Big Mac 65

razor
I have no idea if the forum was archived, you could email webworldinc.com to find out. I printed the forum about 6 months back, but I don't know if I have thrown the pages away or if they still are somewhere at home. If they are, then I will scan and email them to you and you can get email addresses to owners from that.

My 3 month old daughter sort of dictates when I can spend the time so don't expect an answer tomorrow but I promise I will check and let you know.

Mikey

 

With a two girls one five years and the other eighteen months I understand completely...

 

The Mcgregor owners web site has all kinds of info. The early boats were the lightest and most fragile from what I read in the reviews - this table happen to describe that series:

Model Yrs Built LOA LWL Beam Draft
MacGregor 65 1984 - 87 65' 63' 12' 6'
Displacement Ballast Sail Area Mast Height Headroom Water Capacity
32,000 lbs, dry 12,000 lbs 1330 225 gal
Fuel Capacity Aux. Power I J P E
150 hp diesel 250 gal 62' 26' 7 in 53' 3 in 19'
You should be able to judge the boats from the displacement as well unless the factory did not let on to the changes.

the 87 version looks like this:

http://www.sailboatowners.com/album/display.tpl?fno=80&id=73234670944

I do not know if there were 2 or 3 iterations. look for example here:

http://home.att.net/~hcyoung/database.htm

MacGregor 65
MacGregor 65 Deep/D
MacGregor 65 Shoal/D


A directory of 15 owners here:

http://www.sailboatowners.com/db/results.tpl?_boatmodelword=ww&boatbranddata=MacGregor&_eqboatmodeldata=65&fno=80&_allreqd=T

http://www.sailboatowners.com/reviews/revlist.tpl?fno=80&brand=MacGregor&model=65

Info and brochure in PDF:

http://www.fastnet-yachts.com/images/MacGregor-Yachts-65/MacGregor-65_Brochure.pdf

http://www.fastnet-yachts.com/go.pl?id=MacGregor-Yachts-65/MacGregor-Yachts-65-(1992).htm

Why not charter one - that is not at all expensive insurance against not liking the boat - and the croatian water a georgeous - or make a run for Italy. http://www.yacht-base.com/yacht-charter/croatia/sailing-boats/macgregor65.html

Heres a racer: http://www.conspiracyracing.com/ .... with a boatload of e-mail addresses.

some results: http://www.southwindssailing.com/articles/9907/HavanaCup.shtml

You will have to do the rest of your surfing yourself, I am going to bed now and I am not sure the MAC 65 will hold up if I miss my turns when I get to Norway to sail the fjords so it might not be the right boat for me anyway.

but for you............

start here for example http://www.google.com/search?q=macgregor+65&hl=en&lr=&start=20&sa=N

Better hit everyone with an e-mail before they realize that posting addresses on the web is how you get on the spam lists..........

 

The Mac 65 design is a reasonably quick design, as stated. It is not 'too light' to be safe, but it is also probably not built all that well for serious offshore. Stories of hull flexing to the point of thru-hulls popping out etc. seem to be common among guys who sailed the earlier models. Conversely the Sundeer type yachts are serious ocean passagemakers. I think the Mac65 is a great deal in terms of boat/dollar, but is not really meant as a serious passagemaker.

 

Let us know how Seabrook went.

 

There we go! The Mac wouldn't be great for offshore cruising, but coastal cruising is something it could definitely handle.

 

Some one beat me to the boat in Seabrook Texas. I did speak with the broker at length. The boat was described as "ruff"- I guess it was in need of all new running gear etc... He did say it sold for something less then the asking price.

I would much rather find a boat that is clean and has been maintained since new. I am not in a hurry to buy (my wife does want me to buy a new Beneteau 47.7) but I would still prefer something a little more interesting.

 

Too bad.......

I have seen some inexpensive boats down Texas way, maybe the heat is a bit much for some of them.

