MacGregorSailors.com

NiceAft wrote:

BOAT wrote:What is it for? Is it real sturdy so it gives you a place to screw on the shades and stuff? Is that what they are for?

The trim has one function, only one function. It is there for design, and that's all. What you do with it is up to an owner.

Some don't enjoy that look at all. Me, I thought the window trim gave a nice look to a rather clean, stark appearance.

Ray

Hey Ray!

As I recall, the "wud" in the earlier models serves as a backing substrate for the window mounting screws to screw into from the exterior of the boat. Later the factory switched to dedicated fasteners instead, so no backing to screw into was needed.

BTW- the brass screws in your installation really enhances the look, J!

-B.

Now I have to crawl under the snow ladened tarp on Nice Aft (2005 ) and check it out.

Ray

NiceAft wrote:Now I have to crawl under the snow ladened tarp on Nice Aft (2005 ) and check it out.

Ray

I see Ray, now that your curiousity has been "piqued" you have to go and have a "peek".

(It should be melted almost off this week, by the forecast).

NiceAft wrote:

BOAT wrote:What is it for? Is it real sturdy so it gives you a place to screw on the shades and stuff? Is that what they are for?

The trim has one function, only one function. It is there for design, and that's all. What you do with it is up to an owner.

Some don't enjoy that look at all. Me, I thought the window trim gave a nice look to a rather clean, stark appearance.

Ray

Traditional - boats had wood there. Most boats I had been in had wood there all wood - then the window. The trim sort of harkens back to those days of traditional wood bulkheads with port holes in them. I think it's a look that most people like and everyone imagines to mean: 'ships' and stuff. Add brass and you really get to that old porthole thing.

Today the boat builders like to put a double wall there - they add another wall about 2 inches out, put in another opening, and put all the window dressing behind the wall. That was my first thought when looking at the MAC - I thought, it needs a second bulkhead - but I calculated the weight above CG and decided it unfavorable. (The same reason I scrapped my plans for wood cabinetry above the galley).

A lightweight "trim" is a pretty good idea for aesthetics, but I was assuming a good factory feature to help attach window dressing. I guess that's not what the original function was. I have never seen one of those 'trims' in real life so I was not sure how the factory attached them.

I'm still under the delusion that "If I add weight to the boat somewhere I must remove weight somewhere else" and also that "Though shalt add NO weight above CG", so 'boat' has been a pretty good test of my joinery skills to date. I actually LOST several pounds by removing the heavy fake leather roll cushions full of batting and replacing them with lightweight cloth and foam. It's enough weight for an autopilot.

I know that sooner or later I will not be able to keep the weight the same so I'm really anal about adding weight above CG now - it's one of those "Thou Shalt Not" things, probably silly to all of you..
It's not easy being autistic.

I too have been very careful about weight on Luna Sea, which is why we put up hanging hooks for canvas bags rather than cabinets and why the interior is still bone-stock. My limit is when the outboard skeg touches the water with nobody aboard, I know I've gone too far.

adding weight like overhead cubbies or weight aloft is ok as long as it is counter measured to match like I have added a lot of weight @ or below water line extra batt,s , 12 miles of electrical wiring ,Battery wiring , house wiring , tool kits , spare hardware , canned products , water jugs , beer kegs , 2 elect coolers , one of the reasons I can flog so much sail out there

J

yeah, it's an interesting concept that has been proven by The Highlander Boat and also by Luna Sea (Matts boat) in different ways in that Matt likes to load up his boat with with an entire Jr. High School on a regular basis. The thing is that Matt has his students trained to be in the right place on the boat. Add to that the incredible amount of sail that The Highlander can get aloft that would tip over any of the rest of us makes a person think. Both boats seem to have no trouble at all throwing around 4500 pounds: Something is going on here?
My instinct tells me that the MAC would perform just as well as any A rated boat for open ocean use if it had the ballast. The thing is that the added ballast would require heavier rigging, and bigger rudders. (All things that would kill the trailer aspect of the boat).
But still, it makes you think - 'What If'?

What if: The ballast tank could hold another 1000 pounds of water? (Hmmm )
What if: You put 1200 pounds of permanent ballast in the bottom?

What If, - - - Maybe attempting a TransPac crossing is not all that crazy an idea in a MAC? Just add 1000 pounds of provisions to the bottom of the boat and secure them in a way so they stay in place even upside down? And then beef up the rigging - add a huge (removable) spade rudder to the outboard and Viola! An A rated ocean crossing boat! (A SLOW ocean crossing boat), but hey,

it could work,



right?

Well, I'm just thinkin' out loud, that's all - I mean if we are adding window trim why not just add a few more things?

So lets summarize:
More fixed and removable ballast and more secure storage - indicates a different hull layout
Different rigging
Different Rudder(s)

Yeah, that sounds like a weekend mod - one where I go and buy a different boat

Seriously, the biggest reason I do not go into big open water is the lack of keel to keep the boat on course when waves overtake me.

BOAT,

You really need to go research some early Macsailor history and find some Mad Mike stories. Crossing the pacific was a plan of his.

