again the sailing sport is safer than freeway driving. Those who love one boat love all of them. Your five minutes have done good. They are not wasted. I certainly would hire an NA if I were building a boat. But I wouldn't blindly accept his/her teachings.

By the way, you spent half million word talking 'bout engine on a race
boat.....just two words: WHO CARES???? engine is just for mooring or get back to harbour on those boats, they're sailboat NOT A MAC26

Them's fighting words and you know it. But I will let them go for the most part and listen. Let me try this. The engine is auxiliary on a true sailboat and that especially includes the Mac26x. You just can not carry enough fuel on a Mac26x to claim otherwise. But it is the primary safety feature. See this and you see the future of yacht design.

There is no sacrid principle that makes a good sailboat a poor motor yacht. Now take a look at the PowerSail 50 http://www.powersail.co.nz/. Yachts that have efficient hydro-dynamically designed hulls for true race boat sailing performance plus the remarkable capability of motoring under power at 18 knots. Tell me this isn't the future of yacht design and that it doesn't look like a larger Mac26x. Sail includes her on page 102 of its Future of Sailing Special edition. Motoring already dominates every successful new design sailboat introduction. This is reality. There is no going backwards on this. I am just the messenger here.

Now let me add that the intention of the motor on the Mac26x goes beyond motoring. The motor was intended for moving ballast on and off the vessel and likely to reach plane under sail when conditions otherwise would prevent it. It is also solid ballast. Remove the motor and kill sailing performance.

water addict

01-21-2005, 03:16 PM

Go Frankie!! Flame more nonesense! Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Wynand N

01-21-2005, 03:35 PM

woodboat

01-21-2005, 05:04 PM

I really don't know what you guys are going on about. I followed the link and also looked at the new 26M http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sailboat_comparison.html
It seems to be quite an impressive craft. Very inexpensive too. I don't know about longevity but one can hardly fault it's performance. Is pkoken trying to suggest that the claims are false or is he simply upset about the non-conventional way the performance is achieved? It is too small for me and my 5 children but using a little common sense one could see the clear advantages. I might go so far as too recommend it sight unseen. Did anyone watch the full 52 minute video? The hand laid glass looks well done.

mighetto

01-21-2005, 07:38 PM

Go Frankie!! Flame more nonesense! Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Water Addict,

Welcome to the Church of FOYD. We accept even NAs from Maryland. Regarding Nonesence, your gripe is with Sail, The world's Leading Sailing Magazine. Do get the Special Issue. How dare they print an advertisement stating that Catalina boat owners will tell you more about building boats than a room of naval architects. How many NAs does it take to......

we could have years of material but it would be nonesense. Lets talk commonsense. Page 50 or 51 of the same January 2005 magazine.

The article is on entering rivers from the sea.

"Be aware that because fast powerboats draw almost no water and can keep ahead of a wave, they can enter in conditions that are dangerous (for contemporary) sailboats"

Now look at the Mac26x. The same river bar, possibly not safe to pilot for a contemporary sailboat design is negotiated with the ease of a boston whaler or grady white. Just retract boards and use the outboard to stay ahead of the waves. If you are not seeing by now you are trying hard not to. Both the modern and marketed as revolutionary Mac26x and the contemporary fixed water ballasted Mac26m share this valuable powerboat and commonsense feature.

We of course have gotten no where close to where I had hoped to be today. But progress has been made. Let us close the Church of FOYD and go to boat shows or sail this week end by explaining why NAs such as those from Maryland are having trouble.

What they know comes from secondary and tertiary sources. They quote other people's ideas and opinions and then accept these views without evaluation. They are public leaders accepting and promoting norms that affect other people's lives without knowing or evaluating their source or their validity. In the place of knowledge what they have is an agreement among themselves. They come to a consensus, as though that uniformity of mind founded on nothing other than their collective willingness to agree were a virtue. And then they draw plans based on them. This is not the Future of Yacht design.

Murrelet
1999 Mac26x
Olympia Washington
Sail 79020
casting off.

Have a great week end all. That includes NAs from Maryland, who confuse flame with valid criticism that can be used to save them. I think Water Addict on the road to salvation. He has at least spoken.

Skippy

01-21-2005, 07:54 PM

I really don't know what you guys are going on about. I followed the link and also looked at the new 26M ... It seems to be quite an impressive craft. wb have you seen the TP52 thread? Most of the references are to the water-ballasted 26X.

mighetto

01-21-2005, 07:56 PM

Frankie, you are an interesting character ;)

In South Africa we have a saying " slim vang sy eie baas".

Since you are so full of wisdom, work it out yourself or with your Church of FOYD congregation. :D

I received an email from a South African claiming that a Mac26x clone was being produced in country. Can you confirm. This was about six months ago. slim vang sy eie baas sounds like something said in a bones initiation right. I suppose all those in the closed circle must now pretend to be offended and leave the thread. Sigh, what a sad society we live in. Better in South Africa eh?

pkoken

01-21-2005, 08:04 PM

I am removing myself from this thread, and I am also providing a humble apology to the community of Boatdesign.net for assisting in creating yet another useless topic.

I will comment no further, and if others follow this example soon Mr. Mighetto will be alone here with his crackpipe and his magic mushrooms.

woodboat

01-21-2005, 08:20 PM

wb have you seen the TP52 thread?
Nope, don't even know what a TP52 is. I have a sailboat but never use it anymore. I might fix it up for the kids. My current boat is a 50 FT Burns craft houseboat. So forgive me if I do not know a halyard from rope :) The thread title intrigued me. I stopped in and followed the link. I found the Macgregor page. My best friend at work has a 30 ft Columbia, 1966. There is a macgregor at his marina. The owner says he loves it. The boat will run circles around his columbia. So... from looking at the specs it seems impressive. From watching the video it seems impressive. From an actual owner bubbling with praise as well I have to conclude that it is a very good boat, fast, inexpensive and trailerable. I mean if I were crossing the ocean I would want to be in something a whole lot bigger, if nothing else for amenities. So from the outside looking in, it appears that this boat has broken with tradition of slow displacement hulls that are heavy and draw a lot of water and gone with a lighter, planing type hull. It appears as if this has ruffled some feathers. At least that is the way it appears, am I wrong?

mighetto

01-21-2005, 08:36 PM

I really don't know what you guys are going on about. I followed the link and also looked at the new 26M http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sailboat_comparison.html (http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sailboat_comparison.html)
It seems to be quite an impressive craft. Very inexpensive too. I don't know about longevity but one can hardly fault it's performance. Is pkoken trying to suggest that the claims are false or is he simply upset about the non-conventional way the performance is achieved? It is too small for me and my 5 children but using a little common sense one could see the clear advantages. I might go so far as too recommend it sight unseen. Did anyone watch the full 52 minute video? The hand laid glass looks well done.

Woodboat,

The video to watch is posted on
http://www.always-online.com/hardtlefamily/KnotShoreDefault.htm (http://www.always-online.com/hardtlefamily/KnotShoreDefault.htm) . This is the Mac26x video. There is also a link to the brochure from there. The revolutionary boat was marketed that way from the start and owners were told they were getting a 40,000 boat for 18,000. I have come to believe that. Of course you can esially double the cost with electronics and options. pkoken is obviously aware of the Cardwell book. Dr. Jerry Cardwell favored the Mac26x over his beloved Catalina and wrote about it. This is the source of the information about the extra work done in glass by MacGregor Yachts on the X model. See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574090070/103-2944007-0130262 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574090070/ref=no-sim/boatdesignnet)

Catalina uses hand layed class in hulls and vacuum bags bulkheads and deck structures. There is a new process that involves a hull plug and I think it was contemplated by MacGregor Yachts for the M but they eventually chose the proven methodology from X production. The new methodology might have put out hulls that required painting and this might have explained the blue M hulls but my observations and the current video show that the proven methods for ocean sailboat construction are used. Catalina Yachts and MacGregor Yachts have some kind of relationship to eachother - or did at one time. The fittings on my X are the fittings of a Catalina Yacht. Boat Building in California has always been an inbread situation with companies sharing staff and techniques with eachother. Anyway The Cardwell book was recently reprinted if you are interested. It is on purchasing a used boat.

BTW, who is hacking the thread with views stuck on 666?

dougfrolich

01-21-2005, 08:51 PM

Woodboat,
What type of boat appeals to you is a very personal thing-but be careful of advertising claims, and the claims of people that only have experience on a small number of craft when formulating youre own op. I have had a great time floating down a river in an oversized innertube-I wouldn't call it a great boat though. If you want a great sailing boat keep an open mind and keep looking, if you want a RV that is cheap, and trailorable, you may have found it.

woodboat

01-21-2005, 09:03 PM

Thanks dougfrolich, I do suspect that the advice will be useful to a rookie :) I grew up on the water, the Chesapeake bay. I have developed a real knack for "seeing" how a boat will perform prior to actually using it. It was no great surprise when my 50ft, 36000 LB boat performs more or less like a barge. I am not in the market for a sailboat, especially not this small. I can see that this boat would be fast and fun for a large majority of day and weekend sailors. I have also heard, second hand mind you, that it will run circles around a more "classic" design. I would suspect that with it's narrow beam and light weight, even with ballast, that it would BOB a bit on the hook. Every boat is some sort of compromise. Again it appears to me that this would be an awesome day sailor and possible overnighter.

woodboat

01-21-2005, 09:09 PM

I watched the full 52 minutes earlier today. I did that BEFORE I posted anything. I used what I saw in the video to form my opinion as well as the guy at the marina, the advertising literature and the specifications. I was VERY skeptical at first thinking that it would be a compromise making a bad sailor and a bad power boat. The fact that it can go that well with a little 50 HP really says something. There are MANY 28 fters with 250 HP small block V8s and inboards that are barely faster. I don't know about 17 MPH with a sail but heck it sure looked like it moved easily through the water. Just look at the small wake.

Wynand N

01-22-2005, 01:02 AM

Mighetto,

Thanks for your kind words and wishfull thinking.
By the way, send me some of the stuff you fill your pipe with.

As for your beloved Mac26x, here is a link on them you might just enjoy.

http://www.cruisenews.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136&start=0

Oh, whilst you at it, why not stay there. Laid back site, a single post maybe in a week or so, just the place where you can share all your liberated views and gospel teachings. :D

Remember the saying "slim vang sy eie baas", not worked it out yet? Maybe some of our Dutch friends might enlighten you to the meaning of this wise words, or better still, leave you until "slim vang sy eie baas":rolleyes:

woodboat

01-22-2005, 01:20 AM

I followed the link but thought it was pretty pathetic. The macgregor seems to be a wonderful little boat but gets bashed because it wouldn't be good to circumnavigate the globe. I like it but would dare head out across the ocen in it. I wouldn't head out into the ocean with my house boat either, so what.
I went here http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html did dutch to english and all it gives is malignant catch sy eie boss So I don't have a clue what that means.

Skippy

01-22-2005, 07:43 AM

... it appears that this boat has broken with tradition of slow displacement hulls that are heavy and draw a lot of water and gone with a lighter, planing type hull. It appears as if this has ruffled some feathers. At least that is the way it appears, am I wrong?What ruffles feathers is all the BS in the TP52 thread. Spaghetto has a wide variety of claims and theories that he spews there, ranging from the lunatic to the paranoid. Here are a few examples:

11-01-2004
Duty calls. .... I will not enjoy this, but what choice do I have? I must go forward with a sense of noblesse oblige.
11-03-2004
It is my understanding that bringing the bulb weight closer to the hull makes the boat faster like bringing the arms of a twirling ice skater in makes the ice skater twirl faster.
The better design is to just get rid of the weight on the fin and put it closer to or internal to the hull
11-04-2004
My Mac26x is more worthy of an ocean crossing than Esmeralda [a TP52].
11-12-2004
Ballast is just weight, like {everthing else on the boat and} the hull itself.
11-15-2004
If weight on a long thin foil really makes a boat go faster then why don't powerboats have weight on long thin foils?
if an ice skater wants to twerl faster she brings the weight of her arms in, she does not extend them. This internal ballast rule applies to everything that moves: cars, motorcycles, planes, power boats and yes - even sailboats. Internal ballast is just faster.
An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind ...
12-01-2004
it appears that water ballast should not be pumped side to side but rather remain in both sides to improve windward performance in rough water and the ballast should be low in the boat, like twin keels
12-02-2004
I spent most of my life power boating
In anycase the notion of pumping water from side to side as defining movable ballast ... is a new notion and an incorrect one when you realize that water ballasted vessels benefit by having ballast on both sides of the vessel owing to the stable forces similar to a twin keel vessel.
12-16-2004
The wire, folks like to call a backstay, IMO is for motoring.
12-20-2004
My Mac26x is more TransPacific than probably most of the TP52s.
12-20-2004
Americas Cup rules prohibit hollows. This I understand is what prevents multihulls from competing because the space between the hulls is a big hollow. The effect of the hollow, is like that of the spoon. It lifts the hull from the water at speed.

[And from another website ybw.com]
28/09/2004
The Mac26x is a serious ocean sailboat.
There is nothing in a monohull under 40 foot and under 180,000 US that compares. And there is a whole system of claims about conspiracies engaged in by the designer of the TP52, comments about how the sailing community's biases keep us back from understanding the "pioneering" breakthroughs of centerline water ballast. Spaghetto claims the 26X has "movable" ballast (it moves ON and OFF the boat). Oh, and just this week he asked on the CBTF thread whether those boats can sail directly into the wind, zero degrees off.....

I was VERY skeptical at first thinking that it would be a compromise making a bad sailor and a bad power boat. The fact that it can go that well with a little 50 HP really says something.
The macgregor seems to be a wonderful little boat but gets bashed because it wouldn't be good to circumnavigate the globe. I like it but would dare head out across the ocen in it. I wouldn't head out into the ocean with my house boat either, so what.I can see a fast sailboat hull doing okay as a slow motorboat. But Spaghetto's claim is that a cheap centerline-water-ballasted motorsailer is better for deep ocean sailing than an expensive keel-bulb sailboat. The TP52 is a high-end ocean racer, and Spaghetto claims the 26X is more seaworthy than the TP52. This despite the fact that a couple children were killed a few years back when the captain was sailing (drunk) without the ballast and the boat capsized in a light breeze.

In South Africa we have a saying " slim vang sy eie baas".I went here ... don't have a clue what that means.If you plug the words into the Travlang Dictionary (http://www.kamous.com/translator/s.asp?l=1055) you'll come up with something like "The smart man captures his own master." What this has to do with Spaghetto I have no idea :confused: ..... ;)

Wynand N

01-22-2005, 09:20 AM

If you plug the words into the Travlang Dictionary you'll come up with something like "The smart man captures his own master." What this has to do with Spaghetto I have no idea :confused: .... ;)

Well done Skippy. I only now realises my mistake..... :D

pkoken

01-22-2005, 10:42 AM

I know I said I was going to quit this thread... but I have to disagree strongly here.

You could in fact go and try to teach your neighbor's dog physics, and you may or may not be successful in that endeavor. However, I promise you that the dog would not argue vociferously with you in the process.

Herein lays the difference between a dog and Mr. Mighetto.

There are lots of discussions on BoatDesign.net that border on argumentative. Just look at threads about Twin Foil Canting Ballast, the benefits of multihulls over monohulls or vice versa... So what is the difference? Simple- These discussions have a basis in FACT or at the very least in an established THEORY.

MacGregor makes cheap boats for the entry level market. The Mac26X is a compromise between a powerboat and a sailboat with yet further compromises to make it trailerable... it is not a revolution in yacht design.

Comparing the Mac26X to a TP52 is purely ridiculous, but don't tell Mr. Mighetto.

http://www.punchstock.com/image/artville/1589633/large/aa040001.jpg

Next up: The Mac26X takes on long distance voyaging powerboats, followed by the suitability of the Mac26X to the America's Cup and the ongoing struggle against the Transpacific Yachtclub and their stubborn refusal to allow the Mac26X to compete (and dominate) in the Transpac.

Robert Gainer

01-22-2005, 11:24 AM

Skippy,
That was an enjoyable piece of morning reading. Don’t discourage him too much; we wouldn’t have anything to laugh about if he didn’t post these things. I don’t think that anybody that is committed or serious about design and construction can mistake this for anything other then what it is.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

Richard Petersen

01-22-2005, 12:08 PM

Mighetto, I am old and on medication. What is your reason for incoherantly rambling on continously? Richard Petersen

woodboat

01-22-2005, 05:38 PM

Pkoken, does the mac26, a 26 ft boat, exceed 20 MPH with a rather puny 50 HP outboard? The video showed the boat moving right along. Does it meet the advertised claims of 17MPH with sail on a reach as advertised? Are you claiming the the manufacturer is blatantly lying and Mighetto is defending them as if he owns the company and is simply lying to protect himself. If the boat meets the specs as claimed by macgregor I do not understand your position. If you have proof they are lying I would love to see it. Again this is not my style of boat so I won't be buying one anytime soon but honestly I have not seen one shred of evidence presented in this thread that the boat does not perform as advertised. To the contrary the video shows clearly how it behaves. So what if it uses water ballast, every ocean going cruise ship does as well. So what if some idiot forgot to fill it and capsized. I have seen people forget the drain plug and sink their boats at the boat ramp, does this mean all boats with drain plugs are evil? My assessment of the craft is a light, trailerable day sailer that is very fast with power and sail. It is low cost and appears to be reasonably well built from the video.

woodboat

01-22-2005, 07:26 PM

I don't care about the tp52 thread. I made that clear early on. I don't care about maghetto and certainly am not defending him. I also don't care about ocean racing sailboats. I wanted to know specifically about the mac26. The video seems to support their claims. There is one local and he concurs, having owned other sailboats. It seems that it would make a great day sailer in the Chesapeake bay. So I want to know are they lying or telling the truth. The video shows a boat planing with a 50 HP and running faster than my boat with twin 250 HP small block chevys. It also shows it moing quite well under sail power. Is the video doctored? Has anyone here used the boat and found out that it performs badly? Or is everyone making assumptions based on what we have learned over the years with boats only? I do know that once people thought we couldn't break the sound barrier they were wrong. Blindly defending the proven is a precarious position.

I am just looking for FACTS so that I can make my own decision. I don't care about personal arguments between users left over from an old thread.

Skippy

01-22-2005, 08:28 PM

So what if it uses water ballast, every ocean going cruise ship does as well.Two points: First, there are scaling effects that make big boats more stable than small ones given the same amount of wind. Second, you're talking about motored vessels, aren't you? Because they don't need nearly as much stabilization as a sailboat.

My assessment of the craft is a light, trailerable day sailer that is very fast with power and sail. It is low cost and appears to be reasonably well built from the video.The M looks better than the X. What I would like to know is how well does it do upwind? My guess is the boat isn't very weatherly due to the lack of righting moment.

The 67 pounds of buoyancy provided by the mast is equivalent in righting power of adding 500 pounds of ballast in the bottom of the hull. This multiplier is the result of having the center of buoyancy of the mast a long way out from the center of buoyancy of the hull.This is an excellent example. The same goes for a weighted keel, it works better because it's farther away from the hull. The longer lever arm produces a greater righting moment with a smaller force.

woodboat

01-22-2005, 10:51 PM

I fully inderstand the advantage of having the weight much further away from the hull, acting like a lever. Looking at the problem as a whole though if the macgregor is a light vessel with an easy to move hull form then it needs much less sail to push her at speed. Less sail needs less righting moment. There are many sailboats with simple dagger boards running around the bay. My friends 30ft Columbia has a retractable center board and he sails just fine. Matter O' fact MOST boats in the Chesapeake do not have a weighted keel. On average the Bay is just too shallow. The other issue though is that it is a very large body of water so waves can get quite large. I once was in some 6-8 Footers peak to trough. I don't believe "sail stabilized power boat" is a fair assessment. I think of a trawler with that term. It is a sail boat like any other with a retractable center board. The only difference I see is the hull shape facilites planing and the ballast can be removed to reduce weight. With a boat so small if you choose a full displacement hull your top speed will be extremely limited no matter how much power you give her whether sail or internal combustion.

woodboat

01-22-2005, 10:58 PM

Here is a quote from an owner on the Chesapeake Bay.
On July 4th, Washington DC had a serious storm come in. Winds were in the 20mph zone. It was the first weekend with the 26M so I had to play. We filled the ballast and set the sails and the 26M flew! I don't have a knot meter yet, but we actually had a small rooster tail. I'd guess she was hauling about 9knts. Very easy to sail, responsive and takes to the wind with ease. Even in a slight breeze, the Mac sails well.
From here
http://www.sailboatowners.com/reviews/revread.tpl?fno=80&id=1093872999137605

skinny boy

01-22-2005, 11:20 PM

woodboat,
The Mac26x or m is handicapped rated at over 220 seconds per mile. A planing hull easily driven sailboat that reaches speeds of 15 knots (17 MPH for MacGregor owners) is rated 54 seconds per mile.

The boat is underpowered with limited righting moment, it does not plane under sail easily and by the reference you post they are in 20 knots of wind where easily driven sailboats are all in double digit speeds easily and many in the mid teens. This boat is what was before mentioned. An entry level cheap boat that neither powers particularly well nor sails well. Every boat is a compromise and this one more than most.

skinny boy

01-22-2005, 11:39 PM

It is a sail boat like any other with a retractable center board. The only difference I see is the hull shape facilites planing and the ballast can be removed to reduce weight. With a boat so small if you choose a full displacement hull your top speed will be extremely limited no matter how much power you give her whether sail or internal combustion.

Planing sailboats are very different from this. Putting a sail on a double v hull dighy that planes with an outboard does not make it an easily planing sailboat hull. Boats much smaller than this 26 have weighted keels and plane easily. I have been on many different designs which plane easily and are of equal or smaller size and each with weighted keels and considered displacement hulls. You have to separate out easily driven hulls from the rest. This boat targets people like yourself which buy into the idea because it sounds logical. Again a boat that is no faster than your friends Columbia 30, which the Mac26 is not faster unless under motor, is not a boat that is easily driven and facilitates planing under sail.

woodboat

01-22-2005, 11:42 PM

Wow, I can almost hear the disdain in your voice (17 MPH for MacGregor owners) Not exactly an objective post. I am starting to believe the posts about an inner circle :) Powerboaters in the USA use MPH, Cars here us MPH, Common GPS devices use MPH. and I guess from your tone, someone stupid enough to buy a MAC26. Nice. I can see why threads get out of hand here.

woodboat

01-22-2005, 11:47 PM

Skinny boy, you better back off right now. this is totally uncalled for This boat targets people like yourself which buy into the idea because it sounds logical. You have no idea who I am or how much I know. This thread has been all about name calling and what others did in other threads. I want facts and numbers. I am openly discussing a topic and this is clearly over the line. I insist you cease.

amolitor

01-23-2005, 12:08 AM

Here's some facts and numbers:

http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html

Particularly telling is the PHRF ratings indicated, which suggests a truly slow boat.
Something in that same size range built for speed 20 years ago clocks in 120
seconds a mile faster.

This is a slow sailboat, with lots of room, that probably useful for exactly what
MacGregor says it's for. 17 knots under sail is possible in any boat if, for instance,
you drop it from a height ;) In real conditions against real boats, it's Really Really
Slow.

Please note a few figures from the article:

PHRF ratings: 240-250 (this represents a measured performance in races)

displacement: 3750 lbs (not really chubby for a 26 footer)
Sail Area/Displacement ratio: 19 (not bad, not aggressive either, but not bad)
Displacement/Length ratio: 138

The latter three numbers suggest a PHRF rating of comfortably under 200, I think.
So, something is out of whack. The boat, she is a dog. Under sail, anyways.

You'd have to poke around to see if a fiberglass layup that is 3/16 to 3/4 of an
inch thick is strong or weak. 3/16 in low-load-areas sounds pretty damned scary
to me, but that's just an impression! I really have no idea.

woodboat

01-23-2005, 01:02 AM

Useful information, thanks

Wynand N

01-23-2005, 02:18 AM

Skinny boy, you better back off right now. this is totally uncalled for You have no idea who I am or how much I know. This thread has been all about name calling and what others did in other threads. I want facts and numbers. I am openly discussing a topic and this is clearly over the line. I insist you cease.

Woodboat, cool down.
Imagine how Mr Mighetto.. Spaghetto or is it Spaghetti, (I am a bit confused now) must feel with all the flack coming his way ;)
By the way, why is Mighetto so quite, I sort of miss his delirium ramble....

sorenfdk

01-23-2005, 12:03 PM

Powerboaters in the USA use MPH.
MacGregor owners use MPH, too. Ergo: MacGregor owners are powerboaters and therefore the MacGregor is a powerboat :p

Actually, the MacGregor is a compromise between a powerboat and a sailboat. But from what I hear, not a very good one - compromises seldom are. There is no such thing as "the best of both worlds".

I agree with you - there has been too much namecalling (especially in the TP52 thread), but I think it is quite understandable that people with experience and knowledge get fed up with Mighetto and his endless ramblings. I know I did, and I'm not responding to anything from him anymore.

sorenfdk

01-23-2005, 12:12 PM

By the way, why is Mighetto so quite, I sort of miss his delirium ramble....
I have that same feeling - am I sick :confused:
Actually, from what I've heard it's best for all of us (including himself) that Mighetto stays away from here during the weekends - his ramblings would be truly delirious (if you know what I mean ;) )
Oops - that's namecalling! I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it!

woodboat

01-23-2005, 12:35 PM

Imagine how Mr Mighetto.. Spaghetto or is it Spaghetti
Probably vindicated.
I am a part of several internet community forums. The whole idea is to share differing ideas and help one another. I truly see an us vs them mentality and anyone disagreeing regarded as a moron. I fing the attitudes here disgusting and doubt I will be posting in any future sailboat forum threads. I remember why I stopped hanging around sail boaters in the first place.

There was a sailboater docked next to me in the inner harbor of Baltimore. He left for the week. When he did he left his lines on the dock. Not wanting anything to happen I gathered them up and put them in my boat. When I saw him the next weekend I gave him his lines. Rather than thank me he said one was missing and accused me of stealing it. It wasn't a minor accusation, he wanted to board my boat and look for it. Is that any way to treat someone you are docked beside? Lest you think me an exclusive power boater my brother and I would sail together on his O'day. He died a few years back and left it to his son. His son moved and I have taken possession and intend to teach my children how to sail. I will however NOT teach them this horrrid us against them that resides here.

Wynand N

01-23-2005, 02:16 PM

MacGregor owners use MPH, too. Ergo: MacGregor owners are powerboaters and therefore the MacGregor is a powerboat

Actually, the MacGregor is a compromise between a powerboat and a sailboat. But from what I hear, not a very good one - compromises seldom are. There is no such thing as "the best of both worlds".

The above quote by Sorenfdk. I am going to expand on it in simple terms for the sake of Woodboat. The numbers won't work as Greenwood clearly explained.....

The pretty cool boat, Mac26x is actually a powerboat that can sail.

Sailboats are displacement hulls and their hull speeds rooted within their waterlines to put it simply. Because of the wave making effect of the hull, the faster it goes, the more the boat "squats" at her stern. Boat have a bow up and stern down stance. At theoretical max hull speed you would need a massive amount of engine power to get it over the "hump" and onto a plane. Really impossible.

Any planing hulls on the otherhand, are displacement hulls below planing speeds. This explains my statement that the Mac26x is basically a powerboat that can sail.:rolleyes:

Even her dry weight (displacement) for her lenght spells "lightweight" and this raises some serious questions on the scantlings used for this boat for save cruising. The onboard water ballast.......no comments

To sum up Woodboat, proper blue water sail boats are totally different and superior from powerboats (planing or sailing kind)

Skippy

01-23-2005, 03:36 PM

I truly see an us vs them mentality and anyone disagreeing regarded as a moron. I fing the attitudes here disgusting and doubt I will be posting in any future sailboat forum threads. I remember why I stopped hanging around sail boaters in the first place. I ... intend to teach my children how to sail. I will however NOT teach them this horrrid us against them that resides here.wb, I feel hurt by that remark, because I will discuss any issue with anyone at any time in an intelligent way. And after reading this forum for months, I have found that almost every single one of the other forum participants feels and acts likewise. Spaghetto is the biggest, most glaring exception to this rule, and another motorboater is the second.I spent most of my life power boatingAnd see the thread "Sailboats are evil..." (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4749&page=1), started by the other motorboater.

wb, if you haven't looked at any other thread in this entire forum, then you have no idea what the forum is like. And if you haven't browsed the TP52 thread, then you just don't know why our attitudes toward Spaghetto are justified. And if you judge the entire sailing community by one jerk moored next to you, then that's just stereotyping and prejudice. In fact, that's exactly what that other motorboater did. One rude, inconsiderate sailor and he wrote off the entire sailing community. wb, should I write off all motorboaters as bigots and bullies just because two of them engage in stereotyping and pollute the sailboat forum with their prejudice and bad manners?

sorenfdk

01-23-2005, 07:04 PM

I truly see an us vs them mentality and anyone disagreeing regarded as a moron.
Woodboat: If you would care to go back to the first posting in this thread and click on the link to Frank Mighetto's website, then you'll find out that this man is dangerous and needs to be stopped. Numerous people have tried to help him and clear up his many misunderstandings, but he just will not listen.

You're right - this has evolved into an us versus them thing, but it's Frank Mighetto that has estranged himself from the rest of us.

woodboat

01-23-2005, 10:08 PM

The posts confirm what I have said.
I am going to expand on it in simple terms for the sake of Woodboat
Do any of you see a problem with this? Am I now the object of attack? Did I ever mention blue water? Did I ever say I wanted to cross the Atlantic? Did I already say my best friend and partner at work owns a sailboat? I have owned and used sailboats? My opinion is my worst day on the water is better than my best day on land. I was on a power boat next to the rotten neighbor because I was a live aboard. Hey and my boat had a semi-displacement hull, whoops I guess I know about hull types Wynand.
Sometimes the conditions around here change quickly. My friend with the columbia was meeting me for a fireworks show. He was very late because the wind died. His universal diesel will only push the boat at 4 Knots or 4.6 MPH. It would have been cool to have him run faster to make it on time. Sometimes there happens to be a destination. Also most of the older sailboats around here have displacement hulls. They can be very slow in the under 30ft range. Even 8 or 9 MPH is faster than an old displacement design I thought to myself. So heck I thought I would ask if any of you actually used the Mac26 and could give a valid opinion based either on objective data or first hand experience. Short of the one very helpful link most postings have been useless to me. So if anyone else can provide real data or personal use I would be glad to hear it.
From the link, the boat is very tender so the sail, must be reefed to maintain proper control. So top speed under sail seems to be about 9 MPH or just under 8 knots. Also as with ANY 8 ft beam power boat (with out the water ballast of course) there is a good bit of roll. So I would conclude that on the hook one should leave the water ballast full. As far as build, even though it is a little thin it uses hand laid glass which is superior to thicker craft made with a chopper. The new construction method this year seams to have eliminated the balsa wood to reduce rot issues. That's what I have gotten from the useful link. Does anyone else have any useful information?

amolitor

01-23-2005, 10:18 PM

If you're thinking about buying a powerboat with the option to tinker with sailing to see what that's all about, I think the Macgregor 26 is in fact exactly that boat. I think it was built to provide precisely that function.

Marketing aside, of course. We all know, I trust, that th Marketing Staff and the Design Staff are frequently different people working in opposition to one another!

Just so we're clear, a PHRF rating in the 250 range doesn't mean it sails like a concrete block or even a raft. It just means it sails like a pretty pokey real sailboat.

woodboat

01-23-2005, 10:47 PM

Thanks again amolitor. My guess is that weight will greatly affect the speed of this design. Given the ballast it probably won't go upwind very well. My guess is that if they did actually get 17 MPH on this boat it was completly empty and on a reach/downwind. Don't know though. I will have the 16 ft O'day to play with this year as well as my houseboat so I won't be buying one this year :) I have been asked several times about the MAC and really wanted to make an informed recommendation one way or the other.
Rob

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 12:55 AM

Wow, I can almost hear the disdain in your voice Not exactly an objective post. I am starting to believe the posts about an inner circle :) Powerboaters in the USA use MPH, Cars here us MPH, Common GPS devices use MPH. and I guess from your tone, someone stupid enough to buy a MAC26. Nice. I can see why threads get out of hand here.

Actually this is a very objective post which provided you with reference information concerning the performance characteristics of the boat.

By the way, MacGregor owners, for some reason, I assume it because the speedo on the boat is in MPH talk in terms of MPH. While you can assume it to be a negative statement on my part it does not change the fact that it is a true statement. Mariners use knots. Mariner's GPS displays knots. Distance, on the water, in seaways are measured in nautical miles and speeds by necessity are measured in nautical miles per hour (knots) in order to be able to properly navigate the oceans and seas of the world. If we measured distance on land in nautical miles then cars would have knot meters rather than speedometers. I have logged over 25,000 miles underway as a mariner and none of that on a sailboat. So maybe you don't know as much about me as you might think. Maybe the distain you thought you could hear was a bit of a guilty conscious from not having done the same google search I did to find the information I provided to you.

Nothing in this was a "them and us". It seems you came spoiling for a fight and tried to find it. As for MacGregor targeting people like you, it is again not a bad statement nor hostile. You went to a web site and then stated after looking at the promo material that it is a good boat you would recommend. You talked about the "faciliting planing" of its hull and other things that were simply marketing hype and if you had checked the performance numbers and other type of reference numbers available like the SA/D then you would see that it does not plane away under sail easily in fact it is a very poor performing sailboat which should be considered even worse if it has such a planing hull shape since it can't outperform true displacement sailboats little off planing sailboats.

