Incredible "Secrets of Yacht Design" website located...

[woodboat]

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]

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

[D'ARTOIS]

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 Mc Gregor, on our large open waters.
According to the manufacturer of the McGregor, 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.

[mighetto]

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]

Originally Posted by D'ARTOIS

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]

Originally Posted by woodboat

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.

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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]

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]

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

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by mistral

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]

Originally Posted by mighetto

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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****

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.