Conference unifix::sailing

Practical Sailor recently reviewed the MacGregor 26. If you'll send me 
your mailstop, I'll send you a copy. 
		
There is quite a diversity of 26' boats. On one hand is (for example)
the MacGregor 26, which is (as you mention) trailerable, quickly and
inexpensively built, inexpensively equipped, and quite adequate for
sailing on small lakes and in protected waters. I personally wouldn't
sail one on the ocean. At the other hand is (for example) the C&C 26 --
not trailerable (5200 lbs), well built and well equipped, and able to
survive a Gulf of Maine gale (one of my more memorable experiences was
doing just that on our C&C 26). In 1977 a ready-to-sail C&C 26 was a
little over $20 000. 

As a beginning sailor you need to carefully consider what kind of
sailing you want to do, and where. (There are several old NOTES that
discuss this.) Then decide what you can afford to spend for both the
boat and for annual expenses. Then go search for a boat. Buying a used
boat is probably a better idea than buying a new one, but it is also
more time consuming, and anxiety provoking. 

Alan

    Re .0
    	"Very popular in the UK" - says who? Maybe a little misleading
    - I've never seen or heard of Macgregor this side of the pond.
    Certainly not one of the more popular ranges of boats. Of course,
    they may actually be sold under a different name here - certainly
    there are some N. American designs built under licence in the UK,
    although I don't think there is much in the "popular" end of the
    range (no disrespect to Macgregor, but this is a fairly crowded
    market segment).
    
    I'm always concerned when I come across such phrases in advertising
    how much the facts might have been shaded elsewhere. Whether we
    are honest enough to admit it or not, our image of the product is
    built up from not only the "facts" but also "impressions" such as
    these - and "image" is important when we might have spent years
    dreaming of our ideal! I've got some idea of my "dream" - 35' deep-keel
    gaff cutter; I've also got a clearer idea of what might be more
    suited to my family and time commitments - 26-28' solidly-built
    bilge keel sloop; and I know what I can afford (both time and money)
    - 11' dinghy that I can tow behind my car and launch pretty well
    when and where I like!
    
    Moral - just keep a tight hold on reality when you read those
    brochures, you feel your eyes closing, and you drift away to visions
    of idyllic cruising!

re .2

Macgregor may not be popular in the UK; but could you tell us if their are any
other UK or other European sailboats that use water ballast? Are they popular?

Thx, Bob

	RE: .2

	I misrepresented MacGregor's brochure statement.

	I was recalling from memory when I wrote that the MacGregor is
	popular in the UK. After re-reading the brochure, their statement
	is: "In Europe, where cars have been historically small, many of 
	the most popular trailerable sailboats use water, trapped in a 
	compartment in the bottom of the hull, as ballast, in place
	of cast iron or lead."

	The "concept" is popular in "Europe", not necessarily the MacGregor
	boat itself or in the UK.

	Mea culpa.

	------------------------------------------------------------------

	Other tid-bits from the brochure:

	Water ballast.
	--------------
	"No underwater metals to corrode. No thru hulls or sources of 
	leakage below the waterline. Nothing to work loose or refinish.
	No concentrated loads imposed by a keel."
	"For centuries,  ships have used water ballast. When the cargo 
	comes out, tanks in the bottom of the hull are filled with water 
	to give the ship stability."

	Low cost.
	---------
	Reasons: "Most obvious is the fact that water ballast is free,
	and lead or cast iron costs big money. MacGregor is one of the
	largest, highest volume sailboat manufacturers in the world. ..This
	volume has many cost advantages. Overhead and development costs
	can be spread over a large number of boats. ...Unlike most sailboat
	builders, we make large investments in manufacturing engineering
	-the art of creating production systems that are labor saving and
	foolproof. ....Many designers spend very little time in production
	plants and may tend to create boats that are extremely costly to
	build. We are highly skilled at building sailboats, and equally 
	skilled at designing boats that are easy to manufacture."

