MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40

[Jim Cate]

I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
on the boat. Or, anyone else.

For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
finder.)

OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
can reportedly plane under sail.

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
of the new 26M would be appreciated.

Jim

[SAIL LOCO]

Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best choice
for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of fishing you
can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the Mac and
you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[DSK]

SAIL LOCO wrote:

> Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best choice
> for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of fishing you
> can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the Mac and
> you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.

Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or "M" if that's
what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who can't make up
their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing. First of all,
the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power, unless you
either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom open in 1
season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers, cooler, mast,
etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot faster than
most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real motorboat,
and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.

If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a marina
closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving large amounts
of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at 65mph)... with
the benefit that you can take it other places as well.

If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble, you
probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult, because I
have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

> SAIL LOCO wrote:
>
>
>>Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best choice
>>for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of fishing you
>>can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the Mac and
>>you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
>
>
> Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or "M" if that's
> what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who can't make up
> their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing. First of all,
> the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power, unless you
> either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom open in 1
> season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers, cooler, mast,
> etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot faster than
> most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real motorboat,
> and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
>
> If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a marina
> closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving large amounts
> of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at 65mph)... with
> the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
>
> If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble, you
> probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult, because I
> have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>

Thanks for the suggestions. As noted previously, most of my sailing
experience over the past 25 years has been on larger boats, in the 30-35
ft range, that we chartered for family vacations. We would live aboard
the boats for a week, sailing (sometimes in in some pretty high winds),
swimming, cooking meals and sleeping at anchor. I've had training from
several sailing "schools," including an Annapolis Sailing School nav and
heavy boat handling course. So, although I'm sure there are many more
experienced sailors on this ng, I'm well-aware that such heavier boats
are "better" than the MacGregor in a number of ways, particularly for
blue water sailing. The 40 foot Valiant, for example, had three
mainsail reefing lines led to the cockpit, color coded, such that you
could adjust the main to any desired reefing point without leaving the
cockpit, along with roller furling on the jib, plus a staysail.- It was
stable and fast and great for sailing in blue water, making some 9 knots
with the staysail and jib up. Also, of course, owning a larger,
traditional boat would certainly get me more respect from fellow
sailors, whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
made...").

But for our area and conditions and the anticipated uses of the boat,
I'm not sure that these heavier boats would be the best choice or
provide the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction, which I suppose is the
ultimate criteria. (Remember that I can still charter a variety of
larger boats when desired.) In the Kehmah-Seabrook (Houston) area, we
have some huge marinas with thousands of beautiful sailboats of all
types and sizes. But most of these boats sit in their slips in the
marinas for 99.9 percent of the time. - I have had friends tell me
that, after the initial purchase, they had such difficulty in getting
time to go out and in getting crews to go with them, that the boat sat
there, with ongoing maintenance costs, bottom treatments, marina fees,
insurance, etc., so that they finally sold the boat. In my particular
situation, my former crew (my kids) is not available, and my wife
doesn't seem to be too keen on getting out in anything but ideal
weather. Maybe I could get some of my friends to go, but probably not on
the schedule or frequency I would prefer, and I'm not sure I want to go
out on a large boat by myself, even with roller furling, etc. As
mentioned, we have grandkids who I think would not enjoy the relatively
extended motoring and cruising time entailed in getting a heavy boat to
good sailing areas as is necessary in our area and then back to the
dock. For family outings, the Mac has the advantage that you can anchor
it in shallow water, or beach it on an island, etc. (I'll investigate
other marina choices, however.)

Regarding the new Mac model 26M, several pretty substantial changes have
been made as compared with the 26X model. They include a new hull
design entailing a deeper, heavier, 15 degree bottom, rounded corners at
the sides, a partial lead ballast rather than full water ballast, a
flatter hull, adjustable dagger board rather than pivotable fin keel,
rotatable mast, additional fiberglass and roving, etc. WHETHER OR NOT
these changes are going to be effective in improving the handling and
performance of the boat, they are significant, substantive changes, so I
don't think it is logical or reasonable to describe the handling and
performance of the new M model based on observations or (usually)
hearsay relating to the older models. The interior of the boat is open,
with lots of windows, and gives the impression that you are on a much
larger boat. (The Valiant 40 that we sailed in the gulf had a
traditional interior that was segregated into several cabins, and the
main salon was therefore not exceptionally roomy or bright and
"cheery.") (By the way, the Mac 26 can be powered with a much larger
motor if you want high speeds and water-skiing capability. - I don't
need or want to go over around 18-20mph, which is still three times
faster than most fixed keel boats.) On the other hand, I don't know how
the new boat sails or handles under power, which is why I posted my
questions. Their video of the M and S models saling side-by-side shows
the M model sailing by the older model as if it were standing still.
Again, I don't know if the "race" was rigged, etc. - You might want to
take a look at the video, that can be downloaded from the MacGregor
site.

Meanwhile, I'll also be looking at some of the larger used boats for
sale in our area. Apparently, I can get an older 30-32 Cal, Catalina,
C&C, etc., for about the same price as a fully equipped Mac 26.
Conditions and needed repairs and maintenance are another question, of
course.

Jim

[Joe]

Jim Cate > wrote in message >...
> I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
> area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
> on the boat. Or, anyone else.

Ive seen em and would not have one, BTW I live on ClearLake.

>
> For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
> advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
> regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
> sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
> some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
> will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
> get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
> than a fixed keel boat.

There are lots of places to do good fishing without going into the
gulf. You can catch Flounder right off the junction at Seabrook
shipyard, Speckeled trout RedFish ect can be had at the taylor lake
cut, Lots of redfish in trinity bay, Chocolate bay, ect.. If your just
have to have red Snapper there are many rigs just 10 miles offshore.


This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
> issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests.

With a nice sailboat your can keep em busy learning how to set the
sails, you can trool for fish going in and out. Teach them how to
navigate, Bring a shotgun along and shoot skeet, very challenging on a
rocking boat. And if they keep whining are we home yet just toss them
overboard. No body likes a whiner.



Also, in view of the
> hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
> ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
> islands, would be an obvious advantage.

You can get into most areas here with a keel boat with a raisable
board. If you must fish the flats tow along a dink anchor out your
boat and row or walk onto the flats.



(The 40-foot Valiant, although
> a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
> motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
> the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
> finder.)

More like 3 and a half hours max, and its easy enogh to get to the
channel and then the channel is well marked and 50 foot deep in the
center.


>
> OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
> anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
> the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
> now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
> I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
> extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
> reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
> and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
> As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
> comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
> much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
> With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
> can reportedly plane under sail.

