MacGregor 26 not good? Water-ballast in general??

One innovation I am keen to adopt in my next project is the ability to use the water ballast tanks to keep fresh water in.

At the start of the trip, most of the ballast is fresh water in collapsible 'bladders".

During the trip, as fresh water is used, the tanks are topped up with salt water, until all the fresh water is used. 400 kilos of fresh water is a real luxury at sea.

Another thing that will it will be able to do, is to have removable inspection covers over the tanks. This is to allow maintenance on the bladders, or put lead or stone ballast in for really heavy weather or a crucial race.

I started to discuss pumping water as ballast to the weather side of the boat during racing, but the NA threatened to resign, so thats for version 2

 

Adding ballast near the waterline, where most sailboats have their CG anyway, increases RM at almost any angle.

I did a test for a 40' boat that originally has a displacement of 6649 kg and CG exactly at waterline. Adding 1093 kg ballast 0.28 m above that waterline leads to a boat with a displacement of 7742 kg an CG 0.01 m below the new waterline (the boat sank 0.05 m).

The RM of this new boat is 9.5% more at 1 degrees. Even at 90 degrees the new boat has 4.5% more RM. However the old one has bigger righting arm at any angle and 1.5 degrees better AVS.

Thus ballast does help even if it is well above waterline.

Adding the same 1093 kg 0.28 m below the waterline, where the water ballast would normally be, results to a boat having CG 0.09 m below the new WL, having 15% higher RM at 1 degrees, higher righting arm at any angle and 2 degrees better AVS than the original boat.

 

Water ballast below the waterline is a sinking boat feeling and a reality. High Tec ocean racing sailboats as we all know have for years used tanks located port and starboard high in the hull to pump ballast water into. Used when changing tacks it is basically free ballast which when going off the wind it can be discharged completely and the water weight is gone improving off wind performance by lighter weight and improved buoyancy. In an earlier example I eluded to water blasting the twin keels on my Double Eagle (which at 15 deg heel start to take effect). The minuscule righting moment gained was worthless compared to the performance gained in over all responsive feel.

 

I own a Mac 26x and it is my first sailboat - I have had commercial boats for 20 years and have a 60 tom master certificate. I bought the boat because I can get out on the water at a reasonable price. I can go where most keel boats can't and have a great time doing it. I keep the boat at a Marina and enjoy this boat sailing and motoring. If I want to go 14 knots I can and If the weather is crappy or the current is little more than the average sailboat can handle at 6 knots I can motor on. This is the best combination boat that I was able to find at the best price. Most boats I see sit in the Marina and don't actually go anywhere. I have owned the boat for 6 months and sailed 2 or three days a week and love it. The main thing is to know the limitations of your boat and your experience and take these factors into account when you are on the water.

 

One innovation I am keen to adopt in my next project is the ability to use the water ballast tanks to keep fresh water in.

At the start of the trip, most of the ballast is fresh water in collapsible 'bladders".


Not worth the effort.

We have 3- 35g Bladders in seperiate tanks amidships , on each side , and a 2in Bronze Edison pump to easily move the water.

Yes 100G is almost 800lbs , but it seems to change the angle of heel when dockside a VERY minor amount.

The boat is 32x28x10.6beam 17,000lbs disp 7000lbs in the keel.737 working sail.

The main use of the system is to dump poor water or winterize the system, in sailing , we can't see a difference.

FF

 

SFO - I learned sailing on the SF Bay. You get 15 - 20 kn wind once or twice a summer. Mostly its 25 - 30 kn. I think you will not be happy in a Mac 26 in these conditions. Not what its designed for.

To be comfortable sailing on the SF bay, one needs a boat that can take a lot of punishment and high winds. Also, one with all the sail controls worked out so that they function when everything is going pear shaped.

I've a friend up here in the PNW that has a Mac 26 and he's perfectly happy. The winds are usually light, the waves are usually small and if things get rough he can jet off with that large engine.

Or not..

-jim lee

 

Is San francisco bay always windy like that (25-30 knots) even in the mornings?...that would indeed be challenging local weather and I would have to have at least a 23 or 25-foot boat to want to deal with that all the time...unless the family/gf/wifey dont like riding the rails much then I dont think you need any more boat than that though if you really love to sail...especially a pretty area like SF bay...you can always go to the windward shorelines and hilly coastline areas and backbays...I've never sailed there though but visited that area 2-3 times...maybe I am mistaken but a Mac-26 should be enough boat to enjoy S.F. Bay..a couple recently took a Mac26 from Bellingham Washington to Juneau AK and back I believe...probably was a bit of a wet ride but they did it safely..the motor allowed them to get across bars, rivermouths and sounds quickly between each weather front.