I am sorry you felt bad by my posts, I was not intending to make you feel inadequate or ignorant. I can assure you if I were attacking you, you would have known it, I am not a subtle person and would not waste my time giving relative performance data to answer your questions.

woodboat

01-24-2005, 01:14 AM

So you can be even more combatant, wow. I popped in this thread again looking for real information, not to argue. In general I trust what has been written in the design and power boat forums here. Of course I don't trust MFGs websites or claims. If I did I would have read there site, accepted it as fact and moved on. If you can't read this thread and see an us VS them as well as name calling and an attitude that you are looking down your nose at others than I simply can't help you see it. Yet again, another useless post that does nothing to aid one in deciding on the MAC26. SO I am left with believing the MFG or believing one that simply can't waste the time to post useful data but can come here and post about who he is and what he has done so that I can just take his word for it.

I understand completly why one would use knots. I also know when I am talking to my buds at the cooler they have no idea how fast I am going. If you tell someone in the US that the temp is 32C most don't know if that is cold or warm, sure sounds cold :) I think one should be able to flip back and forth easily and certanly shouldn't take flak about it.

casavecchia

01-24-2005, 02:32 AM

mistral

01-24-2005, 05:42 AM

Skippy

01-24-2005, 07:51 AM

I noticed that some posters call mr Mighetto with the surname Spaghetto. I think a Forum is for sharing and discussing ideas (hopefully intelligent).
Calling a person with such a name is not an argument and never will be: is kind of insulting millions of individuals that dont hide under a pseudonym whose only fault is having an italian name, simply the name of their fathers.
Thank you for your post cassavechia, I appreciate your comments. I can understand people being concerned over the tone of the forum, for a very simple reason: I'm just as concerned about it as anybody else. It is unpleasant when posts turn negative, and it is reasonable to be unhappy about that. But unfortunately, you and I cannot prevent rude people from posting on the internet. All we can do is respond to them accordingly, and being polite with rude people is just a waste of time. I will always attempt to reason with people first, and will stop being reasonable only after an individual has been rude many times and proved that they have a hostile intent and refuse to be polite and reasonable. And believe me casavecchia, a person does not have to have an Italian name for me to make fun of them! :)

Skippy

01-24-2005, 10:15 AM

I am just looking for FACTS so that I can make my own decision. I don't care about personal arguments between users left over from an old thread.wb, first of all, you didn't start this thread, so you have no right to complain about posts that don't address your question. The TP52 thread and the bogus claims in it are the topic of this thread. If you really want your question answered, then either start your own thread or stop whining about posts here that are ON topic. Note the title of this thread involves the WEBSITE stating a lot of ludicrous CLAIMS, not just a boat.

As for motoring, there are several issues:
* making a combination motorboat/sailboat
* making this combination trailerable
* the quality and seaworthiness of the Mac 26X/M, based on reports of inadequate scantlings
* the accuracy of performance claims made by the manufacturer.

As a quick thought on your question, I would say the biggest issue is to separate motoring from trailering. Obviously those are two different things. I don't see why you couldn't beef up a sailboat hull a little and put a bigger motor in it, maybe some people can recommend motor-sailers that do that. Or can design one. But trailering, not to mention making the boat cheap, introduces a lot of other difficulties, so any buyer will have to decide which features are most important to them, and which ones they can compromise on.

From the link, the boat is very tender so the sail, must be reefed to maintain proper control. As far as build, even though it is a little thin it uses hand laid glass which is superior to thicker craft made with a chopper. The main problem with the X especially is ultimate stability. I don't know how tender it is initially, but the M has more deadrise, so it should be more tender initially but more stable globally. And I'm not sure how strong the construction is. Maybe someone else could comment on how common chopper construction is these days. And the hull is solid glass instead of sandwich, which won't help it's strength/weight.

skinny boy
The Mac26x or m is handicapped rated at over 220 seconds per mile. A planing hull easily driven sailboat that reaches speeds of 15 knots (17 MPH for MacGregor owners) is rated 54 seconds per mile.
This boat targets people like yourself which buy into the idea because it sounds logical.
woodboat
Wow, I can almost hear the disdain in your voice Not exactly an objective post. I am starting to believe the posts about an inner circle
Skinny boy, you better back off right now.... I insist you cease.
skinny boy
I am sorry you felt bad by my posts, I was not intending to make you feel inadequate or ignorant. I can assure you if I were attacking you, you would have known it, I am not a subtle person and would not waste my time giving relative performance data to answer your questions.
woodboat
So you can be even more combatant, wow.... If you can't read this thread and see an us VS them as well as name calling and an attitude that you are looking down your nose at others than I simply can't help you see it. Yet again, another useless post that does nothing to aid one in deciding on the MAC26.
wb, I was going to say it's obvious that YOU are the one being argumentative, but after looking at the quotes above, it seems too obvious to need mentioning. wb, you're spewing flame all over the thread, and THAT is totally uncalled for. sb DID provide you with objective data, spent some time researching it, and made a very reasonable explanation of his post. If you don't agree with it, then fine, you have a disagreement. But that doesn't mean sb's post was an attack. And the fact that you continue to treat it as such means YOU are the one inflaming the thread, responding to imperfect but reasonable posts with a hair trigger, interpreting every slight mis-statement as an attack on you. Language like "disdain", "you better back off", "combatant", and "useless post" are not even remotely consistent with "innocent" posting on a valid topic. In fact, they're CLASSIC FLAME TACTICS. So even if you really are trying to post reasonably, which I'm seriously starting to doubt, you just can't make negative accusations of other people's intentions. You don't know what they were thinking or feeling. sb's handicap info was not "useless" or unhelpful, and your criticisms of his posts are just total BS. To the degree that sb is a motorboater and you're a sailor, I would agree with you a little bit more now, that some motorboaters can be polite and helpful, and some sailors can be rude and inconsiderate.

Wynand: I am going to expand on it in simple terms for the sake of Woodboat
woodboat: Do any of you see a problem with this? Am I now the object of attack? Did I ever mention blue water? Did I ever say I wanted to cross the Atlantic?No, but I'm starting to think you're PARANOID. :) I read Wynand's post, and it looks to me like a serious, nonthreatening discussion of hull speeds. I would say your response is an over-reaction. In my experience here on the Sailboat forum, Wynand is a nice guy who is very polite and respectful of others. In fact, that goes for almost everybody else in the forum too.

And the references to deep-water sailing (again, the references are ON topic) are to absurd claims made by Spaghetto that the Mac26X is a seaworthy ocean cruiser, in fact even better than the TP52. Those claims are not only stupid, they're dangerous. People's lives could be lost if they took their 26Xs out into rough seas on Spaghetto's advice. So with all due respect wb, I consider the possible deaths of innocent novice sailors following foolish advice much more important than your hurt feelings based on minor lapses in other people's posts to you.

woodboat

01-24-2005, 11:07 AM

I will not add to the perception that I am participating in a flame war.
A few questions
Any insight as to why the PHRF is 216?
Any insight as to why Maghetto defends it so strongly?

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 11:15 AM

I understand completly why one would use knots. I also know when I am talking to my buds at the cooler they have no idea how fast I am going. If you tell someone in the US that the temp is 32C most don't know if that is cold or warm, sure sounds cold :) I think one should be able to flip back and forth easily and certanly shouldn't take flak about it.

Comparing tempature scales to nautical ans statute miles is a bit ridiculous don't you think? To make it a fair comparison we should be talking about KPH and MPH. This I can understand the need to be able to switch back and forth to. Having been on all major continents and working in every major seaport in the world I have never once entered a port and been told to report my speed on approach in MPH or KPH. It is not like MPH is used anywhere in the sea going world. As for your buds around the cooler, maybe you take the time to explain to them what a knot is, much the same way my friends explain to me what 17C is when I am in Europe and Asia.

As for the rest of your inflammatory post, I am sorry that you don't find any value in someone trying to give you information which you ask for. Maybe it is not the messenger or the message maybe it is you. Others seem to think that might be the case. I hope you chose to read other threads but if not I will not lose any sleep over it, as for posting to other sailboat threads I think I could encourage you to not post as it seems from this thread, it is you which have nothing to offer of value.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 11:16 AM

Hi Marco, i can assure you that our beloved ;) Frankie deserved this and MUCH MORE than this !!!!!
I was non offendend as an italian, when somenone call him Spaghetto, may i've done it too :) :) I've found it just a funny joke ;)
Take a look at the old thread "TP52" and you may judge by yourself; and remember that most of replies on that thread were erased by respective authors to protest again Mighetto (so did i) , so actually you can read little just a bit more than his weird, much too long, absurd lonely speechs

ciao
Mistral
I have been called both a Spic and a Whop but have never considered spaghetto to be derogatory. Of course I do not consider the term "I will pray for you" to be derogatory either. And yet Andrew Masion, Technical Director for Formation Design Systems may..

Let us open the church of FOYD by praying for Andrew Mason. We pull from the dead thread (a well of lost souls) where Mason replied to my post that The Mac26x is a better offshore boat than TP52s. There is no doubt about that by the math.

Rubbish Frank, a stability or seakeeping analysis of the two boats would say nothing of the kind. You have virtually zero understanding of the math involved, just enough to be dangerous

__________________
Andrew Mason
Technical Director
Formation Design Systems
http://www.formsys.com

Maxsurf Academic
http://msacademic.formsys.com .
We hope to call Andew to this thead for a defense of his statement today. If that is not possible, let us be kind. It takes a lot of effort to unlearn. In boat design today, no one has more than 5 years of relevant experiance. The uninitiated, the virgins in the field, are more likely to come up with a modern design than a person like possibly Andrew. The Church of FOYD is now open. Let us pray for Anderw Mason. May he see the light of redemption.

Mistral, your posts on the TP52 thread look to be intact. You have the closing comment. The thread continues to be well viewed. Why not run with it? In the mean time lets do come up with derogatory terms for the TP52s. I liked paper boats -- as in Toilet Paper. How about boats of cards as in 52 card pick up? Or 52 sheets to the wind :) For newbees to the forum see

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5471&page=1&pp=15

Teeter Principle boats is the mighettoism. Lets just realize that 5 or 7 years of work on the TP52 has recently got the new ones to the point that they finally pass the SNAME capsize ratio and US Sailing capsize screening ratio. 11 of these boats is enough. Can the world really support 20 of them by the end of 2005. I think not. What is needed is more Mac26x cruisers.

sorenfdk

01-24-2005, 11:23 AM

I have been called both a Spic and a Whop but have never considered spaghetto to be derogatory. Of course I do not consider the term "I will pray for you" to be derogatory either. And yet Andrew Masion, Technical Director for Formation Design Systems may..

Let us open the church of FOYD by praying for Andrew Mason. We pull from the dead thread (a well of lost souls) where Mason replied to my post that The Mac26x is a better offshore boat than TP52s. There is no doubt about that by the math.

We hope to call Andew to this thead for a defense of his statement today. If that is not possible, let us be kind. It takes a lot of effort to unlearn. In boat design today, no one has more than 5 years of relevant experiance. The uninitiated, the virgins in the field, are more likely to come up with a modern design than a person like possible Andrew. The Church of FOYD is now open. Let us pray for Anderw Mason. May he see the light of redemption.

Mistral, your posts on the TP52 thread look to be intact. You have the closing comment. The thread continues to be well viewed. Why not run with it? In the mean time lets do come up with derogatory terms for the TP52s. I liked paper boats -- as in Toilet Paper. How about boats of cards as in 52 card pick up? Or 52 sheets to the wind :) For newbees to the forum see

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5471&page=1&pp=15

Teeter Principle boats is the mighettoism. Lets just realize that 5 or 7 years of work on the TP52 has recently got the new ones to the point that they finally pass the SNAME capsize ratio and US Sailing capsize screening ratio. 11 of these boats is enough. Can the world really support 20 of them by the end of 2005. I think not. What is needed is more Mac26x cruisers.
Woodboat:
These are the kind of ramblings I and others have referred to.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 11:40 AM

As for the rest of your inflammatory post, I am sorry that you don't find any value in someone trying to give you information which you ask for. Maybe it is not the messenger or the message maybe it is you. Others seem to think that might be the case. I hope you chose to read other threads but if not I will not lose any sleep over it, as for posting to other sailboat threads I think I could encourage you to not post as it seems from this thread, it is you which have nothing to offer of value.
Lets give you the real skinny on knots. First a nautical mile is not the same distance every place in the world. This is because it is more a measure of time than of distance. The time it takes the sun to travel degrees on the sphere of the earth. Because the earth is not perfectly spherical, a nautical mile will be different depending on where on the globe you are measuring.

Words are not enough. But that is my take on it. Since little depends on accuracy in regards to knots I may have missed a bit. Others may have a better description. But miles is the more accurate term because a mile is the same distance no mater where you are on the planet. So if you sell a boat internationally, like MacGregor Yachts does, you are justified in using miles in promotional materials.

Second, there is no such thing as knots per mile. The per mile portion is part of the term knot.

Third, as long as wind is reported in MPH instead of Knots, miles will be more significant to the modern sailor than knots. Don't blame me, take your weather reporter out for a sail and explain the problems they are causing. Weather reporters have folks thinking gale and storm are interchangeable terms. I am confident the French and the metric system are the root cause of the problem :) But more to the point, MacGregor Yachts has figured out that miles per hour conveys more meaning than knots. This no nonesence approach is but one reason they sell so many boats.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 12:29 PM

Søren Flening,

how excellent to have you posting. You do know I set a hook for SA's do you knot? :) We really should keep this fun.

This thread is about Mac26x cruisers and not TP52s. Nonetheless, there can be comparisons and contrasts. TP for transportable was also suggested. I have learned most recently from hull number 2 of the Cantalina Morgan 440, which I had the pleasure of boarding last Saturday. The boat was transported by truck from Annapolis where she created a stir.

The most significant observation about the 440 is the "new deck salon". This is a very Mac26x like innovation. In fact, I would say it is a copy. The term deck house, I think is a better term. Dog house wouldn't do, trunk cabin is best, but anyway blame the French, this monohull has French styling and this styling impacts the angle of vanishing stability. Acording to Sven Donaldson in Pacific Yachting, the voluminous trunk cabin itself insures that the angle of vanishng stability is bound to be exceptionally high. As goes the 440 so goes the Mac26x.

Off course 440 on the Internet means clueless - ie URL not found. I see these things and think the marketers must have known that and named the boat purposefully. Connecting dots is fun. Are the Catalina folks clueless, or have they come around to thinking like MacGregor Yachts.

The Catalina Morgan 440 doesn't plane. She is large enough to make her fast enough to avoid the hazards modern reporting points out, without planing. But she also has a 75 HP motor. This makes the 50 hp on a Mac26x look reasonable doesn't it? It appears that one of the big objections to the 26x design involves the motor. Get over it. Rightsized motors are the future of yacht design.

There is an observation that was pointed out to me by an engineer favoring long thin bulb keels. He showed me that the Center of Gravity (CG) of a design when the boat is at rest is lowered with less weight when the weight is carried low on the end of a long keel. I was not quick enough to ask

Do you always want the CG low? It seams to me that in light wind, in the kind of wind where you have your crew sit on the lee so that gravity will fill the sails, that you want your CG higher than afforded by a long bulb keel. I do see that on models like the 440, the shoal draft boats are heavier than the maximum draft boat. But this is owing to a lack of hull form stability, in otherwords a compromise on a compromise. To bad the 440 isn't a swing centerboarder. She would be a true upgrade from a Mac26x in that case.

Robert Gainer

01-24-2005, 01:43 PM

You said,
“Lets give you the real skinny on knots. First a nautical mile is not the same distance every place in the world. This is because it is more a measure of time than of distance. The time it takes the sun to travel degrees on the sphere of the earth. Because the earth is not perfectly spherical, a nautical mile will be different depending on where on the globe you are measuring.”

This may be the least of your problems, but a nautical mile is always 6000 feet and it is never less or more. It is 6000 feet at the pole and 6000 feet at the equator. The thing you may be thinking of is a minute of longitude, which may be, in some places a nautical mile in length. A knot is always a number of nautical miles per hour.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

mighetto

01-24-2005, 02:00 PM

Cassavecchia
I don't think frank is italian...mighetto is a intended to be a cute derivitive of "MY GHETTO" ...I think? No matter no one is using spaghetto in an ethnic way ...it just sounds the same.

Woodboat
As I said ...you got your info...you just don't like it!
Your recent protests concerning the friendly nature of sailors and the willingness of all here to be helpfull are indicative of your agenda.
You want help with something I or someone else will be happy to help you...but when you get an answer put to you gently you don't seem to get it...then when it is put clearly you call it abusive.

When you step in crap, it does not usually take further investigation to be sure that it is crap, especially for people that are trained at knowing crap when they see it!

Good Morning New York,

Identifying crap is difficult if you are worried about being fashionable. I mean can you really see the crap if you do not take off the $250 sun glasses? Can you see it in a boat design like the TP52s if you do not run the math? Now these Piece of Crap (POC) Mac26x vessels have been dumped all over the world. 5000, POCs and you are just stepping into it? What took you so long? Fashion changes but sound design remains sound over the ages. When Watson got into sailing there was an expresion that you could not have both a racing design and a cruising design in the same boat. The chairman of IBM promptly proved that incorrect. No Crap! Almost all of his boats were and are currently acceptable for cruising.

I have to let you all know about Ralph Lauren and Filsons. Use www.dogpile.com. Out of dog crap comes greatness. Anyway. Filsons has been making foulies for real sailors since the turn of the 18th Century. Today, you are unlikely to find a dock worker in Seattle not using Filsons. If you shoot ducks or hunt, you know about Filsons. Lauren of course is in the process of launching a new spring collection of sportswear specifically designed for the demands of sailing. Problem is that until you start finding sailing in the sports section of Barns and Noble instead of the transportation section, what good is a sportswear brand?

In anycase, there is about to be a battle between Ralph Lauren and Filsons for the soles of the American Sailor, which are currently full of crap they have stepped into and I am not talking about the Mac26x POCs because few have stepped there. It will be a battle of the fools vs the practical. Tommy Hilfiger, a great New Yorker and hell of a nice guy from what was told by his neighbor last week, is also in play for this space. A former Ralph Lauren executive now owns Filsons. Damn, I hope he is a sailor. Levies should also be in the mix. There is tradition in Filsons and Levies for sailors. The Laurens and Hilfigers and even Prada are hard pressed to show such tradition.

Think man Think - The Chairman of IBM proved something. How did designers get so far off from the 1950s. They were on track then. Go Cal 40s :)

Skippy

01-24-2005, 02:03 PM

Do you always want the CG low? It seams to me that in light wind, in the kind of wind where you have your crew sit on the lee so that gravity will fill the sails, that you want your CG higher than afforded by a long bulb keel.Frank, people don't get killed by 2-knot air. We're talking about seaworthiness, the ability to survive a gale without turtling. Not to mention speed in a breeze.

Skippy

01-24-2005, 02:13 PM

Fashion changes but sound design remains sound over the ages.I thought you said it changes every five years. :confused:

Any insight as to why Maghetto defends it so strongly?Out of dog crap comes greatness.wb, I think you have your answer.

woodboat

01-24-2005, 02:13 PM

Cut and paste action:
The majority of the values listed in the above table refer to land miles of one variety or another, but the system of "knots" used at sea equated to a different mile in its own right--the nautical mile. To understand the nautical mile, we need to explain a related unit called the geographical mile. A geographical mile is probably the most scientifically derived mile. It is a unit of length determined by one minute of arc along the Earth's equator, which is approximately 1,855 meters or 6087.15 international feet in length.

To better understand the concept, imagine slicing the Earth in half along its equator. Now divide the perimeter, or circumference, of this circle into 360° segments. Then divide each degree into 60 equal segments called arc minutes. The length of one of these arc segments, 1/60th of a degree of the Earth's equatorial circumference, is a geographical mile.

The nautical mile is almost exactly the same concept, except that it is equal to one minute of arc along a great circle of the Earth. A great circle is a circle on the surface of a sphere that has the same diameter as the sphere. What does that mean? The Earth itself is an imperfect sphere since it is slightly flattened at the poles. If you were to measure its diameter at the equator and its diameter at the poles, you'd find that the equatorial distance is greater by about 142,181 feet. Because of this difference, a geographical mile along the equatorial circumference would be 6087 ft long but the same mile along the polar circumference would be only 6066 ft in length. The great circle of Earth instead assumes that the Earth is actually a perfect sphere, and the differences between the equatorial and polar circumferences are averaged out.

When the definition of the nautical mile was specified by international agreement, its value was based on this idealized Earth so that it is the average of one minute of arc in both the equatorial and polar planes. The nautical mile is therefore slightly shorter than the geographical mile and is defined precisely as 1,852 meters or 6,076.115 international feet.

from http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0139.shtml If anyone cares

pkoken

01-24-2005, 02:20 PM

The Catalina Morgan 440 doesn't plane. She is large enough to make her fast enough to avoid the hazards modern reporting points out, without planing. But she also has a 75 HP motor. This makes the 50 hp on a Mac26x look reasonable doesn't it?

You are comparing a 45' 25,000lb cruising sailboat to the Mac26X??? You are comparing a 75hp DIESEL to a 50hp gasoline OUTBOARD???

Take another drag on your crack pipe and write some more for us!

Wynand N

01-24-2005, 02:22 PM

So if you sell a boat internationally, like MacGregor Yachts does, you are justified in using miles in promotional materials.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Most of the "internationally" world uses kilometer (km) as a measure of distance. :rolleyes:

Gentleman of the forum, I retire from this post and Mighetto's wisdom. I suggest you all do the same. I want to grow old sane ;)

mighetto

01-24-2005, 02:34 PM

Skippy,

Frank, people don't get killed by 2-knot air. We're talking about seaworthiness, the ability to survive a gale without turtling. Not to mention speed in a breeze.

Seaworthiness refers to keeping the vessel right side up. A boat that turtles may be more seaworthy than other designs if she can be righted quickly with minimal or no damage.

The Swan owners make a big deal out of this fact because a Swan can turn turtle without damage and at least one confirmed that fact.

It is when a boat turns and a cabin or fin or mast or portlight is ripped off creating a hole that there are seaworthiness problems.

I just love the fact that the new Swan, the one that will carry the NYYC brand name, is a keel centerboarder. I hope the Catalina 440 is so modified. You see, no amount of wind has been shown to knockdown, let alone turn a vessel with 110 vanishing stability. It takes a long fin that can be used as a lever in concert with sea action to do that. One can say :wind doesn't kill; long fins kill by tripping the vessel in a wave. With the NYYC brand boat and Mac26x cruisers, you have the option of retracting fins so they can not be used for killing.

Of course crew is a function of seaworthiness. Good crew will have sailed or motored from harms way owing to the fine weather reporting available in the modern age. There really is little reason to expect that a boat that can make 9 or 10 MPH or knots (take your pick) will sail in extended gales. Of course everday the Comox weather station predicts them when I am sailing. It is important to have a boat that can heave to or lie ahull well. Anyway, gale is less than storm, we really want boats that survive more than gale and more than storm. We all want huricane class cruising boats, and fortunately for all of us that is possible with proper construction, materials, and design and it has nothing to do with cost.

The Mac26x cruisers are strong not only from the deck salon design but also because they are small. Smaller really is stronger. That is the reason that when a boat capsizes (and all boats in sufficient sea can capsize) you get into smaller Mac26x like (some of them water ballasted) life boats.

Lets remember that sailors get killed in light air just like in heavy. Tacking a boat gives the boom a chance to crack heads in light or heavy. I have often wondered when helmets would become required equipment for racing. But truth is that until helmets are required in your auto, they should not be required on sailboats. The risks really are higher in the auto.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 02:52 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble. Most of the "internationally" world uses kilometer (km) as a measure of distance. :rolleyes:

Gentleman of the forum, I retire from this post and Mighetto's wisdom. I suggest you all do the same. I want to grow old sane ;)

Glad to see the smilies. We Hate the French for meters. How dare they measure the globe so the line would go through Paris and then take a platnum bar, call it a meter, and require the rest of the world to use that as the standard. :cool: I am blinded by the wisdom of the kilometer. The measurement would be different if the line went through Seattle.

I am nonetheless glad this came up. The French imparted their measurment wisdom with platnum because of the aura of value. There is a company here in Washington state that makes titanium springs for aircraft landing gears. It recently became prominant in motorcycle racing because it figured out how to apply the springs to motocycles. But seriously, does a titanium spring really make a difference or is it more associated with making the rider feel like everything has been done that can be to allow him or her to win. If the price of titanium were less than iron would they get that same feeling?

MacGregor Yachts explains that the cost of its X model is not low. Rather, other manufacturers are getting the purchaser to overpay for warm fuzzy's (also called unnecessary marketing) at best and at worst, inefficiencies in the design and construction.

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 02:59 PM

I will not add to the perception that I am participating in a flame war.
A few questions
Any insight as to why the PHRF is 216?
Any insight as to why Maghetto defends it so strongly?

woodboat, very good question as to why 216. Some of the answer I suspect is in observations you made about the bpat already. For one it is tender, the sail area on it is pretty small but standards. The generally accepted SA/D for a sportboat that would easily plane AND have the horsepower to plane under sail is >30 upwind and >75 downwind. The boat has an upwind SA/D of 19. Even adding a spinnaker downwind runs the SA/D downwind to only optimistically about 40. This puts its sailing horsepower in the same category as most traditional designs and one would not expect it to plane under sail very often. Next you have the actually hull form, the foils are not exactly lifting so the weather performance of the boat is not likely to be any better than most other trailerables and will have substantial leeway which will in turn result in a higher rating. Combining this and other small details such as seakeeping and the fact that the manufacturer doesn't want people out of the cockpit meaning no hiking to increase righting moment results in a generally slow performing boat. When you put it in waves it compounds that upwind as the entry is quite broad and will tend to pound and due to weight will slow. The lack of sail power will then make it slow to accelerate after being slowed by a wave.

Why Mighetto defends it could be buyer's remorse or could be just having a good go at stirring a bunch of people up by posting ridiculous claims, not unheard of on the Internet for sure, or maybe he is just delusional if you read the threads he has been into you find he has no real experience and doesn't even have experience on this boat in a wide range of conditions and speaks always hypothetically as he has not done anything that he speaks about. He also seems to have a fetish for certain people on the east coast which I am not sure what that is all about.

I do hope we got through our differences, I was actually trying to be helpful to you and maybe I was not as descriptive as necessary in the first two posts, but did think I was answering your questions. I hope this helps.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 03:06 PM

You are comparing a 45' 25,000lb cruising sailboat to the Mac26X??? You are comparing a 75hp DIESEL to a 50hp gasoline OUTBOARD???
Take another drag on your crack pipe and write some more for us!
OK, I will tell you that we have a team in the Pacific North West called the Ducks. They use duck calls when motoring to the games and the Washington State Patrol get calls from folks on cell phones claiming motorists are smoking crack because the duck calls look like pipes. The problem is so zany that they are proposing to forbid cell phones (not pipes) from the highway. We have way to many patrol officers in Washington State - obviously.

I am looking for an upgrade for the Mac26x in a monohull. At one time I limited the search to vessels under 180,000. The Schock 40 was a possibility. still might be. The Catalina Morgan 440 is a 280,000 vessel. She has a layout more like what I am use to. The best accomodations are in the bow, not in the stern or place of honor on most boats, and you can monitor the sea from the dinette and control the vessel with the autopilot remote from there.

Anyway, I view speed as safety and unless the boat planes, that means over or close to 40 foot in a monohull. Vessels in the 27 to say 37 foot range represent the worst in design today because they don't plane and can not reach displacement speeds necessary to take advantage of modern reporting. (of course there are a few exceptions). Top end speed under sail and under motor is the most important factor to a modern purchaser. This is not unlike any other transportation vehicle. Yet it is more important to the ocean cruiser because, with speed, you can avoid weather and other hazards.

Speed wasn't that important when reporting was poor because it was a mater of luck as to if you were stuck in a gale, storm or cain. But that isn't true with modern reporting. In fact, some insurance carriers require that the crew check weather before setting sail. There were to many frauds where "If I only checked the weather" was used as an excuse for the damage.

Lets point out that even a battle ship will go with the flow when conditions get really bad. A planing sail boat is less likely to dismast because for a dismasting the mast must move faster than the hull. That doesn't happen on a planing boat. Instead she breaks from the sea. There has never been a dismasting of a Mac26x. She is blown out of harms way and, if under sail and if crewed properly, already in port. The comparisons are valid.

We in Seattle, live for boats and the boat shows. There was this NY fellow, a sports caster, who was assigned to the show this year. Anyway he created a stir by observing the obvious. Many of the "boats" at the show were not boats. They were houses and he though it fun to stat so. Comparing a boat to a house is what has got us to the sad state of design we are in. It also has likely put a 44 footer into the price range of a small house.

amolitor

01-24-2005, 04:35 PM

Just an FYI, planing boats *definitely* dismast. Large planing sailboats dismast much more frequently than non-planing ones. Why? Because large planing-hull and semi-displacement hull sailboats are exceedingly expensive racing yachts that operate under severe conditions.

Check out any long ocean race. You'll find lots of flat-bottomed boats that go like hell, and get dismasted.

Since the vast majority of displacement hulled sailboats rot in slips 360 days of the year, there are statistically far fewer dismastings-per-hull among them!

The Macgregor generally speaking won't plane under sail. If it did, in other than extraordinary conditions, it would have a much better PHRF ratings. You may imagine that yours planes under sail, but it doesn't. For sailing purposes, it is a displacement hull with (apparently) a non-lift-generating centerboard. Which makes it a pokey sailboat.

WildCherry

01-24-2005, 04:39 PM

hard to beleive this much talk about a damn Mac26x

pkoken

01-24-2005, 04:41 PM

People are still trying to use LOGIC and SCIENTIFIC PROVEN TRUTH to assist Mr. Mighetto along the path to enlightenment...

This is a truly useless endeavor~

We have an individual who says that the Mac26X can sail (REACH!!) at 17 knots (or MPH as Mr. Mighetto uses them interchangeably). I would like to back this theory up as long as we are talking about reaching with all the sails (including asymetrical chute) AND the 50hp outboard going at full thrust.

Skippy

01-24-2005, 04:58 PM

Seaworthiness refers to keeping the vessel right side up. A boat that turtles may be more seaworthy than other designs if she can be righted quickly with minimal or no damage.Exactly. Chances are a bulb-keel boat will eventually right itself even if it does turtle, whenever another big wave and/or gust knocks it over again. The bulb-keel design is much more stable upright than when turtled. A Mac 26X on the other hand, will just sit there upside down, because the inboard ballast makes it very stable that way.

It is when a boat turns and a cabin or fin or mast or portlight is ripped off creating a hole that there are seaworthiness problems.That's a structural issue, not a problem with the configuration. Stainless steel or even bronze are plenty strong enough as long as the gauge is not too chintsy and the hull is beefed up around the keel.

You see, no amount of wind has been shown to knockdown, let alone turn a vessel with 110 vanishing stability.Right. It's those huge waves you inevitably get with the wind that cause so much trouble. What are you trying to say Frank, that 110-stable boats never capsize?

It takes a long fin that can be used as a lever in concert with sea action to do that. One can say :wind doesn't kill; long fins kill by tripping the vessel in a wave. With the NYYC brand boat and Mac26x cruisers, you have the option of retracting fins so they can not be used for killing.The Mac 26X doesn't need fins to be used for killing. That's been proved.
And the boat doesn't "trip" over the keel. Tripping implies falling over some kind of barrier, like a hard chine. The hull rolls with a wave and lies on its side, but tends to roll back easily when the wave passes, and becomes increasingly stable as it approaches the 90-degree area. The only boats that can avoid that are multihulls.

That is the reason that when a boat capsizes (and all boats in sufficient sea can capsize) you get into smaller Mac26x like (some of them water ballasted) life boats.No it's not, it's because you can't stow a 50-ft boat on another 50-ft boat. And you just can't make a sturdy 50-ft inflatable with ballast.

Lets remember that sailors get killed in light air just like in heavy.Let's remember we're not talking about what "can" happen in an unusual confluence of events and/or idiots. ANYTHING can happen, we're talking about what's LIKELY.

frankofile

01-24-2005, 04:58 PM

The Macgregor generally speaking won't plane under sail. If it did, in other than extraordinary conditions, it would have a much better PHRF ratings. You may imagine that yours planes under sail, but it doesn't. For sailing purposes, it is a displacement hull with (apparently) a non-lift-generating centerboard. Which makes it a pokey sailboat.
ooo, ooo, I know what happens next! This is where Frank dusts off and posts the picture of the wake behind his boat, showing a few bubbles and some ripples, and claims it proves the Mac26x planes. You guys are going to love this.

Let's see it Frank!

Richard Petersen

01-24-2005, 04:58 PM

I have figured out Mighetto! He is a P R-- C D, he repeats the same thoughts and statements at each thread he settles into. Just a C D that plays in a random fashion. He is not human.

Richard Petersen

01-24-2005, 05:06 PM

I just looove the unsubscribe button. Boink!

