TP52s

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by usa2

Mighetto-
You are confusing Maximus with Mari-Cha IV. Maximus is the one with the retractable canting keel, while Mari-Cha has water ballast, canting keel, and twin assymetrical boards. Water Ballast boats are not good heavy weather boats because your center of gravity is in the hull rather than deep below it. If you took a Mac26 offshore in 10 foot seas it would either roll over or pitchpole, depending on the course it was steering and where the waves were coming from.


I dont know why i bother to post in this thread but oh well

You bother because you care about the sport. Here is what we know from the TP52 debacle. It is fair to call this a debacle because no designer now cares to be associated with them. Farr especally - look at what they are doing with the VOLVO 70s .

No vessel with a limit of positive stability greater than 110 can be knocked over by wind alone. It takes a keel in concert with wave action to do that. The kind of keel fitted on TP52s. Hence, the compromise is 128 lps. This is a compromise because the weight to do this must be carried in the vessel or on the keel. That is not so with a water ballasted vessel which can move the water off the boat. Regarding the Mac26x. Small vessels behave differently in 10 foot swells than 52 footers. Light small vessels behave like the life rafts that crews of larger vessels get into when they must be abandoned possibly because of taking on water from the cracks created by a fin keel with a bulb worked on by sea action.

[Mark 42]

Originally Posted by mighetto

Marc,
Actually Murrelet did better the Tripp 47. Gig Harbor - Islands race. Murrelet finished. NJ did not.

... she does harm by taking on newbes and training them. Part of the training is to close ones mind to new designs and to rational design - especially when it comes to engines.

The engine is not needed if you know how to sail...

This is the training that is misguided. We who want the US Sailor to be competitive internationally are working to change that training. BTW the notion of an engine being bad on a sailboat probably came from the Snark. She was fitted with a wonderful potential engine, a 70 hp gas powered deal, that was ridiculed to the point that poor Jack gave up trying to perfect it. Had it been perfected things would be as they are becoming.



No sailboat - especially an old race boat - should leave port without an engine that is in working order and reliable.

On some boats, and this may include NJ, dodging must be used in rough sea to prevent broaching. This technique uses the engine and a smalll head sail to keep the vessel pointing into the oncoming waves...

Engine was on, and was not needed. I'd rather be picked up by a true sailor than by some goofball with a churning prop who will just as
likely end up shredding me like a frog in a blender. The motor
is not a first resort or a last resort... it is a tool, and usually
other tools do a better job if you know how to use them.

Engine was reported on but could it be put in gear?

The motor on a modern sailboat is the auxiliary source of power
but it is also the first piece of safety equipment... Think about a
no wind day, a direct upwind course to the medical assistance and
heavy sea.



Note that outboard engines are used for water skiing. The fact of
that should indicate to you that this shredding business is a training issue

All modern sailboats are also powerboats. Replica tall ships are also powerboats. Clearly powerboat training is something that should be gained.

Dry boat. Well that clarifies things. The Windseakers use dry boats to attract young adults of age 14 to 20. It is the attraction of these new sailors to operate boats that do not support the Rise of the American Sailor to which I object most to.

Tripp 47 training is not productive for those new to the sport who just may have the potential for greatness. That potential can be snuffed out by Tripp 47 training.

I make this statement as an individual approached yesterday by the
National Quartermaster Association about the Western Region
Qualifying Race for the 2006 Koch Cup and establishing an NQA chapter
in the Pacific Northwest. The Windseakers need to get out of the way.
The qualifying race is in September.
The Koch Cup in 2007. The VO70 Black Pearl crew yet to be identified.
There is great opportunity for newbes who by prior training do not have
to unlearn the ways of failed experimentation with fixed external fin keels.

Boats that sink, with Captains, that instruct newbes to close there minds to modern design, movable ballast, and motors just are not the place to put newbes. Crew trained not to see impropriety, to shun those with contrary opinion, and to testify falsly for the good of the team during protest hearings are what I fear most and think I have observed to often.

