26M PHRF

[baldbaby2000]

No one will admit to this tom fooly today.of course the X easially obtains 9 plus knots down wind in normal conditions 12 MPH and above - fully ballasted with centerfoil up and three big crew members. So there is a bit of fear as well.

The 17 MPH under sail claim by MacGregor is not a farce.

Frank,

Is this from your own experience?

[Richard O'Brien]

Baldbaby and I both entered the leukemia cup this last weekend. He lied a little about his crew, as he also had onboard his dog and cat. He also has a remarkable array of electronic gizmos, including a new to be program which calculates VMG in real time (I think) at various angles of heel & angles off the wind. This will give we Macgregor owners some very advantageous data one day methinks.

As for me I had a wonderful day but sort of like how can your first horse race really be all bad? The race committee ran out of copies of the sailing instructions and map of the buoys. I was 50 yards behind the start, couldnt see or find the starting flag with our class number, because it was surrounded by sails of other competitors. There was no wind, and when I finally caught a puff and thought Id catch up, I hurried up to the buoy for the port tack, and the wind died right in the middle of the tack. I sadly drifted back into the buoy. When we got untangled I couldnt find the next mark, and instead pretty nearly ran into the race committee boat. I had to start my motor to avoid hitting them, and thus disqualified myself. At that point I through in the towel, as Baldbaby was pretty much out of sight. I came in and saw Bill, who had lowered our PHRF ot 235, one of the race organizers sitting on his Corsair. I old him how my first race went, and he said Heck Rich. I actually ran down the race committee boat, and thats why Im sitting here. So Id say all in all it was a pretty good day.

[baldbaby2000]

Hi Richard,

The races were definitely skewed towards the faster boats. I don't agree with the way they were run but I can see both sides. It's hard to group boats so they finish about the same time. My main complaint was that they didn't anounce when the first boat in our class finished so I didn't know when the 1/2 hour clock started for me to finish; the rules say you have to finish within 1/2 hour of the first boat's crossing time. In the winds (or lack of) that we had that was tough to do. So even though we ending up finishing the races we started they had started another race without us knowing it while we were finishing the previous, plus we got a DNF because we didn't finish in the time limit. As some consolation we weren't the only ones with this problem. I had to start our motor once to keep from drifting into the start boat on one leg. I don't think anyone noticed but I called him on the radio and told him and he made me do a 720. A very painful excersise with no wind. The wind came up nicely at the very end of the last race but then they anounced no more races. Doh! That was after I got a reef in and lost a batten.

I think there were about 14 boats in our division including a Catalina 250, and a couple Catalina 25s.

I think the Mac can compete if the wind is greater than 6 knots or so. Otherwise it's just doesn't seem to do well.

By the way, there were two classic Mac 26s there. I know one was a daggerboard version and he took first place in his division (not the same division as ours).

[They Theirs]

Im wondering what the actual difference in light air sailing between an M with a large engine and another comparably prepared M sporting a minimal auxiliary power. We Powersailors reach for the Iron Jenny when there is little wind.

Knowing the PHRF sets our rating with the best prepared M having custom carbon sails and the best of go fast rigging. If only they were to provide a more competitive program with handicap adjusted from earlier performances at the club level to better competition and participation.

[Richard O'Brien]

It's fun thinking what can be altered to increase sailing race performance. For one thing, I kept wishing I had an adjustable ballast. I mean what if there were two ballast tanks instead of one, and you could sail with 700 lbs. on light days, and add another 8-900 for heavy San francisco sailing Wouldn't that be cool? I was thinking about having some "sand in a tube" nearby for those really windy days, to place just outside the existing tubes, or even lineal Plastismo-like, bladders? The J-22's pretty much ran circles around me, but they didn't have a bimini, and cooler to access when I was sure I was near deadlast. I am thinking about raking my mast back a little to help with those dead-air tacks. When the Mac loses momentum, it is impossible to steer. I watched J-boats in similar circumstances, and they remarkably came around. Part of this is the wheel I think? Thoughts?

[baldbaby2000]

Those J boats are pretty amazing (aside from their tendency to sink in heavy weather). They can play games like doing roll tacks which I think are legal as long as they don't heel the boat back again after the tack. There also seems to be something about the dynamics of the rudder and keel that give the boat a slight kick when they tack. I was watching the guys with not motors come off the lake with no sails just by rocking the boat. There may have been some sculling action but I didn't see them moving the tiller and the boat was moving at about 1/2 knot.

I probably should have tried to perfect a roll tack on the Mac but I didn't. I suppose anyone who races with a dog, a cat and a grandson can't be expected to be too dedicated.