D'ARTOIS

01-24-2005, 05:26 PM

mighetto

01-24-2005, 05:33 PM

Please refrain from calling the Mac26x a baby killer. If you want information on the Jim Teeter's Case and that is what it is because the Mac26x wasn't even remotely on trial except for his involvement see

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/trial/martin_index.htm

Recognize that Jim Teeters may have wanted to make a point about stability in court. If the point could have been made, then it might have been used as an argument at the GP RWP to save vested interests in the TP52. Teeters failed to implicate the Mac26x in the disaster. Even the owners of the boat, whoes kids drowned, do not blame the boat or movable ballast, which is likely Teeters main objection. The boat did not turn turtle. Justic was served by puttin Martin in jail but it has not been done in regards to the Mac26x because fellows fail to follow up on what they have been lead to believe by Jim Teeters and those he has poluted with his thought. The Mac26x has the most widely accepted and scrutinized movable ballast system in the world and by experience rating is one of the the safest vessels on the seas. 5000 boats over 8 years is a lot of hours for experince rating.

For example, I just renewed my ocean and racing insurance for $310 US. This is a full year of insurance for operation up to 200 miles off the coast of US or Canada. Chat with your insurance carrier about the Mac26x. Where others of lesser sailboats must self insure because no one will have them, a host of carriers will meet the insurance needs of the Mac26x owner - even for crossing oceans. My previous policy covered any water in the western hemesphere. Contrary to popular opinion, ocean crossing is LESS dangerous than coastal ocean cruising.

BTW, my carrier (Formost) informs me that the Mac26x could be tricked out to motor at 40 MPH without it impacting my policy. Go figure - I figure Taylor, the NA, that testified against Teeters kicked Teeters butt, big time. But I will ask for transcripts. It is worth following up on. Designing boats by court case has never been a great idea. There has been some positive. There are now a handfull of power sailers like the Mac26x. None are meant to be sailed or motored without water ballast except the Mac26x however.

Since the case has been brought up, are you all aware that adding chines like a powerboat has (you know the trangle wedge shaped hull features that dig in on sharp turns) are illegal for sailboats that race PHRF. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. The Mac26x has no such chines specifically so that she can be raced and they are not needed when the boat is operated by the sober.

Skippy

01-24-2005, 06:08 PM

Please refrain from calling the Mac26x a baby killer.Please refrain from posting on this website.

http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

{PRIVATE}Improper use of boat seen in fatal accident
By Emily Stone
Free Press Staff Writer
The boat that capsized on the Fourth of July and killed two children was overloaded and was being used incorrectly, according to the boat's manufacturer.
The 26-foot MacGregor, which is a cross between a sailboat and a power boat, is designed to hold up to six people, according to Roger MacGregor, the boat company's owner. The boat carried 11 people the night of July 4.
The boat's hybrid design uses a water tank on the bottom to provide stability. The tank should be filled when there are more than four people on board, MacGregor said. The tank on the boat driven July 4 by George Dean Martin was empty, according to the prosecutor in the case.
The boat has no visible warning about needing to fill the tank, said the driver's lawyer, Richard Rubin. Martin does not own the boat and has driven it only three or four times, Rubin said. Martin's brother-in-law owns the boat and keeps it at Martin's home, Rubin said.
The boat capsized about 10 p.m. on Lake Champlain in Ferrisburgh. Nine-year-old Melissa Mack and her 4-year-old brother, Trevor, drowned. The accident left the community wondering what caused a boat on calm waters to suddenly capsize.
Martin, 46, of Charlotte, pleaded innocent last week to a misdemeanor charge of boating while intoxicated. He has not been charged in connection with the children's deaths. Addison County State's Attorney John Quinn said the investigation is ongoing to determine if Martin's alleged intoxication contributed to the accident.
The MacGregor 26 does not have a heavy, permanent keel like many large sailboats. The lack of a keel allows the boat to move quickly when used as a power boat and makes the boat light enough to be towed behind a car.
Instead of a keel, the boat has a large water tank that can be filled to stabilize the boat. When the tank is empty, the boat will not right itself if it tips over. With the tank filled, the water acts as ballast and is designed to pull the boat upright if it starts to tip, just like boats with conventional keels.
[MORE] (http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html)

D'ARTOIS

01-24-2005, 06:09 PM

First of all, I have never called the 26 a "babykiller".
The 2nd point is that - although I have followed the posts in the TP52 thread - I have never mixed in, because it's none of my business - I don't simply know the issue of what's all about.
Ok, now I just learned that one person, accompanied by 10 others, adults and children, stepped on a boat called McGregor 26x.

The design of that particular vessel is known to me, it is older bthan the '90 -s; it existed already long before when it was marketed in the UK. It had at that time a retractable keel - no waterballast etc.

The defendant is certainly to be hold responsible: nobody with his senses tuned the right way goes with that number of people on a 8.00 mtr boat.

Q. What is the number of allowed pax on that weekender?

The question if the boat is stable or not is notb the issue. The issue is - is the boat stable enough with 11 persons on board?

Q. Have you been appointed as expert-witness on the plaintiff's side? As an expert? On boating affairs?

Was that the inducement of the TP52 topic and that Jim Teeters - who was testifying for the defendant, claimed that the boat was not designed to carry 11 persons safely?

SailDesign

01-24-2005, 06:11 PM

mighetto

01-24-2005, 06:12 PM

Dear Jeff,

Since a very short time, I have now and than a look at the other forum you do know well, as well as other members in this forum.
This is a serious forum. People from all over the world think about problems or share events with other members, wherever, whenever.
The other forum I am pointing at, has a very straight ruling that misbehaving members are dismembered, I use this wordplaying because I do not believe that it is to the wellbeing of the forum's standard that this particular member continues to ridicule anything and everything that has to do with serious discussions about boats and related issues.
What the gentleman expresses on his own site is his responsibility as much as his problem.
That he is using this institute to ventilate his verbal slalomtechnics is not anymore tolerable and I just started to get a liking for uncle Richard and now he unsubscribes.....

Seriously, it's enough now. Please accept that as Moderator you have a certain way to undo this hazard to a club of international people who by way of their hobby/work - whatever their inspiration is, like to discuss a variety of topics.

Respectfully,
Brien R. Gilroy
International Marine Technologies
Haarlem
Holland

Jeff, Brien. Do contact me off list. mighetto@eskimo.com. Seriously, discuss the ideas and ride and not the man, the myth, the legend. I object to Brien's implication that I have some how been excluded from Sailing Anarchy or any other forum. This is AFAICT not factual.

This thread was started by another specifically to get feedback from serious designers regarding the Cruising Log of the Murrelet. I am the author of that log and the stand on vessel owing to that. Should others alter course, so that their velocity made good is impeaded, so be it. Eventually all sailboat designs will be as sound as the Mac26x. Eventally all designers will need to come to grips with that including amature designers like myself.

Respectfully,
Frank L. Mighetto
Captain Murrelet
1999 Mac26x
Olympia Washington
Sail #79020

Skippy

01-24-2005, 06:15 PM

First of all, I have never called the 26 a "babykiller".I think he was addressing me.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 06:19 PM

Woodboat - every sport has its "lingo". If you hear someone talking about "oaring", you just know he rented a boat at the local lake. Similarly, when a sailor hears someone talking about mph, they assume powerboater. Same goes for folks who habitually refer to the "left" side of the boat, or the "front". They obviously have either not been in it long, or don't care.
Frank Mighetto has been excessively argumentative in this forum, as a quick (OK - it won't be quick) read of the TP52 thread will show. As an experienced designer, I can tell you that his notions are wrong. There is not other, kinder word for it. Hence the disgust with which he ids treated by those who have (probably stupidly) tried to educate him on the realities of sailing yacht design.
Steve

What a meany. :( Steve, just a couple of wrong notions. That is all I ask from you. You have all of http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm to chose the wrong notions from. Lets remember that The Jonstones had no degrees in boat design when they came up with the J-24. Perhaps it is the same with Bruce Lee and Farr. It takes only the will to hang a shingle to be a boat designer in the USA. Perhaps it should not be that way. But without the kind of evaluation we are doing on this thread there is little chance that boat designers will be worthy of the term professional.

SailDesign

01-24-2005, 06:41 PM

Frank,
You asked for a couple of wrong notions. So here goes.....

You say "Fully ballasted Murrelet has the stability of a cruising keel boat". That is wrong. No boat with interior ballast will have the stability of a boat with exterior ballast. Low-angle stability may feel similar, but since it all comes from form stability, it will diminish rapidly.

You say "When Europeans first began settling the Americas, they were obliged to utilize the ports long established there by the native American people." They, in fact, created new "ports" and trading posts where their boats could land.

You say "In March of 2003 even the marketers of MacGregor yachts played into this myth stating in a comparison of the X to the 2003 M model powersailer that "The (X-boat) long centerboard trunk also required a huge opening in the hull, in the most important structural area of the boat (as well as creating a very large drag problem. See Performance)". Actually, they were/are right. It is very hard to attain a continuity of structure even over a moulded-in slot like the X has. There is no depth of floor (that's structural floor, not "sole") over the slot, leading to a weaker area transversely in that region.

You say "Likely owing to dealer/distributor influence, MacGregor Yachts company added 300 lbs of solid ballast to the M in the form of resin in the water ballast tank and additional solid weight around the centerboard trunk. This is not unlike what fixed keel boat owners do when they find their vessel is a tippy cruiser. " When someone dicovers his keel boat is "tippy" ("Tender" would be the correct term for that, BTW), they add ballast as colse to the bottom of the keel as possible. Inside ballast is a waste of time for curing a temder boat, as it is too close to the CG to do any good. It does have its place, but that is not it.

You say "When the Max26x was introduced her design took advantage of a relatively unproven rigging invention that reduces or eliminates the need for weight on an external foil or inside the hull. " Actually, a roller-furling headsail does not do anything for or against needing ballast, or a fin for windward work. What you have said is akin to saying "Having cruise control reduces or eliminates the need for four wheels on a car", or vice versa, even.

Well, I have had my fill of trying to read your website for a second time (yes, I did once read the whole thing), so I will leave it at that.

I would like to say that my position here is not antagonistic, I jut happen to have been designing boats for 20 years, of all types, and have never read so much misinformation as appears on your site and in your posts to this forum.

Steve

frankofile

01-24-2005, 06:44 PM

What a meany. :( Steve, just a couple of wrong notions. That is all I ask from you. You have all of http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm to chose the wrong notions from.

Frank, here is a nice little list from Skippy a few pages back of SOME of the ridiculous, stupid, and wrong things you've said. There are many, many more.

Quote: Originally Posted by Spaghetto
11-01-2004
Duty calls. .... I will not enjoy this, but what choice do I have? I must go forward with a sense of noblesse oblige.
11-03-2004
It is my understanding that bringing the bulb weight closer to the hull makes the boat faster like bringing the arms of a twirling ice skater in makes the ice skater twirl faster.
The better design is to just get rid of the weight on the fin and put it closer to or internal to the hull
11-04-2004
My Mac26x is more worthy of an ocean crossing than Esmeralda [a TP52].
11-12-2004
Ballast is just weight, like {everthing else on the boat and} the hull itself.
11-15-2004
If weight on a long thin foil really makes a boat go faster then why don't powerboats have weight on long thin foils?
if an ice skater wants to twerl faster she brings the weight of her arms in, she does not extend them. This internal ballast rule applies to everything that moves: cars, motorcycles, planes, power boats and yes - even sailboats. Internal ballast is just faster.
An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind ...
12-01-2004
it appears that water ballast should not be pumped side to side but rather remain in both sides to improve windward performance in rough water and the ballast should be low in the boat, like twin keels
12-02-2004
I spent most of my life power boating
In anycase the notion of pumping water from side to side as defining movable ballast ... is a new notion and an incorrect one when you realize that water ballasted vessels benefit by having ballast on both sides of the vessel owing to the stable forces similar to a twin keel vessel.
12-16-2004
The wire, folks like to call a backstay, IMO is for motoring.
12-20-2004
My Mac26x is more TransPacific than probably most of the TP52s.
12-20-2004
Americas Cup rules prohibit hollows. This I understand is what prevents multihulls from competing because the space between the hulls is a big hollow. The effect of the hollow, is like that of the spoon. It lifts the hull from the water at speed.

[And from another website ybw.com]
28/09/2004
The Mac26x is a serious ocean sailboat.
There is nothing in a monohull under 40 foot and under 180,000 US that compares.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 06:55 PM

First of all, I have never called the 26 a "babykiller".

Great, but do try to distinguish between Mac26 cruisers. The 26x is the eXtreme sailboat. She was marketed as revolutionary because of the movable ballast. The current 26, the m model, is a traditional fixed water ballast vessel with the engine of the X. She is more closely aligned with the Mac19 and with the classic 26 models, the 26d for dagerboard and the 26s for swing keel.

The 2nd point is that - although I have followed the posts in the TP52 thread - I have never mixed in, because it's none of my business - I don't simply know the issue of what's all about. Ok, now I just learned that one person, accompanied by 10 others, adults and children, stepped on a boat called McGregor 26x.

How could you know that 10,000 views of a thread started by Tripp Gal on Sailing Anarchy was the end result. That is 10,000 views In one day. How could you know that this little Mac26x vessel played such a huge role in taking down the 11 TP52s or that Teeters failure to put down the Mac26x meant he could not have the US Sailing delegation to the GP RWP use his research to advantage. The Mac26x was in the middle of its planned production run as based on othere models with the success of the X. Its halt of production is directly related to the falure of Teeters to get beyond his personal vested interests for the good of his profession and indeed all sailors.

The design of that particular vessel is known to me, it is older bthan the '90 -s; it existed already long before when it was marketed in the UK. It had at that time a retractable keel - no waterballast etc.

The design basics can be found in multiple examples all over the world. I prefer to say the design came from the Bethewate Tasars but Bethewate Design has long noted that the Tasar design came from the cod head and mac tail work boats. These boats are sea kindly as well as fast.

The defendant is certainly to be hold responsible: nobody with his senses tuned the right way goes with that number of people on a 8.00 mtr boat.

You are kind for saying so. The thing is that I do not see how it happened anyway. I suspect a wake was involved but no on has been willing to go on record with that. The end of a 4th of July fireworks display usually includes a race back to the launch ramps and public docks. I think it likely there was some kind of a wake and then drunken response to that wake.

Q. What is the number of allowed pax on that weekender?

No such thing as a weekender. The Mac26x is a cruiser that is capable of racing because she can be sailed without water ballast. No limit for the number of passangers was ever established for the boat. You may not know that Slokum had 100 girls on his Spray which has the cods head and mac tail form of the mac26x. There is an established limit for the 26m.

The question if the boat is stable or not is notb the issue. The issue is - is the boat stable enough with 11 persons on board?

Stability is everything in a boat. You might rephrase. It is not the number of persons but rather where you put them. The manufacturer states that it is a good idea to be fully ballasted when you have more than 4 adults aboard. Martin neglected to fill the water ballast with 11. Even so, PHRF allows 10 or more on race boats under 30 foot.

Q. Have you been appointed as expert-witness on the plaintiff's side? As an expert? On boating affairs?

I have served as expert witness on managment decision making cases in health care and at government institutions. I am likely the owner with the most time on the water for a Mac26x. To give you some background, I have seen a lot of silly business in my day. When things don't look right, like when a guy like Teeters testifies against a design when no one thinks the boat is at fault there is a decision making issue. In this case US Sailing should have made it clear that Teeters was acting on his own. They eventually orchestrated Teeters retirement from his position as Director of Research at US Sailing. I understand this happened right before testifying. But the aura of US Sailing that Teeters had went with him. I strongly suspect, as a business man's expert witness, that MacGregor Yachts found business insurance for Mac26x production costly owing to Teeter's involvement. Hence the decision to halt production even when the plan had been to produce more than one model at the plant. The only time the plant has produced a single model was during X production. The popularity of this vessel remains very high.

Was that the inducement of the TP52 topic and that Jim Teeters - who was testifying for the defendant, claimed that the boat was not designed to carry 11 persons safely?

I believe Teeters objections were on the entire notion that a boat could be operated with or without water ballast. Movable ballast has been the undoing of the TP52s. Movable ballast of any kind would have been the enemy of Teeters, if you can assume his main purpose was to serve others or himself, rather than his profession. I suspect MacGregor Yachts could have a product disparagement action against him. But I have not gotten any indication that such action has been started. The Max26m has yet to fill two full production lines at the factory in California. That leaves two lines to produce some other boat, like the Mac26x. However, there are now several companies producing boats like the X and M including one that appears to be making an identical copy in Austrailia. An economist is what is needed to serve as expert witness on this. I am not an economist. Roger MacGregor, however, is.

D'ARTOIS

01-24-2005, 07:05 PM

I object further to a number of points Mr Mighetto:

That continuously snapping at designers in general - there are good ones and there are lesser good ones, just like in any other profession.

A second issue is the fact that this poor Mr Martin is put for 10 years in jail next to the fine and communal work he has to perform.

If you had said, I know that the 26x is a rickety, unstable vessel, and that it might quite possible that whilst powering and being overloaded, a sudden movement had tipped the boat. Eight adults, three children, no testimonies in the press of what had caused the tipping over. Overloaded may be with overweight people on a rickety boat, the accused Mr Martin must have had really the public opinion against him.
Not a very good lawyer did he have as well.

In such a circumstance you do not say......Anarchy.com is expecting......
.......and I have to come out smelling like roses......

This is a very, very sad occasion and Mr Martin is definately not the only one to blame.

I sincerely wish you will refrain from expressing any further nonsense explanation about stability and related topics. The sample of Mr Martin's accident is absolutely not the right one.

woodboat

01-24-2005, 07:28 PM

"left" side of the boat, or the "front". They obviously have either not been in it long, or don't care.
Count me in the don't care group. I had three commercial crabbers on my block. My next door neighbors only gave it up because of a change in crabbing regulations. So after 40 years I still mix port,right,MPH and knots all in the same sentence. I don't feel a need to be "proper" but then again I am not designing boats for a living, simply using them. If I had a boat that required communication with the crew or designed for a living I would probably clean up my jargon. What I find amusing is when a weekend boater gets snooty with a commercial crabber about proper jargon :) I know the two guys next door said left and right on a regular basis and never port or starboard.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 07:31 PM

Steve, thankyou for getting serious.

You say "Fully ballasted Murrelet has the stability of a cruising keel boat". That is wrong. No boat with interior ballast will have the stability of a boat with exterior ballast. Low-angle stability may feel similar, but since it all comes from form stability, it will diminish rapidly.

I am not the only one saying this. So is Roger Macgregor. Of course you have to be technically correct. The stability curves of a keel boat and of a twin keel boat are going to be different. In fact the water ballasted represented in the Mac26x has BETTER stability curves IMO. But of course I need the manufacturer to help me generate those curves.

You say "When Europeans first began settling the Americas, they were obliged to utilize the ports long established there by the native American people." They, in fact, created new "ports" and trading posts where their boats could land.

Yes in fact they purposfully infected the established ports with smallpox so they could not be used. Of course this is just the most popular threory of why established ports fell so hard from Smallpox. The story is that Hudson Bay blankets were contaminated with Smallpox and then distributed to the port villages.

You say "In March of 2003 even the marketers of MacGregor yachts played into this myth stating in a comparison of the X to the 2003 M model powersailer that "The (X-boat) long centerboard trunk also required a huge opening in the hull, in the most important structural area of the boat (as well as creating a very large drag problem. See Performance)". Actually, they were/are right. It is very hard to attain a continuity of structure even over a moulded-in slot like the X has. There is no depth of floor (that's structural floor, not "sole") over the slot, leading to a weaker area transversely in that region.

Except you forget that the Mac26x has the inner water ballast tank structure which is a boat within a boat. There is so much structure at the centerboard trunk that this structure is used for one of two compression poles. Believe me there is no possibility of flexing on the centerline. I know that from liner cracks which were expected by the manufacturer to show after a few years. None on the important structural area. Furthermore, the only reason centerboards are on centerline is because of race rules. Seriously, designers and owners didn't care to put daggers and swing style centerboards on centerline because it was more expensive. Only race rules meant to slow down the introduction of retractable fins inticed designers to put them on center line. That is my conclusion. I mean seriously.

You say "Likely owing to dealer/distributor influence, MacGregor Yachts company added 300 lbs of solid ballast to the M in the form of resin in the water ballast tank and additional solid weight around the centerboard trunk. This is not unlike what fixed keel boat owners do when they find their vessel is a tippy cruiser. " When someone dicovers his keel boat is "tippy" ("Tender" would be the correct term for that, BTW), they add ballast as colse to the bottom of the keel as possible. Inside ballast is a waste of time for curing a tender boat, as it is too close to the CG to do any good. It does have its place, but that is not it.

Oh yes, I have been here before. Perhaps I can reword that. You may not be aware that Spray used concrete ballast. So did Oracle, the great tall ship that does the Swiftsure every year and is used for Canadian naval training, until just recently. What Perry questioned in his review of the TP52s and I now question is should the CG ever extend to a point outside of the hull? I am also stating that in the computer age, there is no reason, outside of a design flaw, that the boat should not float on her lines the first time she is spashed. For hundreds of years, bilge and external ballast and bowsprits have been viewed as corrections to the design. Case in point - look at the J100. No sprit. Computer Aided Design in her. I saw this Saturday. 110,000

You say "When the Max26x was introduced her design took advantage of a relatively unproven rigging invention that reduces or eliminates the need for weight on an external foil or inside the hull. " Actually, a roller-furling headsail does not do anything for or against needing ballast, or a fin for windward work. What you have said is akin to saying "Having cruise control reduces or eliminates the need for four wheels on a car", or vice versa, even.

I am chatting about reefing and furling. Reefing and furling have profound impacts on stability. But there is more that I didn't mention yet on the web site. Freeboard impacts stability as well. The more freeboard the more stable.

Well, I have had my fill of trying to read your website for a second time (yes, I did once read the whole thing), so I will leave it at that.

good points all of them. I will see how to clean it up.

I would like to say that my position here is not antagonistic, I jut happen to have been designing boats for 20 years, of all types, and have never read so much misinformation as appears on your site and in your posts to this forum.

Steve

Come on Steve, you are going to have to do better than that. Have you never read Boldger. Lets go over the myths Bolger first identified in a Wooden Boat article.

#1 - CENTERBOARDS COMPROMISE SEAWORTHINESS
#2 - THE LOWER THE FREEBOARD THE FASTER THE SAILBOAT
#3 - A FAST SAILBOAT CAN NOT ALSO MOTOR FAST.
#4 - OCEAN CRUISING SAILBOATS MUST BE LARGER THAN 60 FEET.
#5 - KEELED SAILBOATS ARE THE MOST SEAWORTHY OCEAN CRUISERS
#6 WATER BALLAST IS INFERIOR TO OTHER BALLAST
#7 A KEELED SAIL BOAT WILL POINT INTO THE WIND BETTER THAN A CENTER BOARDER
#8 A TALL RIDGED MAST IS BETTER THAN A SHORT BENDING MAST

These are the myths of those with 20 years of boat design experience. They have been in dispute for longer than that. But it is not surprising from a business man's perspective that those outside of the closed circle of the like minded can come up with so much better designs. Multihulls have shown us the way. Lets apply what they learned to monohulls. Do you not think this possible? 17MPH under sail. That is what the Manufacturer claims for the Mac26x.

woodboat

01-24-2005, 07:32 PM

They should have recreated the incident if the boat was truly rickety. The Lawyer should have filmed it and used it. I blame the lawyer for that.

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 07:44 PM

mighetto

01-24-2005, 07:59 PM

Hey I do reserve the right to change my mind. But lets close with the point by point. It is productive.

Quote: Originally Posted by Spaghetto
11-01-2004
Duty calls. .... I will not enjoy this, but what choice do I have? I must go forward with a sense of noblesse oblige.

Something wrong with that?

11-03-2004
It is my understanding that bringing the bulb weight closer to the hull makes the boat faster like bringing the arms of a twirling ice skater in makes the ice skater twirl faster. The better design is to just get rid of the weight on the fin and put it closer to or internal to the hull

Yes I stand by that statement. The notion that the lower the CB the better has to have a limit. At some point lowering the CB is counter productive. The ice skater twirl shows the physics. You can not get around the fact that faster airplanes put weight interntal to the body of the plane and not on the wings. Similarly, weight aloft on a sailboat is considered bad. The same is true for weight below, is suspect.

11-04-2004
My Mac26x is more worthy of an ocean crossing than Esmeralda [a TP52].

By the mathematics this can not be disputed. Esmeralda, the first TP52 we could find with numbers for ratio calulations failed the capsize risk screen and capsize risk ratio. No reputable dealer would broaker Esmeralda as an ocean crossing vessel. A dealer's reputation is unharmed by pointing out that the Mac26x is safe for all waters.

11-12-2004
Ballast is just weight, like {everthing else on the boat and} the hull itself.

Yes, true. Some folks think lead best but those are the same folks that get warm and fuzzy when they overpay. The replacement of concrete with lead in Oracle did nothing for the Canadian tax payers. It did nothing to improve the sailing characteristics of the boat either. Do you really disagree?

11-15-2004
If weight on a long thin foil really makes a boat go faster then why don't powerboats have weight on long thin foils?
if an ice skater wants to twerl faster she brings the weight of her arms in, she does not extend them. This internal ballast rule applies to everything that moves: cars, motorcycles, planes, power boats and yes - even sailboats. Internal ballast is just faster.
An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind ...

Nothing incorrect about that. What are you getting to? I write poorly? Ok perhaps it can be reworked.

12-01-2004
it appears that water ballast should not be pumped side to side but rather remain in both sides to improve windward performance in rough water and the ballast should be low in the boat, like twin keels

Why do you not want the extra momentum provided by full water ballast when in chop. You know that weight will carry you through.

12-02-2004
I spent most of my life power boating
In anycase the notion of pumping water from side to side as defining movable ballast ... is a new notion and an incorrect one when you realize that water ballasted vessels benefit by having ballast on both sides of the vessel owing to the stable forces similar to a twin keel vessel.

Thats an EXCELLENT statement! Nothing wrong there. The important movement (for winning races) is on and off the vessel.

12-16-2004
The wire, folks like to call a backstay, IMO is for motoring.

The dealer has confirmed this. There is enough backwards pointing on the spreaders to eliminate the backstay. However, I like the notion of controling at least the top fraction of my mast with a backstay and the added security of having it. Mine stays. I suppose you fellows convinced me.

12-20-2004
My Mac26x is more TransPacific than probably most of the TP52s.

Yes, she has the numbers for transpacific crossing and was built on the west coast of the US by folks that know about that. Plus we have this positive flotation thing going on. You just are never going to convince a lubber that a boat that can sink when flooded is better than one that can not. It takes the US Sailing trained to buy into that line of thinking :)

12-20-2004
Americas Cup rules prohibit hollows. This I understand is what prevents multihulls from competing because the space between the hulls is a big hollow. The effect of the hollow, is like that of the spoon. It lifts the hull from the water at speed.

Something wrong with that? Chapmans knows a thing about the spoon test. Do try it.

[And from another website ybw.com]
28/09/2004
The Mac26x is a serious ocean sailboat.
There is nothing in a monohull under 40 foot and under 180,000 US that compares.

Or 280,000 apparently. There are multihulls as fast with features like positive flotation but these do not pass the capsize risk ratio. There is a reason folks in the US move to powerboats from sail. The range of boats from 27 to 37 foot in monohull is crappy. This is because they can not be fast enough to take advantage of modern reporting. So you have a big jump in the acceptable if you stick with monohull. 26 and under (because they can be insured under your home owners insurance) that plane and then 40 foot and something like 200,000. Thats the economics as I see them.

The Church of FOYD is now closed.

But have fun at my expense without me. Hope to ckeck in tomorrow but I have to go to the dentist. It could be bad. Lost a filling. Take Care all

Frank.

D'ARTOIS

01-24-2005, 08:00 PM

Yes Woodboat, that should have been done. What surprises me is that the children were trapped in the cabin. And that nobody - apparently - from the party on the boat tried to get the kids out. I can only guess what happenend,
the cockpit had no more space for the children so they had to keep inside the cabin, the lifejackets hindering them to get out.
Strange also that no testimony of the accident is given.
Why I react so strongly on this is that of course first responsibility is with the captain/skipper (according to the law, not to the real situation) but if 8 adults are sitting on the sides of the hull the boat is as stable as a dinghy in the same situation. No begin stability to speak of and no end stability at all. Only the trapped air in the boat kept it from sinking, maybe helped by the double bottom tank that was empty. If that one had been full, the boat had sunk.
A very very sad accident indeed.

In any EEC certified boat the numbers of pax are predicted.

The French had this even before EEC regulations ordered.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 08:19 PM

Actually, the Thunderbirds's are hard chined boats and there are several other boats with hard chines that are raced under PHRF. There is no such restriction in PHRF. In fact PHRF is a "run what you brung" system and this would be counter to the principles of PHRF to not allow a design choice. This is just an outright fabrication on your part Mr. Mighetto.

You misread. I was chating about extra chines like are glued to the hulls of ski boats. They are verboten. We of course have a large fleet of T-birds in my sailing club. They love to pick on Mac26x cruisers. Lovely boats BTW.

Please post your insurance policy that allows you to travel the oceans wide. I suspect this is another outright fabrication. Also post your current policy I susect it also is less optimistic than you claim.

Now we are cooking. This is such an appropriate request that I will do it. Give me a day or two. But review http://www.foremost.com/products/family_boat/. Smaller is wonderful. Tbirds will qualify.

You slander people and as soon as someone actually cares or feels you have any influence in the marine industry you will be slapped with a lawsuit. The good and bad, no one takes you serious. It must be frustrating to know you are a joke, or maybe it is great because it is your one claim to fame. One thing I can tell you that slander will come back to haunt you as an expert witness in the future but it is your career to blow so have fun.

I dislike Jim Teeters for his roll in halting production of the most successful cruising sailboat of all time. I do not appologize. I am as kind as I can be and forgiving as well. But this man chose to support a drunk with a prior fellony conviction for reasons that I can say only look dirty. As a management consultant, I am paid to make such judgments. As a captain of a sailboat I have a right to defend the ride. You would do the same. He has never contacted me and I am told he doesn't even know my name. Let it remain that way.

I did check out the Sailing Anarchy site and it is clear on there you were forced to leave. You were banned from your home and work sites from posting for a period of time. As far as I can tell, to get banned from there you have to be an extreme idiot. They pretty much take anyone and any conduct.

This is untrue. Who has said so? I want an actual name so that I can talk about slander. The operators of Sailing Anarchy have never acused me of breaking any rules. Nor have they contacted me about being banned from the site. You are reading the rants of trophy children. Believe me. I choose not to post there because the site pretends to represent anarchists while it in fact represents advertisors - TP52 owners in particular, and probably was started specifically to hype TP52s. It bothers me greatly and I need not the agrevation. So unless you have specifics please lay off this line of posting. Or request that I post on Sailing Anarchy. But take responsibility for doing so. You may find yourself banned.

Skippy

01-24-2005, 08:20 PM

I object to Brien's implication that I have some how been excluded from Sailing Anarchy or any other forum. This is AFAICT not factual.I did check out the Sailing Anarchy site and it is clear on there you were forced to leave. You were banned from your home and work sites from posting for a period of time. As far as I can tell, to get banned from there you have to be an extreme idiot. They pretty much take anyone and any conduct."Frank? What the fuck are you doing back here?" (http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5413&st=50&#entry171883)I banned you, mostly because you didn't do what I asked you to do. So you think posting from your office is clever? Now your office is banned. That's what happens when you try to go around my back. Buh-bye.
Who killed Frank (http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9514&hl=)
Mighetto's new looney bin (http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5413&hl=)
"Getting the Brits knickers in a twist" (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/507378/page/10/fpart/3/vc/1)

amolitor

01-24-2005, 08:28 PM

If the Mac did 17 knots under sail in the real world, it would have a negative PHRF rating, not one in the 200s. Period. Get over it.

The skater analogy you keep using is ludicrous. Yeah, the skater bringing their arms in makes the spin faster. Rotating 90 degrees to make arms (horizontal) analagous to keels (vertical), the Mac should roll over faster. Which is does. Congratulations, you have proven your beloved boat to be prone to spinning over onto its side and throwin everyone in the water.

Obviously you're just a troll posting crazy shit to make people respond to you. If you're under the impression this is not painfully obvious, you should drop it. Of course, you won't, and will ramble on incoherently about it, but that's because you simply won't give up, because you're a sociopath. You lack the normal reaction to 'I am so busted, butt-naked in the snow and everyone knows it' which is to give up, go home, and go find some NEW PEOPLE to try to trick. No, you will keep trying to trick us into thinking you're not merely a troll, and we will continue to watch in wide-eyed wonder as you stand naked all the while insisting you are clothed.

Like all trolls, you thrive on attention, and die when starved of it. Eventually, we will tire of you, and starve you shall. Until then, I shall refute your points when it occurs to me, and mock you for your nakedness.

Cheers!

mighetto

01-24-2005, 08:30 PM

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 08:35 PM

Gee, I guess I didn't have to give names. I will be happy to forward an email to the editor to let him know you will be talking to him about slander.

You were chucked from Sailing Anarchy for your behaviour and according to the rules on here you should be chucked from here also.

Once again I did not misread your post. There is no such prohibition of chines in PHRF. Show me the proof otherwise once again you are deliberately stating a falsehood.

You are not a captain. Do not refer to yourself as such.

Since there is clear evidence to the fact that you were banned, maybe it is time for you to stop the lies. Everything you say is a lie. Not one thing that anyone has called you on has turned out to have any truth to it. As a management consultant you should hope the people who pay you don't ever do any due diligence on you. They will not like the results of a google search.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 08:41 PM

If the Mac did 17 knots under sail in the real world, it would have a negative PHRF rating, not one in the 200s. Period. Get over it.