I appreciate your mentioning the dry boat status of Navitae Juvenis. For about a year I have been attemting to connect a certain J80 owner who has an adversion to the use of radio for race starts and safety during a race and even use of cell phones to Tripp Gal. This individual was recently involved in a protest by the crew of Balder as well as an attempy to close down the bars at Toliva Shoal and the Society.

I, and others have spent over a year trying to school this individual but he is an old sea dog and very much a character. A likable guy but still someone that is holding back the sport of sailing in the US and teaching ways about engines and boat design that need to give way. This individual also had trouble at a different Swiftsure involving engine use. Because of the underpowered outboard or because of its mounting on a poor buttock design, he required a tow after sea conditions became unfavorable. Rather than see the poor design of his J80 he pretends that engines have no important place on a racing sail boat. They are again - the primary safety item.

If you reef correctly, you don't get a new outhaul. The reef line
should hold the sail to the boom, and the outhaul should be used
in the way it normally is, except it is attached to the reef cringle
instead of the clew (the new clew, in effect). It may require a short
loop of line to do this if it is normally shackled to the clew.

True, you get the same effect as a loose footed main. I think. I wish to point out that the ways of the TP52s, and the ways of many race boat crews prevent them from comprehending that reefing on a modern design can actually make the boat sail faster. The TP52s are meant to be sailed over 24 degrees - the best I can tell and this design is to exploit the box rule. The usual rule of thumb is that if the boat is heeling more than that she needs to be reefed. I will now point out that no bow persons would have been required if Navitae Juvenis had used roller furling.

The entire MOB incident should have been avoided by the use of the engine.

I knew some real sailors... they sailed a retired 12 meter named "Newsboy" or "Newsbouy"
(It was awhile ago). It had no engine. Docking a 12 meter under sail is not like sailing a Laser...
It takes practice and one works up to it.

If you want to become a good sailor, spend a year without using your engine.
Bring it along in case you get tired of drifting when the wind quits,
but don't use it
to get in and out of the marina. The reason you fear sailing is because you have no experience.
Practice until you are competent, and you will see that an engine is a luxury.

If an emergency is life-threatening, a helicopter evac is better, which makes
your VHF radio and your cell/sat phone the primary safety equipment.

[mighetto]

If you want to become a good sailor, spend a year without using your engine. Bring it along in case you get tired of drifting when the wind quits,
but don't use it to get in and out of the marina. The reason you fear sailing is because you have no experience. Practice until you are competent, and you will see that an engine is a luxury.

I am concluding a different approach may be better. Learn to power boat first. Once you have have learned basic seamanship ala Chapmans, if you still have interest in sailing get some instruction on sailing a Tasar. What happens today with newbes is that sooner or later they come to question their sailboat instructors. This is probably after years of race frustration. The discovey that they have been treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed Bravo Sierra) turns them off not only from sailing but also boating. It is a myth that competent sailors ever sailed their vessels to the dock. They launched rowing craft and towed the vessel in, or shot a line. Today's crowded marrina facilities do not allow for this kind of sailing stunt. In fact it is forbidden at Shilshole. I see it anyway but the moorage agreement forbids it.


If an emergency is life-threatening, a helicopter evac is better, which makes your VHF radio and your cell/sat phone the primary safety equipment.

That is only after disaster. The motor can be used to forgo the disaster entirely as this discussion has indicated. Designers who do not strongly advise clients on motor choice are doing consumer harm. You have to think like a jury would on this one. Juries will not be able to see what you do. They will think that a modern sailboat design that does not include an adequate auxilary engine is defective and hold the designer responsible for any mishaps and they will hold the captain responsible for poor maintenance of that engine in a mishap if the engine could have been deployed to prevent the incident. It is also getting harder and harder for juries to see logic in sailboat designs that when the boat capsizes sink. Hence the problem the Olympics have with using Stars as equipment. London got the node for 2008 BTW. I see Stars as a corrective measure. For those trained in the ways of US Sailing Keel boats a Star is a nice upgrade. Sometime after a Star a modern planing design might be moved to. Here is the sad fact.

