I was going to post this message to the "Wave Height" thread as "Objective Objection" but decided boat evaluation (without bashing) probably needed it's own forum. Just saw "Offshore Attributes - Yacht Design 103" MS PowerPoint presentation (can't link because of the tilde again but address is below if you have a PowerPoint compatible brower and a fast connection or lots of time). The course is taught by Paul H. Miller, at the Department of Navel Architecture and Engineering, US Naval Academy. Anyway, the point is, there is a Capsize Screening Formula (CSF) "rough guide" presented there that is based on beam and displacement. The insinuation is that if CSF is greater than 2 then the boat should not venture far from shore. I ran this calculation on the Mac 26X, Hunter 28 and my own O'Day 20. What I found was surprising. My O'Day 20 had a CSF of 2.40. This is very unstable and I know this is typical of 20 foot trailer sailers. The Mac 26X had a CSF of 2.02. This is almost acceptable for blue water sailing but in any event very good for a 26 foot trailer sailer. The Hunter 28 had a CSF of 2.15. According to the Capsize Screening Formula, the Hunt 28 is actually less stable than the Mac 26X and would not be suitable for blue water cruising. Granted, this is just one attempt to objectively quantify the relative stability of boats. Maybe someone else has seen other methods they wish to show us. Happy sails _/), MArk http://web.usna.navy.mil/~phmiller/offshore.ppt CSF = Beam/((Weight/64)^(1/3))
- Status
Catalina 320
The CSF calculated for the Catalina 320, shoal keel, is approximately 2.06. Based on beam = 11.75 ft, displacement = 11,900 lb. Interestingly, if you factor in another 1500 lb of weight for fuel & water carried low, plus 500 lb for 2 persons & supplies (travel light!), the CSF drops to 1.955.
The CSF calculated for the Catalina 320, shoal keel, is approximately 2.06. Based on beam = 11.75 ft, displacement = 11,900 lb. Interestingly, if you factor in another 1500 lb of weight for fuel & water carried low, plus 500 lb for 2 persons & supplies (travel light!), the CSF drops to 1.955.
Capsize screening formula is complete rubbish!
I have discussed the uselesness of the CSF on many occasions. If you don't trust your own ability to evaluate such simplistic algorithmic nonsense (e.g. according to the CSF taking off your keel and hoisting it into the top of your mast would not change the stability.....) then visit the CWBB and see what the opinion of well-respected nautical architect Jeff H was when the topic came up there, once again, earlier this week. Fair winds! Flying Dutchman "Rivendel II" (Legend 43, hull # 1)
I have discussed the uselesness of the CSF on many occasions. If you don't trust your own ability to evaluate such simplistic algorithmic nonsense (e.g. according to the CSF taking off your keel and hoisting it into the top of your mast would not change the stability.....) then visit the CWBB and see what the opinion of well-respected nautical architect Jeff H was when the topic came up there, once again, earlier this week. Fair winds! Flying Dutchman "Rivendel II" (Legend 43, hull # 1)
More performance calculations
Henk, You are correct that moving the ballast to the mast head would definitely increase the chances of capsizing, but this was not the purpose of the CSF. As stated by Adlard Coles, the effects of moving the VCG (within reason) are not as big as you would think though it does have some effect. The main purpose of the CSF is to determine the relative capsize tendency of a boat hit broadside by a breaking wave. (Hopefully not something you'll experience during a test sail.) This is a very specific situation: survival as first priority. The related link has calculators for many other design properties. Of course you can't use them as your only guide to selecting a boat. Every boat is a compomise and these calcs can help determine what's being compromised. Understand the basis for the calcs and you will understand what they are telling you about the boat design. They are not biased to a specific brand. They can help you make a more objective decision. Happy sails _/), MArk
Henk, You are correct that moving the ballast to the mast head would definitely increase the chances of capsizing, but this was not the purpose of the CSF. As stated by Adlard Coles, the effects of moving the VCG (within reason) are not as big as you would think though it does have some effect. The main purpose of the CSF is to determine the relative capsize tendency of a boat hit broadside by a breaking wave. (Hopefully not something you'll experience during a test sail.) This is a very specific situation: survival as first priority. The related link has calculators for many other design properties. Of course you can't use them as your only guide to selecting a boat. Every boat is a compomise and these calcs can help determine what's being compromised. Understand the basis for the calcs and you will understand what they are telling you about the boat design. They are not biased to a specific brand. They can help you make a more objective decision. Happy sails _/), MArk
