Oversize Outboards (Insurance-Legal Issue?)

[Nickyd]

Federal law requires single-hull boats less than 20 feet in length to have a capacity plate. (However, PWC and sailboat manufacturers are not required to attach a capacity plate.) Always follow the recommended capacity found in the owner's manual and on the manufacturer's warning decal. Never exceed these capacity recommendations.

Maximum Capacity Plate:
Although federal law requires capacity plates only for boats less than 20 feet in length, the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) requires a capacity plate on all boats less than 26 feet in order to be certified by NMMA.

[kziadie]

The fact that several people have already successfully put 90s on their boats indicate that it can be done. However just because it can be done does not mean it should. I think we all agree that the strength of the Mac is its versatility.

If you wanted to make the Mac point 35 degrees of the wind and didnt mind throwing a lot of money and time at making very radical mods a la the BWY concept boat you probably could, but you will slow the boat down under power with things like lead keels etc. and move the balance of the Mac to more sailboat and less powerboat. At the other end of the spectrum, you could probably get a sustained top speed under power of over 20 knots with a monster motor, but then you have to attack problems like a marginal steering system, limited fuel capacity, transom strength etc. By the time you solve all of this you would have added substantial weight aft which will detract from performance under sail and move the balance to more powerboat and less sailboat.

If I wasnt happy with pointing 45-50 degrees off the wind with the Mac with reasonable mods I would have to seriously consider dishing out for a proper keelboat. If I wasnt happy with the current 10 knot cruise/13 knot top I get under power with a heavily loaded boat with my Honda 50 I would have to consider dishing out for a proper powerboat. The Mac bashers say that the Mac is not a good sailboat nor is it a good powerboat. I say it is not a bad sailboat nor is it a bad powerboat, but to drastically improve one you have to detract the other into say, marginal territory.

I realize I may have the minority view here, but my view is that the balance Roger achieved is a pretty good one and I wouldnt want to mess with it significantly.

Kelly

[Terry]

I realize I may have the minority view here ...

I doubt it... likley closer to majority.

But since you are on the topic of "radical mods" as you put it, consider the Mac is a price point boat that comes from the factory basically unfinnished and begging for mods, not necessarily radical ones. One of my biggest pet peaves about the Mac is the unfinnished nature of it as it leaves the factory, not so much the bigger radical changes required but those little annoyances that I have to go around and fix. The upgrades required for this pricepoint boat clearly suggest that final assembly is required by the purchaser. Not only is there a list of extra factory options but also dealers have their list of custom options and the final owner also has their own DIY options. Many to choose from on this forum alone!

I will be getting new sails (main anyways) next year as they are closer to expiry than my my dependable Honda is (with my luck it will never die) and I fully intend to get a bigger horsepower sail wether it be Northsails ,Quantumn or another option I am pursuing. If I have to replace the OEM sails I want more roach and oomph in those new sails and I cannot find any literature that recommends against that or any other mods I have seen. Actually BWY is exploring a taller spar (32')and new rigging for the M with huge roach mainsail and that may be overpowering. So what gives with a hybrid boat where one aspect of it's dual use is unregulated if you will, while the other use has limitations set out? The original X was touted as being able to achieve 24mph and that speed has got to be planing speed and if the boat is meant to plane then so it should. What is it that is really making Roger hold the HP back?

While I am here, since I am not an engineer, what places more duress on the hull, clawing and climbing the back of bow wave or surfing down the leading side of the bow wave?

[kziadie]

There is no doubt the boats are unfinished even with a bunch of factory/dealer options installed. On the other hand, I have found that I enjoy tweaking my boat in a similar way that I resurected SIC my first car from a junkyard as a teenager. I have seen boats from big name manufacturers costing over $100,000 that have all the little extras installed but done in a shockingly cheap and poorly designed manner. At least with the Mac I didnt pay for this and I can choose which ones I want and design it myself or borrow ideas from others (borrowed many from this board).

I realize that not everyone likes to tinker and in that respect it would be nice to buy a "finished" product. But this way makes your boat truly unique... if you looked at the people on this site, I would venture you are more likely to find 2 people with the same fingerprint than you would find 2 boats that are identical.

Kelly

[aya16]

Wow very good discussion here. So where did we go? The Mac is a decent sailboat, will sail and the swish of water as we do it brings the feeling of calm and fun. (mine does) to do this we fill the ballast tank raise the motor, disconnect the motor from the steering (I do) and she sails safe and fun.

To motor we leave the sails down, push the boom aside lower the engine (make sure you reconnected the steering) get moving and dump the ballast. (calm days) we make sure all aboard are in the cockpit or cabin. Now we have a powerboat that is safe and fast enough to keep up with your friends 24 foot power boat going over to the Island. A pure power boat in that 24 foot size will be most comfortable crossing the channel in normal seas at around 23-25 mph. My boat will do 15-17 mph. So the keeping up part doesnt work for me with the engine I now have.

The boat does ride much better under power with the 17mph if I could only maintain that. I cant. But at 17mph it feels lighter and easier to steer. the engine seems to not be working as hard too.