Virgins to the sport are better competitive sailors than those trained at US Sailing acredited keel boat schools. This is because they move naturally to the motion of the vessel and this natural motion steadies the sails making for a faster ride. The keel boat trained quickly loose there natural God given ballancing skills and sit like sacks of sand actually slowing down the modern monohull and increasing capsize risk. Think about it. Nice chat.

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by Migholetto

It is a myth that competent sailors ever sailed their vessels to the dock.

That, my dear Migho, is pure and un-alloyed BS. But then, you are the ultimate Newbie, so we'll forgive you this time. Maybe. If you're lucky.
BTW, any sailing instructors out there who have ever been questioned by Migho - you are obviously doing something right

Steve

[usa2]

I would rather be at sea in a storm on board a sailboat than a power boat. Who else here feels the same way?

[mighetto]

Yes - give me a little slack. I am still a lump of clay to be molded. But soon enough I may conclude that once a sailor learns to trailer he will never desire a larger vessel.

[dougfrolich]

I rather be at home in my cozy chair, than at sea in a storm.

[Mark 42]

Originally Posted by dougfrolich

I rather be at home in my cozy chair, than at sea in a storm.

I'd have to disagree. I wasted enough of my youth watching
TV intead of adventuring. Men are turning into wimps as society strives
to remove all risk from everyone's lives. I welcome the occasional storm...
it makes one a better sailor, especially if he continues to sail!

I'd rather be on a sailboat without power than a powerboat without sails.

The only time a sailboat cannot be used without an engine is
if there is no wind whatsoever.

Mighetto is, and will probably always be a powerboater.
His first response in any situation is to fire up the engine
and drop the sails. When you are racing, that's not an option.
To state that teaching sailors how to sail without using the engine
will somehow disturb their training is absurd. It's like saying that
teaching karate by actually sparring is dangerous, and it should
be taught by waxing cars instead.

Mighetto, if you want to become a sailor, buy a sailboat with a small
outboard, remove the spark plug wire and place it in a glass case
with a little hammer and a "In case of emergency, break glass" label.
Learn to sail by sailing. Sail in all kinds of weather... but get a seaworthy
boat first. Maybe if you had a keel you'd understand why the motor is
not the most important feature on a sailboat. When people like Tripp Gal
graciously offer to take you SAILING, take them up on it, watch quietly,
and learn. Keep going along with sailors until you become proficient
enough to feel cofortable in any conditions even if your beloved
outboard refuses to fire up.

And the notion that there are conspiracies against the MacGregor 26
which prevent it from competing in transpac races is just plain...

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

[stevel]

I agree with Doug, but if my only two choices were a powerboat and a sailboat of equal size, I would take the saiboat...with a big ol' heavy keel.

[dougfrolich]

I'll second the big ol' heavy keel, on my 16th transpacific crossing I was returning from Hawaii to the westcoast of the U.S. on a typical modern sled type boat "optimized" for the race to Hawaii, as part of that "optimazation" the keel was made lighter than the normal configuration, well that is just fine most of the time sailing west to Hawaii from the mainland, but not so great for sailing east back to the mainland. Long story short, we sailed through a piece of ocean that had been pretty angry for about a week due to extreame high pressure (1039mb) and a deep thermal low pressure area about 300miles SE. The wind was 47+ sustained with higher gusts in the 50's, not so bad, but the sea state was BIG and Bad. 'bout 5:30am sailing under storm staysail only, doing 10 to 17 kts., a large wave and a large amount of jetting white water combined perfectly with a big gust and the boat was thrown spreaders to the water, belive me at that time I was thinking about that extra 1,000lbs that belonged at the bottom of the 9' keel, and my cozy chair at home. p.s. at the same time another 52' boat had lost its rig and did not have any fuel ( or very little, and actually had to have some delivered, at I am sure a great premium).

