MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>Would I be permitted to buy a chart plotter, depth-knot, autosteering,
>>or VHF?
>
>
> What's a "depth-knot"?

It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
>
>

[felton]

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:01:44 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:

>
>
>Wally wrote:
>
>> Jim Cate wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This isn't what happened at all. I posted my questions several times
>>>on this an on the cruising ng and scanned the reponses for over a
>>>month hoping to get some factual or substantive information regarding
>>> the 26M. It was only after weeks of "Mac bashings" ...
>>
>>
>> What, you came into a sailing newsgroup to enquire about about a boat you
>> knew little about, it's gets slagged off something rotten for a month...
>>
>> ...and then you go and *buy* one?
>>
>> Nobody is that stupid.
>>
>You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally. I came onto this newsgroups
>hoping to get some substantive, factual information. Instead, I found
>out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
>and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
>don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone who
>likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are either: (1)
>stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar. In any event, it
>put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought might be some
>problems with the Mac, other than its inherent limitations that I
>already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified, and I proceeded to
>place my order. Because they are substantially sold out for the rest of
>the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few who will be able to take
>delivery of this spectacular and innovated boat this season.
>
>Jim


Do you really believe that the "new" Mac 26 is some night and day
different boat than the "old" Mac 26? P.T. Barnum was right.

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

>> What's a "depth-knot"?
>
> It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.

Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what sort of
handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much reef would you
put in the main, and what size of jib would you use? How much heel would you
expect when going to windward?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Peter Wiley]

In article >, Jim Cate
> wrote:

> Wally wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This isn't what happened at all. I posted my questions several times
> >>on this an on the cruising ng and scanned the reponses for over a
> >>month hoping to get some factual or substantive information regarding
> >> the 26M. It was only after weeks of "Mac bashings" ...
> >
> >
> > What, you came into a sailing newsgroup to enquire about about a boat you
> > knew little about, it's gets slagged off something rotten for a month...
> >
> > ...and then you go and *buy* one?
> >
> > Nobody is that stupid.
> >
> You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally. I came onto this newsgroups
> hoping to get some substantive, factual information. Instead, I found
> out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
> and don't know what the hell they are talking about,

Ah, there's a telling point. Jim thinks that the only thing that counts
is direct, personal experience.

I guess he would have stuck his head in an oven to see how hot it was.
That explains a lot.

PDW

[Peter Wiley]

Sort of leads to the obvious question, then. Can the thing plane with a
sailing rig, full ballast tanks, fuel, water and a couple or 4 people
aboard? If not, there goes any speed advantage over a displacement
sailboat, but you keep the disadvantages quite nicely. Including the
greater fuel consumption and the need to carry a much more flammable
fuel to boot.

There are advantages of outboards, no denying that. But to read an
account of how they perform in any sort of sea on a displacement hull,
try reading Fanny Hill's 'Brazil and Beyond'. They eventually replaced
the outboard with a diesel inboard.

Jim could have got a centreboard sharpie that draws bugger-all water
with an outboard in a well. I was looking at a Cal 22 yesterday and it
had an outboard on a set of parallelogram bars in a well - most of the
advantages of a saildrive at a lot less cost, and fully retractable. A
setup like that in a sharpie hull, you'd have something that sailed and
had shoal draft.

Course, it wouldn't plane at 18+ knots ot get to blue water fast, but
let's see if this unstable Mac can do it except in ideal conditions.

PDW

In article >, Jeff Morris
> wrote:

> In one place they say they lose 3 mph when the ballast if full. In another,
> they say they lose one mph for every 100 pounds added. Also, the "22 mph" is
> with empty tanks, no rigging, one person, flat seas. They advise not running
> without ballast, but if you must, there's a long list of safety precautions,
> like not going on deck, staying seated, only do it if the seas are under one
> foot and the water is warm, etc.
>
>
>
> "Peter Wiley" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > In article >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:23:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
> hulled".
> > > >The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would
> > > >be
> > > >easy
> > > >to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
> > > >
> > > >BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The daggerboard stays, and the rest of the boat keeps going.
> > >
> > > Other tidbits from Macgregor: The factory does not supply gas tank
> > > hold downs. If you wish to add your own, DO NOT drill any holes! You
> > > must glass in the hold downs.
> > >
> > > If you install a second battery, DO NOT put it next to the existing
> > > one. It will cause too much stress (what's that battery weigh? 50
> > > pounds?) You must mount it on the opposite side of the boat.
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way, if you motor with the ballast tank empty, bear in mind
> > > that the boat is then VERY top heavy, and extremely prone to
> > > capsizing. Make all turns very slowly and gradually, and always avoid
> > > the wakes from other boats and large fish.
> >
> > I did wonder about that. Next question is, does the thing plane with
> > the ballast tank full? If not, there goes the 18 knots.....
> >
> > PDW
>
>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally.

In all honesty, and with due respect, I think you have.


> I came onto this newsgroups
> hoping to get some substantive, factual information.

Would I be correct in assuming that you were looking for said information to
aid you in your purchasing decision?


> Instead, I found
> out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
> and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
> don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone
> who likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are
> either: (1) stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar.

Frankly, I think "intimidate" is a bit strong. This *is* a newsgroup, after
all. If you know anything about usenet, you'll know that conversation is
often robust to say the least.


> In any event, it put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought
> might be some problems with the Mac, other than its inherent
> limitations that I already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified,
> and I proceeded to place my order.

What probelms in partcular were you concerned about, and how could those
concerns be put at ease when all you've had is negative comments?


> ... Because they are substantially
> sold out for the rest of the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few
> who will be able to take delivery of this spectacular and innovated
> boat this season.

What is spectacular and innovative about it?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[katysails]

Jim fibbed: Actually, I knew what you meant too, Katy. It was just too
tempting.

Nah...you didn't know....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[katysails]

Jim asked: Why do you want to
continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit?

Ok...the honest truth here...we all truly, truly believe that the Mac
designed X and M are bad boats, that they are a sham, and that they are
dangerous. If we KF'd you or ignored you, some newbie is going to read your
glowing, rose-colored glasses reviews of Macs and go out and buy one. Then
we would be responsible for that poor choice. We look upon sailboat
ownership as a responsibility and we look out for other sailors, even the
newbies. When someone makes a poor choice and doesn't have the intelligence
to listen to tried and tue opinion and fact, then we have to take action.
We are the vigilantes of ng sailing. We have a responsibility, and we don't
take that lightly. You have a long, long road ahead of you, but we've had
your kind here before. You will notice they are not here now. Stay if you
wish, but PLEASE, stop repeating yourself. Stop asking the same
questions...you will get the same answers every time. If nothing else, we
are consistent.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[katysails]

Jim opined: many on this ng
have become opinionated,

Become???? We came this way...we're original opinionates....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[katysails]

Jim, obviously knowing very little about Jon or his ng history asked: Then
why are you sticking around in this discussion, John? Can't let it go?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA I've been possessed by Bobsprit.....

:

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[katysails]

So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that he
"won"?

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Jeff Morris]

I've been passed a number of times by a Mac 26X that used to stay in the Charles
River and power out into Boston harbor every Saturday morning. I figured he was
doing about 10-12 knots. Every week I would comment on how its nice that he
keeps using the boat. About a half hour later I would overtake them in the
middle harbor when they stopped the engine and raised sail (to his credit he
kept trying). In the short, nasty chop of the busy harbor they made essentially
no headway. This went on for 2 or 3 years - I haven't seen them lately.

BTW, I was at the yard today and checked out the newer 26 stashed near my boat
and realized its engine was missing - the cables had been chopped rather
traumatically! I don't think it happened in the yard since it was backed
against the fence. I'll get the full story soon, I assume. I guess this is
another downside of a boat whose half its value is just bolted on the back.



"Peter Wiley" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Sort of leads to the obvious question, then. Can the thing plane with a
> sailing rig, full ballast tanks, fuel, water and a couple or 4 people
> aboard? If not, there goes any speed advantage over a displacement
> sailboat, but you keep the disadvantages quite nicely. Including the
> greater fuel consumption and the need to carry a much more flammable
> fuel to boot.
>
> There are advantages of outboards, no denying that. But to read an
> account of how they perform in any sort of sea on a displacement hull,
> try reading Fanny Hill's 'Brazil and Beyond'. They eventually replaced
> the outboard with a diesel inboard.
>
> Jim could have got a centreboard sharpie that draws bugger-all water
> with an outboard in a well. I was looking at a Cal 22 yesterday and it
> had an outboard on a set of parallelogram bars in a well - most of the
> advantages of a saildrive at a lot less cost, and fully retractable. A
> setup like that in a sharpie hull, you'd have something that sailed and
> had shoal draft.
>
> Course, it wouldn't plane at 18+ knots ot get to blue water fast, but
> let's see if this unstable Mac can do it except in ideal conditions.
>
> PDW
>
> In article >, Jeff Morris
> > wrote:
>
> > In one place they say they lose 3 mph when the ballast if full. In another,
> > they say they lose one mph for every 100 pounds added. Also, the "22 mph"
is
> > with empty tanks, no rigging, one person, flat seas. They advise not
running
> > without ballast, but if you must, there's a long list of safety precautions,
> > like not going on deck, staying seated, only do it if the seas are under one
> > foot and the water is warm, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Peter Wiley" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > In article >,
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:23:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
> > hulled".
> > > > >The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it
would
> > > > >be
> > > > >easy
> > > > >to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
> > > > >
> > > > >BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The daggerboard stays, and the rest of the boat keeps going.
> > > >
> > > > Other tidbits from Macgregor: The factory does not supply gas tank
> > > > hold downs. If you wish to add your own, DO NOT drill any holes! You
> > > > must glass in the hold downs.
> > > >
> > > > If you install a second battery, DO NOT put it next to the existing
> > > > one. It will cause too much stress (what's that battery weigh? 50
> > > > pounds?) You must mount it on the opposite side of the boat.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By the way, if you motor with the ballast tank empty, bear in mind
> > > > that the boat is then VERY top heavy, and extremely prone to
> > > > capsizing. Make all turns very slowly and gradually, and always avoid
> > > > the wakes from other boats and large fish.
> > >
> > > I did wonder about that. Next question is, does the thing plane with
> > > the ballast tank full? If not, there goes the 18 knots.....
> > >
> > > PDW
> >
> >

[John Cairns]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
> fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
> some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
> off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.
>
> What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
> concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
> the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
> continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
> are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
> clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
> keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?
>
> Jim

You can't seriously believe this crap you've been posting, can you? You're
basically posting, verbatim, what you've been reading in the mac sales
literature. I can offer you one unbiased review of the mac, culled from
"Practical Sailor", which accepts no advertising and can't possibly be
accused of harboring biases when it comes to sailboat evaluations. It's
free.
http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html
Very interesting that they didn't bother to ACTUALLY SAIL THE THING. Also
very interesting that this was one of the 2 reviews that they're offering
free of charge. A public service announcement, perhaps? You'll note, even
the man himself doesn't claim that this is an "offshore" boat. No one will
drive you away, but at some point you'll get plonked by just about everyone
here. And one last thing, if you really think your comments are "balanced"
and "fresh air", why do YOU keep trying to justify them? After all, you
asked for the input from us, we didn't come looking for YOU. And, of course,
I've never actually sailed one, but I've sailed by them many times in my 28
ft. keelboat, I should say, I've passed them many times in my 28 ft.
keelboat, more often than not they didn't appear to be moving. I will also
admit, because I've seen it also, that they can definitely motor a lot
faster than I can sail, but if I was REALLY interested in powerboating I'd
own a powerboat and wouldn't be posting ANY of this here.
John Cairns

[Jonathan Ganz]

You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
you know nothing about sailing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Wiley wrote:
> > In article >, Jonathan Ganz
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sure, I'm bored Jhm.
> >
> >
> > Well, he's good for something, then. My thoughts on his list of points
> > was exactly the same as yours - get a catamaran.
> >
> > As someone else said, let's see that thing plane or move at 18 knots in
> > a nasty chop and 30 knot headwind. Isn't going to happen.
> >
> > PDW
> \
> Actually, I would have reefed a long time before experiencing 30 knot
> winds in any direction. The Mac has some obvious advantages and also
> some obvious disadvantages. One of the disadvantages (with respect to
> sailing in heavy weather offshore) is that it isn't a heavy
> discplacement boat weighing over 15,000 pounds that can readily handle
> 30 knot winds. On the other hand, one of its advantages (with respect
> to 90% of the conditions I expect to sail in) is that it isn't a heavy
> displacment boat weighing over 15,000 pounds, but can still survive in
> heavy weather.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
> boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
> for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
> would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
> MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
> with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
> bottom within a few minutes?
>
> > The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
> > closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
> > even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
> > your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
> > you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
> > pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.

Then why did you buy one?

> Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
> because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
> quickly, and also
> permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
> or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
> and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
> hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.
>
> Jim
>
>
> p,
> >
> >
> >>"Jim Cate" < wrote 6 times...
> >>
> >>>(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.
> >>
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

They're a piece of junk compared to other boats in the same
price range. Nothing they could have done would improve
them enough to justify buying one.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> katysails wrote:
>
> > I'm of the opinion that the guy is a MacGregor infiltrate, sent by the
> >
> >>company to turn the attention of the group on their sorry product...
> >
>
> Not at all. However, I am interested in maintaining some balance
> between differing points of view, and it's obvious that the Mac-Bashers
> have posted more than their share of notes ridiculing Mac owners in the
> past few years, despite the fact that most of them know little or
> nothing about the current model. Hopfully, I can help make up the
> difference.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Bullsh*t. You need meds.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
> fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because

[Jonathan Ganz]

I think you're lying. Prove you aren't.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Prove it. I think you bought it a few weeks ago. I have it on
> > good authority. Prove I'm wrong.
>
> I placed the order for the Mac on March 25. My initial note on this ng
> was posted February 25. Prior to ordering the Mac, I was seriously
> considering several other boats, as mentioned in some of my other notes
> posted in February and March.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, I have talked to an owner. So, I'm not speculating as much as your
limited
brain power can imagine.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > I try not to speculate too much.
>
> Not so. You're willing to speculate all over the place about the 26M,
> despite the fact that you haven't sailed one or spoken with anyone
> who has.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

No. You let it go. You're the newbie fool. You're the one
making an even bigger fool out of himself with each post.
I'll be here long after you're gone and your piece of junk is
in the trash heap.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Because he's either stupid, a troll, or trying to justify his poor
choice.
> >
>
> Then why are you sticking around in this discussion, John? Can't let it
go?
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Then why are you still here?
>
>
> Because: there weren't very many owners of the
> new 26M, and I thought I might get some further substantive information
> from this group, which is larger than the Mac group. I'm remaining on
> the ng because it's become increasingly obvious that many on this ng
> have become opinionated, set in their ways and rigid in their views, and
> because the ng needs some new insights and some contributors who are
> willing to state and defend some differing points of view.
>
> Jim
>
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Scott Vernon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jimbo, did you ask your silly questions on the Mac list, like I
> >
> > suggested?
> >
> >>>SV
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes. The great majority on the Mac lists have one of the the older
> >>models. I did correspond with and speak with some 26M owners.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

What is bass-ass? Is that an ugly fish?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wally wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This isn't what happened at all. I posted my questions several times
> >>on this an on the cruising ng and scanned the reponses for over a
> >>month hoping to get some factual or substantive information regarding
> >> the 26M. It was only after weeks of "Mac bashings" ...
> >
> >
> > What, you came into a sailing newsgroup to enquire about about a boat
you
> > knew little about, it's gets slagged off something rotten for a month...
> >
> > ...and then you go and *buy* one?
> >
> > Nobody is that stupid.
> >
> You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally. I came onto this newsgroups
> hoping to get some substantive, factual information. Instead, I found
> out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
> and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
> don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone who
> likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are either: (1)
> stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar. In any event, it
> put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought might be some
> problems with the Mac, other than its inherent limitations that I
> already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified, and I proceeded to
> place my order. Because they are substantially sold out for the rest of
> the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few who will be able to take
> delivery of this spectacular and innovated boat this season.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Wally, please don't be cruel to JHM.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> >> What's a "depth-knot"?
> >
> > It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
>
> Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what sort of
> handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much reef would
you
> put in the main, and what size of jib would you use? How much heel would
you
> expect when going to windward?
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Wally]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Wally, please don't be cruel to JHM.

As a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b, I'm interested in learning about
this sort of thing.

A couple of Sundays ago, we had some gusts on the Sonata I'm crewing on - no
reef, standard jib, at least 40 degrees of heel (the lee rail was dipping
under). Being a n00b, I didn't know what the windspeeds were until I read
the OOD's notes on the club web site, which calmly stated that they were
29-45kts. Damned excellent fun...


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Wally]

katysails wrote:

> So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
> he "won"?

He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
many ASA points Joe will give me...)


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Jonathan Ganz]

Yep, it's fun for a short period, then it gets old fast.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Wally, please don't be cruel to JHM.
>
> As a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b, I'm interested in learning about
> this sort of thing.
>
> A couple of Sundays ago, we had some gusts on the Sonata I'm crewing on -
no
> reef, standard jib, at least 40 degrees of heel (the lee rail was dipping
> under). Being a n00b, I didn't know what the windspeeds were until I read
> the OOD's notes on the club web site, which calmly stated that they were
> 29-45kts. Damned excellent fun...
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Martin Baxter]

katysails wrote:
> Jim claimed:
> I'm not afraid to die.
>
> Prove it.

Good Christian sentiment there Katy! ;-)

Cheers
Marty

[Wally]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Yep, it's fun for a short period, then it gets old fast.

It's been okay for the couple of hours round-the-cans racing we've been
doing. I can well imagine that it would get tedious on a longer sail.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Martin Baxter]

wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:28:34 -0400, "katysails"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jim claimed:
>>I'm not afraid to die.
>>
>>Prove it.
>
>
> He bought a Mac.
>
> BB

True 'nuff.

Cheers
Marty

[Jonathan Ganz]

Not only tedious, but increases the potential for failure of
boat parts and mistakes by the crew.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Yep, it's fun for a short period, then it gets old fast.
>
> It's been okay for the couple of hours round-the-cans racing we've been
> doing. I can well imagine that it would get tedious on a longer sail.
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote ...
> Scott, in case you hadn't realized it, there's no law requiring you to
> continue following this discussion.

As I told you before, as the NG moderator, I am required to read every post.

> I'm really that stupid, and my
> remarks are really that vacuous, why in hell do you continue to waste
> your time in this discussion string?

Cause reading your dribble makes me feel oh so superior.



> (Actually, of course, you are obviously
> stressed out over your inability to put me down,




> it's increasingly obvious that you and your buddies have almost nothing
> to say of substance.


they're not my buddies, they're my gang.


>It's obvious that you have given up on citing any
> objective issues,


the Mac is a cheap piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a damn. How's
that?

S

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> > are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
..> >
> >
> >
> Yes it is.

NO, it's NOT

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
(Scotty, for a change, why don't you just
> admit that I was right?

cause you're wrong. The mac is NOT double hulled.

[Joe]

"Wally" > wrote in message >...
> katysails wrote:
>
> > So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
> > he "won"?
>
> He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
> his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
> from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
> many ASA points Joe will give me...)



****, anyone brave enough to be on a mac even at the dock durin a
hurricane deserves at least 3 asa points. All that windage from the
high freeboard and vortexes created from wind rounding the square
corners will make mini tornados that will pull his shackles and
thimbles lose from the dock. Jim's a brave man and since he scored a
98 on his ASA test he is surley qualified to venture into the
navigable simi circle of any hurricane.

Sold any paintings yet Wally? What would you charge to paint my boat?
Id like a stary night theme after Van G in red and yellow.

Joe

[Jeff Morris]

"Joe" > wrote in message > > > So, when do you all guess
Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
> > > he "won"?
> >
> > He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
> > his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
> > from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
> > many ASA points Joe will give me...)
>
> ****, anyone brave enough to be on a mac even at the dock durin a
> hurricane deserves at least 3 asa points. All that windage from the
> high freeboard and vortexes created from wind rounding the square
> corners will make mini tornados that will pull his shackles and
> thimbles lose from the dock. Jim's a brave man and since he scored a
> 98 on his ASA test he is surley qualified to venture into the
> navigable simi circle of any hurricane.
>

You're too quick to award points - he doesn't even have the boat yet! If talk
counted, jax and RB would be the world's greatest sailors.

The truth is, the first time he goes out in rough conditions (i.e. over 10
knots), his grandchildren will get seasick and refuse to go on the boat again.
Jim will discover that the worst aspect of the boat is that it won't sink.















> Sold any paintings yet Wally? What would you charge to paint my boat?
> Id like a stary night theme after Van G in red and yellow.
>
> Joe

[Scott Vernon]

Oh.

