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

[mistral]

Originally Posted by mighetto

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]

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. KEWL

[frankofile]

Originally Posted by mistral

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:

Originally Posted by Frankie

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mighetto

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mighetto

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......

Originally Posted by mighetto

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!!!

Originally Posted by mighetto

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]

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 *****)

[water addict]

Originally Posted by mighetto

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]

Originally Posted by sharpii2

... 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.

Originally Posted by sharpii2

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.

Originally Posted by sharpii2

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.

Originally Posted by sharpii2

... 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]

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]

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

best regards
Mistral

[water addict]

Originally Posted by mighetto

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]

Originally Posted by water addict

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 *****)

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]

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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.