 

True, I would be surprised if you saw any difference in a boat with that much permanent ballast.

With a boat the size of the Mac, you would need every bit of the 400 kilos. The whole boat only weighs 1200 kilos, (2300 lbs) compared to your 7000 lbs of keel and 10ft beam (compared to 7'9")

You have to compare apples with apples

 

r/e to chinook

HI Chinook,
What a great read your alaskan journal was. I have been in and out of alaska for 40+years with many spent on the bering sea and north pacific as a fisherman. Can you describe what the dockhand at yes bay looked like? the reason i ask is my son Dewey is in charge of dock ops there at the lodge.The help you got from Bill hack is typical of us alaskans , he recently sold out his share of the lodge to his brother kevin ,. Seeing all the pics of your trip has made me homesick , I live just south of you here in cashmere ,The other query i have is can you describe the changes you made to your boat to improve it ? I am currently thinking about sometime in the next year getting a trailer sailer ,and after looking at newones (sticker shock!!!!!) I was impressed with the below deck space. Although I am sure someone here will think I am crazy I am wanting to experiment with a junk rig on a boat like this (yes you can run a china rig on a stayed mast ) thanx for your journal i am reading the baja one now smitty

 

Macgregor 25 - 1st class gunkholer

We purchased our M25 (625 lb swing keel @ 5'8" draft) at the NY boat show in 1983 and have sailed her every year since that date. Our cost to operate and maintain this boat is a mere shadow of other boats of this size and capability. We have made many improvements over the years, all towards the boat's strong suits, gunkholing for extended periods and travel by asphalt to distant locations. A side benefit is I work on my boat just outside my own garage and I never lose sleep when it storms. The boat has never had bottom paint on it. We have sailed the St. Lawrence/Lake Ontario, Champlain, Lake George, Hudson River, Erie Canal, Long Island Sound, Raritan/Barnegate/Chesapeake Bays, large lakes in Pennsylvania and we get there @ 60 mile per hour in order to "pick these plums". We sail "big/real" boats too... I have bare-boat chartered from 34 - 52' in length over many different vacations and my brother races his '37 Tartan every Wednesday night during the season. I state all this because our M25 is the perfect gunkholer, designed to draw 21" of water, easy to sail fast, trailers very well, launches at shallow ramps and sets up to sail in about 30 minutes. We have sailed our Mac 20 plus miles offshore and have been in 50 knot winds and 8' waves...not the most pleasant but no injuries or damage was experienced. We have been knocked down numerous times over the years and she has always stood right back up on her feet. During cruises we usually spend 3 days on the hook before we consider a visit to a marina. To develop a bare Macgregor into something special takes a tremendous amount of careful design in order to make it all work. I have seen some the most innovative designs developed by Mac owners. Our boat has refrigeration, propane stove/BBQ, inflatable dinghy, pressure water, 65 amps of charging (alternator mounted to top of outboard) two deep cycle batteries, solar panel, workable head (rather small though), led lighting, our mast can be dropped while under way to clear bridges, 6' of cabin headroom, an the list goes on. Our boat also sails very well and we have been on plane several times with speeds like 10-12 knots (via gps). We motor in all conditions at a reliable 6.5 knots with over a 100 miles of fuel aboard. Like most sailers we "race" every other boat we come upon and often we blow the doors off 30-40' boats without really trying. True we are light in weight and lose momentum in choppy conditions, but with smoother water and 10-15 knots of wind on a reach...watch out. Sorry for the rant but I just had to repond. While I am not a huge fan of the current "powersailers", Roger can find a market and his business is healthy...something that cannot be said for many more traditional builders. Some would say that Roger MacGregor is a very smart man...the "Henry Ford" of sailing??? Little Rascal Out!

