Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

.... 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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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!

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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!

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

easy there Doug. Jim has just figured out what 'ballast'
is, not sure if he's ready for 'displacement'.

SBV


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

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

I'm so sorry. Such a long motor is the price some have to pay for being so
far from open water.

Since we've moved to the leeward side of the dock, on low-traffic days we
shove the boat manually out of the slip, sails raised, and sail out of the
marina. Sail back into the slip, too. Let the powerboaters brag all they
want about how 'green' they are using biodiesel.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

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

Yeah, but it's fun listening to all the powerboaters scream at you because
they know you have rights-of-way.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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.

You are correct, but I'd be interested to see the volume of flotation
material needed to compensate for that displacement of water. *The volume
of flotation material required to offset a given volume of water is not
necessarily same.* Lear Siegler, the builder of O'Day boats, published a
lengthy report some years ago about why larger boats don't have positive
flotation. It was written from an engineering point of view and made sense
to me at the time, albeit I'm no engineer. Their point was essentially what
Jim C was claiming--loss of interior volume in a marketplace demanding more
and more interior space. They even explored the concept of flotation that
could be inflated in crisis, but cited cost and space requirements for even
this more compact system. So I'm not quite sure Jim is wrong. Can you
provide some documentation to the contrary, beyond just your opinion?

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.

Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily. It would most likely be the result of a government requirement
(there's that nanny state again, Doug), and it would have to be applied to
all boats, regardless of design. So according to your last paragraph, such
a ruling might eliminate a whole class of boats. Small class racers like
the Mumm 30 come to mind.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net...
|
| "DSK" wrote in message
| . ..
| 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.
|
| You are correct, but I'd be interested to see the volume of flotation
| material needed to compensate for that displacement of water. *The volume
| of flotation material required to offset a given volume of water is not
| necessarily same.* Lear Siegler, the builder of O'Day boats, published a
| lengthy report some years ago about why larger boats don't have positive
| flotation. It was written from an engineering point of view and made sense
| to me at the time, albeit I'm no engineer. Their point was essentially what
| Jim C was claiming--loss of interior volume in a marketplace demanding more
| and more interior space. They even explored the concept of flotation that
| could be inflated in crisis, but cited cost and space requirements for even
| this more compact system. So I'm not quite sure Jim is wrong. Can you
| provide some documentation to the contrary, beyond just your opinion?
|
| 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.
|
| Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
| voluntarily. It would most likely be the result of a government requirement
| (there's that nanny state again, Doug), and it would have to be applied to
| all boats, regardless of design. So according to your last paragraph, such
| a ruling might eliminate a whole class of boats. Small class racers like
| the Mumm 30 come to mind.


Have you ever heard of ETAP? Their boats have positive flotation. They have a nice 28-footer just
out that's so fine. It's not hard to put positive flotation in sailing yachts. You loose some interior volume,
of course, but much of the space used is not much good for anything else, anyway.

http://www.etapyachting.com/index.cfm?Part=Yachts

When you do the math, you don't need as much flotation as you would expect. To figure it you must come
up with specific gravities of the various boat components. Fiberglass, for example is lighter under water
than above water. All the wood in boats is positive flotation already. Things like lead or iron ballast have
to be compensated for pound for pound but most of the other things boats are built out of you can weigh
them in the air and cut the weight in half for the pounds of flotation you must add to compensate for them.

Paladin
(Have Blue Water Positive Flotation Yacht - Will Travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

... 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****.


Maxprop wrote:
You are correct, but I'd be interested to see the volume of flotation
material needed to compensate for that displacement of water. *The volume
of flotation material required to offset a given volume of water is not
necessarily same.*

I'm not sure what you mean, here.


... Lear Siegler, the builder of O'Day boats, published a
lengthy report some years ago about why larger boats don't have positive
flotation. It was written from an engineering point of view and made sense
to me at the time, albeit I'm no engineer. Their point was essentially what
Jim C was claiming--loss of interior volume in a marketplace demanding more
and more interior space.

Whoa... "marketplace" and "Engineering" are usually two
viewpoints in conflict.

From an engineering standpoint, there is less than no
reason at all why *any* boat shouldn't have positive
flotation. Just fill it all up with foam.

From a more practical standpoint of a useful cruising boat,
then you (as I believe you were driving at above) all you
need is a flotation volume equal to the difference between
the boat's volume of material and the immersed volume needed
to float that weight. I've worked out such figures for a
couple of production boats and the answer is that the volume
of the seat & berth cushions is pretty close to enough. Of
course, you need a safety margin, and that volume needs to
be both *secure* and also distributed in such a way that the
boat floats in it's proper attitude (ie not bow pointed
down, or leaned over 45 degrees) & has some stability.



... They even explored the concept of flotation that
could be inflated in crisis, but cited cost and space requirements for even
this more compact system.

There have been two such systems on the market, both went
out of business. People won't pay enough for such a
system... from a viewpoint of market analysis, a failure.
From a viewpoint of somebody who wants as much safety as
practical, and cares less about costs, it's a total success.