	Performance.
	------------
	"The '26 is exceptionally fast, faster than any trailerable boat
	that we have built before and certainly faster than any of it's
	trailerable competitors. The deep retractable centerboard provides
	superb upwind performance. A keel or fin accounts for a major share
	of drag, and retracting it makes for a very fast downwind ride."

But, says Practical Sailor:

	Water ballast.
	--------------
	"No underwater metals to corrode. No thru hulls or sources of 
	leakage below the waterline. Nothing to work loose or refinish.
	No concentrated loads imposed by a keel."

Ah, but the MacGregor hull isn't all that strong. What happens to the 
boat's ballast and stability if you hole the hull where it forms the 
bottom of the water ballast tank?  At least one MacGregor has split at 
the stem in moderate seas.

	We are highly skilled at building sailboats, and equally 
	skilled at designing boats that are easy to manufacture."

But MacGregor uses labor so unskilled that they can't use a fiberglass 
chopper gun properly. The boats are built quickly (four per day) with no 
slack in the schedule for delays. The result is often sloppy workmanship. 
Even when not hurried, the quality is below what would be acceptable to
the average experienced sailor. Many of the materials used are cheap.
Easy to manufacture should imply low cost but it doesn't necessarily
mean good design or quality or strength or durability. MacGregor leaves
the hulls in the mold 13 hours. The usual laminate takes at least a week
to fully cure. C&C even installs (or used to anyway) bulkheads, etc, in
the hull before the hull is removed from the mold to ensure that the
finished boat has the right shape. 

	Performance.
	------------
	"The '26 is exceptionally fast, faster than any trailerable boat
	that we have built before .....

Maybe MacGregor's previous boats were absolute turtles ....

        and certainly faster than any of it's trailerable competitors. 

That's a pretty strong claim. A J-24 is trailerable, and undoubtedly 
much faster. But the claim may depend on what MacGregor thinks its 
competitors are. 

        The deep retractable centerboard provides superb upwind 
        performance. A keel or fin accounts for a major share
	of drag, and retracting it makes for a very fast downwind ride."

Well, PS found the performance rather mediocre. No mainsheet traveler, 
under canvased for light winds, under rigged to be safe in heavy winds, 
poor pointing ability with a genoa due to the outboard shrouds, 
difficult to steer due to rudder and rudder pintle design, etc.

I don't mean to be especially critical of MacGregor. I am paraphrasing 
Practical Sailor's review. I've never looked closely at a MacGregor. 
This comparison does provide an interesting insight into the credibility
of statements builders make about their boats. By the way, the dealer 
margin on a MacGregor is 30%. I don't know what standard industry 
practice is.

"The boat was designed to have the performance of a modern 3/4 tonner"
says the builder of my boat. The boat was designed about 1976.  The
builder neglects to say whether or not the design goal was reached. I 
could claim that my 32 foot cutter is faster than any of its competition 
-- true if I define the competition as a Westsail 32 or a Southern Cross
31 or a Crealock 34 or an Alajuela 38 or a Hans Christian 38 or a Morgan 
Out Island 41 or etc. Not true if the competition is the other 32 foot
boats being sold today. Hans Christian makes the claim that their boats
are dry in 40 knot winds. Oh come now, be serious. 

Over half of MacGregor's boats are sold to people who are buying their 
first sailboat and many of whom don't even know how to sail. And 
MacGregor does sell lots of boats -- some 24 000 over the years.

    re: .5
    
    What happens to the ballast if you hole the hull? Nothing, provided
    the hole remains below the waterline.
    
    			Gregg

    While a  J-24 is trailerable, I'm not sure that it can be launched
    from a ramp. As I understand it the MacGregor can be launched from
    a  ramp  by 2 people. (I'm not recommending the MacGregor, because
    they  don't  seem  that well built, just pointing out why they can
    legitimately say that J-24s aren't their competitiors.)

--David Wittenberg

But, please note, they don't say who their competitors are! 

:-)

    
    I have read all of the other reply's here and,,,,,,,  well,,,,, I
    do agree with the analysis of some of them.  

