Big Mac 65

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by razor, Mar 22, 2005.

  1. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    Razor, where are you? I'm the only one shooting questions. Not out on the new Beneteau 47.7 I hope?

    Mikey
     
  2. asathor
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 154
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Minnesota

    asathor Senior Member

  3. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    Nope, no new boat yet.

    I am still leaning towards the Macgregor 65 one of the latter pilot hose versions if I can find one in the right condition.

    After speaking with several owners the only down side anyone has mentioned to the boat is the cost of upkeep due to so many marine services charging by the foot.

    A number of owners seam to have considered the boat a canvas for change there is one up on the great lakes that has been stretched 7feet. And one here in the Bay area that has the mast of a Santa Cruz 70 on it.
     
  4. mackid068
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 857
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: CT, USA

    mackid068 Semi-Newbie Posts Often

    Please, please, don't get the Mac, get the TransPac 65 or a Nauticat that's 40 or so ft.
     
  5. daveme
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 2
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Seattle

    daveme New Member

    mac 65 discussion;

    Just discovered this website, what fun..... I'm a Mac 65 owner of a 1992 pilothouse. Interesting reading the dialog. I've owned my boat 8 years and have heard the rumors about flexing since before than, but I've never met an owner that has experienced it. I certainly haven't. Usually when the Mac 65 PH's are surveyed, the surveyers are very impressed with the hull integrity, the glassed in poly bulkheads are better than 90%, no stress risers due to cut out sections, etc.

    One reason to buy a Mac 65 over a Transpac 52 is about $800,000. Don't worry about crossing oceans in the boat, it is happening every day.

    Dave
     
  6. mackid068
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 857
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: CT, USA

    mackid068 Semi-Newbie Posts Often

    That'll do it. $800k...good reason. I still worry about the Mac's stability, but it seems fast, so...go for it....I guess...
     
  7. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    at or around the same price point as the Mac I was shoping the Santa Cruz 50's they are a few years older then the Macs, and many have been raced Hard.

    For the price I can find no better boat that offers the ammentis and speed as the MacGregor.
     
  8. mackid068
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 857
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: CT, USA

    mackid068 Semi-Newbie Posts Often

    Why is such speed necessary? Get a smaller boat, save on slip/mooring costs! Get a much more stable, much safer Nauticat or a TransPac (something of that nature!).
     
  9. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    The capsize ratio of the MacGregor is 1.5, why would a 42 Nauticat with a capsize ratio 1.62 be more stable?

    The new box rules that have created the TP52 are very interesting but no one has tried to build a racer curser to them yet, they are boats that require a full crew to sail. And they have little in the way of amentias.

    There are boats that would work well Bob Perry’s 65 foot ICON would be wonderful and she is for sale but she is well north of a million. The various Deerfoot and Sundeer boats would also be wonderful but the tend to be 500K +.

    In truth I just like fast, but the rational is something like this. I live on the west cost in and will be sailing out of San Francisco bay, the closest day trip is half moon bay about a 6-8 hours tip in most 40 foot boats, I would like to have the option of sailing to Santa Cruz or Monterey during a normal weekend. So going from 7 knots to 11 knots vastly increase my range.
     
  10. asathor
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 154
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Minnesota

    asathor Senior Member

    Beer Tub Question

    Is there an icecube maker for the beer-tub/champagne-cooler? You should be able to take the cruising class trophy occasionally with a boat like that. And you can buy a lot of esoteric plywood with the money you save over the Santa Cruz while still sailing at a similar rating.

    Did you ever look at "Outrageous" the '42 Nichols? If you did, what is it like?

    Asathor
     
  11. mackid068
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 857
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: CT, USA

    mackid068 Semi-Newbie Posts Often

    Ok, you know your numbers then. I just think the Nauticat has a FULL KEEL and is more stable by virtue of that. Check out, for a lower price than the Mac, the Columbia 30.
     
  12. dkory
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 7
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: San Francisco

    dkory Junior Member

    More pics answers

    Sorry for the delay again, I travel quite a bit.
    To answer some previous questions:
    I don't have a better picture showing the keel, but a few sailing pics are below.

    Regarding the waterline and the transom, on my boat the very back end is about 4 inches out of the water, which is about right per the design. You can gauge a bit from one of the pictures. Being a light boat, the waterline varies a bit depending on how much stuff people put aboard, and where they stow it. I surveyed a pilothouse version in Seattle that had so much added on, the transom was 6 inches under water! That guy had a big stainless arch in back, davits, dinghy, outboard, aft genset, extra stainless rails in the cockpit, and I don't know what else. I am certain performance suffered considerably, but he didn't care, as it was a flat water motorsailer, and suited his needs.

    I do have the tall rig (with the carbon wand on top, I need 78 feet for bridge clearance), so you got the specs right. Helm is normally balanced, but too much main, like in the upwind picture, tends to give a bit more weather helm.