People buy cheap stuff. Why do think Wal-Mart does so well?


... So I'm not quite sure Jim is wrong.

From a marketing standpoint, sure. MacGregor can only
afford to offer positive floation because it's partially
installed anyway by their building method... and their foam
is the cheap stuff.



... Can you
provide some documentation to the contrary, beyond just your opinion?


Umm, show me a boat that doesn't float to start with, and
I'll show you one that probably can't have positive flotation.





Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.

It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.



... It would most likely be the result of a government requirement
(there's that nanny state again, Doug), and it would have to be applied to
all boats, regardless of design.

Show me where I suggested that it be mandated that all boats
be required to have positive flotation.


So according to your last paragraph, such
a ruling might eliminate a whole class of boats. Small class racers like
the Mumm 30 come to mind.


Heck, the Mumm 30 would be real easy to put positive
flotation in. Not much of a premium on cabin space, anyway.

The bottom line is that positive flotation is *definitely*
possible... as I said, all you need is to fill the boat with
foam up to the static waterline, and put your cabin floor
over that. Or apply that same volume of foam to a carefully
distributed set of unused voids & crannies.

Is it desirable? Depends. If I were going to do a lot of
ocean crossing, making passages along rough & rocky coasts,
etc etc, I would want it. There are tremendous advantages in
a boat that just plain will not ever sink. It's possible
that I would make it a high enough priority to put in
myself. Do I expect anybody else to? Not really, especially
the people who rave about the advantages of Wal-Mart type boats.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:48:01 -0500, DSK wrote:

Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.




It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.



http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.


It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.


Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm


Cool link, thanks. Lots of info in there I didn't know
about. I had heard about the sailing-while-flooded test.

There are a couple of people who contribute once in a while
over at the rec.boats.cruising NG with Sadlers.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:15:22 -0500, DSK wrote:

Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.


It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.


Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm


Cool link, thanks. Lots of info in there I didn't know
about. I had heard about the sailing-while-flooded test.

There are a couple of people who contribute once in a while
over at the rec.boats.cruising NG with Sadlers.


There are more here amongst the locals than any other make. I was very
impressed with my trip on the 34.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I only sail with my friend a couple times a year so it is just for fun.
No hidden agenda in my message.

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

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

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

I'm so sorry. Such a long motor is the price some have to
pay for being so
far from open water.

Since we've moved to the leeward side of the dock, on
low-traffic days we
shove the boat manually out of the slip, sails raised, and
sail out of the
marina. Sail back into the slip, too. Let the
powerboaters brag all they
want about how 'green' they are using biodiesel.


You win !

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Maxprop" wrote
..... Let the
powerboaters brag all they
want about how 'green' they are using biodiesel.



Scotty wrote:
You win !


I'm trying to remember if I bragged about using biodiesel.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:
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.

What's unusual about it? I walk to the waterfront outside my yard - 2
minutes - row out to the mooring, and sail off. Maybe 5 minutes, 10
max, from my door to dropping the mooring.

PDW

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... 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****.


Maxprop wrote:
You are correct, but I'd be interested to see the volume of flotation
material needed to compensate for that displacement of water. *The
volume of flotation material required to offset a given volume of water
is not necessarily same.*

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

A cube of lead one inch per side will not necessarily float with a cube of
floatation material of the same size attached. Depending upon the type of
flotation material it might require more or less than a 1" cube to float the
lead cube.


... Lear Siegler, the builder of O'Day boats, published a lengthy report
some years ago about why larger boats don't have positive flotation. It
was written from an engineering point of view and made sense to me at the
time, albeit I'm no engineer. Their point was essentially what Jim C was
claiming--loss of interior volume in a marketplace demanding more and
more interior space.

Whoa... "marketplace" and "Engineering" are usually two viewpoints in
conflict.

From an engineering standpoint, there is less than no reason at all why
*any* boat shouldn't have positive flotation. Just fill it all up with
foam.

Engineers, fortunately or not, work for the same companies that also employ
the marketing gurus. While their philosophies may differ radically, the two
disciplines are not mutually exclusive.


From a more practical standpoint of a useful cruising boat, then you (as I
believe you were driving at above) all you need is a flotation volume
equal to the difference between the boat's volume of material and the
immersed volume needed to float that weight. I've worked out such figures
for a couple of production boats and the answer is that the volume of the
seat & berth cushions is pretty close to enough.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, that would allow a capsized vessel to
float with virtually nothing above the water level.

Of course, you need a safety margin, and that volume needs to be both
*secure* and also distributed in such a way that the boat floats in it's
proper attitude (ie not bow pointed down, or leaned over 45 degrees) & has
some stability.

. . . and at least some of the boat out of the water and able to support
the maximum allowable crew complement. Boston Whaler is renowned for this.

... They even explored the concept of flotation that could be inflated in
crisis, but cited cost and space requirements for even this more compact
system.