    I owned and sailed a Venture 25',( the MacGregor upper class luxury 
    model....), for approx. 4 1/2 years.  We sailed out (in) Salem harbor 
    for most of those years.  Only once did I have the chance to sail in
    heavy wind and seas.  It was in Boston Harbor the first year I 
    owned it.  I'm not too sure that either one of us should have been
    there.  I know that I NEVER took that chance again... (family said 
    that if thats sailing there staying on the dock and watch!!)

    It did sail well in light to mod air on calm water (we always got 
    to where we were going), and seemed to point acceptably, lots of 
    side slip due to the narrow keel, but we got there.  Yes it is fast 
    down wind if you haul the keel up.  

    Self righting - Make sure you bolt the keel down, or if you go 
    over the keel falls into the hull and you have to pick it up by 
    hand (approx. 600#) GOOD LUCK
    
    Also, up until the summer of 1986 I had never sailed any other boat
    but that one. (other than 14' & 16'ers) It could be just a coincidence
    that in '76 we sailed on a friends Bristol, and then only two more
    times did we sail ours before we sold it!!!

    As far as trailering it, I used a 1979 Buick to haul (and believe
    me it is just that) it back and forth to the ocean.  If two people
    can get the thing out of the water to bring it home,, well they
    will have to have more practice and calmer days than I ever had.

    I am not saying that the boat is not safe but I would really look
    over the new ones real close.  The ones that they had at the boat
    show this year were not too exciting....  

    Just for information, the one that I sold was surveyed and found to
    be in very acceptable condition.  It was recommended that the cable
    that hauls the keel up be replaced, a few minor delamination spots
    and thats it.  

    The one that I owned was built in 1979 and it was much heavier that
    the ones they make now.  

    I joined the Boston Harbor Boat club this year.  Going to take 
    advantage of their Persons and Albins along with a few of the 
    courses they offer.

    Let us know how you decide..  Good luck

    `Charlie'
    

    Some time back I examined a German made boat that used water ballast.
    I think the name was Dehnler, but I'm not sure about the spelling.
    Didn't test it in the water, but I remember it had a little trolley
    arangement that rolled off the trailer for launching. I think it
    was available in 21, 23, and 25 foot configurations.

    
    re: 756.9
    
    Charlie, you mentioned at the end of your note that the Boston Harbor
    Club has Albins.  Do you know specifically which model?  Just curious,
    as I own a Vega.
    
    

    I'm curious. Lead is 13 times as dense as water, and the mix of
    resin and steel punchings common in many fiberglass boats is about
    7 times as dense as water. It's clear that water ballasted boats
    must either devote a lot of space to ballast, or not have much ballast
    mass. What is the weight of the MacGregor water ballast? Or, more
    to the point, what is the ballast ratio? Ballasted cruising boats
    have rations beginning at around 30-32% and maxing out at 40-42%.
    I'd be surprised if the MacGregor was even in that range (unless,
    or course, it's so lightly built it doesn't weight much).
    
    Incidentally, the mention of water ballast in ships is spurious.
    Ships carry a LOT of weight as cargo, and this is crucial to stability.
    A typical dry cargo ship may have cargo accounting for up to 70%
    of its displacement; a tanker possibly slightly more. When unloaded,
    these ships must be ballasted with something, and water is handiest,
    since it can be pumped out. But if necessary ships will be ballasted
    with anything that comes to hand - gravel, mud, etc (less common
    now than formerly). Water has no special virtue beyond being clean
    and easy to handle.
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

    re .3
    There are several Continental European builders who produce boats
    with water ballast. Two that I am aware of are Dehler and Jeannneau.
    In the UK they don't appear to have taken off I guess because of
    poor test reports in the yachting magazines. The two most popular
    "trailer sailers" in the UK are Swift and Jaguars both build centre
    boarders...... Any trailer sailers are suspect for anything other
    than short coasting around the UK due to the conditions...
    
      

    
    George, I'm not sure they have indicated the model of the Albin
    that they have.  The only info I have indicated that it is the 
    Albin 28.  I'm not too familiar with the Albin line, but hope to
    get use thoe sailing the larger boats with an inboard.
    
