TP52s

[mighetto]

but of course. Thanks for the reminder.

[dougfrolich]

Boats is boats!!! It's people like frank that makes it nesc. to dumb everything down to the biggest imbicile.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

If you would like, consider me amazingly entertaining.

Frank, you're boring. I don't have the patience to read all these long posts. Can't you just say something stupid in some more concise, quotable way?

[usa2]

The TP52's can sail almost as fast as the Mac26 motors, if not faster, and can maintain that speed easier in a seaway. It is unbelieveable that someone is actually wasting their time comparing a offwind rocket with a boat that is half the size and less than a 4th of the speed unless it is under power. These boats are designed to RACE, not CRUISE, to Hawaii. They get there in fine shape. A MAc26 is not designed to race. It may cruise rather well to Hawaii, but thats what it would be designed for.

[Mark 42]

Originally Posted by usa2

A MAc26 is not designed to race.
It may cruise rather well to Hawaii, but thats what it would be designed for.

Now I think you've been smoking Frank's crack pipe with him.
A very good friend of mine has a Mac 26, and it's a fine daysailer and gunkholer.
I would not take one more than 25 miles from the nearest land.
Picture a railroad caboose with water ballast and a flagpole, and
you can get an idea of how it would ride out high seas and heavy winds.
Once the waves swamp the outboard, you are screwed.

Originally Posted by mighetto

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.

1911 - International Star Class


Not the first time we've debunked this (among many others)
lie of yours. I would think it a mistake, but even when proven wrong
you just wait until new people read the thread to repeat the lies.

Originally Posted by Skippy

Frank, you're boring. I don't have the patience to read all these long posts.
Can't you just say something stupid in some more concise, quotable way?

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Frank, you're boring. I don't have the patience to read all these long posts. Can't you just say something stupid in some more concise, quotable way?

How about: "if you are unhappy with your sailboat you are likely to hate the fellow with the Mac26x" or

"if a fellow loves his rag bagger he likely can appreciate all boats - even stink pots"

Do not paint me as a TP52 hater. I would pay money to board Braveheart. May she sail well in the TransPac.

[mighetto]

Now I think you've been smoking Frank's crack pipe with him.

I just hate being boring and this news from London is so depressing. So lets work the crack thing. I suppose on a dry boat crack would be an alternative.

Remember this story of Crack.

Gimcrack in the 1840s was British slang for 'useless thing'. It was also the name of an experimental sailing craft. This was a 52 footer (perhaps 53 footer - but I like the 52 thing owing to TP52). She had a fixed fin of between 12 and 15 feet long. Gimcrack was quickly recognized as a failed experiment.

The owners of the boat were the Stevens, sons of Colonel John Stevens, the engineer so responsible for steamships. They were considered hobby sailboat designers and apparently desired to prove that a centerboard vessel could be designed that would combine the advantages of both the keel and centerboard types and thus demonstrate the arguments of the supporters of the centerboard. Gimcrack was the comparison vessel for this demonstration.

The NYYC was founded on the decks of Gimcrack - Now tell me who was smoking crack on the afternoon of July 30, 1844. Because of the shoal anchorage of the New York Yacht Club at Weehawken, later at 'the foot of Cort Street' on the Brooklyn shore and on the Jersey side from Commnipaw to Kill van Kull, the shallow centerboard yacht was most popular with NYYC boat owners back then. With the selection of the Swan 45 by NYYC last month I think we Americans may be off the crack. What say you about this?

Marc, you make a great point with the following:

1911 - International Star Class


The experiment I was refering to involves deep fin keels with bulbs and especially those designs where the fin does not give way in a hard grounding. This wonderful image you have discovered shows how the Star is a trailerable bulb keeled and fixed but still shoal draft vessel. It also is wonderfull that a design from the 1911s is still going strong. It suggests that designers today might think about looking to pre 1960 or so vessels for inspiration.

Not the first time we've debunked this (among many others)
lie of yours. I would think it a mistake, but even when proven wrong
you just wait until new people read the thread to repeat the lies.

OK, I should have said deep fixed fin bulb keels. But this is not a forum of debate; it is a forum of discovory. The 1/2 TP52s have little chance of finding a market in a world tollerant of movable water ballasted 26 footers with 5000 identical hulls already in use and preparing to race. IRC is just a liberating thing.

I suspect the .5 TP 52s were envisioned 7 or so years ago, as a half scale 1.0 TP52. The TP, I have long recommended should stand for TRANSPORTABLE and not TransPacific. The fixed keel is removed from the TP52s to transport them to races. They are then put on trucks and cruise the highways like trailerables.



The entire TP52 story is not unlike beating a dead horse eh? You should be aware that there is an entire GimCrack one design that is 1/2 the size of the original Gimcrack. What the TP52 supporters were doing was just duplicating history without analysis. The horse had already expired and they just continued to beat on it.

A very good friend of mine has a Mac 26, and it's a fine daysailer and gunkholer.