Agree with Henk
The Capsize Screening Formula (CSF) is CSF = Beam/(Displacement/64.2)^1/3 where the factor 64.2 converts displacement to cubic feet of water. What is magic about the number "2"? Ridiculous...I think that other measures such as initial righting moment and ultimate stability angle make much more sense in predicting stability Naval Architect Robert Perry calls the CSF,"...far too simplistic to be always accurate, but it is one of the currently popular ways of looking at a boat's offshore suitability." (Sailing Magazine, Nov. 2001, p.44). Derek
The Capsize Screening Formula (CSF) is CSF = Beam/(Displacement/64.2)^1/3 where the factor 64.2 converts displacement to cubic feet of water. What is magic about the number "2"? Ridiculous...I think that other measures such as initial righting moment and ultimate stability angle make much more sense in predicting stability Naval Architect Robert Perry calls the CSF,"...far too simplistic to be always accurate, but it is one of the currently popular ways of looking at a boat's offshore suitability." (Sailing Magazine, Nov. 2001, p.44). Derek
Think Dynamic
Henk and Derek, Hear me out on this for a moment. I'll try to better explain why the CSF is counter intuitive and putting ballast on the masthead may actually save you from capsizing. Imagine you're in a really nasty storm. You've already taken down the sails and battened down hatches and tied down loose equipment. Suddenly, there's this wall of water, almost vertical, as high as your mast, about to hit you broadside. The first thing your boat will do is start leaning away from the wave crest. This is because the side of the boat up the wave face will be submerged and therefore have more buoyancy. The wider the boat is, the more leverage the wave has to flip your boat and the faster it will go over. The boat will start to slide sideways down the wave but the side pressure against the keel preventing the sideward movement will cause the boat to lean even more. The only thing that will save the boat from rolling over is the boat's own inertia. In other words, if you past the crest of the wave before you're totally knocked down, you won't capsize. Once you're past the crest, the forces reverse and the wave works to right the boat again. Whether you capsize or not is a matter of inertial timing. There are 2 ways to increase the time it takes for a boat to roll over: 1. Reduce the wave's side-to-side buoyancy force by making the boat narrower. 2. Increase the initial moment by distributing ballast away from the center (like a skater extending her arms to slow a spin or putting ballast on the masthead.) (Note: Having a shallow keel actually helps reduce rolling force too, but CSF doesn't address this directly. It's part of the empirical reason verticle center of gravity (VCG) doesn't matter.) Therefore, CSF only has to consider the total weight (inertia) and beam (leverage arm) to give a fairly good comparative rating under this particular extreme condition. I don't expect you to take my word on this, but I hope I made you think for yourselves a bit. Happy sails _/), MArk
Henk and Derek, Hear me out on this for a moment. I'll try to better explain why the CSF is counter intuitive and putting ballast on the masthead may actually save you from capsizing. Imagine you're in a really nasty storm. You've already taken down the sails and battened down hatches and tied down loose equipment. Suddenly, there's this wall of water, almost vertical, as high as your mast, about to hit you broadside. The first thing your boat will do is start leaning away from the wave crest. This is because the side of the boat up the wave face will be submerged and therefore have more buoyancy. The wider the boat is, the more leverage the wave has to flip your boat and the faster it will go over. The boat will start to slide sideways down the wave but the side pressure against the keel preventing the sideward movement will cause the boat to lean even more. The only thing that will save the boat from rolling over is the boat's own inertia. In other words, if you past the crest of the wave before you're totally knocked down, you won't capsize. Once you're past the crest, the forces reverse and the wave works to right the boat again. Whether you capsize or not is a matter of inertial timing. There are 2 ways to increase the time it takes for a boat to roll over: 1. Reduce the wave's side-to-side buoyancy force by making the boat narrower. 2. Increase the initial moment by distributing ballast away from the center (like a skater extending her arms to slow a spin or putting ballast on the masthead.) (Note: Having a shallow keel actually helps reduce rolling force too, but CSF doesn't address this directly. It's part of the empirical reason verticle center of gravity (VCG) doesn't matter.) Therefore, CSF only has to consider the total weight (inertia) and beam (leverage arm) to give a fairly good comparative rating under this particular extreme condition. I don't expect you to take my word on this, but I hope I made you think for yourselves a bit. Happy sails _/), MArk
Mark, what about my boat...