Sounds like speed is your major concern. If so just get a stick pot.

>
> A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> kept under charter in our area.

Yeah and if your dying to go offshore and fish there are many fishing
boats out of Galveston and freeport. I would not be caught dead
offshore in the gulf in a MAC morphadyte.


Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
> (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> a powered fishing boat.)

Bimini, wheelhose ect.... = shade

A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
> - 32-foot boats.
>
> Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
> of the new 26M would be appreciated.
>
> Jim

Never been on one but we love to laugh at the suckers that buy em.


Joe
MSV RedCloud

[Jonathan Ganz]

Not to trumpet the successful redesign of Mac's, but the M is nothing like
the X. I have a friend who has one. I was not really all that embarrassed to
climb aboard. :-)

"DSK" > wrote in message
...
> > Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or
"M" if that's
> what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who can't
make up
> their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing. First
of all,
> the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power,
unless you
> either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom open
in 1
> season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers,
cooler, mast,
> etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot
faster than
> most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real
motorboat,
> and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
>
> If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a
marina
> closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving large
amounts
> of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at
65mph)... with
> the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
>
> If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble,
you
> probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult,
because I
> have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>

[JAXAshby]

>Never been on one but we love to laugh at the suckers that buy em.
>

I have been on one, at a boat show. Special price of $30k, all up and brand
new.

I would not buy it at $3k, unless I knew someone I could lay the thing off on
for $4k.

That is one flimsy boat, and those I have seen on the water (in under 8 knots
of wind) never sailed well (maybe Mac owners could blame the sailor) nor
motored well (maybe Mac owners could blame the engine as too small).

Some people *do* buy them though and call them sailboats just as some people
buy Wasa Brot and call it dessert.

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<< whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
made...").>>>>>>>>>>

Kinda goes along with something I read/heard a long time ago. "Never buy a
boat that you wouldn't want to be seen arriving on"
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[JAXAshby]

>From: "Jonathan Ganz"
>Date: 3/1/2004 12:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I have a friend who has one. I was not really all that embarrassed to
>climb aboard. :-)

says something, doesn't it.

[Jonathan Ganz]

Yep. It says you have no idea what the differences are,
and you're an idiot.

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Jonathan Ganz"
> >Date: 3/1/2004 12:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >I have a friend who has one. I was not really all that embarrassed to
> >climb aboard. :-)
>
> says something, doesn't it.
>

[Bobsprit]

Yep. It says you have no idea what the differences are,
and you're an idiot.>>


What is the point of this, Jonathan? I think we all agree that the Mac26 is a
poor sailing boat and that Jim would probably do better to reaccess his needs
and limitations before buying one.
There's a Mac26X at my club. The two owners appear to be very unhappy with it.
Perhaps it's not "the boat." I've asked them about it and they seem none to
excited to "brag" about it as most owners do. Whenever I show various boats to
interested folks, the mac always brings about something like "What the hell is
that?" Few are impressed. My Hoover has nicer lines.

RB

[Bobsprit]

>My Hoover has nicer lines.
>
>RB

I thought you had a C&C. Hoovers SUCK!>>>


LOL, Bill.

RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I think I'll post whatever I want to post.

While the M isn't the best boat out there, it's more a factor of
who's sailing it and for what purpose than it's obviously lacking
quality.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> Yep. It says you have no idea what the differences are,
> and you're an idiot.>>
>
>
> What is the point of this, Jonathan? I think we all agree that the Mac26
is a
> poor sailing boat and that Jim would probably do better to reaccess his
needs
> and limitations before buying one.
> There's a Mac26X at my club. The two owners appear to be very unhappy with
it.
> Perhaps it's not "the boat." I've asked them about it and they seem none
to
> excited to "brag" about it as most owners do. Whenever I show various
boats to
> interested folks, the mac always brings about something like "What the
hell is
> that?" Few are impressed. My Hoover has nicer lines.
>
> RB

[JAXAshby]

joony wrote:

>While the M isn't the best boat out there, it's more a factor of
>who's sailing it and for what purpose than it's obviously lacking
>quality.

what joony is saying is that given his skills the Mac is a better boat than he
is a sailor.

kinda sad, that is.

[Bobsprit]

While the M isn't the best boat out there, it's more a factor of
who's sailing it and for what purpose than it's obviously lacking
quality.>>>


The Mac is a horriblly cheap boat. To say it isn't "the best boat out there" is
overselling it in the extreme.

RB

[Bobsprit]

Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.>>>


What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
Mac26X as a viable vessel?

RB

[Bobsprit]

Better still, Jonathan...can you explain to us under what circumstances YOU
would buy a Mac26X?
I can't think of ANY for myself. I'd rather have a sailboat or a
powerboat...never the Mac.

RB

[DSK]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Not to trumpet the successful redesign of Mac's, but the M is nothing like
> the X. I have a friend who has one. I was not really all that embarrassed to
> climb aboard. :-)

It's not all that different. In fact the basic hull & deck molding appears to be
99% identical. We have a couple of the new models at our marina. They still
don't sail very well.

However, they are relatively inexpensive for their accomodation, and make a
great boat-shaped camper trailer.

DSK

[Jonathan Ganz]

Kinda sad that you're an idiot, but I guess that balances
out the geniuses in the world.

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> joony wrote:
>
> >While the M isn't the best boat out there, it's more a factor of
> >who's sailing it and for what purpose than it's obviously lacking
> >quality.
>
> what joony is saying is that given his skills the Mac is a better boat
than he
> is a sailor.
>
> kinda sad, that is.
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

The M isn't anything close to the X, but I see your point.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> While the M isn't the best boat out there, it's more a factor of
> who's sailing it and for what purpose than it's obviously lacking
> quality.>>>
>
>
> The Mac is a horriblly cheap boat. To say it isn't "the best boat out
there" is
> overselling it in the extreme.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

Not at all. I think the X version are trash. The M isn't as bad as
that and is capable of sailing on the bay (for example) without
compromising one's safety. It's a different boat.
"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.>>>
>
>
> What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
> Mac26X as a viable vessel?
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

No. I can't. Perhaps if I was stupid like Jax....

Again, I'm talking about the M, which doesn't have the huge engine
as is a "sailboat" not a horrible compromise.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> Better still, Jonathan...can you explain to us under what circumstances
YOU
> would buy a Mac26X?
> I can't think of ANY for myself. I'd rather have a sailboat or a
> powerboat...never the Mac.
>
> RB

[JAXAshby]

>However, they are relatively inexpensive for their accomodation, and make a
>great boat-shaped camper trailer.
>
>DSK

doug, they are $30k at boatshow special prices.