Mine has a PHRF of 240. The cirtificate came in just recently. Here is the rating proplem. Unballasted the boat probably comes in with a PHRF of 130. I say this because of negotiations with my rater. That is rediculous. The rating tools clearly are off. The Mac26x is not a racer. She is a fast cruiser nonetheless. I know it is hard to believe. But I get her in double digits regularly. 17 MPH is well recognized as possible by owners. Check the MacGregor Yacht forums. You need not take my word on this. Others will state similarly.

The skater analogy you keep using is ludicrous. Yeah, the skater bringing their arms in makes the spin faster. Rotating 90 degrees to make arms (horizontal) analagous to keels (vertical), the Mac should roll over faster. Which is does. Congratulations, you have proven your beloved boat to be prone to spinning over onto its side and throwin everyone in the water.

You have it backwards. Bringing weight to the centerline will make the boat faster and less stable.

Obviously you're just a troll posting crazy shit to make people respond to you. If you're under the impression this is not painfully obvious, you should drop it. Of course, you won't, and will ramble on incoherently about it, but that's because you simply won't give up, because you're a sociopath. You lack the normal reaction to 'I am so busted, butt-naked in the snow and everyone knows it' which is to give up, go home, and go find some NEW PEOPLE to try to trick. No, you will keep trying to trick us into thinking you're not merely a troll, and we will continue to watch in wide-eyed wonder as you stand naked all the while insisting you are clothed.

I think myself the child who sees that the king has no cloths. Those in the circle were trained not to see the obvious. The weaver made out like a bandit. All that invisible cloth. All that lead. It is the exact same thing.

Like all trolls, you thrive on attention, and die when starved of it. Eventually, we will tire of you, and starve you shall. Until then, I shall refute your points when it occurs to me, and mock you for your nakedness.

Cheers!

Eventually you will forget me. Then you will have an idea. You will think it came out of no place; then you will be ready for a revolutionary design, like the Mac26x. Or, you will wonder like the fellow at the boat show on Saturday, why your son views the Mac26x in wonder and auw, even as you complain of the indignity because everyone knows the X is not a real sail boat.

I do this for fun. I hope to also learn about boat design. Sorry you see me as a troll. There is a long history of me on the net. The boat is still relatively unknown. I never tire of bragging about them. But you can always read the cruising log.

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 08:42 PM

Thanks Skippy (I Think.) It looks like some hacker has cut the entire subnet for the state governement offices operating out of Olympia from Sailing Anarchy. You think I had something to do with that? Wow. I am Seattle based. More likely this is related to the nude photos that were common on the site. The State of Washinton routinely filters out such sites. Probably has nothing to do with me. I will check from my home office. How very interesting.

This is a falsehood yet again. If you are in Seattle then why do you have to wait to check when you get to your home office? Oh wait thats right you are working in Olympia. Of all the things you have said this is the one that makes you look the most delusional. You may need some professional help as it seems you have problem far beyond the Mac26 or Jim Teeters. Seek help.

And thanks for the skater analogy to prove just how fast the water ballasted Mac26 will roll over. Especially if you pull the centerboard up and move the CG even closer pulling those arms in a little tighter. Maybe you should have been the expert witness in the trail. That analogy would have clearly showed the design weakness of the Mac26x.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 08:49 PM

This is a falsehood yet again. If you are in Seattle then why do you have to wait to check when you get to your home office? Oh wait thats right you are working in Olympia. Of all the things you have said this is the one that makes you look the most delusional. You may need some professional help as it seems you have problem far beyond the Mac26 or Jim Teeters. Seek help.

And thanks for the skater analogy to prove just how fast the water ballasted Mac26 will roll over. Especially if you pull the centerboard up and move the CG even closer pulling those arms in a little tighter. Maybe you should have been the expert witness in the trail. That analogy would have clearly showed the design weakness of the Mac26x.

I am currently in Olympia. That should be obvious. I will be in Seattle and at the dentist. Have fun chewing on my stuff and lighten up.

mighetto

01-24-2005, 08:54 PM

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 09:05 PM

Telling lies on the Internet may be fun to you but it is not useful nor fun for the rest of us that actually care to learn something.

Maybe it is time for you to step away as you have nothing of substance to offer here.

SailDesign

01-24-2005, 09:11 PM

Frankie, Babie.... "Of course you have to be technically correct. The stability curves of a keel boat and of a twin keel boat are going to be different. In fact the water ballasted represented in the Mac26x has BETTER stability curves IMO. But of course I need the manufacturer to help me generate those curves."

If the Mac26X has a point of vanishing stability of 90 degrees or more, I would be VERY surprised. If you tip it upside down (that's with its centreboard pointing straight up, if it will stay there instead of falling back into its slot) will it turn itself back upright again? If you touch its masthead to the water, will it come back up from that? I would be surprised.
Almost every fin-keeled racing yacht out there will, with the possible exception of an older style of Swan 50-something which has - you guessed it! - a centreboard instead of a fin keel. PLEASE do yourself a favour and read up a bit on what makes a sailing boat stay upright, which is the same thing that gives it power, and that thing is righting moment. Think of the fin keel, and the ballast in it, as the person on the other end of the seesaw, and yourself as the wind in the sails. If the other person moves close to the pivot (like putting all your ballast inside the boat) then you will hit the ground hard (capsizing), when you are both at the same distance (or have the same moment relative to the pivot), then everything is balanced.
Just think about it....

If you do not know what is meant by the word "moment" in this context, then you should not open your mouth about stability until you have proved that you understand the concept. Really.

Steve

frankofile

01-24-2005, 09:27 PM

sorenfdk

01-24-2005, 09:42 PM

If the Mac did 17 knots under sail in the real world, it would have a negative PHRF rating, not one in the 200s. Period. Get over it.

According to Frank, the Mac doesn't do 17 knots . It does 17 MPH . In this case "MPH" stands for "Meters per hour".

FranksaDork

01-24-2005, 10:11 PM

Thanks Skippy (I Think.) It looks like some hacker has cut the entire subnet for the state governement offices operating out of Olympia from Sailing Anarchy. You think I had something to do with that? Wow. I am Seattle based. More likely this is related to the nude photos that were common on the site. The State of Washinton routinely filters out such sites. Probably has nothing to do with me. I will check from my home office. How very interesting.

Sorry big guy. You were banned for being an idiot.

SA is not filtered by DIS. This I know for a fact.

Edit: Sorry. I hate people that use acronyms. Don't want to be one of them.

SA = Sailing Anarchy (where franko was banned)
DIS = Department of Information Services (the state agency that controls most of the state of Washington network services. One of the most secure network around short of the Internal Revenue Service and the network Franko thinks was hacked.)

pkoken

01-24-2005, 10:15 PM

This thread just keeps getting better....

skinny boy

01-24-2005, 10:15 PM

[QUOTE=mighetto]If the Mac did 17 knots under sail in the real world, it would have a negative PHRF rating, not one in the 200s. Period. Get over it.

Mine has a PHRF of 240. The cirtificate came in just recently. Here is the rating proplem. Unballasted the boat probably comes in with a PHRF of 130. I say this because of negotiations with my rater. That is rediculous. The rating tools clearly are off. The Mac26x is not a racer. [QUOTE]

Prove you rater has ever said the Mac26 would be close to 130. What is your rater's name? Besides a 130 rating is a very average rating for displacement NON-planing keelboats. None of the boats rated at 130 will do 15 knots planing. So even if the tools are off they still rate your boat just like an old lead mine. Must be nice to have a revolutionary boat with such a gift rating that any moron who only needs to know how to raise the sails and point the boat towards the mark could win with. How have you done racing? You should be just cleaning up, if the boat is anything except a dog, with a rating of 240 and regularly doing double digits. A J-24 rates 168 and doesn't do double digits regularly. You should be killing those guys. There is nothing wrong with the tools for rating no matter which way you slice it the tools are calling the boat SLOW. The Melges 24 a smaller boat than yours with only a fixed keel and no water ballast rates 75. Do show us just how fast this Mac26 is post your race results.

FranksaDork

01-24-2005, 10:18 PM

Do show us just how fast this Mac26 is post your race results.

That's funny.

He's never done anything except come in dead last (except one time when a boat in his fleet dropped out). With a gift rating like he thinks he has, he should have done better don't ya think?

mistral

01-25-2005, 03:00 AM

SailDesign

01-25-2005, 12:20 PM

mighetto

01-25-2005, 01:55 PM

Frank says: "The notion that the lower the CB the better has to have a limit. At some point lowering the CB is counter productive. "

I'm going to take that one statement of yours, Frank, and show you how stupid it is.

The CB of a boat SHOULD be as close to the waterline as it can be. Of course, this is because the CB is the Centre of BUOYANCY, not Gravity. The C_G_ (Centre of Gravity) should be as low as possible, although you can create an excessively stiff boat that way, but it will have beautiful RM curves.
You see, Frank, you are not paying attention at all, and are using terms and acronyms that you do not understand, to describe conditions that you do not understand.
One day, someone is actually going to listen to your "put the ballast as high as possible" lines, and (at the least) lose their boat, and I hope they come looking for you with the bggest frikkin' lawyer they can find.

Over and out.

Steve

CB? did I say CB? Well good catch Steve. Over. :) Of course I am was chatting about CG. Pardon me for getting hot and bothered yesterday from all of the flame. One day, has come. I am listened to more than I should be. So here is the disclaimer. A sailor will always get his information from more than one source.

Now we need to discuss more about "stiffness". A boat with a long thin fin with a bulb on the end does appear to be able to have a CG at the same place as the identical boat with a shorter fin but a heavier bulb. I am concluding that the major advantage of the long fin then is the ability of the identical boat to carry less weight. In other words the short fin heavier bulb vessel can have identical stability curves as the long fin less heavier bulb keel.

I will not allow you to stop me from going further with the analysis because I am so confident that it is correct (which likely means it isn't :) ) I see this so very clearly. There isn't even any fog. Here it goes. I am serious.

Given one can get the same stability curve on the same hull regardless of fin length just by adding weight to reach the same CG, and given the obvious problems with long fins in regards to touching down and prohibition of use from most all weather harbors, in the absence of an artificial racing design rule, you are better off putting the weight into the hull structure rather than on the fin. At the limit, all the weight can be moved off the fin and put into the hull except in the rare situation where the CG is below the hull.

Now the question is. Does having the CG below the hull provide any speed advantage?

I can not open the Church today owing to pressing business. Furthermore, we have determined that it is best for me to limit postings to a few per week. The aggrivation is to much for this old man and youngsters just can't handle the truth. So please someone else take the ball and run with it. The implications are so huge for design with the above clarity. For example why not put an engine as part of the hull structure and eliminate weight from the fin to get the same stability curves. Or why bother with a canter, why not just a retractable. Or why even have a weighted fin at all, why not a centerboard.

The above is so profound that it is like the uniform theory of boat design. String theory. It explains the rational for lighter and lighter deck structures, why Cal 40s with their thicker than needed hulls perform so well, an why some boats do not benefit from lighter rigging. Stability really is everthing and the above explains it. What is wanted by a sailor is to use a (egad) Jim Taylor term, is Variable Stability. Only I doubt he sees that as I do. To me it means you want less stability in under 7 MPH winds (sorry folks this is how it is reported - not knots) In over 7 MPH you want more. The way you get it, regardless of design is via weight. More crew, more gear, more water ballast or weight distribution, more weighted fin length with same weight on fin, or less weight aloft - ie less sail.

Sincerely Frank.

mighetto

01-25-2005, 03:01 PM

The stability curves of a keel boat and of a twin keel boat are going to be different. In fact the water ballast represented in the Mac26x has BETTER stability curves IMO. But of course I need the manufacturer to help me generate those curves.

Steve.

Of course you have to be technically correct. If the Mac26X has a point of vanishing stability of 90 degrees or more, I would be VERY surprised.

She does. Roger MacGregor is on record with Practical Sailor as stating that the boat has 115 stability. But what does that mean on a centerboarder? What does it mean on any boat really. Once you add crew and gear you change the vanishing stability. You can make it better or worse.

If you tip it upside down (that's with its centreboard pointing straight up, if it will stay there instead of falling back into its slot) will it turn itself back upright again?

This test was required prior to allowing export of the Mac26x to Europe. The story I have been told, but can not confirm because I wasn't there, was that the testers would not allow the boat to be turned directly upside down with the water ballast full. MacGregor Yachts, desired to pass this test, and had anticipated that it would be allowed to fill the water ballast for the testing. The MacGregor Yachts legals were sharping their pens for action when Roger said: "well test her dry". She righted herself unassisted.

If you touch its masthead to the water, will it come back up from that? I would be surprised.

Watch the video or read the brochure. The vessel comes right back, ballasted or unballasted. In fact we are forgoing divers for bottom work, prior to racing now, and draw down the boat to her side for bottom scrubbing. This was recommended in the owners manual. The only trick is to use the jib and not main haulyard. However, I do carry an extra 300 lbs of gear stowed low in the boat. The M has 300 lbs of solid ballast and it made sense to me.

Almost every fin-keeled racing yacht out there will, with the possible exception of an older style of Swan 50-something which has - you guessed it! - a centreboard instead of a fin keel. PLEASE do yourself a favour and read up a bit on what makes a sailing boat stay upright, which is the same thing that gives it power, and that thing is righting moment. Think of the fin keel, and the ballast in it, as the person on the other end of the seesaw, and yourself as the wind in the sails. If the other person moves close to the pivot (like putting all your ballast inside the boat) then you will hit the ground hard (capsizing), when you are both at the same distance (or have the same moment relative to the pivot), then everything is balanced.
Just think about it....

I think mostly about what makes any boat stay upright. The notion of a fixed fin in the water stopped making sense to me when I learned that the canters do not get lateral resistance from the keel fin. They rely on forward rudders instead.

If you do not know what is meant by the word "moment" in this context, then you should not open your mouth about stability until you have proved that you understand the concept. Really.

Steve

I know that all boats can capsize in sufficient sea, regardless of righting moment. I also know that lubbers added several tons of led pellets to perfectly well designed sailboats because they didn't like the feel of the sea. I also know that a "tender" boat is made less so by reducing sail and that roller furling is the greatest sailing invention of the modern age. Steve, it doesn't take lessons of "moment" to ride a bike. Neither does it take such lessons for sailing. Are you really saying otherwise? I suspect the undersanding of "moment" is something every human has since learning to walk. That doesn't mean we are able to articulate it. But I will try later. I do appreciate the comments.

mighetto

01-25-2005, 04:10 PM

Frank, let's try to keep our roles here clearly in mind, shall we? YOU are the idiot, I am the bemused observer. If you think you're going to drag me into a point by point discussion, you are sadly mistaken. The ridiculous and stupid things you say are self-evident. And you have been corrected so many times about the wrong things that it's like a broken record.

Here is a question for you though: During your recent vacation in the Galapagos Islands, how many of the Transpacific capable Mac26X's did you see bobbing around at anchor (skittering like a trimaran...) or cruising among the islands? With 5000 of them afloat, and with the admirable ocean crossing characteristics you rave about, there were surely at least one or two. And don't tell me you didn't look for them.
Yes I have just returned from the Galapagos where I learned that for legal fishing on the Islands you MUST have a vessel under 30 foot? How about that. I was also asked to sail a 34 footer from the Galapagos to Seattle and on to San Diego when it was discovered that I was a sailor. I did not have a chance to view the 34 footer or look for Mac26x cruisers but my wife did view the conditions favorable for Mac26x sailing. The small fishing boats supported that conclusion. We cruised exposed to the trade winds. 300 nautical miles. All 12 of us on Samba were sailors and the Samba, a Holand built motor sailer, had the rag bagged for the head sail but I do not think the crew knew how to use it. At one point we volunteered but the Capatain was concerned. In these maters you defer to that captain. So alas not a sail was raised.

One observation, even at anchor Samba rocked a minimum of 5 degrees. A smaller vessel probably would rock less. The Mac26x really would have performed well there. Rules require that to add a vessel to the island fleet you must remove a vessel with similar carrying capacity. You can not land a panga (dinghy) without a licensed naturalist aboard, so I do not think it productive to plan a Mac26x voyage or any voyage for that mater to the Galapagos. This is a place best cruised by charter.

The Book Sailing for Idiots is oriented to keel boaters. Think about that.

frankofile

01-25-2005, 04:11 PM

Now we need to discuss more about "stiffness". A boat with a long thin fin with a bulb on the end does appear to be able to have a CG at the same place as the identical boat with a shorter fin but a heavier bulb. I am concluding that the major advantage of the long fin then is the ability of the identical boat to carry less weight. In other words the short fin heavier bulb vessel can have identical stability curves as the long fin less heavier bulb keel.
Wow! It looks like our little Frankie is finally getting it!
Given one can get the same stability curve on the same hull regardless of fin length just by adding weight to reach the same CG, and given the obvious problems with long fins in regards to touching down and prohibition of use from most all weather harbors, in the absence of an artificial racing design rule, you are better off putting the weight into the hull structure rather than on the fin. At the limit, all the weight can be moved off the fin and put into the hull except in the rare situation where the CG is below the hull.

Now the question is. Does having the CG below the hull provide any speed advantage?
Nevermind...
I think mostly about what makes any boat stay upright. The notion of a fixed fin in the water stopped making sense to me when I learned that the canters do not get lateral resistance from the keel fin. They rely on forward rudders instead.
Same deluded Frank afterall.

mighetto

01-25-2005, 04:22 PM

Wow! It looks like our little Frankie is finally getting it!Nevermind...
Same deluded Frank afterall.

You know between me and my "files", there is at least one feeble mind. :)

mighetto

01-25-2005, 04:59 PM

D'ARTOIS,

I object further to a number of points Mr Mighetto: That continuously snapping at designers in general - there are good ones and there are lesser good ones, just like in any other profession.

One mark of a profession is that usually a license is required. We do not have that with boat designers and likely not with NAs. Sometimes you might say that in the absence of a license at least a degree is evident as a requirement but unfortunately even that does not hold true because many racers become designers and the most successful often do not hold licenses or degrees. The most important defining characteristic of a profession is that members of the profession are willing to speak out against those practicing that are doing wrong. Only Taylor, an NA out of Michigan, spoke against the popular Jim Teeters. He stated in really an unqualified endorsement of the vessel that the Mac26x can be operated safely. I assume he did the stability calculations and if they were filed, they will be available for public review eventually. Taylor likely is a profesional. Perry I put in that class. You are right there are some, but there is much work to be done. Management is more of a profession than boat design is.

A second issue is the fact that this poor Mr Martin is put for 10 years in jail next to the fine and communal work he has to perform.

How can anyone defend such a man? He had a fellony conviction prior to the disaster. BTW, his legals have set up an argument for appeal. It involves vertigo. The defense, which is not uncomon in drunken cases, is that Martin's slurred speech is explained as well as the oposite reaction than a sober man would make to an incident, by a medical condition.

If you had said, I know that the 26x is a rickety, unstable vessel, and that it might quite possible that whilst powering and being overloaded, a sudden movement had tipped the boat. Eight adults, three children, no testimonies in the press of what had caused the tipping over. Overloaded may be with overweight people on a rickety boat, the accused Mr Martin must have had really the public opinion against him. Not a very good lawyer did he have as well.

The owners manuals and warning placards had been removed from the boat by the time police could investigate. "Very good lawyers" are known for that kind of thing. Martin appears to have learned at the cost of two lives. Designers have a chance to learn about a revolutionary design. I was dissapointed in the judge because she wavered on the 10 year sentence, going with 6 instead. This sends the message that in any drunk case you can at least reduce the sentence by dragging the manufacturer into the case. No I think Martin had very very good lawyers because two deaths is two more felonies in my book and in the US three felonies usually means life in prison without parol.

In such a circumstance you do not say......Anarchy.com is expecting......
.......and I have to come out smelling like roses......

Only a fool can not see that I have a following. I am just one of many thinking thoughts that those who pretend to be professionals would prefer not to have expressed vocally. Yet only through such expression will any good come.

This is a very, very sad occasion and Mr Martin is definately not the only one to blame. I sincerely wish you will refrain from expressing any further nonsense explanation about stability and related topics. The sample of Mr Martin's accident is absolutely not the right one

Martin and any drunk operator of a boat or car do not deserve the courtesy of shared blame. I agree that few things are black and white - except when they are written down. Martin will do his time. He is lucky that the judge will allow the US population to forgive him at completion of his debt. We are obliged to forgive him at that time. But the colateral damage - the halt of production of the Mac26x and the continued disinformation tracable to Jim Teeters and the Top Down approach used until recently at US Sailing has not been dealt with. Hopefully Taylor's review of the stability characteristics of the Mac26x was submitted to the courts in writing. The GP RWP did much to support the design as well. I sincerely wish that you could see how I have come to expressing stability and related topics in relation to the Mac26x. The arguments supporting Jim Teeters when they should be supporting Taylor just boggles my mind. Where does Teeter's get all his support from? Folks should be cutting off all ties to the fellow. His career ended with the end of the TP52.

Andy P

01-25-2005, 05:22 PM

Oh No !
the mac 26 is getting everywhere!

on a tv ad for air canada shown on ch 4 last night in UK..... in no wind with what look like v small sails.

SailDesign

01-25-2005, 05:25 PM

Frankie says: "I also know that a "tender" boat is made less so by reducing sail "

I was going to reply to this one, but honestly cannot bring myself to reply to such a blatant ignoramus, especially one who refuses to learn.

Frank, I may not have a "license", but I spent 3 years at college studying yacht design at th Southampton College in England, and have spent 20 years designing since, including commercial vessels and round-the-world racing yachts. If you think you know what makes a yacht work better than I do, then good luck. You are now the first and only person in my "Ignore" list on this site.

Have a nice life.

mighetto

01-25-2005, 06:13 PM

skinny boy

woodboat, very good question as to why 216. Some of the answer I suspect is in observations you made about the bpat already. For one it is tender, the sail area on it is pretty small but standards.

The Mac26x was given a 216 PHRF in what I have come to believe was a punitive action after the Newport Ensenada race where Mac26x Lady Katy Too! sailed in the cruising class to victory. Cruising class allowed some motoring at that time and it is my belief that her operator used the motor to reach plane in less than planing conditions, then shut the engine down, gaining significant advantage. The MacGregor Yachts company treated this event as it had been intended - a fun race, but I think serious racers were very upset, still are. On tender...

A tender boat will stagger in gusts. This is not the behavior of the Mac26x. Part of the explanation for why the uninitiated say a boat is tender is that they have never observed one sailing in gusts. The use of flexible rigging, that acts like a spring in gusts to keep the boat on her feet is often not considered by those overusing the word tender. A boat with hard side chines like a Thunderbird or the Mac26x and a boat with a flat bottom, like the Mac26x and several planing sailboats are not usually described as tender. This is because at rest they are far more stable than a rounded hull, the stability coming from the flat portion of the hull. These boats harden up when heeling with the hard side chine contributing to keeping the vessel from crabbing. IE the chine provides lateral resistance as well as the fins.

The generally accepted SA/D for a sportboat that would easily plane AND have the horsepower to plane under sail is >30 upwind and >75 downwind. The boat has an upwind SA/D of 19. Even adding a spinnaker downwind runs the SA/D downwind to only optimistically about 40. This puts its sailing horsepower in the same category as most traditional designs and one would not expect it to plane under sail very often.

What the? See the calculator on http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm. These boats can be expected to plane and do in normal wind fully ballasted. The same is true for the M. The math shows that both vessels are capable of breaking from displacement speed and reaching a true plane with the standard jibs. This is indicated by the displacement/length ratio being under 150. The X is significantly better at planing; her D/L is 137.59 vs the M's at 145.61. It probably will take abnormally strong wind (20 knots perhaps) for the M to plane fully ballasted where that potential in the X is evident in 12 knot winds, perhaps less depending on the point of sail. The X has a planing Dribbly style hull form. The M has more of a traditional rounded River sailboat form. But so what. Almost all of the US Sailing accredited schools teach you not to plane. This is my frustration with the training you get at US Sailing schools. Furthermore almost all of the buoy courses are purposefully designed so one can not plan in normal wind.

Now I blow you away. Rerun the calculations without the water ballast or with the Genoa. Suddenly you have Melges class.

Next you have the actually hull form, the foils are not exactly lifting so the weather performance of the boat is not likely to be any better than most other trailerables and will have substantial leeway which will in turn result in a higher rating.

The rear foils most certainly are lifting foils on the Mac26x. There is substantial hardware involved. Hardware that after a few years of experience was significantly enhanced. This is not the case on the Mac26m. The M has rudder hardware more similar to the Mac19. It is less advanced in my view owing to that and the builder will tell you that where the X is meant for planing, the M is meant for short durations of planing, called surfing. You see that in the rudders. I will add some photos to the log. Anyway the hull form provides lateral resistance as well as the rudders. You can lift a rudder, as the manufacturer instructs and in most cases there will be no additional leeway. The over 17 MPH and under 3 MPH conditions are the exception. Here you do notice leeway. Sometimes you want that to make a mark. The forward foil is self gybing. This is why the Mac26x points better than any trailerable. (well at the time of the brouchure printing anyway) Perhaps a beter pointing boat has been developed since 1999. It is not the M.

Combining this and other small details such as seakeeping and the fact that the manufacturer doesn't want people out of the cockpit meaning no hiking to increase righting moment results in a generally slow performing boat.

The manufacturer definately tried to come up with a design where hiking out was not necessary. But with this specific X model, there is an unusual midship rail seat. The stanchions at the mid seat rail put your butt out there. Of course you can hang your rear outside any life line as well and I have seen Mac26x crews doing so. Hiking out is not allowed on many race courses. But certainly the Hobie Catters might rig something on an X and this is rumored to have been done. It is not necessary or advised. The boat planes in normal wind anyway.

When you put it in waves it compounds that upwind as the entry is quite broad and will tend to pound and due to weight will slow.

Acually there is a fine initial entry on the Mac26x bow. However there is a powerboat belly forward of midship. I tend to agree that this boat is stopped dead by a wave. We work around it by weaving through them, as do many sailboats. Only the heavy cruisers can crash through waves with little momentum impact.

The lack of sail power will then make it slow to accelerate after being slowed by a wave.

Power out of a tack is not a problem, though the broad buttocks is. Power after being slowed by a wave comes from the rig. This is acting like a big spring. Here we try to use gusts to advantage and fall off. There is no way that a Mac26x can beat a WinLee boat on a close reach by following the same course. One possibility is to pretend the boat is a multi-hull and sail the course more as a multihull would. IE more tacks to the mark but at planing speeds. The other way is down wind. We are allowed to move the water ballast off the boat and it is not needed for down wind work. Obviously, the design is not well suited for windward/leeward buoy work - except that the ability to drop ballast on down wind runs coupled with eventual relaxation of the rule preventing foil retraction will eventually make the boats competitive on the longer windward leward courses. Dropping ballast in PHRF NW races is already allowed. The canters will eventually give centerboarders the oportunity to remove the board retraction restriction. When that happens, we will get the same number of tacks up wind as a WinLee boat by sailining longer tacks into shallower water than the fixed fin boats can handle.

Why Mighetto defends it could be buyer's remorse or could be just having a good go at stirring a bunch of people up by posting ridiculous claims, not unheard of on the Internet for sure, or maybe he is just delusional if you read the threads he has been into you find he has no real experience and doesn't even have experience on this boat in a wide range of conditions and speaks always hypothetically as he has not done anything that he speaks about. He also seems to have a fetish for certain people on the east coast which I am not sure what that is all about.

I have a sailing resume stronger than most and certainly more experience in a water ballasted machine than most. The east coast is the least coast for sailors. My frustration with them has been some what eased by the great work the NYYC has recently done regarding centerboarders and IMS. The biggest gripe I have is the notion that bulbed fin fixed keels represent more than a recent and failed experiment in boat design. Nothing in history supports that and as of yet no NA or boat designer has been able to articulate anything good about them. Yet we still see new models rolling out with the sexy? testicle design

I do hope we got through our differences, I was actually trying to be helpful to you and maybe I was not as descriptive as necessary in the first two posts, but did think I was answering your questions. I hope this helps.

The helpful chat - even flame. The bashfull hang back or email me at mighetto@eskimo.com.

mighetto

01-25-2005, 06:26 PM

mighetto

01-25-2005, 06:31 PM

Oh No !
the mac 26 is getting everywhere!

on a tv ad for air canada shown on ch 4 last night in UK..... in no wind with what look like v small sails.

The Mac26x is featured in the film Tease. Suzan Arquet? does a fine job in the film which is available in video now. Kind of a dark film. A fellow is murdered by the teenage Tease who uses the mac26x boom to wack the captain to his death as he is piloting. Only the boom doesn't extend to the helm area on the Mac26x. Nonetheless nice sailing shots. Got to run. Have fun all - even at my expense if you must. But please the ride deserves some respect.

DGreenwood

01-25-2005, 06:43 PM

I have a sailing resume stronger than most and certainly more experience in a water ballasted machine than most. The east coast is the least coast for sailors. My frustration with them has been some what eased by the great work the NYYC has recently done regarding centerboarders and IMS. The biggest gripe I have is the notion that bulbed fin fixed keels represent more than a recent and failed experiment in boat design. Nothing in history supports that and as of yet no NA or boat designer has been able to articulate anything good about them. Yet we still see new models rolling out with the sexy? testicle design

OK Frank I can't freaking take it any more !! Why don't you tell the good people of this forum what your experience really is. No dodges, no bullshit, no garbage about other experiences applying to sailing, just give us a real number of miles or days or years or any other form of measure that most of us can recognize.
If you can't do that then just shut the **** up!!
You can't ---You won't--because you know you are full of it right up to your eyebrows Period.

Skippy

01-25-2005, 07:25 PM

The skater analogy you keep using is ludicrous. Yeah, the skater bringing their arms in makes the spin faster. Rotating 90 degrees to make arms (horizontal) analagous to keels (vertical), the Mac should roll over faster. Which is does. Congratulations, you have proven your beloved boat to be prone to spinning over onto its side and throwin everyone in the water.
Obviously you're just a troll posting crazy shit to make people respond to you.amolitor, I know I've taken a little while to respond to that post, but it's brilliant! Thank you for providing us with your insight. It never even occured to me. I was trying to figure out how the boat would actually GO faster (silly me!) while it was spinning around, capsizing and then the sail coming up on the other side. Or maybe twirling around its keel, with the stern coming up forward and crossing in front of the wind. It just didn't make sense. :confused: Thanks so much for clearing that up. It's nice to know so many of us are helping to make this a wonderful, informative forum.

frankofile

01-25-2005, 07:41 PM

The Mac26x was given a 216 PHRF in what I have come to believe was a punitive action after the Newport Ensenada race where Mac26x Lady Katy Too! sailed in the cruising class to victory.
Frank, are you really this stupid, or are you playing again? 216 is a very high rating for a boat that planes easily and sails 17mph. If your performance claims were true, you'd win every race with a rating like that. Are you saying that your handicap should be higher than 216?!?! Do you even know how PHRF rating system works? You sure don't seem too.

What the? See the calculator on http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm. These boats can be expected to plane and do in normal wind fully ballasted. The same is true for the M. The math shows that both vessels are capable of breaking from displacement speed and reaching a true plane with the standard jibs. This is indicated by the displacement/length ratio being under 150. The X is significantly better at planing; her D/L is 137.59 vs the M's at 145.61. It probably will take abnormally strong wind (20 knots perhaps) for the M to plane fully ballasted where that potential in the X is evident in 12 knot winds, perhaps less depending on the point of sail. The X has a planing Dribbly style hull form. The M has more of a traditional rounded River sailboat form. But so what. Almost all of the US Sailing accredited schools teach you not to plane. This is my frustration with the training you get at US Sailing schools. Furthermore almost all of the buoy courses are purposefully designed so one can not plan in normal wind.
Show the photo Frank! The one you used on SA to prove that your boat planes. That'll do the trick.

skinny boy

01-26-2005, 02:22 AM

If you touch its masthead to the water, will it come back up from that? I would be surprised.

Watch the video or read the brochure. The vessel comes right back, ballasted or unballasted. In fact we are forgoing divers for bottom work, prior to racing now, and draw down the boat to her side for bottom scrubbing. This was recommended in the owners manual. The only trick is to use the jib and not main haulyard. However, I do carry an extra 300 lbs of gear stowed low in the boat. The M has 300 lbs of solid ballast and it made sense to me.

Here is a picture of the "self-righting" capability of this boat. If it comes back up right then this accident would have never happened. You are of the lowest lifeform to continue to lie and slander people, even someone so irresponsible as to drink and operate a piece of trash boat. His biggest mistake was operating an unsafe boat and he will pay for that for 10 years. You need to stop the lies. You say it is all in fun. It isn't fun and I wonder if your employer knows you are using their assets to do this. Maybe a simple abuse complaint to the network admin will see how they feel about your use of government resources.

Funny to hear a "consultant" talk about a profession not requiring licensing. What is your certification number? You must be a certified consultant.

What the? See the calculator on http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm. These boats can be expected to plane and do in normal wind fully ballasted. The same is true for the M. The math shows that both vessels are capable of breaking from displacement speed and reaching a true plane with the standard jibs. This is indicated by the displacement/length ratio being under 150. The X is significantly better at planing; her D/L is 137.59 vs the M's at 145.61. It probably will take abnormally strong wind (20 knots perhaps) for the M to plane fully ballasted where that potential in the X is evident in 12 knot winds, perhaps less depending on the point of sail. The X has a planing Dribbly style hull form. The M has more of a traditional rounded River sailboat form. But so what. Almost all of the US Sailing accredited schools teach you not to plane. This is my frustration with the training you get at US Sailing schools. Furthermore almost all of the buoy courses are purposefully designed so one can not plan in normal wind.

