MacGregorSailors.com

Yes and no on the performance diff. Much improvement on light displacement boats, less on cruisers. But, fact remains, same righting moment as a large man (300 lb fellow) on high side. You will notice change in heel. I wouln't pay $3,000 for that on my M. But I would pay on my V23 which I use as a race boat. Maybe also I'd pay for the much easier mast to raise, Maybe but think about the $$ for a bit even on the race boat. And there are disadvantages, minor maybe. Aluminum mast can be dropped, banged, hammered. deep scratches and gouges. Not carbon. Proper testing can make the carbon the exact same strength. That's what we want and will get. Bend and break both, adjust the carbon layup till they match. Weigh them and if the carbon is half weight, it's a go.

The 70 is already being primed for final painting inside and out. The wood is highly polished and installed, lots of wood trim inside and out. Yes, must varnish twice a year. Work work. But it is beautiful, Swan beauty. The counters, polished wood, look better than any I've seen. The bow lights are built-in the tow rail, polished wood. Water ballast as you know, 5,000 lbs port or stbd with gravity/pump transfer. Carbon fiber masts and beams for the keel support. Roller bearings for the rudder which has a stainless steel post and internal structure. We'll be done with priming the interior this week. The new owner of Anthem is ready to take it away after Roger's new 70 goes in the water

Mike,

Using my simple, and probably incorrect math, I can see the 22 lbs. mast reduction as equal to about 330 lbs. of ballast. Combine this with synthetic rigging and to me this is much more beneficial than hull weight reduction or increasing ballast.

I would be interested in carbon masts at 22 lbs. for two different scenarios:

1. Mac 26D with carbon fiber rotating mast, synthetic rigging and standard ballast. The goal is to be faster and hold sail area to higher wind speeds. Being stiffer is a plus but not important. Possibly relocate shrouds inboard to a 3-point B&R style for better sheeting angles (pointing) on Genoas, no back-stay for additional mass reduction allowing a square top main for power increase and drag reduction.

2. Beneteau First 235 converted to carbon fiber rotating mast, synthetic rigging, and the First 20 sail plan with its reduced "P". The goal is to reduce standing rigging mass and loads, allow mast rotation for speed, keep inboard shrouds for pointing with Genoas, convert to 3-point B&R rigging with no forward baby-stay or back-stay further reduction of rigging mass.

A $2000-2500 price point with rotating hardware would be attractive. Thanks for all you do. Please keep us updated as you work through this.

PS:I would be more interested in spending $2500 for increased performance on one of these boats than to purchase a T26 or a T22, although the T22 is very tempting.

I'd be interested in the mast plus rigging for a plug and play swap out
If the carbon mast means no mast raiser that's a huge plus.
Ix

It cost me a thousand bucks for an 'M' mast blank from Dowsar Marine in Ontario (this year). Double that for carbon would be doable.

Flashback 2011... would a carbon fibre mast raise or lower yer carbon footprint??

bonitasailor wrote: Combine this with synthetic rigging and to me this is much more beneficial than hull weight reduction or increasing ballast.

sorry, but what do you mean exactely with SYNTHETIC RIGGING to save weight?

I have a 5/6 section Carbon Fibre Mast on my blokart.....expensive and clearly states to treat it especially careful as it strength is also it weakness ie strong when used as intended but easy to break if stressed wrong...mentions dropping section on their end and as I found out they easily split longitudinally admittedly when over doing things with an over sized sail in 35-40 knots

Imagine, a carbon fiber hull with a carbon fiber mast and everything else! Talk about using up your carbon credits.

I wonder what the conventional righting moment of a fixed keel is - compared to an enhanced MacGregor of this type...