There have been two such systems on the market, both went out of business.
People won't pay enough for such a system... from a viewpoint of market
analysis, a failure. From a viewpoint of somebody who wants as much safety
as practical, and cares less about costs, it's a total success.

I suspect it has more to do with one's desire to save his boat from sinking.
I'd think a life raft would suffice if safety were the only consideration.
I recall such aftermarket flotation systems, incidentally. Older Snipes
occasionally used air bags.


People buy cheap stuff. Why do think Wal-Mart does so well?

Probably the same reason MacGregor sells lots of boats.

... So I'm not quite sure Jim is wrong.

From a marketing standpoint, sure. MacGregor can only afford to offer
positive floation because it's partially installed anyway by their
building method... and their foam is the cheap stuff.



... Can you provide some documentation to the contrary, beyond just your
opinion?


Umm, show me a boat that doesn't float to start with, and I'll show you
one that probably can't have positive flotation.





Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.

It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.

I wasn't aware of that. Do their boats all have pos. flotation? I don't
know much about either mfr.--are they higher-end boats?

... It would most likely be the result of a government requirement
(there's that nanny state again, Doug), and it would have to be applied
to all boats, regardless of design.

Show me where I suggested that it be mandated that all boats be required
to have positive flotation.

Easy there, Doug. I didn't say you did. That nanny comment was mine, and
intended as a gentle elbow to the ribs.

So according to your last paragraph, such a ruling might eliminate a
whole class of boats. Small class racers like the Mumm 30 come to mind.


Heck, the Mumm 30 would be real easy to put positive flotation in. Not
much of a premium on cabin space, anyway.

The last Mumm 30 on which I crewed was owned by a sailor who bitterly
complained about the inability of his boat to carry adequate spares due to
the limited interior volume. Then again he believed that nothing short of a
dozen sails was minimal in order to be prepared for any sort of weather.
When I pointed out that those extra sails add lots of weight, he poo-poo'd
the idea. Of course he never finished all that well, either.

The bottom line is that positive flotation is *definitely* possible... as
I said, all you need is to fill the boat with foam up to the static
waterline, and put your cabin floor over that. Or apply that same volume
of foam to a carefully distributed set of unused voids & crannies.

Or at least part of that flotation foam could be used as hull stiffening,
ala Boston Whaler. My sailboat has an Airex foam core between the hull
laminates. It's not particularly thick, but it does add a substantial
amount of rigidity, and the builder claimed it even provided enough
flotation effect that it wouldn't take a lot of additional flotation
material or air bags to make the boat float in event of capsize. Not that I
exactly care one way or the other.


Is it desirable? Depends. If I were going to do a lot of ocean crossing,
making passages along rough & rocky coasts, etc etc, I would want it.

Why? If making open-water passages, what would you achieve by keeping your
boat afloat. A capsized cruising sailboat a thousand miles from anywhere is
a total loss, floating or not. Unless you can bail the boat out and sail it
subsequently there is little value in keeping at afloat. Near shore may be
another matter entirely, but along the "rocky coast" I'm not sure there
would be any value either. A liferaft makes more sense to me--it will move
along relatively well with the prevailing winds and currents. It will also
be able to stay afloat in rough seas, where the flooded, low floating boat
would simply take monstrous waves over the deck until it breaks up. Here in
the Great Lakes, or on Pamlico Sound, a floating boat could be salvaged.

There are tremendous advantages in a boat that just plain will not ever
sink. It's possible that I would make it a high enough priority to put in
myself. Do I expect anybody else to? Not really, especially the people who
rave about the advantages of Wal-Mart type boats.

I asked Ted Gozzard about positive flotation at Strictly Sail in Chicago a
few years ago. He just laughed at me, as if I were some idiot. I asked him
to elucidate, to which he responded, "See those little cat boats over there?
(18' Marshall) That's what you want if you want positive flotation." I
said I wasn't personally interested in positive flotation, but was asking
the question hypothetically. He just laughed again and turned away. I'm
not quite sure how to interpret that, but it would appear that he regarded
positive flotation as a non-issue. FWIW.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:48:01 -0500, DSK wrote:

Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.




It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.



http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm

Interesting reading. It sounds as if the 26 was able to maintain decent
freeboard when flooded, but I'm wondering if the larger boats would do
similarly?

Nice looking boats.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
"Maxprop" wrote
..... Let the
powerboaters brag all they
want about how 'green' they are using biodiesel.



Scotty wrote:
You win !


I'm trying to remember if I bragged about using biodiesel.

You can't brag about it if you don't use it.

Around here the main customers for biodiesel are commercial vessels. They
smell like someone is making popcorn when they motor by. Most of the
recreational powerboaters burn petroleum diesel, primarily because it's
readily available, and many are leery of using biodiesel for some unknown
reason. Those who do, however, brag about being 'green.' To a sailor
that's like Richard Simmons boasting to Vin Diesel about being manly.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimC wrote:
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.

What's unusual about it? I walk to the waterfront outside my yard - 2
minutes - row out to the mooring, and sail off. Maybe 5 minutes, 10
max, from my door to dropping the mooring.

