26 M Ballast

A forum for discussing topics relating to MacGregor Powersailor Sailboats

Moderators: kmclemore, beene, NiceAft, Catigale, Hamin' X

J Dower
Just Enlisted
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:18 pm

26 M Ballast

Post by J Dower » Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:25 am

Does anybody know what the 300 Lbs of ballast in the M consists of, and where it is located ? I cannot find a description in any of the Mac advertising literature. Is it lead that was place in the tank, or maybe they used regular cast iron like the old Venture keels ? And how is it attached, it would be interesting to know if they simply glassed a steel plate in the F/G along the bottom.

User avatar
Dimitri-2000X-Tampa
Admiral
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 5:36 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Tampa, Florida 2000 Mercury BigFoot 50HP 4-Stroke on 26X hull# 3575.B000

Post by Dimitri-2000X-Tampa » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:12 am

I believe it is just a bunch of extra fiberglass resin down around the base of the daggerboard trunk. Supposed to further strenghten the trunk as well as add the ballast weight.

User avatar
Terry
Admiral
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:35 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada. '03 26M - New Yamaha 70

Post by Terry » Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:31 am

Here is a quote from the MacGregor site literature

STABILITY

To enhance stability at lower heel angles to make up for the V bottom, we have added a permanent ballast of 300 pounds inside of the water tank.

The ballast is in a sealed container surrounding the daggerboard trunk. The ballast is bonded to both the hull and the trunk, giving the trunk a great deal more strength. The 300 pounds of permanent ballast replaces an equal amount of water ballast, so the removable water ballast amounts to 1150 lbs. Total ballast is still 1450 pounds.

The new boat is about 200 pounds heavier in its trailering condition.

User avatar
Duane Dunn, Allegro
Admiral
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:41 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Bellevue, Wa '96 26x, Tohatsu 90 TLDI and Plug In Hybrid Electric drive
Contact:

Post by Duane Dunn, Allegro » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:08 am

Yep, Dimitri is correct. It's a big blob of fiberglass resin poured in around the daggerboard trunk. Don't expect to find any metal in there. There is none.

User avatar
Richard O'Brien
Captain
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 8:20 am
Location: Lakewood, CO. Mercury 60hp bigfoot M0427B404

It can't be just resin?

Post by Richard O'Brien » Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:53 pm

Allright , maybe not metal ,but some kind of filler is required. The amount of heat generated by that much resin curing would fry the QE2's bilge? any Ideas ?

waternwaves
Admiral
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while

Post by waternwaves » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:35 pm

I'll guess, glass bead filler , Temperature insensitive, dimensionally stable, bonds to epoxy, heavier than poly, and is cheap

User avatar
Terry
Admiral
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:35 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada. '03 26M - New Yamaha 70

Ballast material?

Post by Terry » Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:05 am

But WaternWaves, you have a designers design review posting with a link to R.Perry's review that indicates the ballast is lead, didn't you read it?

User avatar
Duane Dunn, Allegro
Admiral
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:41 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Bellevue, Wa '96 26x, Tohatsu 90 TLDI and Plug In Hybrid Electric drive
Contact:

Post by Duane Dunn, Allegro » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:11 am

Perry may think it's lead but it is not. One of the people here with a M was mounting a depth transducer inside the ballast tank. Apparently there is an access hatch to the tank. He had posted a picture in which you could clearly see the big block of clear resin next to the daggerboard trunk. Apparently the hatch into the tank is there so they can place the resin after the hull and tank are assembled.

waternwaves
Admiral
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while

review timing...

Post by waternwaves » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:39 am

Awww Terry, was that done with more than a slight tongue in cheek smile....? lol Do you accuse me of waxing philosophic, or perhaps trying to subtly to get my point across....lol by citation of an author that may have said something that I agree with.........Say it aint so....heheheheh


First of all, my Guess (answer) on glass fillers was an observation about fillers, after Duane and Dimitri (and they did not describe that they had drilled, Xrayed, magswept, or Rf probed the location) observed and commented no metal in that location, (Something I have not checked myself) and additional comments about the curing difficulties of such a thick pour are valid. If two individuals have gone and checked on the boat and found the absence of metal in that location, I would guess there is a possibility they are correct. And my answer was an attempt to help identify what to look for to determine the actual configuration. (Notice my use of the word Guess in my initial statement) Next time, I give a reference on how to easily check for microspheres, poly beads or glass filler.

Bob Perry's review was based on information availabe to him at the time (early M), and a 48" long model, ( A version that I have never sailed lol being over 72" long myself....). and was not a full in depth product test or examnination.