Now I blow you away. Rerun the calculations without the water ballast or with the Genoa. Suddenly you have Melges class.

D/L does not indicate any such wind range in which a boat will plane. It is not capable to calculating that you are simply lying. If you had a Melges class you would have a rating like a Melges but you don't, why because "you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig". There is NO planing sailboat with a rating over 200. However there is a Mac26 with a rating over 200. Therefore there is no planing Mac26 without the use of an engine.

You punitive rating theory about a race where the boats in the cruising class (not eligible for the race overall awards) are allowed to use engines in order to make sure they can make the post race party is actually laughable and fun to read. No one gives a flip about a boat that runs its engine for all but 20 miles of a course. It is not even a competitor in the sailboat race it is a cruiser rally.

I have a sailing resume stronger than most and certainly more experience in a water ballasted machine than most.

Again with the lies. You have entered less than a dozen races and have yet to place despite the fact you have such a planing boat and a pig slow rating. You have no blue water experience. You have no distance experience under sail. You have no sailing resume.

The reason the captain of the motorsailer didn't want to raise the sails is owing, I suspect, to having one look at you and realizing that it would endanger the boat to allow you to touch anything.

D'ARTOIS

01-26-2005, 06:33 AM

If it is a fact that the present production of the McGregor 26 alfabet is arrested, then it might have a solid reason for it.

Mighetto states that the boat should have ballasted when boarding with 11 persons.

Why? - The boat was matter of factly not sailing at the time of the unfortunate accident. You do not add waterballast to an already overloaded boat do you?

If i'll find a boat here in Holland with warning stickers/plaquards beyond the no smoking sign, such as is apparently the case with the Mc26 alfabet, I will redirect that particular boat to the scrapyard being unsafe at any operation.

With it's 50 Hp outboard it is a sportscruiser, outboard propelled blown up dinghy, no more than that. With such parameters you might capsize your overloaded boat in a sharp turn - as happened in this fatal accident.

Fatal accidents happen when a cumulation of small accidents - events - are piling up in a matter of seconds.
A rickety boat to start with, questionable design, unable operator, overloaded boat, drunk people on board, children trapped in the cabin and more to add.

Grace to its empty ballast-tank, the boat was still floating, however - the cause of the death of the two children is buried in the fact that the remaining persons on board failed to rescue the trapped children, save for one.
And, the clumsy move of the operator, to put the boat in a sharp turn, threw
the people overboard and did capsize the boat or at least did it turn over, throwing or jettonising the crew overboard.
In spite of all this, the act of putting this boat in a sharp turn did capsize it.

If the guy was not drunk and he had to make the same movement in order to avoid a collission with a floating object what then?

The result is nevertheless the same. Because the boat could not sustain a sudden change of direction wthout capsizing. Not at the operation speed anyway.

Is it therefore questionable to give such a vehicle the red flag?

sorenfdk

01-26-2005, 07:17 AM

Here is a picture of the "self-righting" capability of this boat. If it comes back up right then this accident would have never happened. You are of the lowest lifeform to continue to lie and slander people...
Thanks for bringing this picture. I was also wondering how Frank would explain this, but as I'm not chatting with him any more, I'm glad someone else brought it up.

You must be a certified consultant.
He's certainly certified...

The reason the captain of the motorsailer didn't want to raise the sails is owing, I suspect, to having one look at you and realizing that it would endanger the boat to allow you to touch anything.
Or maybe the captain knows Frank from forums like this...

Skippy

01-26-2005, 07:39 AM

He's certainly certified....D-Oh! Soren, good job, you beat me to it! :)
Is it therefore questionable to give such a vehicle the red flag?First of all D'Artois, NOTHING in this thread is questionable except all Spaghetto's BS he keeps spewing. This is really just a BS thread, not a true sailboat design thread.
But seriously, I would say you're right. In fact, the M could actually be a half decent boat. But Spaghetto makes absurd and even dangerous claims about crossing oceans in the X, and McYachts makes overblown claims about it too. And the X really is a junky boat. So I consider anything we say in this thread fair and reasonable, except of course for Spaghetto. :)

pkoken

01-26-2005, 08:02 AM

mighetto

01-26-2005, 11:33 AM

Maybe if we all chipped in a few bucks we could entice Mr. Mighetto to sail his robust cruising Mac26X to Hawaii from Seattle... A nice little ocean passage that conveniently outstrips the capacity of the fuel tank on the Mac26X.

Should he survive the ordeal and actually arrive at his destination (unlikely, he would survive because he turns around after he meets the open sea) I am guessing his blathering about the tremendous cruising capabilities of the Mac26X would forever silenced... of course if he didn't survive the same happy result would ensue.

For pay you could get many many sailors to sail a Mac26x to Hawaii, including myself, in season. However, I would have to be compensated for what I make from my shore based job. It would be expensive for the sponsor owing to that.

I do apprieciate others taking up the slack on this thread. This new project with three new fellows to work into will be taking some time from my Internet banter (many will say Huzzah - eh)

Old Business

Murrelet, my Mac26x, was insured for all waters in the Western Hemisphere through policy 70054 77 02 from Mid-Century Insurance Company. In 2003 that company decided to extend the same coverage I had to boats up to 40 foot. I suspect they were swamped with new business. Owing to insurance rules in Washington State, probably involving required reserves, I was notified by my agent (# 79 26 362) that Mid-Century was no longer able to provide service. I later was lead to believe that registering my vessel in Michigan would allow me to keep the same policy. But my current policy from Foremost, while slightly more expensive than the Mid-Century policy ($310 per year) than the Mid-Century one in 2003 meets my current cruising plans. This policy covers Murrelet for Coastal Ocean Cruising (which is actually more dangerous than ocean crossing) up to 200 miles off the coasts of the US and Canada. Here is the exact wording regarding territory from the Mid-Century Insurance Company plan. page 3

12. Territory. This policy applies only to accidents, occurances, and losses during the policy period shown in the Declarations which occur within the limits of the Western Hemisphere.

Catalina 27s? have circumnavigated. The Mac26x already has the storage compartment bulkheads that those circumnavigators added for that work. I need to note that the polcy from US Boat is not adequate for my needs because it specifically excludes the west side of vancouver island. I am told that those who want to cruise the wild side might be able to get a rider at the cost of a higher deductable. In anycase, it appears that sail boats over 40 foot are difficult to insure these days. Be aware of that if you are crewing or thinking of a purchase. It appears that the larger sailing craft are unable to make use of MOST all weather harbors at least when they are needed the most. Hence, they get battered even at anchor, by storms and suffer more damages. That would not apply to larger centerboarders (including multihulls) of course.

mighetto

01-26-2005, 12:26 PM

Skinny,
Here is a picture of the "self-righting" capability of this boat. If it comes back up right then this accident would have never happened.

The hatches on the vessel in the picture were not closed and the vessel was swamped owing to operator error. When an operator is drunk and the vessel is firing rockets from the open bow hatch with 11 people and at least a dog aboard on the 4th of July - in otherwords when the boat is operated like a war boat by a fellow thinking he is Rambo, probably in a race to the public docks, any vessel could have been so swamped.

You are of the lowest lifeform to continue to lie and slander people, even someone so irresponsible as to drink and operate a piece of trash boat. His biggest mistake was operating an unsafe boat and he will pay for that for 10 years. You need to stop the lies. You say it is all in fun. It isn't fun and I wonder if your employer knows you are using their assets to do this. Maybe a simple abuse complaint to the network admin will see how they feel about your use of government resources.

I now must remind folks that threats such as the above fall into the definition of Terrorism. Internet Terrorism is a serious ofence. I take it seriously and would like to know who Skinny is so that I can take appropriate action. FYI a death threat is a fellony. Oh lets just say the above is a gag and let it go :) OK with that Skinny?

Funny to hear a "consultant" talk about a profession not requiring licensing. What is your certification number? You must be a certified consultant.

I am granfathered into a group that has awarded me a Certified Computer Professional designation. In this group it is well recognized that no one really has more than 5 years of relevant experience. I suspect now that computers are such a big part of boat design that this is also true for professional boat designers. I do try to keep up. My Master's degree is in Health Care Administration, not truely Business. It is more government oriented. But there is a profesional managers association and I think they do certifications.

D/L does not indicate any such wind range in which a boat will plane. It is not capable to calculating that you are simply lying. If you had a Melges class you would have a rating like a Melges but you don't, why because "you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig". There is NO planing sailboat with a rating over 200. However there is a Mac26 with a rating over 200. Therefore there is no planing Mac26 without the use of an engine.

My understanding of the D/L ratio is book learning. The manufacturer of the Mac26x will tell you she planes. The manufacturer of the Melges may tell you she planes. Manufacturers get to define planing just as they define what a deck salone is. But for advertising claims, you need that D/L ratio.

The Melges also have trouble with PHRF ratings. Any planing boat does. But the single greatest explanation for why Mac26x vessels are not raced more frequently is that until last year they had to be raced fully ballasted. This meant that the boat had to be configured for heavy weather racing even on a light wind day. You can not get enough crew on board to lean the boat enough when so configured to the lee to gravity fill the sails. The vessel is that stable fully ballasted - and docile. This means the boat was in effect not racable in PHRF, except on the rare days when there was more than 12 knots of wind. There just are not enough race days like that to bother putting a number on the sail. You have to be allowed to race as the manufacturer intended (unballasted) on most race days. Seriously, the boat is not racable otherwise - the commitee boat would be waiting all night.

You punitive rating theory about a race where the boats in the cruising class (not eligible for the race overall awards) are allowed to use engines in order to make sure they can make the post race party is actually laughable and fun to read. No one gives a flip about a boat that runs its engine for all but 20 miles of a course. It is not even a competitor in the sailboat race it is a cruiser rally.

You just are not getting it. The Mac26x does not carry enough fuel to make much distance at either displacement or planing speed. She has to be sailed. My theory is that Lady Katie Too! used the motor to assist in cresting her bow wake which is needed for sailing at planing speeds.

Again with the lies. You have entered less than a dozen races and have yet to place despite the fact you have such a planing boat and a pig slow rating. You have no blue water experience. You have no distance experience under sail. You have no sailing resume.

Well I am the new kid. And believe it or not, I am trying to behave like the new kid. Murrelet would have placed third in one of the races she has completed if she were rated for cruising class. I have yet to race with a spinnaker or outside of cruising class but I am rated to do so and look forward to that day. AGAIN - THESE ARE NOT RACE BOATS. Please, a vessel rated under 200 will always finish before a Mac26x. She should not place, however, more often than a Mac26x, after times are corrected. The vessel is very racable (at least in PHRF-NW) now that dropping water ballast during a race is allowed. FYI the Strait of Georga is listed as the 4th most treacherous body in the world by some of the "blue water experienced" and the west side of Vancouver Island has some of the largest waves recorded off season. These are my cruising grounds. Perhaps yours as well. I think that fact qualifies for blue water experience. Ocean Crossing experience I do not have. I have never spent a night in jail either and actively seek neither experience.

The reason the captain of the motorsailer didn't want to raise the sails is owing, I suspect, to having one look at you and realizing that it would endanger the boat to allow you to touch anything.

I was about to offer cash. The only english speaker affiliated with the Samba, made a big deal out of the fact that the Samba was "OUR" boat during the 300 naughtical miles. But I certainly wouldn't touch something like a sail without getting the Captains OK. We asked almost ever day. There was always some excuse. I recomend if others do something similar they put it into the charter contract that sails must be set during the voyage.

skinny boy

01-26-2005, 12:52 PM

mighetto

01-26-2005, 01:13 PM

Using government assets for this activity is an act of fraud. There is no threat to report the abuse. In fact it is the responsibility of every citizen to ensure that the government uses its resources for the work intended. You are the one commiting a crime. The next post I see on any board from you will be reported to the State of Washington. You threatening tone is abusive and you are using government resources as a contractor for inapproariate purposes and I suspect you are billing the time you spend here as consulting time. Owing to my civic duty I you will know exactly who I am as I will sign the compaint to the state.

Sorry Skinny. I have authorizaton - in writing. Admit now that Sailing Anarchy has been banned from all government computers owing to nudity. I have not been able to confirm this but suspect it true. Have meeting must go. Sail On.

amolitor

01-26-2005, 01:20 PM

mighetto probably isn't a contractor at anything, skinny boy. He's probably unemployed at the moment. Remember the other day when he 'had to go, dentist appointment' and yet kept on posting until or around 5pm?

Do not assume anything he says here is true. While it is possible he has a job, there is no reason to assume it is the job he claims it is.

Note that he's still quoting the 'Sailing Anarchy has been banned from all government computers' AFTER the direct quotes and links to SA showing clearly that it's mighetto himself who got banned. mighetto is unwilling to admit to one shred of reality in this context. Not only does he deny reality in the physical world, he denies the reality here -- he denies the content of posts made hours in the past.

Watch closely. His meeting will be eerily short, because he's gonna reply to this pretty soon. Or perhaps he'll claim to be replying FROM the meeting.

Skippy

01-26-2005, 02:24 PM

You are of the lowest lifeform to continue to lie and slander people, even someone so irresponsible as to drink and operate a piece of trash boat. His biggest mistake was operating an unsafe boat and he will pay for that for 10 years. You need to stop the lies. You say it is all in fun. It isn't fun and I wonder if your employer knows you are using their assets to do this. Maybe a simple abuse complaint to the network admin will see how they feel about your use of government resources.I now must remind folks that threats such as the above fall into the definition of Terrorism. Internet Terrorism is a serious ofence. I take it seriously and would like to know who Skinny is so that I can take appropriate action. FYI a death threat is a fellony. Oh lets just say the above is a gag and let it goFrank that's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen you or anyone else post. For you to compare a responsible notification of the authorities, to the tragic deaths of thousands of people, whose lives were cut short by coldblooded killers. What a shameful, heartless, unpatriotic thing for you to say. Your comparing a simple complaint of your abuse to the inhuman crimes of 9/11, is a form of intimidation. sb is right Frank, you are the one lying, and now even intimidating people who consider reporting your slanders. Your reference to death threats in response to a proper, lawful action, is itself closer to anything even resembling terrorism, than anything sb or anyone else in this forum has ever posted. Your threatening post is just sickening, and I can't imagine why this or any other forum would ever tolerate it.

skinny boy

01-26-2005, 02:26 PM

mistral

01-26-2005, 02:54 PM

to all guys except Mighetto, Please stop posting here. Frankie will cover us with his BS as long as somenone will keep on posting. My advice is not to post anymore and to erase all your previous post; this will make Frank lose interest in plaguing this thread and, i hope, this forum; it's a pain for me to see how many clever people lose their time trying to deal with mighetto's absurd theories and statements; simply he won't listen to you nor to anyone else, so Please stop posting here

Mistral

i wrote down this few words a couple of days ago; now you have the proofs ot what i was talkin' about; Mighetto will keep on writing as long as someone care about him on this forum; it's clear that he's an unuseful subject for everyone in this forum, so why don't we simply ignore him???? I find no reasons to keep this thread alive!!!

fair wind
Mistral

mighetto

01-26-2005, 03:43 PM

Then it won't be a problem and the person who gave you permission will be terminated as they have violated state law. Somehow I think there is no permission but will certainly allow the state admin to sort that out. I suggest that meeting should last indefinitely.

Oh back off will you? Washington state has its own problems with the identification of its governor. If I could, I would verify if the Department of Information Services has cut off Sailing Anarchy for nudity or not. Clearly looking at nudes is verboten by state policy. This is often a problem with new and imature web sites. But otherwise, those with Internet access are allowed access to any site - even for a business purpose, as long as the conflict of interest paper work, has been completed. That is definately true for salaried and contract employees. For hourly as well, at least in every shop I have worked with in the state. Of course Internet use is monitored. Why do you wish me harm. What did I ever do to you?

mighetto

01-26-2005, 03:50 PM

i wrote down this few words a couple of days ago; now you have the proofs ot what i was talkin' about; Mighetto will keep on writing as long as someone care about him on this forum; it's clear that he's an unuseful subject for everyone in this forum, so why don't we simply ignore him???? I find no reasons to keep this thread alive!!!

fair wind
Mistral

Oh come on Mistral. Did I not provide information good for the cause of all in the form of insurance policy data? Am I as bad as a multihuller? Monohullers are capable of handling the truth today because those before me, the multihullers, took most of the flame. My treatment has been relatively mild in comparison. There are some acomplished sailors that will never post on the Internet again - even on a club BBS because of how fellows like you treated them. Boat design.net is not a close circle of the closed minded. Why try to orchestrate that?

mighetto

01-26-2005, 04:00 PM

Frank that's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen you or anyone else post. For you to compare a responsible notification of the authorities, to the tragic deaths of thousands of people, whose lives were cut short by coldblooded killers. What a shameful, heartless, unpatriotic thing for you to say. Your comparing a simple complaint of your abuse to the inhuman crimes of 9/11, is a form of intimidation. sb is right Frank, you are the one lying, and now even intimidating people who consider reporting your slanders. Your reference to death threats in response to a proper, lawful action, is itself closer to anything even resembling terrorism, than anything sb or anyone else in this forum has ever posted. Your threatening post is just sickening, and I can't imagine why this or any other forum would ever tolerate it.
You are messing with another fellow's livelihood. Are you not? A livelyhood that involves government business and because of that falls under the special rules involving terrorist activity over the Internet. Let me suggest a proper channel for your distress. Contact the Better Business Bureau. I value the membership I have in the BBB and they have a mechanism to address whatever issues you have. I don't even think you have to be identified to me. Otherwise flame will be on until you flame out. My appologies in advance to forum readers. Perhaps they can just add anything skippy to their skip lists.

Oh, good news. I can now be reached by boat design.net email. My complements to the forum operators.

Skippy

01-26-2005, 04:21 PM

You are messing with another fellow's livelihood. Are you not?
Perhaps they can just add anything skippy to their skip lists.If you really do have a livelihood, you're messing with it yourself by slandering and threatening other parties.
And people can skip me all they want. That's their business Frank, not yours.
My complements to the forum operators.That's right Frank, suck up to them and see if that helps.

Richard Petersen

01-26-2005, 04:34 PM

mighetto

01-26-2005, 04:41 PM

Mighetto states that the boat should have ballast when boarding with 11 persons.

Well not really. I stated that my boat has a plackard stating that it is a good idea to have the tanks full when there are 4 adults or more on board.

Why? - The boat was matter of factly not sailing at the time of the unfortunate accident. You do not add waterballast to an already overloaded boat do you?

Perhaps. However, it was never established that the boat was overloaded. You do put 11 adults on other 26 foot sailboats. These usually have solid ballast in an amount exceeding the water ballast of the Mac26x. It is not the weight but weight distribution tht most likely maters. A sober skipper would likely have put the weight in its place and not allowed rockets to be fired from the bow hatch.

If i'll find a boat here in Holland with warning stickers/plaquards beyond the no smoking sign, such as is apparently the case with the Mc26 alfabet, I will redirect that particular boat to the scrapyard being unsafe at any operation.

I think the placards are the result of our US legal system. Actually it is such a problem on power boats that there has been an attempt to consolodate the plackards into one because you find them everyplace. But the same material is also in the owners manual.

With it's 50 Hp outboard it is a sportscruiser, outboard propelled blown up dinghy, no more than that. With such parameters you might capsize your overloaded boat in a sharp turn - as happened in this fatal accident.

Experienced and sober ski boat operators will slow in a turn, regardless of loading. Marten owned a powerboat. He probably should be considered experienced. He was not sober. This is a legal fact. It is also not disputable that an NA has given the Mac26x an endorsement with the statement that the boat can be operated safely.

You can dispute if Teeters impeached himself in testimony. What was written down in his disposition, that alcohol could have been a contributing factor and what he testified in court - that it was not a contributing factor - are damning nonetheless. The man was desparate to get into court to testify for reasons I think were related to arguments he wanted to have presented later to the GP RWP in support of TP52s. His expert witness testimony would probably not even have been allowed if he had stuck with his deposition testimony. The judge had structured the trial to first address drunkeness and then unless the jury had cleared Marten of that would issues involving Teeters Testimony likely have been allowed. It was only by varying from his deposition statement (changing his mind) that he could be sure he could testify.

Fatal accidents happen when a cumulation of small accidents - events - are piling up in a matter of seconds. A rickety boat to start with, questionable design, unable operator, overloaded boat, drunk people on board, children trapped in the cabin and more to add.

The design was questionable in the minds of many. I will give you that. But rickety - no way. These vessels are fit for all waters. I do wonder how the kids drowned but the dog came through fine. Panic is an explanation. The children were sporting life jackets. This confirms the notion that the captain - at one time - was sober and experienced, at least in powerboat operation.

Grace to its empty ballast-tank, the boat was still floating, however - the cause of the death of the two children is buried in the fact that the remaining persons on board failed to rescue the trapped children, save for one.

The empty tank is in-effect a water tight compartment. If it had been filled the boat would have motored slower and handled like a docile power cruiser. The operator wasn't interested in docile boat behavior, IMO. This is based on the rockets being shot from the bow hatch. The boat was in war boat mode. Agility was valued by the drunken operator. We must assume he did not know about filling the water ballast. I really doubt that but there is no proof otherwise. The owners are related to Martin BTW, adding additional tragedy to the story. The other adults likely were told to say nothing by their advisors for feer they might be blamed for the disaster. There was another boat that the Mac26x was tied up to. What happened to it. The event was right after casting off from her. None on board viewed the capsize? Well that is what we must assume. Very hard to however. Was her wake involved?

And, the clumsy move of the operator, to put the boat in a sharp turn, threw the people overboard and did capsize the boat or at least did it turn over, throwing or jettonising the crew overboard. In spite of all this, the act of putting this boat in a sharp turn did capsize it.

Thats the story. It doesn't fit with my own experiences after a 4th of July fire works display however. In my experience there is a mass dash to the boat launches and public docks and lots of wakes. I remain unconvinced that the seas were calm. A large wake was likely involved and the response to it, the exact oposite of how a sober person would have handled it.

If the guy was not drunk and he had to make the same movement in order to avoid a collission with a floating object what then? The result is nevertheless the same. Because the boat could not sustain a sudden change of direction wthout capsizing. Not at the operation speed anyway.

Almost can agree with that. The important point however is missed. The loading of the boat is also important. I undersand that Teeters could not duplicate the capsize except by removing the mast. The mast dampens the effects of rocking. Teeters had a video prepared where sand bags were placed in spots that the ocupants had been reported at and at their approximate weight. But again, it took mast removal to flip the boat. I also find it hard to understand how the occupants failed to compensate for the sharp turn with their own weight, which would have been natural.

Is it therefore questionable to give such a vehicle the red flag?

It is questionable because of the number of them and the combined hours of opeation. This happened on July 4 of 2002. By that time there must have been 3,500,000 to 5,000,000 hours of experience (3,500 boats times 1000 hours of operation each.) The truth is that with such a popular model of boat it was only a mater of time before something like this involving a drunk and the vessel was going to happen. Do you really disagree?

mighetto

01-26-2005, 05:17 PM

The BBB LIVES on the money business people pay it as members. Do you think we are all so stupid! You do sell a, Chief Witch Doctor Course for the mentally challanged, as a way of making a living. See! I am talking to the CD. Could we get Mighetto to talk with the Terrorists? :)

Well thats a distressing notion. The Seattle BBB did have a scandle 25 years or more ago. Not-for-profits can have bad folks running them. Your point is a good one. But many if not most clients do check the BBB as well as Dunn and Bradstreet when hiring consultants. So do many advertisors on web sites. If the complaint is against a non BBB member you still as a prospect for that buisiness are told if there are outstanding complaints against the company. I would be obliged to hastle with it. I am a member in good standing and still am hoping Skippy can find his way to just dropping his threats. Seriously threats on the Internet can fall under the definition of terrorism, recently established by the Bush Administration. You are best off just filing the complaint and saying nothing about it. We aim to tame the wild west mentality on the Internet. Got to run. Sorry.

Skippy

01-26-2005, 06:18 PM

I ... still am hoping Skippy can find his way to just dropping his threats. Seriously threats on the Internet can fall under the definition of terrorism, recently established by the Bush Administration. ... We aim to tame the wild west mentality on the Internet.I didn't threaten you Frank, I just stated my opinion about your post. You vaguely threatened skinny boy with terrorism charges, just like you're doing with me in the quote above. There you go lying and slandering and intimidating people again. And you're promoting the Wild West mentality, not taming it. Speaking of which, you shouldn't even be mentioning the Bush administration.

Richard Petersen

01-26-2005, 06:38 PM

ALL of you are getting TOO SENSITIVE. Drop the legal crap talk. It goes nowhere :idea: ;) :D :eek:

mighetto

01-26-2005, 07:58 PM

ALL of you are getting TOO SENSITIVE. Drop the legal crap talk. It goes nowhere :idea: ;) :D :eek:

enough said. I share a conversation regarding engine sizes in wraping up the day. Then I have a slug of work tonight to get to. I was asked how large an engine I thought it took to push the Schock 40 to hull speed.

Of course the maximum supported 15HP motor is enough for that; but possibly not in chop or in heavy weather.

The work around to this is to just make certain that crew are competent in sailing the boat. Unfortunately it is often the case that only one person on a sailboat is really competent at sailing the vessel. If that person is hirt, the remaning crew are most likely to rely on motor power to get to emergency facilities. So a larger motor, capable of speeding through chop or heavy weather is warrented. The other problem with a 15 HP motor is perception.

It is hard to explain to a lubber or a power boater that your 180,000 purchase isn't a rip off after they view your kicker. You have to be trained to see otherwise.

The $110,000 J-100 has a 17HP Volvo two banger. Volvo is the name in boat motors today owing to a set of twins they developed for powerboats meant to cruise over 35 MPH. These motors actually pull the boat throught the water rather than pushing them.

So what do you do? Purchase the Schock 40 with a canting keel and forward rudder system that few know how to operate yet with its percieved as cheep 15 HP outboard-mounted-in-well motor or the J-100 that probably all J boat crews want to try at least once with its status-inboard Volvo-brand motor that even power boaters and a few lubbers may find attactive. Heck you even save $70,000.

frankofile

01-26-2005, 08:59 PM

ALL of you are getting TOO SENSITIVE. Drop the legal crap talk. It goes nowhere :idea: ;) :D :eek:
On the contrary. Frank was back-pedalling quite nicely and you could sense the fear through his typing. I thought Skippy and skinny boy were making excellent progress.

mighetto

01-26-2005, 10:08 PM

On the contrary. Frank was back-pedalling quite nicely and you could sense the fear through his typing. I thought Skippy and skinny boy were making excellent progress.

Yea, show a little weakness and the sharks are all around you. :) It shouldn't be that way. Hoping tomorrow will go better. There is lots of good coming from all this dirty laundry airing.

For example, Lets predict the removal of the restriction on centerboard retraction during PHRF races. That is the kind of result I am hoping for from this discussion on the design of the Mac26x. That and a few more of them racing.

Retraction of foils is but another kind of movable ballast. The rule restricting retraction really has no place in a modern racing fleet. It is the kind of rule that turns off younger sailors from the sport because it means the boat can not be sailed as designed.

I understand that safety was used as an arguement for the rule. But after the Bayliner Buckaneer 18 court ruling in 1998, that argument can no longer be used. Legally it has been determined that centerboards are no more or less safe than fixed keels.

So the only argument for fully extended centerboards at all times in a race now is that a centerboarded vessel may sail the shallows, giving her an unfair advantage. The same can be said of the canters however and this can be addressed by course design. Faster Olympic style courses like our dad's dads raced, not these slow boring windward-leeward beginner ones.

Frank

sharpii2

01-26-2005, 11:58 PM

Hi everybody

(Watch as Sharpii2 mounts his soapbox and puffs out his chest. He takes a deep breath, then speaks.)

It seems that everybody here is in love with contention. I did go to the Mc Gregor web sight and watched their video. I found it very intersting and imformative. It seems that they have designed and built a very useful boat for much of the potential sailing public. They have worked hard to make getting it on and off the trailer as easy as possible. Not only that, but they have also tried to make it a useful boat for family members who may not like sailing. Imagine a family where Ma likes sailing but Pa likes powerboating and they can afford only one cruising size boat.
That being said, I would not be surprised if a pure sailing boat, even a centerboarder of the same size, could outsail the boat to windward by a considerable margin, even enough to win a race on a equillateral triangular course.
Has one of these ever raced against a J24 for example.
The high sailing speed quoted was only down wind with an asymetrical chute in blowing conditions. Those would be precisely the conditions most favorable for that boats full hull lines, straight, shallow, level (or nearly so) runs aft, and imersed transom.
The transverse stability quoted was only with the water ballast tanks full, as far as I can tell.
As far as seaworthiness is concerned, the quoted stability range is well in keeping with the old (if my memory serves me right) IOR reqirements. And I would much rather be on one of these, running for my life in breaking seas, than on a typical IOR boat of the same size. One of these is likely to sail to Catalina Island one of these days and then, with the skipper saying, "what the heck", sail on to Hawii. Obviously, not the ideal boat for the job, but, if properly handled, she'd do. I've heard of far less suitable boats making long, offshore passages.

(everybody is agasp at Sharpii2' wise comentary and astute observations.)

How this has to do with TP52's (I went to that web site too to find out what the hell a TP52 was), I can only begin to speculate. My guess is that it has something to do with the class not allowing movable ballast. I can understand their reasoning. They want reliable and reasonably expensive (in multimillionare terms) boats. Canting keels littering the race course ocean bed
does not fit thier public image ambitions.
That being said, let me put in a kind word for movable ballast. I think the old BOC committee made a mistake, here, way back. Instead of limiting the heeling effect of movable ballast, they should have limited it to a percentage of the boats fixed ballast. The number that comes to my mind is somewhere in the area of 50% or less. That would give a significant agvantage to boats with it without allowing it to become a major ultimate stability factor. Such a rule would have pretty much eliminated canting keels for example.
In my own design musings, I have considered movable ballast. I have considered it, surpisingly, to tip the boat to leeward. This is so, in near calm conditions, the sails won't slat so much.
So that's my two cents worth.

(Everybody sighs as Sharpii2 saunters down from his soapbox looking relieved that he has finally said his words of earth shaking importance. "At last", they all sigh, "he finally shuts up.")

Bob

Skippy

01-27-2005, 07:27 AM

ALL of you are getting TOO SENSITIVE. Drop the legal crap talk. It goes nowhereOn the contrary. Frank was back-pedalling quite nicely and you could sense the fear through his typing. I thought Skippy and skinny boy were making excellent progress.Yea, show a little weakness and the sharks are all around you. O Frank, you poor darling. How hard it must be on your tender, sensitive soul. Merely bringing joy and inspiration to our lives, with your Ballerina Science of sailing, conspiracy theories of prominent yacht designers, and accusations of terrorism against other posters. All the Gospel of your own private little nautical-design religion. How inconsiderate of us to defend ourselves and each other against your accusations.

Richard, I don't want to tell you what to say or anything like that. I'd just like to express my perception that your comment treats me, skinny boy, and Spaghetto equally. As though what skinny boy and I posted was equivalent to Spaghetto's claims. I thought there was a big difference. Just my opinion. And by the way, this entire thread goes nowhere.

Retraction of foils is but another kind of movable ballast."Foils are ballast." That's an interesting theory. Frank, didn't you say the hull is ballast too?

1. It seems that everybody here is in love with contention.
2. It seems that [McYachts] have designed and built a very useful boat for much of the potential sailing public.
3. That being said, let me put in a kind word for movable ballast.Thanks for your comments Bob. It's nice to see someone being fair and considerate in their posts, and presenting reasonable thoughts. I have a couple comments in response.

1. Bob, I don't think all the posters on this thread enjoy contention. I would say a lot of us find contention very unpleasant and painful. They also find slander and Ballerina Science unpleasant. Would you say a person enjoys fighting because they defend themselves when a mugger attacks them? Or that a person is litigious because they defend themselves against an unwarranted lawsuit? I believe a lot of posters express their feelings due to a sense of justice poorly served, and a concern that any beginning novices reading this thread are being misinformed.

2. I would say the Mac 26M may be a tolerably good boat for the uses that you suggest. One note on the X without ballast: In that case, you don't have just an unballasted boat. What you have is a boat with flotation (the empty tank) directly UNDERNEATH the passengers in the cabin, which doesn't help stability at all. And remember, McYachts is trying to do not just two, but THREE things in the same boat: (1) sail, (2) motor, and (3) trailer. Not to mention making it cheap. That's a lot to do with the same vessel, and it may just not be possible to do it very well. In any case, there are of course alway compromises in any design. And any claims (and they have been made in this thread) of the average sailor being able to safely cross oceans in the 26X, I would just have to disagree with. I just don't see how it could reliably avoid capsizing, as does a multihull or a heavy-keel monohull cruiser, or have a decent chance of being knocked back upright again in a storm even after turtling, as does the heavy-keel cruiser.