    

	Personal observations follow all return flames ignore ;-}....

	I look at the Mac 26 at the Boston sailboat show. NOT IMPRESSED!

	In fact after "thumping" the hull, I'd have a hard time convincing
	myself it is safe to sail on lake Quinsig in Worcester!

	Hardware - Tacky, mostly bend aluminum (ie pop-top hatch tie downs)
		   companion ladder is wood steps between aluminum tubes.

	Dangerous point I saw was a deck to overhead mirror (might be 
	metal but looked like glass) on the head bulkhead behind the
	(can't be called a galley!) portable cooker area.

	When I moved around the cabin, every move I bumped into something,
	and with one other person aboard, they had to move for me
	to get by.

	Greg

    My brother and I trailer our Mac Gregor 26 to various Colorado lakes.
    It takes us about 50 minutes for setup, loading and launch and about that
    amount of time at the end of the trip to get ready for the road.  With 
    almost 2 hours of over head we don't take an evening cruise around the 
    island but there is also a minimum road trip of three hours round trip.
    
    Retrailering the boat at a ramp with a dock along side is easy.  At a 
    ramp with no dock more work is required.  In that case we use a rope
    on the bow to pull the boat on to the trailer and the outboard to keep
    the boat lined up.  A  little slower but we have only had to do that
    once.

re .12
    The ballest weight is 1200 lbs.  Weight of the boat including ballest
    but not including stores or crew is 2850.  This comes out as a ratio 
    of 42%.  

re .15
>	Dangerous point I saw was a deck to overhead mirror (might be 
>	metal but looked like glass) on the head bulkhead behind the
>	(can't be called a galley!) portable cooker area.

    This mirror is plastic.  Less weight and no breakage.  

re.5
>Ah, but the MacGregor hull isn't all that strong. What happens to the 
>boat's ballast and stability if you hole the hull where it forms the 
>bottom of the water ballast tank?  At least one MacGregor has split at 
>the stem in moderate seas.

My brother and various crew took a ten week cruise from Seattle to Juneo
and return this summer in our 26 foot Macgregor.

In mid September we had the misfortune of striking a rock with the dagger
board on our 26 foot McGregor while doing about 5 knots.  The boat backed off
easily enough but we could not raise the dagger board for inspection.  No leaks
could be found in the cabin or the bilge.

We retreated to a sheltered cove and with a great deal of work extracted the
dagger board and found a large section of the trailing edge had been crushed as
it was forced backwards into the hull.  That day turned into a repair day rather
than a sail day.  A reasonable repair job was done on the spot with our
fiberglass repair kit.  (Sure takes a long time for epoxy to set up when you
have nothing to do but wait for it.) 

The next morning the cabin and bilge were still dry so we resumed the cruise.

Unknown to us the front of the dagger board had punched a large (2" by 4") hole
through the hull into the ballast tank.  It wasn't until we pulled the boat two
weeks later that the hole was discovered.  When the boat was lifted on the
slings, ballast water started gushing out. 

No change in the handling of the boat had been noticed even though it had 
been sailed on one tack then the other for hours at a time.  Heel during
these tacks was a normal 15-25 degrees.  Why didn't we loose our ballast
water?  Since the hole was in the dagger board trunk and below the water
line even when heeled, no water could get out because no air could get in.
The ballast was being held in place by the vacuum in the tank.  (The normal
condition of the filled ballast tank is about 150 gallons of water and about
1 quart of air.)  As soon as the boat was lifted the air could rush in the top
of the hole as the water escaped out the bottom. 

If the hull had been holed into the ballast tank near the water line and
then heeled far enough to bring the hole into the air, only the ballast above
the hole while heeled could escape.  The really bad case would be if the
ballast tank were holed on both sides near the water line.  Then the ballast
could escape causing more heel causing loss of more ballast etc.  The water
ballast system is more robust than it appears at first. 