My goal will be to maintain a speed that planes the boat without too much trouble. I also dont want to hurt the sailing ability of the boat with too much weight. I sail with lots of people from this site that have 90's and it doesnt seem to affect their sailing at all. In Fact hardcrab was able to outsail my boat because he was a much better sailor than I, and he has a 90.

Mac says the boat is fun at 22mph and I bet it is. Stable easier to steer, and will use less gas as you plane. I have never seen 22mph. In the video with a fifty hp the boat is scooting along. But theres one person aboard no ballast and the boat is stripped of all the junk we put on later. So we will never see that kind of performance in the real world with a fifty.

All that junk we put on later also will slow the boat a little when sailing. But the trade off is the boat is less tender. will heel slower than a unloaded boat. In fact Im used to sailing all the time at 15-25 deg. heel now and like the way it feels. A few days ago I sailed by myself and the pup. I never heeled more than 25 deg. and just really enjoyed the day. In fact for you fisherman Ill post what I saw in the pub after this.

[Frank C]

IIRC Roger also states in his literature that the boat should be always operated with ballast in for saftey.

Beg to differ ... At least for the X-boat, that's not exactly true, either. My Owner's Manual advises full ballast when 4 or more persons are aboard. However, the unballasted boat under motor power is stable, (sails furled, full rig up) and eminently so when the topside weight (crew) is reasonable.

OK Frank, Why does MacGregor factory supply this decal: M-boat Sticker
How about this page Frank; M-boat Manual

Terry, I'd refer you to my specification (underscored above), except that your questions were basically rhetorical, anyway. I disputed your statement for "always using ballast" since that does not appear in the X-boat manual, also specified, but this following DOES:

WHEN THE BALLAST TANK IS EMPTY:

• - No more than 4 person, or 640 pounds.
  - Crew weight centered from side to side.
  - All sails removed, engine power only.
  - No one on the cabin top or fordeck.
  - Waves less than 1 foot.
  - Operate where water is warm and rescue is likely.
  - Never operate the boat with a partially filled tank.

And that sticker in your first link, dated 2006, is clearly for the M-boat. My reference, again, was to my X-boat (c. 2000). Everyone knows (don't they?) that sticker resulted from a lawsuit, subsequent to the drowning of two children who were innocent victims of their Skipper's impaired stupidity. The Jury never deemed their deaths whatever related to, nor resulting from, Roger's design.

And therein is ample justification for Roger's ambiguity. The boat performs ably as designed, within design-conditions and loads. Regardless of legal caveats, responsible operation according to the minimum manual recommendations is safe. (MY MILEAGE ... yours may vary, do your own reading & research!)

[Boblee]

Great discussion and all good valid points especially when taken to extremes or allowing for extreme behaviour and this can happen with a 30hp motor.
What I (and most here) have a problem with is the effective factory restriction of hp irrespective of all other conditions.
Maybe it is as simple as checking with with local (country) boating authorities and the insurance company.
Of course in most cases it will not be that simple but perhaps as suggested earlier hp should be noted on the insurance policy and boating authorities should be consulted prior to installing a bigger motor.
That would be easier than finding out the hard way.
At the end of the day there is no way hp rating of the motor should be the overiding criteria especially when you take into account the 40- 60hp etec range in particular as the hp would be irrelevent especially in relation to safety even on a basic boat.
Then at least here with motor vehicles, if our tyres are not standard factory or factory recommendations irrespective of safety issues, it provides an out for insurance companies unless it is noted on the policy.

[kziadie]

Trying to put myself in Roger's mind, maybe the reason there is a HP restriction and no restrictions on sailing equipment (other than filling the ballast tank) as Terry mentioned is the fact that an operator is more likely to exceed the design limitations of the boat under power than he/she would under sail. I have always thought that reasoning was also why the mainsail has that single deep reef point... to force people to effectively double reef out of caution.

[Frank C]

Trying to put myself in Roger's mind, maybe the reason there is a HP restriction and no restrictions on sailing equipment (other than filling the ballast tank) as Terry mentioned is the fact that an operator is more likely to exceed the design limitations of the boat under power ...

Close, Kelly. I've posted this before, but maybe different words will help. It's no mystery, methinks.

When my dealer appealed for dispensation for my "then" oversized Suzi-60, back in 1999, the factory said No-way, no-how, never. And they explained why, IMO, though the explanation was "between the lines."

The transom is not an issue. The Factory feels they designed the transom to carry a heavy 50 hp motor ... say the 250 lb. Bigfoot. They prolly over-designed it, considering it's the first ever trailerable Powersailer. They even seemed not terribly concerned with mine at 350 pounds ... who knows, as Roger has observed ever larger installations, the M-transom might even carry 450?!? It's certainly no secret that the M-boat is balance-biased to float a heavy outboard, as the empty M-boats float bow-heavy.