[JAXAshby]

yeah, but thirty GRAND???


>For once, I have to agree with Jonathan. Perhaps we all tend to approach
>such questions from our own parochial view of what a "real" boat should be,
>not realizing that a boat should fit the desires and needs of its owner, not
>some pre-conceived notion of an ideal boat in the sky.
>
>I'd say that if the Mac M does what you want it to do better than the
>alternatives, and suits the way you intend to use it, go for it and have the
>self-confidence to give the finger to those who presume to look down on you
>for choosing what suits your needs.
>
>
>Dave
>S/V Good Fortune
>CS27
>
>
>
>
>
>

[DSK]

> >However, they are relatively inexpensive for their accomodation, and make a
> >great boat-shaped camper trailer.
> >
>
> JAXAshby wrote:
> doug, they are $30k at boatshow special prices.

You don't get out much, do you? That's not very expensive for either a new boat
or a new camper trailer in that size range. But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
of money to you, Jax?

DSK

[JAXAshby]

For half of $30k one can buy a lot of fine, fine, fine used 26 foot sailboats.

the word "horrendous" is normally used not in the context of absolute dollars,
but rather in the context of what one gets for the dollars.

What you get for your money is a brand new Mac 26.

Is Mac the only choice for those who wish a 26 foot boat bought brand new?


>That's not very expensive for either a new boat
>or a new camper trailer in that size range. But maybe $30K is a horrendous
>lot
>of money to you, Jax?
>
>DSK

[Jonathan Ganz]

For once I have to agree with Jax... $30K is way too much. Even
if you want to stick with a Mac (not the X, not the X), then you
can get a model just before the M (I forget the model name), for
1/3 of that.

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> yeah, but thirty GRAND???
>
>
> >For once, I have to agree with Jonathan. Perhaps we all tend to approach
> >such questions from our own parochial view of what a "real" boat should
be,
> >not realizing that a boat should fit the desires and needs of its owner,
not
> >some pre-conceived notion of an ideal boat in the sky.
> >
> >I'd say that if the Mac M does what you want it to do better than the
> >alternatives, and suits the way you intend to use it, go for it and have
the
> >self-confidence to give the finger to those who presume to look down on
you
> >for choosing what suits your needs.
> >
> >
> >Dave
> >S/V Good Fortune
> >CS27
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I'd say it's more like 75% the same. There are differences that appear to
make
it a better sailor.

"DSK" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Not to trumpet the successful redesign of Mac's, but the M is nothing
like
> > the X. I have a friend who has one. I was not really all that
embarrassed to
> > climb aboard. :-)
>
> It's not all that different. In fact the basic hull & deck molding appears
to be
> 99% identical. We have a couple of the new models at our marina. They
still
> don't sail very well.
>
> However, they are relatively inexpensive for their accomodation, and make
a
> great boat-shaped camper trailer.
>
> DSK
>

[Scott Vernon]

That's the first I've seen the 'M' model. Looks like they took a big step
backwards re the cabin, which looks exactly like the old (pre 'X') 26'. The
hull still has that ugly step in it, and the gross power-boat type
'windows'.
I've seen a few Xs sailing and talked to a few owners who really love them.
They're not bad boats for their purpose (shallow draft/power/sailboat) if
you can get past the look. Not for ocean sailing, though.
If you really want to talk to owners, Sailnet has a Mac mailing list, and
one just for X owners.

It sounds like you're worried what others will think. In that case, stay
away from the Mac.

S.Vernon

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> DSK wrote:
>
> > SAIL LOCO wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best
choice
> >>for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of
fishing you
> >>can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the
Mac and
> >>you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
> >
> >
> > Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or
"M" if that's
> > what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who
can't make up
> > their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing.
First of all,
> > the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power,
unless you
> > either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom
open in 1
> > season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers,
cooler, mast,
> > etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot
faster than
> > most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real
motorboat,
> > and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
> >
> > If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a
marina
> > closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving
large amounts
> > of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at
65mph)... with
> > the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
> >
> > If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble,
you
> > probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult,
because I
> > have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
> >
> > Fresh Breezes- Doug King
> >
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. As noted previously, most of my sailing
> experience over the past 25 years has been on larger boats, in the 30-35
> ft range, that we chartered for family vacations. We would live aboard
> the boats for a week, sailing (sometimes in in some pretty high winds),
> swimming, cooking meals and sleeping at anchor. I've had training from
> several sailing "schools," including an Annapolis Sailing School nav and
> heavy boat handling course. So, although I'm sure there are many more
> experienced sailors on this ng, I'm well-aware that such heavier boats
> are "better" than the MacGregor in a number of ways, particularly for
> blue water sailing. The 40 foot Valiant, for example, had three
> mainsail reefing lines led to the cockpit, color coded, such that you
> could adjust the main to any desired reefing point without leaving the
> cockpit, along with roller furling on the jib, plus a staysail.- It was
> stable and fast and great for sailing in blue water, making some 9 knots
> with the staysail and jib up. Also, of course, owning a larger,
> traditional boat would certainly get me more respect from fellow
> sailors, whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
> ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
> doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
> made...").
>
> But for our area and conditions and the anticipated uses of the boat,
> I'm not sure that these heavier boats would be the best choice or
> provide the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction, which I suppose is the
> ultimate criteria. (Remember that I can still charter a variety of
> larger boats when desired.) In the Kehmah-Seabrook (Houston) area, we
> have some huge marinas with thousands of beautiful sailboats of all
> types and sizes. But most of these boats sit in their slips in the
> marinas for 99.9 percent of the time. - I have had friends tell me
> that, after the initial purchase, they had such difficulty in getting
> time to go out and in getting crews to go with them, that the boat sat
> there, with ongoing maintenance costs, bottom treatments, marina fees,
> insurance, etc., so that they finally sold the boat. In my particular
> situation, my former crew (my kids) is not available, and my wife
> doesn't seem to be too keen on getting out in anything but ideal
> weather. Maybe I could get some of my friends to go, but probably not on
> the schedule or frequency I would prefer, and I'm not sure I want to go
> out on a large boat by myself, even with roller furling, etc. As
> mentioned, we have grandkids who I think would not enjoy the relatively
> extended motoring and cruising time entailed in getting a heavy boat to
> good sailing areas as is necessary in our area and then back to the
> dock. For family outings, the Mac has the advantage that you can anchor
> it in shallow water, or beach it on an island, etc. (I'll investigate
> other marina choices, however.)
>
> Regarding the new Mac model 26M, several pretty substantial changes have
> been made as compared with the 26X model. They include a new hull
> design entailing a deeper, heavier, 15 degree bottom, rounded corners at
> the sides, a partial lead ballast rather than full water ballast, a
> flatter hull, adjustable dagger board rather than pivotable fin keel,
> rotatable mast, additional fiberglass and roving, etc. WHETHER OR NOT
> these changes are going to be effective in improving the handling and
> performance of the boat, they are significant, substantive changes, so I
> don't think it is logical or reasonable to describe the handling and
> performance of the new M model based on observations or (usually)
> hearsay relating to the older models. The interior of the boat is open,
> with lots of windows, and gives the impression that you are on a much
> larger boat. (The Valiant 40 that we sailed in the gulf had a
> traditional interior that was segregated into several cabins, and the
> main salon was therefore not exceptionally roomy or bright and
> "cheery.") (By the way, the Mac 26 can be powered with a much larger
> motor if you want high speeds and water-skiing capability. - I don't
> need or want to go over around 18-20mph, which is still three times
> faster than most fixed keel boats.) On the other hand, I don't know how
> the new boat sails or handles under power, which is why I posted my
> questions. Their video of the M and S models saling side-by-side shows
> the M model sailing by the older model as if it were standing still.
> Again, I don't know if the "race" was rigged, etc. - You might want to
> take a look at the video, that can be downloaded from the MacGregor
> site.
>
> Meanwhile, I'll also be looking at some of the larger used boats for
> sale in our area. Apparently, I can get an older 30-32 Cal, Catalina,
> C&C, etc., for about the same price as a fully equipped Mac 26.
> Conditions and needed repairs and maintenance are another question, of
> course.
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