I think the J100 a better daysailer. The Mac26 line of boats have always been marketed as trailerable pocket cruisers. Macgragor Yachts claims to have created this market. Perhaps the plant's location in Costa Mesa California where Pacific Seacraft, Catalina Yachts and a sluggo of ocean sailboat manufacturers operate or once operated explains the orientation to the ocean but all the 26 line is overbuilt for the day sailor market. A J100 would smoke any of them owing to this. Mac26x and Mac26ms are unqualified ocean sailboats according to the manufacturer.

I would not take one more than 25 miles from the nearest land. Picture a railroad caboose with water ballast and a flagpole, and you can get an idea of how it would ride out high seas and heavy winds.

And yet you would take a boat that if swamped will sink. Picture the natural state of any tradition keel boat. That natural state is on the bottom of the sea. It is unnatural for it to stay afloat. We can thank the multi hullers for this wisdom.

Marc, the most dangerous ocean sailing is 25 miles from land. This is owing to wave formation which does not ocure in the deap sea. Think about a sunami. 200 miles off the coast (which is what my current Mac26x insurace allows) the wave is 2 or 3 foot. close to shore it becomes an 80 footer. Prior to 2004 I had insurace for the Mac26x for any water in the western hemisphere. Think about this. Ocean crossing just is not as dangerous as it is being portrayed by builders of J boats and other day sailors. If it were the insurance companies would not cover Mac26x vessels for this duty. The boat has to be built from the start for ocean work of course.

Once the waves swamp the outboard, you are screwed.

This was true with older outboards. Today's motors have the same reliability as inboards. I point out that the Mac26x can be operated just like the Grady Whites and Boston Whalers. In otherwords you can surf the waves so that the vessel is not swamped by varrying engine speed. Displacement hulled vessels are the only ones where one has to prepare to be swamped. In fact, you can expect to keep a Mac26x in following seas from being swamped while under sail. It is only after reducing sail or taking down sail that there is swamping potental. Self bailing of course. Cavitation is something to chat about. On designs where the buttocks lifts an outboard may not work will in heavy seas. These lesser designed vessels must heave to, lie-ahull, get a tow, put out a sea anchor or drodge or imploy dodging until conditions change and they can procede. Typically this means waiting until the tide changes or storm passes to enter harbor. It is one reason the J80, contrary to Practical Sailor initial reviews and expectations of its owners has turned out to be a poor ocean sailboat.

[usa2]

Why is a MAc26 being compared to a TP52? And if you are suggesting that a TP52 is dangerous than you are also implying that most of the modern supermaxis are dangerous, as they have similar features ( like cockpit design and cabin shape). There are reasons why boats these days have deep keels. It makes them more stable. If all your weight is in water ballast, than your center of center of gravity is in the hull. That means that your boat will roll easier than if your center of gravity is 15 feet below your hull.

[mighetto]

Why is a MAc26 being compared to a TP52?

The initial connection was though Jim Teeters, who while Director of Research at US Sailing, attempted to support vested interests in the TP52. These interests were being damaged by the notion that movable ballast was not only safe but also the future of sailboat yacht design. The Mac26x was launched during the period of time when discussions regarding altering racing rules 51 and 52 to permit moveable ballast and stored energy were winding down. ISAF altered those rules in 1997 and US Sailing was contractually commited to supporting those altered rules and movable ballast at that time.

Owing to the influence of Teeters and others supporting TP52 box rules this support was never really given. Instead disinformation regarding the Mac26x and really all water ballasted and movable ballast machines was spread by Teeters and others through US Sailing Keel boat training, and other sources such as the Internet.

Undoubtedly top dogs at US Sailing truly believed movable ballast dangerous and there is evidence of US Sailing gleeful reporting of Mac26x owner caused capsize. But there were very few capsizes and never anything potentially requiring a recall of the powersailer (which is required by US federal law for unsafe vessels) until two children died at the hands of a prior fellon drunken boater who happened to be operating one while firing rockets from the bow hatch on the 4th of July and turning sharply with 11 aboard.

The involvement of Jim Teeters and by association US Sailing in this case - which was resolved in July of 2004 the operator going to jail for 6 to 7 years - was the connection between TP52s and Mac26x vessels. It was discovered that the TP52 box rules were to be applied to a vessel half that size - ie the size of the Mac26x.

And if you are suggesting that a TP52 is dangerous than you are also implying that most of the modern supermaxis are dangerous, as they have similar features ( like cockpit design and cabin shape).

I make no such suggestion. Ocean sailing in season is no more dangerous than freeway driving. This is especilly true in the context of a race flotilla.

There are reasons why boats these days have deep keels. It makes them more stable.

And yet the capsize risk ratio, which is used by brokers and all reputable designers to screen vessels for ocean use was found in this thread to be over 2 (not passing) for several of the early generation TP52s. It was that discovory that prompted me to state that the Mac26x is a more worthy ocean craft and there is consumer harm in calling a TP52 a TransPacific vessel. Farr in its latest generation has corrected to this ratio, which US sailing had de-emphasized in its training likely owing to the top down influence of those supporting the TP52 box rules.

