Water Ballast?

[LRH]

Ahoy Maties,

Having owned several sailboats over the years, I'm cosidering one with water ballast. Would love to get feedback, pros and cons, from experienced
mates.

Thanks,
Ol' Capt Les

 

[Caribbeanknight1]

My H240 is my first sailboat. For my needs on a 7000 acre man made lake the water ballest is just what I need. It's easy launch and load and allows me to get into the shallows at night for my anchorage and into the beaches during the day. As far as heeling, once I learned to use the proper amount of sail for any given wind condition my wife and I have no complaints and don't notice any undo tenderness. What kind of conditions are you going to use your boat?

 

[DianaOfBurlington]

Water ballast: no.

As regards seaworthiness, water ballast (as primary ballast) makes no sense. Contrary to what Macgregor Yachts has claimed, it is not an adequate substitute for positive stability. It relies on process, not design-- for the idea to work, the user must perform a task properly rather than the product being built properly. Stories are legion of busy users accidentally forgetting to fill, transfer or drain and of the boat tipping over, frequently with severe injuries and deaths into the bargain.

(Read the article from a few years back about a Macgregor 26 drowning two children in Boston during the Fourth-of-July fireworks; it's in the archives here too.)

The primary reason water ballast has gained favor is because, when trailering the boat, the boat weighs much less on the trailer than it does under sail. This helps when one has a small car or is concerned about the car's fuel mileage-- but neither of these has anything to do with sailing per se. Water ballast has been used, mainly as trim ballast, on very high-tech race boats; and these guys have had plenty of problems with it as well. For the casual sailor and for anyone who doesn't want to worry more than he has fun, water ballast should be flatly avoided.

Even when full, the ballast tanks cannot add much stability to the boat, not in any way close to how a lead or iron keel does. At best the boat will float lower in the water and will behave, when changing tacks, about like a sinking boat half-full of water does. A sinking boat half-full of water has little or no stability; the hull itself will roll about the body of water, equalized between inside and out, with nothing stopping it. The only guarantee of not turning turtle is the centerboard, another process-centered, not design-centered, specification.

Many owners of Macgregors and other lightweight centerboard boats report concerns about the board's being up or down under certain conditions, especially when the boat is likely to heel too far from weather or other conditions. A non-ballasted board (meaning one that is not intrinsically designed to provide ballast weight, such as one of aluminum but not of iron or lead) may provide lateral resistance against a knockdown, but it offers no counterweight to the pressure of wind on sails; and so such a boat must be regarded as a light-weather, protected-waters-only vessel.

In terms of both safety and performance, a positively-ballasted keel is infinitely superior to the water-ballast tanks and non-ballasted centerboard of a lightweight trailerable boat. In my (expert) opinion I would not recommend any water-ballasted boat to any casual, rookie or retired yachtie expecting to have more fun than headache on the water.

And yes, sure, such boats are out there, on the market, being sold and used and talked-about. But so are SUVs, steel entrance doors, vinyl siding, Microsoft Windows, diet soda, Nutra-System, and gangsta-rap music, all intrinsically BAD ideas which aggressive marketing has convinced the public are worthy in themselves.

Keep your Catalina 27! --a model featured as one of Twenty Boats to Take You Anywhere.

 

[Bob 04 H260]

With all due respect to others opinions..............

I don't think water ballasted sailboats were ever marketed as club racers. Looking at the PHRF rating of water ballasted boats vs similar sized keel boats there does not seem to be much difference. I sailed my two water ballasted boats for a number of years out of a club with 525 wet slips so I was able to compare my water ballasted Hunter 260 and Macgrgeor 26S against many similar sized keel boats, eg Tanzer 26. Sailing side by side, behind and in front of them in many different conditions and I did not see much difference in how much we heeled in a gust of wind or in our speed. It seemed to be more dependent on the skills of the skipper and age of the sails etc.

So I don't think there is a big difference, the keel boats generally are stiffer for the first few degrees but then things seem to level out. Some keel boats are very tender and are designed to be that way. Sailing along looking at the stern of a Laser 28 he appeared to be much more tender than my water ballasted H260 when a big gust of wind hit us. After he laid down he just accelerated and pulled away like I was putting the brakes on . He had to sell the boat because his wife found it too tender.

The ballast tank on a water ballasted sailboat is only filled when it is launched and can only be drained when it is hauled (unless it has a leak). Without the water ballast it is very tender and sits well up on her lines. It would be very difficult to not know the ballast was not in there, a bit like loosing your keel and not knowing it happened .

Macgregor built sailboats from 17 to 65 ft in length. And probably built more boats than any other sailboat manufacturer. The 65 ft Macs have set records that I think are still standing. Almost all were sailboats, a percentage of those were water ballasted boats, at one time he made a water ballasted 19ft motorsailor and some catamarans. Around 1996 or so Macgregor turned to making only motorsailors until he retired and closed the company last year. This motorsailor seems to be what most people are talking about when they refer to a Macgregor "sailboat" and then they try to compare it to a sailboat made by another company, an apple and oranges situation. It is a motorsailor with its own unique advantages and disadvantages, 26 ft sailboats don't have 50 hp motors and pull waterskiers.

If there was a design defect that made water ballasted boats unsafe I am sure the manufacturers would have been sued in US courts. I am not aware of that ever happening.

