Jeff wrote:
wrote:
"ed" wrote:
Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and
you need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does
400 gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it?
Safely. What will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability?
To mileage and handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause
a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

Why do you keep insisting it can't capsize?
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.

So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

wrote:
Jeff wrote:
....

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.

So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

Just to be clear ... you're talking about safe for a trans-Atlantic?

I'm sure others will have something to say, but for starters, the
basic parameters of the boat are not favorable - what little speed it
has is dependent on staying light, but it looses this with the
gear/fuel/water etc. that would have to be carried. But this is not
insurmountable. A bigger problem is that the basic design is not very
seaworthy. It has extremely high freeboard and thus windage. A hull
shape that provides little stability. And then there's construction
issues - very light rigging which, with the deck stepped mast, pretty
much guarantees the rig will be lost in rollover, and probably in a
knockdown. And the rudder assembly is not noted for strength. And
then there's the issue of whether the hull itself is strong enough to
handle the severe pounding of a serious storm.

The Mac is very attractive to some as a fla****er sailing, and hence
is one of the most successful designs ever. But I think you can find
better choices for a trans-Atlantic.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Jeff wrote:
...

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.

So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

Just to be clear ... you're talking about safe for a trans-Atlantic?

I'm sure others will have something to say, but for starters, the basic
parameters of the boat are not favorable - what little speed it has is
dependent on staying light, but it looses this with the gear/fuel/water
etc. that would have to be carried. But this is not insurmountable. A
bigger problem is that the basic design is not very seaworthy. It has
extremely high freeboard and thus windage. A hull shape that provides
little stability. And then there's construction issues - very light
rigging which, with the deck stepped mast, pretty much guarantees the rig
will be lost in rollover, and probably in a knockdown. And the rudder
assembly is not noted for strength. And then there's the issue of whether
the hull itself is strong enough to handle the severe pounding of a
serious storm.

The Mac is very attractive to some as a fla****er sailing, and hence is
one of the most successful designs ever. But I think you can find better
choices for a trans-Atlantic.

Here, Here. You have only to look at how easily the minor mouldings and
hinges stress crack on 'dry land' to make an informed judgement about blue
water ability. It will literally fall apart!

Capt Pete

Don't you guys know a troll when you see one?

SBV




"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Jeff wrote:
...

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper
procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of
testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.

wrote:

Jeff wrote:

wrote:

"ed" wrote:

Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and
you need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does
400 gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it?
Safely. What will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability?
To mileage and handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause
a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

Why do you keep insisting it can't capsize?
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.


So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

It's not the size of boat that matters, its the seaworthiness. Since
it's not designed for heavy seas, heavy seas will create big problems.

For example, if you can't make headway in forty knot winds and if you
are not a boating expert with about five strategies for handling
emergency X, you'll find yourself being carried onto rocks and smashed
to bits, or in a weak-assed MacGregor maybe just broken up by the waves.
"Bluewater" boats are built stronger with heavy keels. They can take
anything the ocean can dish out, as long as the skipper knows what they
are doing.

For the open ocean, get a sailboat designed for the open ocean, learn
navigation, and read up on others' ocean travels. Ideally, you should
crew on ocean crossings with an experienced captain or two.

I have a Hunter 33', stronger than a MacGregor, but I would never
venture out into the ocean with it. On the other hand, I crewed numerous
times on a Blanchard 33' in very heavy seas and felt as safe as a bug in
a rug.

--
Stephen

-------

For any proposition there is always some sufficiently narrow
interpretation of its terms, such that it turns out true, and
some sufficiently wide interpretation such that it turns out
false...concept stretching will refute *any* statement, and will
leave no true statement whatsoever.
-- Imre Lakatos

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:46:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

I have a Hunter 33', stronger than a MacGregor, but I would never
venture out into the ocean with it. On the other hand, I crewed numerous
times on a Blanchard 33' in very heavy seas and felt as safe as a bug in
a rug.

There's a Hunter 33 down the dock from me, and while it looks roomy as
hell below, with all that windage and the high boom, it gets slapped
around on windy days on Lake Ontario.

These days not all boats are designed to be seaworthy, but rather
"daysail in 15 knots max."-worthy. There's no harm in that, if that's
what you want.

And most people do.

Ocean-going boats, for reasons of stability, safety and comfort, are
frequently narrow and occasionally dark below...the expectation is
that you'll be on deck most of the time, anyway. There's exceptions to
this, of course, but we can't all afford Moody and Swan models.

As for the original poster, I smell troll. A good way to get sailors
to pitch fits in type is to suggest first a Bayliner and then a
MacGregor 26 as ocean-crossing boats. What's next, a C&C Mega?

