TP52s

[usa2]

frankofile-

im assuming that means that PHRF lets you race as a class if you have 5 boats of the same type. And the owners have to agree to race as such. Sometimes owners wont race as a class when it gives them an advantage to race otherwise...

[usa2]

Frank-

do u have any proof that waterballast performs better in rough conditions?

[frankofile]

usa2 - That's what Frank seems to be implying, but that makes no sense.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by mighetto

In 2003 the PHRF Seattle Regional Sub-Council proposed a revision to the rating protocol to address water-ballasted boats.


The current Macgregor model is limited to ballast only operation. My ride the Mac26x was intended by the manufacturer to be raced ballasted or unballasted. The centerboard on the vessel is water filled as are the rudders.

We do race unballasted and ballasted. Like the large race boats (TP52s being a possible exception) every turn comes at a great cost of about 10 boat lengths. Contary to popular opinion, water ballasted vessels perform better in rough conditions.

Frank L. Mighetto

Can you prove that the 26X is self righting without the ballast?

PHRF may allow both water ballasted boats and variable ballast boats but I doubt that they allow boats to race that are not self-righting:

SPECIAL SAFETY INFORMATION 26X


IF THE BALLAST TANK IS NOT COMPLETELY FULL, THE BOAT CAN CAPSIZE.

Unless the water ballast tank is completely full, with 1400 pounds of water ballast, the sailboat is not self-righting.

Did you get your cronies inside the PHRF-NW to ignore the self-righting rule so MAC 26X's can race?

PLease provide a link to a statement by the manufacturer that suggests, condones, or even allows racing a 26X without the ballast tank completely full.

"SPECIAL WARNINGS ON STABILITY. After sailing a ballasted sailboat, you get a bit spoiled and forget that unballasted boats, including the MacGregor 26 with an empty water ballast tank, can capsize and will not right themselves. This can happen under sail or under power. Here are a few hints for keeping the boat on its feet when the ballast tank is not full."

If anyone ever admits to racing a 26X without the ballast tank full, they should get DSQ'd or prove that the boat is self-righting when unballasted. Just pull the masthead into the water with the main halyard ...

oh ...

DON'T PULL THE BOAT OVER ON ITS SIDE USING THE MAIN HALYARD. If you have to tip the boat for maintenance or for any other reason, use the jib halyard. Using the main halyard will break the mast.

I really sounds like you don't have any idea what you are doing.

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by usa2

Frank-

do u have any proof that waterballast performs better in rough conditions?

Proof is something you can require only if there is a criminal charge. In all other situations all that is necessary is a preponderance of facts. The facts are in. I can give you quotes. Like this one.

The Cascails fleet exhibited a good representation of current offshore design, and it was interesting to see how they fared. Sitting on the weather rail of a Corel 45 was a pretty uncomfortable mix of the offshore washing machine spin-and-wash cycles that many of us are familiar with. It was pretty galling to watch the water-ballasted boats taking the conditions very much in their stride - and with significantly more comfort for their crews. It is probably fair to say that this was one of the tougher offshore races that I have completed - and that includes the Sidney to Hobart.

Chris Little, Commodore
Seahorse International
November 2004 pg 4

One of the great frustrations of living in the US is that I suspect real proof was provided supporting the design of the Mac26x and superiority of water ballast to external on the fin ballast in the Martin case. This was in 2002. Martin, a convicted fellon, was supported by Jim Teeters who tried to make the boat an issue when it was all about drunken operations on the forth of July after a fire works display. Taylor is the NA who owns that proof. He wants money for it I suppose.

Frank L. Mighetto

Did you know all retractable fin vessels have a form of movable ballast. That includes ICON and the Flying Tigers which do not burden their communities because the keel can be lifted in shallows.

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by RHough

Can you prove that the 26X is self righting without the ballast?

PHRF may allow both water ballasted boats and variable ballast boats but I doubt that they allow boats to race that are not self-righting:

SPECIAL SAFETY INFORMATION 26X


IF THE BALLAST TANK IS NOT COMPLETELY FULL, THE BOAT CAN CAPSIZE.

