Water Ballast

[bill van]

Thanks to all

Thanks to all for their advice.It really seemed to stir up some emotions. I believe I really got some good infomations from everyone.Again thanks to allregardsBill van

 

[JonBill]

Serious question deserves serious answer

Bill,It would be very unwise to sail a sloop-rigged, water ballast sailboat as large as your 19 without the ballast tanks being full. If not then you would most certainly have a blow down that could result in the sails filling with water and the boat not being able to right itself. Then the cabin would take on water and the boat would swamp. The boats performance without ballast would be completely compromised. You would sail slower and very erratic due to excessive heeling and constantly having to trim sails to let wind spill off to keep from capsizing, so it's not going to help you sail faster.I would go as far as to say that it would be a very irresponsible thing to do and would jeopardize your safety, the safety of your crew, the safety of anyone else in your immediate vicinity and possibly the functionality of your boat (if it was damaged or took on water). Boaters have an obligation to operate their boats under control so as not to be a danger to others.The best thing to do is to follow the boat builders recommended operating procedure. This no doubt includes ballasting the boat properly. As far as any notion to partially ballast the boat, to fill it say half-full of water, could actually make it even worse then not filling it at all. We are talking about water here not fixed ballast, which would constantly shift and rush to the heeling or lowest side with the affect of having the force and momentum of the shifting water actually assisting the potential blow down.Every man has done foolhardy things in their life due to say boredom with what is considered normal routine or because of being a thrill seeker or whatever, pick an excuse (too much testosterone maybe). And I was no exception as a younger man. But if you want some mentoring from an old salt (by using other posters as an example) it is disappointing to see some posts, which openly advocate unsafe boating practices as if it’s somehow the moral equivalent of an experiment. The same logic would deduce that playing Russian roulette for the thrill is somehow an experiment to see if disaster can be thwarted, when at best it can only be postponed momentarily. I say this because playing that game is a disaster waiting to happen and it is not an experiment. Likewise sailing any water-ballasted boat of any size without ballast is unsafe and an accident waiting to happen and it is not an experiment.  Kindest Regards,JonBill

 

[Ramblin' Rod - Mac 26D - SeaQuell]

I'm afraid you are mistaken JonBill.

The Mac 19, as many other sailboats, obtains most of its initial stability from hull form.While the boat would be more tender in light airs, it should sail quite well without any water ballast at all. Downwind it should actually sail faster.The danger is that the boat will not have the designed reserve stabilty at higher angles of heel, and would not have the same righting moment or limit of postitive stability should it be knocked down.To what extent would these parameters be affected. One can only know through experimentation.So while I agree that a Newbie would be unwise to sail without ballast, and I agree that sailing with partial ballast is worse than none at all, I disagree that an experienced sailor, familiar with the boat, is irreponsible for experimenting without ballast, under controlled conditions. Therefore, I object to your terms, foolheardy, thrill seeking, reference to Russian Roulette, and declaration that it is irresponsible.After all, it is through rational, controlled experimentation, that we do most of our learning. How did you learn the limits of your skills and comfort aboard your boat? Via experimentation, no doubt.Just because your limit of comfort with experimentation may be lower than anothers, does not define you as responsible and them not.Fair Winds,Ramblin' Rods/v SeaQuellGeorgian Bay, ON

 

[JonBill]

Is Rod arguing with himself?

Rod thanks for making my point!"The danger is that the boat will not have the designed reserve stabilty at higher angles of heel, and would not have the same righting moment or limit of postitive stability should it be knocked down."Incidentally you have only cited two of many dangers inherent in this "experiment". A wise man once said "there is wisdom in many counselors", so there is wisdom here somewhere and it's up to each reader to find it and decide for themselves who they are going to listen to - the voice of caution; or the voice that says - go and have the experience of a real knock-down.It's been fun!Kindest Regards,JonBill

 

[Ramblin' Rod - SeaQuell]

No need to resort to this behaviour JonBill

We absolutely agree on the premise that readers can chose who to listen to, and make decision for themselves.There is absolutely no need for name calling and childish behaviour.Fair WindsRamblin' Rod

 

[JonBill]

Rod, that's what's called a straw man.

Rod,I didn't call anyone a name and you know that. And I’m not the one being childish here and you know that too.You lost the debate so to regain your position you claimed I did something that I didn't do so you could criticize me for it in an attempt to regain the high ground. That's what's called setting up a straw man so you could knock it down. That's not going to work Rod. Really if you want to talk childishness reread what's been advocated in this thread. Which is to sail your Mac without water ballast to be able to test or experiment with your Mac's capability in that environment. In the first place not only is it dangerous to do so, but also since no one normally sails that way (without ballast) the experienced learned is irrelevant and not applicable to real life. If you want to call something childish then I think that may qualify.Kindest Regards,JonBillPS. I'll give in on this one. I think you're right that 'running afore', the boat should be faster without ballast, but that's a balancing act that could only be performed on the calmest of days and in my book it isn't worth the risk.