[mackid068]

I concur! Big heavy keelboat is my choice for a storm. Give me a nice Hereshoff anyday over a "rocketship" (as Ted Brewer puts it).

By the way, powerboating is turn the key sailing without skill. POwerboating is not difficult, it's just like driving a car without brakes. Too easy!

[mighetto]

You've GOT to be kidding me! The Mac 26, by virtue of it's lateral stability enhancing device (read: centerboard), among other things, is NOT designed to be a ocean crossing vessel.

I post only what I believe. You likely do as well. Think canting keels. They also do not provide lateral stability (I think you are chatting about crabbing here). With the Mac26x, lateral drift is addressed by being on the proper heel. Think like the edge of a snow ski here. The hard side chines dig in. It is also addressed with the rotating keel - just like the canters are doing.

A keelboat of any sort, ie with a proper keel such as a full keel of any type or some sort of long keel (like a wing keel or something along those lines). Centerboard? No, not for ocean racing, or even for ocean crossing!

This likely comes from notions regarding water coming in through a centerboard slot, which the X does not have. That case against Bayliner was won by Bayliner in 1996 or so. Nonetheless..

A centerboarder won the first great ocean race. You probably are unaware of how large centerboarders became at the end of the commercial sail or how large the centerboarders from China were. Centerboarders have a long history of both ocean racing and crossing. I suppose this is something I could do more research on. It really is a fascinating history. But lets also recognise the many centerboarders with small keels. Finstere for example. You also have to come to grips with the recent decision of NYYC to go with Swan 45s. Most of these for will be delivered as centerboarders.

Sure, you could do it, but not particularly safely or without a hell of a lot of heeling.

The Mac26x is meant to be sailed flat. This is a fundamental problem for the keel boat trained. In a puff, owing to the flat portion of the hull, the X will heal less when turning away from the wind. This is becuase she starts moving out of displacement mode into planing mode. A basic keel boater wouldn't think of falling off in a puff. They head up, which also reduces heel.

And, the Mac's water ballast is also particularly unsuited for passagemaking, cruising etc. as it not only decreases interior volume but also raises the center of gravity, hurting your stability greatly.

You are probably thinking of the water ballast used in mini-transats that owing to design rules must be placed so that it approximates what rail meat would do. The MacX's water ballast is low in the vessel and to the sides. She actually has stability greater than a traditional keel boat and more similar to a twin keeled vessel. The interior volume arguement doesn't apply to the X model. Most think she is a fixed keel vessel. You can get a shower, head room etc. In fact the boat is over 5 tons by volume, and many are documented vessels.

Now, to explain away the Mac 26 site:

your looking at the Mac26m. This is a less advanced but highly worthy power sailer that sails more like a traditional keel boat. This vessel surfs but isn't meant to plane. Only one good thing came about from Teeters medling in the 2002 drunken boaters case. It allowed the introduction of at least 6 new power sailers, the M from MacGregor and several models from out of country. Prior to the halt of X production there was no market for another power sailer. Seriously 5000 in 7 years. This production rate will not be matched. The expected time period for 5000 hulls is 14 years. This radical design and its rapid deployment is a phenominon that has to be recognized as exceptional.

"Unless the water ballast tank is completely full, with 1000 pounds of water ballast, the sailboat is not self-righting." Too blasted slow with that ballast, plus it lowers your freeboard! Take a REAL stability enhancer. And, by the way, though the boat is self righting, you need the water, messing up the boat's speed and power.

Excellent point. The X model is the only model meant to be sailed or powered with or without ballast. She is the 26 footer that has movable ballast - the movement being on or off the vessel. Owing to that she sports rigging suitable for light air that gives way in heavy air. The M is to be ballasted both under power and sail except when used under power for water skiiing. She is not out of the factory marketed for racing. Allmost all references to racing have been removed from her literature in comparison to the X.