Unless the water ballast tank is completely full, with 1400 pounds of water ballast, the sailboat is not self-righting.

Did you get your cronies inside the PHRF-NW to ignore the self-righting rule so MAC 26X's can race?

PLease provide a link to a statement by the manufacturer that suggests, condones, or even allows racing a 26X without the ballast tank completely full.

"SPECIAL WARNINGS ON STABILITY. After sailing a ballasted sailboat, you get a bit spoiled and forget that unballasted boats, including the MacGregor 26 with an empty water ballast tank, can capsize and will not right themselves. This can happen under sail or under power. Here are a few hints for keeping the boat on its feet when the ballast tank is not full."

If anyone ever admits to racing a 26X without the ballast tank full, they should get DSQ'd or prove that the boat is self-righting when unballasted. Just pull the masthead into the water with the main halyard ...

oh ...

DON'T PULL THE BOAT OVER ON ITS SIDE USING THE MAIN HALYARD. If you have to tip the boat for maintenance or for any other reason, use the jib halyard. Using the main halyard will break the mast.

I really sounds like you don't have any idea what you are doing.

Sir, all boats can capsize. What you fail to remember is that the Mac26x after a capsize does not sink. If you think this through you may come to realize that the J24s have more likely a potential of being disqualified from racing than the Mac26x. I have provided you the manufacture's literature. If you would like to schedule a self righting test for Murrelet now is is good time. Your cost of course. The vessels self right even if unballasted assuming gear is stored properly. This test has apparently been performed in Europe. I am told the boat could not be called a sailboat if otherwise.

What is your purpose here? Are you not aware of over 2 years of this? Its about TP52s now. TP52 early generation designs that do not pass the capsize risk ratio - which the Mac26x does. These facts have always been distressing to the close minded. Take the pink pill - drop out of the matrix

Frank L. Mighetto

[usa2]

You do realize that a TP 52 becomes more stable as it heels, as with all keelboats? A Mac 26 has vanishing stability as it heels.

[Shife]

Originally Posted by mighetto

Proof is something you can require only if there is a criminal charge. In all other situations all that is necessary is a preponderance of facts. The facts are in. I can give you quotes. Like this one.

The Cascails fleet exhibited a good representation of current offshore design, and it was interesting to see how they fared. Sitting on the weather rail of a Corel 45 was a pretty uncomfortable mix of the offshore washing machine spin-and-wash cycles that many of us are familiar with. It was pretty galling to watch the water-ballasted boats taking the conditions very much in their stride - and with significantly more comfort for their crews. It is probably fair to say that this was one of the tougher offshore races that I have completed - and that includes the Sidney to Hobart.

Chris Little, Commodore
Seahorse International
November 2004 pg 4

One of the great frustrations of living in the US is that I suspect real proof was provided supporting the design of the Mac26x and superiority of water ballast to external on the fin ballast in the Martin case. This was in 2002. Martin, a conficted fellon, was supported by Jim Teeters who tried to make the boat an issue when it was all about drunken operations on the forth of July after a fire works display. Taylor is the NA who owns that proof. He wants money for it I suppose.

Frank L. Mighetto

Did you know all retractable fin vessels have a form of movable ballast. That includes ICON and the Flying Tigers which do not burdon their communities because the keel can be lifted in shallows.

The quote from seahorse you posted refers to the big ass water-ballast maxi's from that race. Those maxi's are almost twice as big as the Corel 45 mentioned in the article and are more comfortable due to their size, not ballast. Those same water ballast boats have also been tossed aside for the new canting keel maxi's such as Oats and Alfa. The water ballast maxi's you use to make your argument also have deep fin keels with bulbs. They transfer the water ballast from side to side to increase righting moment and carry more sail area. They are in no way, shape, or form, similar to your boat. You own a water ballasted trailer sailer, not a race trainer. The 26ft ORC rule is not a "trainer" for the TP-52's. IT'S JUST ANOTHER CLASS OF FACKING RACE BOATS! They come and go all the time. It's just the way things go in sailing. It has no effect at all on your crappy little boat as you will never be in the same rating band as these new 26 footers.