Did you sail on it? Always thought that tiny wheel would be awkward.

Scotty

"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> Not to trumpet the successful redesign of Mac's, but the M is nothing like
> the X. I have a friend who has one. I was not really all that embarrassed
to
> climb aboard. :-)
>
> "DSK" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or
> "M" if that's
> > what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who
can't
> make up
> > their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing.
First
> of all,
> > the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power,
> unless you
> > either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom
open
> in 1
> > season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers,
> cooler, mast,
> > etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot
> faster than
> > most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real
> motorboat,
> > and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
> >
> > If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a
> marina
> > closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving
large
> amounts
> > of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at
> 65mph)... with
> > the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
> >
> > If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble,
> you
> > probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult,
> because I
> > have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
> >
> > Fresh Breezes- Doug King
> >
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

How much is a new Hunter 26? BTW Mac is advertised at $18k +/- the buyer
drives the price up with BIG motors.

SV

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> yeah, but thirty GRAND???
>
>
> >For once, I have to agree with Jonathan. Perhaps we all tend to approach
> >such questions from our own parochial view of what a "real" boat should
be,
> >not realizing that a boat should fit the desires and needs of its owner,
not
> >some pre-conceived notion of an ideal boat in the sky.
> >
> >I'd say that if the Mac M does what you want it to do better than the
> >alternatives, and suits the way you intend to use it, go for it and have
the
> >self-confidence to give the finger to those who presume to look down on
you
> >for choosing what suits your needs.
> >
> >
> >Dave
> >S/V Good Fortune
> >CS27
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[DSK]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> I'd say it's more like 75% the same. There are differences that appear to
> make
> it a better sailor.

I think they changed the deck & cockpit layout some, and improved the heck out
of the steering & rudders (which needed it badly... out my several friends who
owned one of these, *all* of them broke their steering at one point or another).
But I'd be surprised if the sailing performance has improved very much.

There's a much-ballyhoo'ed PHRF rating on them of around 215, which was given to
a Mac dealer on the Chesapeake who sailed it with 3 guys on trapezes, a masthead
spinnaker, and no water ballast. But the stock boat probably deserves a PHRf
rating around 300.


JAXAshby wrote:

> For half of $30k one can buy a lot of fine, fine, fine used 26 foot sailboats.

Yep. But why compare the prices of *new* boats to *used* ones? Surely your MENSA
intellect can distinguish the difference?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[JAXAshby]

>Mac is advertised at $18k +/- the buyer
>drives the price up with BIG motors.

Last time I went to A/C boatshow, a Mac was sitting there with a sign on it
loudly proclaiming $29,xxx, a "boat show special". I seem recall that taxes
and title were not mentioned.

[JAXAshby]

>why compare the prices of *new* boats to *used* ones?

value.

>Surely your MENSA
>intellect can distinguish the difference?

yup, value. compare a brand new Mac 26 at $30k to a used Buccaneer 26 for
$950. Much the same space inside. compare a brand new Mac 26 $30k to a used
Contessa 26 at $10k. The Contessa has crossed oceans and you have twenty grand
left over.

but some people want to buy new.

[Scott Vernon]

if you go to the URL Jim posted you'll see the price I quoted. That's w/o
motor.

Can't you find the Hunter price?

SV


"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> >Mac is advertised at $18k +/- the buyer
> >drives the price up with BIG motors.
>
> Last time I went to A/C boatshow, a Mac was sitting there with a sign on
it
> loudly proclaiming $29,xxx, a "boat show special". I seem recall that
taxes
> and title were not mentioned.

[Scott Vernon]

You're a brave man to admit that here.

SV


"Dave" > wrote
>
> I'll admit to having briefly considered a Mac,

[JAXAshby]

>You're a brave man to admit that here.

hey, I was briefly considered a Hunter. But I was younger then.


>> I'll admit to having briefly considered a Mac,
>
>
>

[Bobsprit]

But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
of money to you, Jax?>>>


It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....

A J30 and a J24
Two Pearson 30s
A C&C 30 late model
A Catalina 30 late 80's
A Bristol 29.5

And so on....

RB

[JAXAshby]

>None of those boats can do what the Mac can.
>

What's that? Flex the hull when you pull on the shrouds?

>> It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
>>
>> A J30 and a J24
>> Two Pearson 30s
>> A C&C 30 late model
>> A Catalina 30 late 80's
>> A Bristol 29.5
>>
>> And so on....
>>
>> RB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

some of my non-sailing friends think Hunters are great boats with a great
rep. Name recognition, I guess.

Scotty

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> >You're a brave man to admit that here.
>
> hey, I was briefly considered a Hunter. But I was younger then.
>
>
> >> I'll admit to having briefly considered a Mac,
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

None of those boats can do what the Mac can.