The incident with the Mac motorsailor turning turtle and two small children dying was the result of an intoxicated captain using a vessel he had just borrowed from his brother-in-law. He did many things wrong and the result was loss of life, he could have done the same thing with any power boat or sailboat. He was charged and went to jail. If there was any chance it was a boat design issue I am sure Macgregor would have had to pay out a large sum of money over this. For some reason many people have used this incident as an example to justify why they don't like Macgregor "sailboats" or what is wrong with them.

just my 2 cents on this subject, Bob

 

[teebutch]

I have owned keel sailboats from 22' to 32'. Just recently bought a water ballast hunter 23.5 I found it strange sailing my first trip in 20 knot wind. Then I learned how to sail it and love it. I am now looking at buying a hunter h26 another water ballast boat. I would not be doing it if I did not like water ballast. As far as boat speed I have yet to find many boats sail away from me and I have passed a lot of boats much larger than mine. I am very happy with them. I love the quick acceleration and feeling the wind. I did not get that feeling with my other boats that I felt like were more slugish. I am not against iron keel boats but for protected waters and getting into shallow anchorages these boats are great. I can also do 70 mph down the highway if I want.

 

[cephius (Dave)]

I have owned both fixed keel and water ballast sailboats.

The big advantage is on the trailer. There is no way I would be able to tow a 26' sailboat with my vehicle unless I can dump a big chunk of the weight. As it is, I must wait for the water to fully drain before I can pull the boat all of the way out.

As for sailing, the difference in the way my H260 handles has more to do with the B&R rigged mast than with the type of ballast.

 

[Dan Hill]

I always loved the look I got from people as the ballast drained. Gotta fix that leak some day.

 

[Kermit]

I just bought my first water ballast boat. Haven't launched yet but hope to do so this weekend. We loved the test sail. Felt very comfortable when the air got heavier.

 

[chp]

As regards seaworthiness, water ballast (as primary ballast) makes no sense. Contrary to what Macgregor Yachts has claimed, it is not an adequate substitute for positive stability. It relies on process, not design-- for the idea to work, the user must perform a task properly rather than the product being built properly. Stories are legion of busy users accidentally forgetting to fill, transfer or drain and of the boat tipping over, frequently with severe injuries and deaths into the bargain.

(Read the article from a few years back about a Macgregor 26 drowning two children in Boston during the Fourth-of-July fireworks; it's in the archives here too.)

The primary reason water ballast has gained favor is because, when trailering the boat, the boat weighs much less on the trailer than it does under sail. This helps when one has a small car or is concerned about the car's fuel mileage-- but neither of these has anything to do with sailing per se. Water ballast has been used, mainly as trim ballast, on very high-tech race boats; and these guys have had plenty of problems with it as well. For the casual sailor and for anyone who doesn't want to worry more than he has fun, water ballast should be flatly avoided.

Even when full, the ballast tanks cannot add much stability to the boat, not in any way close to how a lead or iron keel does. At best the boat will float lower in the water and will behave, when changing tacks, about like a sinking boat half-full of water does. A sinking boat half-full of water has little or no stability; the hull itself will roll about the body of water, equalized between inside and out, with nothing stopping it. The only guarantee of not turning turtle is the centerboard, another process-centered, not design-centered, specification.

Many owners of Macgregors and other lightweight centerboard boats report concerns about the board's being up or down under certain conditions, especially when the boat is likely to heel too far from weather or other conditions. A non-ballasted board (meaning one that is not intrinsically designed to provide ballast weight, such as one of aluminum but not of iron or lead) may provide lateral resistance against a knockdown, but it offers no counterweight to the pressure of wind on sails; and so such a boat must be regarded as a light-weather, protected-waters-only vessel.

In terms of both safety and performance, a positively-ballasted keel is infinitely superior to the water-ballast tanks and non-ballasted centerboard of a lightweight trailerable boat. In my (expert) opinion I would not recommend any water-ballasted boat to any casual, rookie or retired yachtie expecting to have more fun than headache on the water.

And yes, sure, such boats are out there, on the market, being sold and used and talked-about. But so are SUVs, steel entrance doors, vinyl siding, Microsoft Windows, diet soda, Nutra-System, and gangsta-rap music, all intrinsically BAD ideas which aggressive marketing has convinced the public are worthy in themselves.

Keep your Catalina 27! --a model featured as one of Twenty Boats to Take You Anywhere.

Obviously you have never been on a water ballast boat. Yes it is a bit more tender, but with proper sail managment it can be controlled. I have had mine in 25knt winds and 6 foot breaking waves. No problem. I just returned from a one week trip to the North channel. A 400mile drive from home. Can't do that with a heavy keel boat without a large truck to pull it. I would have loved to have picked up a Hunter 260, but it wasn't in the budget.
I have also sailed deep keel boats (bareboat chartering) and was suprised that it reacted the same as mine except it got better speed. Much larger boat.
As far as the center board goes all it does is stop the skidding on a reach. It does nothing to prevent turteling. As you read on you will see others who have experience on water ballast boats and have no complaints.
You also have to remember what the boat is designed for. Not an offshore or bluewater boat.

 

[doehunter]

Ahoy Maties,

Having owned several sailboats over the years, I'm cosidering one with water ballast. Would love to get feedback, pros and cons, from experienced
mates.