    I had looked into BlackJack a few years ago, (the one with the SC70 rig), when it was still moored in Morro Bay, but I would stay away from that one. I spoke with the owner who did the mods, and got the impression it was pretty experimental- you won't find out if they did it right until the wind picks up and its too late. He told me a story of sailing the boat near Morro Bay in 15 knots of wind. They were running, and accidentally jibed the main. With his new traveller track just forward of the wheel, there was a big loop of mainsheet hanging down as the boom came across. It wrapped around the wheel and tore the whole binnacle out of the boat! He said that after that, he was afraid to sail in more than 10 knots of wind, and after a year of not sailing, finally put the boat up for sale. Also note that in order to make the SC70 rig work, he added a bulkhead aft of the original for the new forestay, and the shrouds aren't quite the same either.

    As for stretching, the last 2 boats out of the factory were 70-footers, built for MacGregor, with the longer transom becoming a dinghy storage area. About a year ago one sold for $350k.

    Just my opinion, but if MacKid068 likes full keels better, he's in the wrong forum, and maybe the wrong decade. The traditional argument by the heavy full-keel guys is that they are stable and indestructable, and will survive anything the ocean can throw at them. Being slugs, they have to survive, because they can't get the heck out of the way!

    With a fast boat like the Mac65, severe weather should never be an issue, because with a decent forecast, you wont be there when the storm arrives. A fast boat means shorter passages, less crew fatigue, more time in the anchorage, more fun, and on and on. On a fast boat, if you want to go slow, you still can, and with reduced sail, it will be as stable as the slow boat, but still handle and manouver better. There is a reason nobody tries to design boats to be slower. Faster is better, period.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    Thanks for the pics. It is a beautiful boat. And that tower of a mast is impressive.

    As you know, I am not planning to buy a Mac 65 (any longer), my interest is more from a concept and design perspective, and I suppose I am a bit against what other people thinks. There has been quite a lot of s**t flying around the Mac’s, the smaller ones more than the 65, but still, I really like the Big Mac 65. Have done all the time since I called the company back in 88 I think it was and asked about their “sailing ready Mac 65 kit” that they advertised for US$49,990. Still regret that I didn’t take the loan I needed to buy one.

    We must remember that stability increases cubed with size, and that keeping the same width but double the length still doubles the stability. No high tech material / design regardless of money spent can get anywhere near that... I have been proven wrong and will tone down. Women can say what they want, size does matter!

    4 inch clearance at the transom is not much, about right for the design you write. I am not 100% rehearsed in the hull induced wave building at different speeds and how to relate this to how much transom clearance that is needed, no entire theoretical solution exists so I am a bit fishing for info (I am not Roger Macgregor (yet)). It should be dependant on displacement, hull form to some extent, and maybe max station area. If Mac 65 needs 4, then I will need 6 to 8. Not scientific but it will probably work...

    Transom 6 inches under water... Guess he didn’t know about keeping ends light and concentrate weight around LCB. Can “performance suffered considerably” be an understatement? Still, if he knew what was going to happen, and still wanted to do it, then that is OK with me. People should be allowed to do what they want, even if others think it is crazy.

    Love the front – extreme heel picture. Difference between doing that in a Mac and a Nauticat? You would still yawn in a Nauticat... You do carry a lot of sail, a bit more weather helm heeled like that, I would say is only good. You have 45/55 main/fore triangle on yours, I’m going for 42/58, a low mainsail aspect ratio of 2.3, SA about 1500 sqft, mast at 38% of DWL, Hmmm, wonder of I’m doing the right thing. Yes, still think so.

    I am not a fan of “full boat length keeled” boats, I just do not think that it is the most efficient way to do things. Wetted surface area gets higher than necessary for what? The knowledge and understanding about hydrodynamics has increased enormously the last 100 years and why not use that? It is for the same reason that I want to know more about the NASA profiles, they are thinner, hence reducing buoyancy where we don’t want it and thereby resistance, and probably have better characteristics, “kinder stall”. Maybe Roger MacGregor was a bit before his time. If just I could find information...

    This is what happened with the development of air plane foils, in a very very simplified way, if out-of-its-“performance range”, new foils will still perform similar to older ones, if stall, then it will be “kinder” than older foils which stall more abruptly, and when you do get in-to-the “performance range”, they produce higher lift. Would airplanes continue to use older foils when more modern, more efficient ones are available? The NACA series have been around a long time. If there are more efficient foils that can be used, then I want to know...

    Long keels do certainly have advantages, “Seaworthiness – The forgotten factor” is an excellent book to read, but I just do not see why “enough” cannot be achieved using more modern foils with less wetted surface area. I am not a fan of high aspect ratio very small surface area fin keels, I plan to use quite a lot of keel area on what I am designing, future will tell... I hope...

    A storm would have to move swiftly indeed to catch up with a Mac 65 running at 20 knots, one on crutches would still eat a Nauticat for breakfast.

    Speed it is, but not at all cost. Seaworthiness and sea kindliness is more important still.

    Mikey
     
  14. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    Did I write that much? And I still forgot, double the keel area of a Mac 65 or more is what I like, actually don't think it's unnecessarily much.

    Mikey
     

  15. mackid068
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 857
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: CT, USA

    mackid068 Semi-Newbie Posts Often

    I just dunno...
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.