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
>
> Actually, I knew what you meant too, Katy.
>It was just too tempting to act like an asshole.

[katysails]

Marty chided:
Good Christian sentiment there Katy! ;-)

I didn't tell him to run out and get killed...he seems to be doing very well
at doing himself in all by himself....
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[John W. Bienko]

Comparing a Mac26M with the remarkable Valiant 40 ...
is a high compliment to the Mac26M.

THe Valiant 40 is a high-end sailor's dream yacht..
always a beautiful sight to see on the sea.. and
in the harbour.

The Mac26M is a compromise.. between a sailing vessel
and a motorboat.. the nautical engineers working to
meet the wishes and needs of the marketplace.. and in
my view succeeding beyond expectations.. creating a
very attractive yacht.. not perfect.. but getting there
with the state-of-the-art technology of the day.

And some day.. when I can no longer singlehand my
C&C27 Mark III ... I will invest in a Mac26M..
and continue sailing into the sunset...
and dream..

Best Regards
JWB

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q

[katysails]

John remarked: The Mac26M is a compromise.. between a sailing vessel
and a motorboat

Right..it's a hermaphrodite..neither male nor female, beast nor fowl. It's
for people who can't decide whether to S*it or get off the pot.
If you're going to be a sailor, for goodness sake, sail. If you want to be
a motorboater, then go buy a motorboat. And if I ever get that decrepit
that I have to make a choice, it will be a trawler, thank you, and not a
pile of junk.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Scott Vernon]

"katysails" > wrote

> And if I ever get that decrepit ( LIKE DOUG )
> that I have to make a choice, it will be a trawler, thank you, and not a
> pile of junk.

[Jim Cate]

katysails wrote:
> Jim claimed:
> I'm not afraid to die.
>
> Prove it.

What would you suggest?

[Jim Cate]

katysails wrote:

> Jim asked: But why are you wasting your time in this discussion, if what I'm
> saying
> is that insignificant and doesn't have an element of truth?
>
> Because we're all sick s*its who have nothing better to do than make you
> miserable.
>

Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Flying Tadpole wrote:

>
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>>katysails wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim, still not gettingIf I'm that stupid and my notes are that
>>>insignificant, why is
>>>this discussion string the most extensive on the ng,
>>>
>>>SHADES OF LONG ISLAND>>>WE HAVE A MACKEREL!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>
>>But why are you wasting your time in this discussion, if what I'm saying
>>is that insignificant and doesn't have an element of truth?
>>
>
>
> Jim, you keep asking this question in one form or another, so it
> appears you don't really see the answer. As I'm a kind and
> generous soul, much more so than the rest of these
> bottom-dwellers here, here's a bit of help for you.
>
> This newsgroup has been notable for years in its exercise of
> virtual cruelty, especially on the innocent, to the point where
> even the FAQs are full of dire warnings. The cruellest of the
> virtual cruelties is, of course, the goading of the
> uncomprehending. When such goading has been done expertly, these
> sadists can sit back, and apply only the lightest of touches,
> while the suffering goad themselves into increasing frenzy, in an
> almost self-perpetuating cycle, providing hours of entertainment
> for the watchers, for minimal effort on their part. Do you now
> see why most of the regulars in this group are here "wasting
> their time in this discussion?"

Tadpole,

Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
bashing them for a number of years.

Jim

[katysails]

Jim asked: What would you suggest?

Actually, it's already been thrown out that you're trying awfully hard
already to prove that, so a double-dog dare wouldn't be appropriate at this
time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[katysails]

Jim stated: Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

You're welcome Jim...any time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[John Cairns]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Tadpole,
>
> Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
> I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
> bashing them for a number of years.
>
> Jim

You need to try a google search, we don't spend our time bashing macs, we
try to limit our discussion to sailing and sailboats, which naturally would
exclude macs. Occasionally, someone comes a trolling, lauding the merits of
macs, we educate them. We weren't talking about macs until you showed up, we
won't be talking about them after you leave. And one last thing, if you
thought your mac was as good a boat as you claim it is, you wouldn't feel
the need to convince us, remembering, we didn't ask you for your opinion on
the subject, you asked for ours.
John Cairns

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> Perhaps you should look at the drawings of your beloved boat


Incidentally, I never claimed that the MacGregor 26M was a perfect boat
that would meet the needs of everyone, or that it was suitable for all
types of sailing. My interest in this discussion is that the boat has
got a bad rap on this ng in previous discussion, and I want to see that
it gets somewhat more accurate and balanced treatment.

- its doesn't have
> a double hull either. The portion of the hull the is protected by the ballast
> tank is about a third of the underwater surface - and its the part least likely
> to be damaged in a collision.

The water ballast chamber extends along the lowermost part of the hull
rearwardly from the bow for around 2/3rds of the length of the boat.
Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant, since if the boat runs over
an obstruction, the lowermost portions of the hull are the part that is
most likely to hit the obstruction and become punctured. Obviously, the
boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
entire hull. (Does your boat?)


If you hit a log (especially at speed) you're
> going to need that foam flotation.

I don't intend to, but if I did, having a boat that didn't sink would be
nice. And helpful. And, perhaps, critical.


And the boat will be a total loss,

Maybe. Maybe not.


the
> engine certainly wasted. BTW, they never actually say that there is enough foam
> to float the boat if the engine is attached, do they? Do you think they
> destroyed a $8000 engine just to take that picture?

My engine weighs around 200 lbs., so I doubt that it is going to pull
the boat to the bottom. The picture of the boat afloat after they cut a
hole through the hull doesn't show the motor (so its not clear whether
they removed it or not), but it does indicate that, with five men aboard
the boat, the boat has sunk about a foot or so from its normal position.
In other words, with five adult passengers, the boat isn't anywhere near
sinking. 200 lbs of motor not make that much difference, and there is
plenty of capacity for more people, particularly if they didn't try to
stand on top of the cabin.
>
> And, if you have any damage to the ballast tank, it could lose water and the
> partially filled tank becomes dangerously unstable. This is not so bad if
> you're on a lake where the mac belongs, but offshore this becomes treacherous.

Actually, the new 26M model has a combination of both water ballast and
permanent ballast. The permanent ballast provides stability for the
boat when the water ballast isn't being used.

>
> So the question is, would you prefer a boat with a solid hull that can withstand
> a beating without being compromised, or one that is likely to be compromised by
> a minor collision?

I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags, and I would prefer a
boat with foam flotation. I would rather have a boat that would survive
even under critical emergency situations in which the hull was
compromised rather than one that would survive a minor collision but not
a major or critical one, in which case the keel would quickly pull the
boat to the bottom.
>
> I suppos
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:54:53 -0400, "Scott Vernon" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,
>>>>
>>>>which
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.
>>>>
>>>>and the space in-between your ears is a vacuum if you think the Mac is
>>>>double hulled.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Scotty,
>>>
>>>There is a space between the bottom of the boat and the floor of the
>>>boat. It is a tank for water ballast. Jim thinks that means the same
>>>thing as double hulled.
>>>
>>>Whether or not you call it a second hull, it is a second wall that preents
>>
>>entry of water into the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. - Does
>>the Valiant have one of these back-up walls? I didn't see one on the one
>>we sailed.
>>
>>Jim
>>barrier that would pre or not
>>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double hulled".
> The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be easy
> to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.

Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending throughout
the hull and chines. (Does your boat?) But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.

>
> BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?

If it strikes the bottom while the boat is moving at high speed, as when
it is motoring or planing under sail, the dagger board may break.
Replacing it costs around $300.
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon" >
>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,
>
> which
>
>>>gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.
>>>
>>>BB
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Of course, if only the lower hull is penetrated, water doesn't get into
>>the cabin at all. Also, as mentioned above, the built-in flotation will
>>keep the boat afloat even if water enters the cabin.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>>>SV
>>>>
>>>>"Jim Cate" < wrote 6 times...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.
>>>>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will plane with a full load, and
with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can plane with two
people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
any event, it's going to go substantially faster than most displacement
boats. It can also plane faster without the water ballast, and the new
26M includes 300 pounds of permenant ballast, in addition to the water
ballast, for added stability in that condition. Obviously, it would be
foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

> In one place they say they lose 3 mph when the ballast if full. In another,
> they say they lose one mph for every 100 pounds added. Also, the "22 mph" is
> with empty tanks, no rigging, one person, flat seas. They advise not running
> without ballast, but if you must, there's a long list of safety precautions,
> like not going on deck, staying seated, only do it if the seas are under one
> foot and the water is warm, etc.
>
>
>
> "Peter Wiley" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>In article >,
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:23:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
>
> hulled".
>
>>>>The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be
>>>>easy
>>>>to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The daggerboard stays, and the rest of the boat keeps going.
>>>
>>>Other tidbits from Macgregor: The factory does not supply gas tank
>>>hold downs. If you wish to add your own, DO NOT drill any holes! You
>>>must glass in the hold downs.
>>>
>>>If you install a second battery, DO NOT put it next to the existing
>>>one. It will cause too much stress (what's that battery weigh? 50
>>>pounds?) You must mount it on the opposite side of the boat.
>>>
>>>
>>>By the way, if you motor with the ballast tank empty, bear in mind
>>>that the boat is then VERY top heavy, and extremely prone to
>>>capsizing. Make all turns very slowly and gradually, and always avoid
>>>the wakes from other boats and large fish.
>>
>>I did wonder about that. Next question is, does the thing plane with
>>the ballast tank full? If not, there goes the 18 knots.....
>>
>>PDW
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

felton wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:16:19 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>felton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
>>>>
>>>>SV
>>>
>>>
>>>He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
>>>him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
>>>60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
>>>otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
>>>the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
>>>"improve" their boats with some of these innovations:)
>>>
>>>Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
>>>you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
>>>choose?:) If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
>>>more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
>>>"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.
>>>
>>
>>If I could anticipate that a drunken powerboater were going to hit me
>>going 50 mph, I would prefer a Valiant, although even then, I don't
>>think you could predict what would happen. (It's possible that the hull
>>of the Valiant would be compromised, in which case its keel would
>>quickly pull it to the bottom.) But a new Valiant would cost around
>>$400,000, normally equiped, or more than 10 times the cost of the Mac
>>loaded with navigation and autosteering. - You can't always get what you
>>want, but sometimes, if you try real hard, you just might get what you
>>need. - Which in my case is the 26M.
>
>
> Hmmm. Moving the goalposts it would seem. Of course a Valiant is a
> vastly more expensive boat that frankly is "overkill" for the kind of
> sailing that you or I do. I am unclear why you keep choosing to
> compare the Mac to the Valiant,

The reason I refer to the 40-ft. Valiant is that I had experience
sailing one on a charter situation and learned to appreciate what a
great boat it is. If I were going to make a crossing or an extended blue
water cruise, I would prefer the Valiant.


but since you do I keep pointing out
> the obvious. The fact that no Valiant has ever gone to the bottom but
> have logged many a circumnavigation should put your mind at ease,

What is your source for that assertion? - No Valiant has ever sunk?


but
> yet the fact that you still cling to the belief that a 3500lb clorox
> bottle is somehow "safer" than a Valiant, or any "real" sailboat,
> speaks volumes to any real sailor.
>

Actually, a closed bottle is going to survive a storm that would sink a
Valiant. >
>
>
>>Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
>>boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
>>for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
>>would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
>>MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
>>with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
>>bottom within a few minutes?
>
>
> I would absolutely prefer to be on a displacement boat than rely on
> foam floatation in a lightly built clorox bottle. There is absolutely
> no doubt in my mind which would be the safer boat. My boat has a real
> rig, unlike the Mac. I can depower my rig, shorten sail, or even go
> bare poles if need be. Anyone on a Mac 26 is going to be SOL. It
> really doesn't give me much comfort knowing that there may be some
> foam floatation on which I can cling waiting for rescue.
>
>
>>>The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
>>>closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
>>>even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
>>>your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
>>>you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
>>>pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.
>>>
>>
>>Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
>>because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
>>quickly, and also
>>permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
>>or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
>>and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
>>hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> While I am not a fan of powerboats either, given your objectives, you
> should have bought one. A Mac 26 is the worst of both worlds.
> Something for everyone, I suppose. Someone even married my ex-wife:)
>
>
>>p,
>>
>>>
>>>>"Jim Cate" < wrote 6 times...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.
>>>>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
> sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
> inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.

Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.

>
> If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
> any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
> from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).
>

The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> katysails wrote:
> > Jim claimed:
> > I'm not afraid to die.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> What would you suggest?
>

[Scott Vernon]

get a room, you two!


"katysails" > wrote in message
...
> Jim stated: Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.
>
> Thanks Katy.
>
> You're welcome Jim...any time.
>
> --
> katysails
> s/v Chanteuse
> Kirie Elite 32
> http://katysails.tripod.com
>
> "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
> and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein
>
>

[Jim Cate]

The reason I started this discussion string was that I had hoped to
initiate some discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of widely
differing boats, such as the heavy, displacement Valiant 40 and the much
lighter, Mac 26M, which is a planing boat under power.

As I expected from past treatment of Mac enthusiasts on this ng, many
were highly offended that I would even suggest that there were
substantive advantages to both boats, including the Mac. They were even
more frustrated that I would CONTINUE to hold to my positions. Most
responses have been from contributors who didn't know anything about the
changes made on the 26m, and when told it wasn't the same hull, insisted
on swearing that it was. (In other words, many respondents (not all)
were pontificating about a boat they knew very little about.) Another
frequent comment was that I was obviously a paid shill for MacGregor,
repeating their advertising propaganda. In this regard, has anyone ever
heard of restrictions relative to Deceptive Trade Practices, or false
advertising? Or, has anyone ever heard about actions in tort (assuming
that MacGregor has tortuously misled or misinformed their customers, or
class actions? Or, has anyone read Section 3369 of the California Civil
Code? In other words, MacGregor can't merely publish a series of lies
about their boats, and they are subject to potential litigation of
various kinds if it can be demonstrated that their advertising is
deceptive, as some on this ng have asserted, and if buyers have been
relied on it and been damaged.

Few of the responses have addressed the advantages pointed out for the
Mac 26M in my first few notes. Instead, many of the responses are
essentially something like this:

Jim, anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
doesn't know what he is talking about, so I'm not even going to address
the five points you made concerning advantages you see in the Mac.
(Of course, that's a convenient cover if you really don't have an
answer and can't respond rationally or substantively.)

In an attempt to get the discussion back on track and move it beyond the
ridiculous, childish, personal attacks, I'm again listing several of
the substantive advantages claimed for the Mac 26M. In considering the
advantages of any boat, the elements of comfort, safety, suitability for
the intended applications and environment, are all valid issues, IMO.
In addition, the element of time is of substantial importance. So, I
have added a sixth relating to its ability to conserve the precious,
limited amount of time each of us has to enjoy the sea, sailing, family
outings on the water, etc.


the following are five (now six) advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of these substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous, childish personal attacks?

Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
criteria. With respect to coastal cruising, and sailing and motoring in
areas such as the Galveston bay area, the Mac seems to have several
advantages.


(1) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat. The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending
weather, is also a safety factor in the Mac.

(2) When we sailed the Valiant, there were several channels in the
Galveston area that weren't clearly marked and in which we could not
maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to turn back from a preferred
anchorage we were trying to reach. In contrast, the dagger board of the
MacGregor can be raised incrementally as desired, with a minimum draft
of around 18 inches. Again, with respect to its ability to maneuver in
shallow or unmarked channels, or to anchor in shallow water, or beach on
shore to permit grandkids to play on the sand, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat, since the Valiant must be kept in much deeper water and
doesn't have the versatility of the Mac for such shallow water activities.

I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).

(3) However, if one can't get out to the blue water on weekends because
of the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from port to the
blue water, then the excellent sailing characteristics of the Valiant
wouldn't be of much benefit. (With the exception of being able to talk
about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could only
get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a larger
boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.

(4) - If the lower hull is compromised along its lowermost centerline,
the inner liner, extending 2/3 rd the length of the boat, remains and
acts to prevent entry of water into the cockpit. - No,it's not a
complete double hull, and yes, it doesn't protect one from side impacts,
but it is an added safety factor.

(5) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keel boats) is
compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant (and the
keel of your boat) will quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect,
the MacGregor is a "better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of
drunk red-necks racing around the bays while downing another six-pack.)

(6) Regarding the issue of time, and the limited quantity thereof
available to most adults, because of its ability to motor to a desired
area quickly, or to be trailered to a desired area at 65 mph, the boat
provides added versatility in several respects. Unless you don't have
to go to work every week or have lots of free time such that you don't
worry about spending substantial time motoring out to desired sailing
areas, or sailing for several days to another desired sailing area down
the coast, the Mac 26M has advantages in that it permits you to get to
many areas not otherwise available on a weekend trip, or unless you can
spend several weeks sailing to a new port, etc. For example, in our
area, this permits one to sail in the Galveston area one weekend, from
the Corpus Christi area on another weekend, and from the Rockport area
on another, etc. The ability to remove the boat from the water on its
trailer also serves to minimize upkeep, marina fees, bottom treatments, etc.

Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
accepted for the evaluation, and how the boat will be used. My point
isn't that the Mac is the greatest boat made for all purposes. It's
rather an attempt to bring a little balance to such discussions.

Jim


>
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote ...
> Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will sink with a full load, and
> with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can sink with two
> people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
> any event, it's going to sink substantially faster than most
> displacement boats.
>
>It can also sink faster with the new
> 300 pounds of permenant ballast, Obviously, it would be
> foolhardy to permit any passengers to
>ride in the Mac under any conditions.
>
> Jim

[Scott Vernon]

progress......his first admission to his lies.


"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull

[Scott Vernon]

more progress jimbo.


"Jim Cate" > wrote only one true comment...
>
> anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
> doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Jonathan Ganz]

That's right. We only bash them infrequently. The rest of the
time we ignore them.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"John Cairns" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tadpole,
> >
> > Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
> > I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
> > bashing them for a number of years.
> >
> > Jim
>
> You need to try a google search, we don't spend our time bashing macs, we
> try to limit our discussion to sailing and sailboats, which naturally
would
> exclude macs. Occasionally, someone comes a trolling, lauding the merits
of
> macs, we educate them. We weren't talking about macs until you showed up,
we
> won't be talking about them after you leave. And one last thing, if you
> thought your mac was as good a boat as you claim it is, you wouldn't feel
> the need to convince us, remembering, we didn't ask you for your opinion
on
> the subject, you asked for ours.
> John Cairns
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I'll kick in a one-day rental on a EPIRB. That's all it'll take... one day.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > katysails wrote:
> > > Jim claimed:
> > > I'm not afraid to die.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > What would you suggest?
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
By definition, it's only a guess.

So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
> > sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
> > inexperienced one.
>
> Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
> run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
> expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
> with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
> form quite quickly.

Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.

> Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
> be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
> occur.
>
> >
> > If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
> > any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
> > from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).
> >

It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
find on the ocean.

> The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
> weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
> keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
> sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
> costs.
>
> Jim
>

[katysails]

Jim claims: Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will sink with a full load,
and
> with the water ballast

That's very nice if planing with a 50 hp engine is what you want to do. I'm
sure the guys at alt. motoboater. would be very happy for you.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> - its doesn't have
> > a double hull either. The portion of the hull the is protected by the
ballast
> > tank is about a third of the underwater surface - and its the part least
likely
> > to be damaged in a collision.
>
> The water ballast chamber extends along the lowermost part of the hull
> rearwardly from the bow for around 2/3rds of the length of the boat.

But is only extends one third of the width. It is more likely that you will hit
a floating obstruction on the side.


> Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
> by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant,

Only to a non-boater with no experiance.

> since if the boat runs over
> an obstruction, the lowermost portions of the hull are the part that is
> most likely to hit the obstruction and become punctured.

In a boat that only draws one foot it would take a complete idiot to hit a rock
dead on at high speed. Is that what you're claiming, Jim? That this design
feature is only there to protect the complete idiot? Far more likely is a
glancing blow to a floating object.

> Obviously, the
> boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
> entire hull. (Does your boat?)

Actually, my boat has two complete hulls, running the entire length.

.....

> the
> > engine certainly wasted. BTW, they never actually say that there is enough
foam
> > to float the boat if the engine is attached, do they? Do you think they
> > destroyed a $8000 engine just to take that picture?
>
> My engine weighs around 200 lbs., so I doubt that it is going to pull
> the boat to the bottom. The picture of the boat afloat after they cut a
> hole through the hull doesn't show the motor (so its not clear whether
> they removed it or not), but it does indicate that, with five men aboard
> the boat, the boat has sunk about a foot or so from its normal position.

Look again, Jim, its down to the rail on both sides. Given the very high
freeboard, that's closer to two feet below her lines. The question is, how
much foam floatation is left above the water? That tells you how close it is to
sinking. That picture is taken at the dock - in almost any sea conditions the
deck would be awash amd the boat would flip.