Thanks,
Ol' Capt Les

This is always a heavily argued subject. The naysayers are almost always the ones who have never sailed a WB boat.
I have a Mac, 26S. Not the motor sailer.
It carries 1200 lbs of water ballast. I believe a comparable weighted keel boat would carry OBO 700 lbs.? It's lighter but longer and it's that length that evens up the playing field.
I haven't been offshore but I sail the bays in Texas and have never felt unsafe. (maybe a little wet sometimes!)
As for draining the ballast tank, I never pull the boat up the ramp with the tank full. I use a cheap air mattress inflator. Stuff the hose in the ballast tank's air vent. Open the water valve on the bottom of the boat and turn it on.
It VERY LIGHTLY pressurizes the tank and pushes the water out of the bottom. I turn it on while I go get my truck and back my trailer in.
By the time I get back in the boat, it's completely empty.
Now, I already have my sails down and sometimes they're even packed away in the cabin. I motor over to my trailer, hook up and I'm gone.
I'm guessing I'm pulling about 2000 lbs up the ramp instead of 3200 lbs.
And like the others have said, I can do 65 mph going home and store it in my driveway! No slip fees. No slip thieves and It's right there at the house if I just wanna go sit in it!

 

[John23883]

Expert opinion?

Diana,
How about listing those "expert credentials" regarding sailboats, auto design, steel entrance doors, etc. you claim to have.
You state:
In my (expert) opinion I would not recommend any water-ballasted boat to any casual, rookie or retired yachtie expecting to have more fun than headache on the water.

And yes, sure, such boats are out there, on the market, being sold and used and talked-about. But so are SUVs, steel entrance doors, vinyl siding, Microsoft Windows, diet soda, Nutra-System, and gangsta-rap music, all intrinsically BAD ideas which aggressive marketing has convinced the public are worthy in themselves.

In the H26 you have 2000 lbs. of water that is CONTAINED, it cannot "equalize inside and out". When it heels you are LIFTING 1000 lbs. of water ABOVE the level of the water you are sitting in. Gravity working as it does, tends to want to push that weight back down. As well, the hull presses down into the water on heeling and it is the displacement of the water that is key. Yes, a long heavy keel is better, but not in and of itself. It doesn't matter whether it is water or lead inside or outside the boat, the shape of the hull is pushing down into the water and it is is pushing back up. You may have heard of Archimedes. Try this sometime, put you keelboat on the hard, balance it on the keel and raise the sails in a strong wind. Gee, the keel didn't keep if from falling over. Without the displacement of the water, the keel is irrelevant.

Just so you know, the centerboard does not PREVENT the boat from "turning turtle", it keeps it sailing on your course like any other boat. What nonsense!

By the way, I sailed for 22 miles on Thursday in an H26 in Traverse Bay at 20 to 30 degrees of heel, mostly 25 degrees the entire time. Didn't turn turtle one time.

Please stop passing your incorrect opinion off as fact.

 

[DianaOfBurlington]

Anecdotes vs theory

I want to thank all of you who came to my aid regarding the water ballast. Diana of Burlington, when you want to get serious, then get serious with me because you do not know what you are flapping your jawls about. I will be glad to take you on one of the water ballast Hunter anytime.
crazy dave condon

I always encounter this when I hear from people who state anecdotes, not design theory and physical fact, as 'proofs' of their position.

My expertise is lent here in these board posts from a position of having 40 years in the boatbuilding industry, in the design, engineering, rigging, construction and professional maintenance and repair realms. It is not expertise, I believe, that many, of not any, have here, and so I lend it freely (not at my usual rates!) and in the interests of instructing and enlightening those who can learn from it. If you don't want to take it, that's fine.

I was contributing about water ballast from a design perspective, not as someone who has sailed such a boat once or twice, or in good weather, or for some years, or whatever. Anyone can come up with positive anecdotes to support a theoretically untenable position. The plain fact is that Macgregor is wrong-- I have read his books and literature and he makes many statements that are clearly contradictory to fact, obviously motivated by marketing potential (and not, as I am, by enlightening people without expectation of personal gain). The lead keel is present on 99 percent of the world's displacement yachts for a reason. And water-ballasted boats are lightweight for a reason that has nothing to do with sailing-- it is for cost (product is lighter to build and ship), marketing (product appears convenient the neophyte user) and to avoid having to compete directly with otherwise similar products (which otherwise he might not). Macgregor actually claims the keel will contribute to the boat's possibility of sinking-- marketing directly at most beginners' worst fear. Now who worries that, under normal even foreseeable andsailing conditions, a 26-footer is going to roll over and sink? --only someone who doesn't know better. This is water-ballast's primary market.

Do not mistake: Macgregor is the master of marketing on the cheap. I have followed his career for 40 years. None of it indicates his boats are robustly built and meant to last more than a decade of use. The fact that they do is a testament to their affordability and devotion of their owners, not by product placement or by intention. (No one interested in longevity would pop-rivet chainplates to the fiberglass skin of the cabinsides. I'm just saying.)

