.... Water ballast is the
least
desirable.


Not at all. Water ballast has some advantages.


JimC wrote:
The point is that ships have been using ballast in the lower portions of
their hulls (as does the Mac) for hundreds of years. Whether it's a tall
ship or short ship, a sailboat or power boat, water or permanent
ballast, the principle is the same.

Same principle as putting a big bulb of lead down at the
bottom of a fin... getting the Center of Gravity lower.

Do yourself a favor, google up an explanation of metactric
height and read it.


And most ocean-going vessels still
use ballast tanks for holding water in the lower portions of such
vessels. (That's what keeps those container vessels from tipping over.)


I don't think the ABS allows ship with below a certain
standard of stability to enter US ports, and I'm not sure
that standard includes hull spaces temporarily filled with
water.

OTOH it is fairly common practice to increase stability (for
an oncoming storm, for example) to pump seawater into empty
fuel tanks.


You say that tall ships didn't use water for ballast. Right you are. -
That came later (after marine design became more sophisticated). But
they did use ballast positioned in the lower portion of the hull, as
does the Mac.


You might want to look at the difference in hull cross-section.



You imply that water ballast is the least desirable. - In that case,
you should complement MacGregor for adding solid, permanent ballast to
the 26M in addition to water ballast.

Why? They did that largely because of product liability
suits in the wake (pardon the pun) of at least one
unfortunately fatal capsize.



f And if they used only permanent ballast,
the boat would quickly sink to the bottom in the event the hull was
seriously compromised, as do most weighted-hull sailboats.


No reason why other boats couldn't have positive flotation.

DSK

Scotty wrote:

I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

Scotty



That's a rather unusual situation. - But don't you ever want to sail
somewhere else?





"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point

of sailing is the

journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand,

there are places

where the getting there part is not worth much, as the

destination is the

place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires

about 30 minutes of

motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the

deep bay, which is

where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if

that's what we

decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew

preparation,

planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's

not wasted.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most

M26s have can be

quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired

sailing area without

spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty


Well, when you have been saling all day, and it's hot and humid, and the
sun's in your eyes, and your crew wants to get home ASAP, and the wind's
against you, it's rather nice to turn on the motor and plane home at 15
- 17 mph. Etc., etc.

Jim

When my friend and I go sailing I always harrass him so that we leave
the slip and return to the slip on sail alone. I don't let him drop the
motor. It's pretty darn tricky getting out of the slip without the
motor. And there is the time we almost made his slip about 2 feet
deeper...or his boat 2 feet shorter...

Carl

Scotty wrote:
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

CJH wrote:

DSK wrote:

I told you, those darn cultists are pernicious!


Yeah, I didn't want people to think I lobbed a grenade and ran as my
first post to the group.

Get a hell-for-leather sport boat then your kids would probably have fun


That's what they want...all that matters is to go fast and beat the 21ft
Chris-Craft. Oh, and water ski and tube, etc. I was just looking at
sailboats and my sons were changing "motor boat, motor boat" in the
background.


While I'm a "cultist" sailor who has never owned or skippered a
powerboat (and 90% of my time on the Mac outside the marina and
channels is spent sailing), the Mac does have the ability to plane, tow
a water skier, tow kids on tubes, etc. Although I hesitate to say this
on ASA, while it's fun to sail, it's also fun to power the boat on a
plane. - Normally a rather smooth, pleasant ride, particularly on a hot day.

Jim

DSK wrote:

.... Water ballast is the least
desirable.



Not at all. Water ballast has some advantages.


JimC wrote:

The point is that ships have been using ballast in the lower portions
of their hulls (as does the Mac) for hundreds of years. Whether it's a
tall ship or short ship, a sailboat or power boat, water or permanent
ballast, the principle is the same.


Same principle as putting a big bulb of lead down at the bottom of a
fin... getting the Center of Gravity lower.

Do yourself a favor, google up an explanation of metactric height and
read it.


And most ocean-going vessels still use ballast tanks for holding water
in the lower portions of such vessels. (That's what keeps those
container vessels from tipping over.)


I don't think the ABS allows ship with below a certain standard of
stability to enter US ports, and I'm not sure that standard includes
hull spaces temporarily filled with water.

OTOH it is fairly common practice to increase stability (for an oncoming
storm, for example) to pump seawater into empty fuel tanks.


You say that tall ships didn't use water for ballast. Right you are. -
That came later (after marine design became more sophisticated). But
they did use ballast positioned in the lower portion of the hull, as
does the Mac.


You might want to look at the difference in hull cross-section.



You imply that water ballast is the least desirable. - In that case,
you should complement MacGregor for adding solid, permanent ballast to
the 26M in addition to water ballast.


Why? They did that largely because of product liability suits in the
wake (pardon the pun) of at least one unfortunately fatal capsize.

And where is your evidence supporting that statement? (I'm aware of the
lawsuit re the 26X, but remember that that's one MacGregor won. - A
drunk, asinine skipper can screw up on almost any boat.) - One alternate
explanation is that they thought the extra ballast was needed because of
the taller mast.

But in any event, those sailing the current model (the 26M) get the
benefit of this and the other 26M mods. Whatever the reason, MacGregor
stepped up to cure the problem, even if it meant abandoning their
traditional reliance on water ballast.




f And if they used only permanent ballast, the boat would quickly
sink to the bottom in the event the hull was seriously compromised, as
do most weighted-hull sailboats.


No reason why other boats couldn't have positive flotation.

