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