it being a Hunter 33, I think the capsize number was 185, but check me on this, and she is a shoal draft, so, am I better off than the same make and model with a deep draft? Now, that would be kinda interesting! Not only do I get to anchor closer in, but I might just arrive alive! Just an interesting follow up to your post.... wonderful site, don't you think?
it being a Hunter 33, I think the capsize number was 185, but check me on this, and she is a shoal draft, so, am I better off than the same make and model with a deep draft? Now, that would be kinda interesting! Not only do I get to anchor closer in, but I might just arrive alive! Just an interesting follow up to your post.... wonderful site, don't you think?
Simple answers to complex problems....
Let me make a few obvious comments, as someone who spends his professional life studying the dynamics and stability of physical systems. First, the motion of any craft in a seaway and extreme wind conditions constitutes a very complex, nonlinear dynamic system, for which there is probably no clean mathematical solution. Even to capture all of the real-world dynamics and disturbances in a set of differential equations would be a monumental task. That said, we can look for some "common sense" statements that from simplified "flat water" physics: 1) A boat acts as a pendulum. If the center of mass (cg) is below the instantaneous center of rotation, gravity will generate a righting moment, and it will return to an upright position. On the other hand if the cg is above the center of rotation it becomes an unstable system (nonlinear) and the boat will continue the capsize after any initial displacement from vertical. Thus, it makes no sense to suggest that putting ballast at the top of the mast may somehow improve stabiliy - it will only decrease the static righting moment. 2) The instantaneous center of rotation is not a fixed point in the boat, it moves (dictated by the hull shape) with the angle of heel, and will not always lie on the centerline. Thats why boats exhibit an "ultimate" or critical capsize angle, and are stable upside down. 3) I would differentiate between a knockdown and a true capsize. The knockdown can often be attributed to many external factors and boat handling, but the real question is - will the boat recover after a knockdown? This is where the ultimate stability angle becomes important. Are we talking about knockdown resistance or capsize stability with the CSF? 4) Once the sails/rig are in the water, the dynamics change radically because of the extra drag opposing any righting moment. 5) Marks' argument about increasing the moment of inertia about the roll axis in fact argues for deep keels with the mass concentrated at the bottom (I = mr^2) - not high up where it will decrease the righting moment (mgrsin(theta)). But this is only part of the story. We also have to consider the roll resisting drag of the keel, hull, and rig (which is why the ride is often more comfortable while motorsailing with the sails up). Without such drag, the interchange of potential and kinetic energy will form a resonant condition that could cause violent roll motion in a seaway, leading to capsize. 5) There are many more factors that decide stability. My purpose here is only to point out the complexity of the issue. One thing that I have learned over the years is to avoid simple "intuitive" answers that do not take all of the relevant physics into account. To assign a confidence level in a boat by creating a highly (over) simplified, and possibly erroneous, model does a gross disservice to the sailing community. To promote the thinking that all boats with a CSF < 2 are suitable for offshore work is foolish, and might well lead to over confidence (or over anxiety). Much better to look at the strength and construction detail of you boat with an eye to recovery from a knockdown, and make a critical assessment of your skills before venturing offshore. Consider a lightweight catamaran, with a large beam. Its CSF will be very large. It will also be initially very stable. But if it does turn-turtle it is in big trouble. What is the more important consideration in deciding to take our catamaran offshore? There are of course other measures of capsize resistance. I believe that a graph of righting moment at all angles of heel, together with a plot of the transient recovery from a known angle, would be a much better indicator of capsize resistance. Forget the whole thing... let's go sailing! (Damn, I forgot - it's winter) Derek