Hunter has committed so many follies in late years that I shiver to think I was once related to that company. They have become a follower of bad trends, not a leader in providing economical, good-quality sailing boats. I could take any late-model Hunter and name you 10 to 15 things that are just bad for maintenance, performance, safety or convenience. This doesn't mean that people won't remain willingly blind to such things or even debate with common sense over it. There is no telling what the average individual will do with even an only moderately-bad idea. And the numbers don't tell any story at all-- except to prove Lincoln's point that you can fool some of the people all of the time; or, as a friend has said (about computers!), 'Cockroaches outnumber people; but that doesn't make them a superior species.'

The misfortune of the Mac 26 'turning turtle' at Boston is a clear case in point. The skipper was intoxicated-- so much that he put far too many people on the boat and 'forgot' to fill the ballast tanks. In fact he was using the boat precisely as Macgregor said he could-- like a motor boat, tanks empty, in which configuration it will 'plane' (Macgregor's literature). What he did not realize is that one quick turn at insufficient speed could roll the boat. I can tell you that I can operate my boat while intoxicated and cut a tight turn under power at moderate speed and it won't turn over and drown people. (I won't-- but I could.) The fault is with the deliberate process specification, by design of the builder-- if you don't use it precisely as intended, this product may kill you; and the builder, once saying that, won't be blamed for his design.

Now this may be true with any boat-- we can all hit pilings, other boats or rocks and die. But where is the rationale for marketing a boat explicitly to casual and beginning users when it absolutely requires those less-experienced or less-engaged users to be extra careful-- more careful, in this regard, say, than with an O'Day 23-- upon penalty of death, because of a built-in design flaw? I stand by what I said-- water ballast is a gimmick meant mainly to appease the builders' accountants and investors and is not a feature to be desired by the beginning or casual sailor. It's not reducing worries-- it's increasing them, by being one more (vital) thing to worry about. (You don't have to worry about this with a 1975 O'Day 23; and I've seen one plane under power.)

As far as performance, I was not talking about racing at all. Because sailing is the 'ultimate free ride', as my father called it, a well-performing sailboat is a blessing if not a necessity. A boat with speed and handling can get you out of worlds of trouble that a boat, lacking them, could get you into and worse. Why sit and sit in a slow boat when you can be moving? Moreover, the real test of a boat's performance always comes when it must be required to deliver under the worst, unexpected, conditions. If you will never sail in winds over 12 knots, have a happy life-- but I doubt that anyone here can say that's been the case. Bad weather and conditions appear when they are not welcome or expected-- that's why we call them 'bad'. Sure, anyone may have sailed a water-ballasted boat under fine conditions, in a race, against some lead-keeled boats, and done remarkably well. Now kick that 15-knot breeze to 35, and see who is more comfortable (and safe). Now kick that 35 to 55. Think it can't happen where you live? Perhaps you live in a bathroom cabinet then. I've seen 60-MPH knockdowns under clear skies on Barnegat Bay when everyone was out because it was 12 knots this morning. It's not so much pilot error as it is unexpected turns of the weather. It happens. Only the imprudent skipper would believe it doesn't, or, worse, can't. Sorry, but for safety's sake I'll take my boat with 40 percent of its displacement in a solid-lead keel over anything using water as a counterweight to... water.

And I don't understand the argument about 'limiting the angle of heel'. In fact I have never known how to do that-- if it wasn't to appease some fearful passenger aboard. My boat will heel under sail till the windows are awash, and it will go like hell to windward (at least to 30 degrees off the wind) and maintain speed and course like a race champion. I don't limit its heel; the boat's design does. The boat won't roll over because it has positive stability. And, given very ugly weather and big waves, if it did, it would-- wait for it-- roll back right again. If I'm marketing to beginniners and casual sailors, I'd want to be able to say that a boat can do that, not caution them that they have to take care to limit their heel angle and keep the tanks full or it will roll over and possibly not recover. I mean, that's only common sense-- and fortunately, because of my boat's keel, I don't really have to worry about that problem at all.

I'm sorry you have to shout at me, Crazy Dave, because heretofore you've been one of the people I most respect on here. And I'm sorry if my opinions, coming from good sense, broad, long experience, and sincere concern for others, alarm you, and anyone else, to the point of calling me out on it. The original poster asked for the pros and cons of water ballast; and as a designer, builder and fixer of many boats over the years, having expertise in these areas which few, of any, other posters here might have, I contributed my sincere and knowledgeable (professional) opinion. I'll apologize if it seemed a little caustically worded; but how something is said does not change the content of what is said. Perhaps it was my comment about Windows 8.

(When we are able to arrange a day for it, Dave, we shall meet-- perhaps in Delaware Bay-- and I'll glad take you on that challenge you issued. Shall we say, case of Landsharks and steak sandwiches for the crew?)

'Stupidity is defined as the refusal to accept new knowledge when it is presented to you for free.' --my dad (not me; though I tend to agree).

 

[DianaOfBurlington]

John--

Diana,
In the H26 you have 2000 lbs. of water that is CONTAINED, it cannot "equalize inside and out". When it heels you are LIFTING 1000 lbs. of water ABOVE the level of the water you are sitting in. Gravity working as it does, tends to want to push that weight back down. As well, the hull presses down into the water on heeling and it is the displacement of the water that is key. Yes, a long heavy keel is better, but not in and of itself. It doesn't matter whether it is water or lead inside or outside the boat, the shape of the hull is pushing down into the water and it is is pushing back up. You may have heard of Archimedes. Try this sometime, put you keelboat on the hard, balance it on the keel and raise the sails in a strong wind. Gee, the keel didn't keep if from falling over. Without the displacement of the water, the keel is irrelevant.