Clearly, positive floatation is a advantage, but its not clear a flooded mac is
a better platform than a liferaft. On the other hand, the time may come when
you decided that unsinkable is a disadvantage.



> In other words, with five adult passengers, the boat isn't anywhere near
> sinking. 200 lbs of motor not make that much difference, and there is
> plenty of capacity for more people, particularly if they didn't try to
> stand on top of the cabin.
> >
> > And, if you have any damage to the ballast tank, it could lose water and the
> > partially filled tank becomes dangerously unstable. This is not so bad if
> > you're on a lake where the mac belongs, but offshore this becomes
treacherous.
>
> Actually, the new 26M model has a combination of both water ballast and
> permanent ballast. The permanent ballast provides stability for the
> boat when the water ballast isn't being used.

Not enough stability, given the stern warnings about aperating without ballast.


>
> >
> > So the question is, would you prefer a boat with a solid hull that can
withstand
> > a beating without being compromised, or one that is likely to be compromised
by
> > a minor collision?
>
> I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags, and I would prefer a
> boat with foam flotation. I would rather have a boat that would survive
> even under critical emergency situations in which the hull was
> compromised rather than one that would survive a minor collision but not
> a major or critical one, in which case the keel would quickly pull the
> boat to the bottom.

I would prefer a good sailboat that provides these advantages. In fact, I have
one. The mac is a poor powerboat, and a worse sailboat.

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
> > Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
hulled".
> > The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be
easy
> > to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
>
> Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending throughout
> the hull and chines. (Does your boat?)

My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.


> But it does have what amounts to
> a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
> length of the hull.

All this means is that there are some situations where there is some extra
protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is implied by
"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a marketing
claim.

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will plane with a full load, and
> with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can plane with two
> people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
> any event, it's going to go substantially faster than most displacement
> boats. It can also plane faster without the water ballast, and the new
> 26M includes 300 pounds of permenant ballast, in addition to the water
> ballast, for added stability in that condition. Obviously, it would be
> foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
> foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.

What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat? What
about all of those "bowriders" outs there?

The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments include:
no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't even
stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward bunks
when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So much
for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone might
grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat, nor
is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
> > sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
> > inexperienced one.
>
> Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
> run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
> expected?

I've never encountered conditions I wasn't prepared for. I've never assumed
that the ability to get back to port quickly is the primary safety factor.
That's admitting you're completely screwed if the engine doesn't start.



> In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
> with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
> form quite quickly.
>
> Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
> be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
> occur.
>
> >
> > If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
> > any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
> > from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).
> >
>
> The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
> weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
> keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
> sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
> costs.


Although the three larger boats (over 22 feet) that I've owned were designed for
coastal cruising, they have all proven themselves capable of long passages. But
you're right that I wouldn't want a Westsail, or even a Valiant.

[Scott Vernon]

> "Jim Cate" > wrote ...
> >
> > I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags,

Pussy!

[Scott Vernon]

Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of the
ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.

SV

"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jeff Morris wrote:
> >
> > > Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
> hulled".
> > > The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it
would be
> easy
> > > to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
> >
> > Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending throughout
> > the hull and chines. (Does your boat?)
>
> My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.
>
>
> > But it does have what amounts to
> > a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
> > length of the hull.
>
> All this means is that there are some situations where there is some extra
> protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is implied
by
> "double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a
marketing
> claim.
>
>

[Bart Senior]

Where would you put all the fuel?

Bart

Scott Vernon > wrote

> Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > katysails wrote:
> > > Jim claimed:
> > > I'm not afraid to die.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > What would you suggest?
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

John W. Bienko wrote:

> Comparing a Mac26M with the remarkable Valiant 40 ...
> is a high compliment to the Mac26M.
>
> THe Valiant 40 is a high-end sailor's dream yacht..
> always a beautiful sight to see on the sea.. and
> in the harbour.

I do agree that the Valiant 40 is a great boat, certainly the best
handling and sailing boat I have had the privilege of sailing.


>
> The Mac26M is a compromise.. between a sailing vessel
> and a motorboat.. the nautical engineers working to
> meet the wishes and needs of the marketplace.. and in
> my view succeeding beyond expectations.. creating a
> very attractive yacht.. not perfect.. but getting there
> with the state-of-the-art technology of the day.


I also agree with this statement. If I'm correct, the Mac 26 is the
most popular cruising sailboat in production today. What hasn't been
addressed in this discussion is that they have made incremental changes
and improvements in the various models and incorporated a number of
changes and improvements in the new 26M model, based on experiences with
thousands of other boats over the years. These include a completely
different hull design, different, more narrow keel, thicker lower hull
wall entailing with additional fiberglass layer, new chain plates,
different positioning of the motor, pivotable mast, substantially taller
rig, etc.


>
> And some day.. when I can no longer singlehand my
> C&C27 Mark III ... I will invest in a Mac26M..
> and continue sailing into the sunset...
> and dream..
>
> Best Regards
> JWB
>
> --
> Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
> Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
> Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
> q

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
> your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
> you know nothing about sailing.


Sure thing Johathan. But if I'm lost at sea, at least you won't have to
waste more of your time reading my notes on asa.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
>
> .> >
>
>>>
>>Yes it is.
>
>
> NO, it's NOT
>

Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> They're a piece of junk compared to other boats in the same
> price range. Nothing they could have done would improve
> them enough to justify buying one.

Have a nice day Jonathan.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> We're just trying to save others from the same fate that has befallen you.
>
> Frankly, the mac is not a bad boat if you stay in a calm lake. It's pretty
> expensive, and it depreciates faster than any other boat made, but its does have
> some unique qualities. But claiming that the real advantage is that you can
> quickly get to "blue water" is just plain stupid.


In my case, and in this area, that is one of the main advantages of the
boat to me. I intend to take it out for coastal cruising in blue water
in moderate conditions, with reefed sails. - Sailing in blue water is
one of the things I enjoy in sailing, and the boat was desinged as a
coastal cruiser.

Jim


>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
>>fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
>>some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
>>off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.
>>
>>What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
>>concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
>>the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
>>continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
>>are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
>>clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
>>keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>Scott Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yup.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As long as I keep posting the same crap over and over and over and over
>>>
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>>>over and over and over and over and again, I'll look like a fool.
>>>
>>>Jim MacGregor
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

John Cairns wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
>>fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
>>some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
>>off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.
>>
>>What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
>>concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
>>the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
>>continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
>>are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
>>clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
>>keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> You can't seriously believe this crap you've been posting, can you? You're
> basically posting, verbatim, what you've been reading in the mac sales
> literature. I can offer you one unbiased review of the mac, culled from
> "Practical Sailor", which accepts no advertising and can't possibly be
> accused of harboring biases when it comes to sailboat evaluations. It's
> free.
> http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html
> Very interesting that they didn't bother to ACTUALLY SAIL THE THING. Also
> very interesting that this was one of the 2 reviews that they're offering
> free of charge. A public service announcement, perhaps? You'll note, even
> the man himself doesn't claim that this is an "offshore" boat.





John, from reading the Practical Sailor article in its entirety, it's
actually quite favorable. (Incidentally, I'm a subscriber to PC, and
have read selected articles from it for many years. You seem to think I
had never heard of it.) Interesting that you cited this rather favorable
report on the (old) Mac 26 as a fatal hatchet job. I'm wondering if
you actually read the entire article.

Your suggestion that they are publishing this article as a "warning" to
inexperienced sailors is totally out of it, John. - They CONCLUDE the
article with a very favorable comment by a Mac owner, and the THEME of
the entire article is that the (previous) Mac 26 has lots of things
going for it provided one understands its limitations and doesn't plan
on using it to make long ocean crossings. (There is one quote from an
owner in San Francisco, not from "the man," that he wouldn't take the
boat out to blue water. - This isolated statement from one owner doesn't
mean much, of course. It may merely mean that that particular owner
hasn't learned how to sail well.) - Your statement inferring, from the
fact that they didn't sail the boat indicates that they "would have
reported that it sails poorly" is total bull ****. - Nothing in the
article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing performances.
(You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind so that they
wouldn't have to report on it's sailing characteristics??) In fact, they
quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.


This article, relating to the 26X model some 7-8 years ago, notes a
number of improvements MacGregor incorporated in the 26X. I'm talking
about the new 26M, which includes improvements made from their
experience over the past eight years. - Here's the conclusion of the
article:

As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for
typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal
sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It wont
hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion
of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew.

(John, If you read the article carefully you will note that Roger was
saying that the boat wasn't designed as a long-distance passagemaker. it
would be uncomfortable, and wouldn't hold the needed supplies. Duhh!
That's rather obvious, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as a
coastal cruiser (using good sense and restricting it to reasonable
weather conditions, for limited use.) As discussed in the PC report,
the boats are sailed routinely in San Francisco bay, rather choppy and
high-wind area, as discussed in the article, and sail out to Catalina
island routinely.

As stated,
“There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught
in, AND SURVIVED, SOME REALLY EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS, on BOTH lakes
AND OCEANS. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high
winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase
dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our
owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe
conditions.”

Conclusion
There's no question MacGregor is building an inexpensive product that
sells for $4,000-$6,000 LESS THAN ITS PRIMARY COMPETITORS. The list
price for boat, sails and trailer is $14,995 FOB the factory. Genoa and
gear, roller furling, cruising spinnaker, vang, mast raising system,
stove, cushions and transportation jump the price to $17,000; add
$5,000-$7,000 for engine and electronics.

[According to PC] THEY ALSO ENJOY RELATIVELY HIGH RESALE. Two-year-old
boats on the market are selling for 85%-90% of their original prices.

The owner of a recent model sums it up well, “She is fast enough to be
pleasurable, forgiving enough that I can be stupid, balanced enough that
I can be lazy.”

The two-year warranty covers all parts manufactured by MacGregor.

Contact- MacGregor Yacht Corp., 1631 Placentia, Costa Mesa, CA, 92627;
949/642-6830.


No one will
> drive you away, but at some point you'll get plonked by just about everyone
> here. And one last thing, if you really think your comments are "balanced"
> and "fresh air", why do YOU keep trying to justify them?

Obviously, it's because my arguments are being ignored and aren't being
responded to, and because I enjoy providing some balance and new inputs
to otherwise biased discussions such as this. (And because I like to
see people like you squirming and stressed out.) But I have read the
previous discussions, and the reactions don't surprise me. Frankly, my
experience is that it takes several months of a discussion such as this
before people like you finally realize that your aren't going to be able
to run over me, or run away from me, and that you can't intimidate or
smoke-screen your way out of responding to my points. - -

It's actually amazing to me that you thought you cite that PC report as
a great triumph for those bashing the Mac 26, and then totally twist the
meaning and conclusions of the article. (Did you think we wouldn't read
it?) - According to you, the fact that PC didn't sail the boat and
didn't report on its handling was because they knew it would sail
poorly?? And didn't want to offend anyone?? In other words, according to
your interpretation, they intentionally selected a day without wind so
that they wouldn't have to sail the boat, and so they wouldn't have to
report on it?? Tell me, John, do you think Roger was paying them off so
that they wouldn't bash his boats?? (But no, you also told us that you
think PS is completely neutral because of their no-advertising policy.)
What are you saying, John? You are something else.



After all, you
> asked for the input from us, we didn't come looking for YOU. And, of course,
> I've never actually sailed one, but I've sailed by them many times in my 28
> ft. keelboat, I should say, I've passed them many times in my 28 ft.
> keelboat, more often than not they didn't appear to be moving.

Actually, you might be able to sail by my new 26M also, provided I
wasn't planing under sail. But as the PC article concludes, the
(previous) 26X sailed fast enough to be pleasurable. That's one thing
I'm looking for, although I intend to make several mods, such as three
reefing points and roller furling, to enhance the sailing characteristics.


I will also
> admit, because I've seen it also, that they can definitely motor a lot
> faster than I can sail, but if I was REALLY interested in powerboating I'd
> own a powerboat and wouldn't be posting ANY of this here.

While I'm primarily interested in sailing, particularly in blue water, I
don't have an objection to motoring also. I particularly don't have an
objection to motoring to a desired destination prior to sailing,
fishing, picnicking, swimming with the grandkids, scuba diving, etc., in
order to have more time at the desired destination, get back more
quickly, and maintain a more convenient and less stressful schedule.
> John Cairns
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Bullsh*t. You need meds.
>

Have a nice day Johathan.

Jim

[katysails]

Scotty,
Havne't you had your dinner yet? I was thinking it was time for the
cholesterol induced heart attack...

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Jeff Morris]

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface, probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly, many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.

BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain, leaving
the boat dangerously unstable. Since far more people drown from falling off
capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1), its not
clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
> Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
> SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
> water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
> the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
> the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
> length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
> and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
> difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
>
> Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>katysails wrote:
>>
>>>Jim claimed:
>>>I'm not afraid to die.
>>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>>What would you suggest?
>>
>
I'll post some pictures later this year.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

John Cairns wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tadpole,
>>
>>Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
>>I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
>>bashing them for a number of years.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> You need to try a google search, we don't spend our time bashing macs, we
> try to limit our discussion to sailing and sailboats, which naturally would
> exclude macs. Occasionally, someone comes a trolling, lauding the merits of
> macs, we educate them.

Correction. You brainwash them, and drive them off.



We weren't talking about macs until you showed up, we
> won't be talking about them after you leave. And one last thing, if you
> thought your mac was as good a boat as you claim it is, you wouldn't feel
> the need to convince us, remembering, we didn't ask you for your opinion on
> the subject, you asked for ours.
> John Cairns


Remember that I posted notes discussing several boats other than the
Mac, but they were of far less interest to the group. It's true that I
introduced this subject. (It's also true that no one has to read or
contribute to it.) But with over 600 notes posted under this topic
alone, not including the other Mac-related discussions, its obvious that
some on the ng are interested in it. And it's obvioiusly getting under
their skin. Being exposed to new truth that goes against tradition, and
questions what was considered sacred dogma can be painful, but its
ultimately good for the soul.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

jimbo, you are full of ****.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
> >
> > .> >
> >
> >>>
> >>Yes it is.
> >
> >
> > NO, it's NOT
> >
>
> Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
> SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
> water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
> the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
> the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
> length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
> and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
> difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

We started at 1030, still going strong, taking a break while waiting for the
pies to cool off.

Burp!
Scotty

"katysails" > wrote in message
...
> Scotty,
> Havne't you had your dinner yet? I was thinking it was time for the
> cholesterol induced heart attack...
>
> --
> katysails
> s/v Chanteuse
> Kirie Elite 32
> http://katysails.tripod.com
>
> "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
> and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein
>
>

[Donal]

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> the Mac is a cheap piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a damn. How's
> that?

How can you be so certain?



Regards

Donal
--

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>- its doesn't have
>>
>>>a double hull either. The portion of the hull the is protected by the
>
> ballast
>
>>>tank is about a third of the underwater surface - and its the part least
>
> likely
>
>>>to be damaged in a collision.
>>
>>The water ballast chamber extends along the lowermost part of the hull
>>rearwardly from the bow for around 2/3rds of the length of the boat.
>
>
> But is only extends one third of the width. It is more likely that you will hit
> a floating obstruction on the side.
>



Because of its light weight, I don't think that the Mac is likely to
come apart striking something head on under sail. (Momentum and kinetic
energy are proportional to the square of the velocity, which is thus the
more significant factor.) On the other hand, if the Mac is under
power, planing at around 15 knots, for example, I can see a possible
hazard if the boat strikes floating depris, such a partially submerged
log, or some other non-visible hazard. In that event, it seems likely
that the portion of the boat that would get the major impact would be
the lower or center portion of the V-shaped hull. Below is a crude
pictorial representation:




deck
x
x x
x x x x x
x x
x x
x
water inner liner i x
~~~~~~~~~ x i i i x~~~~~~~
surface i o
~ o o o o o o o o oo ~ LLLLL
^ outer hull LLLLL
LLLLL
^^^
(partially
submerged log)


The drawing is not accurate or true to scale, and the boat would
probably be on an incline while planing, such that the lowermost,
longitudinally extending, center "edge portion" of the V bottom
was cutting through the water, and was therefore exposed to
submerged objects on the surface or just below the surface. But it
seems that under such circumstances, the lower hull
could strike the submerged object but not the inner liner,
which is higher in the boat than the lower hull. Also,
under these circumstances, it's likely that the log would be impacted by
only the lowermost, center portion of the keel (where the ballast tank
extends) but not the port and starbord portions of the V-shaped hull,
which are higher than the center of the V bottom. Of course, other
circumstances could arise in which the lower hull might be damaged

In any event, the inner liner is a safety factor, though probably not as
important one as the foam flotation that keeps the entire boat afloat in
the event water enters the cockpit.

Of course, I don't think these outcomes are likely if the limits of the
boat are respected. Of greater importance is a conservative skipper who
keeps the boat out of trouble in the first place, if at all possible,
and who is equipted and thoroghly trained for heavy weather conditions
and man-overboard, etc.






>
>>Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
>>by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant,
>
>
> Only to a non-boater with no experiance.
>
>
>>since if the boat runs over
>>an obstruction, the lowermost portions of the hull are the part that is
>>most likely to hit the obstruction and become punctured.
>
>
> In a boat that only draws one foot it would take a complete idiot to hit a rock
> dead on at high speed. Is that what you're claiming, Jim? That this design
> feature is only there to protect the complete idiot? Far more likely is a
> glancing blow to a floating object.
>
>
>>Obviously, the
>>boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
>>entire hull. (Does your boat?)
>
>
> Actually, my boat has two complete hulls, running the entire length.

And which boat is that?
>
> ....
>
>
>>the
>>
>>>engine certainly wasted. BTW, they never actually say that there is enough
>
> foam
>
>>>to float the boat if the engine is attached, do they? Do you think they
>>>destroyed a $8000 engine just to take that picture?
>>
>>My engine weighs around 200 lbs., so I doubt that it is going to pull
>>the boat to the bottom. The picture of the boat afloat after they cut a
>>hole through the hull doesn't show the motor (so its not clear whether
>>they removed it or not), but it does indicate that, with five men aboard
>>the boat, the boat has sunk about a foot or so from its normal position.
>
>
> Look again, Jim, its down to the rail on both sides. Given the very high
> freeboard, that's closer to two feet below her lines. The question is, how
> much foam floatation is left above the water?

Another question is, would four of your crew be standing on top of the
cabin in such conditions? If they remained partially submerged within
the cockpit or the top of the (open) cabin, the boat would be floating
much higher.

That tells you how close it is to
> sinking. That picture is taken at the dock - in almost any sea conditions the
> deck would be awash amd the boat would flip.
>

The new model (the 26M) has 300 pounds of permanent ballast. It would
tend to keep the boat upright.


> Clearly, positive floatation is a advantage, but its not clear a flooded mac is
> a better platform than a liferaft. On the other hand, the time may come when
> you decided that unsinkable is a disadvantage.
>
Toute et possible. (Anything is possible.) But a boat that would stay
afloat, even if it didn't ride well,
far safer than a keel boat in which the heavy keel tends to QUICKLY pull
the boat to the bottom in the event substantial water enters the cabin,
from any cause. On a small boat, you aren't going to have much room for
a fully equiped life boat, and the heavier ones are not easy to launch
in high winds, according to Reese Paulley, who has made a number of
crossings.




would be far
>
>
>>In other words, with five adult passengers, the boat isn't anywhere near
>>sinking. 200 lbs of motor not make that much difference, and there is
>>plenty of capacity for more people, particularly if they didn't try to
>>stand on top of the cabin.
>>
>>>And, if you have any damage to the ballast tank, it could lose water and the
>>>partially filled tank becomes dangerously unstable. This is not so bad if
>>>you're on a lake where the mac belongs, but offshore this becomes
>
> treacherous.
>
>>Actually, the new 26M model has a combination of both water ballast and
>>permanent ballast. The permanent ballast provides stability for the
>>boat when the water ballast isn't being used.
>
>
> Not enough stability, given the stern warnings about aperating without ballast.
>
>
>
>>>So the question is, would you prefer a boat with a solid hull that can
>
> withstand
>
>>>a beating without being compromised, or one that is likely to be compromised
>
> by
>
>>>a minor collision?
>>
>>I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags, and I would prefer a
>>boat with foam flotation. I would rather have a boat that would survive
>> even under critical emergency situations in which the hull was
>>compromised rather than one that would survive a minor collision but not
>>a major or critical one, in which case the keel would quickly pull the
>>boat to the bottom.
>
>
> I would prefer a good sailboat that provides these advantages. In fact, I have
> one. The mac is a poor powerboat, and a worse sailboat.

Have you sailed, or motored, the Mac 26M? No?

Jim
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Bullsh*t. You need meds.
> >
>
> Have a nice day Johathan.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

It's nice that you admit you're a fool. Good show.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
> > your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
> > you know nothing about sailing.
>
>
> Sure thing Johathan. But if I'm lost at sea, at least you won't have to
> waste more of your time reading my notes on asa.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Feel free to keep replying to all my posts. YOU WIN.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > They're a piece of junk compared to other boats in the same
> > price range. Nothing they could have done would improve
> > them enough to justify buying one.
>
> Have a nice day Jonathan.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

katysails wrote:

> Jim claims: Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will sink with a full load,
> and
>
>>with the water ballast
>
>
> That's very nice if planing with a 50 hp engine is what you want to do. I'm
> sure the guys at alt. motoboater. would be very happy for you.
>
Katy, that particular note was a response to Jeff's comments concerning
the speed of the boat under power. If I'm posting a response to a note
regarding the boat's performance under power, logically, I am going to
talk about the boat's performance under power. - That doesn't mean i'm
into power boats over sail. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the
ability to motor out out to a desired sailing, fishing, diving, or
swimming area quickly, and to return quickly at the end of the cruise,
is an advantage in that it permits you to spend more time sailing,
fishing, diving, or swimming, etc. - Whatever floats your boat. - So, it
is an advantage, even if you aren't into powerboats.

Jim

[katysails]

Jim said: it
is an advantage, even if you aren't into powerboats.

Only for those with gearhead mentalities...

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will plane with a full load, and
>>with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can plane with two
>>people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
>>any event, it's going to go substantially faster than most displacement
>>boats. It can also plane faster without the water ballast, and the new
>>26M includes 300 pounds of permenant ballast, in addition to the water
>>ballast, for added stability in that condition. Obviously, it would be
>>foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
>>foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.
>
>
> What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat? What
> about all of those "bowriders" outs there?
>
> The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments include:
> no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't even
> stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward bunks
> when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So much
> for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone might
> grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
> over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat, nor
> is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)

Of course, if I were sailing or motoring with several guests, or with
children (our grandkids), I would certainly make sure that they didn't
head out to the foredeck when the boat was motoring without the water
ballast. Also, if I was going to go offshore, I would want to make sure
that the water ballast was filled. Uimately, however, this is a "lawyer
thing." Remember, the boat is manufactured in California.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> progress......his first admission to his lies.

Nope. My comment is that, whether or not you call it a "double hull"
if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
a duck. In this case, the inner liner acts like a double hull (IN THE
LOWER PORTION OF THE HULL THAT IS LIKELY TO SUFFER DAMAGE FROM IMPACT
WITH SUBMERGED OBJECTS), and whether or not you call it a double hull,
it provides the same advantages.

Additionally, the boat has positive flotation such that, even if the
hull is compromised, the boat stays afloat. - Scotty, does your boat
stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
boat to the bottom?????????

Jim
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
links to any sources you cite.

Jim



Scott Vernon wrote:

> Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of the
> ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.
>
> SV
>
> "Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>Jeff Morris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
>>
>>hulled".
>>
>>>>The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it
>
> would be
>
>>easy
>>
>>>>to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
>>>
>>>Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending throughout
>>>the hull and chines. (Does your boat?)
>>
>>My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.
>>
>>
>>
>>>But it does have what amounts to
>>>a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
>>>length of the hull.
>>
>>All this means is that there are some situations where there is some extra
>>protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is implied
>
> by
>
>>"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a
>
> marketing
>
>>claim.
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
> than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
> for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
> By definition, it's only a guess.
>
> So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
> you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
> go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.

Nope. Not at all. I would want to be prepared for any potential
circumstance, but I would plan on motoring and/or sailing back to port
if conditions worsened unexpectantly. If that was not possible, I think
the Macgregor, with reefed or no sails, and storm anchor, could survive
with the best of them. Not comfortably, but it would survive.

By the way, Johathan, are you going to buy one of the heavy-weather
Satori's?


>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
>>>sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
>>>inexperienced one.
>>
>>Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
>>run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
>>expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
>>with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
>>form quite quickly.
>
>
> Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.
>
>
>>Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
>>be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
>>occur.
>>
>>
>>>If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
>>>any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
>>>from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).
>>>
>
>
> It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
> sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
> approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
> find on the ocean.
>
>
>>The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
>>weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
>>keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
>>sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
>>costs.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you that
> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface, probably
> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly, many
> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the surface
> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.

As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.

>
> BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving
> the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off
> capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not
> clear you can call this a safety factor at all.
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
>>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
>>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
>>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
>>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
>>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
>>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
>>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> I think you're lying. Prove you aren't.

How would you suggest that I "prove" that I ordered the boat on March 25?

- Get a grip on yourself Jonathan. - Consider how stupid and irrational
you will be perceived from these childish remarks.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> No. You let it go. You're the newbie fool. You're the one
> making an even bigger fool out of himself with each post.
> I'll be here long after you're gone and your piece of junk is
> in the trash heap.
>

Actually, I've been posting notes to this ng since 1997, and I've been
sailing for some 30 years. You ought to listen to us older, experienced
sailors, Johanthan.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

katysails wrote:

> Jim opined: many on this ng
> have become opinionated,
>
> Become???? We came this way...we're original opinionates....

Agreed.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
> themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.

In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
would prefer to "go along to get along"?

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

felton wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:01:44 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Wally wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Cate wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This isn't what happened at all. I posted my questions several times
>>>>on this an on the cruising ng and scanned the reponses for over a
>>>>month hoping to get some factual or substantive information regarding
>>>> the 26M. It was only after weeks of "Mac bashings" ...
>>>
>>>
>>>What, you came into a sailing newsgroup to enquire about about a boat you
>>>knew little about, it's gets slagged off something rotten for a month...
>>>
>>>...and then you go and *buy* one?
>>>
>>>Nobody is that stupid.
>>>
>>
>>You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally. I came onto this newsgroups
>>hoping to get some substantive, factual information. Instead, I found
>>out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
>>and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
>>don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone who
>>likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are either: (1)
>>stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar. In any event, it
>>put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought might be some
>>problems with the Mac, other than its inherent limitations that I
>>already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified, and I proceeded to
>>place my order. Because they are substantially sold out for the rest of
>>the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few who will be able to take
>>delivery of this spectacular and innovated boat this season.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>
> Do you really believe that the "new" Mac 26 is some night and day
> different boat than the "old" Mac 26? P.T. Barnum was right.

Have you taken the time to check out the changes made in the 26M,
Felton? Do you know anything about the hull design, the changes in the
mast, the sails, etc. No? Then you're the one who doesn't know what the
hell he is talking about, not me.

Jim

[Jeff Morris]

It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull to
hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it only
draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the real
risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless. Of
course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks - that's
why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.

Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like an
idiot.



"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
> > Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you
that
> > the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface, probably
> > less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly,
many
> > boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
surface
> > they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
>
> As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
>
> >
> > BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,
>
> (Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
> inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
> mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
> the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
> the cg of the boat?
> leaving
> > the boat dangerously unstable.
>
> You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
> boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
> boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?
>
>
> Since far more people drown from falling off
> > capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),
>
> Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
> PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
> CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
> ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.
>
>
> its not
> > clear you can call this a safety factor at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
> >>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
> >>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
> >>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
> >>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
> >>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
> >>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
> >>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally.
>
>
> In all honesty, and with due respect, I think you have.
>
>
>
>>I came onto this newsgroups
>>hoping to get some substantive, factual information.
>
>
> Would I be correct in assuming that you were looking for said information to
> aid you in your purchasing decision?
>
>
>
>>Instead, I found
>>out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
>>and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
>>don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone
>>who likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are
>>either: (1) stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar.
>
>
> Frankly, I think "intimidate" is a bit strong. This *is* a newsgroup, after
> all. If you know anything about usenet, you'll know that conversation is
> often robust to say the least.
>
>
>
>>In any event, it put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought
>>might be some problems with the Mac, other than its inherent
>>limitations that I already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified,
>>and I proceeded to place my order.
>
>
> What probelms in partcular were you concerned about, and how could those
> concerns be put at ease when all you've had is negative comments?
>
>
>
>>... Because they are substantially
>>sold out for the rest of the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few
>>who will be able to take delivery of this spectacular and innovated
>>boat this season.
>

I was hoping to get some reports from contributors who had actually
sailed the 26M (not the previous models), or who had spoken with
experienced sailors who had sailed the boat. No one on this ng had
sailed the boat, and few had spoken with anyone who had. If someone on
the ng had actually sailed the boat, his or her report regarding how the
boat handled under varying conditions would have been helpful.

Regarding your question about what is spectacular and innovative about
the boat, I have previously discussed the advantages and improvements at
length. If I'm correct, the Mac 26 is the most popular cruising sailboat
on the market, by far. Incremental improvements have been made in the
last two models, and further improvements are incorporated in the new
26M. Advantages of the 26 water ballast sailboat in general include the
fact that the boat addresses the "time factor." As previously discussed
several times, if one owns a fine, 36-foot displacement boat that is
capable of blue water crossings, etc., but which one doesn't have TIME
to sail, then the advantages of the boat don't serve you very well. (Of
course, you can always boast that your boat COULD SAIL ANYWHERE YOU
WANTED TO (if you had time). In the case of the Mac, the ability to
motor out to a desired sailing or fishing or swimming area at 15 knots,
or, alternatively, the ability to motor the boat down to another sailing
are at 65 mph, can change the "COULD SAIL" to a "DID SAIL". In other
words, unless one is retired or has lots of leisure time, the ability to
get to where you want to go, using the power and/or trailoring
capabilities of the Mac 26, can permit you to actually sail in a desired
area, not just talk about it.

With respect to what changes have been incorporated in the 26M, these
have also been discussed several times in previous notes. They include
the addition of permanent ballast, for added safety when motoring or
sailing without the water ballast; the substantial changes to the hull,
which has a new deep V configuration for smoothing out the boat's
performance in heavy chop, the elimination of the pivotal keel, and the
200-gallon slot previously required to receive the pivotal keel (now
replaced by a more narrow, deep dagger board), additional fiber glass
and roving in the hull, etc.; substantially taller mast and rigging,
rotatable mast, etc., etc.

In essence, the 26M provides the advantages from the several previous
models of water ballast power sailboats, plus the advantages of "lessons
learned" over the past eight years of production.

Jim



> What is spectacular and innovative about it?
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> What is bass-ass? Is that an ugly fish?

It's sort of like when you get your head stuck up your ass, Johnathan.
You don't seem to be able to find your way out.

Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
than that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > I think you're lying. Prove you aren't.
>
> How would you suggest that I "prove" that I ordered the boat on March 25?
>
> - Get a grip on yourself Jonathan. - Consider how stupid and irrational
> you will be perceived from these childish remarks.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You're a liar and a fraud as best as I can tell. You're an old fool
at best.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > No. You let it go. You're the newbie fool. You're the one
> > making an even bigger fool out of himself with each post.
> > I'll be here long after you're gone and your piece of junk is
> > in the trash heap.
> >
>
> Actually, I've been posting notes to this ng since 1997, and I've been
> sailing for some 30 years. You ought to listen to us older, experienced
> sailors, Johanthan.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

MacBoy,

What I'm saying is that "there aren't many owners of Macs
that would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule that
you've done. Even they are smarter than you, because they've
figured out Macs are crap and don't wish to embarrass themselves
any further in public.

So MacBoy.. when are you going to prove you didn't buy your
boat prior to posting about buying it?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
> > themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.
>
> In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
> posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
> alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
> conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
> would prefer to "go along to get along"?
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Oh. Thanks for the explanation from an expert such as yourself
MacBoy. Do let us know when you finally unstick your head
from your ass.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > What is bass-ass? Is that an ugly fish?
>
> It's sort of like when you get your head stuck up your ass, Johnathan.
> You don't seem to be able to find your way out.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>>What's a "depth-knot"?
>>
>>It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
>
>
> Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what sort of
> handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much reef would you
> put in the main, and what size of jib would you use? How much heel would you
> expect when going to windward?

Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, I have
ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety, etc. -
These include three reefing points in the main, roller furling, all
lines let aft to the cockpit, depth and knot meters, gps chart readers
(plus paper charts and compass), and auto steering. The depth and knot
meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in view of the fact that
much of our bay waters are relatively shallow, and some of the channels
are narrow and not kept in good condition.

When going offshore, I plan to reef early and severely, and to sail with
the water ballast filled. The exact preferences for reefing, keeling,
etc., for going to windward, or reaching or running will have to be
derived and fine tuned from actual sailing experience over several
months on the boat. However, I understand that the boat makes better
speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.
Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive at preferred
reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc., for various
conditions.

Jim
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Joe wrote:

> "Wally" > wrote in message >...
>
>>katysails wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
>>>he "won"?
>>
>>He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
>>his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
>>from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
>>many ASA points Joe will give me...)
>
>
>
>
> ****, anyone brave enough to be on a mac even at the dock durin a
> hurricane deserves at least 3 asa points. All that windage from the
> high freeboard and vortexes created from wind rounding the square
> corners will make mini tornados that will pull his shackles and
> thimbles lose from the dock. Jim's a brave man and since he scored a
> 98 on his ASA test he is surley qualified to venture into the
> navigable simi circle of any hurricane.



Of course, if the boat and I to down, you won't have to put up with my
comments on rsa any longer. If I suddently disapear sometime after May
1, you can check the web site of the Houston Chronicle (houstonchronicle
..com) for the details.

Jim
>
> Sold any paintings yet Wally? What would you charge to paint my boat?
> Id like a stary night theme after Van G in red and yellow.
>
> Joe

[Jonathan Ganz]

MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast? Actually,
the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac. But, since
you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an experience,
it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full report
including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
rush out and buy one.

I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I have
no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
> > than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
> > for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
> > By definition, it's only a guess.
> >
> > So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
> > you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
> > go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.
>
> Nope. Not at all. I would want to be prepared for any potential
> circumstance, but I would plan on motoring and/or sailing back to port
> if conditions worsened unexpectantly. If that was not possible, I think
> the Macgregor, with reefed or no sails, and storm anchor, could survive
> with the best of them. Not comfortably, but it would survive.
>
> By the way, Johathan, are you going to buy one of the heavy-weather
> Satori's?
>
>
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
> >>>sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
> >>>inexperienced one.
> >>
> >>Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
> >>run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
> >>expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
> >>with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
> >>form quite quickly.
> >
> >
> > Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.
> >
> >
> >>Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
> >>be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
> >>occur.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
> >>>any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
> >>>from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).
> >>>
> >
> >
> > It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
> > sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
> > approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
> > find on the ocean.
> >
> >
> >>The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
> >>weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
> >>keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
> >>sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
> >>costs.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

No. It doesn't make MacBoy sound like an idiot. He is an idiot.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
...
> It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull
to
> hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it
only
> draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the
real
> risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is
meaningless. Of
> course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks -
that's
> why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.
>
> Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like
an
> idiot.
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jeff Morris wrote:
> >
> > > Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
to you
> that
> > > the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
> > > less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
Frankly,
> many
> > > boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
> surface
> > > they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> >
> > As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> > the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> > central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> > extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> > walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially
drain,
> >
> > (Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
> > inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
> > mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
> > the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
> > the cg of the boat?
> > leaving
> > > the boat dangerously unstable.
> >
> > You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
> > boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
> > boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?
> >
> >
> > Since far more people drown from falling off
> > > capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to
1),
> >
> > Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
> > PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
> > CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
> > ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.
> >
> >
> > its not
> > > clear you can call this a safety factor at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
> > >>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of
keeping
> > >>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
> > >>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
> > >>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd.
the
> > >>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
> > >>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
> > >>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
> > >>
> > >>Jim
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[otnmbrd]

Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
>> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
>> to you that
>> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
>> probably
>> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
>> Frankly, many
>> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
>> surface
>> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
>
>
> As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.

Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.

otn

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
....
> >> Obviously, it would be
> >>foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
> >>foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.
> >
> >
> > What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat?
What
> > about all of those "bowriders" outs there?
> >
> > The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments
include:
> > no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't
even
> > stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward
bunks
> > when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So
much
> > for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone
might
> > grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
> > over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat,
nor
> > is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.
>
> Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
> lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
> literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
> warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
> weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
> when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
> Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
> addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
> motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
> have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
> being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
> boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
> ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
> take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
> you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
> at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
> water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)

Total nonsense. First you extol all the "virtues," asserting everything claimed
by the factory must be true; now you're saying all their warnings and
disclaimers are meaningless because a lawyer told them add this in. Frankly,
I've never warnings like this from any other sailboat manufacturer. Why is it
that this one feels the need?

If you did look at the statistics, you'd realize that death from sinking in
medium size sailboats in coastal waters is rather uncommon. The vast majority
of deaths is from capsizing or falling off of unstable boats; followed closely
by hitting something at speed. All of these are much greater risks in a boat
like a mac. I'm not talking about 2 or 3 times more common - there's only a
handful of deaths from traditional cruising boats sinking, but hundreds from
falling overboard, or capsizing. Think about it, Jim. 99% of drownings
involved boats with foam floation.

If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here. Do
you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of what
you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote...
>
> if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
> a duck.

right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.

>
> - Scotty, does your boat
> stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
> boat to the bottom?????????

If my hull were 'penetrated' where my sink drain through hull is, the water
would be contained by the drain hose which is double hose clamped as a
safety precaution.

Scotty

[Scott Vernon]

check the Mac list, dufASS.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
> Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
> and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
> going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
> it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
> links to any sources you cite.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of
the
> > ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.
> >
> > SV
> >
> > "Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Jeff Morris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
> >>
> >>hulled".
> >>
> >>>>The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it
> >
> > would be
> >
> >>easy
> >>
> >>>>to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
> >>>
> >>>Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending
throughout
> >>>the hull and chines. (Does your boat?)
> >>
> >>My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>But it does have what amounts to
> >>>a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
> >>>length of the hull.
> >>
> >>All this means is that there are some situations where there is some
extra
> >>protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is
implied
> >
> > by
> >
> >>"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a
> >
> > marketing
> >
> >>claim.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jeff Morris wrote:
> >
> >> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
> >> to you that
> >> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
> >> probably
> >> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
> >> Frankly, many
> >> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
> >> surface
> >> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> >
> >
> > As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> > the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> > central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> > extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> > walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
>
> Two points:
> 1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
> complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
> pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
bottom.
> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
> for either, unless your a salesman..
>
> 2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
> know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> before you claim it as a positive.
>
> In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
>
> otn
>

[Scott Vernon]

Scotty wrote....
>the Mac26Xm is a cheap plastic piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a
damn.


"Jim Cate" > wrote ...
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> .
>
> In essence, the 26M provides the disadvantages from the several previous
> models of water ballast power sailboats, plus the disadvantages of
"lessons
> learned" over the past eight years of advertising.
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

Smart-ass Jim Cate" wrote ...
>
> >>
> >>It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
> >


And then wrote.....

> the boat makes better
> speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.
>
> Jim


So now the mac has an adjustable weight keel?

SV

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> I was hoping to get some reports from contributors who had actually
> sailed the 26M (not the previous models), or who had spoken with
> experienced sailors who had sailed the boat. No one on this ng had
> sailed the boat, and few had spoken with anyone who had. If someone on
> the ng had actually sailed the boat, his or her report regarding how
> the boat handled under varying conditions would have been helpful.

So, armed with this lack of information, you went and bought one. Why do
that when, by your own admission, you aren't sufficiently well informed to
assert its worthiness?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

>> Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what
>> sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much
>> reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you use?
>> How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

> Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...

70 knots is not 'moderate'.


> I
> have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
> etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
> furling,

Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you propose
to bend on a small jib?


> The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
> view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,

How does a knot meter help in shallow water?


> and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.

What do you mean?



> However, I understand that the boat
> makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
> heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
> at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
> for various conditions.

I asked:

1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
use?
3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
out in 70kt winds. Your trolling skills are a joke - try to be less obvious.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Capt.American]

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message >...
> aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American

>
> Scotty
>
> "otnmbrd" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> >
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeff Morris wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
> > >> to you that
> > >> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
> > >> probably
> > >> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
> > >> Frankly, many
> > >> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
> > >> surface
> > >> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> > >
> > >
> > > As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> > > the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> > > central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> > > extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> > > walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
> >
> > Two points:
> > 1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
> > complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
> > pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> > A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> > perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
> bottom.
> > From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
> > for either, unless your a salesman..
> >
> > 2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
> > know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> > stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> > before you claim it as a positive.
> >
> > In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> > inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
> >
> > otn
> >

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty certain
that something like 2/3 that enter US ports are not because
of the longevity of the tankers. If you have data to suggest
otherwise, I'd like to see it. I do believe the US registered
fleet is double-hulled, however.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.American" > wrote in message
om...
> "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
>...
> > aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?
>
> All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.
>
> Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
> them.
> As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
> companies that will use them another 20 years.
>
> Capt. American
>
> >
> > Scotty
> >
> > "otnmbrd" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Cate wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed
out
> > > >> to you that
> > > >> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
> > > >> probably
> > > >> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
> > > >> Frankly, many
> > > >> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of
the
> > > >> surface
> > > >> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for
some2/3rds of
> > > > the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable
(lowermost.
> > > > central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> > > > extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. -
If it
> > > > walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
> > >
> > > Two points:
> > > 1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double
hull,
> > > complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main
deck,
> > > pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> > > A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> > > perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
> > bottom.
> > > From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't
qualify
> > > for either, unless your a salesman..
> > >
> > > 2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless
you
> > > know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> > > stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> > > before you claim it as a positive.
> > >
> > > In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> > > inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
> > >
> > > otn
> > >

[Jonathan Ganz]

And, he's not moderately stupid either.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> >> Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what
> >> sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much
> >> reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you use?
> >> How much heel would you expect when going to windward?
>
> > Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...
>
> 70 knots is not 'moderate'.
>
>
> > I
> > have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
> > etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
> > furling,
>
> Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you
propose
> to bend on a small jib?
>
>
> > The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
> > view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,
>
> How does a knot meter help in shallow water?
>
>
> > and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.
>
> What do you mean?
>
>
>
> > However, I understand that the boat
> > makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
> > heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
> > at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
> > for various conditions.
>
> I asked:
>
> 1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
> 2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
> use?
> 3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?
>
> And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
> out in 70kt winds. Your trolling skills are a joke - try to be less
obvious.
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[otnmbrd]

They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
carry does not fall under "oil" transport.

otn

Scott Vernon wrote:
> aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?
>
> Scotty
>
> "otnmbrd" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>
>>Jim Cate wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Jeff Morris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
>>>>to you that
>>>>the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
>>>>probably
>>>>less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
>>>>Frankly, many
>>>>boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
>>>>surface
>>>>they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
>>>
>>>
>>>As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
>>>the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
>>>central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
>>>extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
>>>walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
>>
>>Two points:
>>1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
>>complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
>>pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
>>A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
>>perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
>
> bottom.
>
>> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
>>for either, unless your a salesman..
>>
>>2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
>>know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
>>stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
>>before you claim it as a positive.
>>
>>In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
>>inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
>>
>>otn
>>
>
>

[Jeff Morris]

Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"



"otnmbrd" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
> single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
> This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
> but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
> carry does not fall under "oil" transport.
>
> otn
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
> > aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?
> >
> > Scotty
> >
> > "otnmbrd" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Jim Cate wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Jeff Morris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
> >>>>to you that
> >>>>the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
> >>>>probably
> >>>>less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
> >>>>Frankly, many
> >>>>boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
> >>>>surface
> >>>>they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> >>>the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> >>>central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> >>>extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> >>>walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
> >>
> >>Two points:
> >>1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
> >>complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
> >>pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> >>A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> >>perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
> >
> > bottom.
> >
> >> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
> >>for either, unless your a salesman..
> >>
> >>2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
> >>know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> >>stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> >>before you claim it as a positive.
> >>
> >>In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> >>inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
> >>
> >>otn
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Donal]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
> > themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.
>
> In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
> posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
> alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
> conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
> would prefer to "go along to get along"?


I don't feel the need to knock your choice of boat. I may not agree with
it, but I suspect that you will enjoy it.

Don't worry about how *most* contributers feel. They won't be sailing the
boat - You will.



Regards


Donal
--

[Jonathan Ganz]

Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
claimed it handled better than my SVX.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Donal" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >
> > > There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
> > > themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.
> >
> > In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
> > posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
> > alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
> > conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
> > would prefer to "go along to get along"?
>
>
> I don't feel the need to knock your choice of boat. I may not agree with
> it, but I suspect that you will enjoy it.
>
> Don't worry about how *most* contributers feel. They won't be sailing
the
> boat - You will.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...
>
>>>>Obviously, it would be
>>>>foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
>>>>foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>>What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat?
>
> What
>
>>>about all of those "bowriders" outs there?
>>>
>>>The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments
>
> include:
>
>>>no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't
>
> even
>
>>>stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward
>
> bunks
>
>>>when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So
>
> much
>
>>>for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone
>
> might
>
>>>grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
>>>over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat,
>
> nor
>
>>>is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.
>>
>>Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
>>lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
>>literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
>>warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
>>weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
>>when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
>>Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
>>addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
>>motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
>>have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
>>being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
>>boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
>>ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
>>take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
>>you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
>>at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
>>water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)
>
>
> Total nonsense. First you extol all the "virtues," asserting everything claimed
> by the factory must be true;

Actually, this is not true. What I cited from the "factory" (whatever
that is) are the objective specifications of the boat. - Dimensions,
design changes (dagger board vs. swing keel, deep V-hull vs rounded
hull, additional fiberglass in hull, use of permantent ballast in
addition to water ballast. I DID NOT cite unobjective marketing verbage
relating to the sailing or motoring characteristics of the boat.



now you're saying all their warnings and
> disclaimers are meaningless because a lawyer told them add this in.

Nope. I merely suggested that you take them with a grain of salt.

Frankly,
> I've never warnings like this from any other sailboat manufacturer. Why is it
> that this one feels the need?

- - Because MacGregor cares about it's customers and their passengers,
and is willing to warn them about potential hazards even if it means
that such warinings might be interpreted as a criticism of the boat itself.
>
> If you did look at the statistics, you'd realize that death from sinking in
> medium size sailboats in coastal waters is rather uncommon. The vast majority
> of deaths is from capsizing or falling off of unstable boats; followed closely
> by hitting something at speed. All of these are much greater risks in a boat
> like a mac. I'm not talking about 2 or 3 times more common - there's only a
> handful of deaths from traditional cruising boats sinking, but hundreds from
> falling overboard, or capsizing. Think about it, Jim. 99% of drownings
> involved boats with foam floation.

And, with some 30,000 boats sold, how many people drowned last year from
falling off one of the the Mac 26? Was it around 1,000? Or, perhaps,
about 500?? Or, even around 100??? Or about 50????? No? How about
20????? (No? Then how many. Put up or shut the hell up.)


>
> If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here. Do
> you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
> unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
> money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
> safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of what
> you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

The catalina is a nice boat (I've saild on several 30s), and we did
consider several of them, but it's boring, boring, boring.


Jim
>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote...
>
>>if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
>>a duck.
>
>
> right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.


Maybe. But if the Mac inner liner serves the same purpose, if the
central, lowermost portion of the hull is penetrated, then it's a case
of the Mac walking like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like
a duck. Seems to me that whether you call it a doublehull or not is
actually a non sequitor.


>
>
>> - Scotty, does your boat
>>stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
>>boat to the bottom?????????
>
>
> If my hull were 'penetrated' where my sink drain through hull is, the water
> would be contained by the drain hose which is double hose clamped as a
> safety precaution.
>
> Scotty
>

And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?

Jim

[EdGordonRN]

>Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
>no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
>claimed it handled better than my SVX

Ah, the rich sailor. God I hate rich sailors. I mean the Mac is a piece of
****, I agree, but rich people suck worse than cable steering and a 50 hp power
motor strapped on the back of a milk carton boat.

The Veridican

[otnmbrd]

The bad news: Yup ...... The good news: all the birds etc. would get
fat, licking themselves clean.
Thankfully, that is one cargo I never carried ..... it's a pain to heat.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:
> Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
> would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"

[katysails]

Now look at what you've done, Jon...you've unearthed Ed Gordon from whatever
cave he's been dweklling in these past few years....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> check the Mac list, dufASS.\


Why don't you show us some evidence proving that blisters inside the
water ballast chamber are a serious problem for most Mac owners? YOU are
the one who introduced this issue, not me, and you should at least
provide your sources and the probabilities that most Mac owners will or
will not experience such difficulties.

Jim




>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
>>Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
>>and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
>>going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
>>it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
>>links to any sources you cite.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>Scott Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of
>
> the
>
>>>ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.
>>>
>>>SV
>>>
>>>"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff Morris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
>>>>
>>>>hulled".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it
>>>
>>>would be
>>>
>>>
>>>>easy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending
>
> throughout
>
>>>>>the hull and chines. (Does your boat?)
>>>>
>>>>My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But it does have what amounts to
>>>>>a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
>>>>>length of the hull.
>>>>
>>>>All this means is that there are some situations where there is some
>
> extra
>
>>>>protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is
>
> implied
>
>>>by
>>>
>>>
>>>>"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a
>>>
>>>marketing
>>>
>>>
>>>>claim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
> motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast?


Nope. Not more than 100 miles offshore.

Actually,
> the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
> since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac.


What a ridiculous, asinine statement. - I'm not a sailor, since I bought
a Mac. - The bottom line, Jonathan, is that you have no understanding
whatsoever of the most basic aspects of logic, rationality, and
intellectual honesty. - In other words, you aren't willing to tell the
truth.


But, since
> you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an experience,
> it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
> prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full report
> including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
> rush out and buy one.

I'll be happy to provide detailed reports of my offshore trips in the
Mac26M.
>
> I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
> boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I have
> no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
> and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.

Sure Johnathan. But would you recommend the Satori to anyone else on
this ng???


Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull to
> hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it only
> draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the real
> risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless.

It's not "along the waterline." It's below the waterline. And in a boat
plaining under power, the portion protected by the extra wall is
precisely the area most likely to be damaged by impacts with submerged
objects just below the surface.


Of
> course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks - that's
> why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.
>
> Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like an
> idiot.

Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
advertising the boat has having a double hull.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.............................................. .................................................. .............................................
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Jeff Morris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you
>
> that
>
>>>the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface, probably
>>>less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly,
>
> many
>
>>>boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
>
> surface
>
>>>they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
>>
>>As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
>>the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
>>central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
>>extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
>>walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
>>
>>
>>>BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,
>>
>>(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
>>inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
>>mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
>>the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
>>the cg of the boat?
>>leaving
>>
>>>the boat dangerously unstable.
>>
>>You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
>>boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
>>boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?
>>
>>
>>Since far more people drown from falling off
>>
>>>capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),
>>
>>Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
>>PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
>>CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
>>ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.
>>
>>
>>its not
>>
>>>clear you can call this a safety factor at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
>>>>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
>>>>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
>>>>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
>>>>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
>>>>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
>>>>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
>>>>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

otnmbrd wrote:

>
>
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jeff Morris wrote:
>>
>>> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
>>> to you that
>>> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
>>> probably
>>> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
>>> Frankly, many
>>> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of
>>> the surface
>>> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.


If it walks like a duck, and talks like a
duck...................................

In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
positioned over the lower hull IN EXACTLY THE AREAS MOST LIKELY TO BE
COMPROMISED IF THE BOAT STRIKES A SUBMERGED OBJECT WHEN PLANING.
>>
>>
>>
>> As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds
>> of the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable
>> (lowermost. central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want
>> to call the extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same
>> purpose. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not
>> call it a duck.
>
>
> Two points:
> 1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
> complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
> pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the bottom.
> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
> for either, unless your a salesman..

Although you may be right technically in questioning whether the term
"double hulled" should be applied, SUBSTANTIVELY, the extra, inner layer
serves the same purpose in the event the boat is compromised along its
central axis.

While your nomentclature might be more precise, if the extra layer
prevents water from entering the cabin, the end result is that your ass,
and that of my passengers, might be saved.

>
> 2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
> know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> before you claim it as a positive.
>
> In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
>

One factor I'M SEEING is that most contributors to this ng don't have
the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that they are
wrong, and/or, that they have never sailed the26m, or that they really
don't know what they are talking about.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.......................................

Jim



> otn
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> jimbo, you are full of ****.
>

Thanks for your note, Scott. Have a nice evening.

Jim


>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Scott Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
>>>
>>>.> >
>>>
>>>>Yes it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>NO, it's NOT
>>>
>>
>>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
>>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
>>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
>>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
>>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
>>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
>>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
>>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >
> > right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.
>
>
> Maybe.

Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it, no
probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS ****N
O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!





>
> And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?
>

Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.

Scotty

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
> And, with some 30,000 boats sold, how many people drowned last year from
> falling off one of the the Mac 26? Was it around 1,000? Or, perhaps,
> about 500?? Or, even around 100??? Or about 50????? No? How about
> 20????? (No? Then how many. Put up or shut the hell up.)
>

How how many drowned from all the keel boats that you think are unsafe? The
point is you've been making a big claim that safety, compared to keel boats, is
one of the prime virtues of the mac, but you forgot to notice that keel boats
aren't particularly dangerous, especially in inland sailing. The safety factor
that impresses you so much solves a problem that doesn't really exist!


>
> >
> > If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here.
Do
> > you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
> > unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
> > money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
> > safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of
what
> > you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.
>
> The catalina is a nice boat (I've saild on several 30s), and we did
> consider several of them, but it's boring, boring, boring.

And bobbing around in a clorox bottle is exciting? Its hard to imaginge a
sailboat more boring than a mac! I only mention the Cat 30 because there are
so many of them that its easy to determine the price and depreciation. There
are easily 100 models in the same range that would be vastly superior.

The Mac only has two advantages over a traditional boat. First, its trailorable.
If you lived in Minnesota and wanted to sail a different lake each weekend, this
would be very handy. Second is the increased speed. However, if you travel
with a crew, and any amount of gear, you won't really see speeds over 12 knots.
Clearly this is enough to pass other boats, but it won't really get you places
that much faster. And, if you have a head wind and any chop, the speed is
