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

[pkoken]

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.



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]

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

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

[woodboat]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by woodboat

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.

Originally Posted by woodboat

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.

Originally Posted by McYachts

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]

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]

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/review...93872999137605

[skinny boy]

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]

Originally Posted by woodboat

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]

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]

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]

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]

Useful information, thanks

[Wynand N]

Originally Posted by woodboat

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....