Since you have time, I suggest you add the Luffe to your list - www.luffe.com They build a line of long slender boats in Denmark to be fast without being bound to specific rules. While you can race them succesfully they can be handled by a crew of 2. There should be some 44s coming up for sale now and then, in the range you have been looking in. The early 37's were almost ULDB light so they need a proper survey.

I toured the factory years ago, talked to the owner and liked what I saw - they are beautifully made - and indeed fast. I am sure you can get help directly if you need a boat surveyed since they essentially custum build many of their new boats.

They sell a lot to the Germans since they come north to sails the Baltic and the Danish isles and Swedish shores which by the way are beautiful. The exchange rates are not the best at this time but as much as boats vary that may not matter on the right one. However I believe some of them made it over here.

Let me know if I should "pick up" one for you when I go to Denmark in June, we will be staying less about 25 miles from the factory by sea.

Good luck,

Asathor

 

Well, initial stability doesn't always effect total stability. For example, a dory hull is very tender (low initial stability), but it has lots of reserve buoyancy and stability, so it'll handle well. I don't know about sundeers or deerfoots (never heard of them nor looked them up), but the Mac seems to have very little overall stability (ballast seems too light). By the way, it is a fact that to a certain extent, narrower boats are more stable (to a degree).

 

I can not ever accept that any shape is more stabile than a disc of plywood or a square of plywood. I never met a stable canoe or kayak. Directional stability , yes.

 

Cyclops you’re talking about initial stability, which is only related to total stability.

A narrow shape will be less resistant to heeling. But it should be over all more resistant to capsizing and it should also right it self much faster. Once your disk gets to x angle of heel it is going to capsize in a sudden big way. And you’re not going to want to be there for that.

 

M65 comments from an actual owner

I'm a little late getting into this, but maybe I've got a more qualified opinion than those "who have heard" this or that. I own a Mac65, hull #11, an early racing version. One of the links above is to a picture of my boat (dark blue hull). The specs listed in the posting above are for the pilothouse version. The earlier models (15 of them, I think) have a total displacement of only 23,000lbs (10,000 lbs lighter than the pilothouse), of which 10,000 lbs is the keel. And with a draft of 8.5 feet, the stability is a bit different (much stiffer) than the pilothouses. The race versions also have much taller masts (mine is 75 ft) and greater sail area. Some early owners also modified their keels- one with a wing and less draft, one with a bulb.

As for offshore suitablility- there is no place I wouldn't sail it. I am racing in this year's TransPac from Los Angeles to Honolulu, then we are sailing from Honolulu to Juneau, Alaska, where we will spend 2 months cruising Glacier Bay and the Inside Passage dwon the Vancouver, then back down the coast to its home on San Francisco Bay.

I have never seen the boat flex or bend, or had any concerns for stiffness or structural integrity. In February of this year, returning from Mexico, we ran North from Los Angeles to San Francisco on a southerly storm, and saw sustained winds of 40-45 knots for 2 hours, and 35-40 knots for 4 hours, with seas 15-20 feet. The boat flew under minimal sail, covering 30 miles in one 2-hour stretch, and 120 miles in a 10-hour stretch, with max boatspeed of 25.3 knots.

One of my regular crew is also a delivery skipper, and sailed a Mac65 from the factory to Gibraltor without incident- other than the weather was so rough she didn't change clothes for 23 days!

For further testimony to the Mac ability, track down how many have been sailed to all parts of the globe, and are in active charter, which tends to abuse a boat...

Anyway, I'd be glad to answer specific questions if you have any, or share pictures. If you find yourself in the S.F. Bay Area, let me know, and I'll take you for a ride.

-David

 

Razor, if you take the offer of a ride, then you’ll be hooked forever

Thanks for posting David, great to hear first-hand information. I am very interested in the Mac65 concept (long, slender) but by looking at the design, I still lean toward it being “too extreme” for what I like. May I stick in with a few questions?

It has a rather small bulbed fin keel and a spade rudder, how about directional stability when running with the wind in rough seas? I mean, it’s slender so it should be good but keel + rudder area looks a bit on the low side. And it’s so light that waves should affect it (more than many other boats...). Does it need shall we say, more attention / constant attention on the rudder?