R.

rhys wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:

I have a Hunter 33', stronger than a MacGregor, but I would
never venture out into the ocean with it. On the other hand,
I crewed numerous times on a Blanchard 33' in very heavy
seas and felt as safe as a bug in a rug.

There's a Hunter 33 down the dock from me, and while it looks
roomy as hell below, with all that windage and the high boom,
it gets slapped around on windy days on Lake Ontario.

These days not all boats are designed to be seaworthy, but
rather "daysail in 15 knots max."-worthy. There's no harm in
that, if that's what you want.

And most people do.

Ocean-going boats, for reasons of stability, safety and
comfort, are frequently narrow and occasionally dark below...
the expectation is that you'll be on deck most of the time,
anyway. There's exceptions to this, of course, but we can't
all afford Moody and Swan models.

As for the original poster, I smell troll. A good way to get
sailors to pitch fits in type is to suggest first a Bayliner and
then a MacGregor 26 as ocean-crossing boats. What's next,
a C&C Mega?

I'm not the original poster and I only brought up the MacGregor
for the purpose of comparing it to the Bayliner.

However, now I'm getting more curious because the consensus
seems to be that the length of the boat is not an issue.

So please tell me if you know of any trailerable bluewater or
ocean-going sailboat (under 30' LOA and 8.5' beam) that has
a water ballast and a retractable keel.

Or do you think it's not possible to build one because a heavier
ballast or keel is needed for stability ?

In article . net,
says...



So please tell me if you know of any trailerable bluewater or
ocean-going sailboat (under 30' LOA and 8.5' beam) that has
a water ballast and a retractable keel.

Dawson 26, if you can find one. Trailer boat. Swing keel. Inboard
engine. Aft cabin. Sloop or ketch confignuration. Has crossed both
Atlantic and Pacific and weathered hurricanes.

rhys wrote:
.... What's next,
a C&C Mega?


heh heh heh and why not?

wrote:
I'm not the original poster and I only brought up the MacGregor
for the purpose of comparing it to the Bayliner.

However, now I'm getting more curious because the consensus
seems to be that the length of the boat is not an issue.


No, it isn't. AFAIK the smallest boat to circumnavigate was 17' and it's
been done in an open 19' boat. The issue is partly the stores load,
and partly the ability to make distance good in a wide variety of weather.


So please tell me if you know of any trailerable bluewater or
ocean-going sailboat (under 30' LOA and 8.5' beam) that has
a water ballast and a retractable keel.


Well, I guess it depends on what you define as "bluewater." Personally,
I think that is a marketing term designed to appeal to the
baggywrinkle-and-corncob-pipe crowd, who want to pretend they're sailing
clipper ships around Cape Horn while they're actually daysailing a
fiberglass one-design around an inland lake.

Or do you think it's not possible to build one because a heavier
ballast or keel is needed for stability ?


I not only think it's possible, I've sailed a water ballast 19'
trailerable cruiser (sort of a racer-cruiser, but AFAIK very few were
ever raced) in fairly heavy weather (40+ knot winds). Maybe I know a
little about it, maybe not.

My wife & I shopped for a trailerable cruiser for quite some time, and
wanted to emphasize the practicality of it for trailering. Many people
are content to spend an hour or more getting the rig set up when
launching, we preferred to get on the water & go. We looked at about 100
boats over a year and a half. The boat we picked (after rejecting it in
the first round) was a Hunter 19, no longer made. It's not built any
better than the average Hunter, maybe worse, but it's a small simple
boat. No plumbing and very little wiring for them to f#%# up!

It stood up quite well to ten years of fairly hard use, although we
always took great care of it. The current owner is quite proud of it,
enjoys it a lot, and says he still gets compliments on his "new" boat.

I would sail that boat to the Bahamas, or across short stretches of open
water, but I'd pick my weather pretty carefully. One reason why it's
suitable for cruising is that it has a fairly well-shaped hull for
carrying a load of stores. For a TransAtlantic crossing, I'd want
something with a bit more room to stretch out, and a sturdier set of
hatches. Is water ballast an issue? You might consider a boat like a
Bolger Micro (there's a 19' Long Micro). In any case, the skipper makes
a lot more difference than the boat.

An excellent book on this subject is "Tinkerbelle" by Robert Manry.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

No, it isn't. AFAIK the smallest boat to circumnavigate was 17' and it's
been done in an open 19' boat. The issue is partly the stores load, and
partly the ability to make distance good in a wide variety of weather.

Sorry...
Record is 13' 8" L.O.A.
And that was 12' boat plus 1'8" bowsprit...
http://www.smallsailboats.co.uk/ding...files/serg.htm