Actually, there is. If conventional boats with heavy, weighted keels,
particularly those of heavy construction, had enough positive flotation
to keep the boat afloat, there would be little room left in the cabin.
It would reduce substantially the space needed to store provisions for
long distance cruising.

Jim


DSK

JimC wrote:
And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way
from stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.


Wrong again. it extends about 2/3rds, and the front and rear portions
of the tank taper to sharp end portions and are therefore of little
mass and no real consequence re the distribution of mass.

Not according to the published diagram:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Its pretty clear from this that the ballast extends all the way
forward, and that in fact a substantial amount is forward of the
mast. You should really spend some time learning about your boat, Jim.

Jeff, did you happen to take courses in geometry and logic in high
school or junior high? The reason I ask is that you obviously know
nothing about either subject.

Actually, I majored in Naval Architecture for two years before
switching to Physics. Then I worked for NASA for 6 years. Any more
questions?

- The fact that the water ballast tank in
the Mac extends toward the bow, forward of the mast, is not
determinative of whether it extends about 2/3rd the length of the boat.

It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area. The
cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to be
by far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water
ballast is forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?

And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of mass
in the extremities.


(Remember that my statement was in response to Scotty's ridiculous
remark that the water ballast extends "all the way from stem to stern."
- Why didn't you criticize Scotty for making such a stupid remark?)

Because I made it. And is what is your problem with it? Are you
claiming that the diagram on the Mac site is faulty, that the tank
does not run the entire length? Or are you arguing on the meaning of
"stem to stern"?

Also, the ballast tank is tapered at the front and back such that the
volume (and mass) of water held at the front and rear portions is
substantially less then that held toward amidships.

Clearly, there seems to be little ballast in the stern, but with the
heavy engine, plus the possibility of a full cockpit, its probably not
possible. However, the largest cross-section of the tank is shown at
the station halfway between the keel and the bow at the waterline.

While the bow obviously "tapers in" (yes indeed, they did make the bow
at the pointy end) which means the ballast must be reduced in the
forward few feet, but so is the buoyancy.

Additionally, the
heavier, permanent ballast is positioned amidships, below the mast.

Just where ballast should be. Good for them.


Jeff, I've sailed many boats. The Mac 26M doesn't pitch excessively and
doesn't pitch more than most others. (Have you sailed the 26M? - No?)

I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out. I have
sailed by them a number of times and they do seem to bob around more
than heavier boats.

Seems to me that this is just one more example of the fact that the most
opinionated, inflexible critics of the Mac 26m are those who have never
sailed one.

From everything you've posted Jim, there's no evidence you've ever
been on one either.

"JimC" wrote in message
m...


Scotty wrote:

I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina,
and
I'm sailing!

Scotty



That's a rather unusual situation.

Well, there's 499 other boats in my marina.


- But don't you ever want to sail
somewhere else?


Sometimes. That's when I take off for one or two weeks and
SAIL to somewhere else.

that's two weeks of sailing, not motorboating.

Scotty

I singlehand mostly, 30' boat slipped in the middle of a
long fairway. No reason not to motor out.. I have nothing
to prove.

Scotty


"CJH" wrote in message
...
When my friend and I go sailing I always harrass him so
that we leave
the slip and return to the slip on sail alone. I don't
let him drop the
motor. It's pretty darn tricky getting out of the slip
without the
motor. And there is the time we almost made his slip
about 2 feet
deeper...or his boat 2 feet shorter...

Carl

Scotty wrote:
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina,
and
I'm sailing!

Hey everybody, Jimbo has discovered what ballast is!

Did you use Google?

SV


"JimC" wrote in message
. com...



The point is that ships have been using ballast in the
lower portions of
their hulls (as does the Mac) for hundreds of years.
Whether it's a tall
ship or short ship, a sailboat or power boat, water or
permanent
ballast, the principle is the same. And most ocean-going
vessels still
use ballast tanks for holding water in the lower portions
of such
vessels. (That's what keeps those container vessels from
tipping over.)

You say that the tall ships are deeper than a Mac. Still,
both used or
use ballast positioned within the hull and below the
waterline.

You say that tall ships didn't use water for ballast.
Right you are. -
That came later (after marine design became more
sophisticated). But
they did use ballast positioned in the lower portion of
the hull, as
does the Mac.

You say that tall ships used stones, brick, etc., rather
than water.
Nevertheless, the same principles apply.

You imply that water ballast is the least desirable. - In
that case,
you should complement MacGregor for adding solid,
permanent ballast to
the 26M in addition to water ballast. Of course, if they
used only
permanent ballast, they would loose the advantages gained
by using
water ballast that can be removed to lighten the boat
during trailoring,
or for high-speed motoring, etc. And if they used only
permanent
ballast, the boat would quickly sink to the bottom in the
event the hull
was seriously compromised, as do most weighted-hull
sailboats.

You say that tall ships are so different from the Mac that
the
comparison is laughable. Nevertheless, the same principles
apply. -
sails acting to power the vessel, keel acting to limit
lateral movement,
and ballast, positioned below the waterline, to lower the
center of mass
and prevent capsizing of the vessel and limit heeling.

Jim

No reason why other boats couldn't have positive flotation.


JimC wrote:
Actually, there is. If conventional boats with heavy, weighted keels,
particularly those of heavy construction, had enough positive flotation
to keep the boat afloat, there would be little room left in the cabin.

Bull****.

How much volume does the boat have immersed (ie below the
waterline)? The is the exact amount, no more. "Heavy
weighted keel" or any other sort.

Now, if you're talking about a flush-deck boat with 2' of
freeboard, then maybe there wouldn't be much cabin room to
spare... there wouldn't be much in the first place.

DSK