Broken Mast

Dimitri-2000X-Tampa · Post by **Dimitri-2000X-Tampa** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:49 am

Well, my mast survived getting hit on a telephone pole when I was turning out of a ramp area last year. The mast was in the half down position and it bent the crutch and the antenna mount but the mast held up pretty well.

As for the hurricane, enough already. TampaMac, this time, the gusts were a bit higher than Frances. Although sustained winds didn't go much over 45, we had gusts up to 70, probably even to 75 (hurricane force). I could tell the difference as I have at least 2 places where I lost siding (fascia and soffits to be exact). Luckily, nothing major and once again, we were fortunate to keep our power while at least a third of the county is without. But our misery is nothing compared to those poor folks on the central East coast. Jeanne made a beeline for the exact same spot that Frances hit three weeks ago.

In Tampa Bay, we had a 2.6 foot storm surge but it conveniently came at low tide this time. Due to this, it didn't quite make it even over the wall..just to the top of the cap. Frances was moving more slowly, got out into the Gulf (West of Tampa) and had a surge closer to 3 feet..even though winds were slightly higher with Jeanne. But the big difference was the tide. The 3 foot Frances surge came on top of a 2 foot high tide so it was well over the wall and into the yard.

The Mac did great, didn't budge...covered with leaves and other plant material though. I'm glad I took off the rudders this time. I hate wasting all that ballast water...again...but I can't think of what to do with 175 gallons of water right after a hurricane. If the water shut down this time, I was gonna use ballast water to flush the toilets with!

I've also thought of tearing down my house and rebuilding it higher (and as a fortress) but alas, you can pay a lifetime of overpriced insurance before that becomes even close to cost effective. If mother nature rips it down though, that will be a different story.

TampaMac · Post by **TampaMac** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:31 am

I like the idea of putting the improved sail plan from the M onto my boat.

I called Doyle in St. Pete and they haven't yet cut my sail, I told them to put it on hold. No hurry to get a sail for a boat with no mast.

I called my dealer in Hudson who told me he'd do anything I want if I find out about it and provide the money. He said that I would have to wait until the next shipment which may be a while. He I guess can get anything in the Connex box.

Macgregor claims that the new rig will cause less healing and more forward motion. Hmm... sounds great.

I think I'm driving up to see the guy in hudson and measure out a M style rig.

If anyone has ever put some thought to this and gathered info on it please come forth and tell me what ya know.

Thanks in advance!!

TampaMac · Post by **TampaMac** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:54 pm

$972 for a full up M rig from MacGregor.

Includes deckplate, spreaders, shrouds, and etc.

Boom is identical. Sail extra.

I took measurements this morning off a 26M. I need to do the same off a 26X and compare.

Only way to get the rig is with a boat shipment through a dealer.

26X extrusion is $395 from Macgregor, you have to drill the holes yourself and move the hardware.

Is anyone who owns a 26M willing to measure the distance from the centerpoint of the Mast to the point where a line drawn connecting the chainplate locations?

I measured the distance longitudinally from the 26M chainplates to the back of the base plate at 17.5 inches. The boat I measured did not have the Mast up. Since I am not familar with the M, I really have no idea where the mast is within the base plate.

Near as I can tell is that the mast when rigged should be about 17.5 + 6.5 (my estimated distance from the = 24 inches from the chainplates. Is this right anyone?

TampaMac · Post by **TampaMac** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:20 pm

I'm going to have to remeasure but the M26 rig on an X don't sound so great as I'm measuring it.

Seems that the X has about 10 less inches between the forestay attachment and the mast than the M. 116 inches vs. 126 inches.

I'm not really sure of the side shroud attachment point, seems a few inches difference.

If I have time tomorrow I will do a more careful job of measuring everything.

Frank C · Post by **Frank C** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:43 pm

TampaMac,
There's a dealer in Southern Calif named Mike Inmon. He works closely with the factory since he is only a few miles distant. He has installed the M mast on his own X-boat. It seems from his reports that it was not too difficult, but I'm not sure how much benefit it gains. I think his dealership is called Inmon Yachts. You might find him using yellowpages.com, or reach him by phoning the factory.

Dimitri-2000X-Tampa · Post by **Dimitri-2000X-Tampa** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:07 am

Mike's email address is Minmon26x at cs dot com.

I would be concerned that the chainplates are further back from the mast on the 26M. If they are the same distance as the 26X, then why does one boat not have a backstay?

TampaMac · Post by **TampaMac** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:33 am

Talked to Mike Inmon at the Marina Del Rey Dealership.

He has worked with Roger on development of the X and the M.

He said that originally the X did not have a backstay and it worked fine. Then Roger added one before it was put into production.

He has not yet done a 26X with an M rig. He is going to do so and says that it is no big deal and should work fine.

He has put a 26M rig on a 26D which he has been racing for 2 years now.

He said that I could keep a slack backstay on the M rig and it would still function, he said it would probably be a good idea if I plan on running a spinnicker.