 

[Ramblin' Rod - Mac 26D - SeaQuell]

JonBill, I rest my case.

Thank you for your candor and contribution.Fair Winds,Ramblin'

 

[John S]

Ballast Adjustment for the Clueless

I have watched this line of drivel degenerate into name calling and claiming the high ground of safety. I believe that the hull on my boat will plane if there is no water ballast. I also believe that I can sense whether the tests I plan are at a stage that might endanger the crew (me) or the boat, and can pull back from the edge so to speak. It is a basic rule that you may not be able to do what I can, even if I successfully accomplish what I set out to do. Just because I attempt an action, does not mean that you should try the same thing, and I would say that another person is not gifted with the substantial experience that I have with situations that are both risky and dangerous. If the experiments I have described in my posts seem dangerous or in your opinion foolhardy, DON'T ATTEMPT TO TRY THEM. What is the matter with you? If I want to drive my boat on the rocks, or even set it on fire, what gives you the right to judge me? On a more friendly and calm level, I have to tell you that I have sailed this boat with no ballast and without the centerboard down. You getting that? Also, If I squat down and look at the hull shape of my boat, it sure looks like it would plane with sufficient push. How will it handle? I don't know. But I am going to find out. If I find out that we could have had a bigger outboards on the back of our Macs and been able to plane like the current crop of Macs, (X's and M's), I can really use a dual use boat. Having read several technical sailboat books about hull design and stability, I want to know how stable this design really is. How much resistance to knockdown is there in a Mac 26D? I want a quantified answer. The world will not end just because I pull over the boat and read a resistance in lbs/feet. What I have now is a naked, stripped down 26D. I can remove the cushions and I have a piece of fibreglas that floats. I dont have a top-heavy, dolled up hull full of weighty mods. If I manage to turn the boat turtle, with the ballast tank empty and sealed and with all of that much bally-hooed foam flotation, do you really think that the boat will sink? What is the worst case? I get wet. What is the best case? I find out that the boat will plane with a 25 horse (or less) and I have some real experience with the boat's righting moment. I say again, don't try this at home. I say again, you who feel you need to contact your insurance agents every time you want to try an experiment, lighten up. I'll do the hard work, you just stay in your little coccoon where it is always safe. John S

 

[Dan]

Strawman

Rods strawman is made of smoke and mirrors. It is a waste of time to argue with him.

 

[Andy26M]

Inclining Experiment

John S -As far as the piece about heeling your boat over and checking on it's righting moment, etc., I believe you are referring to what is called an "Inclining Experiment" - at least on ships. In the Navy, ships undergo inclining experiments at the time they are built, and again as part of the testing that goes into any major equipment change (weight redistribution). They literally crane huge weights onto the ship, then proceed to move them around taking very careful measurement of how far the ship heels in each configuration. From this data, they figure out center of gravity, center of bouyancy, metacentric height, etc. - ultimately, how far can this ship roll over and still come back up rather than capsize. On my first ship, we had large gun turrets port and starboard, which weighed around 150 tons each as I recall, and were located pretty high above the water - they were actually designed so that the downhill one would fall off the ship at 57 degrees of heel, the idea being that the sudden loss of tonnage on the down side would give the ship a last-minute "boost" to get back upright. Of course, this could only work for one roll, but I always thought it was pretty ingenious - later on when the guns became obsolete and were removed from the ships altogether, I believe the point at which the ship would capsize became 59 degrees.Anyway, what you are proposing may be far less precise, but it is not unheard of in boat building. I'm guessing that with no water in the tank, you'll get positive righting moment close to 80 degrees (assuming zero wind, calm water, and sails down) but once the mast hits the water she'll turtle, and once turtled you're going to need special equipment to right her. I don't see where a Mac could be righted by standing on the centerboard like you do on a Sunfish, Laser, 470, etc. For the person above who mentioned that once the cabin is partially full, the boat would come up because you've got some ballast - well, that doesn't work. For the ballast to function as ballast it needs to be confined to the correct volume - i.e. the tank. Any other water inside the hull is generally called flooding, or if you don't wish to report that you have flooding, it is called "unwanted water" **grin**- AndyS

 

[JonBill]

John S. - Please no more insults

John S.,If you attempt diplomacy rather than personal attacks and insult you can still get your point across and perhaps have a meaningful dialogue and exchange of ideas and keep others engaged in the process. When you get on a chat board like this you really have no idea who it is that you are insulting, what their background, experience or education is to say the least.Some of us were dancing to steel drums at Foxy at Great White Harbor on Jost Van Dyke before others of us were probably born. And we sailed our own boats to get there. Others of us were fighting wars to preserve the freedom of people who want to have the right to insult us on websites like this.I'm glad Andy took the time to engage you in a meaningful dialogue. He's a better man than me.None of my comments since "no more pearls" have been directed your way but more to the general public that may think it's ok to sail around sometime for the fun of it without water ballast tanks full.Good luck on your experiment. I hope things go your way. I am very interested in the outcome of you getting your boat to plane. Although I have a pretty good idea what will happen, but I want you to prove me wrong. Your other experiment in my opinion has no application and sends the wrong message to the casual passerby that may visit this site. In my opinion it would be far more meaningful and applicable to real life situations if you did your heeling experiment with the water ballast tanks full. That outcome would be far more interesting. It's just my opinion and please no more insults.Kindest Regards,JonBill