Just so you know, the centerboard does not PREVENT the boat from "turning turtle", it keeps it sailing on your course like any other boat. What nonsense!

By the way, I sailed for 22 miles on Thursday in an H26 in Traverse Bay at 20 to 30 degrees of heel, mostly 25 degrees the entire time. Didn't turn turtle one time.

Please stop passing your incorrect opinion off as fact.

When your M26 heels, where is the other 1000 lbs of water?

Boats don't heel round the point of the bottom of the keel. They are vessels; they are supposed to roll around a line between the end points of the waterline. Where does your M26 roll?

The centerboard in an otherwise unballasted boat is the only thing that CAN keep the boat from rolling over-- it is the only counterweight available. The mast on your M26 is about 28 feet high. What corresponds to the pressure of sail area in leverage to the boat's inclination to roll? The water in the tanks isn't low enough to be adequate counterbalance. All Macgregors rely on the lateral resistance of the centerboard as a counterweight. Many other unballasted boats do too.

What was the wind the other day on Traverse Bay? What reefs did you use? How far did you slip to leeward while maintaining course?

BTW:
1. Steel is a conductor; wood is an insulator. With energy costs, why would you conduct opposite temperatures into your house? Fiberglass: better. Wood: best. Foam in steel doors is on the inside; the skin itself is what transmits the temperature. Next sunny hot day, if the AC is not blowing on the inside of the door, go feel it and tell me if that's where you'd like to sit all day. (And how do you fix a dent in a steel door?)

2. Ford Expedition: 7300 lbs, 351 cu.in., 18 MPH on a good day (if we're honest). Saturn: 2400 lbs; 35 MPH on a bad day. Gasoline: $4/gallon. Do the math. (I studied automotive design before changing to architecture.) The real reason the Ford Explorer and other SUVs exist is because they are based on trucks, which are/were exempt from Federal safety, emissions and fuel-economy restraints. It was a marketing trick. Fads being what they are, sheeple continue to buy them because other sheeple do. From point of fact, the SUV is a poor example of a comfortable, safe, economical or even useful car; and I defy anyone sensible to debate that. (BTW it can be argued that the SUV bankrupted GM.)

3. I was designing sailboats professionally when I was 15 and studied under one of the undisputed greats of the field, an aerospace engineer with his own ties to Herreshoff, Brewer, Bergstrom and many others worthy of note. For the 40-odd years since I have been intimately involved in every aspect of the business and been responsible for the construction and design of some of the world's most beautiful and well-engineered sailboats. Meanwhile, your statements, though well-meant, show a plain deficiency in understanding of what makes a sailboat go, heel, stay buoyant and so forth. I would teach you; but it couldn't be done with a few board postings and I don't think you want the benefit of my knowledge at this point anyway. Please don't call me out on my credentials unless you don't mind me appearing to be arrogant in having to state them.

4. Don't get me started on computers! --I have called Microsoft Windows, beginning with '95', 'the greatest con ever perpetrated on the world population', and I stand by that with the intro of Windows 8.

 

[Caribbeanknight1]

10 to 15 things that are wrong with new Hunters? You have aroused my curiosity. I hope you go into greater detail because my goal is to retire in 10 yrs and buy a new Hunter because of my positive experience with my current Hunter. I personally love my Hunter 240 which is thankfully a water ballast boat that allows me to sail on the National Wildlife Reserve near me. Considering a lead keel boat can't sail on this lake because of fluctuating water levels and numerous shallow areas. I guess your advice would be that I shouldn't have taken up sailing and should stick to the pontoon or Jon boats everyone else sails. As a sailboat designer you should know there is no perfect design and each boat is a compromise in order to meet certain markets. I'm a neophyte when it come to sailing but I know I can out sail you any day of the year on my body of water with a water ballast boat and you in a boat in a full lead keel. Just because you don't show up doesn't mean you are chicken. It instead shows that despite your dismissal of water ballast boats there really is a time and place for them.

 

[twalker H260]

Diana

Keep in mind the h26 & 260 people are referencing are hunters, not mcgregors. Centreboards in these vessels weigh less than 100lbs. - not much resistance to healing there.

All vessels are trade offs based on their designed usage - some canoes are designed for white water use, some for lake cargo, some even for ocean passages. When used in the way designed for, locations designed for and conditions designed for the vessels are safe for their intended use.

The 26,260 & 240 are intended for inland lakes and coastal sailing. In using ours in any of the lakes we have sailed or coastal areas we have visited it has kept us safe and handled the conditions well - and will definitely handle rougher conditions than her crew will. The trade off is keeping a weather eye, listening to forecasts and being prudent in when to sail - taking into consideration all the factors possible. Would I attempt a long ocean passage with any of these vessels? - not a chance!