greatly reduced, and its very wet and uncomfortable.

And, its a horrible sailor. I haven't seen a PHRF number for the 26M, but on
the mac boards you'll see comments of rating the 26X at somewhere between 280
and 300. And this is for lake racing - imagine how slow it is "75 miles
offshore." You're thinking its safe to venture that far out because you can
scoot in at 20 knots. However, if you get a nasty chop you could end up
spending all night trying to get back.

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
> perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
> than that.
>

Jonathan, I ordered the boat last month, as indicated. Whay are you so
concerned about when I ordereed it? What are you trying to prove?

Regarding your statement that the Mac is a piece of crap, actually, I'm
very fortunate to be able to get one of the few 26Ms still available in
the next few months. It's a spectacular, high-tech, innovative new
vessel incorporating a number of improvements derived from Mac's
extensive exeperience over the years. I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

Why, I'm not the one dumb enough to buy a Mac26xM.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > check the Mac list, dufASS.\
>
>
> Why don't you show us some evidence proving that blisters inside the
> water ballast chamber are a serious problem for most Mac owners? YOU are
> the one who introduced this issue, not me, and you should at least
> provide your sources and the probabilities that most Mac owners will or
> will not experience such difficulties.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
> >>Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
> >>and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
> >>going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
> >>it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
> >>links to any sources you cite.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Scott Vernon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.
> >>>
> >>>SV
> >>>
> >>>"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jeff Morris wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double
> >>>>
> >>>>hulled".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it
> >>>
> >>>would be
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>easy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending
> >
> > throughout
> >
> >>>>>the hull and chines. (Does your boat?)
> >>>>
> >>>>My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>But it does have what amounts to
> >>>>>a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
> >>>>>length of the hull.
> >>>>
> >>>>All this means is that there are some situations where there is some
> >
> > extra
> >
> >>>>protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is
> >
> > implied
> >
> >>>by
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a
> >>>
> >>>marketing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>claim.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You're a liar and a fraud as best as I can tell. You're an old fool
> at best.


Wrong again, Johnny. Check the notes posted on this newsgroup in March
of 1997, and thereafter.

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac.
>


"Jim Cate" agreed and wrote ...
>
> I'm not a sailor, since I bought
> a Mac.

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> Scotty wrote....
>
>>the Mac26Xm is a cheap plastic piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a
>
> damn.
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote ...
>
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>Jim


And your boat is made of wood? Ferrocement? Iron? Aluminum?

Jim

>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> Maybe. But if the Mac inner liner serves the same purpose, if the
> central, lowermost portion of the hull is penetrated, then it's a case
> of the Mac walking like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking
> like a duck. Seems to me that whether you call it a doublehull or
> not is actually a non sequitor.

If, if, if.

You're spouting third-rate garbage. You made a generalsed claim and are now
trying to redefine it in terms of the call that was made on your claim -
it's called the "no true Scotsman move".


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote

>
> Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
> advertising the boat has having a double hull.
>
> If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
>
duck.............................................. ..........................
.................................................. ....................


if it sounds like an asshole, and writes like an asshole, jim must be an
asshole.

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> MacBoy,
>
> What I'm saying is that "there aren't many owners of Macs
> that would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule that
> you've done. Even they are smarter than you, because they've
> figured out Macs are crap and don't wish to embarrass themselves
> any further in public.
>
> So MacBoy.. when are you going to prove you didn't buy your
> boat prior to posting about buying it?
>

What form of "proof" would satisfy you, Johnny? I don't think my dealer
would appreciate my posting a copy of the order form, but perhaps some
other form of evidence would do the same thing.

Ji

[Veridican]

>I'm very lucky to be able to get
>one of the few available this year.
>

I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for them.
I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.

Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what difference
does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the slip or
driveway as good as any other boat.

My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on the ocean
and we sail all the time. That's what matters.

The Veridican

The Veridican

[Jeff Morris]

You're still solving problems that don't exist. This is only important on a mac
where the hull it too thin given the speed it can attain (if you empty the
ballast, leave the mast and sails at the dock, carry one gallon of fuel, and
singlehand).

And, you have to be luck enough to hit something in the middle, not on the side
of the boat. What are you going to do when you see a log? Aim for it so you
hit dead on, rather than a glancing blow?


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
> > It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull
to
> > hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it
only
> > draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the
real
> > risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless.
>
> It's not "along the waterline." It's below the waterline. And in a boat
> plaining under power, the portion protected by the extra wall is
> precisely the area most likely to be damaged by impacts with submerged
> objects just below the surface.
>
>
> Of
> > course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks -
that's
> > why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.
> >
> > Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like
an
> > idiot.
>
> Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
> advertising the boat has having a double hull.
>
> If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
>
duck.............................................. ..............................
.................................................. ................
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Jeff Morris wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
> >>>less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly,
> >
> > many
> >
> >>>boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
> >
> > surface
> >
> >>>they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> >>
> >>As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> >>the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> >>central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> >>extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> >>walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
> >>
> >>
> >>>BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,
> >>
> >>(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
> >>inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
> >>mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
> >>the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
> >>the cg of the boat?
> >>leaving
> >>
> >>>the boat dangerously unstable.
> >>
> >>You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
> >>boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
> >>boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?
> >>
> >>
> >>Since far more people drown from falling off
> >>
> >>>capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),
> >>
> >>Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
> >>PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
> >>CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
> >>ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.
> >>
> >>
> >>its not
> >>
> >>>clear you can call this a safety factor at all.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
> >>>>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
> >>>>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
> >>>>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
> >>>>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
> >>>>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
> >>>>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
> >>>>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jim
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>I was hoping to get some reports from contributors who had actually
>>sailed the 26M (not the previous models), or who had spoken with
>>experienced sailors who had sailed the boat. No one on this ng had
>>sailed the boat, and few had spoken with anyone who had. If someone on
>>the ng had actually sailed the boat, his or her report regarding how
>>the boat handled under varying conditions would have been helpful.
>
>
> So, armed with this lack of information, you went and bought one. Why do
> that when, by your own admission, you aren't sufficiently well informed to
> assert its worthiness?
>

In any such decision, one likes to gather as much substantive
information possible for consideration before making a decision. In this
case, I got little if any substantive information from this ng. This was
a significant clue. - It told me that much of the "Mac Bashers" really
didn't have any direct knowledge of the 26M, and that most of the Mac
Bashing had no basis in fact. It further told me that many on this ng
who commented on the Macs really didn't know what the hell they were
talking about. >

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote ...

> In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
>

it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!


>
> Although you may be right .
> I don't have
> the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that I'm
> wrong, and that I've never sailed the26m, or that I really
> don't know what I'm talking about.
>
> If it walks like an ass, and quacks like an
> ass .......................................
>
> Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> Smart-ass Jim Cate" wrote ...
>
>>>>It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
>>>
>
>
> And then wrote.....
>
>
>> the boat makes better
>>speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>
> So now the mac has an adjustable weight keel?
>
> SV
>
>

heeled.

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Scotty wrote....
> >
> >>the Mac26Xm is a cheap plastic piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a
> >
> > damn.
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote ...
> >
> >>
> >>Agreed.
> >>
> >>Jim
>
>
> And your boat is made of wood? Ferrocement? Iron? Aluminum?
>
> Jim
>

*IF* I had a boat, it wouldn't be a Mac26Mx.

Scotty

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> In any such decision, one likes to gather as much substantive
> information possible for consideration before making a decision. In
> this case, I got little if any substantive information from this ng.
> This was a significant clue. - It told me that much of the "Mac
> Bashers" really didn't have any direct knowledge of the 26M, and that
> most of the Mac Bashing had no basis in fact. It further told me that
> many on this ng who commented on the Macs really didn't know what the
> hell they were talking about. >

You are a moron.



--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Scott Vernon]

glass houses, jim, glass houses.....


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Smart-ass Jim Cate" wrote ...
> >
> >>>>It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
> >>>
> >
> >
> > And then wrote.....
> >
> >
> >> the boat makes better
> >>speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >
> >
> >
> > So now the mac has an adjustable weight keel?
> >
> > SV
> >
> >
>
> heeled.
>

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>>Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what
>>>sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much
>>>reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you use?
>>>How much heel would you expect when going to windward?
>
>
>>Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...
>
>
> 70 knots is not 'moderate'.
>
>
>
>>I
>>have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
>>etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
>>furling,
>
>
> Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you propose
> to bend on a small jib?


The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore. Or, if the
winds may be severe, to hank on a storm jib in place of the working jib.

>
>
>
>>The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
>>view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,
>
>
> How does a knot meter help in shallow water?
>
>
The knot meter tells me whether I'm making too much headway for safety
when navigating a narrow and silted channel. It also gives me a means
for estimating how far I have traveled, and what my position is. It's a
backup to the chartreader.

>
>>and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.
>
>
> What do you mean?


They aren't dredged often enough to maintain their reported and charted
depth depth and width.
>
>
>>However, I understand that the boat
>>makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
>>heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
>>at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
>>for various conditions.
>
>
> I asked:
>
> 1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?

The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.

> 2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
> use?

As previously noted, these parameters would be determined empirically,
through an extended series of sea trials in varying conditions.



> 3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

Depends on the degree of reef in the main and furling of the jib.

>
> And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
> out in 70kt winds.

Nope. You, again, have it bass ass backwards. - If I told you that I
would expect 27.5 degrees of heel, with a particular set of sails
deployed, THAT would be a joke. - What I told you was that I would be
conducting a series of sea trials using varying combinations of sails
and reefing points in varying winds. That series of tests, when sailing
under varying conditions, is the only way I would want to rely on to set
the sails under heavy weather conditions.

Of course, everyone recognized that you thought you were throwing me a
"gotcha." You intended to trip me up. But ultimately, YOU are the one
who demonstrated how stupid you really are.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> And, he's not moderately stupid either.

Have a nice evening, Johny.

Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

So, what you're saying is that you can't prove it. Ok.
That's all I wanted to know.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
> > perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
> > than that.
> >
>
> Jonathan, I ordered the boat last month, as indicated. Whay are you so
> concerned about when I ordereed it? What are you trying to prove?
>
> Regarding your statement that the Mac is a piece of crap, actually, I'm
> very fortunate to be able to get one of the few 26Ms still available in
> the next few months. It's a spectacular, high-tech, innovative new
> vessel incorporating a number of improvements derived from Mac's
> extensive exeperience over the years. I'm very lucky to be able to get
> one of the few available this year.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You're right! Most people buy a boat and hardly sail it. But, MacBoy
claimed he was going to sail it in high wind conditions up to 70kts. He's
clearly either delusional or a liar. He claimed that it's a better boat than
a Valient. It isn't. He claimed it is double-hulled. It isn't.

I'm not a big fan of hunters, but I am a big fan of people who actually
go sailing. If he were actually going to sail his Mac in conditions that
would be appropriate for that kind of boat (insert snikering here), then
I would have some respect for him.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Veridican" > wrote in message
...
> >I'm very lucky to be able to get
> >one of the few available this year.
> >
>
> I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for
them.
> I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.
>
> Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what
difference
> does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the
slip or
> driveway as good as any other boat.
>
> My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on the
ocean
> and we sail all the time. That's what matters.
>
> The Veridican
>
> The Veridican

[Jonathan Ganz]

No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You're a liar and a fraud as best as I can tell. You're an old fool
> > at best.
>
>
> Wrong again, Johnny. Check the notes posted on this newsgroup in March
> of 1997, and thereafter.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, you have a point. I wouldn't consider my Cal 20 a rich sailor's
boat. Do you?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"EdGordonRN" > wrote in message
...
> >Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
> >no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
> >claimed it handled better than my SVX
>
> Ah, the rich sailor. God I hate rich sailors. I mean the Mac is a piece of
> ****, I agree, but rich people suck worse than cable steering and a 50 hp
power
> motor strapped on the back of a milk carton boat.
>
> The Veridican

[Jonathan Ganz]

Damn.. oh well.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katysails" > wrote in message
...
> Now look at what you've done, Jon...you've unearthed Ed Gordon from
whatever
> cave he's been dweklling in these past few years....
>
> --
> katysails
> s/v Chanteuse
> Kirie Elite 32
> http://katysails.tripod.com
>
> "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
> and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Whatever you think appropriate. I'm sure we'll all have a comment.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > MacBoy,
> >
> > What I'm saying is that "there aren't many owners of Macs
> > that would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule that
> > you've done. Even they are smarter than you, because they've
> > figured out Macs are crap and don't wish to embarrass themselves
> > any further in public.
> >
> > So MacBoy.. when are you going to prove you didn't buy your
> > boat prior to posting about buying it?
> >
>
> What form of "proof" would satisfy you, Johnny? I don't think my dealer
> would appreciate my posting a copy of the order form, but perhaps some
> other form of evidence would do the same thing.
>
> Ji
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Now that's a bit strong. I would say, "You're a stupid fool."
We don't want to insult morons.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> > In any such decision, one likes to gather as much substantive
> > information possible for consideration before making a decision. In
> > this case, I got little if any substantive information from this ng.
> > This was a significant clue. - It told me that much of the "Mac
> > Bashers" really didn't have any direct knowledge of the 26M, and that
> > most of the Mac Bashing had no basis in fact. It further told me that
> > many on this ng who commented on the Macs really didn't know what the
> > hell they were talking about. >
>
> You are a moron.
>
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>
> The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore.


you're going to reef a working jib on a Mac26? he he heeeee OK.




> >
> > 1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
>
> The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.


and by ''sufficiently reefed'' you mean tied down to the trailer, right?



>
> But ultimately, Jim are the one
> who demonstrated how stupid Jim really are.

[Jonathan Ganz]

Are you sure??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Cate" > wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.
> >
> >
> > Maybe.
>
> Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it, no
> probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS
****N
> O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?
> >
>
> Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.
>
> Scotty
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

MacBoy,

Actually, if you had said 100 miles inland, I might have agreed with you.

No. You're not a sailor because you have no idea how to sail. You
think a motor boat with a sail on it is a sailboat. You claim a great
deal of knowledge for someone who just plunked down a bunch of
money for a piece of junk.

We await your unlikely return from the ocean.

Yes, there are several people on this ng who have a greater chance
of even wanting to sail offshore. In fact, I could recommend it to
myself, if I wanted to do that again. Maybe I will someday. At the
moment, I'm only interested in bay and minor coastal sailing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
> > motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast?
>
>
> Nope. Not more than 100 miles offshore.
>
> Actually,
> > the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
> > since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac.
>
>
> What a ridiculous, asinine statement. - I'm not a sailor, since I bought
> a Mac. - The bottom line, Jonathan, is that you have no understanding
> whatsoever of the most basic aspects of logic, rationality, and
> intellectual honesty. - In other words, you aren't willing to tell the
> truth.
>
>
> But, since
> > you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an
experience,
> > it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
> > prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full
report
> > including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
> > rush out and buy one.
>
> I'll be happy to provide detailed reports of my offshore trips in the
> Mac26M.
> >
> > I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
> > boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I
have
> > no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
> > and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.
>
> Sure Johnathan. But would you recommend the Satori to anyone else on
> this ng???
>
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore. Or, if the
> winds may be severe, to hank on a storm jib in place of the working
> jib.

How do you hank a storm jib on when there's a roller furling mech in the
way? Does it have a second forestay for the purpose?


> Depends on the degree of reef in the main and furling of the jib.

Is that roller furling or roller reefing on the jib?


> Nope. You, again, have it bass ass backwards.

Stop talking crap - 70 knots is a hurricane and 100 miles offshore isn't
coastal cruising. The 26M is a beginner's boat and isn't built for such
conditions.


> Of course, everyone recognized that you thought you were throwing me a
> "gotcha." You intended to trip me up. But ultimately, YOU are the one
> who demonstrated how stupid you really are.

I freely admit that I am a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b. Unlike you, I
don't come in here spouting irrational, badly-argued garbage while making a
bunch of ridiculous claims.

You're a troll, or a moron, or a moronic troll, or a trolling moron. Pick
one.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Jonathan Ganz]

I guess you will be having a nice weekend asshole... yech.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > jimbo, you are full of ****.
> >
>
> Thanks for your note, Scott. Have a nice evening.
>
> Jim
>
>
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Scott Vernon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jim Cate" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
> >>>
> >>>.> >
> >>>
> >>>>Yes it is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>NO, it's NOT
> >>>
> >>
> >>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
> >>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
> >>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
> >>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
> >>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
> >>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
> >>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
> >>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

about what?

"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> Are you sure??
>
> --
> "j" ganz @@
> www.sailnow.com
>
> "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe.
> >
> > Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it,
no
> > probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS
> ****N
> > O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull
wasn't?
> > >
> >
> > Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.
> >
> > Scotty
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

See, now this is what happens when you try to defend an asshole.
You ASSUMED that I was saying you were more than moderately
stupid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > And, he's not moderately stupid either.
>
> Have a nice evening, Johny.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

In my opinion, you're stupid, a liar, and an asshole.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wally wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what
> >>>sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much
> >>>reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you use?
> >>>How much heel would you expect when going to windward?
> >
> >
> >>Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...
> >
> >
> > 70 knots is not 'moderate'.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I
> >>have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
> >>etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
> >>furling,
> >
> >
> > Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you
propose
> > to bend on a small jib?
>
>
> The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore. Or, if the
> winds may be severe, to hank on a storm jib in place of the working jib.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
> >>view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,
> >
> >
> > How does a knot meter help in shallow water?
> >
> >
> The knot meter tells me whether I'm making too much headway for safety
> when navigating a narrow and silted channel. It also gives me a means
> for estimating how far I have traveled, and what my position is. It's a
> backup to the chartreader.
>
> >
> >>and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.
> >
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
>
> They aren't dredged often enough to maintain their reported and charted
> depth depth and width.
> >
> >
> >>However, I understand that the boat
> >>makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
> >>heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
> >>at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
> >>for various conditions.
> >
> >
> > I asked:
> >
> > 1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
>
> The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.
>
> > 2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would
you
> > use?
>
> As previously noted, these parameters would be determined empirically,
> through an extended series of sea trials in varying conditions.
>
>
>
> > 3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?
>
> Depends on the degree of reef in the main and furling of the jib.
>
> >
> > And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to
go
> > out in 70kt winds.
>
> Nope. You, again, have it bass ass backwards. - If I told you that I
> would expect 27.5 degrees of heel, with a particular set of sails
> deployed, THAT would be a joke. - What I told you was that I would be
> conducting a series of sea trials using varying combinations of sails
> and reefing points in varying winds. That series of tests, when sailing
> under varying conditions, is the only way I would want to rely on to set
> the sails under heavy weather conditions.
>
> Of course, everyone recognized that you thought you were throwing me a
> "gotcha." You intended to trip me up. But ultimately, YOU are the one
> who demonstrated how stupid you really are.
>
> Jim
>
>

[Wally]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Now that's a bit strong. I would say, "You're a stupid fool."
> We don't want to insult morons.

Perhaps 'cretin' would be more appropriate - I hear they're dumber than
morons.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Wally]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> In my opinion, you're stupid, a liar, and an asshole.

He's probably an iguana smuggler, to boot...


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.
>

Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Whatever you think appropriate. I'm sure we'll all have a comment.
>

But what do you suggest?

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>In any such decision, one likes to gather as much substantive
>>information possible for consideration before making a decision. In
>>this case, I got little if any substantive information from this ng.
>>This was a significant clue. - It told me that much of the "Mac
>>Bashers" really didn't have any direct knowledge of the 26M, and that
>>most of the Mac Bashing had no basis in fact. It further told me that
>>many on this ng who commented on the Macs really didn't know what the
>>hell they were talking about. >
>
>
> You are a moron.

Have a nice evening anyway.

Jim
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jim Cate wrote:

>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
>> Smart-ass Jim Cate" wrote ...
>>
>>>>> It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> And then wrote.....
>>
>>
>>> the boat makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather
>>> than heavily keeled.
>>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So now the mac has an adjustable weight keel?
>>
>> SV

severely heeled
>>
>>
>
> heeled.
>

[felton]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:06:57 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> wrote:

<snip>
>
>And, its a horrible sailor. I haven't seen a PHRF number for the 26M, but on
>the mac boards you'll see comments of rating the 26X at somewhere between 280
>and 300. And this is for lake racing - imagine how slow it is "75 miles
>offshore." You're thinking its safe to venture that far out because you can
>scoot in at 20 knots. However, if you get a nasty chop you could end up
>spending all night trying to get back.

I was wondering about the PHRF numbers. Do you think they are really
indicative of the slowness of the boat or is more a statement of just
how inexperienced Mac sailors are? I guess we will never know,
because anyone who actually knows how to sail wouldn't be found on a
Mac, but it is something to think about.

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>
>>The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore.
>
>
>
> you're going to reef a working jib on a Mac26? he he heeeee OK.
>

If heavy weather is predicted, I'll substitute a storm jib. Otherwise,
however, I'll reef the working jib and main before going offshore. And
if winds build higher, reef it again.
>
>
>
>
>>>1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
>>
>>The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.
>
>
>
> and by ''sufficiently reefed'' you mean tied down to the trailer, right?
>
>
>
>
>> But ultimately, Jim are the one
>>who demonstrated how stupid Jim really are.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore. Or, if the
>>winds may be severe, to hank on a storm jib in place of the working
>>jib.
>
>
> How do you hank a storm jib on when there's a roller furling mech in the
> way? Does it have a second forestay for the purpose?


If heavy weather is predicted, a storm jib would be hanked on the
forestay. The roller furling mechanism is removed first.
>
>
>
>>Depends on the degree of reef in the main and furling of the jib.
>
>
> Is that roller furling or roller reefing on the jib?
>
>
Roller furling.

>
>>Nope. You, again, have it bass ass backwards.
>
>
> Stop talking crap - 70 knots is a hurricane and 100 miles offshore isn't
> coastal cruising. The 26M is a beginner's boat and isn't built for such
> conditions.
>
>
After I sail several times in 70 knots, I'll be able to give you a more
comprehensive description of the boat's sailing characteristics under
such conditions.


>
>>Of course, everyone recognized that you thought you were throwing me a
>>"gotcha." You intended to trip me up. But ultimately, YOU are the one
>>who demonstrated how stupid you really are.
>
>
> I freely admit that I am a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b. Unlike you, I
> don't come in here spouting irrational, badly-argued garbage while making a
> bunch of ridiculous claims.
>
> You're a troll, or a moron, or a moronic troll, or a trolling moron. Pick
> one.

Sure think Wally. Have a nice evening. Are you going sailing this
weekend? Or do you just enjoy spending your spare time sneering at
others who do?

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> In my opinion, you're stupid, a liar, and an asshole.

Aren't you getting somehat repetitive, Johnny? Why waste time posting
notes like that one over and over again? We all know you have a problem.
(Oterwise you wouldn't stick around.)

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

HOLY **** ! He's been pulling this same troll since '97.


From: Jim Cate )
Subject: Re: MacGregor 26 pro's/cons
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Date: 1997/03/19


In > the dust > writes:
>
>Jim Cate wrote:
>
>> (The entire text of Roger MacGregor's sales brochure)
>> Jim Cate
>
>********************************************
>
>Uhhhh Jim.... How's Rog these days?
__________________________________________________ _-

Uhhhh, (Elpolvo???), actually, I don't know Roger, and I don't work for
MacGregor, and I don't own a MacGregor, and I don't often sail a
MacGregor, and I sail a Cal 34 rather than a Mac, and my favorite
cruising boat is the Valiant 40 rather than the Mac. But hey,
"Elpolvo," instead of posting sarcastic putdowns, how about addressing
the substance of what I was saying. I was certainly NOT trying to push
the Mac 26 as a suitable boat for extended blue water passagemaking,
but rather, I merely pointed out some of the features that are often
overlooked by the poor souls who have made huge investments in heavy
boats, and who usually leave them tied up to the dock (all the time
paying the substantial marina bills) because they can seldom get them
out to the blue water over a weekend. There are thousands and thousands
of beautiful boats docked in the marinas in our area, and most of them