Having not had the same access to all of sources Mr Perry had, nor been privy to calls or corresondence, I cannot determine where any differences his observations and the observatons of others originated from. Suffice to note, workmanship details, design, fit, rigging, and on the water perfomance in various conditions are elements of a particular boat that I can make observations on, where I do not have to preface my statements with "I'll guess",


So yes, I have read his review of the M, and many others boats and authors, Those reviews were not easily indexed or retrievable off the internet... in fact reviewing many forums and magazines, there is a considerable amount of information on the web that does not easily index with web crawling spiders., and is still most efficiently retrieved manually.

Further guesses on this issue of ballast led me to some additional questions tho. Resin and catalyst is just barely cheaper than carbon/scrap steel, and is not cheaper than lead. (and who knows if that is true for Roger, who buys tank cars of resin at a time) So given macgregors penchant for saving costs..... a metal detector swung under and over the area or Xray might provide some further insight. But until someone cuts it out to check it in its entirety.. quick, simple and cheap still seem to be the overriding issues... (handling lead in california is not fun, nor cheap) (they are talking about permitting dive shops now for the weight belts.

I have seen others claim so and so designer, or such and such firm said this or that in reference to many sailing issues over the years. But like Moe reiterated in another thread, IF I want to know what someone actually wanted to go on the record with, I look at their writings. Most get things right a great majority of the time. But there are literally thousands of "technical improvements" with considerable accolade that failed beacuse the idea did not live up to claims or cost too dang much.
No one is batting 1.000 with design ideas...

I take what anyone says about a boat with an open mind, and if questions come to mind, Whenever popssible, I go out and check. Since I only have a few boats right now, (and none of them an M boat) I like to read what others have directly observed. If I had more time in the boat, or could bring my equipment to one, and someone was willing to let me drill holes or X Ray, I could answer the issue with considerable surety.

however in this case, I limited myself to the material preferred possiblities with respect to chemical compatibility, strength, curing time, distortion, and cost.

And as I have stated several times, There are continual small changes in Macregors from the factory.

So yes I have read it,

So with all the knee slapping mirth I can muster on this day, ..

Enjoy all,

Back to putting things in the boat,
Last edited by waternwaves on Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

J Dower
Just Enlisted
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:18 pm

Post by J Dower » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:01 pm

waternwaves - do you know what the density is for resin ? I could not find a reference but I am guessing just heavier than water, so about 70 #/cf. That would make a 300# block something larger than 4 cubic feet. A fairly large and expensive blob to fit in the tank. I am not saying that isn't the answer, but it would not have been my first guess.

I know that handling lead is a problem today, which brings me back to my original speculation that it is probalby cast iron or steel.

Seems like Macgregor would have given us a better description of this ballast somewhere.

waternwaves
Admiral
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while

Post by waternwaves » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:46 pm

J
Material properties for polyster resins can be found here

404 Tooling Polyester Resin-

and is a aproximate for most others poly +/- 10%

Specific Gravity
1.05-1.15

Weight.Gallon
8.74-9.57lbs

Note that even from one factory the SG and W varies almost 10%, let alone vendor differnces.

for Vinylester a typical again +/-10%

Specific Gravity
1.08- 1.22

Properties of reinforcement fibres (hopefully which are not wasted in a big lump in the hull)

Note that the following are fibre properties only, and are not generally achievable in a laminate. Reference: fibre manufacturers


all density values +/- 3%

----------------E-glass --- Para aramid, high modulus -- Carbon,high

Density, g/cm3 2.54...............1.45.............................1.76

Coefficient of
thermal expansion,
10-6m/mK.......+5.0................-3.5.............................-0.36

enjoy

User avatar
Terry
Admiral
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:35 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada. '03 26M - New Yamaha 70

M Ballast

Post by Terry » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:42 pm

It aint so WaternWaves, Sorry if my tone sounds off, in retrospect I can see the ambiguity. One thing does get me wondering though, If Roger MacGregor went to all the trouble of providing a 48" scale model and brochure, then it must have been important to get Perry's endorsement for his product. I suppose an independent expert review helps boost sales. That being said wouldn't it be safe to assume that Roger provided all precise specs for Perry to print, and wouldn't Perry be sure to verify the specs before putting them to public print, he does have a reputation to protect doesn't he? Since I own an M Iwould like to believe in the higher quality material.

waternwaves
Admiral
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while

Higher quality material....???

Post by waternwaves » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:10 pm

Terry,
Interesting thought, tho I suppose a review on sailnet is probably a little esoteric for most Macgregor buyers..(whats a sailnet) As near as I can figure, Bob's columns and design reviews conducted for them identifies things he personally finds interesting, different, well built, well done or demonstrating something new to his audience. as well as the elements he doesn't like or care for. I look at them as another datapoint about any given vessel. I guess I saw it as a comparison, rather than an endorsement.

As an Engineer , I take very little I hear as gospel, unless it is repeateable, observeable, and measurable, and mostly preferring to do the measurements and tweaking myself.