For a physics approach to why and how water ballast sailboats work please visit this link

http://h260.com/water_ballast/water_ballast_index.html

Water ballast has a long history of use in freighters and a more recent history in some high performance sailboats. It does work - when used as intended

As for your reference to automotive and other analogies I would only say anyone can use just about any product in an inappropriate way and make it unsafe, unreliable, unsustainable, ineffecient or ? Some can be shown to be scientifically provable, testable and repeatable while others are simply based on personal perception and bias. I happen to agree with you about windows but then I'm a mac user

On keeping the ballast tank full - on most of these vessels this is a once a season or launch event. Not even as difficult a checklist item as what you have on many larger vessels or more dangerous types of transportation such as small aircraft or cars! All vehicles have items that if neglected or forgotten will lead to dangerous operation and potentially fatal consequences. Check fuel levels? How many aircraft have run out of fuel in flight? Check brake line on a 5-10 yr old Chevy? Dozens of reported failures due to corrosion. Maintenance or poor design or poor specification?

I realise your and your fathers long history in sailboat design and building but realise that some of us use our bleach bottles because it is appropriate to our circumstances whether financial, geographical, logistical etc. even though we may dream and aspire to having a Herreshoff, Hinckley or? And sailing on passages of thousands of miles before a tack!

 

[Bob 04 H260]

I think the OP asked about water ballasted sailboats not water ballasted motor sailors. Perhaps a new thread to discuss Macgregor motor sailors would help to avoid some confusion. I don't think it makes sense to compare sailboats to motor sailors.

The pop rivets around a Mac chain plate hold on an aluminum cover that is used with caulking to seal out water, the Mac chain plates are bolted to the hull as in many other sailboats. This comment was just misinformation and I am not sure what connection it could have to water ballasted boats. Perhaps just Mac bashing.

Roger Macgregor says his water ballasted boats are safer than a boat with a keel because Keel boats sink when swamped. His water ballasted boats have positive buoyancy and would continue to float. It seems like a good safety feature in a boat, in fact it is a required by law for most smaller vessels. A keel boat would be safer if it had positive buoyancy.

While I am not an expert in keel boat or water ballast boat design I have done a lot of sailing in water ballasted boats over a number of years. From Florida's east coast, to Lake Huron to Lake Ontario, living on board for weeks at a time, even as much as 3 months on one cruise. I was never concerned about the boat or her ability to handle the conditions we found. I have buried the rail and washed the windows any times without concerns. They sail well, keep up with similar sized vessels and are comfortable. It is a good choice in a trailer sailor.

The center boards on the Hunter & Mac boats are in fact quite light and do not provide any righting moment at all. I have sailed them with the center board up and down it has no effect on how much it heels. The righting moment is supplied by the water ballast alone, it does have to be raised above the surface of the water to be effective, ballast is ballast, it does not matter if it is water or lead. If it did empty cargo ships would have to use lead ballast instead of water.

Bob

 

[Kermit]

This thread has really been weighing on me lately. We just bought a 1999 H260 and are very excited about it. Plan to splash for the first time this coming Saturday. Yep, it's a water ballast boat. We have been sailing a 1986 H23 for 3 years and have loved every minute of it. It has become obvious that we needed something more overnightable and also more trailerable. OK, trailering is easy. It's the getting-it-on-the-trailer part that has been a bear.

Here are a few things that I know to be true. (Whether they're true or not.)

1) We love our H23. It's stable but is tender in a blow.
2) Water in a bottle doesn't sink. It sorta floats.
3) Water in a boat makes the boat heavy enough to sink. Ask the Titanic passengers if you don't believe me.
4) The only people who talk bad about water ballast boats are those who have never sailed on one. We've never met an owner who thought water ballast was a bad idea.
5) Our H260 weighs 2,000 lbs. less when trailering than when sailing.
6) I don't have enough experience on a water ballast boat to say if we love it or not. I expect we will, though.
7) I promise to let y'all know what I think once I form an honest opinion.
8) I've never met Crazy Dave nor J Cherubini II but I've communicated with them both. They both seem sane, nice and knowledgeable.
8) I hate bickering and name-calling on this site. (Or anywhere else for that matter.)
9) I've learned a bunch about sailing from this site and want to share what little knowledge I have about sailing.
10) Theory is one thing. Putting theory into practice is another. Case in point... All the literature I've read says Mississippi Kites don't eat other birds. I guess the ones I saw fighting over who got to eat the Chimney Swift didn't read the literature. Sorta applies to the whole water vs. lead thing. J's theory makes no more sense to me than the link posted that explains why water is effective.
Edit: 11) I don't know why the numbers after 8 show up as smiley faces with sunglasses on my iphone.

So, that's my take on things. I will never be an expert on sailing or ballast issues. But I will form an opinion and share it with the whole class on a new thread.

 

[John23883]

OK, here we go Diana.

Diana says,
When your M26 heels, where is the other 1000 lbs of water?
Hunter 26 not MacGregor. I’m not sure what you are asking. A percentage of the 2000 lbs is below the surface and a percentage is above the surface and is being pushed down toward the surface by gravity at some angle of heel. The more heel the more water is above the surface. I cannot say the exact weight above the water at each angle of heel. Is it 1000 lbs, or more or less? I don’t know.

Boats don't heel round the point of the bottom of the keel. They are vessels; they are supposed to roll around a line between the end points of the waterline. Where does your M26 roll?
I never said my Hunter 26 or any boat heeled around the bottom of the keel. I said the keel on a keelboat only works in the water when it is forcing the hull down into the water as it is trying to be raised by the boat heeling. It is acting as a lever. Therefore it won’t keep the boat from falling over on the hard. Are you saying that the hull on a keelboat is completely buoyant when heeling and there is zero water displacement when it heels? Is it only the force of gravity acting on the keel alone that is attempting to lever the boat upright? Please explain. Maybe I’m missing something.