3. And finally, just a reminder that Macs don't have movable ballast. They have variable inboard centerline ballast.

Thanks again for your post Bob. And please feel free to speak up on the soapbox again any time you want. :)

terhohalme

01-27-2005, 08:12 AM

Isn't this issue of ocean/offshore/coastal use of MacGregor 26X simple? What is the design category of MacGregor 26X on the EC plate? Or just calculate the stability index of the boat (STIX by ISO 12217-2 standard) and you'll find it out.

woodboat

01-27-2005, 09:12 AM

Does the 26X have any fixed ballast? The new 26M seems to http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/water_ballast.html

Of course simply not having a weighted keel doesn't make a boat inherently unstable without a sail as the boat was when the tragedy happened. The boat was operated as a power boat. There are many 8 Ft beam power boats on the water. Do we call all of them rickety? In an attempt to "win" the argument ridiclous claims are being made on both sides. Gleaning out the crap, Sharpii2 did a nice job. The MAC26 is a nice boat for it's intended use. Resale value is very high and the waiting list is about a year around here. With that said I wouldn't head out across the ocen with the thing either, no matter what Maghetto says. I don't think it is winning any races anytime soon either unless of course you run the 50HP outboard and the other guy is using his sail :)

Skippy

01-27-2005, 10:22 AM

Does the 26X have any fixed ballast?No. And remember, it's not just an absence of ballast at the bottom of the hull. The empty tank is positive flotation at the lowest point in the vessel, which moves the passengers and other ballast up higher. So no, it's not the same as an unballasted boat. And of course, a motorboat doesn't have the mast way up in the air either. I would definately recommend the M and not the X, and I agree, the M could be a nice boat for anyone who is aware of its limitations and doesn't exceed them. By the way, that gleaning is awfully difficult in this thread. :)

woodboat

01-27-2005, 10:38 AM

That's not quite a clear post. It is common for a motor boat to have decks three feet above the water line. So simply haveing air or dead space below deck doesn't decrease stability. It isn't like there was helium in the water ballast tank. So I assume you meant that the tank is positive floatation when the boat is swamped. And of course motor boats commonly have gear and crew much higher in the case of a flying bridge. Many this size have seating for four or even five people on the flying bridge. That is WAY more weight up high than a hollow mast. Of course once flipped by the drunk driver the empty tank would make it more difficult to escape the cabin. If the passengers had less alchohol maybe they could have saved the children.

woodboat

01-27-2005, 10:41 AM

I wonder if the change to the M, adding some fixed ballast was a result of this incident?

D'ARTOIS

01-27-2005, 11:20 AM

mighetto

01-27-2005, 11:24 AM

Good Morning Anarchists and Boat Designers

Excellent comments from Bob. I will have to alter my planned agenda owing to them. First..

Page 8 of Sailing this month contains a letter from a True Anarchist and budding Boat Designer. Michael Hoffman of Concord Massachusetts my hat is off to you.

I generally do not like "But Monkeys" and you all know my views on the closed minded society generally represented by those living on the east-is-least for sailors coast. He is an exception. Michael's "I liked Bob Perry's evaluation of the Moon 26" but... is just so right on. Complements all around.

The general observation is that there is little press on new cruising sailboats in the 23 to 30 foot range. This in spite of Bob Perry's discovery that a 26 footer most suites his family and his own personal needs. This size boat is the size they have chosen to own. Of course owners will let them sail on any of Perry's designs. But the boat they own isn't one of those. She was suppose to be a place holder. Literally a boat meant to sit in a slip to hold that slip for something better. Only, for the Perry family there wasn't anything better. Bob Perry's response is as defensive as my responses to Skippy yesterday. Neither of us needed to respond that way. He could have just said nonsense, I just reviewed the Mac26m and I own a 26 footer. You can not support this size of vessel more than ownership.

The fact is that moorage balls and docks at Park and Wilderness destinations are designed for under 30 foot motor vessels. This reflects the reality that 3/4 of the boaters in the US are not sail boaters. But it also means that a large vessel - certainly a 50 footer, is difficult to accommodate at places you want to take them to. Hang two 50 footers on two balls and let them swing in a confused current - at a place like Cypress Island - and they will hit each other. The balls are not spaced for that size vessel. Hang a 50 fool long fixed fin sailboat on a ball next to a large cabin cruiser and the sailboat may point to current where the powerboat points to wind.

Further more the larger sailing vessels are not viewed favorably by the locals at many destinations. This is because, very often, they are stocked with a years worth of supplies, certainly a month, certainly enough for crew needs while visiting. Hence there is little help they give to local economies. The smaller vessels are more likely to supply and even take shore based accommodations. They are welcomed as tourists willing to spend money. Large Power Boats at least will fuel up. That is a rare day for a cruising sailboat.

The transient vessel's impact on the economy determines the kind of facility that will be maintained by the locals. Those facilities today dictate a change in sailboat design philosophy. Smaller is both stronger and better for the sport and image of the sailing cruisers. Frank is stepping off the soap box now. Are there others?

mighetto

01-27-2005, 12:00 PM

Generally speaking, I must admit that woodboat and Skinny are correct and that it seems that a bit of overreaction had been applied to this thread, fuelled by the response of Mr Mighetto. Secondly I must admit also that - save for the many lakes we have - we have no further use for boats such as the MacGregor, on our large open waters. According to the manufacturer of the MacGregor, the boat should be operated under all circumstances with the watertank filled till full capacity, otherwise severe problems with the boat's stability may occur.

Explicit warnings are given in this respect.

Explicit warnings are given in respect to the number of passengers that could board.

With an empty ballasttank: ONLY 4 persons are allowed and with a FULL BALLASTTANK the numbers should preferrably not exceed 6

That is clear language. A host of other warnings were given in respect to the safe operation of this boat.

Under the CE ruling, this boat would most probably be exempt for any coastal cruising under prevailing DUTCH conditions.
The Mac26m, the only vessel now available from MacGregor Yachts, has as much of an ocean sailboat hull as the Mac26x and more so than the Catalina 27. Her rotating mast is still unproven.

You are somewhat incorrect about the manufacturer's intent on water ballast for the M. The manufacturer intends for you to dump the water ballast when water skiing.

I do think that the Mac26m was rushed to market owing to Jim Teeters and the 2002 court case. But I do not buy into the current statement that she was meant to be a replacement for the X. Rather, she was meant for the US Sailing trained. Inotherwords for those looking for a contemporary design that also appreciate the value of a rightsized motor and planing under motor power.

I was specifically told while watching hull number five of the M being produced that both the M and the X were to be produced in 2004 and 2005. The halt of production at 5000 hulls of the X came as a shock. But I was unaware of the court case. It is most likely that business insurance covered a run of 5000 hulls for the X and that that number was met sooner than expected. The extention of the policy - given Jim Teeters and by association US Sailing's objections - would have been pricy. Hence the molds for the X were carted off (to South America Perhaps) there were 4 mold sets capable of at least another 800 hulls about the time of X production halt. This information was told to me as hull number 5 for the M was born. So perhaps fewer.

Compare the warnings and limited use for the M with the X. The bottom of http://www.macgregor26.com/safety.htm contains Special Safety Information for the 26x. The 26m sells on the reputation of the 26x. She is not as advanced a design as the X however. (with the possible exception of the rotating mast). As you know she is not to be sailed unbalasted, where the X is. She is also not meant to be raced. There is only one reference to racing in any of the literature that I have seen. Stated bluntly, to make her strong enough for motoring at 22 MPH and because she is not to be operated under sail unballasted the designer has compromised on racability. She might be viewed as a heavy pocket cruiser, odd as that sounds given the low overall weight. But the extra weight in fiberglass to make her motor at planing speeds, requires a lot of sail power to compensate and unfortunately, when the wind blows strong, her head sail blows her from upwind courses and must be dropped. Not a big deal for a cruising boat but a big deal for a racer.
Review http://www.macgregor26.com/table.htm. There is one Mac26m article and the rest are on the Mac26x. The M really gets some of her popularity from the X.

The factory is raising the price of the M $1,000. I am hoping that is to slow sales slightly to free production facilities for more X production. But they may be coming out with a new 26 footer or the MacGregor70 run may be ramping up. This has been long promised. BTW, the usual price increases to slow sales when production facilities are desired for other models, did not occure for the Mac26x. This also supports the notion that production halt was related to the court case rather than normal business activity.

Skippy

01-27-2005, 12:18 PM

It is common for a motor boat to have decks three feet above the water line. So simply haveing air or dead space below deck doesn't decrease stability. It isn't like there was helium in the water ballast tank.
And of course motor boats commonly have gear and crew much higher in the case of a flying bridge. Many this size have seating for four or even five people on the flying bridge. That is WAY more weight up high than a hollow mast.
I wonder if the change to the M, adding some fixed ballast was a result of this incident? Thanks for posting wb. You're right, motorboats do have structures up a ways. I'd be interested in how the CG and other stability issues of the 26X compare with a motorboat. But there's also the issue of where the motor is located. A huge motorboat deisel, mounted on the bottom of the hull, will allow other objects to sit much higher. Whereas the 26 has a smaller outboard, which you'll notice has been moved lower in the M. I'm sure they make the upper structures as light as possible, and an inboard diesel in a 26ft power yacht would weigh -- what, half a ton? That would be the weight of five people right there.

And wb, most of the comments in this thread aren't really about the boat itself. They're really about all the Ballerina Science that's used to promote it. So I know some of us do get a little rough on the boat sometimes, but it's mostly through association with stuff that any undergraduate engineering student would laugh at, plus all the other nonsense about churches and conspiracies. It's hard to be polite and evenhanded with that kind of thing. And at some point that we passed long, long ago, I don't even think it helps.I generally do not like "But Monkeys" and you all know my views on the closed minded society generally represented by those living on the east-is-least for sailors coast.And as for where the tone of this thread starts, I think that's very clear. Like I said to Bob, you don't criticize people for defending themselves or others against a bully.

On the ballast issue, the identity of the gas is irrelevant. The density of any typical gas like air, is essentially zero compared to any typical solid or liquid like water. The density of air is less than one tenth of a pound per cubic foot, which is somewhat more than one tenth of a percent of the density of water. (which of course is why helium and hot-air balloons have to be so gargantuan.) As long as the empty tank is below the surface, it's displacing water, and the water pressure under that part of the hull is pushing the boat up at a location that makes the boat less stable.

It seems to be fairly well agreed that McGregor's switching from the X to the M is a consequence of that accident. And I would also agree that people pretty much always overdo that kind of thing. I've heard about the company exagerating their claims more than other companies, and I've wondered whether all the spaciousness they advertise encourages overcrowding the boat. But I would accept the 26M as an adequate power/sailer/trailer boat, and just caution buyers that that's alway going to be a big compromise, no matter what.

mighetto

01-27-2005, 12:46 PM

Ballerina Science? Good one. Skippy, Let me appologize for any bullying.

Ballerina Science requires us to consider the possibility of a no compromise sailboat. MacGregor Yachts has yet to market a vessel that way but there are currently boats marketed as no compromise sailboats. Instead MacGregor Yachts marketed the Mac26x as revolutionary. Reveiwers immediately but the vessel "in its own class" which allowed them to avoid the unpleasent task of pointing out that other 23 to 30 foot sailboats were greatly compromised in comparison. This X boat really is close to a no compromise cruising vessel. The designer knew this. Most engineers figured it out. Most military figured it out and most builders of sailboats in the 23 to 30 foot range figured it out. Michel Hoffman askes in his letter Is it that few new boats of that size range are being built? The answer is that since 1996 there just was not a boat in that range that could compete with the Mac26x. Seriously it took Catalina twice as long to get 5000 hulls on any model. There has never been a run of 5000 hulls in that size range completed so quickly. It took MacGregor Yachts 14 years to get 7000 Mac25s built. In the absence of the court case, the run likely would have continued.

mistral

01-27-2005, 01:17 PM

mighetto

01-27-2005, 03:04 PM

classical Troll behaviour, absolutely classical for a web Troll like you, Frankie; the discussion was declining to a normal analisys of pros and cons of Mac 26, and you were frustratred by this normal tone; so our hero Frankie thought "mmmmm...what can i do to put some spice on this boring normal boat review?" , TAAA-DAAA, madams & messieurs, siori e siore, ladies & gentlemen, here he is again with a new wonder:"This X boat really is close to a no compromise cruising vessel. The designer knew this". Here we are, another absurd statement to put up a firework on a normal discussion. Just a question: how many sailboat have you sailed other than Murrelet???
I just don't want to kick you right in the ass talkin' about your last phrase ("In the absence of the court case....", it would be toooooo easy....... :) :) :)

Mistral

Spice of life? No Compromise sailboats are possible given moveable ballast and the new materials now available for boat construction. Look, I am confident a designer can improve on the Mac26x given these developments. The no compromise boat of 2005 can not remain so as technology continues to improve. Well I suppose she might be upgraded.

Lets consider for a moment the top deck. On the first X cruisers, likely to reduce the weight of the top deck, plastic cleats were used. It is also likely that these cleats are stronger than the stainless ones affixed to my vessel. But the concept was to revolutionary. Roger had to compromise on this and put in stainless cleats to satisfy.

The notion that a plastic could be stronger than steel, that it would be lighter and last longer and also could be less expensive was just to hard for the boat reviewers. On these plastic cleats the vessel was critisized and called cheep. Today of course, all the race boats replace blocks - even cleats - with carbon fiber, a plastic. Replacement of stanchions with carbon fiber or even PVC pipe seams an obvious design improvement to me. The later would of course be considered cheep and might not even work. I just bring it up because stability would be better with lighter stanchions and stability is everything. We compromise stability when ever anything heavier than needed is placed high on the boat.

http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html is a review about the X. Designers have to compromise their designs owing to such reviews and of course pending legal action. Roger did not compromise on the rigging which got criticism that it was too light. Today every race boat is trying to figure out how to reduce weight aloft. And there still has not been a mast failure in any X cruiser.

The notion that cruising comfort must be compromised for racability was disproven by Watson of IBM. His boats were comfortable and are cruised even today. They also won races. The notion that a great material for building hulls, fiberglass, carbon fiber, or its like material of the future, has to be compromised with weight in the keel or in the bilge is the compromise that is removed by water ballast.

BTW, I object strongly to recent crys of dangerous now being vocalized by the "all boats are compromises" clan in relation to the Maxi failures in the Sydney-Hobart.

In the first place Skandia capsized - she did not sink. I doubt the crew was in more danger than hiking out to far where they have always the possibilty of getting a dunking. Capsizing is not a life threatening event unto itself. Sure it would ruin your day and race. It becomes life threatening when the boat can sink. It likely was a good thing Skandia's bulb keel broke loose from the hull. Perhaps that prevented her from sinking. Perhaps the designer designed her to do exactly that as MacGregor has designed fittings to give way before other structure does. We will not know for years. The law suits have already been filed.

Regarding compromises. Konica Minolta was obviously compromised when she was converted from a great water-ballasted maxi to a canter.

Her being banana bent owing to the bow being on the crest of one wave and the stern the other, is directly related to keel weight concentration IMO. A concentration she did not have when a more sea kindly water ballasted vessel.

Nicorette, is compromised by her carbon mast if nothing else. While some materials make sense for some parts of sailboats, the notion of using carbon for a mast or boom is a compromise because when they break they break dangerously and result in useless left overs.

Ocean cruisers have long appreciated the fact that when an aluminum or even wood mast or boom breaks there is usually the opportunity to jury rig. Not so with carbon fiber, at least not yet. Lots of compromises are made in the name of a new technology that just so happens is controlled by the most vocal of its advocats. New is not always better.

In looking into the compromise of carbon masts and booms, I discovered that Mirabella V's mast (the tallest in the world) was vacuum bagged as a single unit and then LATER cut into at least two sections. The engineers must have determined that if there were failure in the mast it was going to happen in the top section and by cutting the mast in two they gained assurance that the splintering of a failure would not extend past that point.

From all the SH reports I thought Nicorett, the new maxi, won. Actually a 55 footer called Aera took the honors on corrected time. Would I advocate change in a future Mac26x? No, I would not. You compromise racability by changing the hull and any large structural component like a mast. Fins might be improved upon but the base of 5000 identical hulls is a compelling reason to leave things alone and produce only like vessels in the future. Informal races happen every time two Mac26x cruisers happen to find eachother. These are informal one-design races and part of the fun and value in the design. But formal one-design races become possible when the hulls remain identical. This base of 5000 is a huge advantage for the Mac26x in comparison to a better design launched tomorrow - even one from MacGregor Yachts. Unlike autos, and powerboats, sailboats are raced and the more of like hull the more raceable.

frankofile

01-27-2005, 03:25 PM

Lets consider for a moment the top deck. On the first X cruisers, likely to reduce the weight of the top deck, plastic cleats were used. It is also likely that these cleats are stronger than the stainless ones affixed to my vessel. But the concept was to revolutionary. Roger had to compromise on this and put in stainless cleats to satisfy.
You know Frankie, if you spent more time researching and determining whether something was true or not, rather than just speculating about whatever stupid bs theory happens to bubble to the top of your pathetic little brain, people would actually believe what you say and you'd have a lot fewer worries about your livelihood and your position within your sailing club.

mistral

01-27-2005, 03:29 PM

same old stories; you've just written a lot of rubbish!!!!!
you know nothing about materials: PVC and carbon are not exactly the same thing!!! don't talk about stability, as you proved to know nothing about it, stablity means lower CG of the boat, that means keep your freeboard low, put the weight as low as you can, all the weights, including a reliable inboard engine, not a outboard placed after and high!!!
Carbon cleats are not made of "plastic" and of course they're not cheaper than stainless ones, carbon stanchions cost three-four times stainless ones and are used only in very high-level racer, and anyway are very seldom used both in racers and cruisers. Do you how much is the smashing load of a person throwed overboard, try to express it in pounds or Newtons, a load wich is applied ON the stanchion!!! i know it, you have no idea!!!
I would not dare to have PVC stanchions or lifelines, they simply will be dangerous, know what i mean, it's not a matter of lawyer and bully actitude, they're dangerous!!!! So please stop writing this rubbish, take a ABS or CE safety rule manual and have a look, you'll be surprised !!!

Mistral

mighetto

01-27-2005, 04:00 PM

mistral

same old stories; you've just written a lot of rubbish!!!!!

Oh come on all the maxi stuff is new.

you know nothing about materials: PVC and carbon are not exactly the same thing!!! don't talk about stability, as you proved to know nothing about it, stablity means lower CG of the boat, that means keep your freeboard low, put the weight as low as you can, all the weights, including a reliable inboard engine, not a outboard placed after and high!!!

Well I am not an engineer. I saw PVC used as pontoons for a multihull and even for structural components. Please, I am with you on this. But on freeboard, and stability I can disagree.

What you want is to keep your weight low in the boat. Vessels with low freeboard are human engineered so that the weight must be kept low. No cabin top to climb up, then less opportunity to get weight high.

Have you noticed the powerboats without deck structure in the bow. Instead there is a bow cockpit. That is human engineering. I don't see how an outboard or even an inboard could be mounted lower on the X and the post that the M outboard is mounted lower than the X is news to me and likely wrong. I had not noticed that.

You also have to consider the balanceing of the outboard when lifted and when deployed by hydrolics. Hydrolics possibly not unlike those used by ICON for her retractable keel. I maintain that the outboard is like a retractable keel in terms of its effect on stability. The boat will not perform under sail without the weight of it, if not the actual engine in that spot. That engine is solid ballast.

Stability refers to the ability to stay right side up. It is not defined in terms of CB. Point in case. ICON might retract her bulb keel to change the CB so that lighter wind can put her on optimum heel and you change stability with changes in sail. It is a dynamic concept that involves crew. An inexperienced crew naturally moves in a way that increases stability. The keel boat trained, unfortunatly often do not move and do not contribute to stability.

Carbon cleats are not made of "plastic" and of course they're not cheaper than stainless ones, carbon stanchions cost three-four times stainless ones and are used only in very high-level racer, and anyway are very seldom used both in racers and cruisers.

The cost is not related to the quality. It is simply a warm fuzzy. carbon fiber blocks are not all that expensive. We have them on Murrelet. Stanchions may go that way. Good to hear they are being deployed.

Do you how much is the smashing load of a person throwed overboard, try to express it in pounds or Newtons, a load wich is applied ON the stanchion!!! i know it, you have no idea!!!

I have seen ballerinas dangling by a toe from the life line of a Benetau 42. No kidding. Well she looked like a ballerina. The captain hauled her but back aboard.

I would not dare to have PVC stanchions or lifelines, they simply will be dangerous, know what i mean, it's not a matter of lawyer and bully actitude, they're dangerous!!!! So please stop writing this rubbish, take a ABS or CE safety rule manual and have a look, you'll be surprised !!!

I once took a look at Loyds of London requirments for port holes. The notion was that glass was stronger than plexiglass or lexar. This just is not true. ABS and CE safety rule manuals suffer just as Loyds does by being behind the technology curve. This is not surprising. What I did find surprising is the REQUIREMENT for inboard motors still on the books for some international racing rule groups. Outboard motors have none of the issues relating to the reason inboards were required when those rules were written. Even the notion of cavitating off waves is false given designs that can run before the wave. IE given planing and surfing designs. It takes time to catch up with technology. I am always frustrated by how long it takes. But Loyds now sees plexigass and lexar superiour to regualar glass and eventually organizations do come around to the new technologies.

amolitor

01-27-2005, 04:16 PM

Or, to keep weight low, you could put some sort of heavy weight low in the boat. Or even lower, you could hang that weight UNDER the boat! If you made that weight out of some substance that was heavier than water, it would be even more awesome!

Different materials have different uses. There's not a whole bunch of reason to make stanchions and cleats out of something lighter, taking a pound off the top of the mast is a lot more useful than taking a pound off the gunwhales.

What kind of carbon blocks have you got, Frank? The harken catalog is pretty vagues.

D'ARTOIS

01-27-2005, 04:17 PM

Richard Petersen

01-27-2005, 04:34 PM

He is a self proclaimed expert. Read his professional website. He can teach any one to become almost as much of a living legend as himself.

mistral

01-27-2005, 07:02 PM

l. I maintain that the outboard is like a retractable keel in terms of its effect on stability. The boat will not perform under sail without the weight of it, if not the actual engine in that spot.

what the hell are you saying, you have to be stupid, you MUST be definitively stupid to say that!!!!!!
"the outoboard engine is like a retractrable keel", OH MY GOD , you don't even know the difference between an engine and a keel!!!! that's too much!!! i didn't keeep my ass on a chair studying, and i didn't go sailing to get much more experience, just to stay here to speak with an absolute IDIOT who doesn't know the difference between an engine and a keel!!!!
have you ever heard something like "wing sections" or "lift"...how much LIFT do you think your engine will provide to your boat when sailing?????
maybe you don't even know that retractable keel on cruising boat are just for trailing, and that it may be DANGEROUS to sail them with the lifted keel cause it simply compromise their stability;
oh sorry Frankie, i beg your pardon, but yes, i have to admit that i forgot that you don't have such problems since you sail a boat that is inerently UNSAFE and that has been BANNED from production due to a capsize accident wich killed two boys!!!!!!!

Mistral

mighetto

01-27-2005, 07:50 PM

I think that you should be a little bit more careful of what you are saying Mr Mighetto. I am pretty convinced that your claims and expressions are carefully monitored by the manufacturer because almost all your claims and statements contain incorrect items, figures and facts.

My statements usually come with a URL. The claims I make about the Mac26x confirm what Roger MacGregor has said about the boat. I stand by them.

Your claims, apparently done out of your liking for the Mc26, are based on your own interpretation of facts, not on the official statements and commercial claims of the factory.

Well I do own one of these boats. But seriously I qoute the literature distributed on them. Everything can be verified including chats that I have had with factory workers. I was not the only one present when Bill stated that the Mac26x and Mac26m were unqualified OCEAN sailboats. Now this may drive the legals at MacGregor Yachts wild but MacGregor Yachts doesn't currently build lake only boats. In anycase, Lakes can be just as challenging as the sea. Lake Mead for example is notorious and there is a MacGregor event there every year.

Appointing yourself as the ultime expert on all aspects of the McGregor boats (I missed only the 65 and 70) maybe result in exeggerated expectations of readers of this forum and if you calculate the number some threads do attract; the impression you create could lead to actual damages of the foresaid company and in that specific case I should check your private responsibility insurance policy - if that one covers or is capable of covering the losses McGregor definately will claim if the discussion in these posts are running out of hand as they have done in the TP52 one and now in this one.

I do public service by exposing the TP52s for the protected water buoy race boats that they truly are. You have to wonder why the TransPacific Yacht Club is no longer supporting them. They simply are not TransPacific. The math tells you that. Well the math on the boats we we had numbers on. I suspect that 10 or all of the current 11 TP52s are not worthy of the lable TransPacific. The Farr vessels being created in Spain - if they ever see the water, do have numbers correcting to SNAME capsize risk ratio. I hereby appoint Myself expert on the Mac26x. By virtue of time on the water and by virtue of critical and painful analysis on Sailnet.net, Anarchy.com, Boat Design.net, the Macregor Yachts boards and at least two other BLOGs. Even Roger MacGregor has not put himself in the position I have been in, nore allowed his materials to be so widely reviewed, ridiculed, rewriten and made so accurate. But in regards to other MacGregor products, I know only what I read and dealers and owners tell me. Again. A good sailor will get his information from more than one source. Roger Macgregor has said things about the Mac26x. I am confirming them. Others will as well.

John Grisham or North Paterson might like these court cases, but I am quite assured that if you entangle yourself in such outragious claims and unfounded statements, I can understand that sooner or later McGregor is looking for a proper retribution. And you definately will not like that to happen.

Time for the standard line. I represent MacGregor Yachts to the same degree as a dealer - which is to say not at all. Go to the factory, ask what kind of a boat the Mac26x or Mac26m is. Get it first hand. The wonderful thing about this company is that you can do that.

You do not realise that this is an international forum, also monitored by other forum members - members of other forums. You have insulted very well known persons in the yachting business, who have no intention whatsoever to do you any harm or damage your reputation, on the contrary, they have tried - to no prevail - to get the basic physic aspects of boatbuilding/designing in your head.

Oh come on, to be in the yachting business you have to have a thick skin. What I have done is expose myths that others have tried without success to also expose. Any success I have has come primarily from timing. It is not very often that you get TP52 quality expose events. Look I understand how to keep confidential information confidential. The question is, what do you do with information you have figured out on your own? Well I have decided to let you all know about that information. Let you critique it and hope you will do so.

For McGregor however, your are working counterproductive by destroying their name worldwide, making statements and claims that they do not make and are not intended to make.

That is a big assumpion. You will need specifics. In anycase, MacGregor Yachts is not in the best position to chat about the Mac26x. I mean there was legal action. It is likely that all are gaged owing to the case. I am careful to point readers to specific lines in company literature. We can argue facts until we are blue in the face or I can say simply that if it is in black and white there is a fact that it is in black and white. This X boat is a revolutionary sailing machine that has been marketed that way and deamed safe to operate ballasted or unballasted and as describe in company literature and by an NA named Taylor. That presumably means with the load Martin caried during the disaster. I do intend to get transcripts of the case when they are available. They likely will contain a wealth of evidence supporting Taylor's, Roger's and my views on the design.

Consider this and try to place yourself in the position of the factory that is not aware of all you have said using their name so easy.

Consider that the factory loves all the free publicity. You can not purchase the kind of publicity this case has given MacGregor Yachts. The Mac26x is at the center of modern sailboat design owing to it. And Roger MacGregor is the most important designer because of his vision. The company will procede as it wants to. I am not certain Roger is in control. My hope is that more Mac26x cruisers will be built at the California plant. I am advocating such production.

Others with Mac26x cruisers may prefer to just have the vessel appreciate owing to the pent up demand. I would prefer to see more US born sailing and I think this vessel is the trainer for that. There will be at least 10 years before another modern design will have as many hulls active. You represent the international competition that US Sailors do not even come close to today. You likely would love another decade of non-performance by the US sailing atheletes. You also benefit from dumping your used and passe vessels into our market place, further perpetuating the cycle of loosing. Seriously, every TP52 built in Spain is expected to find a US owner. An entire organization called ORCA was set up to assist in creating a dumping ground for those vessels. My eastern brothers do not deserve that.

In any case I herewith ask the other members to refrain from any more reply since this is the 2nd thread leading to nothing exept a lot of nonsense, not to say bull****

The two threads I have had major participation are the most fresh air boat design.net has seen in years, I imagine. I do not intend to be a ball hog however. The starting of a thread by a former Catalina 27 owner putting my web site up for critical review should be met with just that - critical review. So far there has been little of that. The entire work is being dismissed out of hand. Members who refrain, by their lack of replies verify the correctness of my statements. Do you disagree? If so speak up. Get a mug, poor a beer and get to work. Otherwise, I will register this thread with google and get others willing to do so. This is by far our best work on the topic.

I have been doing this a long time. I am the man, the myth and as of a few days ago now old enough to be the legend. I am the one whoes name must not be spoken unless one is willing to listen to the truth. Amazingly many are. But everyone needs an editor and I get it wrong owing to poor feeding just like anyone. I am not the savior. I am not the King. We save ourselves. :cool: KEWL

frankofile

01-27-2005, 07:56 PM

what the hell are you saying, you have to be stupid, you MUST be definitively stupid to say that!!!!!!It is astonishing to contemplate.

Here's one from earlier today that made my jaw drop:
In the first place Skandia capsized - she did not sink. I doubt the crew was in more danger than hiking out to far where they have always the possibilty of getting a dunking. Capsizing is not a life threatening event unto itself. Sure it would ruin your day and race. It becomes life threatening when the boat can sink. It likely was a good thing Skandia's bulb keel broke loose from the hull. Perhaps that prevented her from sinking. Perhaps the designer designed her to do exactly that as MacGregor has designed fittings to give way before other structure does. We will not know for years. The law suits have already been filed.Clearly Frankie has never been out in the ocean in stormy weather in spite of his claim to an extensive sailing resume. To think that he could say the crew of a boat capsized in the middle of a storm was not in danger... incredible. Frank, two children died when one of your "safe" Mac26X's capsized in the middle of a lake, with nothing more than boat wakes to stir the surface. No howling wind, no breaking waves, just a 26 foot boat laying on its side with two dead children inside.

How is the contract coming along, Frank? Any queries yet regarding the citizen complaints about your conduct?

mighetto

01-27-2005, 08:05 PM

what the hell are you saying, you have to be stupid, you MUST be definitively stupid to say that!!!!!! "the outoboard engine is like a retractrable keel", OH MY GOD , you don't even know the difference between an engine and a keel!!!! that's too much!!!

Do you know that powerboats have keels. What you are thinking of as a keel is likely really a fix weighted fin. Let me put it this way. The word centerboard has been so unfairly associated with the word bad or crappy that manufacturers make up terms that are really the same thing. Dagger board, swing keel, retractable keel, these are all centerboards. A canting keel that also moves forward and aft is - you got it a centerboard. All of these are forms of movable ballast. All control the characteristics of the vessel at sea. A centerboard that has weight - meaning it will sink into the water, qualifies as a Keel for PHRF racing. I am saying that an outboard retracted or deployed will impact sailing preformance. Is this really to much?

i didn't keeep my ass on a chair studying, and i didn't go sailing to get much more experience, just to stay here to speak with an absolute IDIOT who doesn't know the difference between an engine and a keel!!!!

You went to school and were taught by hasbeens. Discusions like this will elevate you beyond them.

have you ever heard something like "wing sections" or "lift"...how much LIFT do you think your engine will provide to your boat when sailing?????

OK you are leading me on aren't you. Have you seen the new I-14 rudders. They provide lift by way of a horozontal fin. The same kind of a fin that you put on outboards to control trim. The Mac26x Wind sailed two seasons with this arrangement. It is specifically mentioned as a no no. The dual rudders provide enough lift.

maybe you don't even know that retractable keel on cruising boat are just for trailing, and that it may be DANGEROUS to sail them with the lifted keel cause it simply compromise their stability;

Maby you don't know to retract a centerboard for down wind runs. This is standard operating procedure. The reduced wetted surface lets the boat pass fixed keel vessels. Again, this is not just me saying so.

oh sorry Frankie, i beg your pardon, but yes, i have to admit that i forgot that you don't have such problems since you sail a boat that is inerently UNSAFE and that has been BANNED from production due to a capsize accident wich killed two boys!!!!!!!

Well If the boat is unsafe it would be recalled just like an auto that is found unsafe. Not only has that not happened but the company still makes a big deal out of comparing the M to the X. You could be correct. The X may not ever be produced in the US again. But she is already produced in Austrailia.

Got beer to drink. Take Care all.

frankofile

01-27-2005, 08:29 PM

have you ever heard something like "wing sections" or "lift"...how much LIFT do you think your engine will provide to your boat when sailing?????

OK you are leading me on aren't you. Have you seen the new I-14 rudders. They provide lift by way of a horozontal fin. The same kind of a fin that you put on outboards to control trim. The Mac26x Wind sailed two seasons with this arrangement. It is specifically mentioned as a no no. The dual rudders provide enough lift. Nice one there Frankie. Even someone as deranged as you are must know what lift is. If you were really as dumb as you act, there would be a solid crust of drool on all your clothes and you would be covered in bruises from walking into closed doors.

I like the idea of contacting MacGregor yachts. They may want to know about the ridicule that you have personally caused to be brought onto the Mac26X. I for one can't walk past one without a chuckle thanks to all your insane rantings. If we're lucky it will all hit at once - the cancellation of your contract with the state and the filing of intent to sue by MacGregor.

sharpii2

01-27-2005, 11:08 PM

Hi Skippy

I agree with most of your points for the most part.

On your first one, the mugger analogy just might fit. With a little modification, of course. The modification would be me imagining myself as a knight in the middle ages complete with my armor and broad sword being mugged by a serf armed with nothing but a large pitchfork handle. After a while, his blows might annoy me. And I might even smite him with my sword. But if I did, I'd use the flat of the blade rather than the edge.

