ALX357 wrote:Instead of fighting a tack, just jibe about the other way. You will lose a bit of way, but not risk getting in chains and being blown back. I used to sail with just a Genoa up, no main at all, and found it easier to jibe about than tack, so even with a mainsail, it works as well.
A jibe in high-winds can be a dangerous maneuver.
Most heavy weather techniques avoid jibe in high winds because it can create an active boom, if the boom is hauled in correctly during the first half of the jibe but not trimmed exactly correct once the wind passed dead astern - you run the risk of the most serious condition called the broach.
ALX357 wrote:Instead of fighting a tack, just jibe about the other way. You will lose a bit of way, but not risk getting in chains and being blown back. I used to sail with just a Genoa up, no main at all, and found it easier to jibe about than tack, so even with a mainsail, it works as well.
A jibe in high-winds can be a dangerous maneuver.
Most heavy weather techniques avoid jibe in high winds because it can create an active boom, if the boom is hauled in correctly during the first half of the jibe but not trimmed exactly correct once the wind passed dead astern - you run the risk of the most serious condition called the broach.
just something to consider on high-wind jibeing.
Been waitin to see how long it would take for someone was going to mention that !!
I used to comment on jibing years ago but I stopped because so many people scolded me for being so old fashioned so I gave up on the subject.
Truth be told - when I was growing up on a sailboat we were not allowed to jibe under any circumstances - my dad would never allow it except to maneuver a narrow jetty going downwind where there was not enough room to turn the boat all the way around.
Even in light wind I will go from a downwind run to a point by turning into the wind a full 230 degree turn - used to be a hard fast rule on fractional rigs, but I had to admit after many arguments with more 'modern' skippers than myself that it's really not as important on the MAC as on other boats because the MAC is such a light boat and will give-way readily under shock and torque loads. So I stopped having that argument with other captains. They don't think you can break the MAC M boat and I tend to feel the same way now and mastreb ran his M boat right into an overhead obstruction under full sail and instead of breaking the boat the mast and spreaders just bent. He said it lifted the boat right out of the water.
Still, I am against jibing, but like politics - I run into a lot of "opinions" on this subject.
Im really having trouble with the whole "small / light" thing that keeps popping up.
The Mac 26 is one of the largest trailer boats going around and with the ballast full is also just about the heaviest, many keelers of around the same size wouldnt tip the scales at much more and most smaller ones would weigh less.
the hull itself on a M ways in at around 1200Kg, plus around 80kg for the motor, plus all the bits and bobs (accessories, food, water, fuel etc.) plus 750kg of ballast, that makes her a a pretty substantial boat in my terms and certainly MUCH heavier that any equivalent size trailer boat at around 2,200kg or 4,500lbs or 2 tons and a bit of change when on the water.
I know here in Australia that the Mac 26 is bigger than 99% of trailer boats, the most common size is between 20 and 22 feet (6.0 to 6.5 meters) which I would say is around 80% of the market, there are a number of 16 to 19 footers that are very popular and a few 25 footers but above that there are very few of 7.9 meters and up, at 25 feet on a pure sailboat the beam starts getting too wide for legal towing, there are a few rare exceptions of trailerable sail boats lager than 26 feet but they are as rare as hens teeth and most require special permits to tow on public roads and can only be towed during daylight hours because of their beam
sailboatmike wrote:Im really having trouble with the whole "small / light" thing that keeps popping up.
The Mac 26 is one of the largest trailer boats going around and with the ballast full is also just about the heaviest, many keelers of around the same size wouldnt tip the scales at much more and most smaller ones would weigh less.
the hull itself on a M ways in at around 1200Kg, plus around 80kg for the motor, plus all the bits and bobs (accessories, food, water, fuel etc.) plus 750kg of ballast, that makes her a a pretty substantial boat in my terms and certainly MUCH heavier that any equivalent size trailer boat at around 2,200kg or 4,500lbs or 2 tons and a bit of change when on the water.
I know here in Australia that the Mac 26 is bigger than 99% of trailer boats, the most common size is between 20 and 22 feet (6.0 to 6.5 meters) which I would say is around 80% of the market, there are a number of 16 to 19 footers that are very popular and a few 25 footers but above that there are very few of 7.9 meters and up, at 25 feet on a pure sailboat the beam starts getting too wide for legal towing, there are a few rare exceptions of trailerable sail boats lager than 26 feet but they are as rare as hens teeth and most require special permits to tow on public roads and can only be towed during daylight hours because of their beam
I believe BOAT was comparing similarly designed/usage/sized ‘trailerable’ pocket cruiser sailboats not dingoes and day-sailors. Here are some below that have similar amenities and can be trailered without a Kenworth.
Dry weight
MAC 26 M & X - 2550lbs (1157kg)
Hunter 260 - 5000lbs (2268kg)
Capri 26 - 5250lbs (2380kg)
Nor Sea 27 - 8100lbs (3674kg)
sailboatmike wrote:Im really having trouble with the whole "small / light" thing that keeps popping up.