Ray

P.S. Seahouse, the weather is getting better, so I hope to check out those screws. Live and learn

The hull is perfectly survivable, as much as any 26' hull would be. This does mean you can be broached in 8 foot waves, so you're taking that inherent risk on any boat of this size. Presuming one accepts that risk, then this is how I'd do it:

A single piece composite mast/daggerboard. This is a single-piece carbon fiber wing 40' long, terminating in a 500 lb. lead keel bulb. It goes straight through the daggerboard trunk and up to the top of the mast. Above the deck just abaft the mast foot, it's held in place by a strong through rod bolted to the deck. The wing retains its width all the way to the top for strength, and retains is aerodynamic NACA 0012 profile all the way up. Twin spreader sets reaching to the top of the mast hold the entire assembly in compression on the deck surface with dyneema stays. There is no attachment below the waterline; the stays hold the assembly down against the through-bolt on deck.

An aft track mounts the mainsail, and the boom roller-furls so you can automatically reef the mainsail to wind conditions to keep a perfect heel. I'd run a 90% jib to the mast top (about the same size as the 110% overall) and put it on a self-tacking boom to make the boat easily single-handed and capable of being sailed from inside the boat on an autopilot.

This requires no modifications to the hull at all, and puts all the dynamic forces on the monocoque carbon wing. The hull need only rotate and float, with no strong flexural forces incumbent upon it and no failure points such as the mast foot or daggerboard trunk.

Voila, now you have rigging as strong as anything out there.

Next I'd pull off the large outboard and replace it with a serious blue water pintle and a large, strong, and aerodynamic rudder (along with a spare kept under the aft-berth. I'd re-use the existing rudder brackets as jack-plate bases for twin 6hp outboards. This gives you motor redundancy in case of failure, 12hp if necessary, and the ability to run at 5 knots on a single motor for maximum efficiency.

Finally I'd seal the ballast gate and fill the ballast tank with fresh water, giving you 135 gallons of freshwater capacity.

Now you've got a blue-water capable Mac, and you haven't even done anything permanent to it. Of course, you'll want to be prepared to spend $50K to build that wing, but its still cheaper than the cheapest passage makers out there.

I don't understand the wing shape. How can it be one piece from the bottom of the dagger-board all the way to the top of the mast - would that mean the mast is 2 feet wide? How does that work?

I like all of it but I can't picture the mast part. It's sure sounds great.

Also, you are bringing up that roller boom thing again - still a "must have" that is alive in my brain ALL THE TIME - ever since I have switched to slugs I have constantly noodled how I am going to have a reefing boom - It's an idea I just can't let go of - In fact I am seriously considering buying another main with a bolt rope just for experimentation, but I always think I am fooling myself because most guys on this site are smarter than me and if it were possible someone would have posted it by now.
I really wonder if the answer just might be a carbon fiber boom box with a roller inside of it. That resolves a lot of issues with the MAC setup like the mid mounted main sheet block and the lack of back-stay.

Also, a carbon fiber boom box with a roller (essentially, a main-sheet "foot furler" inside of it) would allow the use of the factory goose-neck which turns out to be surprisingly stout and reliable. I have gained a lot of respect for that factory goose-neck after all these years.

The one problem that remains is getting the main into the mast and back out again smoothly. I still have not come up with a device to do that yet.

Reefing boom sounds cool, and can be nice on a big boat, but seems overkill for our Macs. With slugs in the mast track, lubricated with silicon spray, the sail easily goes up and down. The Mac Pac lazy jack system makes raising and lowering the main much more convenient, and single line reefing setup makes it easy to put the first reef on the main.

Not sure about the wingmast... That would not be able to rotate so there would be a two foot "flat" area in the luff of the sail. No good. I do like the idea of twin small outboards replacing the large one and a real rudder on the back. If the details could be worked out I might be inclined to actually try that. Maybe with twin ten hps.
Since I trailer the boat very little I could msybe see myself putting permanent lead ballast in.

Re weight I do not think these boats benefit from being kept light in terms of sailing. I have a fair amount of weight in mine. Also inside lead added. Tools 18 gal gas 18 gallons water Ect. In flat water she still does 16 k with ballast in. With etec 60 stock.

Putting overhead cubbies in will not harm the stability of any Mac.

Even if fitted for crossing an ocean the boat will still be a very uncomfortable ride. And why? Are there swamps flats and shallow water you are itching to explore at your destination? 100 yards away from where I now sit at anchor there are three. THREE heavy sub 30 ft fiberglass keelboats that could be had for 1000 or less. If you put ten grand into any of then you could have a blue water capable boat. I could get any if them ready in a few months or less. Haul paint overhaul rudder, new dyneema stays, go online for used sails, source late model used 15hp outboard. Roach bomb the inside, wash anything salvageable and recover the cushions. Provision and done. Now go anywhere in the carribbian on a 12 grand boat you can walk away from. Or sell. Or if you get even 9 months adventure out of it, give away and fly home.

A fifth of the price of a carbon wingmast, with better performance and comfort.

Ix

Yes, it seems a lessen is in all this. Something about weight in the bottom of the boat.