Would making the Alum M mast 2 PIECE with a sleeve like the mast not make shipping cheaper , I,m not sold on C/F masts & their benefits for reg day or cruiser sailing , maybe for serious racers with deep pockets who have S or D boats which fly with less effort
I,ve designed my for live-in cruising & comfort so she,s heavy , but that also allows me to fly multiple head sail configurations not sure or convinced a C/F mast would hold up too that kinda stress without more re-enforcement & or the pounding of very fast speeds cruising speeds

Just my thoughts on that ! not saying I,m right , but if it turns ur crank go for it , I,ve done a lot of things to my boats rigging clipper rig & all , so will be interesting to see what the end results r , these r great boats there is just no end of what u can do with them more so if u have the ability to do the work urself like myself & r prepared to take ur time & shop around for the right price range

J

kurz wrote:

bonitasailor wrote: Combine this with synthetic rigging and to me this is much more beneficial than hull weight reduction or increasing ballast.

sorry, but what do you mean exactely with SYNTHETIC RIGGING to save weight?

Synthetic rigging is non-metallic. The weight is about 1/6th of stainless wire. Dyneema is a brand name that is commonly used. Colligo Dux is another one and is shown on the Colligo Marine website.

RussMT wrote:Matt needs to chime in because he's done this route and knows the prices.

Sorry I'm late to the party--It's amazing how fast your priorities can change.

I actually did not go to a carbon fiber mast because the only complete masts that are generically available are $4000..$6000 and are not customized for the MacGregor so they actually weigh a lot because their generic use might be for something with higher requirements. Also, when my damage was being assessed, the insurance adjuster told my wife he'd just done a case with a carbon fiber mast that shattered in an impact and a shard stabbed the owner through the forearm during the accident. That ended any possibility of my getting a carbon mast.

But I did spend weeks familiarizing myself with the industry, the costs, and the current state.

I put the harken batt-car track on the stock aluminum mast instead. Not recommending that, it's not enough improvement over good nylon slugs to bother with, and the Harken AA cars can't really retain their bearings, which is a big problem.

I did put on carbon fiber spreaders (which I totally recommend). This was an easy mod: I just bought stock tubes that match the dimensions of the stock stays and had them cut to 44". I drilled holes for the spreader pins and the stay clamps myself with a Ti-tip drill in about 5 minutes and done. Now I've got spreaders that will never bend.

I also put on synthetic dyneema stays, which I also totally recommend, even though they don't have an appreciable effect on righting moment. You have to go a little oversize so they're only about 1/4 the weight, and the weight is not enough to be noticeable. The reason to go to synthetic stays is versatility: They wrap up like rope, not like giant stainless steel snakes, they can be easily jury rigged with figure 8-knots and a small length of dyneema to lash them back together if they break, and they'll last the lifetime of the boat even in UV and direct sun if they're properly oversized so the surface can UV corrode. Mine were custom made and cost a total of $1700, which included rigging improvements and an upgraded forestay. Mass produced they could be down to the $700 price point for a set.

I built a carbon boom. It's okay and would be good in full production with a loose-footed main but I don't recommend it as an upgrade. There's no performance improvement, just some weight savings and it's not worth the $600 it cost me to build. In production, it would totally be worth it with a loose-footed main because you can just use stock round carbon tube. It hits heads just as hard in a gybe as the aluminum boom did, and I've actually gone back to the aluminum boom because of the lack of advantage, and because I'm selling the boat and want only significant improvements on it. So I've got a carbon boom for sale if someone wants.

Mike if you were to produce a carbon mast/boom combo using a stock round tube, you could make the boom roller furling (but not reefing--furling for storage only) with a simple gooseneck change on a loose-footed sail. I did my gooseneck on batt-cars so I can hoist to the top of the mast and then downhaul with the vang. Worked great, and also allows the possibility of reefing up rather than down, which gets the boom out of the cockpit in heavy winds for safety.

I discussed the carbon mast with Mike in person when I picked up my mast and saw a prototype, so I happen to know quite a bit about it.

Mike I've been giving it some thought regarding your construction technique of using parallel port-and-starboard carbon compression slats, foam core, and a thin carbon wrap with the compressive strength coming from the carbon slats. You could instead use stock pultruded carbon slats connected together with ferrules that run the length of the mast on port and starboard inside the foam, such as these from RockWest: http://www.rockwestcomposites.com/brows ... -solid-rod

By my math, it would cost $300 per spar to do this. These slats would then be epoxied to the overall carbon wrap, so your compressive strength is coming from inexpensive stock slats whose engineering properties are well-known and not your problem, with the mast shape and hard points being you only issue. This makes your non-bagged, non-cooked mast a simple possibility with no compromise in compressive strength and dramatically simplifies production costs.