Let me make a few obvious comments, as someone who spends his professional life studying the dynamics and stability of physical systems. First, the motion of any craft in a seaway and extreme wind conditions constitutes a very complex, nonlinear dynamic system, for which there is probably no clean mathematical solution. Even to capture all of the real-world dynamics and disturbances in a set of differential equations would be a monumental task. That said, we can look for some "common sense" statements that from simplified "flat water" physics: 1) A boat acts as a pendulum. If the center of mass (cg) is below the instantaneous center of rotation, gravity will generate a righting moment, and it will return to an upright position. On the other hand if the cg is above the center of rotation it becomes an unstable system (nonlinear) and the boat will continue the capsize after any initial displacement from vertical. Thus, it makes no sense to suggest that putting ballast at the top of the mast may somehow improve stabiliy - it will only decrease the static righting moment. 2) The instantaneous center of rotation is not a fixed point in the boat, it moves (dictated by the hull shape) with the angle of heel, and will not always lie on the centerline. Thats why boats exhibit an "ultimate" or critical capsize angle, and are stable upside down. 3) I would differentiate between a knockdown and a true capsize. The knockdown can often be attributed to many external factors and boat handling, but the real question is - will the boat recover after a knockdown? This is where the ultimate stability angle becomes important. Are we talking about knockdown resistance or capsize stability with the CSF? 4) Once the sails/rig are in the water, the dynamics change radically because of the extra drag opposing any righting moment. 5) Marks' argument about increasing the moment of inertia about the roll axis in fact argues for deep keels with the mass concentrated at the bottom (I = mr^2) - not high up where it will decrease the righting moment (mgrsin(theta)). But this is only part of the story. We also have to consider the roll resisting drag of the keel, hull, and rig (which is why the ride is often more comfortable while motorsailing with the sails up). Without such drag, the interchange of potential and kinetic energy will form a resonant condition that could cause violent roll motion in a seaway, leading to capsize. 5) There are many more factors that decide stability. My purpose here is only to point out the complexity of the issue. One thing that I have learned over the years is to avoid simple "intuitive" answers that do not take all of the relevant physics into account. To assign a confidence level in a boat by creating a highly (over) simplified, and possibly erroneous, model does a gross disservice to the sailing community. To promote the thinking that all boats with a CSF < 2 are suitable for offshore work is foolish, and might well lead to over confidence (or over anxiety). Much better to look at the strength and construction detail of you boat with an eye to recovery from a knockdown, and make a critical assessment of your skills before venturing offshore. Consider a lightweight catamaran, with a large beam. Its CSF will be very large. It will also be initially very stable. But if it does turn-turtle it is in big trouble. What is the more important consideration in deciding to take our catamaran offshore? There are of course other measures of capsize resistance. I believe that a graph of righting moment at all angles of heel, together with a plot of the transient recovery from a known angle, would be a much better indicator of capsize resistance. Forget the whole thing... let's go sailing! (Damn, I forgot - it's winter) Derek
Great topic
And a great slide show! I've read bith Cole's book and "Desireable and Undesireable Characteristics...." I believe CSF is a very useful starting point in evaluating boats for offshore, and it will get you thining about other factors. As I recall my C36 is marginally over 2, something like 2.01. jv
And a great slide show! I've read bith Cole's book and "Desireable and Undesireable Characteristics...." I believe CSF is a very useful starting point in evaluating boats for offshore, and it will get you thining about other factors. As I recall my C36 is marginally over 2, something like 2.01. jv
Righting Moment Curves
Based on the limited knowledge of physics that I acquired from one year's study in college, I too believe that the CSF is almost useless as a tool for identifying blue water boats. Beyond that, does anyone know if those righting moment curves shown in the slide show accompanying the original post are compiled anywhere? If they were, and I could get my hands on them, it would be a relatively simple matter for a computer nerd like me to compute the area under the curves, and from them generate a truly meaningful single number representing a boat's resistance to capsize. Can anyone point me to a source? Paul sv Escape Artist h336
Based on the limited knowledge of physics that I acquired from one year's study in college, I too believe that the CSF is almost useless as a tool for identifying blue water boats. Beyond that, does anyone know if those righting moment curves shown in the slide show accompanying the original post are compiled anywhere? If they were, and I could get my hands on them, it would be a relatively simple matter for a computer nerd like me to compute the area under the curves, and from them generate a truly meaningful single number representing a boat's resistance to capsize. Can anyone point me to a source? Paul sv Escape Artist h336