Imagine a 2" by 4" hole 10" below the water line in your hull.  If your boat is
bigger you should imagine a bigger hole to keep the size of the leak
proportional.  What kind of problems would it cause you?  You're along the rocky
shores of Maine with 15' tides and the nearest harbor is 15 miles away.  Will
you make it? 

If my hull has to be holed, let it be into the ballast tank.  It's not as 
exciting that way.

Al  from the Windstrong

I would prefer to be sailing a boat that could withstand hitting a Maine 
ledge at 5 knots with no serious damage. Charterers demonstrated to 
their chagrin and my relief that our boat is such a boat. 

re .17:

But the water ballast tank on the MacGregor 26 is only a portion of the 
bottom of the boat. The hull could just as easily be holed elsewhere.

RE:.17 by AHOUSE::GREIST

Hi Al,

> My brother and various crew took a ten week cruise from Seattle to Juneo
> and return this summer in our 26 foot Macgregor.

And you made it back.  I still think you were sailing beyond the safe limits
of your boat.


> In mid September we had the misfortune of striking a rock with the dagger
> board on our 26 foot McGregor while doing about 5 knots... a large section 
> of the trailing edge {of the daggerboard} had been crushed as it was forced 
> backwards into the hull.  Unknown to us the front of the dagger board had 
> punched a large (2" by 4") hole through the hull into the ballast tank.  

I wonder what would have happened if you had hit another rock before or
after repairs to the board.  I suspect that you would have lost the board,
the question in my mind is would it have taken enough of the bottom with
it to matter.


> If my hull has to be holed, let it be into the ballast tank.  It's not as 
> exciting that way.

It is even less exciting if you have a hull (and keel) that can hit something
at five knots and not be holed.  The Mcgregor is built too lightly for my 
taste and comfort.  This is ok for what the boat is designed to do,  and 
that is a trailier sailor on small lakes and very sheltered water.  Lightness 
is great for this because it allows a larger boat to be towed behind a 
small car.  Lightness is NOT great when you hit something.


Phil

re.18

>I would prefer to be sailing a boat that could withstand hitting a Maine 
>ledge at 5 knots with no serious damage. Charterers demonstrated to 
>their chagrin and my relief that our boat is such a boat. 

Alan,  I agree with you.  No hole is better than any hole.

>But the water ballast tank on the MacGregor 26 is only a portion of the 
>bottom of the boat. The hull could just as easily be holed elsewhere.

.17 gives a hard way answer to the question "What happens to the water ballast
when the ballast tank is holed?"  It was interesting to find out that the
ballast tank acted as an inner liner for the admittedly light weight hull on the
Macgregor.  I don't have a drawing showing the layout for the ballast tank
so our policy is to keep off the rocks when possible.  As you point out 
the rest of the hull is bare and could be easily holed.  :-)

Al

	I owned a MacGregor 25 for 4 years and my wife and I launched and 
	retrieved it ourselves. I wouldn't want to do it every weekend and
	got moorings in Buzzards Bay , Mattapoisset; Narraganset Bay, East
	Greenwich and finally Boston Harbor, Wessagusset (Weymouth)

	On Buzzards Bay there were big winds and chop and it handled like a
	pig. On Narraganset it was fine as it was in Boston.

	I found that it pointed poorly. On the positive side, it planed in
	good winds and I had it up to 12knots in a blow. Thrilling ride!

	I wouldn't recommend one to my worst enemy. It is cheaply built, you
	get what you pay for and I bought a sail-away package, ha,ha,ha... and
	ended up buying $600 more in essentials.

	They put handles on 24" TV's and call them portable but you have to be
	Mr. T to carry it comfortably. Same with this trailerable boat, you
	won't want to do it too often.

	Also, I towed it behind a 79 Olds Regency - one of the mammoth V8 cars
	of yesteryear- and the boat controlled the car (bounce, shake, etc). 
	With today's downsized cars, I wouldn't want to do it unless I had a
	large wagon (Pontiac Safari size) or truck.

	I'ld recommend a used Catalina, Hunter or O'Day before and over this
	boat.
Larry