You should have a Carey 50 for getting to and from your mooring, Pete.

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimC wrote:
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.

What's unusual about it? I walk to the waterfront outside my yard - 2
minutes - row out to the mooring, and sail off. Maybe 5 minutes, 10
max, from my door to dropping the mooring.

You should have a Carey 50 for getting to and from your mooring, Pete.

Nah. I'm waiting for the sea level to rise so I can tie up at my back
door. Or at least at the bottom of the yard. 2 or 3 metres rise would
be good.

PDW

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Maxprop wrote:
A cube of lead one inch per side will not necessarily float with a cube of
floatation material of the same size attached. Depending upon the type of
flotation material it might require more or less than a 1" cube to float the
lead cube.


Of course. The flotation has to be of sufficient volume &
density to bring the average specific gravity below 1.0

A point that is occasionally overlooked is that the
flotation also has to be structurally sound. I learned this
lesson in practice, trying to install positive flotation on
the cheap for an old racing class boat.



... "marketplace" and "Engineering" are usually two viewpoints in
conflict.



Engineers, fortunately or not, work for the same companies that also employ
the marketing gurus. While their philosophies may differ radically, the two
disciplines are not mutually exclusive.


Sure. Occasionally you see both talents combined in the same
guy. But just because a product won't sell profitably, that
doesn't mean it isn't possible or even practical.



From a more practical standpoint of a useful cruising boat, then you (as I
believe you were driving at above) all you need is a flotation volume
equal to the difference between the boat's volume of material and the
immersed volume needed to float that weight. I've worked out such figures
for a couple of production boats and the answer is that the volume of the
seat & berth cushions is pretty close to enough.


If I'm interpreting you correctly, that would allow a capsized vessel to
float with virtually nothing above the water level.


At minimum, yes. But that wouldn't serve much purpose other
than to make the recoverable after an accident, at which
point it would be worthless... no value to the crew, who
would still need a survival craft, and no value in the
marketplace. So that is not a good enough answer, which is
why I then said:



Of course, you need a safety margin, and that volume needs to be both
*secure* and also distributed in such a way that the boat floats in it's
proper attitude (ie not bow pointed down, or leaned over 45 degrees) & has
some stability.


. . . and at least some of the boat out of the water and able to support
the maximum allowable crew complement. Boston Whaler is renowned for this.


Definitely agreed.


I'd think a life raft would suffice if safety were the only consideration.

Depends. The whole boat is more desirable than a life raft.
Otherwise why have the boat, why not just cruise in the life
raft in the first place?

It's a bit more of a challenge to build a boat that would be
liveable and operable (even sailable) after severe flooding,
but it's certainly possible. And I think, for some types of
sailing, it's highly desirable.

I can't believe that there are still some centerboard racing
classes that are not self-rescuing; some don't even have
positive flotation. WTF are they thinking?



Show me where I suggested that it be mandated that all boats be required
to have positive flotation.


Easy there, Doug. I didn't say you did. That nanny comment was mine, and
intended as a gentle elbow to the ribs.


Ah so, got it now.


Heck, the Mumm 30 would be real easy to put positive flotation in. Not
much of a premium on cabin space, anyway.


The last Mumm 30 on which I crewed was owned by a sailor who bitterly
complained about the inability of his boat to carry adequate spares due to
the limited interior volume. Then again he believed that nothing short of a
dozen sails was minimal in order to be prepared for any sort of weather.
When I pointed out that those extra sails add lots of weight, he poo-poo'd
the idea. Of course he never finished all that well, either.


Sounds like he didn't have his priorities quite in order.
Well, it's his boat, his priviledge.

I think J-24s should have positive flotation. AFAIK the
Soling class now requires it (sinkings were fairly common
back in the day); not sure if the Etchells does. The 1D-35
and the new Farr 36 both have positive flotation. A Mumm 30?
A bit harder to sink but still possible...




The bottom line is that positive flotation is *definitely* possible... as
I said, all you need is to fill the boat with foam up to the static
waterline, and put your cabin floor over that. Or apply that same volume
of foam to a carefully distributed set of unused voids & crannies.


Or at least part of that flotation foam could be used as hull stiffening,
ala Boston Whaler. My sailboat has an Airex foam core between the hull
laminates. It's not particularly thick, but it does add a substantial
amount of rigidity, and the builder claimed it even provided enough
flotation effect that it wouldn't take a lot of additional flotation
material or air bags to make the boat float in event of capsize. Not that I
exactly care one way or the other.


True.
Some people hate foam core, though.



Is it desirable? Depends. If I were going to do a lot of ocean crossing,
making passages along rough & rocky coasts, etc etc, I would want it.


Why? If making open-water passages, what would you achieve by keeping your
boat afloat. A capsized cruising sailboat a thousand miles from anywhere is
a total loss, floating or not.

