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

[skinny boy]

Originally Posted by woodboat

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]

Originally Posted by pkoken

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]

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]

hard to beleive this much talk about a damn Mac26x

[pkoken]

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]

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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.

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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.

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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?

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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.

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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.

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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]

Originally Posted by amolitor

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!

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.

I just looove the unsubscribe button. Boink!

[D'ARTOIS]

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

[mighetto]

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/s...rtin_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]

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

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]

[D'ARTOIS]

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]

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

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by D'ARTOIS

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