MacGregorSailors.com

BOAT wrote:It's just normal - the wider a boat is compared to it's length plus draft the more it's gonna roll. The MAC is actually quite narrow for it's length but the deal with the MAC *(26) is that it does not add much draft. You get a boat with lot's of length AND lots of draft that is skinny and it will not roll much at all.

Hey Matt - what would happen if you tied a drogue anchor or swell dampeners to the port and starboard cleats? That might slow down the roll a LOT - we tried it in Mexico once because the swells were abeam at a mooring and they helps a lot.

*(Had to edit that: the 26 still rolls even as a narrow boat because the 26 does not add enough draft value to the equation, I did not put 26 after MAC)

I'm sure drogue anchors would help somewhat, but they'd have to be pretty long because they need to be entirely below the total wave amplitude, or else they just go up and down with the swells as well.

In any air at all this wouldn't have been an issue as the sail would counter all the wave motion. But yeah, I was surprised how wave affected the big boat is compared to the mac.

That boat is pretty wide, I bet you would only need a dampener on ONE side because your boat is SO wide it really multiplies the effect of the dampeners -

You put a two or three tier dampener on 30 feet of chain and and I bet that slows down the roll in that yacht so much that the next swell might even cancel out the previous one. The trick is to make the boat roll very slowly. I have seen a lot of clever hired pilots keep their boat owners happy on ships like yours using some pretty simple gadgets - if the wine glasses tip over at anchor it can get someone fired - those guys know a lot of tricks.

I generally like the MAC65/70. But one thing makes me uneasy about the design. I understand it has a diesel engine running a high flow pump to switch the water ballast from side to side depending on the tack (at least the 70). What happens if this engine/pump and/or associated valving fails and the ballast is on the wrong side? Sounds like there needs to be some kind of backup fail-safe system otherwise this sounds like it could be pretty dangerous.

The gate valve floods both the tanks in normal operation (no power) just like on the little 26M

BOAT wrote:

Buell_S1W wrote:There's a Mac 65 being advertised from New Zealand right now, I don't know if it's based here in NZ or somewhere else which is often the case.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing ... =764177591

Looked at the pictures, nice - if only i were rich enough, looks like that one may have had women on board.

I'd seen that listing and some others. Easy to find at $250k.. but I've also seen three pilot house Macs sell under $150k in the past 3 months, some patience can gain better price.

tek wrote:

BOAT wrote:

Buell_S1W wrote:There's a Mac 65 being advertised from New Zealand right now, I don't know if it's based here in NZ or somewhere else which is often the case.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing ... =764177591

Looked at the pictures, nice - if only i were rich enough, looks like that one may have had women on board.

I'd seen that listing and some others. Easy to find at $250k.. but I've also seen three pilot house Macs sell under $150k in the past 3 months, some patience can gain better price.

Remimber it is a Boat the one at $150k may cost you more than the one at $250k.

This is limited to the 65 only I guess (it says: 'Macgregor 65 Discussion' above in blue letters) But really guys, if you have the 250 grand to put down on a 65 - if it were me - I would go for the 70. The 70 can't be that much more, can it? A pilot house 70 would be the perfect boat indeed. Super light - fast, and don't use much fuel under power, and very strong. If your gonna own it and travel a lot why not just go for the 70?

BOAT wrote:This is limited to the 65 only I guess (it says: 'Macgregor 65 Discussion' above in blue letters) But really guys, if you have the 250 grand to put down on a 65 - if it were me - I would go for the 70. The 70 can't be that much more, can it? A pilot house 70 would be the perfect boat indeed. Super light - fast, and don't use much fuel under power, and very strong. If your gonna own it and travel a lot why not just go for the 70?

Was there ever a 70 in production? The only google hit I can find is Anthem. It was my understanding that Roger extended a standard 65 to make Anthem.

To the pump comment above, that's a good question. Could it become a safety issue? I would imagine this boat is built for racing and that ballast pump system is built with that in mind. Wouldn't be hard to install a backup electric pump, although it would be slower and not allow for fast tacking.
You wouldn't want to have to fire up the big diesel pump on every tack unless you were racing. And does that change race rules when you use diesel to power control systems? America's cup boats are allowed to use engines for this. http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4367560
Some argue that takes away the purity of sailing.

It would seem the new 65 is designed to go fast from a proven fast hull, the carbon spars to movable water ballast. Should be interesting to see how it performs.
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8u56Q_Uh4
Was dated March 2013 and it looked like the boat was fairly well along. Surely it's gotta be close to launch. Mike?

Makes me think of the fuel system in a Bell 212 helicopter.

Two fuel tanks in the floor. If one where to be empty and the other full, it might affect the centre of gravity..which is very important in aircraft.

There is a X feed valve that when open, allows fuel to be pumped to either tank from either tank.

There is an Interconnect valve which allows fuel to slosh to either tank.

Point being, it would be very easy to control, two valves and a pump in either side. Gives options for gravity or pressure movement of the Ballast.


Dave

RussMT wrote:

BOAT wrote:This is limited to the 65 only I guess (it says: 'Macgregor 65 Discussion' above in blue letters) But really guys, if you have the 250 grand to put down on a 65 - if it were me - I would go for the 70. The 70 can't be that much more, can it? A pilot house 70 would be the perfect boat indeed. Super light - fast, and don't use much fuel under power, and very strong. If your gonna own it and travel a lot why not just go for the 70?

Was there ever a 70 in production? The only google hit I can find is Anthem. It was my understanding that Roger extended a standard 65 to make Anthem.

To the pump comment above, that's a good question. Could it become a safety issue? I would imagine this boat is built for racing and that ballast pump system is built with that in mind. Wouldn't be hard to install a backup electric pump, although it would be slower and not allow for fast tacking.
You wouldn't want to have to fire up the big diesel pump on every tack unless you were racing. And does that change race rules when you use diesel to power control systems? America's cup boats are allowed to use engines for this. http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4367560
Some argue that takes away the purity of sailing.

It would seem the new 65 is designed to go fast from a proven fast hull, the carbon spars to movable water ballast. Should be interesting to see how it performs.
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8u56Q_Uh4
Was dated March 2013 and it looked like the boat was fairly well along. Surely it's gotta be close to launch. Mike?

If the 70 is no good for anything except racing then i change my mind - that's not the boat I want if i had the money - I guess I would go for the 65 too. I thought the 70 was supposed to be just like the 65 only better.

That makes me curious if I will follow the same evolution as the 65, start with the first batch heavily leaning towards racing and more of a cruising version later.. similar to how the old 65's evolved into the new pilot house 65's.

I did not know the boat 'evolved' but whatever he said I agree: cruising is everything - that's the most important. Cruising FAST is a GREAT thing!

Gezz I woulda thought that with Chopper Pilot on Ur Aft ur boat would be pretty fast with all that down draft blowing into too ur sails , U will have to change BOAT,S name too UBOAT !!!

J

BOAT wrote:I did not know the boat 'evolved' but whatever he said I agree: cruising is everything - that's the most important. Cruising FAST is a GREAT thing!

Ok, 'evolved' probably wasn't the best term, but the design did change over time going from more of a racer to more of a cruiser.

What Highlander is trying to say is that I am full of it. Everybody already knows that - tell us something we don't already know like: how much does the 70 cost?

Still, Highlander makes me think - are you sure the 65 was not always a pilothouse boat? Are there any pictures of a 65 without a pilot house?

HEY HIGHLANDER!! Did you get your bottom fixed yet?