just sit there for 99.9% of the time accruing marina bills, insurance
bills, maintenance bills, interest charges, depreciation, etc, etc.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about the light construction
of the Mac, and how much better your boat is than the Mac, but the
facts are that there are some rather substantial practical advantages
in the design, including some significant safety advantages over heavy
boats. Enough to make them the fastest selling sailboat in the world,
the last I checked. Incidentally, it happens that I have been flamed
by some of the best in the business, and I always come back, so don't
start something that you don't want to continue, for whatever time it
takes.
Jim



"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.
> >
>
> Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
> you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".
>
> Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> You're still solving problems that don't exist. This is only important on a mac
> where the hull it too thin given the speed it can attain (if you empty the
> ballast, leave the mast and sails at the dock, carry one gallon of fuel, and
> singlehand).
>
> And, you have to be luck enough to hit something in the middle, not on the side
> of the boat. What are you going to do when you see a log? Aim for it so you
> hit dead on, rather than a glancing blow?
>


Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.

Jim


>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Jeff Morris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull
>
> to
>
>>>hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it
>
> only
>
>>>draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the
>
> real
>
>>>risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless.
>>
>>It's not "along the waterline." It's below the waterline. And in a boat
>>plaining under power, the portion protected by the extra wall is
>>precisely the area most likely to be damaged by impacts with submerged
>>objects just below the surface.
>>
>>
>> Of
>>
>>>course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks -
>
> that's
>
>>>why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.
>>>
>>> Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like
>
> an
>
>>>idiot.
>>
>>Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
>>advertising the boat has having a double hull.
>>
>>If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
>>
>
> duck.............................................. ..............................
> .................................................. ...............
>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Morris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
>
> probably
>
>>>>>less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly,
>>>
>>>many
>>>
>>>
>>>>>boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
>>>
>>>surface
>>>
>>>
>>>>>they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
>>>>
>>>>As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
>>>>the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
>>>>central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
>>>>extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
>>>>walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,
>>>>
>>>>(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
>>>>inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
>>>>mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
>>>>the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
>>>>the cg of the boat?
>>>>leaving
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the boat dangerously unstable.
>>>>
>>>>You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
>>>>boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
>>>>boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since far more people drown from falling off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),
>>>>
>>>>Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
>>>>PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
>>>>CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
>>>>ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>its not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>clear you can call this a safety factor at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
>>>>>>SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
>>>>>>water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
>>>>>>the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
>>>>>>the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
>>>>>>length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
>>>>>>and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
>>>>>>difference whether you call it a double hull or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote ...
>
>
>>In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
>>
>
>
> it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!


It's a ballast tank that has an upper wall that serves to prevent water
from flowing from the ballast chamber to the interior of the cabin. In
other words, a second hull.

Jim


>
>
>
>>Although you may be right .
>>I don't have
>>the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that I'm
>>wrong, and that I've never sailed the26m, or that I really
>>don't know what I'm talking about.
>>
>>If it walks like an ass, and quacks like an
>>ass .......................................
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

could you please explain to me how you're going to reef the Macs' working
jib? I'd like to know in case I ever own one.

Scotty

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >>The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore.
> >
> >
> >
> > you're going to reef a working jib on a Mac26? he he heeeee OK.
> >
>
> If heavy weather is predicted, I'll substitute a storm jib. Otherwise,
> however, I'll reef the working jib and main before going offshore. And
> if winds build higher, reef it again.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
> >>
> >>The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.
> >
> >
> >
> > and by ''sufficiently reefed'' you mean tied down to the trailer, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> But ultimately, Jim are the one
> >>who demonstrated how stupid Jim really are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Horvath]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:52:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
> wrote this crap:

>Well, you have a point. I wouldn't consider my Cal 20 a rich sailor's
>boat. Do you?


"Ghetto cruiser," is more correct.




Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim The ASSHOLE Cate" <jim the asshole > wrote
> >
> >
> >>In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
> >>
> >
> >
> > it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!
>
>
> It's a ballast tank that has an upper wall that serves to prevent water
> from flowing from the ballast chamber to the interior of the cabin.

right! You're finaly catching on.


>In other words, a second hull.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're dumber than Horvath!!!!!!!!!

[otnmbrd]

Comments interspersed:

Jim Cate wrote:

> If it walks like a duck, and talks like a
> duck...................................

You can walk and quack all you want .... that doesn't change the facts.
>
> In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
> positioned over the lower hull IN EXACTLY THE AREAS MOST LIKELY TO BE
> COMPROMISED IF THE BOAT STRIKES A SUBMERGED OBJECT WHEN PLANING.

There's more to operating a boat than just striking submerged objects.
An "additional liner" in some areas, is just that, nothing more. The
main point, is what this "additional liner" is for .... obviously, it's
for improved stability. Some salestype has also come up with the fact
that it could be listed as a "safety" issue in case of grounding or
striking a submerged object,to some extent, as it has been applied to
ships, and you've bought into it, not knowing what they are talking
about or the reality of it's application.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds
>>> of the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable
>>> (lowermost. central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want
>>> to call the extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same
>>> purpose. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not
>>> call it a duck.

Because, walk and talk as you will, it's NOT a duck.


>> Two points:
>> 1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double
>> hull, complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the
>> main deck, pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important
>> distinction.
>> A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
>> perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
>> bottom.
>> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't
>> qualify for either, unless your a salesman..
>
>
> Although you may be right technically in questioning whether the term
> "double hulled" should be applied, SUBSTANTIVELY, the extra, inner layer
> serves the same purpose in the event the boat is compromised along its
> central axis.

In that case, it would be a DB hull ...... which it's not .... nor is it
a double hull. If you cannot see and understand this distinction and
it's possible importance, I suggest some serious study.

>
> While your nomentclature might be more precise, if the extra layer
> prevents water from entering the cabin, the end result is that your ass,
> and that of my passengers, might be saved.

The problem is that some inexperienced sailor such as yourself, might
think that the same would apply in the case of a collision or allision
which compromised the upper hull, or that the entire bottom of the hull
was thusly protected......it is not in either case.

>
>>
>> 2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless
>> you know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
>> stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
>> before you claim it as a positive.
>>
>> In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
>> inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
>>
>
> One factor I'M SEEING is that most contributors to this ng don't have
> the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that they are
> wrong, and/or, that they have never sailed the26m, or that they really
> don't know what they are talking about.
>
> If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
> duck.......................................
>
> Jim

<BG> If you have so much integrity and intellectual honesty, then you
will admit that your walkin talkin duck is wrong. A double hull is
different from a DB hull, which is different from a single hull, which
is different from the MAC hull. I personally don't give a rats ass if
you like my definitions .... they are what they are and yours are BS.
I note that you made no comments on "initial stability" and the 300lbs
of ballast. From this I assume you don't have a clue as to what I was
saying and to be honest, I wouldn't expect you would.
I don't have to have sailed on a Mac26m for my comments to apply or be
correct.

otn

[Jonathan Ganz]

I was here from the beginning. You're just a MacBoy either way.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.
> >
>
> Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
> you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Looks like we have a new winner. But, was he putzed?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> HOLY **** ! He's been pulling this same troll since '97.
>
>
> From: Jim Cate )
> Subject: Re: MacGregor 26 pro's/cons
> Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
> Date: 1997/03/19
>
>
> In > the dust > writes:
> >
> >Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >> (The entire text of Roger MacGregor's sales brochure)
> >> Jim Cate
> >
> >********************************************
> >
> >Uhhhh Jim.... How's Rog these days?
> __________________________________________________ _-
>
> Uhhhh, (Elpolvo???), actually, I don't know Roger, and I don't work for
> MacGregor, and I don't own a MacGregor, and I don't often sail a
> MacGregor, and I sail a Cal 34 rather than a Mac, and my favorite
> cruising boat is the Valiant 40 rather than the Mac. But hey,
> "Elpolvo," instead of posting sarcastic putdowns, how about addressing
> the substance of what I was saying. I was certainly NOT trying to push
> the Mac 26 as a suitable boat for extended blue water passagemaking,
> but rather, I merely pointed out some of the features that are often
> overlooked by the poor souls who have made huge investments in heavy
> boats, and who usually leave them tied up to the dock (all the time
> paying the substantial marina bills) because they can seldom get them
> out to the blue water over a weekend. There are thousands and thousands
> of beautiful boats docked in the marinas in our area, and most of them
> just sit there for 99.9% of the time accruing marina bills, insurance
> bills, maintenance bills, interest charges, depreciation, etc, etc.
>
> You can argue till you're blue in the face about the light construction
> of the Mac, and how much better your boat is than the Mac, but the
> facts are that there are some rather substantial practical advantages
> in the design, including some significant safety advantages over heavy
> boats. Enough to make them the fastest selling sailboat in the world,
> the last I checked. Incidentally, it happens that I have been flamed
> by some of the best in the business, and I always come back, so don't
> start something that you don't want to continue, for whatever time it
> takes.
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > > No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.
> > >
> >
> > Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
> > you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".
> >
> > Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Ghetto cruiser is better than a crapola hunter.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:52:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
> > wrote this crap:
>
> >Well, you have a point. I wouldn't consider my Cal 20 a rich sailor's
> >boat. Do you?
>
>
> "Ghetto cruiser," is more correct.
>
>
>
>
> Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jonathan Ganz]

I suggest a bill of sale. But, you're unwilling, apparently.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Whatever you think appropriate. I'm sure we'll all have a comment.
> >
>
> But what do you suggest?
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Yep, cretin seems to fit the bill.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Now that's a bit strong. I would say, "You're a stupid fool."
> > We don't want to insult morons.
>
> Perhaps 'cretin' would be more appropriate - I hear they're dumber than
> morons.
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

That it doesn't have a double hull and that MacBoy is
a cretin.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> about what?
>
> "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you sure??
> >
> > --
> > "j" ganz @@
> > www.sailnow.com
> >
> > "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe.
> > >
> > > Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it,
> no
> > > probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS
> > ****N
> > > O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull
> wasn't?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.
> > >
> > > Scotty
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I think you're right. Even Horass doesn't claim his hunter has
a double hull.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim The ASSHOLE Cate" <jim the asshole > wrote
> > >
> > >
> > >>In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!
> >
> >
> > It's a ballast tank that has an upper wall that serves to prevent water
> > from flowing from the ballast chamber to the interior of the cabin.
>
> right! You're finaly catching on.
>
>
> >In other words, a second hull.
>
> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're dumber than Horvath!!!!!!!!!
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

What about unexpected weather??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >>The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore.
> >
> >
> >
> > you're going to reef a working jib on a Mac26? he he heeeee OK.
> >
>
> If heavy weather is predicted, I'll substitute a storm jib. Otherwise,
> however, I'll reef the working jib and main before going offshore. And
> if winds build higher, reef it again.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
> >>
> >>The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.
> >
> >
> >
> > and by ''sufficiently reefed'' you mean tied down to the trailer, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> But ultimately, Jim are the one
> >>who demonstrated how stupid Jim really are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

What about if it's not predicted???

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wally wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore. Or, if the
> >>winds may be severe, to hank on a storm jib in place of the working
> >>jib.
> >
> >
> > How do you hank a storm jib on when there's a roller furling mech in the
> > way? Does it have a second forestay for the purpose?
>
>
> If heavy weather is predicted, a storm jib would be hanked on the
> forestay. The roller furling mechanism is removed first.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Depends on the degree of reef in the main and furling of the jib.
> >
> >
> > Is that roller furling or roller reefing on the jib?
> >
> >
> Roller furling.
>
> >
> >>Nope. You, again, have it bass ass backwards.
> >
> >
> > Stop talking crap - 70 knots is a hurricane and 100 miles offshore isn't
> > coastal cruising. The 26M is a beginner's boat and isn't built for such
> > conditions.
> >
> >
> After I sail several times in 70 knots, I'll be able to give you a more
> comprehensive description of the boat's sailing characteristics under
> such conditions.
>
>
> >
> >>Of course, everyone recognized that you thought you were throwing me a
> >>"gotcha." You intended to trip me up. But ultimately, YOU are the one
> >>who demonstrated how stupid you really are.
> >
> >
> > I freely admit that I am a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b. Unlike
you, I
> > don't come in here spouting irrational, badly-argued garbage while
making a
> > bunch of ridiculous claims.
> >
> > You're a troll, or a moron, or a moronic troll, or a trolling moron.
Pick
> > one.
>
> Sure think Wally. Have a nice evening. Are you going sailing this
> weekend? Or do you just enjoy spending your spare time sneering at
> others who do?
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

No. Even iguana boy is smarter.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, you're stupid, a liar, and an asshole.
>
> He's probably an iguana smuggler, to boot...
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Absolutely right. I was being repetitive and boring. I'm sorry.

You're a cretin. Is that better?

To which problem do you refer?

I think dolfphin are wiser than otters.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, you're stupid, a liar, and an asshole.
>
> Aren't you getting somehat repetitive, Johnny? Why waste time posting
> notes like that one over and over again? We all know you have a problem.
> (Oterwise you wouldn't stick around.)
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

>> You're a troll, or a moron, or a moronic troll, or a trolling moron.
>> Pick one.

> Sure think Wally.

It certainly is a "sure think", Jim "The Deafer" Cate. I am very sure in
what I'm thinking regarding your purpose in posting your Mac-loving garbage
(see above).


> Have a nice evening. Are you going sailing this
> weekend? Or do you just enjoy spending your spare time sneering at
> others who do?

If you weren't such a sad asshole, posting the endless stream of pro-Mac
crap that you do, you might have time to read one or two other threads.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Wally]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> No. Even iguana boy is smarter.

And more entertaining.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Veridican]

What the hell is "double hulled" How can a boat be double hulled. I mean one
can have a layer, then a foam core--let's say, and then another layer, but
that's still just one hull.

And as far as penetrated, I never worried about that with the Mac. With any
boat, if you sail it into the rocks, you're ****ed.

The Veridican

[Veridican]

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another boat.
BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I would
with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out just a
little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross the
ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does it?

The Veridican

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> > You're still solving problems that don't exist. This is only important on a
mac
> > where the hull it too thin given the speed it can attain (if you empty the
> > ballast, leave the mast and sails at the dock, carry one gallon of fuel, and
> > singlehand).
> >
> > And, you have to be luck enough to hit something in the middle, not on the
side
> > of the boat. What are you going to do when you see a log? Aim for it so
you
> > hit dead on, rather than a glancing blow?
> >
>
>
> Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
> submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.
>

You keep claiming it's a safety factor if you hit it just right. What it you
see a log, try to avoid it, but hit it on the side? Are you going to give
your grandkids life jackets that work half the time?

[Jeff Morris]

I think we have a new leader for "Troll of the Year"!

Good one, Ed.

"Veridican" > wrote in message
...
>
> I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
> better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
>

[Scott Vernon]

Yes & Yes.


"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> That it doesn't have a double hull and that MacBoy is
> a cretin.
>
> --
> "j" ganz @@
> www.sailnow.com
>
> "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > about what?
> >
> > "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Are you sure??
> > >
> > > --
> > > "j" ganz @@
> > > www.sailnow.com
> > >
> > > "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe.
> > > >
> > > > Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about
it,
> > no
> > > > probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26
IS
> > > ****N
> > > > O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull
> > wasn't?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.
> > > >
> > > > Scotty
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

Jimbo has a son?

"Veridican" <veridican Cate @aol.com> wrote...
> You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a
23
> foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
shore.
>
> But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another
boat.
> BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
would
> with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
just a
> little jib and try to keep head to wind.
>
> I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
> better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
>
> Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not
cross the
> ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does
it?
>
> The Veridican

[Joe]

"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message >...
> Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
> would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"

Here in Houston they have a big Molasses loading dock. Just yesterday
we were talking about how the molasses ship would grow as much as 4
feet when they were loaded. Had to load slow some times to keep from
blowing the rivets out of the old tankers.


Joe








>
>
>
> "otnmbrd" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
> > single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
> > This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
> > but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
> > carry does not fall under "oil" transport.
> >
> > otn
> >
> > Scott Vernon wrote:
> > > aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?
> > >
> > > Scotty
> > >
> > > "otnmbrd" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Jim Cate wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>Jeff Morris wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
> > >>>>to you that
> > >>>>the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
> > >>>>probably
> > >>>>less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
> > >>>>Frankly, many
> > >>>>boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
> > >>>>surface
> > >>>>they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
> > >>>the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
> > >>>central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
> > >>>extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
> > >>>walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.
> > >>
> > >>Two points:
> > >>1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
> > >>complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
> > >>pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> > >>A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> > >>perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
> > >
> > > bottom.
> > >
> > >> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
> > >>for either, unless your a salesman..
> > >>
> > >>2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
> > >>know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> > >>stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> > >>before you claim it as a positive.
> > >>
> > >>In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> > >>inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
> > >>
> > >>otn
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >

[Scott Vernon]

A hull within a hull. Some ships (tankers) have them in case the outside
hull is holed, the inside hull will keep her afloat and keep the oil out of
our ocean.

Scotty


"Veridican" > wrote in message
...
> What the hell is "double hulled" How can a boat be double hulled. I mean
one
> can have a layer, then a foam core--let's say, and then another layer, but
> that's still just one hull.
>
> And as far as penetrated, I never worried about that with the Mac. With
any
> boat, if you sail it into the rocks, you're ****ed.
>
> The Veridican

[Jonathan Ganz]

I agree...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
...
> I think we have a new leader for "Troll of the Year"!
>
> Good one, Ed.
>
> "Veridican" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
> > better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Daughter.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Jimbo has a son?
>
> "Veridican" <veridican Cate @aol.com> wrote...
> > You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in
a
> 23
> > foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
> shore.
> >
> > But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than
another
> boat.
> > BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
> would
> > with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
> just a
> > little jib and try to keep head to wind.
> >
> > I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
> > better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
> >
> > Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not
> cross the
> > ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter,
does
> it?
> >
> > The Veridican
>

[Donal]

"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...

> I'm not a big fan of hunters, but I am a big fan of people who actually
> go sailing.

You're a fan of Horvath????



Regards


Donal
--

[Jonathan Ganz]

He doesn't sail. He wins fags. I mean flags.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Donal" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I'm not a big fan of hunters, but I am a big fan of people who actually
> > go sailing.
>
> You're a fan of Horvath????
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>>
>>>right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.
>>
>>
>>Maybe.
>
>
> Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it, no
> probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS ****N
> O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!
>

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......

Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>>And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?
>>
>
>
> Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.
>
> Scotty
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> MacBoy,
>
> Actually, if you had said 100 miles inland, I might have agreed with you.
>
> No. You're not a sailor because you have no idea how to sail. You
> think a motor boat with a sail on it is a sailboat. You claim a great
> deal of knowledge for someone who just plunked down a bunch of
> money for a piece of junk.
>
> We await your unlikely return from the ocean.
>
> Yes, there are several people on this ng who have a greater chance
> of even wanting to sail offshore. In fact, I could recommend it to
> myself, if I wanted to do that again. Maybe I will someday. At the
> moment, I'm only interested in bay and minor coastal sailing.
>

You seem to be loosing it, Johathan, for everyone to see. - Get a grip
on yourself.

And if what you say were true, that I'm going to perish at sea if I sail
the 26M offshore, then you will soon be rid of me, after which you won't
have to read or respond to any of my notes. - That ought to make you
happy, but instead, you're obviously so stressed out over this
discussion that you can't let it go.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>You're still solving problems that don't exist. This is only important on a
>
> mac
>
>>>where the hull it too thin given the speed it can attain (if you empty the
>>>ballast, leave the mast and sails at the dock, carry one gallon of fuel, and
>>>singlehand).
>>>
>>>And, you have to be luck enough to hit something in the middle, not on the
>
> side
>
>>>of the boat. What are you going to do when you see a log? Aim for it so
>
> you
>
>>>hit dead on, rather than a glancing blow?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
>>submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.
>>
>
>
> You keep claiming it's a safety factor if you hit it just right. What it you
> see a log, try to avoid it, but hit it on the side? Are you going to give
> your grandkids life jackets that work half the time?
>

In that unlikely event, the boat wouldn't sail very well, but because of
the internal flotation, it would stay afloat. -

And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...........

Jim


Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim The ASSHOLE Cate" <jim the asshole > wrote
>
>>>
>>>>In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!
>>
>>
>>It's a ballast tank that has an upper wall that serves to prevent water
>>from flowing from the ballast chamber to the interior of the cabin.
>
>
> right! You're finaly catching on.
>
>
>
>>In other words, a second hull.
>
>
> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're dumber than Horvath!!!!!!!!!
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> could you please explain to me how you're going to reef the Macs' working
> jib? I'd like to know in case I ever own one.

The roller furler will control the working jib, and the jib would be let
out only partially. If the predicted weather is too severe for the
working jib, I would substitute a storm jib early on.
>
> Scotty
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Scott Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jim Cate" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>you're going to reef a working jib on a Mac26? he he heeeee OK.
>>>
>>
>>If heavy weather is predicted, I'll substitute a storm jib. Otherwise,
>>however, I'll reef the working jib and main before going offshore. And
>>if winds build higher, reef it again.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
>>>>
>>>>The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>and by ''sufficiently reefed'' you mean tied down to the trailer, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But ultimately, Jim are the one
>>>>who demonstrated how stupid Jim really are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> What about unexpected weather??

In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

Even a duck sails better than a Mac26Mx.

"Jim Quack" <jim is a quack @ducks.not> quacked....
> >
>
> If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......
>
> Jimbo

[Horvath]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote
this crap:

>
>
>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
>> What about unexpected weather??
>
>In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
>anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
>have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.

Now THAT'S what we've been praying for.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
> answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
> log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
> afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?
>

My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
to see how it might be compromised.

--
-jeff www.sv-loki.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friend. Like an old man trying to send back soup
at the deli."

[Jonathan Ganz]

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote
> this crap:
>
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >
> >> What about unexpected weather??
> >
> >In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
> >anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
> >have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.
>
> Now THAT'S what we've been praying for.
>
>
>
>
>
> Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jim Cate]

Veridican wrote:

> You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
> foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off shore.
>
> But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another boat.
> BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I would
> with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out just a
> little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
the bow facing windward. t


>
> I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
> better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
>
> Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross the
> ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does it?
>
> The Veridican

If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> I agree...

But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
bottom of the ocean.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Nothing substantive to say, Scott?

Scott Vernon wrote:

> Jimbo has a son?
>
> "Veridican" <veridican Cate @aol.com> wrote...
>
>>You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a
>
> 23
>
>>foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
>
> shore.
>
>>But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another
>
> boat.
>
>>BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
>
> would
>
>>with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
>
> just a
>
>>little jib and try to keep head to wind.
>>
>>I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
>>better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
>>
>>Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not
>
> cross the
>
>>ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does
>
> it?
>
>>The Veridican
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
>>answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
