Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:



Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

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?


Yes. If you majored in Naval Architecture and Physics, how do you
explain the fact that you know so little about them?


You really like the ad hominem attacks, don't you? But what do you have
to gain? Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just makes you
look like an asshole in addition to being an idiot.

And, what did you do for NASA during those 6 years? - I certainly
hope you weren't designing boats for them.


No, but I did do that for an America's Cup syndicate.

(Incidentally, it happens that I worked for NASA also, for 11
years. - Does that make me 11/6 more qualified than you?)


I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored.

Although I did say that I thought that attorneys were involved in
wording the warnings, where did I say that the warnings can be ignored?



Unless, of course, it can be used to
save the company when children die as the boat rolls over in calm
weather. It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your
need. Is that what you learn in lawyer school?

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?


Yes, there is another way to interpret it. - The correct way. The Mac
26M has a a drainage opening and large gate valve positioned on the
lower portion of its transom, the purpose of which is to permit the
ballast water to drain out of the tank when desired. The narrow,
elongated, cross-hatched "bulges" shown at the bottom of the hull in
cross-sections 4 and 5 are actually channels that conduct ballast
water from the ballast tank to the drainage opening when the bow is
elevated. When the gate valve on the stern is opened with the boat
sitting on a launch ramp, for example, water from the ballast tank is
permitted to drain out through the drainage valve, a process that
takes about 4 minutes. - In other words, the cross-hatched portions
you interpreted as being part of the ballast tank are actually
conduits that communicate with the ballast tank for permitting the
ballast water to drain out, but they are not part of the tank itself.
And, because of their small volume, they have little effect on the
distribution of mass along the longitudinal axis of the boat.

Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they are
actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the
ballast tank itself.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast.

I'm not sure I follow that last statement, Jeff. - Are you now saying I
was right (after all that discussion) in describing the ballast tank as
not extending along the full length of the boat? Or that your statement,
copied below, was wrong?

"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."



And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

Give us a break Jeff. - Where did I say that the "entire boat" was
protected by a doubled hull? A large portion of the lower portion of
the hull is, indeed, "doubled," but the two-layer "doubled" portion
doesn't extend beyond the ballast tank. In all prior discussions of the
matter, I have certainly attempted to make that point clear.

Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually, my
friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable kind
of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion. - I
would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and other
Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve, and I'll do
so just as soon as I see some of the same from you and the other
Mac-Bashers. Meanwhile, I suppose that I'll continue to give as well as
I get.

Jim

JimC wrote:



I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored.

Although I did say that I thought that attorneys were involved in
wording the warnings, where did I say that the warnings can be ignored?


Your comment was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

I really don't see how anyone can reasonably interpret this as meaning
anything other than this is just lawyer talk. So Jim, do you think
anyone is going to take your side on this one???



Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they are
actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the ballast
tank itself.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast.

I'm not sure I follow that last statement, Jeff. - Are you now saying I
was right (after all that discussion) in describing the ballast tank as
not extending along the full length of the boat? Or that your statement,
copied below, was wrong?

"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."



You really don't get it. First of all, the tank truly does extend all
the way from the stem to the stern. If all they wanted was a conduit,
they could have put in a tube with a lot less expense. You're only
claiming that the volume aft is relatively small. But that just means
the the volume forward of the mast is that much higher. This supports
my claim that there is a lot of mass in the extremities. Go back to
my comments, this is about mass in the extremities which increase the
moment of inertia.

And of course, your claim that the ballast tank is only a "conduit"
rather blows away your "double hull" assertion.



And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

Give us a break Jeff. - Where did I say that the "entire boat" was
protected by a doubled hull? A large portion of the lower portion of
the hull is, indeed, "doubled," but the two-layer "doubled" portion
doesn't extend beyond the ballast tank. In all prior discussions of the
matter, I have certainly attempted to make that point clear.

But the problem is that when the boat is at high speed it will be
planing with the bow raised up. Thus the vulnerable portion is the
aft part that you're claiming now is not double hulled. In other
words, although you have repeatedly claimed this as a significant
advantage, its value is really limited. In fact, even the Mac
marketing literature doesn't mention this; why do you think this is?
Is this something you made up, or just something a salesman told a
gullible customer?

BTW, if the hull was compromised and you brought it up on a plane, the
tank could possibly drain, leaving you in the dangerous situation of
having several hundred pounds of water surging around.




Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually, my
friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable kind
of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion.

I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)

- I
would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and other
Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve,

I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat. In fact, my
involvement in this thread only started with a consideration of how
water ballast affects stability. You've tried to make it sound like
all proper boats (you said "most ocean-going vessels") use internal
ballast, but in fact most designers would consider it a choice of last
resort. Of course, for a trailerable boat it makes sense, but a lot
of Macs I see are kept in slips, which certainly minimizes that.

and I'll do
so just as soon as I see some of the same from you and the other
Mac-Bashers. Meanwhile, I suppose that I'll continue to give as well as
I get.

I wouldn't get too excited about how much you've "given."

Jeff, when the shaved-headed religious cultists come to your
door, do you argue with them too?


JimC wrote:
Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they
are actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the
ballast tank itself.


????


Jeff wrote
.... Go back to my
comments, this is about mass in the extremities which increase the
moment of inertia.