The shallow draft version uses a NASA foil for the keel (not NACA), do you have any idea which one??? I’m really interested in this one, NACA foils are old by now, and development goes forward all the time. I would imagine more modern foils to have better characteristics. There must be a reason why Roger Macgregor chose NASA instead of NACA but I can't find any information about NASA foils used on sailing yachts anywhere.

Hull form is round bilged, it has no skeg and rather small keel + rudder area, all that indicate that it has low roll dampening. What about roll dampening when sailing in rough seas? It must be less than many other boats but it is noticeable?

Thanks for your time David.

Mikey

 

I'm only aware of one Mac65 with a bulb keel, and that was Joss. Mine has its original trapezoid-shaped keel, which draws 8.5 feet, and large spade rudder.
I've attached a few small pictures showing the keel, rudder, and bottom shape.

When compared to modern designs, especially bulb keels and high-aspect (short chord) rudders, I feel like I've got twice as much appendage underwater as everyone else, and that the boat is much more directionally stable. With reasonably balanced sails, I can let go of the wheel to go forward to make some adjustment, or below to get a drink, without worry. Same story with rolling- its very stable, especially compared to my last boat, a Catalina 38.

I have sailed quite a bit up and down the California coast, in a variety of conditions, and have taught lots of crew about proper ocean etiquette (always barf to leeward). The only really uncomfortable situation is upwind in short steep seas, as the boat tends to accelerate and jump off the waves, with the occasional hard landing in the next trough. The kind that shakes the fillings out of your teeth. In this situation, you either change course or depower and slow down to keep from getting airborne.

In downwind conditions, no worries, regardless of sea state or wind strength. Once the boat is surfing above 15 knots boatspeed, everything becomes remarkably stable, like surfing on whipped cream, with an easy helm and no rolling. Surfing over 22 knots boatspeed in short seas can be an issue, as you are passing the swells, surfing off of one and into and over the next. The problem is that sometimes the back of the next swell is steep, and the bow submarines into it, instead of riding over. The boat slows down instantly, like hitting the brakes, to about 15, and shakes off all the whitewater, but it puts a lot of stress on the rig. In these conditions, the crew below always sleep feet forward. In normal or larger/longer seas, there's no problem with submarining. We took some video during ocean surfing at 14-15 knots a few months ago, and its surprisingly boring. You get no sense of the speed, there's no rolling or pitching. It was kinda disappointing...

 

Hi David,
Thanks for the pics, beautiful boat, sexy figure, and thanks for the info about how she is sailing. The Mac 65 is an early 80’s design so it is actually not that extreme (any longer). Still a very narrow boat though. I think the trend toward very wide sailboats has peaked, hopefully we will see more slender boats in the future.

I guess sailing is an area where even women can agree that size DOES matter. The length of the boat helps, not 100% fair to compare a 38 footer with a 65 footer. Very impressive performance numbers you write, and that you feel that it is still a very nice boat to sail shows that Roger MacGregor has done a good job designing it. Can't blaim the boat for getting air borne...

The rudder is big, it looks like the rudder + keel area is a bit bigger than I expected. Still, I would probably like to have a bit larger keel area though, a bit difficult to see the keel. I’d love to see a ‘complete side view’ picture of the boat that include rudder + keel too. David, if you have one, can you please post it

It looks like the rudder is somewhat submerged and that the waterline continues all the way aft, actually, it looks from the rudder picture that the transom is a few centimetres below the water line but that can’t be correct. How many inches above water is the bottom of the hull all the way aft?

Must write again, impressive performance figures indeed, you have one of the earlier versions so I suppose you have the high rig, 70.8, 25.9, 64.1, 23.7 for 1675 Sqfeet?

How about weather helm - lee helm?

Can you post a pic of her sailing, always nice to look at a sexy girl.

Thanks
Mikey