>>log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
>>afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?
>>
>
>
> My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
> addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
> forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
> (though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
> lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
> the hull.
>
> I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
> boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
> at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
> reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
> to see how it might be compromised.
>
Your boat is an unusual design. Not many on his ng would float after a
collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
down to the bottom.

I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.

Jim

Jim

[Jim Cate]

John,

I'm still waiting for your responce to this note. - In particular, my
question asking you whether you believed that Practial Saior
deliberately chose not to sail the boat (there wasn't any wind, by the
way) so that they wouldn't have to report on its sailing performance.

John, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT PC WAS AFRAID TO REPORT ON THE SAILING
PERFORMANCE OF THE BOAT? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THEY WAITED UNTIL
THERE WAS A CALM DAY SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE NOT TO SAIL THE
BOAT?

Far out, John.- Did Roger paid them a big bribe to keep them off the
boat? (Your theory is absolutely absurd, John, but it's rather typical
of the Mac bashers.

Jim




In particular, I would like you to clarify your statement that
concludes, from the fact that Practical Sailor didn't sail the boat
(becasue of the calm) that they "would have
> reported that it sails poorly." Nothing in the
> article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing
performances. (You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind
so that they > wouldn't have to report on it's sailing
characteristics??) In fact, they
> quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.





Jim Cate wrote:

>
>
> John Cairns wrote:
>
>> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
>>> fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
>>> some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
>>> off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.
>>>
>>> What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
>>> concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
>>> the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
>>> continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
>>> are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
>>> clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
>>> keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't seriously believe this crap you've been posting, can you?
>> You're
>> basically posting, verbatim, what you've been reading in the mac sales
>> literature. I can offer you one unbiased review of the mac, culled from
>> "Practical Sailor", which accepts no advertising and can't possibly be
>> accused of harboring biases when it comes to sailboat evaluations. It's
>> free.
>> http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html
>> Very interesting that they didn't bother to ACTUALLY SAIL THE THING. Also
>> very interesting that this was one of the 2 reviews that they're offering
>> free of charge. A public service announcement, perhaps? You'll note, even
>> the man himself doesn't claim that this is an "offshore" boat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John, from reading the Practical Sailor article in its entirety, it's
> actually quite favorable. (Incidentally, I'm a subscriber to PC, and
> have read selected articles from it for many years. You seem to think I
> had never heard of it.) Interesting that you cited this rather favorable
> report on the (old) Mac 26 as a fatal hatchet job. I'm wondering if you
> actually read the entire article.
>
> Your suggestion that they are publishing this article as a "warning" to
> inexperienced sailors is totally out of it, John. - They CONCLUDE the
> article with a very favorable comment by a Mac owner, and the THEME of
> the entire article is that the (previous) Mac 26 has lots of things
> going for it provided one understands its limitations and doesn't plan
> on using it to make long ocean crossings. (There is one quote from an
> owner in San Francisco, not from "the man," that he wouldn't take the
> boat out to blue water. - This isolated statement from one owner doesn't
> mean much, of course. It may merely mean that that particular owner
> hasn't learned how to sail well.) - Your statement inferring, from the
> fact that they didn't sail the boat indicates that they "would have
> reported that it sails poorly" is total bull ****. - Nothing in the
> article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing performances.
> (You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind so that they
> wouldn't have to report on it's sailing characteristics??) In fact, they
> quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.
>
>
> This article, relating to the 26X model some 7-8 years ago, notes a
> number of improvements MacGregor incorporated in the 26X. I'm talking
> about the new 26M, which includes improvements made from their
> experience over the past eight years. - Here's the conclusion of the
> article:
>
> As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for
> typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal
> sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It wont
> hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion
> of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew.
>
> (John, If you read the article carefully you will note that Roger was
> saying that the boat wasn't designed as a long-distance passagemaker. it
> would be uncomfortable, and wouldn't hold the needed supplies. Duhh!
> That's rather obvious, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as a
> coastal cruiser (using good sense and restricting it to reasonable
> weather conditions, for limited use.) As discussed in the PC report,
> the boats are sailed routinely in San Francisco bay, rather choppy and
> high-wind area, as discussed in the article, and sail out to Catalina
> island routinely.
>
> As stated,
> “There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught
> in, AND SURVIVED, SOME REALLY EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS, on BOTH lakes
> AND OCEANS. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high
> winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase
> dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our
> owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe
> conditions.”
>
> Conclusion
> There's no question MacGregor is building an inexpensive product that
> sells for $4,000-$6,000 LESS THAN ITS PRIMARY COMPETITORS. The list
> price for boat, sails and trailer is $14,995 FOB the factory. Genoa and
> gear, roller furling, cruising spinnaker, vang, mast raising system,
> stove, cushions and transportation jump the price to $17,000; add
> $5,000-$7,000 for engine and electronics.
>
> [According to PC] THEY ALSO ENJOY RELATIVELY HIGH RESALE. Two-year-old
> boats on the market are selling for 85%-90% of their original prices.
>
> The owner of a recent model sums it up well, “She is fast enough to be
> pleasurable, forgiving enough that I can be stupid, balanced enough that
> I can be lazy.”
>
> The two-year warranty covers all parts manufactured by MacGregor.
>
> Contact- MacGregor Yacht Corp., 1631 Placentia, Costa Mesa, CA, 92627;
> 949/642-6830.
>
>
> No one will
>
>> drive you away, but at some point you'll get plonked by just about
>> everyone
>> here. And one last thing, if you really think your comments are
>> "balanced"
>> and "fresh air", why do YOU keep trying to justify them?
>
>
> Obviously, it's because my arguments are being ignored and aren't being
> responded to, and because I enjoy providing some balance and new inputs
> to otherwise biased discussions such as this. (And because I like to
> see people like you squirming and stressed out.) But I have read the
> previous discussions, and the reactions don't surprise me. Frankly, my
> experience is that it takes several months of a discussion such as this
> before people like you finally realize that your aren't going to be able
> to run over me, or run away from me, and that you can't intimidate or
> smoke-screen your way out of responding to my points. - -
>
> It's actually amazing to me that you thought you cite that PC report as
> a great triumph for those bashing the Mac 26, and then totally twist the
> meaning and conclusions of the article. (Did you think we wouldn't read
> it?) - According to you, the fact that PC didn't sail the boat and
> didn't report on its handling was because they knew it would sail
> poorly?? And didn't want to offend anyone?? In other words, according to
> your interpretation, they intentionally selected a day without wind so
> that they wouldn't have to sail the boat, and so they wouldn't have to
> report on it?? Tell me, John, do you think Roger was paying them off so
> that they wouldn't bash his boats?? (But no, you also told us that you
> think PS is completely neutral because of their no-advertising policy.)
> What are you saying, John? You are something else.
>
>
>
> After all, you
>
>> asked for the input from us, we didn't come looking for YOU. And, of
>> course,
>> I've never actually sailed one, but I've sailed by them many times in
>> my 28
>> ft. keelboat, I should say, I've passed them many times in my 28 ft.
>> keelboat, more often than not they didn't appear to be moving.
>
>
> Actually, you might be able to sail by my new 26M also, provided I
> wasn't planing under sail. But as the PC article concludes, the
> (previous) 26X sailed fast enough to be pleasurable. That's one thing
> I'm looking for, although I intend to make several mods, such as three
> reefing points and roller furling, to enhance the sailing characteristics.
>
>
> I will also
>
>> admit, because I've seen it also, that they can definitely motor a lot
>> faster than I can sail, but if I was REALLY interested in powerboating
>> I'd
>> own a powerboat and wouldn't be posting ANY of this here.
>
>
> While I'm primarily interested in sailing, particularly in blue water, I
> don't have an objection to motoring also. I particularly don't have an
> objection to motoring to a desired destination prior to sailing,
> fishing, picnicking, swimming with the grandkids, scuba diving, etc., in
> order to have more time at the desired destination, get back more
> quickly, and maintain a more convenient and less stressful schedule.
>
>> John Cairns
>>
>>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
> same page.
>

John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

[Roger MacGregor]

Dear Mr. Cate,
Please stop talking about the 26M Powersailer on this news group. You
have generated more negative publicity for my product than any
competitor has ever been able to. This is a news group filled ,for the
most part with real sailors, who know what a crappy, shoddy product we
peddle. My beloved 26M powersailer is targeted to the beginner boater
who has no clue what-so-ever as to what he wants or how bad our boat
really is. Let's keep that our little secret, shall we? Otherwise I
will be forced to sic my lawyers on you.

Roger MacGregor


Jim Cate > wrote in message >...
> The reason I started this discussion string was that I had hoped to
> initiate some discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of widely
> differing boats, such as the heavy, displacement Valiant 40 and the much
> lighter, Mac 26M, which is a planing boat under power.
>
> As I expected from past treatment of Mac enthusiasts on this ng, many
> were highly offended that I would even suggest that there were
> substantive advantages to both boats, including the Mac. They were even
> more frustrated that I would CONTINUE to hold to my positions. Most
> responses have been from contributors who didn't know anything about the
> changes made on the 26m, and when told it wasn't the same hull, insisted
> on swearing that it was. (In other words, many respondents (not all)
> were pontificating about a boat they knew very little about.) Another
> frequent comment was that I was obviously a paid shill for MacGregor,
> repeating their advertising propaganda. In this regard, has anyone ever
> heard of restrictions relative to Deceptive Trade Practices, or false
> advertising? Or, has anyone ever heard about actions in tort (assuming
> that MacGregor has tortuously misled or misinformed their customers, or
> class actions? Or, has anyone read Section 3369 of the California Civil
> Code? In other words, MacGregor can't merely publish a series of lies
> about their boats, and they are subject to potential litigation of
> various kinds if it can be demonstrated that their advertising is
> deceptive, as some on this ng have asserted, and if buyers have been
> relied on it and been damaged.
>
> Few of the responses have addressed the advantages pointed out for the
> Mac 26M in my first few notes. Instead, many of the responses are
> essentially something like this:
>
> Jim, anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
> doesn't know what he is talking about, so I'm not even going to address
> the five points you made concerning advantages you see in the Mac.
> (Of course, that's a convenient cover if you really don't have an
> answer and can't respond rationally or substantively.)
>
> In an attempt to get the discussion back on track and move it beyond the
> ridiculous, childish, personal attacks, I'm again listing several of
> the substantive advantages claimed for the Mac 26M. In considering the
> advantages of any boat, the elements of comfort, safety, suitability for
> the intended applications and environment, are all valid issues, IMO.
> In addition, the element of time is of substantial importance. So, I
> have added a sixth relating to its ability to conserve the precious,
> limited amount of time each of us has to enjoy the sea, sailing, family
> outings on the water, etc.
>
>
> the following are five (now six) advantages of the Mac 26M, while
> recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
> addressing some of these substantive issues, rather than posting more
> ridiculous, childish personal attacks?
>
> Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
> criteria. With respect to coastal cruising, and sailing and motoring in
> areas such as the Galveston bay area, the Mac seems to have several
> advantages.
>
>
> (1) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
> to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
> while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
> power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
> preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
> "better" boat. The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending
> weather, is also a safety factor in the Mac.
>
> (2) When we sailed the Valiant, there were several channels in the
> Galveston area that weren't clearly marked and in which we could not
> maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to turn back from a preferred
> anchorage we were trying to reach. In contrast, the dagger board of the
> MacGregor can be raised incrementally as desired, with a minimum draft
> of around 18 inches. Again, with respect to its ability to maneuver in
> shallow or unmarked channels, or to anchor in shallow water, or beach on
> shore to permit grandkids to play on the sand, the MacGregor is a
> "better" boat, since the Valiant must be kept in much deeper water and
> doesn't have the versatility of the Mac for such shallow water activities.
>
> I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
> will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
> that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
> understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
> therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).
>
> (3) However, if one can't get out to the blue water on weekends because
> of the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from port to the
> blue water, then the excellent sailing characteristics of the Valiant
> wouldn't be of much benefit. (With the exception of being able to talk
> about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could only
> get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a larger
> boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.
>
> (4) - If the lower hull is compromised along its lowermost centerline,
> the inner liner, extending 2/3 rd the length of the boat, remains and
> acts to prevent entry of water into the cockpit. - No,it's not a
> complete double hull, and yes, it doesn't protect one from side impacts,
> but it is an added safety factor.
>
> (5) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
> in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
> contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keel boats) is
> compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
> enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant (and the
> keel of your boat) will quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect,
> the MacGregor is a "better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of
> drunk red-necks racing around the bays while downing another six-pack.)
>
> (6) Regarding the issue of time, and the limited quantity thereof
> available to most adults, because of its ability to motor to a desired
> area quickly, or to be trailered to a desired area at 65 mph, the boat
> provides added versatility in several respects. Unless you don't have
> to go to work every week or have lots of free time such that you don't
> worry about spending substantial time motoring out to desired sailing
> areas, or sailing for several days to another desired sailing area down
> the coast, the Mac 26M has advantages in that it permits you to get to
> many areas not otherwise available on a weekend trip, or unless you can
> spend several weeks sailing to a new port, etc. For example, in our
> area, this permits one to sail in the Galveston area one weekend, from
> the Corpus Christi area on another weekend, and from the Rockport area
> on another, etc. The ability to remove the boat from the water on its
> trailer also serves to minimize upkeep, marina fees, bottom treatments, etc.
>
> Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
> accepted for the evaluation, and how the boat will be used. My point
> isn't that the Mac is the greatest boat made for all purposes. It's
> rather an attempt to bring a little balance to such discussions.
>
> Jim
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Roger MacGregor]

Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
NOT responsible for your boat!

Roger MacGregor


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
> > same page.
> >
>
> John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
> have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
> your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
> before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
> notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
> lost at sea.
>
>
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You're rather typical of Mac owners... stupid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
<< bs removed >>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You are a total fool. Why would I want to sail a boat in 30 foot breaking
waves? And, even if I did, it would not go to the bottom unless, like you,
I was stupid enough to let the water below decks.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > I agree...
>
> But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
> size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
> And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
> bottom of the ocean.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Nothing substantive to say, Scott?
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Jimbo has a son?
> >
> > "Veridican" <veridican Cate @aol.com> wrote...
> >
> >>You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in
a
> >
> > 23
> >
> >>foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
> >
> > shore.
> >
> >>But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than
another
> >
> > boat.
> >
> >>BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
> >
> > would
> >
> >>with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
> >
> > just a
> >
> >>little jib and try to keep head to wind.
> >>
> >>I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
> >>better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
> >>
> >>Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not
> >
> > cross the
> >
> >>ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter,
does
> >
> > it?
> >
> >>The Veridican
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You think? Wow. That's amazing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Veridican wrote:
>
> > You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in
a 23
> > foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
shore.
> >
> > But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than
another boat.
> > BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
would
> > with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
just a
> > little jib and try to keep head to wind.
>
> I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
> the bow facing windward. t
>
>
> >
> > I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
> > better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
> >
> > Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not
cross the
> > ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter,
does it?
> >
> > The Veridican
>
> If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
> motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
never sailed in your life.

I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
> > same page.
> >
>
> John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
> have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
> your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
> before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
> notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
> lost at sea.
>
>
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Hahaha... now, now. I think you shouldn't discourage him!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Roger MacGregor" > wrote in message
om...
> Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
> will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
> 'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
> powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
> of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
> Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
> NOT responsible for your boat!
>
> Roger MacGregor
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >
> > > I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
> > > same page.
> > >
> >
> > John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
> > have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
> > your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
> > before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
> > notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
> > lost at sea.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> If you were 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing
> a Mac you'd be dead by now.
>
>jimbo

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> > My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
> > addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat
forward,
> > forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete
hulls
> > (though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I
have no
> > lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without
damaging
> > the hull.
> >
> > I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my
previous
> > boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings
happen
> > at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
> > reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is
easy
> > to see how it might be compromised.
> >
> Your boat is an unusual design.

No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran. BTW, you once
mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat. For that money,
you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
under power and sail, a LOT more fun.



> Not many on his ng would float after a
> collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
> down to the bottom.

Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put a
boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.) However,
I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been chopped in
half. BTW, positive flotation isn't unique to the Mac. Its required on all
small boats, and pretty common on boats up to 25 feet. I'm sure the Hunter
water ballast boats have positive floatation. The problem is that while it
takes a lot of water to sink a large boat, a small one can be taken down pretty
easily.


>
> I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
> But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
> with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
> for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
> your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
> breaking waves.

You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves. You need
professional help, not a boat.

[Scott Vernon]

Then why post?

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> Nothing substantive to say, Scott.

[Jeff Morris]

You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
gear do you intend to carry? How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger), do you really
think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
stuff?

BTW, what kind of storm jib are you going to use with the roller furling jib?
Are you really going to crawl up to the bow offshore in a chop to swap jibs, or
even to set a storm anchor?



"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Veridican wrote:
>
> > You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
> > foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
shore.
> >
> > But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another
boat.
> > BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
would
> > with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
just a
> > little jib and try to keep head to wind.
>
> I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
> the bow facing windward. t
>
>
> >
> > I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
> > better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
> >
> > Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross
the
> > ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does
it?
> >
> > The Veridican
>
> If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
> motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

you best stay on land, jimmy.

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
> with the boat filling with water,

> Or finding out that
> your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
> breaking waves.

[felton]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:

>
>
>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
>> I agree...
>
>But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
>size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
> And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
>bottom of the ocean.
>
>Jim

While there have been reports of Valiants being rolled, none have ever
gone to the bottom. Why you persist in claiming that the Mac is a
more seaworthy boat has to be the most absurd thing ever posted in
this group, and that is really saying something.

[Roger MacGregor]

It really wasn't that big a bribe, at least not compared to what I
have to pay off the DEP and OSHA. Those bums at PS are a bunch of worn
out, drugged out old hippies. A few lbs. of hash and any boat can get
a good review.

Roger M.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in
>
>
> Far out, John.- Did Roger paid them a big bribe to keep them off the
> boat? (Your theory is absolutely absurd, John, but it's rather typical
> of the Mac bashers.
>
> Jim

[Horvath]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:45:38 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> wrote this crap:

>You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
>gear do you intend to carry? How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
>that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger), do you really
>think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
>stuff?


You need to buy a clue.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.
>
I agree that the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic,
and that many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal
attacks, and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if you don't
have anything substantive to say in the first place......)

There has been lots of bickering about side issues, and little
discussion of the underlying thesis. - Which is, that both the MacGregor
26M and the Valiant 40 (or other comparable displacement boats) have
good and bad characteristics, and each has capabilities that the other
doesn't.

The Valiant can sail faster, point higher, and manage heavy seas well,
up to a point. On the other hand, it's difficult to navigate through
shallow waters, poorly kept channels that are shallow or silting, etc.
Its utility is also limited by the fact that it can't sail or motor
faster than its hull speed (unless you are surfing down a large wave.)
The MacGregor, of course, can motor through very shallow water, and
anchor in less than 1.5 feet of water, permitting the grandkids to swim
and enjoy playing in the water. Or, it can be beached, for a picnic, or
motored through shallow bay waters.

One of the more significant advantages of the MacGregor 26M is the fact
that it addresses one of the most basic human limitations, limited time.
Most of us work for a living, and most of us have many other
responsibilities vying for our limited free time. In this respect, the
Mac has it all over the Valiant. - As previously mentioned, in our
region in the Galveston Bay area northwest of Galveston, it takes around
four hours to motor from the marinas to the ship channel and down to
Galveston, and even more time to get out to the blue water. (There are
very few marinas located near the Gulf, and 99% of boat owners leave
their boats in the many marinas in Kemah or Seabrook.) In contrast, the
Mac can get from our marinas to the blue water far more quickly, making
it feasible to get out to blue water sailing in less than two hours. In
one day one can motor down, sail, visit Galveston restaurants and shops
if desired, and then return to the Kemah marinas. Thus, time limitations
relative to weekend sailing are substantially overcome. Similarly, the
design of the boat makes it possible to motor out to other portions of
the bays quickly, and sail, fish, swim, picnic, etc., and then return,
in one afternoon. Again, time limitations experienced with larger boats
are substantially mitigated.

Also, although 99% of the displacement sailboats in our area seldom
leave the bay, the Mac permits sailing in an entirely different part of
the the State, several hundred miles away, because it can be
conveniently trailered to the desired area. - Again, time limitations
are overcome, and a variety of new sailing areas are made conveniently
available.

Of course, you can say that you don't care about time limitations, and
that you would rather have a large displacement boat despite its
shortcomings. However, the fact remains that most of the owners of
displacement boats in this area that I have spoken with tell me that
they seldom find the time to take their boats out, and almost never have
time to take them out to the blue water. My own conclusion is that it's
better to sail slightly slower, and point slightly farther off, then to
seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:

"I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
interesting things...."

Instead of:

"Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
pointed higher than you."


Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
are closed.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
>>>addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat
>
> forward,
>
>>>forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete
>
> hulls
>
>>>(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I
>
> have no
>
>>>lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without
>
> damaging
>
>>>the hull.
>>>
>>>I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my
>
> previous
>
>>>boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings
>
> happen
>
>>>at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
>>>reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is
>
> easy
>
>>>to see how it might be compromised.
>>>
>>
>>Your boat is an unusual design.
>
>
> No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran.

As I said, your boat is an unusual design. Only a smallpercentge of
cruising sailboats are cats.



BTW, you once
> mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat.

Its far less than that even fully equipped with 50 hp motor, roller
reefing, lines led aft, GPS chart plotter, auto steering, vhf, radar, etc.

For that money,
> you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
> under power and sail, a LOT more fun.

Lots of used boats here at reasonable prices, but all of them had
problems. u
>
>
>>Not many on his ng would float after a
>>collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
>>down to the bottom.
>
>
> Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
> fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put a
> boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.) However,
> I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been chopped in
> half.

In that unlikely event, the Mac would still float.

BTW, positive flotation isn't unique to the Mac. Its required on all
> small boats, and pretty common on boats up to 25 feet. I'm sure the Hunter
> water ballast boats have positive floatation. The problem is that while it
> takes a lot of water to sink a large boat, a small one can be taken down pretty
> easily.

So can a large boat.
>
>
>
>>I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
>>But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
>>with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
>>for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
>>your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
>>breaking waves.
>
>
> You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves.

Not really.

You need
> professional help, not a boat.

Actually, I rather thing that anyone who DOESN'T take such weather
conditions seriously, and prepare for them, is the one who needs
professional help.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You're rather typical of Mac owners... stupid.

As I thought, you didn't want to answer that one. In other words, you
lost that one, didn't you Ganz. And as usual, you aren't willing to
admit it.

Hun
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
> never sailed in your life.
>
> I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
> of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

Actually, no. I had sailed various Macs and followed their development
over the years as different models were introduced. However, there were
several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like. The the 26M has
corrected them, for the first time.

Jim

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> However, there
> were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music