"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> of money to you, Jax?>>>
>
>
> It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
>
> A J30 and a J24
> Two Pearson 30s
> A C&C 30 late model
> A Catalina 30 late 80's
> A Bristol 29.5
>
> And so on....
>
> RB

[Bobsprit]

None of those boats can do what the Mac can.>>>


Let's not turn this into a silly debate. We all know what the Mac26x is and
that a great many buyers are probably never fully aware of how poor a boat it
really is.
True, I've only been aboard two and only spoke to three different owners, but
none of them were overly pleased with the boat. I'm sure some people love them,
just like my dad loved his AMC Pacer. But he never thought it was really a
"good" car.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

that's 1


"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> >None of those boats can do what the Mac can.
> >
>
> What's that? Flex the hull when you pull on the shrouds?
>
> >> It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >>
> >> A J30 and a J24
> >> Two Pearson 30s
> >> A C&C 30 late model
> >> A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >> A Bristol 29.5
> >>
> >> And so on....
> >>
> >> RB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bobsprit]

some of my non-sailing friends think Hunters are great boats with a great
rep. Name recognition, I guess.>>>


As Marc (He sails a Freedom) will attest, the newer DS models from Hunter are
okay looking and quite nice. The fit and finish is pretty good, a LOT better
than Beneteau. A lot of folks probaby dockside condoize them, but they actually
seem to sail reasonably well.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

So , I win?


"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> None of those boats can do what the Mac can.>>>
>
>
> Let's not turn this into a silly debate. We all know what the Mac26x is
and
> that a great many buyers are probably never fully aware of how poor a boat
it
> really is.
> True, I've only been aboard two and only spoke to three different owners,
but
> none of them were overly pleased with the boat. I'm sure some people love
them,
> just like my dad loved his AMC Pacer. But he never thought it was really a
> "good" car.
>
> RB

[Scott Vernon]

Stop it Bob, you're freaking me out.

SV

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> some of my non-sailing friends think Hunters are great boats with a great
> rep. Name recognition, I guess.>>>
>
>
> As Marc (He sails a Freedom) will attest, the newer DS models from Hunter
are
> okay looking and quite nice. The fit and finish is pretty good, a LOT
better
> than Beneteau. A lot of folks probaby dockside condoize them, but they
actually
> seem to sail reasonably well.
>
> RB

[Marc]

Hi Bob, congrats on the good news. Was out on my slip neighbors 426 DS
on Sunday. He has a FULL cockpit enclosure. It was like sailing a
solarium. Absolutely no sensation of movement until we had to reef as
the wind picked up off of the Ambrose racon. Broad reached back into
the harbor at 10 kn. These boats do move and sail well.



On 01 Mar 2004 23:36:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

>some of my non-sailing friends think Hunters are great boats with a great
>rep. Name recognition, I guess.>>>
>
>
>As Marc (He sails a Freedom) will attest, the newer DS models from Hunter are
>okay looking and quite nice. The fit and finish is pretty good, a LOT better
>than Beneteau. A lot of folks probaby dockside condoize them, but they actually
>seem to sail reasonably well.
>
>RB

[Bobsprit]

Hi Bob, congrats on the good news. Was out on my slip neighbors 426 DS
on Sunday. He has a FULL cockpit enclosure. It was like sailing a
solarium. Absolutely no sensation of movement until we had to reef as
the wind picked up off of the Ambrose racon. Broad reached back into
the harbor at 10 kn. These boats do move and sail well.>>>


Thanks, Marc. We're dropping Alien in in about 4 weeks or so. You're welcome
aboard any time.
I still prefer your boat to the Hunter, but I can certainly see the DS appeal.
Are you all set for the new season?

RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

I praised a hunter once, but that was because my old boss had
one and I was trying to suck up to him for a raise.

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
...
> >You're a brave man to admit that here.
>
> hey, I was briefly considered a Hunter. But I was younger then.
>
>
> >> I'll admit to having briefly considered a Mac,
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Bob wins. You know that.

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> So , I win?
>
>
> "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> ...
> > None of those boats can do what the Mac can.>>>
> >
> >
> > Let's not turn this into a silly debate. We all know what the Mac26x is
> and
> > that a great many buyers are probably never fully aware of how poor a
boat
> it
> > really is.
> > True, I've only been aboard two and only spoke to three different
owners,
> but
> > none of them were overly pleased with the boat. I'm sure some people
love
> them,
> > just like my dad loved his AMC Pacer. But he never thought it was really
a
> > "good" car.
> >
> > RB
>

[Donal]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>In my particular
> situation, my former crew (my kids) is not available, and my wife
> doesn't seem to be too keen on getting out in anything but ideal
> weather. Maybe I could get some of my friends to go, but probably not on
> the schedule or frequency I would prefer, and I'm not sure I want to go
> out on a large boat by myself, even with roller furling, etc. As
> mentioned, we have grandkids who I think would not enjoy the relatively
> extended motoring and cruising time entailed in getting a heavy boat to
> good sailing areas as is necessary in our area and then back to the
> dock. For family outings, the Mac has the advantage that you can anchor
> it in shallow water, or beach it on an island, etc. (I'll investigate
> other marina choices, however.)

I changed from power to sail because I had young crew.

I found that high speed motoring only gave pleasure to the driver. The
initial thrill wears off very quickly for the rest of the crew.

With a sailing vessel, you can assign tasks to younger crew. They will be
able to excel at these tasks, and earn praise, which helps them to enjoy the
activity, and IMHO, is very good for them.

You may find that you can do this on a MAC 26M, but I suspect that you would
use the power to travel a bit further afield.

Also, are there usually waves in the area that you plan to use the boat?
I don't think that it would be very comfortable doing even 15 kts, in such a
light boat, unless the water was almost flat calm.


Regards


Donal
--

[Scott Vernon]

We looked at a few H25, & 27s, but decided the Mac (not an "X") was a better
boat for our needs, at the time.

Scotty


"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> I praised a hunter once, but that was because my old boss had
> one and I was trying to suck up to him for a raise.
>
> "JAXAshby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >You're a brave man to admit that here.
> >
> > hey, I was briefly considered a Hunter. But I was younger then.
> >
> >
> > >> I'll admit to having briefly considered a Mac,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

Not any more. I think AOL said he couldn't play anymore.