Because if I went to the effort, the boat would not only
remain afloat but have a good positive range of stability &
reserve bouyancy... ie be operable and liveable after severe
flooding...


... Near shore may be
another matter entirely, but along the "rocky coast" I'm not sure there
would be any value either.

Not much sense in making sure theboat remains afloat if it's
going to be smashed to pieces, sure. But if all the pieces
still float, the people have a better chance IMHO.


... Here in
the Great Lakes, or on Pamlico Sound, a floating boat could be salvaged.


Shucks, in Pamlico Sound... or many places along the
Chesapeake... you could just wade ashore. The boat wouldn't
sink very far.





I asked Ted Gozzard about positive flotation at Strictly Sail in Chicago a
few years ago. He just laughed at me, as if I were some idiot. I asked him
to elucidate, to which he responded, "See those little cat boats over there?
(18' Marshall) That's what you want if you want positive flotation." I
said I wasn't personally interested in positive flotation, but was asking
the question hypothetically. He just laughed again and turned away. I'm
not quite sure how to interpret that, but it would appear that he regarded
positive flotation as a non-issue. FWIW.


For him, it almost certainly is. I'm not surprised he's a
bit of a reactionary (I mean, look at his boat designs) but
I'd be surprised if he didn't have a pretty good grip on the
practical issues involved. But then, talking to boat
designers at boat shows is often a futile endeavor...
they're there to sell boats.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

A few points to toss in he

Boats with significant amounts water ballast (i.e. Mac) need much less
flotation because the specific gravity is so close to one. In other
words, a tank of water only needs flotation for the tank material, not
the contents. A number of the smaller water ballast boats have
flotation, Catalina chose not to on the ground that it have taken too
much space.

An other way to look at it is that you only need significant amounts
of flotation for the heavy parts of the boat, like the keel and
engine. This is why my catamaran can have positive flotation, in the
form of six watertight compartments. I'm told that the hull by itself
(which has foam core above the waterline) has a SG of under one.

Its easy to do a "napkin calculation" of how much foam is needed: Say
a 36 foot boat displaces 12000 pounds. That's 333 pounds per foot,
we'll make that 500 pounds because of the pointy ends. Since water is
about 62 pounds per cubic foot, that's 8 cubic feet worth. If we then
consider the circumference, assuming a 12 foot beam, is about 36 feet,
what we're left with is an average coating of under 2.5 inches. In
other words, if the hull were constructed with a sandwich containing 3
inches of foam, it would be enough to provide positive flotation. It
would also give a huge amount of stiffness, collision protection and
insulation.

We can also roughly figure the size of airbag flotation - 12000 pounds
is about 200 cubic feet of water, which is a cube about 6 feet on a
side, or probably better as two spheres of about a bit under 6 feet in
diameter. This should be quite doable.

One problem with these calculations is that they assume a typical
racer/cruiser, not a heavy displacement offshore passage maker.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I think my boat, even on the bottom of the ocean, would
still sail better than a Mac 26 XM.


Scotty



"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
A cube of lead one inch per side will not necessarily
float with a cube of
floatation material of the same size attached.
Depending upon the type of
flotation material it might require more or less than a
1" cube to float the
lead cube.


Of course. The flotation has to be of sufficient volume &
density to bring the average specific gravity below 1.0

A point that is occasionally overlooked is that the
flotation also has to be structurally sound. I learned
this
lesson in practice, trying to install positive flotation
on
the cheap for an old racing class boat.



... "marketplace" and "Engineering" are usually two
viewpoints in
conflict.



Engineers, fortunately or not, work for the same
companies that also employ
the marketing gurus. While their philosophies may
differ radically, the two
disciplines are not mutually exclusive.


Sure. Occasionally you see both talents combined in the
same
guy. But just because a product won't sell profitably,
that
doesn't mean it isn't possible or even practical.



From a more practical standpoint of a useful cruising
boat, then you (as I
believe you were driving at above) all you need is a
flotation volume
equal to the difference between the boat's volume of
material and the
immersed volume needed to float that weight. I've worked
out such figures
for a couple of production boats and the answer is that
the volume of the
seat & berth cushions is pretty close to enough.


If I'm interpreting you correctly, that would allow a
capsized vessel to
float with virtually nothing above the water level.


At minimum, yes. But that wouldn't serve much purpose
other
than to make the recoverable after an accident, at which
point it would be worthless... no value to the crew, who
would still need a survival craft, and no value in the
marketplace. So that is not a good enough answer, which is
why I then said:



Of course, you need a safety margin, and that volume
needs to be both
*secure* and also distributed in such a way that the
boat floats in it's
proper attitude (ie not bow pointed down, or leaned over
45 degrees) & has
some stability.


. . . and at least some of the boat out of the water
and able to support
the maximum allowable crew complement. Boston Whaler is
renowned for this.


Definitely agreed.


I'd think a life raft would suffice if safety were the
only consideration.

Depends. The whole boat is more desirable than a life
raft.
Otherwise why have the boat, why not just cruise in the
life
raft in the first place?