The Mac 26 is one of the largest trailer boats going around and with the ballast full is also just about the heaviest, many keelers of around the same size wouldnt tip the scales at much more and most smaller ones would weigh less.
the hull itself on a M ways in at around 1200Kg, plus around 80kg for the motor, plus all the bits and bobs (accessories, food, water, fuel etc.) plus 750kg of ballast, that makes her a a pretty substantial boat in my terms and certainly MUCH heavier that any equivalent size trailer boat at around 2,200kg or 4,500lbs or 2 tons and a bit of change when on the water.
I know here in Australia that the Mac 26 is bigger than 99% of trailer boats, the most common size is between 20 and 22 feet (6.0 to 6.5 meters) which I would say is around 80% of the market, there are a number of 16 to 19 footers that are very popular and a few 25 footers but above that there are very few of 7.9 meters and up, at 25 feet on a pure sailboat the beam starts getting too wide for legal towing, there are a few rare exceptions of trailerable sail boats lager than 26 feet but they are as rare as hens teeth and most require special permits to tow on public roads and can only be towed during daylight hours because of their beam
I believe BOAT was comparing similarly designed/usage/sized ‘trailerable’ pocket cruiser sailboats not dingoes and day-sailors. Here are some below that have similar amenities and can be trailered without a Kenworth.
Dry weight
MAC 26 M & X - 2550lbs (1157kg)
Hunter 260 - 5000lbs (2268kg)
Capri 26 - 5250lbs (2380kg)
Nor Sea 27 - 8100lbs (3674kg)
Apples to apples...sort of
And don't forget most of my experience was on trailer boats in the 1970's like:
Balboa 26 at 3800lbs
Aquarius 23 at 2400lbs (my ass! that was the empty hull! that thing fully rigged was always over 2800lbs!)
Aquarius 21 at 1900lbs (closer to 2000 rigged)
LaPaz 25 at 4600lbs
Cal 24 at 3000lbs
And then the most famous sailboat of the 70's - part of every rental fleet and sailing school around which I sailed very extensively:
The Jensen Marine CAL 25 flush deck at 4000lbs what a sturdy and popular boat that would break itself constantly! Stays and keel pins never stood a chance on that pig! And here in Southern California they were EVERYWHERE.
So many trailer boats I sailed that were SMALLER than the M boat yet MUCH heavier - so to me the M boat feels very light.
Yes the Mac is light without ballast BUT one has to add the ballast and the motor to get the true weight
So as I said the M's real weight is 1157Kg PLUS the ballast of 750Kg and the motor of around 80Kg - all up weight is just on 2000Kg or 4400lbs, Im not sure how comparing a empty ballast tank weight boat to a boat with fixed ballast in iron or lead is in any way comparing apples with apples.
Of course we could do a direct comparison if we removed the 907Kg of ballast from the Hunter - so thats 2268Kg less 907kg =1361Kg or a mere 156Kg heavier than the Mac M
Of course we can look at the other way RL24 weighs in at 660Kg or a whopping 1349Kg less than the Mac, the Austral 8 a whopping 1250Kg or 750Kg less than a Mac.
Or how about a Magnum 8.5 at 1400Kg, or a Sunbird 25 (the big daddy of offshore trailerable yacht) at 1590Kg
In reality of a trailerboat the actual weight with ballast tanks full is up there with the heaviest for its size.
All but the Nor sea I listed are water ballast boats so I was comparing extremely similar boats. And if we're removing permanent ballast to make direct comparisons you'll have to take the Mac's out as well at 300lbs 136kg
captain mike has a point - the M boat does carry a a lot of ballast - in fact in many cases the M boat carries more ballast than a lot of the solid ballast boats mentioned. I think one reason the M seems so light to sail is because all the ballast is up high inside the hull. The wind does not put a lot of force on the rigging to push the M boat over. but there is one thing that I can tell you - the M boat has way better acceleration that all those other boats mentioned - especially in light winds. that's because the M has so little hull actually in the water - very little drag. I really wish I was there when they designed the boat - it must have been exiting. The MAC 65 was already a fixture of the company by then and Roger had extensively sailed the 65 single handed great distances. The M boat "look" with those double raccoon stripes came from the MAC 65 pilot house - I can only wonder what Roger was thinking during design - the idea of a boat with only a foot of drag was not lost on his experience with the world famous X boat (the X is still more famous than the M boat) - and his success with that boat needed no further development - he could have stopped there and made even more money selling X boats than he would retooling for the M - so why do it???
That's the question - cuz we all know it was not about money - the boat did not make anywhere near as much money for them as the X boat - so why do it? He knew he was at the end of his career - what was he trying to do? My take is not a complete picture, but as a person that has sailed an awful lot of trailer boats I can tell you that Roger came up with something that is like no other trailer boat I have ever sailed.
