MacGregorSailors.com

K9Kampers wrote:

BOAT wrote: What are the differences between the two boats? They weight the same, right? Same hull pretty much? Same sails - I don't think the rudders are different are they? Could it be the rudders?

The M has an additional 300 lbs of permanent ballast over the X. The two hull shapes below the water line are different. Daggerboard vs swingkeel. Swivel mast vs fixed. Mast stay placement. Most M's are blue hulls...that could be it... the slower blue hull!

Maybe thats Roger's intent, to de-tune the M so that it doesn't push the envelope the way the X does!

Could be - the M is a lot heavier than the X and it drafts more water according to the specs. The X boat is faster on the motor too.
If adding one person slows the boat down just imagine what adding over 300 pounds would be like.
Maybe the answer is to try to slow down the X boat?

BOAT wrote:Maybe the answer is to try to slow down the X boat?

You M owners would just looooooooooove that, wouldn't you!

Next windy say I'm gonna take SeaSaw out and try furling in the jenny just about 10%.

Unfortunately, it will be problematic to determine if the resultant effect is due to a repositioning of the force on the sail, or if it's simply due to having less sail area.

Then again, when all is said and done, it doesn't matter, does it? A boat staying on its course but going 10% slower is still significantly faster than a boat that's rounded up and is doing 0.

DaveC426913 wrote:
Then again, when all is said and done, it doesn't matter, does it? A boat staying on its course but going 10% slower is still significantly faster than a boat that's rounded up and is doing 0.

Yes that is the whole point.

I was not aware that the M boat was ever faster than the X boat - is it supposed to be? I thought the X boat was supposed to be the lighter faster boat. I saw the X boat on a 90 hp merc outboard on a lake and it was defiantly faster than the M boat. I think the flat bottom makes it faster? (Or do I have it upside down?)

There are several ways these two "almost identical" boats are different and one or more or all of those differences can add up to explain the cause of the observations cited.

The is faster under motor, but the is slower under sail, and blue are the tail end Charlie's

DaveC426913 wrote: Next windy say I'm gonna take SeaSaw out and try furling in the jenny just about 10%.

*sigh* and yet Roger himself says otherwise:

If the boat wants to round up into the wind, unroll a bit more genoa, or let the mainsail out. This will move the center of pressure on the rig forward, and make is less likely to round up into the wind and waves

http://www.macgregor26.com/photo_galler ... eather.htm

Catigale wrote:The is faster under motor, but the is slower under sail,

So ... is faster in both cases...

To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan; “Everyone is entitled to the facts, but not his own facts.”

Now to quote Rodger MacGregor on the comparisons between the , and the new (at the time) ;

PERFORMANCE

The new boat is significantly faster under both power and sail, and quite a bit faster under main alone. We compared two identically rigged and loaded boats, a 26X and the new 26M, both equipped with 50 hp Mercury Bigfoot engines.

As the much quoted Highlander would say, “ I'm just saying, that's all!”

Ray

DaveC426913 wrote:

DaveC426913 wrote: Next windy say I'm gonna take SeaSaw out and try furling in the jenny just about 10%.

*sigh* and yet Roger himself says otherwise:

If the boat wants to round up into the wind, unroll a bit more genoa, or let the mainsail out. This will move the center of pressure on the rig forward, and make is less likely to round up into the wind and waves

http://www.macgregor26.com/photo_galler ... eather.htm

Yes, that is correct - there is a lot more weather helm on my boat if i use only the main sail. That's why I always start adding back in some genoa from the furler after I reef the main.

It looks like in the pictures where the boat is close to shore they had the genoa fully furled but in the pictures where they are further out to sea they have some genoa out.
If that is true, then this is what I can surmise from the pictures:


A. my guess is that they headed out of the harbor on a reefed main with the genoa furled. The top of the main is at the genoa hound - that's the first (and only) reef point on the stock factory sail (I have one)
(Don't we all reef our main in the harbor when it's really blowing??):


I know those waters and that picture looks just like the rock outcroppings at Brighton Ave between Arch Rock and Little Treasure Cove - at least that's what I think it would look like back in 1999 or so.
If I am correct they are only 4000 feet south of the Newport Harbor Mouth in this picture and probably less than 2000 feet from shore - it's really quite a blow!