On your second one, I agree that a mac 26 is not an ideal boat to take off shore. But I do believe that, with a skipper who knows her limitations, she may well survive the experience. Of course, the storm survival techniques may be different. Ie. no hulling or heaving to. Perhaps, if there is sufficient sea room, she could run with drouges with the center board retracted. In this condition, I feel she would be far less likely to broach than most fixed keelers. Or, perhaps, she could ride to a sea anchor (or maybe even her regular anchor with the rode run all the way out, for that matter) with all her appendages retracted. The point here being that, although she has some serious deficits, she also has some options that more conventional boats don't have.
I am reminded of Sven Lundin and his Bris adventures which ere published in the '70's and '80's by Cruising Under Sail magazine. Sven was dyslexic and a tad over weight. He made peace with himself when he decked over a rowboat and turned it into a sailboat. It worked reasonably well but he wanted something bigger. Having little or no training in boat design, he simply winged it. He ended up with a cold molded 'U' sectioned 20ft Lugger with a center board. He built it in a relative's cellar. Sven had no idea how to calculate sail carrying ability and grossly over estimated such ability of his boat. After a few hair raising pasages in the North Sea, he did some modifications. He got rid of the heavy unstayed lug masts as well as the centerboard.
What he ended up with was a masthead sloop with a short fin keel, a raised deck and some interesting sea keeping properties. Sven divided the bottom of his boat into seperate storage compartments which resembled ice tray dividers. Each compartment had its own hatch which was always well secured. Sven, himself, lay or sat on top of all of this and worked his boat from below through a series of hatches. Rigged this way, it sailed far and wide and deep into the Southern lattitudes.
It had one vice.
It capsized a lot.
When it did, It righted itself with little delay or complaint. The capsizes became so routine (about two or three a voyage), that he learned to shrugg them off. He replaced his sliding hatches with hinged ones, so they would slam shut before too much sea could enter the inverted boat. He moved the vents to the cenerline and gave them shafts deeper than the invered boats waterline. He even devised a seat belt to hold him in place incase it happened when he was sleeping. The boat and its eccentric properties may have horrified most sensible blue water sailors, but by god she worked. And with a skipper who understood her and could adapt to her vices, she went much further than most boats her size could ever hope to.
My point being that what may ostensibly, by time proven criteria, be deemed unseaworthy, may, with creative preparation and handling, prove to be the opposite.

On your third one, I aggree that the centerline, off loading ballast of the mac 26 is different than the side to side shifting ballast that I mentioned in my example are two different issues. I only brought it up ot show that I, personally, consider, movable, liguid ballast a design option. In fact, one concept boat I am working on originally had the same sort of ballast as the mac 26 . And it was designed to be a blue water boat. For the chosen hull type, though, the math just didn't work out (it will now have sand bags instead). But I would consider it again on a diferent hull type.

Much of Mighetto's boat math and science does not add up, But many of his coments about the needs of the boating public do. The advantage of modest size cruisers, and the vanishing, ever escalating in cost, slip and mooring space, really hit a note with me. Indeed, I once owned a small weekender style sail boat and sailed it regularily. That was until the local township doubled the property tax forcing the slip owners to double their fees, thus ending my sailing days for the forseable future. :(

Bob

mistral

01-28-2005, 02:42 AM

Do you know that powerboats have keels. ........All of these are forms of movable ballast. All control the characteristics of the vessel at sea. A centerboard that has weight - meaning it will sink into the water, qualifies as a Keel for PHRF racing. I am saying that an outboard retracted or deployed will impact sailing preformance. Is this really to much? ...........

you're again doing a bit of confusion Frankie, keel, ballast, rudder, engine, all up please, they're all the same thing.....all rubbish dear Frankie!!!! of course an outboard will affect sailing performance, even a washing machine towed after your boat will affect your performances; the only thing that you don't know is HOW the engine will affect your performance, you got no ideas of what is DRAG for instance, or wetted surface, or trim, i mean trimming a boat with weights not electrical trim on your engine!!!! Do you pretend to use your engine as a keel????
talin' 'bout ballast: a lot of people have tried to explain you what MOVABLE BALLAST is, but you seem to ignore their wise words, so for you everyhting that moves on your boat, including your little brain IS movable ballast......

Have you seen the new I-14 rudders. They provide lift by way of a horozontal fin. The same kind of a fin that you put on outboards to control trim. The Mac26x Wind sailed two seasons with this arrangement. It is specifically mentioned as a no no. The dual rudders provide enough lift.

other mountain of rubbish; you can't pretend that your boat is a dinghy or a cruising boat as long as one of this options is what you prefer, this is called GAMBLING!!!!! I-14 are light weight FOILER-assisted dinghies, of course you don't know how foiler works, how much speed they need to plane, how a wings works, and so you are not able to understand how much absurd is to compare the little trim fin on your engine to a foiler!!!

Maby you don't know to retract a centerboard for down wind runs. This is standard operating procedure. The reduced wetted surface lets the boat pass fixed keel vessels. Again, this is not just me saying so.

of course i know it perfectly since i sail dinghies for most part of my week-ends, a thing that you've never done; of course you don't know how much risky is to raise your centerboard in a high CG boat like yours, and i guess you don't even know the difference between a full downwind run (wind straight after your stern) and a zig-zag downwind run , gybing to keep your optimum downwind VMG.
i'd really wish to know if Mac Gregor shipyards are aware of the damage you're causing them with your absurd statements.
Now I begin to understand why you put reef on your mainsail in 10 knots true wind when you're sailing!!!!

Mistral

water addict

01-28-2005, 07:18 AM

water addict

01-28-2005, 08:02 AM

I have been doing this a long time. I am the man, the myth and as of a few days ago now old enough to be the legend. I am the one whoes name must not be spoken unless one is willing to listen to the truth. Amazingly many are. But everyone needs an editor and I get it wrong owing to poor feeding just like anyone. I am not the savior. I am not the King. We save ourselves.

Oh YES!!! Please tell us Frankie!!!! You are so wonderful!!!!!!

Skippy

01-28-2005, 09:38 AM

... me imagining myself as a knight in the middle ages complete with my armor and broad sword being mugged by a serf armed with nothing but a large pitchfork handle. After a while, his blows might annoy me. And I might even smite him with my sword. But if I did, I'd use the flat of the blade rather than the edge.I picture myself riding through the countryside, on some vital mission to deliver a message to the king. But then some fat, ugly monster crawls out from under a bridge before I can cross it. As the monster approaches, my horse rears up, terrified by the monster's stinking odor and menacing, incoherent growls, interspersed with even more horrifically putrid belches. I can tell from signs that are too gruesome for me to recount to you now, that the monster just ate the last passerby to cross the bridge that day. With all my strength and skill (which I admit isn't much), I manage to bring the horse back under control. Carefully maintaining my distance and keeping the horse away from the monster's drooling jaws, I poke the monster again and again with my lance, futilely attempting to wound it or force it away from the bridge. Finally, just as the monster is lunging in to tackle the horse and wrestle it to the ground, the horse panics, kicking the monster in the head and trampling it underfoot, then rushes across the bridge before I even know what has happened.

All the knights in the kingdom are now sworn to fight the monster with all their might, as an enemy of the people and a danger to our peaceful land. Who knows what will be the outcome of this heroic struggle? Half of our knights cannot bear to get close enough to the monster to strike it, retching and puking at the first whiff of that unspeakable stench. Several have already succumbed, or been so unfortunate as to encounter the monster after a particularly long time had elapsed since the last stranger had traveled through that area. In its heightened state of hunger, the monster was too smelly and hideous for even our bravest warriors. Please pray for us as we soldier on in defense of our lives and the tranquility of our homeland.

a mac 26 is not an ideal boat to take off shore. But I do believe that, with a skipper who knows her limitations, she may well survive the experience.You know, Spaghetto himself (ITself?) has mentioned that. The crew is part of seaworthiness. Heck, a really experienced pro could probably take on the ocean in a Sunfish. Just wear a 2-layer full-length wetsuit, so with both layers you're comfortable in -- what? 50 deg water? 40? Beef up the rig, attach it more securely to the hull, and put in storage space for supplies. And if you capsize, so what? Pick the boat back up, and you're on your way again. Sleep under the stars. What could be better? Sounds like Lundin right there. :) Which by the way, just proves Spaghetto's point. It's not the boat that's really seaworthy, it's the pilot.

I, personally, consider, movable, liguid ballast a design option. I saw mention some time ago, of an idea from AYRS to use standard hardware-store extension ladders as crossbeams for a multihull dingy. Then I thought, you could take both pieces of the ladder, mount one piece athwart even a mono, maybe a daysailer. Use a line to slide the other piece along the first one, and have some way with another line to slide some sandbag or water tank from end to end across the top. Or maybe even connect the two lines somehow. (but maybe not.) That way you'd have a nice fast boat with a 2-sided telescoping hiking board, and you don't have hike out too far yourself.

... the local township doubled the property tax forcing the slip owners to double their fees ...Sorry to hear that, and yes it's a good point. The lake where I sail my Laser recently started charging a launching fee, so now I drive around to the far side of the lake and launch from a ramp with no facilities except restrooms and a parking lot. Actually, that's a lot of fun. I cruise along the length of the lake to the food place on the other end, have lunch and hang out there for a while, stop in at the Marina to see all the people paying money to launch their boats, then finally head back before the sun goes down. I wouldn't have it any other way.

mighetto

01-28-2005, 11:25 AM

On trolls,

There was this ideal town on a river except for one problem. Every day or so a person, horses, other animals would need to be saved from the river. The town responded with the latest technology and systems for emergency response. And at considerable expense. The system became a model for the nation and dignitaries from around the world came to learn the system and implement similar technology for emergency response on rivers. Then one day a man, a myth, a legend asked. Has anyone gone up the river to see why persons horses and other animals are falling in?

If nothing else I am getting folks to think. There was a troll at a bridge up river throwing those who tryed to cross the river by bridge into it because he had made the bridge his home. All assumed the technology and systems recognize by the world as quality were necessary. None had thought to look at Why the technology and systems were necessary in the first place.

Good morning Anarchists and Boat Designers,

The Church of FOYD is now open.

mistral

01-28-2005, 11:35 AM

at least you're keeping my english trained ;) ;)
THANKS A LOT Frankie

best regards
Mistral

water addict

01-28-2005, 11:59 AM

Then one day a man, a myth, a legend asked. Has anyone gone up the river to see why persons horses and other animals are falling in?

If nothing else I am getting folks to think. There was a troll at a bridge up river throwing those who tryed to cross the river by bridge into it because he had made the bridge his home. All assumed the technology and systems recognize by the world as quality were necessary. None had thought to look at Why the technology and systems were necessary in the first place.

Oh yes Frankie YES!!! Of course you are helping us poor ignorant masses because you are such an enlightened being!!

How did we ever get on without you. Praise!! All Praise!!

mighetto

01-28-2005, 12:16 PM

YEEESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go Frankie Go!!! Please for God's sake enlighten the world about sailing and how wrong everyone is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please Frankie the world needs your wonderful knowledge!

(PS- you might try your spell checker once in a while you moron)
Addict - it is considered rude to point out spelling errors publically on the Internet. You have my permission to correct such errors in quoting my wonderful knowledge and contact me off forum so I can correct such errors. I am wise beyond my years but maintain a spelling standard appropriate for a sailor. :) Now tell me that wasn't fun! Next tell me that only lawyers can speak out about boat design. I love shooting this kind of thing down. :)

Now that the Church is Open, lets today continue on the path of stability enlightenment. I am not preaching to the choir, the church today is full of visitors. All are welcome but a review is needed owing to that. There are several factors that contribute to stability on a sailboat. The Center of Gravity (CG) is only one of them.

We ask for guidance on CG. Is there any advantage of extending the CG to a point outside of the hull? Can we assume there is no such advantage given that this situation is flagged as unusual by boat reviewers? The implications are grave for those who favor sexy? testicle keels (bulb keels). A bright angel is requested to turn the light bulb on.

Related to CG is crew. Crew that have not been damaged by keel boat experience will naturally move with the motion of the boat and can be positioned for stability purposes. Those with keel boat training are like bags of sand. They are useful only in steady wind and useless when tacking, gybing and maneuvering. It is for this reason that those new to the sport should avoid crewing on keel boats.

The deck structure is important to stability. A flat deck can make a vessel stable when the boat is inverted. This is not what you want. High Inverted Stability is so bad for an ocean going sailboat that most do not consider multihulls ocean worthy. The work around for ocean going multihulls is solid flotation which allows the sailboat to serve as its own life raft. Even so, every so often boaters are trapped under an inverted boat - their life vests compounding the problem not helping the unfortunate free themselves.

The bottom shape is important to stability. A boat with a flat-bottom, like the Mac26x, has a great amount of initial stability at normal sailing angles and at rest. This brings up a stink pot issue. Power boaters generally assume that boats they pass are stable. A contemporary sailboat when at rest or when underway by motor power often will have very poor initial stability. Hence they handle powerboat wakes poorly unless under sail where the sail provides stability. Do we blame the power boater for wake damage, or do we blame the boat designer?

Freeboard: - specifically freeboard on the lee. According to Sail's 2005 Sailboat Buyers Guide A good amount of freeboard will improve both the maximum righting moment and the limit of positive stability. The Church of FOYD asks for assistance on what maximum righting moment and limit of positive stability really mean. In the absence of a bright angle, we will attempt to understand GZ curves as on page 125 of the buyers guide.

Contrary to popular opinion, beam and draft IMO are not useful in discussing stability. First of all the beam may vary with heel. Second, a thin vessel is rewarded with a superior capsize risk ratio because thin vessels often have poor inverted stability - a good thing. Third, beam also provides buoyancy when heeled. That changes stability. A beamy boat presents a lot of freeboard to the wind and at a limit the wind can flip her over. So while a beamy boat may give better initial stability, it is unclear how stable the vessel will be underway. Draft can lower the CG and impacts buoyancy but it also gives waves a lever that reduces stability.

Stability is a dynamic concept. It refers to the ability to keep the vessel right side up. Operator Competency is important to stability. Operators who go with the flow will pick courses that make the going easier when conditions are rough. Operators who insist on a course no matter how much a vessel is being battered create stability issues. Operators who do not secure gear and supplies low in the boat so that it will not shift in heavy weather create stability issues.

Skippy

01-28-2005, 12:42 PM

There was a troll at a bridge up river throwing those who tryed to cross the river by bridge into it because he had made the bridge his home.Fortunately, the horses, which were the most valuable animal, tended to survive the trauma much better than the other animals. The horses were well fed, so the layer of fat surrounding their bodies kept them well afloat. Meanwhile, the horses' heavy shoes, being attached down low on their hooves, prevented the horses from tipping over and drowning. The pigs, on the other hand, with nothing but layers of fat hanging in their underbellies, tragically overturned every time, and arrived in town as gruesome, bloated corpses.

mighetto

01-28-2005, 12:55 PM

Oh yes Frankie YES!!! Of course you are helping us poor ignorant masses because you are such an enlightened being!! How did we ever get on without you. Praise!! All Praise!!
Addict. Web Logs, BLOGS, this forum, this thread, are a relatively new technology. While the standards of behavior are different for the different BLOGS usually it is considered inappropriate to QUOTE less than the entire statement. This is because out of context, meaning can be changed, and because this is a standard mode of flaming.

Pre Internet folks became enlightened by hiring professionals - lawyers, teachers, doctors, yes even NAs and boat designers. It took to long to research by other means.

Post Internet all professions struggle to show relivancy.

Those who advance beyond trade secrets, which are now easily googled out, will prosper. Those who hope to keep the masses ignorant by calling them Idiots for asking Why and flaming them off a forum will fall behind and become not relevant.

Those of us lucky enough to be at a computer all day long, have in effect a learning environment that will advance us beyond the professionals who choose to ignore our faith in this technology. Addict, you are welcome in the Church of FOYD. While our faith in humanity may be tested, our faith in the power of this Internet Technology is solid. Free and Usefull discussion will be the order Here. I seriously do not know how the poor ignorant masses did without it. Not well obviously. The masses have been manipulated into thinking that sail boats that sink when swamped are superior to those that do not. It is this kind of myth that we address.

We in the church also want to bring back the voices of the multihullers. By pure flame, they are reluctant to post. Yet their ways will be the ways of the monohuller in the new order. The ways of 17MPH under sail!

Skippy

01-28-2005, 01:10 PM

A flat deck can make a vessel stable when the boat is inverted.As can be seen here:
http://www.macgregor26.com/trailering_flowers_small.jpg

Operator Competency is important to stability.Especially with the boat pictured above.

sorenfdk

01-28-2005, 01:16 PM

As can be seen here:
http://www.macgregor26.com/trailering_flowers_small.jpg

Especially with the boat pictured above.
"Boat" - isn't that a caravan? ;)

mighetto

01-28-2005, 01:32 PM

It is astonishing to contemplate.
Here's one from earlier today that made my jaw drop:
Clearly Frankie has never been out in the ocean in stormy weather in spite of his claim to an extensive sailing resume. To think that he could say the crew of a boat capsized in the middle of a storm was not in danger... incredible. Frank, two children died when one of your "safe" Mac26X's capsized in the middle of a lake, with nothing more than boat wakes to stir the surface. No howling wind, no breaking waves, just a 26 foot boat laying on its side with two dead children inside. How is the contract coming along, Frank? Any queries yet regarding the citizen complaints about your conduct?
I claim to have a sailing resume more extensive than most who own sailboats. But so what. Even a newbee should be able to post. Lover, you are missing the point. In the modern age, because of modern weather reporting, because of all those photos from space, you have to be a thrill seaker to get into storm in the first place. The film Perfect Storm was accurate. The Andrea Gail did not need to weather the storm. She could have waited it out in calm. This is what the modern age gives us. I now get to tell my version of a famous story.

A young fellow desired his Captain's License. Part of the requirement for the license was an oral exam. So he put on his best suit and thinking cap and presented himself to the tormentors.

One of them started by asking what he would do if at anchor when the wind picked up owing to gale. The candidate answered smartly. I would let out more chain. To which the tormenter replied - It is all gone. OK the candidate followed, I will put out my second anchor. Alright the questioner replied but now a storm is predicted. Thats fine the candidate answered, I will put out my third anchor at which point the examiner yelled SIR WHERE ARE YOU GETTING ALL THIS EQUIPMENT. The candidate replied. The same place you are getting all that wind.

We can chat hypothetically until we are blue in the face. The fact is that Sailing is not all that dangerous. Sailing in a race fleet is less dangerous. No one died in the last SH. Lets not pretend it was a repeat of 1998.

Regarding the project. It is always dificult when those in charge may not be tomorrow. There is no doubt that stability in government, like stability in a boat is everything. Evenutally the state will have a governor. In theory it shouldn't make any difference to me or the team who that is. But as a practical matter, many are coping very poorly. I choose to think about sailing rather than that. So enough said.

mighetto

01-28-2005, 01:47 PM

Søren Flening

Great to have you back! I prefer this photo. These are X model

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/RV.jpg

I kind of am in the same mode of thinking as the water bound sailboat owners on this one. Living in a trailer isn't all that appealing. We picked the name Murrelet because a marbled murrelet nests in old growth forest even though she is a sea bird. Boats that can be transported to wilderness lakes, can still give their owners the kind of experience Slocum had on Spray. There is value in that.

The deck structure on both the X and M is IMO deck salon style. On the X you have 360 degree visibility from below deck while at the dinnete - like on a pilot house boat or on the Catalina 440. On the M you gain lack of inverted stability from the deck structure and not 360 visibility owing to the head bulkhead and multihull like daggerboard trunk. Neither have flat top decks

amolitor

01-28-2005, 02:04 PM

frankofile

01-28-2005, 02:10 PM

We ask for guidance on CG. Is there any advantage of extending the CG to a point outside of the hull? Can we assume there is no such advantage given that this situation is flagged as unusual by boat reviewers? The implications are grave for those who favor sexy? testicle keels (bulb keels). A bright angel is requested to turn the light bulb on.Frankie, if you don't even understand the fundamentals, how can you claim any expertise? You are a moron of the highest order.

By the way, "ofile" doesn't mean I have anything but contempt for you. The o-file is the trash can where everything you say belongs. You confuse that with "ophile" because you assume, for some reason, that my spelling and grammar are as atrocious as yours are.

Skippy

01-28-2005, 03:12 PM

"Boat" - isn't that a caravan?
http://www.macgregor26.com/trailering_flowers_small.jpg Soren, this is a covered outdoor hot tub being delivered to someone's home. The hot tub is placed in the purchaser's yard, and people can gather for a hot soak any time of year. The metal pipe above the tub is the plumbing that is connected to the house to provide a water supply. Add an electrical extension cord to power the heater and jets, and your winter hot tub is installed! :)

mighetto

01-28-2005, 07:36 PM

> We ask for guidance on CG. Is there any advantage of extending the CG to a point
> outside of the hull? Can we assume there is no such advantage given that this
> situation is flagged as unusual by boat reviewers?

No, we cannot assume this. Furthermore, we cannot assume that placing weight below the hull is useless to lower the center of gravity, even if that center of gravity does not eventually wind up below the hull.

It is obvious to small children that a pound hung 6 feet below the hull lowers the center of gravity a lot more than a pound inside the hull.

Your trouble, frank, is that you lay down axioms that are complete rubbish, and then reason from them. Stop it.
amolitor,

Well this is not going well. At all. How are the following statements?

It has not been shown that when the CG is lower than the hull that there is any improvement in speed or stability.

It is likely that when the CG is lower than the hull that the hull integrity is in question.

Bulb keels are the result of IMS rules/ design rules that at best are nuetral and likely are harmful.

Off, On, nuts?

My problem is the problem of power boat designers who for some reason do not hang bulb keels from thier vessels even though stability is everything and speed is also an objective. If such structures were more than the recent and failed experiment that I maintain they are we would see them on motor craft.

The Church of FOYD is now closed. The children need their play and rest time. Sail On. Catch all next week.

amolitor

01-28-2005, 07:51 PM

Fair enough!

> It has not been shown that when the CG is lower than the hull that there
> is any improvement in speed or stability.

Yes it has. This is simply not true. Putting the CG lower than the hull definitely improves stability. While lowering CG does not increase speed, having a deep high performance keel DOES improve speed in a SAILING vessel where leeway is an issue. Since deep keels are a good idea, and since it's helpful to have something on the bottom of the keel for turbulence issue (similar to winglets on an aircraft wing) it works out beautifully to put a big gob of heavy stuff in a nice smooth shape on the bottom of a deep keel.

In summary, a deep and heavy keel, in a sailboat, has definitely been shown to improve both stability and speed.

Powerboats do not need deep keels and their corresponding "lift" for lateral stabilty, since their drive is all forward. Sails push sideways a lot.

By the way, "lift" in this context does NOT mean vertical lift. It is a horizontal force generated by a variety of thing, in particular wing-like properties of the keel, which force counteracts the lateral (leeway-producing) force of the sails. It is referred to (confusingly) as "lift" by analogy with wings, not because it is vertical in nature.

Powerboats are not Sailboats.

Skippy

01-28-2005, 08:05 PM

Powerboats are not Sailboats.They're not? :confused:

How are the following statements?
It has not been shown that when the CG is lower than the hull that there is any improvement in speed or stability.
(etc.)How about these statements Frank?
The world is flat.
Money groes on trees.
There is an Easter Bunny.
This is NOT the stupidest, most inane thread conceivable by the human mind.

mighetto

01-28-2005, 08:12 PM

Frankie, if you don't even understand the fundamentals, how can you claim any expertise? You are a moron of the highest order.

By the way, "ofile" doesn't mean I have anything but contempt for you. The o-file is the trash can where everything you say belongs. You confuse that with "ophile" because you assume, for some reason, that my spelling and grammar are as atrocious as yours are.
So you do not Love Me? So sad. BTW, I was at a meeting yesterday where with a word or two I might have eliminated Trip Gal from the Toliva Shoal race. (Lover is that you?) She and Mike H. have angered more than a few serious racers.

The sailing race game advances through protests. If you have a gripe you protest in a timely manner, the competitor's rating gets adjusted or the race rules are modified. But there is no progress or benefit to complaining about a Gig Harbor race last year, for example. That is unsportsman like conduct. Folks give up a lot of family time to organize races and do not need grief like that.

I was given "credit" for the Gal's electrolysis proplems. Please I would never do such a thing. But we all felt bad enough to let Trip Gal and Mike H alone.

They are telling their crew that they are not interested in Toliva Shoal probably because they know that the as-close-to-unsportsman-like conduct recently displayed, may get them banned. We mean to play well together - even if we dislike each other. Fan or Foe, you are a sailor, as am I. Hence we are mates and should try to behave that way. Tripp Gal, Tripp or Mike H. were asked simply to sign their posts. For that a professional sailor was called a little man and challenged to a fight. It need not be this way.

Lover, I will continue calling you lover, if a new boat purchaser doesn't even understand the fundamentals, how can they be allowed to purchase and operate a boat? The claim of expertise or lack there of does not make the new boat purchaser or me a moron of the highest order. I have asked for help. Help or do not help. It is up to you to honor the sport or to dishonor it. Seriously, however, do you think your response will attract Corinthians?

mighetto

01-28-2005, 08:29 PM

Skippy
How about these statements Frank?
The world is flat.

Thats a good one because it demonstrates a closed minded society in which you might be burned alive if you vocalized otherwise. The world is flat and Macgregor yachts are crap are similar statements.

Money grows on trees.

Oh JC. You do know I live in the pacific northwest. These trees are money.

There is an Easter Bunny.

This is an example of a theory that can not be disproved. Science advances by disproving theories just as the sailboat race game advances through protest. There is an Easter Bunny and there is God are theories that because it is impossible to disprove go beyond theory. They become philosophy or religon, not science. The sailing science isn't even close to that. But, we have a Church of FOYD because sail boat design in the US has taken on many aspects of a religion. A cult really where Cool Aid Kids will drink what ever they are told without checking out what is in the mix.

This is NOT the stupidest, most inane thread conceivable by the human mind.

Likely 4000 views by monday. I have been back only 8 days or so. There is something to this stupid thread. The Zen of Sailing? I have not even called the minions from Sailing Anarchy or the MacGregor Yachts boards. If nothing else, think of it as entertainment. :) But be aware. When we are done, I will be stating on my Cruising Log that the material was submited for review and in fact was reviewed by Boat design.net. You might take it all a wee bit seriously.

Frank L. Mighetto

frankofile

01-28-2005, 08:34 PM

mighetto

01-28-2005, 08:42 PM

I have asked for help. Help or do not help. It is up to you to honor the sport or to dishonor it. Seriously, however, do you think your response will attract Corinthians?
Ha! There is no point to trying to help you. It has been tried before and you ignore whatever contradicts your ridiculous theories and spurn offers of help, sometimes quite rudely.

You're just ranting about protests and Toliva shoal, whatever that is. Very humorous in a sick and twisted sort of way, but not attractive to new comers.
So I missed and you are not Tripp Gal. Can't blame me for trying to figure out who my foes are. You are always welcome to post, even though you think I am not. Come on this thread is about my cruising log. Get real. Sad to realize you are not the Gal. Tripp Gal has a "morbid fascination" with the Mac26x. She will be upset when 50 X and Ms hit her home port Poulsbo, June 16th.

Hopefully you are a famous boat designer. The point I am trying to make is that EVERY BOAT PURCHASER is a defacto boat designer the moment they get a drill out. You do not really own the boat until you have designed and made your first modification. Do you disagree? If I must be a moron like President Bush has been called well so be it. Get yourself another handle and please try again. Hey, its Friday. You and I need to get the sails ready for the week end. Have Fun. I will.

asathor

01-28-2005, 09:12 PM

I am sorry I missed this, from now on I will consult my moon-calender more frequently to make sure not to miss these forums.

skinny boy

01-28-2005, 09:35 PM

So what magical wonderful powers do you have that would have eliminated Tripp Gal from the Toliva Shoal Race? Who is Tripp Gal? And why would you care?

First it was Farr, then Teeters now Tripp Gal, you seem to have some real interpersonal problems. You threatened Skinny and me on this thread. You seem to always be attacking people.

So far on this thread everything you have said has been a lie. You have slandered Jim Teeters and now it appears you are going after someone else.

You might not be a genious but you are at least not smart.

sorenfdk

01-28-2005, 10:01 PM

Soren, this is a covered outdoor hot tub being delivered to someone's home. The hot tub is placed in the purchaser's yard, and people can gather for a hot soak any time of year. The metal pipe above the tub is the plumbing that is connected to the house to provide a water supply. Add an electrical extension cord to power the heater and jets, and your winter hot tub is installed! :)
I stand corrected!
And unlike someone else on this thread, I try to learn from my mistakes!

sorenfdk

01-28-2005, 10:15 PM

It has not been shown that when the CG is lower than the hull that there is any improvement in speed or stability.
Nuts!

It is likely that when the CG is lower than the hull that the hull integrity is in question.
Nuts!

Bulb keels are the result of IMS rules/ design rules that at best are nuetral and likely are harmful.
Nuts!

My problem is the problem of power boat designers who for some reason do not hang bulb keels from thier vessels even though stability is everything and speed is also an objective. If such structures were more than the recent and failed experiment that I maintain they are we would see them on motor craft.
Why don't you ask a powerboat designer about this?

Crowie

01-29-2005, 06:16 AM

Guys,
Lots of blah blah blah, looks like a nice boat to pot around the lake for a few hours.
any further claims are bullshit, it's that simple.

SailDesign

01-29-2005, 03:46 PM

It has not been shown that when the CG is lower than the hull that there is any improvement in speed or stability.

It is likely that when the CG is lower than the hull that the hull integrity is in question.

Bulb keels are the result of IMS rules/ design rules that at best are nuetral and likely are harmful.

Well, Ignore File or not, I jus can't let these slide.

When the CG is lower than the hull (we'll assume you mean that the CG is lower than the lowest point of the canoe body), then the stability WILL be better than with the CG inside the canoe body. That is a proven fact, hydrstatically=speaking, and cannot be denied. Period.

When the CG is "below the hull", the hull integrity is not compromised any more than it may have been with the CG higher. Hull integrity and CG have nothing to do with each other, basically.

The bulb keel was around Loooong before the IMS, and will be around long after it.

You also say "I have asked for help." Well, this post is Help. Take it or go away.

Steve

frankofile

01-29-2005, 06:07 PM

But be aware. When we are done, I will be stating on my Cruising Log that the material was submited for review and in fact was reviewed by Boat design.net. You might take it all a wee bit seriously. Reviewed, sure, and thoroughly ridiculed by boatdesign.net and sailinganarchy.com at the least. What other forums have you been bounced out of. If you imply any sort of acceptance of your absurd theories then that is yet another lie you will have made. Anyone who reads your website and isn't immediately either offended or amused by it's nonsense, anyone who takes it seriously and actually puts any of that crap into practice, is probably doomed from the start. That's the way evolution works.

Skippy

01-29-2005, 07:36 PM

What other forums have you been bounced out of.ybw.com (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/507378/page/10/fpart/3/vc/1)

sorenfdk

01-29-2005, 07:52 PM

But be aware. When we are done, I will be stating on my Cruising Log that the material was submited for review and in fact was reviewed by Boat design.net. You might take it all a wee bit seriously.

Frank, I don't think a website can review anything. Maybe in your world, but not in this.
People, howewer, can and have. The users of the forum on boatdesign.net have reviewed your statements and the verdict was quite clear: 99% of it is BS and not to be taken seriously.
Or did you miss this?

mighetto

01-30-2005, 10:23 AM

Frank, I don't think a website can review anything. Maybe in your world, but not in this.
People, howewer, can and have. The users of the forum on boatdesign.net have reviewed your statements and the verdict was quite clear: 99% of it is BS and not to be taken seriously.
Or did you miss this?

I strive for no Bravo Sierra on http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm. I believe what I post. Can you say the same? I have just spent the morning reviewing Sailing Anarchy where believe it or not they are still trying to get me to post. I see few of the regulars posting now. There is still nudity. Businesses, as well as governments, now filter those sites out. Why the Baptist Preacher editing the forum hasn't stopped that is beyond me. We here have all advanced beyond. Sailing magazines take thier lead from boat design.net and the pay for view site now. But where Sailing Anarchy has remained a site for the uninitiated, Boat Design.net has never been so. We can do much good here.

This month, in the sailing magazines, there is recognition that IMS is dead. Even the owner of the last built non-TP52 IMS boat, a boat that betters all the TP52s, sees his vessel as a buggy wip, a useless thing, a Gimcrack now that the US has gone IRC to support this technology shift to movable ballast, and lighter materials. With that recognition is the halt of trends in sailboat design that I believe have contributed to the decline of the sailing sport in the US. We are talking trends to shorter head sails and boats that heel to much because under the IMS rules these vessels had rating advantage and boats that are to tender for motoring, anchoring, or even entertaining dockside, because of poor initial stability.

What is wrong with small head sails. Well, the head sail is the sail most likely in clear air. It makes sence owing to that for it to be a powerful sail. Also when the head sail is simply jib size, it can not wrap around stays which means poor pointing. Plus that trend ignores the greatest invention in modern times for sailing - roller furling which gives the sailor an easy way to maintain the vessel on optimum heel. What is wrong with excessive heeling? Well it discourages those new to the sport and makes the boat a poor cruising vessel because all accomodations are at an awkward angle when the wind carries.

I am very proud of the part that MacGregor Yachts has played in the demise of IMS. When a boat can be designed to a rule rather than to the objectives of seaworthiness and speed it is a problem. That is what fellows like Jim Teeters have built their careers on. It will not be the way of the future.