I think I'm going to do this. The only big catch is my local dealer is selling out to a big outfit which may or may not sell Macgregors. So I may have to buy the rig from the guy where I bought the boat down 120 miles south. Not a big deal if I had a working trailer and rig to tow it but I don't. I have my boat on the lift.

Well, we will see.

Tom Spohn · Post by **Tom Spohn** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:20 pm

The X and M balance differently under sail. In my experience the X needs the genny up whereas the M sails fine with only the main up. I am not a naval engineer so I can't guess what happens to the balance of the X with 2'more mainsail. BWY told me that the M boats sold in San Francisco and maybe some other markets have a 2' shorter mast--in other words the same as the X, but rotating. If this were my boat I would want to have a chat with MacGregor about the shorter mast as well as the longer mast. I know BWY is not in your neighborhood, but you may want to talk to them for recommendations.

TampaMac · Post by **TampaMac** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:27 pm

I'm no naval expert either.

The way I see it is that if the mast is in about the same place the boat should behave about the same, or that is what I am assuming.

According to MacGregor the turning mast results in a more effective airfoil by reducing turbulence across the first third of the mailsail. I'm a pilot and know a little about airfoils and this just totally makes sense.

The center of aerodynamic pressure thus moves forward and the result may be as Macgregor claims which is less sideways force and more forward force.

According to Macgregor the rig will result in less lean, so if true the extra 2 feet is not relevant.

It is my understanding that a jib directs airflow along the main multiplying its force. I guess it somewhat counteracts the "mast stalled airflow along the first part of the mainsail.

Hence the main on a non-turning mast needs a foresail to work right. The M rig with a turning mast doesn't require the foresail for the main to be effective. A foresail on the turning mast rig probably just adds more sail area. Hence Macgregor claims that the M loses only a knot by dropping the jib while the X loses like twice as much speed with no jib.

Presently I'm talking to my dealer about doing this. He is going to consult with Macgregor about it. Not sure what they would say due to legal liability. Really they should offer a kit. The huge number of X's out there that could perhaps benefit from the upgrade. I'm sure the profit margin on components is pretty good.

mike · Post by **mike** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:46 pm

TampaMac wrote:Presently I'm talking to my dealer about doing this. He is going to consult with Macgregor about it. Not sure what they would say due to legal liability. Really they should offer a kit. The huge number of X's out there that could perhaps benefit from the upgrade. I'm sure the profit margin on components is pretty good.

I agree... given the fact that us 26X'ers are always looking for a way to squeeze another half knot or so under sail, I'd imagine a "rotating mast upgrade kit" would sell pretty well.

--Mike

Duane Dunn, Allegro · Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:09 pm

I can't see any legal liability unless they include some kind of warranty which is pretty unlikely. MacGregor selling you their hunk of alluminum is no different than you going and getting a third party aftermarket mast. Either way your on you own. It's your boat, you can stick whatever mast you want on it. They aren't going to imply any warranty, performance or otherwise.

I also think you are correct in the X will benefit. After all these years it's pretty clear it's stick is too short. Even the M is still the shortest stick in a line of similar size boats at the marina.

There's a lot more smoke and mirrors to the world of naval design than most boat builders want you to know. Roger is no naval architect either. At sailings highest level of performance it is still a seat of the pants game. Even the Americas Cup boats go through thousands of trials because their rocket scientist designers can't really say if a change will be bad or good until they put it in the water and try it.

Frank C · Post by **Frank C** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:06 pm

TampaMac,
Seems to me that you're right on the money. Since you need a mast anyhow, WHY NOT! It seems that results under sail have the M only slightly faster than the X. Maybe you'll prove that the lighter X takes even greater advantage of the M's sailplan technology.I can't wait to hear your results!

Dimitri-2000X-Tampa · Post by **Dimitri-2000X-Tampa** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:09 pm

One issue for me is that I have three 40 foot bridges to get under in order to get out to the Gulf. I think 2 extra feet of mast (along with my 3 foot masttop antenna) may put me a scrapin' at high tide.

Kevin · Post by **Kevin** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:31 am

My M needs at least 40 feet of bridge clearance without an antenae. That would be a serious issue.

Of course with mast raising kit I've raised and lowered the mast a number of times on the water for bridges.

Duane Dunn, Allegro · Post by **Duane Dunn, Allegro** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:16 am

I think you would be fine even with a M mast. With my X I am regularly able to get under a bridge charted as 33' even at high tide with over a foot to spare. I don't have a masthead antenna. 2 more feet wouldn't limit you if the bridges are charted at 40'. I'm sure a M will clear a 35' charted bridge without an antenna. It always looks scarry when you approach but the view from the cockpit is deceiving. The charted heights are at mean high high water which is rarely acheived in reality.

I'm told an X once tried to go under the Fremont bridge on the Lake Washington ship canal which is charted at 31'. Unfortunately the bridge was just a bit too low. The mast hit and the boat tilted back enough to allow the mast to slide under the girders. The boat was then trapped under the bridge. He had to radio the bridge operator to raise the bridge to get out.

MacGregorSailors.com

MacGregorSailors.com

Broken Mast