 

We purchased our M25 (625 lb swing keel @ 5'8" draft) at the NY boat show in 1983 and have sailed her every year since that date. Our cost to operate and maintain this boat is a mere shadow of other boats of this size and capability. We have made many improvements over the years, all towards the boat's strong suits, gunkholing for extended periods and travel by asphalt to distant locations. A side benefit is I work on my boat just outside my own garage and I never lose sleep when it storms. The boat has never had bottom paint on it. We have sailed the St. Lawrence/Lake Ontario, Champlain, Lake George, Hudson River, Erie Canal, Long Island Sound, Raritan/Barnegate/Chesapeake Bays, large lakes in Pennsylvania and we get there @ 60 mile per hour in order to "pick these plums". We sail "big/real" boats too... I have bare-boat chartered from 34 - 52' in length over many different vacations and my brother races his '37 Tartan every Wednesday night during the season. I state all this because our M25 is the perfect gunkholer, designed to draw 21" of water, easy to sail fast, trailers very well, launches at shallow ramps and sets up to sail in about 30 minutes. We have sailed our Mac 20 plus miles offshore and have been in 50 knot winds and 8' waves...not the most pleasant but no injuries or damage was experienced. We have been knocked down numerous times over the years and she has always stood right back up on her feet. During cruises we usually spend 3 days on the hook before we consider a visit to a marina. To develop a bare Macgregor into something special takes a tremendous amount of careful design in order to make it all work. I have seen some the most innovative designs developed by Mac owners. Our boat has refrigeration, propane stove/BBQ, inflatable dinghy, pressure water, 65 amps of charging (alternator mounted to top of outboard) two deep cycle batteries, solar panel, workable head (rather small though), led lighting, our mast can be dropped while under way to clear bridges, 6' of cabin headroom, an the list goes on. Our boat also sails very well and we have been on plane several times with speeds like 10-12 knots (via gps). We motor in all conditions at a reliable 6.5 knots with over a 100 miles of fuel aboard. Like most sailers we "race" every other boat we come upon and often we blow the doors off 30-40' boats without really trying. True we are light in weight and lose momentum in choppy conditions, but with smoother water and 10-15 knots of wind on a reach...watch out. Sorry for the rant but I just had to repond. While I am not a huge fan of the current "powersailers", Roger can find a market and his business is healthy...something that cannot be said for many more traditional builders. Some would say that Roger MacGregor is a very smart man...the "Henry Ford" of sailing??? Little Rascal Out!

 

I am not interested in reading the entire thread but for a 26 foot boat ? Having water ballast suggests it is OVER POWERED, POOR DESIGN or trying to do something beyond normal expectations for a boat that size and credentials... Why push the limits? get a boat that has longer waterline and is better able to carry more sail...

It is like putting a 10000hp jet engine in a small rv that you go camping in on Summer holidays????????

 

Ain't sailed one yet...gonna reserve the bulk of my opinion until that time...Honestly though...they seem to have alot to offer....I could never ride around in one though until they get rid of the wraparound windshield...let's save those for the "gold chain" gang power-yachts and the aerospace industry....

 

I'm trying to understand the bias against water ballast but not having much luck.
Sure, water ballast uses up more internal volume and distributes mass more widely, but if a design allows for the required volume and still meets a performance/market goal, I don't see the problem with it.

I also don't follow the claims that water ballast only works when the water ballast rises above the LWL.
Ballast is ballast, no matter what it is. Someone correct me if I've managed to get this wrong, but what drives RM is the relationship between the center of buoyancy and center of mass.

Obviously, a floating hull is in equilibrium or it would either sink or fly up and away. The water ballast (CoM) does not need to rise above the LWL, as the boat heels, to affect RM. It just needs to shift out from under the CoB. The fact that a given volume of water ballast is either equal to, greater than, or less than the surrounding water in weight is accounted for by the hull's displacement. The hull's design determines how well ballast (water or otherwise) affects RM.

So is that right or did I miss the cruise ship?

 

GTO,
If the design is good and balanced it should not need mobile (water) ballast except if racing within some other constraint (rules) that allow such - well do not disallow water ballast...

Why make something more complicated than necessary unless it is for a "rule cheat"? One could water ballast, and it could enhance performance but adds complexity and detracts from the pleasure of sailing...

If you are cruising you will have more than enough ballast by way of food and assorted unnecessary stuff "that you might need" (in other words junk/crap stuff)... so why burden your boat when the idea is to enjoy the relaxation and forget the rat race for a time...

I have seen some water tanks (a cheat) just under the deck at max-beam to fiddle the righting moment a bit... - I do not think any of the "officials" were aware of spotted them, and the skipper seemed to feel it helped in his racing... (This was long before swing keels)...

If the rules allow it and you are a enthusiastic racer then do it if not then WHY???