NiceAft wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:03 am
BOAT,
The only thing I disagree with in the above post, is about the daggerboard in the M being ballasted by the water that is inside when the daggerboard is lowerred. That water doesn’t become a ballast; while submerged, it is the same weight as the water around it. That submerged fin is what gives resistance to movement. The water in the actual ballast tank does not become a factor until it is higher than the water surface surrounding it.
You correct 0 ballast is not the right word for me to use zero ballast is neutral - the flooded daggerboard is as heavy or even heavier than anything else your going to put down there that is not made of steel - it's just not a huge difference
The black boat project actually had a weighted bulb version that worked the best under sail but it added a LOT of weight to the boat and made motoring performance really bad.
The biggest problem with a 25 foot waterline displacement sailboat is hull speed - no matter what you do the hull speed is still 6.9 knots. As we have all learned the hard way the best way to deal with heeling is to reef sails. The MAC already carries too much sail for it's weight. It's a tall rig (I can only speak for 'boat' - not sure how tall the X is) and tall boats heel a lot. That's why people like the Catalina 38 - a big heavy fat boat low in the water that has a short strong stubby mast. That boat can sail through a hurricane.
A MacGregor 26 will never be a Catalina 38 and no one should ever think they can turn the MAC into one. The boat is what it is.
When people start comparing things like that you end up with the kind of idiot youtube videos that were posted about the X boat on the other post about ballast. People have all kinds of expectations for these boats that are not realistic.
I always say, if you wanted to sail a boat that performed like a CAT38 why in the hull did you buy a MAC26???