It's Time for bigger rudders!

[marsanden]

Sorry to hear we're both having troubles, but in my case, they were totally my fault.

What kind of troubles are you having, frank?

[mikelinmon]

I was going to add my 2 cents worth but you guys got it right. The replies were perfect. Balance is the final word. The genoa reef is always going to be too full therefore you must reef deeper than needed to get the boat upright enough to steer. The one thing we can't get around is physics. High wind will produce high drag needing more power needing eventually a larger boat! In the end you can't sail beyond a certain wind speed depending on direction and sea state. But if you reef the main to MacGregor standard reef position and very deep reef the genoa you will be able to sail in pretty bad conditions.
Mike Inmon

[Andy26M]

I also have a stock 150 genoa on a FF2 furler.

One of the things I've played with when using the genny reefed to where it is all forward of the mast (i.e. less than the size of 100 jib), is re-routing the sheets to the cabin-top jib tracks. This allows much closer sheeting (the sheets are not outside the shrouds). By keeping the cars all the way aft on the tracks and adjusting the furler line to match as best as possible, you can get the furled genny as flat as possible. Also, while it is going to be a little harder on the sail, I am not convinced that when sailing the stock genoa partially furled, you really want it wrapped tightly - a little bit of a "sloppy" wrap seems to take some of the belly out of the sail - this may be different, though, depending on whether you have a UV strip and what type/weight it is.

Being able to keep the partially furled genny trimmed closer to the wind is going to help, though not necessarily solve, your inability to recover after a round-up.

The conditions you're describing here are exactly why I have the following items on my wish list for as soon as they make sense:

- 135% Genoa, RF with luff pad
- heavier Main with 2 or 3 reefs and a cunningham
- rigid vang

Sailing my M in gusty conditions I've also found that sometimes it's just worth it to leave the Main slightly undertrimmed in order combat the rounding up.

You can also experiment with the traveler in combination with differing Main trim to possibly see an effect on rounding up (very dependent on headsail) - like many other things on a Mac, the effect is not exactly the same as the traveler on a keel boat so the best thing to do is just mess with it and see what happens.

- Andy

[beene]

Because it's not a sailboat... it's a powersailor.

Truer words have never been spoken.

I will just have to accept that fact as what you say and describe, and others have reiterated, is painfully true.

All that said, I bought the Mac for a reason, and that has not changed. It performs well enough accepting that it is a "compromise" kind of boat.

I may someday change over to a 30 something Swan or Beneteau, but for now, I am happy with my Mac.

G

[delevi]

I don't entirely agree with that. I would agree a couple of years ago when I was ready to sell the boat due to pure frustration, expecting true sailboat peformance, but with enough mods, the Mac can be every bit of a true sailboat... let's just say 80% for the sake of SWAG. That with the power sailor benefits, a worthy compromise. Not so sure it's worthy with the stock setup, but I guess I paid my dues on that end, getting it to where it is today. Still not a keelboat, but that's OK. Being able to sail in 35 kts wind in open ocean with respectable control and speed, complete confidence in the vessel's safety and the benefits of a powersailor, I'll take it.

Leon

[beene]

I wish I knew what it was like to sail your version of a Mac M.

She's pretty tricked out for sure.

I only have my stock M to go by, and like you said back then, when yours was stock, she can be pretty frustrating at times. Perhaps more so for me as I still own another boat that is a "sailboat" only. Her hull is completely different than my M. Fat in the middle, narrow at the stern, deep in the middle, shallow at the stern. I am very used to how she handles, and so far, I simply cannot get my M to perform the same way.

That being said, the M does handle many things better than my 565. Waves, wake from other big power boats stops my 565 in her tracks, she's too light. You think the Mac is like a bobber, my 565 drafts 9" with the keel up and only has 350lb of lead keel weight. I have filled the storage compartments with bags of water softener salt to add ballast. BTW her keel is a jack screw and takes about 90 rotations to lower.

I just love opening the rope clutch Bill installed on my M for the keel control line and watch the keel just plop into the water vs 90 cranks

My 565 also has a max hull speed of about 5mph and as you are well aware, we can hit higher numbers than that with only one sail up on our Macs.

Cheers

G

[Moe]

Before this thread ends, I want to address something else for Bob:

Yeah, there's no rise in the under-water hull as its line travels aft. The M's trailing edge of the hull is still well below waterline, for powering stability and planing no doubt.

Actually, there is a bit of rise, part of a convex curve in the keel called "rocker," which contributes to the bow-high attitude under power. Some wakeboard boats have rocker to cause the boat to plow through the water bow-high and generate a larger wake. This also delays planing, which compounds the problem of using a smaller 50HP motor.

This is the reason many powersailor owners operate with the motor fully trimmed down to lift the stern. The problem with operating the motor this way is that the prop shaft isn't parallel to the direction of travel, which can cause hard torque steer to starboard, something Geoff experiences, especially with that very heavy outboard, which also penalizes sailing performance.