Old Business

The TP52 was to be the repacement for the Farr 40s. The notion that moving up means moving to a larger boat is one that is well entrenched in the minds of powerboaters. Sailboaters need not think that way. The idea that the Swans are replacements for Farr 40s is not what I was gitting to. There need be no replacement for the Farr 40s. Change is not always good. This is a situation where Farr 40 owners and crews should stick with it, just like Star owners and crews have stuck with it. Those new to the sport should be looking at Swans and boats like the Mac26x. They are not invested in a sailing style and hence it is easier for them to pick up the modern style.

The meaning of the word Skandia is well covered on Sailing Anarchy. I encourage those interested to check that out. But please, canting keels are not any more dangerous than fixed keels. It is the nature of the keel being fixed in an extended possition that gives the sea a lever in which to capsize them, crack them, and sink them. It is Physics. Physics you have to be trained not to see by US Sailing Certified Schools. The design is compromised by not providing for retraction of the keel as well as canting and movement forward and aft - if that is provided.

New Business

Sailing Anarchy reports that carbon fiber will be less available for boat building because of HomeLand Security???? What the Hell, they need the material for tent poles!!!! Lets get serious. Carbon Fiber has not been shown to benefit sailing craft when used for booms and masts. It does not appear to have the longevity of aluminum nor is it user friendly when it fails, in the sense that the left overs can be used for jurry rigs. We can get less weight aloft in more cost effective ways. Let the aircraft industry have the material.

mighetto

01-30-2005, 11:25 AM

YBC.com remains open to me. I really have not been bounced off any forums. Why do you think so? Classic mighetto from YBC. Thanks for the URL. This is good for review.

I posted:

Oh I do believe that larger motors will find their way into all future ocean sailboat designs. You may not have this problem in the UK but in the USA we lose 100,000 sailors a year. These folks move to trawlers or worse yet give up boating entirely.In the US, 3/4 of the boaters think sail boaters idiots. I am the voice of reason in comparison to what a power boater thinks of a rag bagger. Especially a rag bagger in an under powered displacement only fixed weighted fin craft.

I am reposting this from another YBW forum. I have submitted it to the moderator and really do not know if it will ever get posted. So here it is.

Hi Jan. The Mac26x is a serious ocean sailboat. There are a couple of things to realize. First, no one outside of a race, will find any boat of any racing size on the ocean comfortable.

It took serious racers to make this point to me. In the modern age, boats are transported, not because it is dangerous to make a crossing, but because the cost of wear and tear on the yacht doesn't justify the "fun" of doing so.

After the first day, below decks on any cruising sailboat is likely going to smell like puke. If it does not it may smell of diesel. No one outside of the most fatigued is going to want to "enjoy" the comfort there. And then they will be sleeping. If the crossing is several weeks the enjoyment is the same one might get in jail.

So for the future, it is likely that boats that will be making ocean crossings will be more race boat like in the interior than house like. To ignore this ignores the availability of other modern tools besides boat transport like weather reporting.

Do visit http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm to see why these boats, even out of production are worth chatting about. There is nothing in a monohull under 40 foot and under 180,000 US that compares. The designer/ manufacturer understates the boats capabilities. I know this is hard to believe but the test of time and rejection of notions of stability by international ocean racing design rule bodies to allow movable ballast as the Mac26x (and no other Macgregor model) puts the boat in her prime.

Skippy

01-30-2005, 12:39 PM

YBC.com remains open to me. I really have not been bounced off any forums. ... Classic mighetto from YBC.That appears to be true. It's the responses that are notable. :) ybw.com (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/507378/page/10/fpart/3/vc/1)

frankofile

01-30-2005, 12:56 PM

From the latest exchange on Sailing Anarchy:

"Posted: Jan 26 2005, 08:20 PM
We all know Frank is a very sick man.
Someone could write a book about Trolls using him as a subject."

"Posted: Jan 26 2005, 09:15 PM
He is so far off his meds he probably can't even remember what they were."

Frank, they don't want you back, they want you to stay as far away as possible. If you read it any other way you are delusional.

Initial response on YBF to your typically stupid post above:

"Do'nt talk such utter shite. These things have killed people."

"Oh god I just stopped reading it in the end. It started badly, wandered off to cuckoo land and well.....
I wonder what the word for TOSH is in the states.
How can you call a boat with the bog in the middle of the saloon area a nice place to be for weeks on end, even animals do not crap in their sleeping and eating areas.
Who is this philosopher?"

And you didn't exactly make any converts by the end of the thread. You must get off on being called stupid and sick and full of shite.

mighetto

01-30-2005, 07:56 PM

frankofile,

From the latest exchange on Sailing Anarchy:

"Posted: Jan 26 2005, 08:20 PM We all know Frank is a very sick man.
Someone could write a book about Trolls using him as a subject."
"Posted: Jan 26 2005, 09:15 PM He is so far off his meds he probably can't even remember what they were."
Frank, they don't want you back, they want you to stay as far away as possible. If you read it any other way you are delusional.

Lover, we live in the Internet Age. In this age, when you are truthful and willing to speak truth, you are assigned what are called Handlers. Several years ago, during the Microsoft anti-trust battles, it was confirmed that I had a handler. This was a person or persons whoes job it was to follow my posts and respond with charges of delusional. We recently saw handlers assigned to those who spoke out for or against the Bush presidency. In fact today there are companies you can hire to monitor BLOGs and when preaching the gosple acording to their masters doesn't work they will attach credibility, just as the credibility of Expert Witnesses are attached in a court case. I know this game well and know that exposing it builds credibilty. The MWW marketing group's Division 360 and groups such as it who tap WeB Logs to market or disparage products are real organizations that you can purchase into. The saying if you can not argue the facts argue credibility applies you your posts now. Stand Down for you have been identified as my prize.

Iitial response on YBF to your typically stupid post above:
"Do'nt talk such utter shite. These things have killed people."
"Oh god I just stopped reading it in the end. It started badly, wandered off to cuckoo land and well.....

I was invited to YBF, as I was invited to Sailing Anarchy. Active members of both have contacted me about posting further. The former Catalina Owner, and Yamaha Biker who started this thread, was not me. There is worldwide interest in the Mac26x cruisers as there should be. There is only worldwide hype on TP52s. On some forums polls are taken. Of course these are stacked but the polls taking on my posts always show a significant number who wish me to continue defending the ride.

I wonder what the word for TOSH is in the states.

Murrelet is my rides name. The ancient mariners of the Pacific Northwest called the marbled murrelet a kiss-me-arse because of the way these birds presented their TOSH when they were approached. The Kiss-me-arse syndicate is a fictitional group of anarchists who support me and my notions by keeping things light. The Frenchman on J Dock heads up the Kiss-Me-Arse Syndicate and thinks my sister's TOSH cute. T.O.S.H. Lets get the gag over with Lover. What are you getting to?

How can you call a boat with the bog in the middle of the saloon area a nice place to be for weeks on end, even animals do not crap in their sleeping and eating areas.

Many boats under 30 foot have heads under the sleeping area. The Mac26x, as the advanced Pacific Seacraft of about her size, have head compartments in the middle of the vessel, both to the starboard side. This compartment is large enough for it to have bulkheads and a door, just like a 40 foot monohull. It also is large enough for a shower. I have long wondered why no one has yet plumbed a shower to draw water from the ballast tank. That water could be fresh water rather than salt and replenished with salt water as used. You are correct about the importance of a shower in getting your lady to cruise with you. My wife knows every facility with a fresh water shower from Olympia to Port Hardy. She recently had a shower installed on Murrelet. On the head. Port-A-Pots are superior to other arangements. You will note that many a Captain is ripping out the head and installing Port-A-Potties because on a sailing craft it is the Captain that usually will be found unclogging the device.

Who is this philosopher?

I prefer social scientist or sailing scientist. My undergraduate degree is in Biology from the University of Santa Barbara, one of the founding schools of the Internet. As pointed out previosly, in science when a theory is proposed that can not be tested it is deamed either a philosophy or a religion. In computer science, Microsoft got really a lot wrong. But because of handlers, because of paided for content in magazines, and because of techniquies like portrayed in the film the Aviator, Microsoft dominates right now. This is an artificial state however. No one is recommending Microsoft Stock for purchase anymore. The true believers have drunk the Cool Aid. There just are to few religous Zelots to support the faith. Today no Visual Basic programmers are needed outside of those already supporting the legacy systems. Sailing in the US is the same way. The religion of Jim Teeters and from the Top Down at US Sailing, the religion of weighted fixed fin keels, the religion of the box rules is being replaced by sailing science.

And you didn't exactly make any converts by the end of the thread. You must get off on being called stupid and sick and full of shite.[/B]

When Marco Birch is quoted by Sailing World (page 52 - no 72 ;) ) as follows

It (Talisman) may be the last buggy whip, but, yes, I feel it is the fastest boat right now under the (IMS) rule. You know that the Church of FOYD is gaining converts. The 58 foot Talisman and all the TP52 crews were obsoleted by IRC just like Visual Basic programmers were obsoleted by industry standards built around Java. Movable ballast is here to stay you just will have to adapt to stay relevant.

skinny boy

01-31-2005, 12:46 AM

Once again you are full of lies. You are again talking of things you have no information or understanding.

Just so we are being specific.

1. S&P recommends a Strong Buy for Microsoft. So clearly someone is saying buy.

2. A theory in science that can not be tested is a THEORY not a philosophy or religion. The THEORY of Relativity can not be tested and yet it is not a religion or philosophy. The THEORY of evolution, since you have an apparently weak degree in biology, is still a theory because it can not be tested. It is not a philosophy or religion contrary to your beliefs but not the beliefs of any scientist.

3. IRC has no connection to IMS or the TP52. Box rules and measurement systems come and go and have for 200 years in the US alone. Handicap systems like IRC are for a different set of users and for a different purpose. The best way to tell this is because IMS was developed after IRC as was the TP52. Of course if you knew this then you would know what you are saying is a lie and if you didn't know then you are just an idiot.

You are a liar. Everything you say is full of pure falshood and what's worse you are an Internet bully. It seems to me you must have been tortured as a kid growing up or maybe you are a victim of spousal abuse now and that is the reason you try to bully people in some annonymous forum.

frankofile

01-31-2005, 03:49 AM

Skippy

01-31-2005, 08:03 AM

Re "lover"... Are you gay Frank?You know file, you may have discovered further evidence of a serious condition.
...There is definitely something Freudian here.
Maybe it is just the latent homosexual feelings you have for Jim Teeters coming out.... (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5471&p=35157#post35157)

water addict

01-31-2005, 08:17 AM

water addict

01-31-2005, 08:32 AM

Skippy

01-31-2005, 08:55 AM

The THEORY of Relativity can not be tested and yet it is not a religion or philosophy.Actually sb, relativity is well tested. The general theory (the later and more comprehensive one) was confirmed in a famous astronomical observation, during a solar eclipse in the year 1919. Astronomers have had excellent star charts for centuries, and there was one group of stars that was calculated to appear very close to the edge of the sun at the time the moon passed in front of it. Einstein predicted that the light emanating from the star would be curved around the sun by the sun's gravitational field. This meant that we would see the star appear to be farther from the sun's edge than it really was, because those light rays would curve back toward our eyes. The stars appeared right where Einstein calculated they should be, and many experiments since then have confirmed the theory further. They don't support Ballerina Science so well though. :(
Eclipse that Changed the Universe (http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp)

btw, I just noticed the first link in the advertisements on that page. If you really do enjoy Ballerina Science, it looks like there's plenty of it in that book. Spaghetto will probly make it his new bible.

skinny boy

01-31-2005, 10:49 AM

Actually there have been over 30,000 experiments to test various pieces and parts of the theory of relativity with not one providing contrary indications. While the evidence is huge it is still circumstantial. Since there has not been an experiment that has been able to test the whole theory, it remains a theory.

mighetto

01-31-2005, 11:31 AM

Nice melt-down Frankie. You demean the word "gibberish". Time to push up the meds a bit, eh?

Re "lover"... Are you gay Frank? You know, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe if you would admit your true sexual orientation you would escape the need to expose yourself to ridicule.
See first the TP52 thread. I mean Gimcrack.

http://forums.boatdesign.net/showthread.php?p=33444

"What you may not realize and what needs to be chatted about, (perhaps this week), is that in the 1930s, in the US, there was recognition that naval architects, while fully engaged in applying scientific principles to the design of power vessels, were neglecting sail boats, leaving those to "yacht designers". Designers who apparently were more interested in the interior of the vessel and looks while moored at the yacht club, than in function under sail, with no special training required to hang out a shingle.

At that time it was feared, even predicted, that foolish sailing vessels would be created, the TP52s being just the latest in a long line of them, I think, and Gimcrack being the first."

The Story of Onkabye and Gimcrack

The following information is conveyed from the History of American Sailing Ships, a book published in 1935.

This is a rather common book on the west coast of the US, in spite of its age, for folks who are studying sailboat design. The story of Onkabye and Gimcrack is found in Chapter 7 of the book.

Onkabye (or Oncabye) is thought to be the start of the evolution of American Sailing Yachts. The name means 'dancing feather'; Gimcrack in the 1840s was Yankee slang for 'useless thing'.

Onkabye, as her name implies, was a radical departure from the heavy keel-pilot schooners used for the sport of yachting in the New York and Boston areas. She was a 90 foot internally ballasted centerboarder. She was very fast, stiff, and smart, and to be used only for pleasure purposes, racing in particular.

Onkabye, didn't last long as a pleasure boat. In about 3 years the US Navy made an offer and the experiments that the owner was conducting regarding external ballast tacked onto the side of the hull and rolling in heavy seas, stopped. Rigged for war, Onkabye was a slow sailboat, very sensitive to the extra weight. She was lost 5 years later on a reef. Because of Onkabye, a very big distinction between the hull forms of a commercial Naval sailing vessel and a yacht was made by 1935.

Soon after the Navy purchased Onkabye, her owners built Gimcrack. This 52 footer had a fixed fin of between 12 and 15 feet long. Gimcrack was quickly recognized as a failed experiment.

The owners of both boats when launched were the Stevens, sons of Colonel John Stevens, the engineer so responsible for steamships. They were considered hobby sailboat designers and "apparently desired to prove that a centerboard vessel could be designed that would combine the advantages of both the keel and centerboard types and thus demonstrate the arguments of the supporters of the centerboard."

Interestingly, those supporters would later found the New York Yacht Club (NYYC) in the cabin of Gimcrack, the useless thing, on the afternoon of July 30, 1844. "Because of the shoal anchorage of the New York Yacht Club at Weehawken, later at 'the foot of Cort Street' on the Brooklyn shore and on the Jersey side from Commnipaw to Kill van Kull, the shallow centerboard yacht was most popular with NYYC boat owners.

Fast forward to today and we see American ocean sailboat yachting dominated by the deep fixed keel boat. Supporters of the deep keel were concentrated in Boston, with its deep water anchorage, back in the days of Gimcrack and Onkabye.

The bottom line is that the notion that Naval Architects do power and not sail boats and that a power boat designer is only a hobbyist if doing a sail boat is traced to day one of the evolution of the American sailing yacht. The separation between sailors and powerboaters, rag baggers and stink pots, was orchestrated right there.

I am not gay and yes I know, there's nothing wrong with that.

Good Morning Anarchists and Boat Designers.

mighetto

01-31-2005, 11:58 AM

How interesting that Einstein dispensed with Newton’s absolute nature of space and time while he was working as a patent clerk in Berne, Switzerland. The most relevant scientist for sailing was Swiss. We replaced the Lethermans with Swiss Army knives on Murrelet in his honor.

In the early 1700s, the Swiss scientist Daniel Bernoulli established that changing the velocity of flow of a fluid, such as air or water, at a specific point brings about a consequent inverse change in pressure at the same point. Bernoulli's law led to its application in the venturi effect -- such as when the flow of a fluid in a tube is constricted resulting in increased velocity and decreased pressure - and the development of the curved foil. The most convincing demonstration of the venturi effect is easy to perform in the kitchen. First, run a stream of water from the faucet. Then, dangle a soup-spoon by the tip of its handle and move its convex surface slowly toward the stream. Rather than being pushed away, as your intuition might suggest, it is pulled into the stream.

- Chapman's Seamanship Under Sail 64th edition page 276

This science was explained to Mac26x owners by Roger MacGregor with the lines Most sailboats have curved bottoms. This creates downward suction as speed increases, preventing them from getting up on the top of the water and planing at high speed. Few will go more than 6 or 7 mph. The 26 (X)'s flat straight bottom allows it to skim across the top of the water with with minimim reisistance and without hurting its sailing performance. Also the boats light weight is a big factor in its ability to go fast. That science allowed X owners to recognize quickly that dealer claims for a more rounded and heavier vessel being faster under motor power than the X was likely inacurate. In the end the manufacturer stated that the M was 2 MPH slower than the X when both were mounted with identical 50 hp motors. (22 vs 24 MPH)

mighetto

01-31-2005, 12:13 PM

All- Please acknowledge the great one's superiority and admit your own ignorance. Down on one knee and bow to the king. Everything you learned about Nav.Arch. is wrong, and Frankie is right.

Can't you just admit it?
Since 1935 in the US there was recognition that NAs were overly focussed on power boats. The Job of sailboat design was being left to hobiests. In the 1950s British boat builders pretty much proved that small under 30 foot sailboats were safe for ocean crossing and even circumnavigation. Then in the 1970s all efforts regarding boat building seemed to turn to copying vessels in fiberglass. Perhaps the only real innovations came from the woodenboat builders and today that may still be true. I do not admit to superiority. Do not kneel or bow. I am not your king or your savior. Save yourself's and annoint yourself's Kings and Queen the next time you are in the market for a sailboat. Feed the Internet. Make us all powerful.

mighetto

01-31-2005, 12:45 PM

Well, Ignore File or not, I jus can't let these slide.

When the CG is lower than the hull (we'll assume you mean that the CG is lower than the lowest point of the canoe body), then the stability WILL be better than with the CG inside the canoe body. That is a proven fact, hydrstatically=speaking, and cannot be denied. Period.

When the CG is "below the hull", the hull integrity is not compromised any more than it may have been with the CG higher. Hull integrity and CG have nothing to do with each other, basically.

The bulb keel was around Loooong before the IMS, and will be around long after it.

You also say "I have asked for help." Well, this post is Help. Take it or go away.

Steve

I will take the help and add from another boat design thread.

Barsa;

The yacht designer who is the national IRC co-ordinator for Australia has told me that he can find no advantage in keel depth under IRC; just go for the keel depth that suits the boat best and (he say) it will be fairly rated.

I have also asked Mark Mills and John Corby about IRC "specials" and they told me that these days, a good production boat is just as competitive as the IRC specials. That means (the production boats like Beneteau 40.7s not being distorted for IRC) there mustn't be much of an advantage to shallow or deep keels.

It is likely that box rule flaws were exploited by bulb keels just as designs with small head sails and exagertated heel exploited them and there is no stability or speed advantage.

I now get to tell my Perry Story.

Bob Perry, in a presentation to my sailing society, noted that after serving as an expert witness during the OneWorld debicle and viewing the blueprints, the "Light Bulb Went On".

But was he refering to the Light bulb on ICON http://www.iconsailing.com/html/the_boat.html. This vessel has a heavy bulb and a light one that are exchanged for expected race conditions. The AC boats are going to be 1 ton lighter by 2007. There is a trend back towards "dancing feathers" in American monohull sailboat design. Which I find most encouraging.

At least consider the possibility that with IRC, the notion of a bulb of any kind on a sailboat will be questioned. The fact that they are not deployed on powerboats is a dot you can connect. The only bulb like structures are in the hull on power vessels like.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/one.jpg

ICON might retract her bulb fin and achieve fuel efficiencies similar to those gained by such structures on powerboats, if the bulb is close enough to the hull. But I doubt it would be. Running ICON bulbless and puting the weight internal to the hull may not change the stability curves. That would have advantages. The weight could be used to improve the accomodations and the bulb would not serve as the crab pot and weed catcher it is. Of course water ballast is also a possibility.

Skippy

01-31-2005, 02:00 PM

The most convincing demonstration of the venturi effect is easy to perform in the kitchen. First, run a stream of water from the faucet. Then, dangle a soup-spoon by the tip of its handle and move its convex surface slowly toward the stream. Rather than being pushed away, as your intuition might suggest, it is pulled into the stream.Hey, I just tried that. It's an excellent experiment. First hold the spoon lightly a fraction of inch from the stream. Nothing. Now move it into the water. As soon as the flow attaches to the spoon, the spoon swings into the stream. Very nice. (But it still has nothing to do with the spacing of catamaran hulls.)

D'ARTOIS

01-31-2005, 02:53 PM

According to the owners directory (mcgregorowners.com) neither Murrelet nor Mighetto are listed as boatname/owner.

Gimcrack is not a yankee slang word, but common English from the past centuries for a shiny and useless thing.

USS Onkahye served for a short period as a yacht, after that she was commissioned because of her speed as a pursuer of "slavers". In that, she showed very successful. She went everywhere over the Caraibic and South America. Nowhere remarks as being unseaworthy or so.

The denigrating "tone" of your remark about Einstein, that he was a clerck at the Patent Office in Zurich, shows your incapability to understanding. Shortly after, he was assistent-professor.

The notion about the ventury effect in a catamaran you have picked up from my reply to Duane's shape of floats some time ago. It has nothing to do with a curent topic and is like sand in the wind: incoherent. As the majority of your remarks.

"Since 1935 there was a recognition......" By who?

"In the 1950's British boatbuilders discovered........." Wrong. You mean Blondie Hassler's boat. That was 10 years later, in the early '60s.

Reading the current issues regarding the steering malfunctions in the 26X may shine some other light on the accident with Martin.

Why are you not listed as a McGregor owner? Neither your boat's name is entered in the registry.

mighetto

01-31-2005, 02:53 PM

Hey, I just tried that. It's an excellent experiment. First hold the spoon lightly a fraction of inch from the stream. Nothing. Now move it into the water. As soon as the flow attaches to the spoon, the spoon swings into the stream. Very nice. (But it still has nothing to do with the spacing of catamaran hulls.)
Take the spoon, turn it to the other side, and note how it is pushed from the stream. Then contemplate this vessel.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/pakcat.jpg

She is said to be a catamaran. But if you think of her hull as an inverted spoon, the faster this vessel goes the more her hull would be lifted from the stream she would ride on. These are ocean fishing enforcement vessels and are both fast and stable. They can operate in shallow water and the one pictured is a beach landing craft.

Cathedral Hulls like these are used in the Livingston dinghies. I say they represent hollows which only recently are being allowed on monohulls such as the TP52. A common perception by multihullers is that hollows were banned from the AC because in the extreme they become catamarans. Hence banning hollows in effect banned multihulls from AC races.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/Mac26mTri.jpg

The above is a mock up of a Mac26m in a Tri configuration. When the Mac26m was reviewed by Perry he did so within the context of other reviews including a vessel that was intended to be a trimaran but was sold mostly unsucessfully as a monohull. In otherwords the Amas, - outer hulls - were left off the boat. The Mac26m when it first came out listed badly to starboard when unballasted. When the boat is not in use, to prevent the ballast water from fouling over time, X owners will blow it dry. This is also a preventative measure in colder climates. If the water ballast is allowed to freeze, that can be the end of the vessel because water expands when it freezes. Anyway, I speculated that perhaps the M was a cleaver roll out of a folding trimaran. In such a configuration you might operate unballasted and you would want oneside to predictable dominate when the boat was at rest. At that time both the M and X were to be produced at the California factory, and Farriers patent on folding trimarans was expiring. I haven't given up on this but the longer it goes, the less likely MacGregor intended the M in Mac26M to stand for Middle hull of a mulihull. Roger is an innovative designer who has built transportable variable width catamarans in the past.

Skippy

01-31-2005, 03:28 PM

Take the spoon, turn it to the other side, and note how it is pushed from the stream. Then contemplate this vessel.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/pakcat.jpg

She is said to be a catamaran. But if you think of her hull as an inverted spoon, the faster this vessel goes the more her hull would be lifted from the stream she would ride on.Sure, all you have to do is push her sideways. ;)

Frank, I like the trimaran idea. You should do that with the X. Just rip out the ballast tank, you won't need it. And install a rig that's about three times as big as the current one. Now that would be a nice boat.

mighetto

01-31-2005, 09:02 PM

I have just updated the directory. Thanks for the URL and sorry about fading off on you all today. It has been hectic. There are many URLs involving MacGregor Yachts.

http://macgregorsailors.com/ has a link to the cruising log of the Murrelet, and it was prior to the new format of that URL when it was called MacGregor26x.com that much work and review of the cruising log was done. see http://macgregorsailors.com/links.php#pers.

The modifications section of the macgregorsailors.com URL might give you some ideas of what folks are doing with these craft. To much perhaps. The boats are sensitive to weight. Every 100 lbs is 1 MPH less top end speed according to Roger MacGregor and I suspect that applies to power under sail as well as power under motor. But then most owners have less interest in racing than I.

There is also an active group of Mac26x owners on Sailnet.net, a list service that I belong to. The archives should still contain a lot of discussion. Search for mighetto. Remember that the halt in production of the X was not known until recently to have been related to Jim Teeters. Teeters has messed with other craft that didn't suit his ideas or interests - the Barnegat Bay A Cats, for example.

Sad story that one. After Teeters, not a one new A Cat built. None of it related to science. Teeters just arbitrarily took the average weight of all the boats and recommended that future boats should match that weight at a minimum for "performance". (4800 lbs.) Best I can tell there was no research at all supporting this. It killed the development of these racers. There is an article in Sailing World on that in the February issue. This happened before 2002, and the drunken boater deaths aboard a Mac26x. The Mac26x is 3750 lbs fully ballasted. All boats can capsize, regardless of how heavy they are. Arbitrarily adding weight can do harm especially if that weight is the cause of the boat sinking after a capsize.

Be aware of www.archive.org where you can enter the url for my crusing log and get old versions of it going back to 2002. I tend to have new material entered in itallics so it is easier to spot what may still be a half baked notion.

You have demonstrated knowledge on canoes and kayaks elsewhere. Looking forward to more discussion.

sorenfdk

01-31-2005, 09:12 PM

...sorry about fading off on you all today.
Oh, that's OK!

Remember that the halt in production of the X was not known until recently to have been related to Jim Teeters.
Who "knows" about this?

sorenfdk

01-31-2005, 09:16 PM

Why are you not listed as a McGregor owner? Neither your boat's name is entered in the registry.
Frank: When someone asks you a question, it is considered polite to answer.

K4s

01-31-2005, 09:33 PM

Well the TP52 thread fell off the bottom of the page because it became too stupid to reply too,now the same arguements and BS are alive and well here,congrats to all.
Never learn never learn never learn!

frankofile

01-31-2005, 10:36 PM

http://macgregorsailors.com/ has a link to the cruising log of the Murrelet, and it was prior to the new format of that URL when it was called MacGregor26x.com that much work and review of the cruising log was done. see http://macgregorsailors.com/links.php#pers.Thanks for the link Frank. I see your fellow Mac owners think you are an idiot too.

I am ... gay and yes I know, there's nothing wrong with that.Don't you feel better now?

sorenfdk

02-01-2005, 05:55 AM

Frankofile: Be fair - your second quote is wrong! Let Frank do the misquoting himself!

water addict

02-01-2005, 06:23 AM

Please it's obvious from the posts, that Frankie knows everything. Please if we just sit and listen (ie don't reply), then we can all just enjoy his greatness.

frankofile

02-01-2005, 11:18 AM

sorenfdk

02-01-2005, 11:39 AM

Oh, allright sorenfdk, it's more accurate now. But I'm sure Frankie gets the joke. He has a wonderful sense of humor, besides being a genious yacht designer and captivating story teller. Not to mention being one of the great mariners of our time.
Yeah - what do we need great minds like Newton, Bernoulli, Einstein, Bohr, Hans Christian Andersen etc. for?
We have them all combined in one: Frank Mighetto!

mighetto

02-01-2005, 12:31 PM

[D'ARTOIS]

According to the owners directory (mcgregorowners.com) neither Murrelet nor Mighetto are listed as boatname/owner.

Try it now. The database has been updated.

Gimcrack is not a yankee slang word, but common English from the past centuries for a shiny and useless thing.

I suspect the word will be applied more regularly. Especially to TP52s and other long fixed fin with bulb craft. Perhaps if another TP52 is ever built her owner will name her Gimcrack. That would be a hoot. I stated that Gimcrack was a 52 footer. She may have been a foot smaller. 49 on the waterline and 13 feet six inch beam.

Gimcrack was built out of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. You have to recognize that at this time the US was the dominant builder of sailing craft in the world, probably owing to the lumber.

Yankee built meant quality at that time. Howard Chapelle, author of The History of American Sailing Ships in 1935 considered the word Yankee slang. Of course we all know about Found Under Carnal Knowledge being a British term. Not Yankee Slang. :)

USS Onkahye served for a short period as a yacht, after that she was commissioned because of her speed as a pursuer of "slavers". In that, she showed very successful. She went everywhere over the Caraibic and South America. Nowhere remarks as being unseaworthy or so.

Chapelle notes that she was of an unorthodox form. 90 feet on the waterline, 96 overall, large centerboard. In her deep-water cruises she was found to be a good sea-boat but a very hard roller; on one occasion she actually rolled her masts out and had to be towed home. Stevens tried out many ingenious ideas on the vessel, including the placing of much of her ballast outside in strips along her keel. The Navy removed the centerboard, added guns and cumbersome gear then considerd proper with the result that her sailing was much damaged. How was she successful as a pursuer of slavers? She was lost after about five years on Caicos Reef in the West Indies, on June 21, 1848, without loss of life.

The denigrating "tone" of your remark about Einstein, that he was a clerck at the Patent Office in Zurich, shows your incapability to understanding. Shortly after, he was assistent-professor.

I was paraphrasing from the URL. Your view of government employees must not be very high. The above denigrates them. In anycase I appologize. Einstein's notions on relativity were likely born from patent research is how I take it.

The notion about the ventury effect in a catamaran you have picked up from my reply to Duane's shape of floats some time ago. It has nothing to do with a curent topic and is like sand in the wind: incoherent. As the majority of your remarks.

I was unaware of your work on catamaran's. I have since reviewed it. Multihullism is a term that I use to describe where improvements in monohull design will come from that will allow them to sail 17 MPH as Roger MacGregor claims the Mac26x does. A big part of multihullism is the removal of weight. Onkabye is a beautiful Indian name meaning 'dancing feather'. But multihulls are also centerboarders. The dagger board is a form of centeboard. The notion that a cathedral hull, or any hull with a hollow, or a twin keel vessel might behave like a multihull even though she is a monohull is supported by your work. The behavior I am most interested in is speed. But there is also the safety of a vessel that when swamped does not sink. This multihullism is a big deal.

"Since 1935 there was a recognition......" By who?

Howard I. Chapelle, author of The History of American Sailing Ships The book was printed in 1935.

"In the 1950's British boatbuilders discovered........." Wrong. You mean Blondie Hassler's boat. That was 10 years later, in the early '60s.

I was referring to boats like Trekka.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/treka1.jpg

Can you fill me in on Blondie Hassler's boat?

Reading the current issues regarding the steering malfunctions in the 26X may shine some other light on the accident with Martin.

You defend Martin? You really mean to defend Jim Teeters. Here is the logic. Teeters is a nice man who has devoted countess hours to the sport. He can not be a bad man who behaves in ways that look like his opinion can be bought or that he has vested interests to support at all cost. He would never do that kind of thing. So his choice to get involved defending a drunk with a prior fellony conviction who killed two children must be justified. The justification being that the Mac26x is at fault, the boat Martin just happened to be opperating like a war boat on the 4th of July. Seriously rockets were being fired from the bow hatch, while peeling off from moorage with a second boat. No one except Teeters thought the boat at fault and Taylor, an NA worthy of a lot a praise for standing against the Director of Research for US Sailing, that was Teeters, has testified that the boat can be operated safely, presumably with even 11 aboard. Taylor greatly helped the GP RWP in its support of movable ballast, by taking away arguments that likely would have been presented from the case. Taylor greatly helped all centerboard designers because a weighted centerboard is really a form of movable ballast.

Lets do address steering. The Mac26x has what Perry has called a gybing centerboard. This allows her to outpoint all boats that can be trailered (according to the manufacturer). If that board were down, the self gyping would cause steering issues. The board is not to be extended fully while motoring at WOT. I can report steering problems on Murrelet. This is a good argument for those who like tillers. In year five the steering cable parted and I could turn only one way - the way the cable would push. MacGregor used Moris for the steering mechanism on my vessel. That company is no longer in existence. The new Macs have rack and pinion steering, a better system. I may upgrade to that system in a few years. Right now parts are available. Anyway the jury rig that got me to harbor was to lift one of the two rudders, the lifted rudder then served as a tiller. Now tell me that isn't good design. Later I strapped a deck brush to the lifted ruder and motored an hour to Tom's outboard who had a replacement cable, all be it a bit longer. Other owners have sat on the outboard and used body movements to steer the vessel. Some have purchased the optional outboard tiller handles. The Mac26x is superior to most if not all sailboats in the regard to emergency steerage. For ocean going vessels you want the rudder controls visable from the deck. The Mac26m is less advanced than the Mac26x in part because rudder controls are visable only by going below decks.

Why are you not listed as a McGregor owner? Neither your boat's name is entered in the registry.

It is a big Internet. I have not been banned or anything like that.