Scotty

"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wins. You know that.
>
> "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So , I win?
> >
> >
> > "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > None of those boats can do what the Mac can.>>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's not turn this into a silly debate. We all know what the Mac26x
is
> > and
> > > that a great many buyers are probably never fully aware of how poor a
> boat
> > it
> > > really is.
> > > True, I've only been aboard two and only spoke to three different
> owners,
> > but
> > > none of them were overly pleased with the boat. I'm sure some people
> love
> > them,
> > > just like my dad loved his AMC Pacer. But he never thought it was
really
> a
> > > "good" car.
> > >
> > > RB
> >
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Dave" > wrote
>
> When you reach my age,

which is?

>
> At the time I was thinking about how happy the wife would be to be able to
> scoot back in ahead of a t'storm.

Yes, they sound like a good, does it all boat, on paper. But then when you
really see one. Ugh!

What's a CS?


>
>
> Dave
> S/V Good Fortune
> CS27

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<<There's a much-ballyhoo'ed PHRF rating on them of around 215, which was
given to
a Mac dealer on the Chesapeake who sailed it with 3 guys on trapezes, a
masthead
spinnaker, and no water ballast.>>>>>

You must be refering to that wack job Jim down in Mayo.


S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Scott Vernon]

That would be a HC.

You got Fs in English, right?

SV

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:57:11 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >What's a CS?
> >
> >
>
> Holy Crap!
>
> BB

[Scott Vernon]

I see your math is no better than your English.


> wrote in message
...
> On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
>
> >But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> >of money to you, Jax?>>>
> >
> >
> >It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >
> >A J30 and a J24
> >Two Pearson 30s
> >A C&C 30 late model
> >A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >A Bristol 29.5
> >
> >And so on....
> >
> >RB
>
> or an even dozen Sidelmanns!
>
> BB

[Jim Cate]

After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
one has sailed the new 26M extensively, and no one so far has any real
experience with or knowledge about the 26M Model; and (2) This doesn't
stop most responders from confidently and dogmatically telling me abpit
all the shortcomings of the 26M (which they have never seen, much less
sailed). In contrast, those I have talked with elsewhere who HAVE
actually sailed and motered the boat are quite impressed with it. What
seems to be overlooked repeatedly is that if I bought the Mac, I could
still charter a number of larger vessels for offshore cruising. In
discussions such as this, it seems to me that it's important to approach
the issues logically and with balanced consideration of all the related
issues. - So far, I see very little logic and lots of emotional ranting
and raving and put-downs of someone some apparently percieved as as a
convenient (novice) target. Nevertheless, I appreciate the helpful
suggestions and comments of those who have some useful information for
me to consider. Again, I can still charter some fine, heavy boats when
going offshore. And one more time..... I can still charter a wide
selection of heavy boats when going offshore.
Jim

Jim Cate wrote:
>
> I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
> area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
> on the boat. Or, anyone else.
>
> For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
> advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
> regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
> sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
> some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
> will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
> get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
> than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
> issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
> hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
> ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
> islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
> a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
> motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
> the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
> finder.)
>
> OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
> anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
> the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
> now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
> I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
> extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
> reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
> and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
> As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
> comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
> much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
> With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
> can reportedly plane under sail.
>
> A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
> (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
> - 32-foot boats.
>
> Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
> of the new 26M would be appreciated.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

I know it's a Candjun boat, but what does CS stand for?

Scotty


> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:07 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
wrote:
>
> >That would be a HC.
> >
> >You got Fs in English, right?
> >
>
> You really don't know what a CS is? Again, I say Holy Crap!
>
> BB
>
>
> >SV
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:57:11 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >What's a CS?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Holy Crap!
> >>
> >> BB
>

[DSK]

Jim Cate wrote:

> After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
> one has sailed the new 26M extensively, and no one so far has any real
> experience with or knowledge about the 26M Model; and (2) This doesn't
> stop most responders from confidently and dogmatically telling me abpit
> all the shortcomings of the 26M (which they have never seen, much less
> sailed).

Are you related to JAXAshby? Your reading comprehension is a bit dim.

At least two people told you that they had indeed seen them, including seeing
them sailing. Is real life good enough for you?

DSK

[Jonathan Ganz]

In that case.... he wins! (get the logic?)

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Not any more. I think AOL said he couldn't play anymore.
>
> Scotty
>
> "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bob wins. You know that.
> >
> > "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > So , I win?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > None of those boats can do what the Mac can.>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's not turn this into a silly debate. We all know what the Mac26x
> is
> > > and
> > > > that a great many buyers are probably never fully aware of how poor
a
> > boat
> > > it
> > > > really is.
> > > > True, I've only been aboard two and only spoke to three different
> > owners,
> > > but
> > > > none of them were overly pleased with the boat. I'm sure some people
> > love
> > > them,
> > > > just like my dad loved his AMC Pacer. But he never thought it was
> really
> > a
> > > > "good" car.
> > > >
> > > > RB
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
think it'll go up in value?

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:45 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
wrote:
>
> >I see your math is no better than your English.
> >
>
>
> You are right! $30k would probably get you at least 15 or more Sidelmanns
in
> today's market. They sure aren't ever going to go UP in value.
>
> BB
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
> >>
> >> >But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> >> >of money to you, Jax?>>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >> >
> >> >A J30 and a J24
> >> >Two Pearson 30s
> >> >A C&C 30 late model
> >> >A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >> >A Bristol 29.5
> >> >
> >> >And so on....
> >> >
> >> >RB
> >>
> >> or an even dozen Sidelmanns!
> >>
> >> BB
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Doug.. let him buy the damn thing. One learns best from experience.

"DSK" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> > After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
> > one has sailed the new 26M extensively, and no one so far has any real
> > experience with or knowledge about the 26M Model; and (2) This doesn't
> > stop most responders from confidently and dogmatically telling me abpit
> > all the shortcomings of the 26M (which they have never seen, much less
> > sailed).
>
> Are you related to JAXAshby? Your reading comprehension is a bit dim.
>
> At least two people told you that they had indeed seen them, including
seeing
> them sailing. Is real life good enough for you?
>
> DSK
>

[Bobsprit]

I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
think it'll go up in value?>>>


C&Cs have, in fact, risen in value since the company's new incarnation took
flight.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

Thank you. Nice looking boat.

SV

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:09:41 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
said:
>
> >I know it's a Candjun boat, but what does CS stand for?
>
> Canadian Sailing.
>
>
> Dave
> S/V Good Fortune
> CS27

[Jonathan Ganz]

I kinda doubt that they've exceeded their original cost in today's dollars.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
> think it'll go up in value?>>>
>
>
> C&Cs have, in fact, risen in value since the company's new incarnation
took
> flight.
>
> RB

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
one has sailed the new 26M extensively,>>>>

That alone should tell you something.


