M26X 10% faster than M26M on PWR!

[lighter]

Hello!
Is it true that the 26X will be faster (unballasted, and under power with a 50 HP of course)at about 3 miles per hour more then the 26M!
And the reason is the 300 pounds more weight from the permanent ballast on the 26M
So, as advertised in the mac gregor demo video,can the 26X go to 24 miles/ per hour , unballasted,and with just the mast up and a small sail on board , and no extra weight , except 2 adults on board ?
thanks for reply!

[LOUIS B HOLUB]

I have DVDs on both boats, MacX and MacM, and Roger claims both weigh 2250 lbs. As you've mentioned, Ive also heard that the M is 300 lbs heavier. So I dont know what to believe since weight would be a serious factor in which boat is faster.

I can truthfully say that my MacX hits a plane easily with a 50HP Nissan. We're usually two adults on aboard. But I dont have any instruments for MPH readings.

By the way, the only race Ive had since owing my MacX was sailing against a kid on a 14' Sunfish.

[lighter]

At what maximum wind speed and height of waves, can the M26X be sailed SAFELY UNBALLASTED in open sea , at WOT with a 50 HP , lightly loaded with 3 adults ?

[Morimaro]

I have no idea on the relative speeds of the M vs X under power but I have motored my X two adults aboard in F5 - F6 down wind and tide, no ballast at around 10-12kts and it was fine, in fact the surfing down the waves was a blast.

Personally I never use WOT except in exceptional circumstances, I always like to feel I've got something left to use in an emergency, plus the OB drinks petrol at WOT and with "marine" petrol at >£1/ltr (>$US2/ltr) in the UK, it tends to encourage reasonable speeds.

Also if the wind or tide is on the nose I would reduce speed to stop the slamming, though I have never been caught out in anything F6 or above so I can't comment on what would be a good speed. But I would go for loading the ballast, staying off the plane and toughing it out. With ballast in and planing the spray and slammin can be fierce.

Cheers

Morris

[lighter]

So I have to say ;NO ballast is OK whenever on power!(reducing speed is very easy and necessary at time in chopy waters!)
But on sail,it's another story of course!
One day I will check for an old 26X,with putting a brand new 50 HP motor on,for up to 6000 rpm and 24 MPH max!
BYE

[Boblee]

On the few occasions that I have been caught in rough or choppy conditions have found it far better value for comfort to fill ballast and use at least a small amount of sail.
With the hydrus prop the ballast makes little difference to speed but the standard prop does suffer somewhat especially if already overloaded.
Any test of hulls or models etc have to be on equal parameters or they are meaningless.

[mikelinmon]

Hey folks; I was there when all of the testing X vs M was done. Every word in brochure/DVD about the boats racing each other is true. The M was faster or equal all the time. As the waves picked up the M proved even more superior under sail or power. The only thing not tested that day was performance pulling a water skier. This does leave a possible edge to the X. but not any other situation I can imagine. Whoever told you any diff might be testing boats with dissimilar motors or old motor vs new one or unequal loads. We were testing brand new boats, X and M with brand new motors and side by side with experienced sailboat racers driving. we tested them all afternoon with no wind all the way up to a breeze. You have my word on it, all was fair and equal with us changing boats, having lunch, changing drivers etc.

[beene]

I thought the X was faster under power, ie 24mph vs 22mph on the M.



G

[lighter]

I thought the X was faster under power, ie 24mph vs 22mph on the M.



G

yes, I understand that in the demo DVD, when it is said that the 2 boats are just at ABSOLUTE equal weight, then the X must have a 300 lbs more load on it to be true!this is why ,may be, on the demo of the 26m,this one is showed to move faster a bit at wot !
BTW, does the mast up make it less safe in chopy open sea waters ,and with no ballast?

[tangentair]

I have noticed a, well not a trend, but commonality regarding the water ballast. Many people initially want to run without it, I know I did, but I quickly found that water conditions more often than not dictated less than WOT and full water ballast in order to ride comfortably. I suppose on a small lake without the wave action it is a different matter.

[Frank C]

Ballast obviously slows the boat. More importantly, it notably slows the boat's reaction to steering & throttle. That's no surprise, right?

Ballast also makes for a much wetter ride in any kind of wind waves, since it prevents the bow from riding over the wave tops. The ballasted hull tends to go straight through waves, taking lots of spray, sometimes taking green sheets across the bow.

I much prefer motoring with empty ballast on SF Bay, regardless of conditions. The only reason I'd motor with full ballast is when conditions are unsafe for dumping the tank.

As for the OP's question about rigging, the boat is amply stable with the mast up. In fact, that extra mass slows the hull's roll tendency, without a significant change to upright stability. Want to prove this to yourself? ... crank a sharp turn at WOT with the mast up and empty ballast ... and find the boat carving a solid, stable turn that MasterCraft would be proud of. Start slower if you're a doubter. (make sure all boards are UP).