The centerboard in an otherwise unballasted boat is the only thing that CAN keep the boat from rolling over-- it is the only counterweight available. The mast on your M26 is about 28 feet high. What corresponds to the pressure of sail area in leverage to the boat's inclination to roll? The water in the tanks isn't low enough to be adequate counterbalance. All Macgregors rely on the lateral resistance of the centerboard as a counterweight. Many other unballasted boats do too.
There is NO centerboard counterweight. It weighs 100 lbs at most! You are stating that the 2000 lbs of water in the ballast tank are irrelevant but a 100 lb centerboard has a righting moment sufficient to keep a 6000 lb boat (4000 lbs of boat plus 2000 lbs of water) from rolling? I don’t know the design of the Mac centerboard, but I suspect it is about 100 lbs like the Hunter. Again, maybe I’m missing something. I will agree that as the boat heels the centerboard is being pushed against the water in an arc and the water will offer some token resistance to heeling simply by virtue of the fact that water is not quickly displaced as it moves around the centerboard. But move it will, and if the boat keeps heeling the centerboard will simply come out of the water at 90 degrees of heel. If the centerboard only weighs 100 lbs, how is it levering the boat back to upright? By what force? By this logic, if I am sailing a lightweight sunfish, I should be able to keep it from tipping over by simply putting my whole arm vertically in the water and my arm will keep it from heeling too much. Lateral resistance to “prevent” leeward slip, sure. Lateral resistance to “prevent” heel? This would seem to imply that as the centerboard moves upward in an arc it encounters more and more resistance because the water nearer the surface is somehow heavier or more resistant than 6 feet down? I’m not seeing it.
The water IS low enough. When I fill the ballast tank, the water rises in the 10” to 12” tower that the valve’s giant wing-nut and vent are located in under the bottom step. The water rises to within an inch of the top, therefore the top of the water ballast tank must be 9 to 11 inches below the waterline, as water seeks it’s own level.
The mast height on the Hunter 26 specs. at 40’ 4” above the water, the “P” is 30’ 1”.

What was the wind the other day on Traverse Bay? What reefs did you use? How far did you slip to leeward while maintaining course?
The wind was 12 knots steady with gusts to 16. No reefs, full main and full jib. I held the course as tight into the wind as I could get, to hit the mark I needed to get to Northport. Otherwise it would have been a hell of a tack. Our friends in their own Hunter 26 following us, went off the wind to reduce heel as they are not as sure of their boat. They hit the mark one and a half hours later. The main was sheeted in such that the boom was almost centered on the boat.
Hardly any slippage according the chart plotter. The outer limits of the rhumb-line were set at 330 feet and I never even came close. The gyro auto-pilot did most of the steering, because it is only a gyro, it cannot correct for slippage.

BTW:
1. Steel is a conductor; wood is an insulator. With energy costs, why would you conduct opposite temperatures into your house? Fiberglass: better. Wood: best. Foam in steel doors is on the inside; the skin itself is what transmits the temperature. Next sunny hot day, if the AC is not blowing on the inside of the door, go feel it and tell me if that's where you'd like to sit all day. (And how do you fix a dent in a steel door?)
All of my exterior doors are metal, 3 standard entry and 12 French doors. All of them have metal skins over wood. There is NO connection between the outside skin and the inside skin. I am, as I write this, sitting next to 7 South facing metal French doors without the air on and the inside metal is room temperature. I do have a small dent in one that I live with.

2. Ford Expedition: 7300 lbs, 351 cu.in., 18 MPH on a good day (if we're honest). Saturn: 2400 lbs; 35 MPH on a bad day. Gasoline: $4/gallon. Do the math. (I studied automotive design before changing to architecture.) The real reason the Ford Explorer and other SUVs exist is because they are based on trucks, which are/were exempt from Federal safety, emissions and fuel-economy restraints. It was a marketing trick. Fads being what they are, sheeple continue to buy them because other sheeple do. From point of fact, the SUV is a poor example of a comfortable, safe, economical or even useful car; and I defy anyone sensible to debate that. (BTW it can be argued that the SUV bankrupted GM.)
Yeah, That’s me. Sailboatin, gun-totin, Libertarian, Sheeple. My Pathfinder regularly gets only 15 mpg. 21 on the highway if I don’t push it and 11-12 while pulling 6000 lbs of boat and trailer. I doubt if the Expedition gets 15, let alone 18. I did a stretch in automotive and engine design myself. By the way, it ain’t a car and it isn’t meant to be. They are not exempt from safety or emissions restraints. If they were, I would have an engine with no emission controls on it. Have you looked in the engine compartment?
Safety? I was run off the road by a psychopath at 65 and when the front tires hit the mud on the side of the road and stuck, we went end over end a few times and then rolled for a while. I’m still walkin around. Shockingly, I have a problem with my back and the seats in the old and now new Pathfinder are FABULOUS. I just drove for 9 hours in it pulling the boat. You should try it. I drive my Mom’s Chevy for more than 10 minutes and I am in agony.
I’ll grant you, there isn’t much in the way of fuel-economy restraint; I can almost see the gas gauge going down when I’m pulling the boat up a hill. Unless I am missing something, NO cars have “fuel-economy restraint” the mileage target the car companies must meet are in the aggregate, not on individual vehicles.
As for economical, what’s the measure? If I had to rent a truck every time I wanted to pull the boat or the motorcycle in the trailer or the enclosed trailer to haul something, that wouldn’t be very economical. When parts become hard to get for that Saturn, how economical will it be?
I also use the Pathfinder for hunting and I like the fact that I have all my gear inside with me and 4 doors and the hatch to get to everything easily from the outside. If I had a pickup truck, I’d have to crawl into it to get to the gear in the back. I’m not doing that. And how would I get the deer into a Saturn? Put it in the passenger seat and belt it in? Maybe in California I could use the carpool lane.