S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Bobsprit]

I kinda doubt that they've exceeded their original cost in today's dollars.>>

All I know is that they cost more now than they did 6 years ago on the used
market. In general I find C&Cs to be overpriced.

RB

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
>>one has sailed the new 26M extensively, and no one so far has any real
>>experience with or knowledge about the 26M Model; and (2) This doesn't
>>stop most responders from confidently and dogmatically telling me abpit
>>all the shortcomings of the 26M (which they have never seen, much less
>>sailed).
>
>
> Are you related to JAXAshby? Your reading comprehension is a bit dim.
>
> At least two people told you that they had indeed seen them, including seeing
> them sailing. Is real life good enough for you?
>
> DSK
>

DSK,

You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said was:

After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
one has sailed the new 26M extensively, and no one so far has any REAL
EXPERIENCE with or knowledge of the 26M MODEL; and (2) This doesn't stop
MOST responders from confidently and dogmatically telling me all about
the shortcomings of the 26M (which they have never seen, much less
sailed). In contrast, those I have talked with elsewhere who HAVE
actually sailed and motored the boat are quite impressed with it

DSK, note in particular the word "most" in the above sentence. Also note
my further statement, that you didn't quote, expressing apprecation for
the helpful information provided by some on the ng. (Incidentally, you
can get reading glasses at most pharmacies these days for under $20.)

Jim

Jim

[SAIL LOCO]

I think the guy is bi-polar just like the boat he is asking about.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[DSK]

SAIL LOCO wrote:
> I think the guy is bi-polar just like the boat he is asking about.

The funny thing is, he came here to ask advice (more than once
actually), and is walking away thinking it's somebody else who's the
dummy in this picture.

DSK

[Bobsprit]

You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said was:>>>


Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they soon tire
of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature of
Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take any of
it seriously.
The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be ugly, cheap
and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are. I was aboard
a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat. I was told it
could do nearly 25 knots, though 3 foot chop would cut that by a 3rd. A 3rd?
Such a loss of performance from moderate chop is indicative of design limits
too steep for my blood.
Few people, other than a Mac owner will encourage you to buy one. While it may
be the "best" compromise between power and sail, the trade offs are downright
offensive to sailors. If you have sailed good sailboats, I seriously think
you'll be dissapointed in the Mac and regret buying one.

Best of Luck,

Robert B
C&C 32, Alien
NY

[Bobsprit]

What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably bring
today.>>>


I know of two Siedlemann 30s that sold for 4 and 7K. The one for 4K was
actually pretty clean and had new electronics. The one for 7K had deck problems
($$) after a few years that left her high and dry. She's at Harlem YC if anyone
wants her. They are nearly impossible to sell. There's a larger model at
Styvesant Yacht club (33 or 34?) that simply can't be sold.

RB

[Bobsprit]

What
did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today? >>>


The Cal20 is a bargain basement boat, but it's also a minor classic that
deserves some respect, I think. It's value is well beyond it's cost and Cal was
a good builder much of the time.

RB

[Marc]

On 02 Mar 2004 00:15:41 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

This could be considered a classic definition of "Damning with Faint
Praise"
>I still prefer your boat to the Hunter, but I can certainly see the DS appeal.
>Are you all set for the new season?
Got a lot still to do. About a dozen technical items and then cleanup,
wax and paint. If the weather cooperates, I'll splash 1st week of
April.

The head project is finished. I rented a special electric hose end
heater from Sealand to facilitate the instalation of their "Odorsafe"
hose. Between that and barbless fittings, an impossible job was made
possible.
>
>RB

[Bobsprit]

This could be considered a classic definition of "Damning with Faint
Praise"
>I still prefer your boat to the Hunter, but I can certainly see the DS appeal.

>Are you all set for the new season?>>>


Not at all. I don't really care for the Hunter line and probably would never
buy one. BUT...I think the newer boats have made a big jump up in quality and
have Beneteau and Catalina scrambling. Still, I rather have a Catalina.
Beneteau slaps boats together and I would sooner own a Siedlemann.
I have a nice new dodger coming for Alien and a Zip-On awning. I didn't go for
the bimini because it looked awful in the pics and sketches. Other than making
a new hatchboard, putting in a new depth sounder and a little teak work...all
set to go!

RB

[Scott Vernon]

The new reformed & warned "Bobsprit" > wrote
>
>
> Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they soon
tire
> of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature of
> Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take any
of
> it seriously.

Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.



> The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be ugly,
cheap
> and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are.


Yet they are the best selling sailboat in history.


> I was aboard
> a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
> anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat.


You could tell this at the boat show?

[Scott Vernon]

Hey stupid, don't you know what I paid? Everybody else does. Do a Google,
if you're capable. And while you're at it, learn how to use a spell check.

Scotty

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:39:33 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
>
> wrote:
>
> >I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
> >think it'll go up in value?
> >
>
> My boat model's average retail is slightly higher today than the original
> selling price... And don't worry about today's dollar versus 1986 dollars.
> During those years, I've taken equity in the form of use out of the boat
that
> more than makes up for inflation. Nobody goes sailing to save money,
anyway.
>
> What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably
bring
> today. Don't forget to factor in that Scotty probably paid too much for
it. What
> did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today?
>
> BB
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:45 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >I see your math is no better than your English.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You are right! $30k would probably get you at least 15 or more
Sidelmanns
> >in
> >> today's market. They sure aren't ever going to go UP in value.
> >>
> >> BB
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> >> >> >of money to you, Jax?>>>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A J30 and a J24
> >> >> >Two Pearson 30s
> >> >> >A C&C 30 late model
> >> >> >A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >> >> >A Bristol 29.5
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And so on....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >RB
> >> >>
> >> >> or an even dozen Sidelmanns!
> >> >>
> >> >> BB
> >>
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

sniff, sniff, smells like a troll.........better be careful bob.

SV

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably
bring
> today.>>>
>
>
> I know of two Siedlemann 30s that sold for 4 and 7K. The one for 4K was
> actually pretty clean and had new electronics. The one for 7K had deck
problems
> ($$) after a few years that left her high and dry. She's at Harlem YC if
anyone
> wants her. They are nearly impossible to sell. There's a larger model at
> Styvesant Yacht club (33 or 34?) that simply can't be sold.
>
> RB

[Bobsprit]

sniff, sniff, smells like a troll.........better be careful bob.>>


Sorry, Scotty. When it comes to the Siedlemann's, the "truth" may sound like a
troll, but it sadly isn't.
I'm glad you're happy with your boat. I still think you'd have done well to
listen to the comments on the boat which pointed out that the line was poorly
regarded.
Maybe you have a "good one" and I certainly hope so. If you're seeking a larger
version of your boat, contact me direct. The one on City Island has been
sitting for years, unwanted. My J24 sailing friend, seeking a larger boat,
inquired about it and EVERYONE at the club warned her away from Siedlemanns.
They are not free or ultra cheap for no reason, Scotty.