[They Theirs]

All those viewing your making test runs at the starting line in the pre-race action are jealous for your having a family member to crew with you. I was privileged to race with my daughter, who was fairly skilled at foredeck, making believers out of doubters and envious friends of fellow sailors who were unable to coax their family on board. Win or loose, the good times of competition are such great fun. They make great conversation at gatherings with friends and family.

I like the idea of Water Ballast. Sail and Sailing World magazines have shown many large racing maxi-boats such as Pyewacket, campaigned by the Disney family, with some experimental water ballast suspended outside their windward hull on offshore races. It would be worth the effort if it was legal and could be shifted and controlled easily.

[baldbaby2000]

I was privileged to race with my daughter, who was fairly skilled at foredeck, making believers out of doubters and envious friends of fellow sailors who were unable to coax their family on board. Win or loose, the good times of competition are such great fun. They make great conversation at gatherings with friends and family.

One of the Capri 22s racing was a couple (Australian I think) with two young children, a boy and a girl. They took first place and really enjoyed it. I think the race also counted for points for the nationals so it really made them happy.

[They Theirs]

The Capri22 rates a 210; they need to better your boat by 20 seconds per mile. They were race bread from the word go. You'll need some rail meat to hold any ground.

[Frank C]

I spent two days just last week sailing on a Capri 22. It was the keeled version and it's one amazing little boat under sail, fast and stiff with very close angles to the wind.

Until this ASA class I'd never have believed how quickly one can recover a "MOB" cushion under sail. They teach a modified figure-8. Granting that the quick handling of this small boat is surely contributory, but we were able to retrieve in less than 2 minutes every attempt - under sail alone (~15 kn. winds). Gotta get out there and try the same in the 26X!

I don't like the Capri tiller arrangement because it's right up against the center-cockpit traveler. That makes it a hassle to change tacks, but after a couple more days I'd probably find a satisfactory technique. Worst thing about the Capri was motoring with a 4 hp Merc and managing both tillers at once - complete PITA. The Mac's wheel steering might lack feeling, but it's vastly better than the little boat ... if I had a Capri I'd learn to dock it under sail and skip the outboard - fact is, that's in next week's cirriculum.

[mighetto]

Only a few know that I have huge admiration for Thunderbirds. These are boats that were designed in the 1950s for the purpose of promoting plyboard. You could get plans from every lumber yard. Last year my wife and I attended a Thunderbird event in Lake Union, near Blue Water yachts.

Thunderbirds are found all over the world and are characterized as extreemly fast race vessels. However, I think the Mac26X and Ms could be faster. Perhaps the T-bird builders made race versions and cruise versions. These are keeled vessels. They are also sharp chined vessels like our Ms and Xs. They were meant for the same market as X and Ms - 26 foot pocket cruisers that can also be raced. Anyway I would own one if not for MacGregor and fiberglass.

I found one T-bird in fiberglass and understand that glass versions are available. How does a crew in an X or M better them on the race course?

[They Theirs]

Matching the performance of the Tbird with the Mac X or M on or off the race coarse under sail would be a challenge. The somewhat advanced design of the cast iron keel with its weight down low, narrow at the hull, provided some of the advantages of the bulb with enhanced stability to carry a taller spar, larger main, in maintaining its drive to stay on its feet to sail closer to the wind. The statistics of the MacGregor are similar, but the pure sail rocker of the Tbird hull is furthest away from the motoring form of the Mac sporting the large auxiliary mounted permanently on the stern. Early Macs without a large auxiliary engine were able to trim the hull for better balance and maintain somewhat better sailing performance from marginal stability with water ballast. Others cannot approach the motoring performance of the newer MacGregors, so the Powersailor may benefit more from improving its performance with competition in its own class, than attempting to match or better a benchmark of proven pure sail racer/cruiser lacking positive flotation.

From their Web Site:
The Thunderbird class sailboat was designed in 1958 by Seattle Washington naval architect Ben Seaborn, in response to a request from the Douglas Fir Plywood Association (now APA - The Engineered Wood Association) of Tacoma, Washington for design proposals for a sailboat that would "... be both a racing and cruising boat; provide sleeping accommodations for four crew; be capable of being built by reasonably skilled amateurs; provide auxiliary power by an outboard motor that could be easily removed and stowed; and out-perform other sailboats in its class." More than 35 years of experience and construction of more than 1,250 Thunderbirds around the world have demonstrated that the 25.90-foot (7.89 meter) Thunderbird class sailboat is a success on all accounts.