As I looked through that article, I and many others have points we could disagree on. I would have to say I disagree with the displacement numbers used... since By nature and comparison, most boats do not have removable ballast.....therefore, I would use the displacement with ballast filled.....since that is how most of us sail, and resulting in a D/L of at least 143, since the weight of the motor is not even counted in yet, and I feel more accurately reflects the balance of the boat.

Perhaps another comment I disagree with would be the statement "....that little wheel, while I'm sure it works..." lol..... As I watch the Ebay auction price for larger wheels ascend....

The point is, the author clearly identified that it was not a detailed comparison, nor in depth review, nor a sales plug. It was the comments of a discerning eye looking at a sales brochure and a model while reflecting on what appealed to him.

In general, tho the reasons for putting this article out were to show that different people receive different information. I happen to have three slightly different M borchures, one has permanent ballast shaded in with an approximate size shown, two do not. And with the Size of the ballast shown in hull sections 2 and 3, as well as elevaton view (bottom)(sadly an elevation view shows the fixed ballast in only one of the brochures), it is highly unlikely to be lead. since 300 lbs of lead is only .42 cu. ft. ( 725 cu. in.) and with the at least 3 ft long section detailed in the one diagram, and assumming a minimum thickness of only 2 inches and an average of 3, we have a rough volume of the ballast (obvioulsy intended at one time of approximately (36x30x3 inches approximately 2 cu. ft. ) Since the stated 300 lbs of ballast is fitting in somewhere between 2 and four cubic feet of space in the diagram. (and is this the puddle size people have found??) allowing for 30 lbs of glass to hold it in place...... , yadda yadda could be just resin (4 ft volume.) could be thin metal plate sandwiched in. YOu cant tell from my sales brochures. since this is shown in the existing ballast tank..... it should be easy to find with metal detector, if it is there. It is extremely unlikely that Macgregor uses any exotic leaded plastic or leaded resin for ballast containment (read impossible) .

Perry identified which specs he had, (brochure and model) but as I point out above, depending on the brochure and the diagrams, one could infer the presence of lead if the detail diagrams were as sparse as 2 of the 3 of mine, Possible, but unlikely, as the hull sections show rather large areas of fixed ballast.

So nothing beats the physical inspecton of a real boat, and it would not suprise me at all on the new boat that a couple of iterations of ballast variation went out the door before settling on a preferred solution.

I would guess, that Bob would prefer to sell his own boat designs, and that his column is more to bring up the general level of his readers knowledge. ( I recommend perusing through that site, one way is to adjust the month and 2 digit years in the url). A lot of new, good and bad ideas have gone across that desk and been discussed.

As far as "verifying specifications" that is for later in a detailed on the water test, not in a short 5 paragrah design review summary. I Also would give roger credit, and bob.. brochures of all versions seem to have a life of their own. Mac brochures are easy to get.. courtesy of the boat shows, and Cheryl at BlueWater. (an excellent dealership!!).

Look at the review and take it for what it is, a discussion and comparison of some of the aspects of the boat., not an exhaustive analyis.

Hope I answered the questions...lol

Enjoy

User avatar
Andy26M
Captain
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Rochester, NY - 2004 26M

Mine is fiberglas

Post by Andy26M » Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:27 pm

I've done a bit of poking around in my 2004 M, and the permanent ballast is a big blob of fiberglas around the daggerboard trunk, as has been mentioned above.

As far as quality goes - why would this be any worse than lead? It seems to me that perhaps from a design standpoint it would be better to have the weight spread out over the larger volume of the fiberglas vice concentrated in one very small spot.

Additionally, while the fiberglas can indeed be used to stiffen/strengthen the area of the keel around the trunk, lead could not.

I actually suspect that this "300 pounds of fixed ballast" which is touted as an "advantage" is in fact a side-effect of the change to a daggerboard, i.e they needed to strengthen the hull in that area and oh, by the way, that made the boat heavier.

- AndyS

User avatar
Richard O'Brien
Captain
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 8:20 am
Location: Lakewood, CO. Mercury 60hp bigfoot M0427B404

Re: Mine is fiberglas

Post by Richard O'Brien » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:26 pm

[quote="Andy26M"]I've done a bit of poking around in my 2004 M, and the permanent ballast is a big blob of fiberglas around the daggerboard trunk :macm: I'll bet Roger is having a good chuckle atall this "tempest in a teapot" conjecturing, but that is in fact just what you get when you mix up a gallon of even slow setting resin. having watched a resin sculpture actually burst into flame once or twice when it was a couple of inches thick, I sincerely doubt that the filler is resin, unless they are grinding up waste product and throwing it in. The advantage of a little permanent ballast is apparent to all I think, and actually it is amazing the kinds of ground metals, sands, and debris you can throw in the mix without really affecting it's appearance much?

Locked