Well, JimC pretty much admitted that the ballast was placed
in such a way as to "balance" a load of people in the
cockpit (far aft) and the large heavy motor (even further aft).

I don't think he understands the issue of weight in the ends
increasing the moment of inertia at all.


JimC wrote:
Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually,
my friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable
kind of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion.


Except when the discussion revolves around whether or not
the Mac26-M is a WONDERFULLY PERFECT HIGH PERFORMANCE
sailboat or whether such claims are, shale we say, just a
bit exaggerated.



Jeff wrote
I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)


Why? The Venture 22 is an OK boat. Now, if he'd had a
Venture of Newport, that would be different




- I would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and
other Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve,


Well there you go.

According to you and the other cultists, anybody who doesn't
actknowledge the INCREDIBLE PERFECTION and the BLAZING SPEED
of the Mac26-M is bashing it.


Jeff wrote
I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat.

-snicker-


In fact, my
involvement in this thread only started with a consideration of how
water ballast affects stability.

Actually, water ballast isn't a problem. The overall design
of the boat has to be appropriate though.

I sailed a water-ballasted boat for years and was quite
happy with it. I didn't try to claim that it was wonderful &
perfect & faster than everything else.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Jeff, when the shaved-headed religious cultists come to your door, do
you argue with them too?


I sortof enjoy arguing with the like of RB and Jax to the extent that
I get to exercise the techie skills that have been dormant since
retiring. But Jim hasn't been much of a challenge.



.... Go back to my comments, this is about mass in the extremities
which increase the moment of inertia.


Well, JimC pretty much admitted that the ballast was placed in such a
way as to "balance" a load of people in the cockpit (far aft) and the
large heavy motor (even further aft).

I don't think he understands the issue of weight in the ends increasing
the moment of inertia at all.

No he doesn't. And I'm sure the mention of "metacentric height" just
blew right past him.



I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)


Why? The Venture 22 is an OK boat. Now, if he'd had a Venture of
Newport, that would be different

I'll have to ask him which model it was. He was already trying to
live it down when I met him in '73.

....

Jeff wrote
I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat.

-snicker-

no - really - honest



In fact, my involvement in this thread only started with a
consideration of how water ballast affects stability.

Actually, water ballast isn't a problem. The overall design of the boat
has to be appropriate though.

Actually, given the design goals of the boat, I think the 26X/M is
pretty successful. I think that buyers are often naive about their
own needs. For instance, why have water ballast and then leave the
boat in the water all summer? And the water ballast has little to do
with the large engine/high speed powering, so why don't we see other
sailboats with this attribute?


I sailed a water-ballasted boat for years and was quite happy with it. I
didn't try to claim that it was wonderful & perfect & faster than
everything else.


Did your's have a weighted keel?

Jeff, when the shaved-headed religious cultists come to your door, do
you argue with them too?


Jeff wrote:
I sortof enjoy arguing with the like of RB and Jax to the extent that I
get to exercise the techie skills that have been dormant since
retiring. But Jim hasn't been much of a challenge.


Neither was Bubbles.

I thought Jax was really funny, most of the time. I wondered
if he was a cleverly-played sockpuppet, or an AI program.
But there's evidence that he was/is a real person.




.... Go back to my comments, this is about mass in the extremities
which increase the moment of inertia.


Well, JimC pretty much admitted that the ballast was placed in such a
way as to "balance" a load of people in the cockpit (far aft) and the
large heavy motor (even further aft).

I don't think he understands the issue of weight in the ends
increasing the moment of inertia at all.


No he doesn't. And I'm sure the mention of "metacentric height" just
blew right past him.


Doesn't really matter, as long he is really happy with the
way his boat sails.

I suspect that, like a lot MacGregor 26X and -M buyers, he
isn't really all that happy with the boat... so he tells
himself all this stuff about how great it is, and gets
offended when anybody "bashes" his wonderful boat.



.... The Venture 22 is an OK boat. Now, if he'd had a Venture of
Newport, that would be different


I'll have to ask him which model it was. He was already trying to live
it down when I met him in '73.


I don't get it. I know a lot of people who have either
started in Ventures, or maybe still have them (or downsized
to one) and are quite happy. The Venture 21 is actually a
pretty nice sailing boat... not very roomy, but especially
considering it's age, it's a mini-sled. The V-22 wasn't a
bad boat at all.

OK, it's not a Hinckley. Unlike the Mac26X/M it was never
claimed to be some kind of incredibly superior do-everything
boat.



Actually, water ballast isn't a problem. The overall design of the
boat has to be appropriate though.


Actually, given the design goals of the boat, I think the 26X/M is
pretty successful. I think that buyers are often naive about their own
needs.

Of course. They can't decide if they want a sailboat or a
motorboat, and are too dumb to realize that for the same
money, they could get both. It's a success in the same way
that "diet soda" is a success.




I sailed a water-ballasted boat for years and was quite happy with it.
I didn't try to claim that it was wonderful & perfect & faster than
everything else.


Did your's have a weighted keel?


Yes, but just barely enough that it would sink when you
released the pennant. The centerboard did not form any
meaningful percentage of the ballast.

FWIW that boat (1994 model Hunter 19) sailed rings around
the Mac 26X in all conditions.... we did so many times while
sailing in company with the ones in our sailing club. And I
have a great deal of confidence it would also sail rings
around the new -M model. It was a practical and fun little boat.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King