B. The boat started getting more weather helm the stronger the wind got and further out they got:


The front of the boat is high - that means a lot of force on the aft - in a blow you want the front of the boat to be LOW so it cuts in and tracks straight.

C. So it looks like they added in some genoa as they got further out and the wind got stronger.



I can't add anymore pictures because Heath only allows three pictures per post, but, I think in most of the pictures in the bad stuff the boat is nosing down into the waves - that's what you want. I would need to go back and review the video to see the boat in the water but I would assume their best sailing was probably with a little head sail out pulling the front of the boat down and into the waves and making it track straighter thru the chop. Don't know - we would need to ask Captain Mike Inmon to get the skinny on how he piloted this weather. I suspect he was probably a little uncomfortable out there even though Roger seems to think that the little boat was dryer than the big boat. It's still pretty scary I would think. Maybe Captain Mike will tell us about it some time.

NiceAft wrote:
Now to quote Rodger MacGregor on the comparisons between the , and the new (at the time) ;

PERFORMANCE

The new boat is significantly faster under both power and sail, and quite a bit faster under main alone. We compared two identically rigged and loaded boats, a 26X and the new 26M, both equipped with 50 hp Mercury Bigfoot engines.

But of course, he was marketing the new boat!

Imagine if he said 'we compared the two boats side by side and found that the new boat underperforms to its predecessor in every way'. Oops!

K9Kampers wrote:

NiceAft wrote:
Now to quote Rodger MacGregor on the comparisons between the , and the new (at the time) ;

PERFORMANCE

The new boat is significantly faster under both power and sail, and quite a bit faster under main alone. We compared two identically rigged and loaded boats, a 26X and the new 26M, both equipped with 50 hp Mercury Bigfoot engines.

But of course, he was marketing the new boat!

Imagine if he said 'we compared the two boats side by side and found that the new boat underperforms to its predecessor in every way'. Oops!

Don't you wish

I don't know much about the performance of the X boat but I can tell you that neither boat is going to be much good in really true bad open ocean weather - the storms you WILL encounter on an ocean crossing (not IF, absolutely WILL encounter) are much more violent than what is in that rather rare Pacific Squall in the MacGregor video.

Look at a a world satellite picture on ANY day of the year and you will see a steady train of storms that always cross the pacific ocean.

http://en.sat24.com/en/wd/world

There is no way to cross ANY of the big oceans without entering that wall that exists in the middle of all of them:



It's not that I think the M boat would not survive the storm, it's just that I don't think the M can SAIL in the storm. I can't imagine the M boat navigating in that kind of weather, even the big boats get blown off course. Provisioning a 26 foot boat for a crossing starts with 3 months of food because the odds are 20% you will dis-mast and need to hunker down and survive for a long time - it would take luck to make a TransPac without dismasting such a tiny boat because the odds are at least 50% you will turn turtle in at least one of the storms you will encounter.

Learning to sail better sometimes means knowing your limitations. I must admit, I have never seen a video of an X boat in the same conditions. Perhaps if we could find one we can see how they handled the weather helm.

BOAT wrote: The front of the boat is high - that means a lot of force on the aft - in a blow you want the front of the boat to be LOW so it cuts in and tracks straight.

... the boat is nosing down into the waves - that's what you want.

SeaSaw is definitely nose down when hard heeling. This is how I keep my cabin windows so clean!

DaveC426913 wrote:

BOAT wrote: The front of the boat is high - that means a lot of force on the aft - in a blow you want the front of the boat to be LOW so it cuts in and tracks straight.

... the boat is nosing down into the waves - that's what you want.

SeaSaw is definitely nose down when hard heeling. This is how I keep my cabin windows so clean!

I must assume your joking because it takes more than 55 degrees to even get close to the windows on the M boat.