This, and the lack of longitudinal stability, especially in quartering or following seas, from the softer than powerboat chines, are some of the compromises you have to put up with on the powering side.

Makes me think that rather than bigger rudders, one should move the rudders aft about a foot or so. like, on a aluminum/stainless chassis...with linkage - adding more steering leverage instead of surface-area to the rudders. Chassis could also double as a transom step/swim platform.

This would also allow installation of Bennett or Lenco trim tabs which could lift the stern while allowing the outboard to be trimmed up vertical, where the prop is parallel to the direction of travel. It may not be as outrageous an idea as it seems on the surface.

[Moe]

That being said, the M does handle many things better than my 565. Waves, wake from other big power boats stops my 565 in her tracks, she's too light. You think the Mac is like a bobber, my 565 drafts 9" with the keel up and only has 350lb of lead keel weight.

But even with the keel down at 2' 10" draft, the 565 draft is probably no deeper than the M rudders so it should be able to sail in water as shoal, even downwind. For upwind work, the 565 has half the draft, and you may find it has as good or better VMG upwind with the 565 despite the shorter water line.

I have filled the storage compartments with bags of water softener salt to add ballast. BTW her keel is a jack screw and takes about 90 rotations to lower.

Those are some of the reasons we went with the 2' 4" wing keeled C-18. Its higher displacement helps in waves/wakes as well, even though it's not as fast as lighter boats.

What the smaller boats don't have, of course, is the massive increase in cabin room and storage of the Macs, nor the faster than hull speed motoring. You pays your money and make your choice. Different strokes for different folks.

[Currie]

Actually, there is a bit of rise, part of a convex curve in the keel called "rocker," which contributes to the bow-high attitude under power. Some wakeboard boats have rocker to cause the boat to plow through the water bow-high and generate a larger wake. This also delays planing, which compounds the problem of using a smaller 50HP motor.

I stand corrected There is definitely some rise. I think we're saying pretty much the same thing - most sailboats bring the hull back to, or above the water line as it runs aft - leaving the "belly" and(keel/daggerboard) as more of a pivot-point for the rudders to work around. I agree with everything you've said. Altough, I suppose that this configuration is really not too far off of a traditional bustle config, other than running a bit wide.

This would also allow installation of Bennett or Lenco trim tabs which could lift the stern while allowing the outboard to be trimmed up vertical, where the prop is parallel to the direction of travel. It may not be as outrageous an idea as it seems on the surface.

Very interesting. Sounds like we have volunteer!

[Frank C]

... one should move the rudders aft about a foot or so. ... Chassis could also double as a transom step/swim platform.

This would also allow installation of Bennett or Lenco trim tabs which could lift the stern while allowing the outboard to be trimmed up vertical, where the prop is parallel to the direction of travel. It may not be as outrageous an idea as it seems on the surface.

Trim tabs are an idea I've often pondered. There's scant transom space to mount them, but could fit absent my port side stern ladder. One reason I've only pondered ... costs exceed 500. The other reason, when heeling it becomes a submerged fin. Could hurt, but I guess it might even be trimmed to help when sailing.

[Gerald Gordon]

I think the one thing that many have not understood is that given the hull shape of the X and M these boats naturally roll, or heel if you wish. As natural as breathing. They roll alot.

In order to controll the heeling reaction the boat has to be equipped in a way which allows for very good sail control. It is not enough to have one reef point on the main. The main should lend itself to being adjusted to allow the wind only enoungh surface to heel the boat the recommended 20 degrees or so.

I could not imagine, nor would I want to, sail with a 150% front sail and full main. Any wind speed above 15 knots will heel the boat too much and if you can't take down some sail sailing may be a bit tense and the boat won't steer well, if at all.

[Moe]

Here's a couple of MacGregor line drawings I added to to visualize the roll and the relative positions of passenger and fuel weight. The X drawing was slightly canted and I didn't try to straighten it up.



It helped me visualize a point Daniel (baldbaby2000) made about "railmeat" being less effective on these boats once the boat heels.

Even with just a working jib, I felt the X would've started performing better with a mainsail reef around 15 knots.
--
Moe

[waternwaves]

That diagram indicates the M is a taller boat....... (at the companionway slider hatch) ???

I am not sure, can any dealer help us out here?

[Moe]

As I recall, I didn't scale the drawings, at least individually. I just copied and pasted from the MacGregor drawings into a new one. I guess if one wanted to compare something on the boats of known values (beam?), one could count the pixels across each boat and see if they are scaled the same.

--
Moe

[beene]

I thought the M was taller

Does the X have 6' standing headroom

Maybe it's just the 2 rows of windows vs 1 that's throwing me off

Visual trick perhaps...

G