If all your weight is in water ballast, then your center of center of gravity is in the hull. That means that your boat will roll easier than if your center of gravity is 15 feet below your hull.

This is the kind of training typical of a US Sailing acredited school. The US Sailing delegates to the Grand Prix Rule Working Party, were advised to walk out, by Teeters, their technical advisor, rather than see evidence presented at this meeting supporting IRC and depunking this notion. Water ballast of the kind used on the Mac26x provides stability like a twin keeled vessel. This stability is 4 times that available to a comparable single keeled vessel. Funny thing about the roll. It is this roll that is believed more comfortable for ocean crossing. The macX does not have this roll. The macM does.

[usa2]

It doesnt matter that it may be more comfortable roll, because the TP 52s are racing boats. There are very few offshore racing boats that are comfortable and competitive.
TP52's may roll a lot if upright, but what they wont do is stay upside down if capsized. Twin keel boats sometimes tend to stay inverted like multihulls. And a single fin keel with a bulb provides an increasing righting moment as the boat heels, therefore increasing stability. The Mac26 doesnt provide the same amount of righting moment increase, because the ballast is in the hull.

May i ask why you are using a Mac 26 to compare a TP 52 to? Why not use another boat designed for racing?

[Mark 42]

Originally Posted by usa2

May I ask why you are using a Mac 26 to compare a TP 52 to?
Why not use another boat designed for racing?

Because it is the best boat ever built and represents the future
of yacht design.
Sheesh. Some people!

[stevel]

Why hasn't Frank offered up the Murralet (sp?) as the answer to the question of a supersonic boat. Do you think he missed that thread?

[Mark 42]

Is a supersonic boat possible?

[mighetto]

It doesnt matter that it may be more comfortable roll, because the TP 52s are racing boats. There are very few offshore racing boats that are comfortable and competitive.

True, unless you think about the duration of the uncomfort. With that consideration, the faster the boat perhaps the more comfortable.

TP52's may roll a lot if upright, but what they wont do is stay upside down if capsized. Twin keel boats sometimes tend to stay inverted like multihulls.

The entire assumption regarding why the TP52 lps of 128 is desirable is that a boat that capsizes can become inverted and if there is inverted stability it may stay that way, requiring resque units to render aid.

Perhaps twin keel boats have this issue but not vessels with shapes radically different than the shape of a traditional keel boat. Not the Mac26x for example and not any vessel that has the overall shape of a log. Logs retain an upright posistion after being rolled very quickly.

The faster the boat rights the less likely serious flooding. Some vessels with boyancy high in the vessel, like on the Mac26x, have never been rolled and likely can not be because of that boyancy. Others like the M and multihulls put styrofoam in the mast or even a float at the top of the mast to prevent the posibility of rolling and becoming inverted. Take away the possibility of inverting and or stability when inverted and you no longer can justify the TP52 box lps rule using a safety rational.

And a single fin keel with a bulb provides an increasing righting moment as the boat heels, therefore increasing stability. The Mac26 doesnt provide the same amount of righting moment increase, because the ballast is in the hull.

That may be true at exteme angles of heel like over 60 degrees but certainly is not so at lower angles. In any case, fully ballasted the Mac26x and m are fully self righting. Fear of capsizing is some what lessened when the boat can not sink and even if capsized can be righted by the operator without resque assistance when seas calm. The event becomes a mistake that is correctable and not a race ending, passage ending, life threatening deal.

[b]May i ask why you are using a Mac 26 to compare a TP 52 to? Why not use another boat designed for racing?[/H]

The Tasars and Mini Transats are designed for racing. The Mac26x is meant as a cruiser first and racer second. Her factory provided Doyle sails are cut for cruising. But any boat clocked at 17 MPH under sail has race potential. Add the articulating bowsprit and racing sails and who knows. Perhaps a Large Tasar or Larger Mini Transat is what you will have. The X boat's ocean racing potential has long been recognized.

What has kept these boats out of PHRF racing is that until the 03-04 race season you could not race them as they were designed, meaning you could not dump and take on water ballast during the race. You were not allowed to race without the ballast even. Even today you must take an arbitrary hit on retracting foils and I think only PHRF-NW allows the water ballast to be blown out during a race. The J24s, J80s, and Melges 24s have all been IRC rated. It would be very interesting to see a Mac26x IRC rated. I have dealt with PHRF rating theats of as low as 135 and currently am rated 235.

Looking forward to where you are going with this. The set up has been a long one. The Transpac rates participant vessels. In effect the comparison of a TP52 to a J35 is made by that rating. A boat is a boat after all

[usa2]

next question from me: How, when, and what proof is there of a Mac26 doing 17 mph? It must take a lot of wind for that to be possible, and the hull shape of the Mac 26 above water creates a lot of windage. 26 footers are extremely hard pressed to achieve 10 knots in most occasions and the Mac 26 has a small rig, so i have some doubts regarding this claim...