Roll versus Recovery
No doubt about it, static calculations of capsize recoverability such as Limit of Positive Stability (LPS) and Vanishing Stability Angle (VSA) are also valuable in determining a boat's blue water suitability. Capsize Screening Formula (CSF) is not the end-all, be-all of boat rating but I believe it is a valuable tool when evaluating similar boats. Although it looks simple, it is derived from empirical data and tells you something other formulas don’t. Don’t dismiss CSF because it’s simple. After all, E=mc2 is simple too. The CSF was devised by the Cruising Club of America in an attempt to prevent another incident like the Fastnet race of 1979 where 15 sailors lost their lives. (see related link) To paraphrase Dirty Harry, “A man’s got to know his boat’s limitations.” Happy sails _/), MArk
No doubt about it, static calculations of capsize recoverability such as Limit of Positive Stability (LPS) and Vanishing Stability Angle (VSA) are also valuable in determining a boat's blue water suitability. Capsize Screening Formula (CSF) is not the end-all, be-all of boat rating but I believe it is a valuable tool when evaluating similar boats. Although it looks simple, it is derived from empirical data and tells you something other formulas don’t. Don’t dismiss CSF because it’s simple. After all, E=mc2 is simple too. The CSF was devised by the Cruising Club of America in an attempt to prevent another incident like the Fastnet race of 1979 where 15 sailors lost their lives. (see related link) To paraphrase Dirty Harry, “A man’s got to know his boat’s limitations.” Happy sails _/), MArk
"Also valuable?"
Please. Any formula that hints that a Mac 26 can be sailed safely anywhere but a lake or a bay is dubious, to say the least. Your related link pointed to an article by John Rousmaniere--which did not actually mention the CSF in any way. The link below points to an article by the same Mr Rousmaniere--the noted author of "Fastnet, Force 10"-- where he criticizes it.
Please. Any formula that hints that a Mac 26 can be sailed safely anywhere but a lake or a bay is dubious, to say the least. Your related link pointed to an article by John Rousmaniere--which did not actually mention the CSF in any way. The link below points to an article by the same Mr Rousmaniere--the noted author of "Fastnet, Force 10"-- where he criticizes it.
Paul, glad you agree!
Paul, Thank you for the link to the exchange between Don Casey and John Rousmaniere, I am glad to see they both support my point that beam needs to be considered in seagoing craft design. I need to better identify my sources. The information about the CCA "devising" the CSF was my own misquote of the Global Boatbuilding Community website: http://boatbuilding.com/content/ratios.html In the article you linked to, Rousmaniere doesn’t say the CCA did not instigate or was not involved with CSF. In fact he said, “While many project participants were members of the Cruising Club of America, which has long been a leader in offshore sailing, the CCA as an organization had no official role.” You may have assumed the Rousmaniere article I linked to was about CSF . In a way it was but I primarily linked to it for information presented on the Fastnet disaster. Further supporting my linkage between CSF and Fastnet is this quote from that article that vilifies wide boats of the time, and supports the goal of CSF: "In the '70s, the International Offshore Rule (IOR) helped produce a new breed of racing and racing-cruising boat that was little more than a big, wide dinghy with a stability range as low as 90 degrees (meaning it would capsize completely when heeled only that far)." Thanks for your input. Happy sails _/), MArk
Paul, Thank you for the link to the exchange between Don Casey and John Rousmaniere, I am glad to see they both support my point that beam needs to be considered in seagoing craft design. I need to better identify my sources. The information about the CCA "devising" the CSF was my own misquote of the Global Boatbuilding Community website: http://boatbuilding.com/content/ratios.html In the article you linked to, Rousmaniere doesn’t say the CCA did not instigate or was not involved with CSF. In fact he said, “While many project participants were members of the Cruising Club of America, which has long been a leader in offshore sailing, the CCA as an organization had no official role.” You may have assumed the Rousmaniere article I linked to was about CSF . In a way it was but I primarily linked to it for information presented on the Fastnet disaster. Further supporting my linkage between CSF and Fastnet is this quote from that article that vilifies wide boats of the time, and supports the goal of CSF: "In the '70s, the International Offshore Rule (IOR) helped produce a new breed of racing and racing-cruising boat that was little more than a big, wide dinghy with a stability range as low as 90 degrees (meaning it would capsize completely when heeled only that far)." Thanks for your input. Happy sails _/), MArk
To the Mac26 Bashers...