The transom isn't really the issue until the thrust becomes enormous ... maybe that's around 150 hp, but that wasn't a topic back in 1999. Apparently it's not a problem either in 2004, or 2007 ... Billy & one Alaska boat have both mounted the Suzi-140.

This boat is designed for light-weight trailering, AND for safe sailing with water ballast. But a vague inference arose during my Dealer's appeal. The water ballast tank was never designed for (certainly never over-designed for) high-speed motoring. That tank is simply 'glued into' the hull (an over-simplification). It's an ample design to contain 1400 ballast-pounds for sailing at <10 knots, even in heavy conditions.

But that design never contemplated motoring with 1400 ballast-pounds at 20 knots, worse yet 25 or more, especially through coastal chop. Recent litigation has forced them to recommend full ballast when motoring, even though the original design never contemplated carrying that ballast at speed. (Remember that the infamous 24 mph X-boat was absent ballast.)

It's impractical, both from cost and weight constraints, to redesign the ballast system for much higher power and speeds. Ergo, the chances are somewhere between Slim & None that Factory will ever authorize a motor larger than 50 hp. IMO ... you'll never see the Powersailer qualified at greater than 50 hp, because litigation & design constraints make it impossible to get from here, to there.

[aya16]

Frank I think you hit on the problem with a higher hp engine.
The ballast tank coming apart if your pounding through chop at speed.

That would be my concern. But unless your 16 years old and have a jet ski mentality pounding in chop is very uncomfortable in any boat. Thats why I never do it in any boat. if the seas are choppy and I have a 90hp Ill go as slow as its comfortable. But thats me and your point is very well taken by me. if that tank were to split with full ballast it would be a pain to repair.

Pounding in these boats bring other problems too. your mast will weaken the stays, and all that junk we have stored below will fly all over the place.

One thing I have noticed at 17mph in a chop is these boats ride better than some power boats I know of. My mac in chop seems to span the seas very well, where my friends 24 foot rencon will bounce all over the place.

[kziadie]

Ahhhsssoooo!!! That does make a lot of sense. Not only the repair cost, but having 1100 lbs of water suddenly sloshing around in the cabin changing direction can be a recipe for disaster. I guess we will see what Roger does with the "N" or whatever the new flavor of Mac that we will probably see in a few years.

Kelly

[Boblee]

I see your point exactly Frank. BUT a 60hp etec and others using the same 40-60 hp weight motor, is not going to break anything a 50hp won't. All you would have is a better balanced motor for driving the 13" prop. No difference in trailer weight (less than 4 stroke) and only a couple of mph difference in top speed, if the ballast or anything else in the design is that marginal (which it obviously isn't) we all should be worried big time.

Going to the 90 hp and extra speed/weight now thats another story that maybe should be considered in the N But even so it is marginal still except that the particular boat fitted with a 90 would be biased more to power -- big deal.

A 60hp would not lose any of it's versatility. BTW has there been any cases of ballasts splitting? or hull damage from powering too fast?

[Frank C]

BTW ... there's no magic analysis here. As mentioned earlier, these are intimations made to me, by my Mac Dealer, after his conversation directly with Roger ... to wit (paraphrasing), 'It's not an issue with the transom, they're more concerned about, or have questions regarding the ballast tank.'

Ballast water sloshing about the cabin is surely a big problem. But consider the liability of having the ballast tank seams rended during a full-ballast blast?? Remember that the lower liner is installed before the deck is bolted & glued down. That means major repairs to the ballast tank would cause a cost prohibitive liability to the Factory ... can you say, "Totaled!" ??

NO, I've never read of a serious problem with ballast tank.

• Credit that the design of ballast tank is stronger than Roger believes?
  Or, credit that big-motor owners aren't crazies?
  Or, credit that most big-motor guys run empty ballast at speed?
  Regardless the reasons, I've never seen any such reports.

I suppose Roger COULD upgrade his rating to a 60 horse, since the E-TEC weighs same as a 50. But Suzuki's 60 weighs almost 100# more than their 50 ... is the S-60 okay? If the Suzi-60 is okay at 360 pounds, why not the Suzi-70, which is the same powerhead and same weight? What if next years' Evinrude 75 is squeezed from the same powerhead 50 ... should Roger bump it again to 75? After all, Roger sells every boat Costa Mesa permits him to build.
So where exactly is Roger's advantage in uprating the motor?

[kziadie]

I guess with with all the variables with engines.... 2 stroke/4 stroke and the non-standard way that different manafacturers share powerheads between different engines, that Roger just picked a lowest common denominator. In fairness, the outboard models have changed dramatically since the X was designed, and significantly since the M was designed. We are in an era of major evolution of the outboard engine mainly fueled by the 4 stroke revolution and new emission standards.

If you assume that the M has a similar lifespan of the X with molds wearing out etc., the "N" is probably on the drawing board right now, and will take into account the current market. Just as Roger made limited concessions with the horsepower with the M i.e. allowing some dealers to legitimately install a 70, maybe he designs and allows more liberal use of the 70 and makes limited concessions to the 90 on the "N". Do people then start to make noise for the 140? Where does it stop?

Kelly