My thoughts on carbon masts in general:

Pros:

--How thin is the mast areas that are in compression only and don't have to deal with lateral stress? If the mast can survive a fall without cracking, it also won't bend and would therefore be a big win over aluminum, because I bend masts a lot as it turns out.

--Two sections would be awesome, and solve all kinds of problems, not the least of which is mast stepping: The lower section could be left on the mast step hinge while towing and eliminate the biggest element of hassle when raising the mast. Also like everyone else I'd rather put shipping money into product instead, and getting the shipping cost down would go a long way towards ameliorating the extra cost.

--Obviously light weight is a big pro. Combine this with carbon spreaders and dyneema stays and you can take another few pounds off.

Cons:

-- How do the hard-points for hound attachment work? I understand they would be built-up out of additional layers of carbon where needed. But what happens if I want to put an additional hound on for other uses, a higher hound for raising the foresail for a johnson lever, or attach other things (such as a halyard rope clutch, for example) to the mast? Aluminum is hard to beat for mod-ability.

-- How does it break when I snag a spreader on a channel marker sign? If it shatters, that's dangerous. Aluminum fails gracefully and safely in these situations. A thinner mast is actually probably safer than a bulkier layup in this respect.

-- What is the service lifetime? UV isn't kind to epoxy, so this mast would probably wind up being painted, which is okay but additional maintenance. One painted, you can't see damage to the mast anymore, which in carbon is dangerous. If it were made with UV resistant epoxy, that would be a big plus.

--Price. For this market, I see $2000 as a maximum MSRP for a Macgregor replacement mast to sell. IF it can be made for this price, then it's a win.

Anyway, that's the culmination of all my research into the matter.

Very good! Your thinking is exactly on my target. Only thing is the produced flanges cost too much. Carbon fiber is not really that costly because you use so little of it. 22 lb mast, 60% is carbon fiber equals 13 lbs of carbon fiber. The foam core will actually cost more than the raw carbon fiber! The premade parts would raise costs beyond what the mast can sell for. Actually, aluminum masts will now cost about $2,000, was less than $1,000. This whole project is mostly labor. One holdup now is the sail track. Lots of too costly solutions, got to find one that's affordable.
Meanwhile, the M70 interior is now being final sanded for the paint.

Mike --

Not sure what you've tried so far for the sail track.

I envision a length of PEX tubing (or similar) under tension, laminated with the mast, and pressurized, with the ends exposed, as the re-usable "core". After the resin sets the pressure is relieved, which slightly shrinks the tube so it can be released, twisted and withdrawn from one end. The slit is then routed through to the cavity left by the PEX, and the exposed cut edges surface treated.

?

-B.

It's a good thing you guys are around to figure all this stuff out so I don't have to try to figure it out (and fail trying).

Original premise wrote:...a 320 lb lighter boat and a trailer made to carry a 320 lb lighter boat, now trailer is 100 lbs lighter for a total weight savings of 420 towing load! Sail and power faster...

A 420 lb towing weight savings doesn't have any real value to the average or most boaters as it isn't significant enough to offer an increase in tow vehicle options.

Most people IMO don't accurately know how close, over / under, they already are to GVWR.

Boaters / RVers have a propensity to justify by any means the addition of weight be it HP, fuel capacity, beer capacity, gadgets & widgets...

If it really mattered, the quickest, most efficient, cost effective way for weight reduction is to reduce HP, fuel capacity, beer capacity, gadgets & widgets, as if that's actually goona happen!

The only real value is $$$, as in; does a CF mast effectively reduce (vs AL) the original purchase cost of a new boat to attract a new boat buyer? Does the CF unit offer more YOS - years of service, less CTR - cost to replace or equal ETM - effort to manage, than an AL unit?