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by Shife

Frank, you are a liar and a fraud. You have zero credibility to back up your ridiculous posts. Do the world a favour and stop posting. In fact, stop sailing as well, the waters are safer without someone as ignorant as you on them.

mholguin:

There are no limitations in the US with regards to racing due to 9/11. Some waterways now have restricted zones and a few clubs have had to change their courses due to this. Contrary to what Frankie is telling you, Homeland Security has never denied a permit for racing due to boat size, type, color, make, model, draft, etc. If the proposed course permit gets denied, it has nothing to due with TP-52's, Mac26's, or 30 meter maxi's, it's because it interferes with shipping or a restricted area. As long as the proper permits are obtained, it's business as usual in the US. How anyone could possibly take Mighetto's conspiracy theories seriously is beyond me. I guarantee you that if Frank bought a Hobie 33 tomorrow, that suddenly he'd be claiming that Sudie Parker, Jim Teeters, and PHRF-NW, are all secretly conspiring to drive out and unfairly rate Hobie 33's. Just like he has been ever since he got his McCrap26.

Shife - to protect yourself from 2 years of jail time. I now require you to identify yourself by name. If you do not you will be subject to the wrath of the Bush administration. It is ok to flame me as long as you disclose your true identity. Do your research. Section 113 "Preventing Cyberstalking". It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit you from using the Internet "without disclosing identity and with intent to annoy." Are you Sudie Parker?

Have a Nice day.

Frank L. Mighetto
wanking off for now.

[Shife]

Originally Posted by mighetto

Shife - to protect yourself from 2 years of jail time. I now require you to identify yourself by name. If you do not you will be subject to the wrath of the Bush administration. It is ok to flame me as long as you disclose your true identity. Do your research. Section 113 "Preventing Cyberstalking". It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit you from using the Internet "without disclosing identity and with intent to annoy." Are you Sudie Parker?

Have a Nice day.

Frank L. Mighetto
wanking off for now.

I'm required to do nothing. Go for it Frank, turn me in. I double dog dare you. It is my opinion that you are a liar, fraud, and complete idiot. It is my right to be able to say that. Just as you have the right to post the baseless falsehoods you come up with. That law won't last six months. It's way too vague and in violaton of the First Amendment. Your lunacy is well documented on this and other sites. No judge would ever take you seriously.

Judge: "What is the basis of your argument?"

Frank: "I posted that water is bouyant in water and he called me an idiot."

Judge: "Get out of my courtroom and stop wasting my time."

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.


http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

[Jim Hauser]

Migghie's southern orifice is talking again. There are no special "no-race" laws preventing big boats from racing in Seattle. We did the big boat regatta and the summer downtown series properly permitted in proximity of ferry boats with NO problems.

[usa2]

Shife makes the first valid point today.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by mighetto

What is your purpose here? Are you not aware of over 2 years of this? Its about TP52s now. TP52 early generation designs that do not pass the capsize risk ratio - which the Mac26x does. These facts have always been distressing to the close minded. Take the pink pill - drop out of the matrix

Frank L. Mighetto

Frank, you cannot even answer a question.

The manufacturer clearly states that your boat is not self-righting unless the ballast tank is completely full. I can red and understand English.

If your boat IS self-righting, then you have modified it, and you cannot race it with the same handicap as other 26X's.

How much different is your handicap compared to a standard 26X? You did tell the handicapper didn't you?

My purpose here is to point out that since you cannot even get the facts straight about the boat you own, everyone will assume you are equally ill-informed on the TP52's. Most people would not believe you if you told them there was a fire and they could see the flames.

[Shife]

Originally Posted by mighetto

Did you know all retractable fin vessels have a form of movable ballast. That includes ICON and the Flying Tigers which do not burden their communities because the keel can be lifted in shallows.

The FT-10's keel IS NOT designed to be lifted while the vessel is being sailed or motored. It lifts to make it easier to trailer.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...pic=26861&st=0

[usa2]

Hey Frank if I gave you a Melges 24 would you try to lift the keel while sailing downwind?