.... 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