It's a bit more of a challenge to build a boat that would
be
liveable and operable (even sailable) after severe
flooding,
but it's certainly possible. And I think, for some types
of
sailing, it's highly desirable.

I can't believe that there are still some centerboard
racing
classes that are not self-rescuing; some don't even have
positive flotation. WTF are they thinking?



Show me where I suggested that it be mandated that all
boats be required
to have positive flotation.


Easy there, Doug. I didn't say you did. That nanny
comment was mine, and
intended as a gentle elbow to the ribs.


Ah so, got it now.


Heck, the Mumm 30 would be real easy to put positive
flotation in. Not
much of a premium on cabin space, anyway.


The last Mumm 30 on which I crewed was owned by a sailor
who bitterly
complained about the inability of his boat to carry
adequate spares due to
the limited interior volume. Then again he believed
that nothing short of a
dozen sails was minimal in order to be prepared for any
sort of weather.
When I pointed out that those extra sails add lots of
weight, he poo-poo'd
the idea. Of course he never finished all that well,
either.


Sounds like he didn't have his priorities quite in order.
Well, it's his boat, his priviledge.

I think J-24s should have positive flotation. AFAIK the
Soling class now requires it (sinkings were fairly common
back in the day); not sure if the Etchells does. The 1D-35
and the new Farr 36 both have positive flotation. A Mumm
30?
A bit harder to sink but still possible...




The bottom line is that positive flotation is
*definitely* possible... as
I said, all you need is to fill the boat with foam up to
the static
waterline, and put your cabin floor over that. Or apply
that same volume
of foam to a carefully distributed set of unused voids &
crannies.


Or at least part of that flotation foam could be used as
hull stiffening,
ala Boston Whaler. My sailboat has an Airex foam core
between the hull
laminates. It's not particularly thick, but it does add
a substantial
amount of rigidity, and the builder claimed it even
provided enough
flotation effect that it wouldn't take a lot of
additional flotation
material or air bags to make the boat float in event of
capsize. Not that I
exactly care one way or the other.


True.
Some people hate foam core, though.



Is it desirable? Depends. If I were going to do a lot of
ocean crossing,
making passages along rough & rocky coasts, etc etc, I
would want it.


Why? If making open-water passages, what would you
achieve by keeping your
boat afloat. A capsized cruising sailboat a thousand
miles from anywhere is
a total loss, floating or not.

Because if I went to the effort, the boat would not only
remain afloat but have a good positive range of stability
&
reserve bouyancy... ie be operable and liveable after
severe
flooding...


... Near shore may be
another matter entirely, but along the "rocky coast" I'm
not sure there
would be any value either.

Not much sense in making sure theboat remains afloat if
it's
going to be smashed to pieces, sure. But if all the pieces
still float, the people have a better chance IMHO.


... Here in
the Great Lakes, or on Pamlico Sound, a floating boat
could be salvaged.


Shucks, in Pamlico Sound... or many places along the
Chesapeake... you could just wade ashore. The boat
wouldn't
sink very far.





I asked Ted Gozzard about positive flotation at Strictly
Sail in Chicago a
few years ago. He just laughed at me, as if I were some
idiot. I asked him
to elucidate, to which he responded, "See those little
cat boats over there?
(18' Marshall) That's what you want if you want
positive flotation." I
said I wasn't personally interested in positive
flotation, but was asking
the question hypothetically. He just laughed again and
turned away. I'm
not quite sure how to interpret that, but it would
appear that he regarded
positive flotation as a non-issue. FWIW.


For him, it almost certainly is. I'm not surprised he's a
bit of a reactionary (I mean, look at his boat designs)
but
I'd be surprised if he didn't have a pretty good grip on
the
practical issues involved. But then, talking to boat
designers at boat shows is often a futile endeavor...
they're there to sell boats.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:
I think my boat, even on the bottom of the ocean, would
still sail better than a Mac 26 XM.


Don't brag about it.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:34:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:48:01 -0500, DSK wrote:

Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.




It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.



http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm

Interesting reading. It sounds as if the 26 was able to maintain decent
freeboard when flooded, but I'm wondering if the larger boats would do
similarly?

I imagine so but don't know. There is no obvious hint looking inside
that space has been lost to bouyancy. You just get the general
impression that they are proper boats not caravans.

Nice looking boats.


Not bad. In order of most to least pretty I would say 32,34,25,29,26
but they are all quite boaty looking. Most here are bilge keel (drying
harbours) and of average speed but the 34 is a fairly full fin keel
and quite quick. On the 34 we went close-hauled though some biggish
(2-3m) overfalls with the tide behind us at about 9kts SOG like a
knife through butter.. Unfortunately this was too wet for the camera
but earlier and much flatter you get the idea how well it slices
through he
http://www.wareing77.plus.com/movies/Barbadee_video.htm (repeat:-))
If that does not work poke around:
http://www.wareing77.plus.com/movies/ for IMGP0733.xxx
There are a couple of pictures of the 34 in here, I think:
http://www.wareing77.plus.com/images/ but I have lost track of what's
what.
There is a nice pic of a friend's 26 here (jasmin):
http://aberystwythharbour.co.uk/

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .


Depends. The whole boat is more desirable than a life raft. Otherwise why
have the boat, why not just cruise in the life raft in the first place?

It's a bit more of a challenge to build a boat that would be liveable and
operable (even sailable) after severe flooding, but it's certainly
possible. And I think, for some types of sailing, it's highly desirable.

I would agree with the paradigm you offer. I must admit I'm not aware that
a vessel of decent size and cruising capacity (volume and mass) could meet
those parameters. I'd be interested, and I suspect others would be as well.

I can't believe that there are still some centerboard racing classes that
are not self-rescuing; some don't even have positive flotation. WTF are
they thinking?

I wasn't aware that some still don't have self-rescuing capability. Snipes
went through a decade-long metamorphosis from positive flotation to
self-rescuing (self-turtling, in the early iterations) as a result of class
rule changes, and I assumed most other smaller racing classes had similar
requirements. Considering the nature of the sailing in such classes, it's
doubly surprising.

Sounds like he didn't have his priorities quite in order. Well, it's his
boat, his priviledge.

I wondered why he had constant crew turnover while other boats sailed with
many of the same crew for years. I spent three weekends with him and was
told I was with him about as long as anyone. I jumped ship and raced with a
couple of guys for whom an extra pair of gloves were an unacceptable weight
penalty.


True.
Some people hate foam core, though.

I'm curious--why? It provides hull rigidity, it's closed-cell meaning it
won't absorb water like end-grain balsa or ply, and it's temperature stable.
What's the downside?

Because if I went to the effort, the boat would not only remain afloat but
have a good positive range of stability & reserve bouyancy... ie be
operable and liveable after severe flooding...

That would be preferable to a life raft, yes.


Shucks, in Pamlico Sound... or many places along the Chesapeake... you
could just wade ashore. The boat wouldn't sink very far.

After the wind tide receded from one of the hurricanes, I saw a photo of
people walking miles from shore on the Sound. Amazing. We, um, don't get
that here.

For him, it almost certainly is. I'm not surprised he's a bit of a
reactionary (I mean, look at his boat designs) but I'd be surprised if he
didn't have a pretty good grip on the practical issues involved. But then,
talking to boat designers at boat shows is often a futile endeavor...
they're there to sell boats.

I agree that he should have had a fair grasp of the positive flotation
issues and details, but he could have been a bit more affable by explaining,
at least briefly, why he found it laughable. I decided then and there I'd
never own a Bayfield or a Gozzard, if only because he was a jerk. g

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I can't believe that there are still some centerboard racing classes that
are not self-rescuing; some don't even have positive flotation. WTF are
they thinking?


Maxprop wrote:
I wasn't aware that some still don't have self-rescuing capability.

Yep. Flying Scots probably the most obvious. Lightnings are
only 'self-rescuing' if one puts a very loose interpretation
on the term, and the crew is skilled & strong.



.... Snipes
went through a decade-long metamorphosis from positive flotation to
self-rescuing (self-turtling, in the early iterations) as a result of class
rule changes, and I assumed most other smaller racing classes had similar
requirements. Considering the nature of the sailing in such classes, it's
doubly surprising.


Inertia and old-fogeyism. At least we don't have splintering
gaffs hurtling around any more.



Some people hate foam core, though.


I'm curious--why?

Because, man, it's CORED! It isn't 3 inch thick solid
fiberglass like Mamma used to make... you know, back in the
good old days when they didn't really know how strong the
stuff was.


It provides hull rigidity, it's closed-cell meaning it
won't absorb water like end-grain balsa or ply, and it's temperature stable.
What's the downside?


It can delaminate if overstressed or not bonded correctly in
the first place. It needs to be cut back in the way of any
thru-bolted fittings.

Aside from that, it's too light, when everybody knows that
boats should be heavy! ;)



..... I decided then and there I'd
never own a Bayfield or a Gozzard, if only because he was a jerk. g


I might own a Gozzard if they weren't so flamingly
overpriced. To me, Bayfields seem like just a more
piratey-looking version of a Morgan Out Island.

I've met a lot of boat designers over the years, the boat
show is not a good place to talk intelligently to them.
They've just been thru a wringer for the past X weeks (maybe
months) getting ready and now they're all jazzed up to try
and move product. A few notable exceptions were Roger
Dongray, the Cornish Crabber/Shrimper designer, and Jerry
Douglas the chief designer for Catalina (he introduced me to
his friend Frank Butler, whom we've met on several
successive occasions). However I'd like to note that while
Jerry Douglas seemed quite interested in the Johnson 18 and
came up with several ideas on the boat, Catalina/Capri never
implemented any of them and let the class die.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

Some people hate foam core, though.


I'm curious--why?

Because, man, it's CORED! It isn't 3 inch thick solid fiberglass like
Mamma used to make... you know, back in the good old days when they didn't
really know how strong the stuff was.