On a "normal" sailboat all the designers talk about is "drag and slip" and how a boat gets destroyed by fighting it's own weight and drag against the sea. Generations own famous quotes like those of Rudyard Kipling:
~~~~~~~~~
That holds, in spite o' knock and scale, o' friction, waste an' slip,
An' by that light---now, mark my word---we'll build the Perfect Ship.
I'll never last to judge her lines, or take her curve---not I.
But I ha' lived an' I ha' worked. Be thanks to Thee, Most High!
~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who has spent any real time on a sailboat at sea eventually find faith in only two things - the strength of your ship and God. I have seen atheists become believers out there.
I think Roger was keenly aware of of the danger of weight when he designed the M boat. His wariness of the fractional rig without a back-stay is well documented by Captain Mike Inmon who was the test driver for the first M boat. Mike documents that the first M boats had a back-stay and they had Mike drive the boat in really hard conditions with and without. The goal was for Mike to break the boat. Mike said he really tried to break the boat and they sailed in some really crazy situations.
That to me is the key to properly sailing this boat - you need to think like a boat that carries all it's weight in the hull - if you think that way it will dictate how you trim your sails and make you think twice before you yank on that vang, or pull on that mainsheet, or haul in that genny - most M drivers sail the boat way over powered. The boat goes fast over the surface if you let the sails fly a little and just drag the boat over the top of the water instead of trying to push the entire ocean forward like most "normal" sailboats do. It only takes a light touch to sail the M.
BOAT wrote:I think Roger was keenly aware of of the danger of weight when he designed the M boat. His wariness of the fractional rig without a back-stay is well documented by Captain Mike Inmon who was the test driver for the first M boat. Mike documents that the first M boats had a back-stay and they had Mike drive the boat in really hard conditions with and without. The goal was for Mike to break the boat. Mike said he really tried to break the boat and they sailed in some really crazy situations.
I wonder if MacGregor put load cells in the standing rigging for that. Only one side would be needed, inner and outer. Maybe the forestay, too. And if so, I'd be curious to know what the measured tensions were under various conditions.
BOAT wrote:I think Roger was keenly aware of of the danger of weight when he designed the M boat. His wariness of the fractional rig without a back-stay is well documented by Captain Mike Inmon who was the test driver for the first M boat. Mike documents that the first M boats had a back-stay and they had Mike drive the boat in really hard conditions with and without. The goal was for Mike to break the boat. Mike said he really tried to break the boat and they sailed in some really crazy situations.
I wonder if MacGregor put load cells in the standing rigging for that. Only one side would be needed, inner and outer. Maybe the forestay, too. And if so, I'd be curious to know what the measured tensions were under various conditions.
Yeah, really - huh Tom - I would like to know too - I think it would have been a lot of fun to be on that design team - all I know is that the back-stay never made it to any production boats on the M assembly line - and the forestay on the M is really light too! It really makes you think! (things that make you go hmmm?)
The forces created by the headsail is the key - the main sail really puts more force on the traveler and the sheet block than it does on the stays (thus the need for the heavy steel ladder bolted to the traveler all the way down to the hull liner) so I can see that the force of the main is carried there at the companionway, but the headsail, especially one as large as mine would destroy the stays on most any other boat - I broke a lot of stays on the A23 sailing a genny and the rigging on the A23 was a lot heavier. And like I said - matt sailed his M right into an obstruction lifting the boat out of the water and bent all the spars but the stays did not break! That tells me the weight of the boat is not enough to break the boat.
That's not something I can say about all the other boats mention previously posted.
It's not the amount of ballast in the M but the LOCATION.
BOAT wrote:If you furl the genny in before tacking you need to move the jib sheets to the track on the top of the cabin or the sail will stall out because lines around the stays will cause the jib to heave when you tack - don't run a furled genoa outside the stays in heavy wind or you will heave-to when the boat starts to turn.
Hey BOAT your write-up on Tacking is the best I've ever read .... Thanks for sharing
But I recently had a 100% Jib made. And the sailmaker said it would be better to use the Genoa blocks back at the helm. I've not sailed with that Jib yet but after reading your paragraph above I'm a bit concerned .... In my case would it be better to furl the Jib back in before making the tack?
You use the tracks to control the shape of the sail (partly) but the original purpose of sail tracks, (sheet cars), was to put the clew in the correct position when sailing a partially furled a headsail - if your using a sail that you never furl then theoretically you would never need to change the position of the cars on the track - but in reality many of us also use the cars to open and close the bottom of the sail to depower it in moderate to heavy winds so now most all boats come with cars..
It all depends on the conditions. For the most part on most boats a working jib is flown inside the stays from the cabin top or forcastle. If the stays interfere with the sail opening properly in a downwind configuration then the sail is too big to be flown inside the stays.
If your boat is 30 feet wide then you can sail almost anything inside the stays, but the MAC being rather narrow does cause some skippers to sail a working jib outside the stays when going downwind. On a regular beamy keelboat this would be rare.
.... In my case would it be better to furl the Jib back in before making the tack?