The Thunderbird's performance can be attributed to a lightweight, 3,650 lb (1,656 kg) hull and rig with V-bottom hull and hard chines. Outstanding stability is provided by a 1,530 lb (694 kg) cast iron keel of advanced design with a 4.79-foot (1.46 meter) draft. The sail area is 363 square feet (33.72 square meters) in the mainsail and genoa, (308 in the Mainsail and Jib) and racing boats are equipped with a spinnaker. The Thunderbird (or T-Bird, as it is commonly known) has proven to be fast in both light winds and heavy, often out-performing contemporary displacement-type sailboats of similar or even larger size in local handicap races. By way of comparison, where the PHRF handicap for the Thunderbird is 201-204 (seconds per mile), the J-24 rates 185, the San Juan 24 228-237, the Ericson 30 221, the MacGregor26 259, the Catalina 27 218-221. The boats of similar size but faster rating tend to be ultra-lights that are difficult to handle in heavier weather.
It's 7.54 foot (2.30 meter) beam makes it possible to haul the boat by trailer, without special permits, for launching, winter storage and for traveling to long-distance racing or cruising destinations.

Vital Statistics:
Overall Length: 25' 11-3/4" (7.89 m)
Maximum Beam: 7' 6-1/2" (2.30 m)
Mast Height (above WL): 37' 10-1/4" (11.54 m)
Draft: 4' 9-1/2" (1.46 m)
Displacement: 3,650 lbs (1,656 kg)
Ballast (Keel): 1530 lbs (694 kg)
Sail Area (100% fore triangle) 308 sq. ft. (28.61 sq. m)

[mighetto]

From empirical observations (T-birds hastling Murrelet Mac26x) I find the birds fastest down wind. On reaches we hold our own and of course when the wind gets over 12 MPH and there is planing potential the X will better. One of the techniques down wind is to drop water ballast. If you follow racing than you may have followed Swiftsure. The TP52 finishing first is owned by a fellow paid to promote the design but his personal vessel (now being built) is water ballasted.


We are the vessel rated 241 by PHRF that Tripp Gal refered to. Gal is also a TP52 advocate and I believe this vessel type of poor design - it not having stability in the hull as T-Birds and XMs but rather relying on keel weight. ON weight, Murrelet carries an extra 300 lbs of gear low in the boat and her rating reflects this. The 300 lbs is there primarily for making it easier on me in that I can carry more sail unballasted. But it also follows what Roger did with the M. The notion that external keel weight makes for a faster or more stable vessel has to be tempered with the fact that the tall ships carry their ballast internally, sometimes in the form of water ballast in caskets. I suspect and designers like brewer will remind all that he proved external weight on a bulb does not in itself make a faster design. In fact in his experiments it was just the opposit.

So here is the latest thought. The newest TP52 has gone to a more hard chined T-bird, XM hull shape. It is this hull shape that is fast and also provides form stability. Roger is just brilliant. Teeters (Mr anti water ballast, anti Mac) not.

What I am wondering about T-birds is if they suffer as my X does in bouy rounding. The courses we enjoy are real ones around islands etc rather than artifical ones set up to favor craft that do not have stability in their hull form. I am also wondering if any thought has been given to desiging a T-bird with water ballast and less keel. Oh I have many thoughts. I would like some regarding moving water ballast off the X during a race as is now allowed in PHRF-NW.

BTW - lifting one rudder can make a big difference in situations where the tidal current and light wind are behind you. In other situations not so much. I continue to test this as it seams odd to me. .3 MPH difference.

[Terry]

It's fun thinking what can be altered to increase sailing race performance. For one thing, I kept wishing I had an adjustable ballast. I mean what if there were two ballast tanks instead of one, and you could sail with 700 lbs. on light days, and add another 8-900 for heavy San francisco sailing Wouldn't that be cool?

It would be way cool!!

I found one T-bird in fiberglass and understand that glass versions are available. How does a crew in an X or M better them on the race course?

Back in the 70's I had my first sailing experience taking lessons on a Thunderbird....it was fiberglass. The instructor informed us that even though they started out being built of plywood that many were now being built with fiberglass... that was back then. My guess is that there are plenty still floating around the Pacific Northwest.

[Newell]

Miggetto,

I hadn't seen in any previous post that your X had been re-rated to 241 as you referred to in this thread. As I remember you had some ridiculous number in the 100s like 175! Of course you know that 241 is also not competitive and you need to file a huge protest. If I am wrong please post any result showing a win that I can verify.

All else you can say about the X or M doesn't carry much weight with me until you start saying something realistic about PHRF.

Newell