"If the tank is empty, carry no more than 4 persons, or 640 pounds." Ok, so if we want to go fast, then we must not have ballast, but if we want to carry 4 or more people or "have the sails up" then we are s...l....o....w going.

The M is 2 miles per hour slower than the X with the same 50 hp. Most in the Seattle area mount 90 hp motors to make up the difference. You are very correct on the M under sail. To compensate she not only carries more sail on a taller mast but the mast rotates providing up to 30 percent more power.

The X is a very different animal. No capacity limit was ever established for the X except by racing rules which limit all boats of her size to 10 crew members. The manufacturer did not and still does not limit her carrying capacity. However, you do want the weight low in the boat and common sence still applies.

"If the waves are larger than one foot, they can induce a lot of rolling motion and compromise stability. Keep the ballast tank full in such conditions." Wow, larger than one foot compromises stability, that sounds pretty sad...Any proper cruising boat need not worry about foot high seas...

They are likely chatting without sails up. Sails of course provide stability and both the M and X are endorsed by the manufacturer for heavy weather racing. The M has less stability when at rest than the X.

"Most small sailboats, with their round bottoms, have speeds limited to around 5 to 6 mph." Please! I've been on Lasers, heck, dozens of different types of boats are faster that 5-6 mph. Lies, lies and more lies.

most small sailboats are displacement hulls and the length at waterline limits those to 5-6 mph. Of course you are correct about dinghies but these are pocket cruisers.

"This is why racing sailboat keels are deep" Well, yes, the Mac's daggerboard is deep, but certainly not heavy enough to work like a proper keel.

The proper keel you are thinking of likely is a fixed fin keel with a bulb. These are a relatively new invention to sailing and hardly proven better. In fact they are a failed experiment in sailboat design. Prior to the experimental period, work boat crews actually made fun of externally attached ballast of any kind considering that kind of thing a failure of design. I suspect that notion will become prevailent once again. Anyone can though up a sail. It takes a real sailor to reef and or bring it down when appropriate.

Now, about the interior: In heavy seas, you'll roll around and be highly uncomfortable in such large, wide bunks. That's a bad thing, no matter what.

There is a nice floor area on the X that would work well. Most X owners bunk in the V. This obviously will not do. You do not see how a modification could be made. In any case, the average crew size for a Voyaging vessel is two and no one expects to be comfortable when racing.

So, I repeat: The Mac is NOT for cruising or transpac/transat or transocean NO MATTER WHAT.

By the mathematics she qualifies. We did this exersize early in the thread and discovered that early generation TP52s do not have the mathematical ratios to qualify as an ocean vessel. The capsize risk ratio being the main one and being the ratio corrected to in the newest generation. In anycase the X model has been used for ocean duty. There is a nice write up in Small Craft Advisor in the same issue as the review of the Mac26x. She is a proven coastal ocean cruiser as well as open ocean vessel. Crew competency and a mast head antena are the only things needed for the West Marine Transpac, for example. I love this topic. If you want to run through the ratios and compare them to TP52s, I would be glad to do so. But the truth of the matter is that coastal ocean cruising is more demanding on a vessel than open ocean cruising owing to wave form and hazards. If this is news to you then you have been fed as a mushroom.

[dougfrolich]

Frank you are Amazin....no wait pathetic. Go back to page 20 or so and down load your boob award. It's only fitting they do tend to travel in pairs.

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by dougfrolich

Frank you are Amazin....no wait pathetic.

So late. Consider this thread pathetic. I certainly do. This is the TP52 thread after all. If you would like, consider me amazingly entertaining. The TP52 is without a doubt the Edsel of sailboat design. The Mac26x - I am thinking mini cooper. Of course Teeters was thinking Corvair. The X boats are safe for any water. You just can not say that about TP52s. They are buoy racers inapropriatly labled TransPacific. Do you really disagree?

[stevel]

Many of us powerboaters are quite skilled with our type of boats, and not all that unskilled with your type of boats. Heck, some of us even wish that we could afford to own both.