Ah, gotcha.

It provides hull rigidity, it's closed-cell meaning it won't absorb
water like end-grain balsa or ply, and it's temperature stable. What's
the downside?


It can delaminate if overstressed or not bonded correctly in the first
place. It needs to be cut back in the way of any thru-bolted fittings.

Aside from that, it's too light, when everybody knows that boats should be
heavy! ;)

Even with the foam core my boat has a disp/length ratio of over 400. I hate
to think what it might have been had the hull been 1" solid FRP.


I've met a lot of boat designers over the years, the boat show is not a
good place to talk intelligently to them. They've just been thru a wringer
for the past X weeks (maybe months) getting ready and now they're all
jazzed up to try and move product. A few notable exceptions were Roger
Dongray, the Cornish Crabber/Shrimper designer, and Jerry Douglas the
chief designer for Catalina (he introduced me to his friend Frank Butler,
whom we've met on several successive occasions). However I'd like to note
that while Jerry Douglas seemed quite interested in the Johnson 18 and
came up with several ideas on the boat, Catalina/Capri never implemented
any of them and let the class die.

I met Frank Butler at a show about twenty years ago. He was amiable,
informative, excited about is products and eager to speak with potential
customers. A few years ago I heard him speak at a seminar in Chicago. He
was cynical, obnoxious, and appeared depressed. Perhaps success isn't all
it's cracked up to be. ??

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

This thread just keeps on going, and going, and going... I think that I
have found the immediate remedy to my quest. I think that I will join
the Harbor Island Yacht Club. I have a few friends that sail there and
all enjoy it. I'll have access to good instruction and several
different boats. What a better way to start out. I can also buy a
small motor boat for putting around when we go camping to keep the
family happy. Win-win.

Carl

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"CJH" wrote in message
...
This thread just keeps on going, and going, and going... I think that I
have found the immediate remedy to my quest. I think that I will join the
Harbor Island Yacht Club. I have a few friends that sail there and all
enjoy it. I'll have access to good instruction and several different
boats. What a better way to start out. I can also buy a small motor boat
for putting around when we go camping to keep the family happy. Win-win.

Sounds reasonable. Nothing quite like the experience and opinions of
experience sailors to help a newcomer along. But bear in mind that a lot of
what you'll hear at the HIYC will be opinions, and opinions are just
that--not facts.

Sounds one hell of a lot like alt.sailing.asa, dunnit?

Small motor boat is a great idea. I have a Boston Whaler Rage (15' jet
drive) as a play boat to fill in on those sultry, windless days when raising
sails for no good reason, etc., is a pain. Only problem is that everyone
else on the dock wants to use it.

Mac . . . er, Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Aside from that, it's too light, when everybody knows that boats should be
heavy! ;)


Maxprop wrote:
Even with the foam core my boat has a disp/length ratio of over 400. I hate
to think what it might have been had the hull been 1" solid FRP.


It should change the D/L ratio because it shouldn't change
the designed displacement. It would however reduce the
ballast and increase the average specific gravity (as Jeff
noted).

These discussions go 'round & 'round with the crab-crusher
folk who think a boat should be like a steam-roller. Most of
them can't seem to realize that a boat hull has only a given
amount of immersed volume, and that increasing weight for no
purpose only subtracts from the weight which can be used to
serve a purpose.



Maxprop wrote:
I met Frank Butler at a show about twenty years ago. He was amiable,
informative, excited about is products and eager to speak with potential
customers. A few years ago I heard him speak at a seminar in Chicago. He
was cynical, obnoxious, and appeared depressed. Perhaps success isn't all
it's cracked up to be. ??


He has some health problems, the last time we met him (about
4 or 5 years ago) he was more eager to speak about health
issues with my wife than about boat issues with me. But I
still found him to be a nice guy, don't know about dealing
with the public. Another possible factor is that he's become
more of a CEO than a boatbuilder, and he may find that a lot
less fun than, say, Michael Dell does.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

CJH wrote:
This thread just keeps on going, and going, and going... I think that I
have found the immediate remedy to my quest. I think that I will join
the Harbor Island Yacht Club. I have a few friends that sail there and
all enjoy it. I'll have access to good instruction and several
different boats. What a better way to start out.

Can't really think of one, myself. The opportunity to get
first-hand experience on a wide variety of boats is invaluable.

The one bit of advice I would offer is, if you are solicited
to join a racing crew, ask discretely around the club to see
if the skipper is a screamer. If by some chance, you do get
shangaied into racing (or sailing at all) with a nice guy
who suddenly turns into a screaming butt-head, please don't
conclude that all racers (or sailors of that type boat) are
like that. This is a common situation even though screamers
are a small minority, but they drive away good crewand thus
are always recruiting.


I can also buy a
small motor boat for putting around when we go camping to keep the
family happy. Win-win.


It doesn't have to be fancy, those "tin skiffs" are very
practical and a lot of fun.

DSK