If I lived in New England I would sometimes dream of escaping the cold and snow of February for the warm waters of Florida and the Bahamas. As told in the related link article, with a 26X this could be realized. How much sailing will you do this winter? A place for every boat, and every boat in its place! Happy sails _/), MArk
If I lived in New England I would sometimes dream of escaping the cold and snow of February for the warm waters of Florida and the Bahamas. As told in the related link article, with a 26X this could be realized. How much sailing will you do this winter? A place for every boat, and every boat in its place! Happy sails _/), MArk
Capsize Screen is about Recovering
from turning turtle. What it says is that: If a boat is rolled upside down by a breaking wave (this can happen to any sailboat if the wave is big enough - 30 foot breaking waves are quite big enough to roll any boat under 50 feet); then, how fast will the boat right itself? Very wide boats (catamarans, and many racing designs that caused death of crew in the Fastnet, and Hobart disasters) stay inverted long enough to drown crew in the cockpit, and cause severe leakage in the cabin. A number of boats in those races never recovered to right side up. As several of you said, the best stability info is the righting moment curve. A blue water boat will have an angle of vanishing stability (the angle where the curve crosses zero) of 140 degrees or more. Unfortunately, boat manufacturers typically don't publish these curves, although they usually have them. So we use the capsive screen as a rough indication of the suitability of a design for offshore sailing. I do (respectfully) disagree with Henk. The capsize screen, taken together with the other performance ratios, and design shapes does tell us pretty well what the designer had in mind. They say that most modern Hunters, Catalinas, and Beneteaus under 40 feet are designed for coastal cruising or racing. They also say that many of the 70's designs (Cherubini Hunters for example) are blue water capable. If I were buying a new or "classic" boat for offshore cruising, I surely want to know the angle of vanishing stability as well as the capsize screen, performance ratios, and comfort factors. "Heavy Weather Sailing" has a formula for estimating the angle of vanishing stability if the curves are not available. It also tells how to calculate the curves if need be from the trnasverse lines at the center of the hull, and experiments deflecting the boat from the vertical. Of course, taking a boat offshore must also include ensuring hull and rig strength, comfort, stowage, and crew preparation. David Lady Lillie
from turning turtle. What it says is that: If a boat is rolled upside down by a breaking wave (this can happen to any sailboat if the wave is big enough - 30 foot breaking waves are quite big enough to roll any boat under 50 feet); then, how fast will the boat right itself? Very wide boats (catamarans, and many racing designs that caused death of crew in the Fastnet, and Hobart disasters) stay inverted long enough to drown crew in the cockpit, and cause severe leakage in the cabin. A number of boats in those races never recovered to right side up. As several of you said, the best stability info is the righting moment curve. A blue water boat will have an angle of vanishing stability (the angle where the curve crosses zero) of 140 degrees or more. Unfortunately, boat manufacturers typically don't publish these curves, although they usually have them. So we use the capsive screen as a rough indication of the suitability of a design for offshore sailing. I do (respectfully) disagree with Henk. The capsize screen, taken together with the other performance ratios, and design shapes does tell us pretty well what the designer had in mind. They say that most modern Hunters, Catalinas, and Beneteaus under 40 feet are designed for coastal cruising or racing. They also say that many of the 70's designs (Cherubini Hunters for example) are blue water capable. If I were buying a new or "classic" boat for offshore cruising, I surely want to know the angle of vanishing stability as well as the capsize screen, performance ratios, and comfort factors. "Heavy Weather Sailing" has a formula for estimating the angle of vanishing stability if the curves are not available. It also tells how to calculate the curves if need be from the trnasverse lines at the center of the hull, and experiments deflecting the boat from the vertical. Of course, taking a boat offshore must also include ensuring hull and rig strength, comfort, stowage, and crew preparation. David Lady Lillie