 

[Linda]

I don't recommend it

I have a 26D and I sail it once every year from the boat ramp to my slip at the marina without water in the ballasts. Trust me that 's the farthest I'd want to sail it. Without the sails up with the wind just on the sail cover, it moves laterally through the water. Yes, folks, the centerboard is down, the rudder is also in the water. ;o) The boat still moves laterally with the wind, just like a surfboard.

 

[Steve Paul]

Open the valve early.

Linda thank you. I have a 26S and find the same issue with launch and retrieve. I may suggest just open the water fill valve when you leave the trailer and by the time your'e at the ramp you'll be much better off if not full.I also had the idea of buying a wash down pump. I did so and used it on the lake when anchored to wash the boat, cool off etc. I then thought I'd stick the input hose down the ballest tank inspection hole and pump out while on the way to the trailer. It works great, just takes longer than you think.I though that would make is safer to sail over there to the ramp and also make it easier to get up on the trailer.Just thoughts.Good sailing,SteveSteve Paul

 

[John S]

Jon Bill

OK. It is only an insult if you take it that way. For the record, I am not a spring chicken, and I am a vet of the Armed Forces who fought for the right for you to feel insulted if you wish. No steel drums for me, thanks. From the input of others on this board, both pro and con, I have been able to better focus my experiment. Thank You all. Andy 26M, thanks for the shipbuilding story. That is exactly the kind of thing I am interested in knowing about the 26D. Today, I cut a hole in the foredeck just aft of the stem fitting to accomodate my anchor rode locker. Looks like the deck "sandwich" is is about 1/8 inch on top with about 1/4 plywood in the center and about 1/16 inch of epoxy/fibreglas on the bottom. It is really hard to cut a hole like that, I must have measured it about 6 or 7 times. John S

 

[JonBill]

John S.

Hey John S.,I'll take your advice and try a little harder not to be so easily offended. Besides that's a biblical principle that applies to us all.So which one you going for this spring the fire or the rocks?And are you doing that before or after the experiments?It may be important to schedule out these events, if not they may be self limiting.Seriously, I think it's going to take a lot more than 25HP to get your boat to plane. If you can plane it with 25 horses the factory may be interested in knowing that as they have a hard time designing a boat that will plane with 50 HP.I'm a little like you if you want to know the truth, after all some folks turn up their nose at my 90HP Tohatsu on my 26M. But it works for me. When I want to sail - well I want to sail; and when I motor - hey I want to motor. But I wouldn't try either one without a full ballast tank. Oh shucks there I go again passing judgement.Have a good one!Kindest Regards,JonBill

 

[John S]

90 Horses

Wow! That is a huge amount of power. I'll bet it really goes. John S

 

[vwjon]

John S

Don't go there dude...

 

[Dana M26D]

Experiment advice

John S. Some laws can't be broken. Laws of gravity and displacement hulls come to mind. However you just may be able to plane your Mac. I doubt it, but just maybe. Try doing it in a couple steps. This spring leave the mast and rigging off to keep her light. Toss on your 50 hp O/B and open 'er up with the ballast tank empty. I'd leave the cushions and everything but the mandated gear behind as well. This just may lighten the bow enough to let her get up on her less V'd mid section. Thus, possibly riding her bow wave and allowing her stern to get out of the trough.Heck, you're running 40 extra hp... With the boat down to 1650 pounds she just may plane. I'd even try it with only an inch or two of swing keel exposed. This would reduce drag and turbulence greatly.Then start adding things, like a full water ballast with everything else out. (I don't recommend a partial water ballast as the sloshing will affect handling.) If she can plane at 2850 pounds then add the mast and standing rigging... then boom... then mainsail... and so on.She will not plane if her hull is far enough into the water to allow the displacement shape to lock her between the crests. But with her in ultra-light trim and 50 hp... the dirty deed just may work. Just wear your PFD until the results are known. John S... As you boldly test the great unknown and slip the surly bonds of bow wave... Brave speed.

 

[Bryan22217]

My bet.....

The motor mount from the weight and torque will probably break before achieving any "planing" speeds. You may want to purchase and install a mount rated for that size motorBryan

 

[mrbill]

suggestions for testing

seal the balast, screw and plug to maintain floatation.think about beefing up the transom, epoxy, plywood and more epoxy. may need to thru bold the plywood, as you have probably noticed, the transom flexes, quite a bit, and my 26d only has a small plywood backing behind the motor, you may need to run that across the transome and add fglass to the corners.I'd also drop the center/daggerboard 1 ft for steerage.let us know what happens.