Difference between IF and Marieholm 26? Exact weight?

[kubal]

Dear colleagues,

since I am a newcomer, excuse my basic question please: is there any difference between IF boat and Marieholm 26? I am a happy new owner of a boat made in 1976 with serial number 2594. "IF" is typed at the manufacturer label inside. She is equipped with outboard engine mounted inside in the "tunnel" (sorry, do not know the English name for it).

Does anybody know what is the exact weight of the empty boat? Does anybody have some official document specifying it? I need to know the exact mass to check the weight limit of the trailer. It will be just at the edge, so exact number is needed.

Hopefully it will be possible to meet with some of you the next summer at Baltic sea! Thank you for help

David Kubal
Czech Republic

[maja]

The IF-boat is lighter than a Marieholm 26. The minimum weight is 2150 kg, but most boats have an empty weight of about 2220 kg. This is excluding all extra fixed mounted equipment, as lifelines etc.

On our website you will find Class Rules in English from 1991 and corresponding drawings. Although those are somewat old, they are correct in general, especially for the hull and rig. See http://www.ifboat.com/teknik/IFRULE2001.PDF and http://www.ifboat.com/teknik/IFREGRIT.HTM

[kubal]

The usual weight 2220 kg is with or without the outboard engine? I suppose it includes the mast. Unfortunately there are no details about the total weight in the drawing 1460 mentioned in the weight specification of the class rules.
Does the difference between Marieholm 26 and IF have something to do with outboard or fixed mount engine?
Thank you very much.
David

[maja]

The weight corresponds to an empty boat. Also, outboard motor is not mandatory and is regarded as loose equipment.

The Mariehoms 26 has a different deck, cabin and cockpit layout. But the hull lines, the rig and the sails are the same.

[OGB]

I also am interested in the weight of an IF boat. What is the difference in overall weight of one fitted with an inboard engine and one without? I had a volvo MD1B probably fitted as original equipment in 1976 when boat was built by Marieholms Bruk. The basic information given is
Model Number LOA LWL Beam Disp Ballast
IF Boat 7.87m 6.05 m 2.20 m 8.75 kg / 2.15 ton 5.09 kg / 1.25 ton
LOA = Length Overall = Längd överallt
LWL= Length at Waterline = Längd i vattenlinjen
Beam = Width = Bredd
Displ = Displacement = Deplacement
Ballast = Weight of Ballast = Långköl

Having taken the MD1B out (weight 165 kilos) and replaced it with Dolphin Series 2 (weight 54 kilos) the boat now is down by the bow which makes me think that compensatory ballast was installed in the bow. Is this in addition to normal ballast or was the distribution of ballast changed ? How was this achieved Is the ballast in the form of "punchings" mixed with fibre glass in the build process or were there one or more solid weights fitted as an afterthought which could be easily removed/relocated.

[Thorbjørn, DEN 312]

I also am interested in the weight of an IF boat. What is the difference in overall weight of one fitted with an inboard engine and one without? I had a volvo MD1B probably fitted as original equipment in 1976 when boat was built by Marieholms Bruk. The basic information given is
Model Number LOA LWL Beam Disp Ballast
IF Boat 7.87m 6.05 m 2.20 m 8.75 kg / 2.15 ton 5.09 kg / 1.25 ton
LOA = Length Overall = Längd överallt
LWL= Length at Waterline = Längd i vattenlinjen
Beam = Width = Bredd
Displ = Displacement = Deplacement
Ballast = Weight of Ballast = Långköl

Having taken the MD1B out (weight 165 kilos) and replaced it with Dolphin Series 2 (weight 54 kilos) the boat now is down by the bow which makes me think that compensatory ballast was installed in the bow. Is this in addition to normal ballast or was the distribution of ballast changed ? How was this achieved Is the ballast in the form of "punchings" mixed with fibre glass in the build process or were there one or more solid weights fitted as an afterthought which could be easily removed/relocated.

Are you sure that it is down by the bow? I mean, of course it is if you compare with your usual waterline but what if you compare with the drawing? You have perhaps already done this comparison ..

[OGB]

Yes the boat is down by the bow to the extent that the cockpit drains into the bilge rather than through the aft cockpit drains. Obviously the position is better with two heavy crew aboard.

[maja]

There flows around an unverified information that the IF-E boats were weight compensated by not having the ballast under the cockpit mounted.

[MathiasB]

En fortsättningsfråga på denna tråden.
Det står i Marieholms broschyr för M 26 att "mer än 50% av båtens totalvikt ligger i kölen".
Hur stämmer det med 1,25 ton ballast och 2,5 ton deplacement? Räknar de in motorns vikt eller skarvar man lite utifrån IF-en?

[maja]

Det står i Marieholms broschyr för M 26 att "mer än 50% av båtens totalvikt ligger i kölen".
Hur stämmer det med 1,25 ton ballast och 2,5 ton deplacement? Räknar de in motorns vikt eller skarvar man lite utifrån IF-en?

Eftersom allt som har sin tyngdpunkt under vattenlinjen och vars densitet är lika med eller högre än vattnets, är stabilitetshöjande, kan inombordsmotorn kanske anses vara en del av ballasten i en jämförelse med en båt utan inombordare. Men det är inte särskilt vanligt.

I det här fallet, så tror jag att Marieholmsvarvet inte har tänkt särskilt långt och helt enkelt den snott texten från IF-båtens specifikation.

Egentligen, om vi diskuterar på svenska språket, ska vi diskutera detta i den svenska delen av forumet. Om det blir någon fortsättning, kan den väl fortsätta där...

[MathiasB]

Tack!
Jag tyckte jag var duktig som sökte efter en befintlig tråd istället för att skapa en ny. Missade helt att det var en engelsk forumdel.

[MathiasB]

I just want to clean up my mess here!

Above I asked a related Q to this thread without realizing that it was the english part of the forum. My appologies!
To correct this here is a translation och the Q & A:

En fortsättningsfråga på denna tråden.
Det står i Marieholms broschyr för M 26 att "mer än 50% av båtens totalvikt ligger i kölen".
Hur stämmer det med 1,25 ton ballast och 2,5 ton deplacement? Räknar de in motorns vikt eller skarvar man lite utifrån IF-en?

"The Marieholm broshure for the M26 states that it has more then 50% of the total weight in the keel. How does this calculate with 1,25/2,5 tons? Do they count the engines weight och have they mistakenly copied the IF- broschure?"

"Maja's" reply was:
"Because everything below the waterline with a density greater than that of water adds to stability, the engine may be counted as ballast but in this case Marieholm have probably med a misstake with the text."

[johan swe-1870]

That's a nice gesture MathiasB! I am sure the english members like that.

[Fer Holland]

Here's some information I've got from Göran Helmer (former salesmanager of Marieholmsbruk) ;

The keel ballast for the IF is 1.250 kg, i.e. 58%. For the IF E with inboard engine the keel ballast is cut off at the end of the ballast. Believe some 150 kgs were cut off in order to compensate for the engine. Otherwise the boat had been hanging on her ass. Even with the engine and with the shorter keel ballast the inboard version has a tendency to have a litte too much weight aft.
The Marieholm 26 had to be compensated for the cockpit at the end of the hull. So the keel was differently made with more weight at the front end.
I have a notice that the Marieholm 261 has a keel ballast of 1.200 kgs and this boat has the same keel as the M-26.

Fer Postma
Dutch Marieholm Association

[OGB]

Rather belated thanks for solving the problem!