3. I was designing sailboats professionally when I was 15 and studied under one of the undisputed greats of the field, an aerospace engineer with his own ties to Herreshoff, Brewer, Bergstrom and many others worthy of note. For the 40-odd years since I have been intimately involved in every aspect of the business and been responsible for the construction and design of some of the world's most beautiful and well-engineered sailboats. Meanwhile, your statements, though well-meant, show a plain deficiency in understanding of what makes a sailboat go, heel, stay buoyant and so forth. I would teach you; but it couldn't be done with a few board postings and I don't think you want the benefit of my knowledge at this point anyway. Please don't call me out on my credentials unless you don't mind me appearing to be arrogant in having to state them.
I’ll grant you, I haven’t designed a boat, but I did about that many years as an Engineer in new product development. I know my way around a slide rule and I have the log tables to prove it. You seem to have a deficiency in understanding why an SUV is the best vehicle for my needs, and then you call me a sheeple.
Let me see if I can briefly sum up my deficient understanding. First let’s agree to use the word “lift” instead of “lower pressure on the front of the sail, causing the higher pressure on the back to push the boat forward”. It’s a lot of words to type. The sails provide lift (some guy Bernoulli? Although, even his math is being debated in some circles), the jib providing it’s own lift and acting as a venturi for the main. The lift is horizontal, unlike the planes I fly which lift vertically. That’s why they don’t fall down all the time. We like to say, you can never have too much lift, altitude, velocity or fuel. They even got these flappy things that provide more lift.
The lift being horizontal, the boat heels because the keel prevents the boat from moving leeward very quickly. If it could move leeward quickly enough, there would be no heeling, it would just skitter across the water side-ways. I’ve launched a catamaran into the air a few times and aside from being a total rush, it moved leeward VERY quickly. Thank God I had those windsurfer foot-straps screwed to the wings or I would have broken my ribs AGAIN. Although a boat does move side-ways ever-so-slowly and slip leeward as you go.
Buoyancy is based on water displacement. The various shapes of hulls having differing buoyancy because of their shape. A pencil pushed vertically in the water? Not so much buoyancy. A real champagne glass has more because it displaces more water and a wine glass even more. Battleship Potemkin lots more. Vertical displacement of water? Meh. Horizontal displacement? Now you’re talkin! Eureka, the king’s crown is made of silver with gold plating.
So-forth? I’ve got no glib answer or that.
Sure, educate me, I can take it. I’m not a boat designer. Go research the Hunter 26. I can’t debate the Mac. Get the numbers on weight, balance, hull shape, water ballast weight and location, centerboard length and weight. Run the numbers and tell my how it stays upright with a 100 lb centerboard only. As Tom Cruise said, “show me the numbers”. I think he said that, anyway. Maybe I’m wrong, I’ve been wrong before. But maybe you are wrong and now you are in too deep to admit it.
Meanwhile, arrogant? Nah. I’ve seen arrogant! You’re just well meaning. In the South we just smile and say, “He’s well meaning, bless his heart”.


4. Don't get me started on computers! --I have called Microsoft Windows, beginning with '95', 'the greatest con ever perpetrated on the world population', and I stand by that with the intro of Windows 8.
Again, I got nothin. Computers are a mixed blessing. Can’t live with them, can’t kill them. You can shoot them, as that father proved on youtube. But you can’t kill them. But, you’ll have to pry my Windows 7 out of my cold, dead hand before I’ll go to Windows 8, I hear it’s awful for us old-timers. Still, it beats the hell out of DOS for easy to work with. The company I worked for bet on CP/M and “DOS” killed IT. So you can’t kill a computer, but you can kill software.

 

[achit]

I'm very happy with mine. Fills (and empties) in under 2 minutes. I read once that they sound like water slopping around...not at all. Makes it EASY to get onto a trailer for winter storage.

 

[anchorclanker]

When your M26 heels, where is the other 1000 lbs of water?

1000 pounds is 1000 pounds, its simple 8th grade physics. It makes no difference what element, compound or material it is. If you add 1000 pounds to a sailboat, it has 1000 pounds greater mass. And I would like to correct you on another point. Water ballast is CONTAINED, not free to move about as in your example of a flooded boat with water sloshing side to side as you heel.

I do agree, its higher up in the boat and raises the CG, but the design serves a purpose that you seem unable to comprehend. All businesses engage in marketing to make a profit. Hard to fault them for making something that's become popular.

Boating and sailing is dangerous. It can and does kill people who fail to respect it. But I see no inherent danger is these boats because of water ballast. The precipitating factor in almost all boating accidents is the skipper. Pilot error.