MacGregor was a breakthrough design
They showed how you could combine water ballast with a good, practical hull shape and rigging to get a trailor-sailor that a couple could cruise in. They are a great solution for those of use who don't live near cruising grounds, or who want to visit distant cruising grounds on a two week vacation without paying for a charter. It's my understanding that the water ballasted Hunter and Catalina designs followed the MacGregor introduction and success. The performance ratios tell us that the sailing Macs are solid boats. The capsize screen tells us that is you keep the beam narrow enough to take a 25 footer on the road legally, you end up with a design that will right itself after a capsize. My friend who owns a Mac, and a Juneau 35 proudly reminds me that he drove up to the North Channel of Lake Huron, spent 12 days on a liesurely cruise, and returned, while I paid charter rates for my one week there. David Lady Lillie
They showed how you could combine water ballast with a good, practical hull shape and rigging to get a trailor-sailor that a couple could cruise in. They are a great solution for those of use who don't live near cruising grounds, or who want to visit distant cruising grounds on a two week vacation without paying for a charter. It's my understanding that the water ballasted Hunter and Catalina designs followed the MacGregor introduction and success. The performance ratios tell us that the sailing Macs are solid boats. The capsize screen tells us that is you keep the beam narrow enough to take a 25 footer on the road legally, you end up with a design that will right itself after a capsize. My friend who owns a Mac, and a Juneau 35 proudly reminds me that he drove up to the North Channel of Lake Huron, spent 12 days on a liesurely cruise, and returned, while I paid charter rates for my one week there. David Lady Lillie
Macgregor 26x MOST INTERESTING
I did some sailing on a 26x with a 50 hp on the back. Water ballast empty, twin dagger rudders up we maintained 24 mph over the bottom against about 1kt current. I was impressed with the power boat side of her. (you sure get some interesting looks as you pass the powerboats!) We filled the water ballast, dropped the rudders and swing keel, power tilt the engine up and out, raised the sails and had a decent sail. She pointed right up there when sheeted in tight. You should take one for a ride befor knocking them. The boat had the mast raising kit so stepping and unstepping her was a one person, allmost effortless operation. If I were down sizing to a trailerboat I would be looking seriously at a 26x No S%#*
I did some sailing on a 26x with a 50 hp on the back. Water ballast empty, twin dagger rudders up we maintained 24 mph over the bottom against about 1kt current. I was impressed with the power boat side of her. (you sure get some interesting looks as you pass the powerboats!) We filled the water ballast, dropped the rudders and swing keel, power tilt the engine up and out, raised the sails and had a decent sail. She pointed right up there when sheeted in tight. You should take one for a ride befor knocking them. The boat had the mast raising kit so stepping and unstepping her was a one person, allmost effortless operation. If I were down sizing to a trailerboat I would be looking seriously at a 26x No S%#*
I like the Macgregor 26x, but
I have seen them get knock down in not too heavy puff. I have also seen them closed hauled in 15 MPH winds sailing GREAT! Sail with water in! Great Boat! Nice to go 24 MPH!
I have seen them get knock down in not too heavy puff. I have also seen them closed hauled in 15 MPH winds sailing GREAT! Sail with water in! Great Boat! Nice to go 24 MPH!
- Status