RB

[Bobsprit]

Hey stupid, don't you know what I paid? Everybody else does. >>>


Why should he know what you paid for your boat? Odd.


RB

[Marc]

Are you getting the canvas from your friend who never showed up to
give me a quote? Tell him he missed out on about 20 k worth of
business. A fellow showed up from Seagate, NJ and wrote up 2 full
cockpit enclosures, 2 biminis and 2 dodgers.


On 02 Mar 2004 13:25:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

> This could be considered a classic definition of "Damning with Faint
>Praise"
>>I still prefer your boat to the Hunter, but I can certainly see the DS appeal.
>
>>Are you all set for the new season?>>>
>
>
>Not at all. I don't really care for the Hunter line and probably would never
>buy one. BUT...I think the newer boats have made a big jump up in quality and
>have Beneteau and Catalina scrambling. Still, I rather have a Catalina.
>Beneteau slaps boats together and I would sooner own a Siedlemann.
>I have a nice new dodger coming for Alien and a Zip-On awning. I didn't go for
>the bimini because it looked awful in the pics and sketches. Other than making
>a new hatchboard, putting in a new depth sounder and a little teak work...all
>set to go!
>
>RB
>

[Bobsprit]

> a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
> anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat.


You could tell this at the boat show?>>>


So, by this you mean that YOU think the Mac is a "good" sailboat and powerboat.
Glad you think so.

RB

[Bobsprit]

> and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are.


Yet they are the best selling sailboat in history.>>

Gilligan's Island, CHIPS, Pet Rocks, Dr. Pepper, Jerry Springer, Kia and Paris
Hilton are all big sellers too.
Me thinks it's the same group of "buyers" for the Mac.

RB

[Bobsprit]

> Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take any
of
> it seriously.

Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.>>

That's in the past. There are only a few trollers left in this NG now. I was
not "warned by AOL" or contacted by them in any way. I just got stunningly
bored with it all; the same insults day after day. It was enough already.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

You see that funny little upside down hook looking thing at the end of my
sentence? That means it was a QUESTION, not a statement.

SV



"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> > a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
> > anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat.
>
>
> You could tell this at the boat show?>>>
>
>
> So, by this you mean that YOU think the Mac is a "good" sailboat and
powerboat.
> Glad you think so.
>
> RB

[Scott Vernon]

this is killing you, isn't it?


"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> sniff, sniff, smells like a troll.........better be careful bob.>>
>
>
> Sorry, Scotty. When it comes to the Siedlemann's, the "truth" may sound
like a
> troll, but it sadly isn't.
> I'm glad you're happy with your boat. I still think you'd have done well
to
> listen to the comments on the boat which pointed out that the line was
poorly
> regarded.
> Maybe you have a "good one" and I certainly hope so. If you're seeking a
larger
> version of your boat, contact me direct. The one on City Island has been
> sitting for years, unwanted. My J24 sailing friend, seeking a larger boat,
> inquired about it and EVERYONE at the club warned her away from
Siedlemanns.
> They are not free or ultra cheap for no reason, Scotty.
>
> RB

[Bobsprit]

this is killing you, isn't it?>>>


????


RB

[Bobsprit]

Are you getting the canvas from your friend who never showed up to
give me a quote?>>>

That guy was good for deals, but really unreliable time-wise. He offered me a
complete dodger for 500 bucks, but then wasn't even sure he could get it to me
before this spring! He's a good guy, but way overextended and a poor business
man. Too bad because he does nice work. He made a dodger for catalina with SS
frame, grab handles, zip out windows and even a built in cockpit light for 700
bucks.
My ebay sales worked out to make a deal with a local canvas guy who does work
for the City Island yards. I'm basically paying nothing for the dodger. I'll
let you know how well it turns out.
Let me know if you need a set of oars..I'll give you a nice 6 foot pair for 20
bucks!

RB

[Scott Vernon]

So you're not going to be a dickhead anymore?

SV

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> > Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take
any
> of
> > it seriously.
>
> Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.>>
>
> That's in the past. There are only a few trollers left in this NG now. I
was
> not "warned by AOL" or contacted by them in any way. I just got stunningly
> bored with it all; the same insults day after day. It was enough already.
>
> RB

[Scott Vernon]

"Bobsprit" > wrote
>
> Gilligan's Island, CHIPS, Pet Rocks, Dr. Pepper, Jerry Springer, Kia and
Paris
> Hilton are all my favorites.

>
> RB

[Bobsprit]

So you're not going to be a dickhead anymore?>>



As much as it will dissapoint some people here, the character of Bobsprit is
retired. I'm married and soon to be a father. I have a deal set for a sailing
book. There are only so many ways to kick a dead horse and I think I covered
most of them.
Need any oars, Scotty? 20 bucks to Alt.Sailing.Asa members.

RB

[Marc]

Two piece or solid? 6'?

On 02 Mar 2004 13:56:39 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

>Are you getting the canvas from your friend who never showed up to
>give me a quote?>>>
>
>That guy was good for deals, but really unreliable time-wise. He offered me a
>complete dodger for 500 bucks, but then wasn't even sure he could get it to me
>before this spring! He's a good guy, but way overextended and a poor business
>man. Too bad because he does nice work. He made a dodger for catalina with SS
>frame, grab handles, zip out windows and even a built in cockpit light for 700
>bucks.
>My ebay sales worked out to make a deal with a local canvas guy who does work
>for the City Island yards. I'm basically paying nothing for the dodger. I'll
>let you know how well it turns out.
>Let me know if you need a set of oars..I'll give you a nice 6 foot pair for 20
>bucks!
>
>RB

[Jim Cate]

Bobsprit wrote:
> You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said was:>>>
>
>
> Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they soon tire
> of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature of
> Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take any of
> it seriously.
> The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be ugly, cheap
> and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are. I was aboard
> a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
> anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat. I was told it
> could do nearly 25 knots, though 3 foot chop would cut that by a 3rd. A 3rd?
> Such a loss of performance from moderate chop is indicative of design limits
> too steep for my blood.
> Few people, other than a Mac owner will encourage you to buy one. While it may
> be the "best" compromise between power and sail, the trade offs are downright
> offensive to sailors. If you have sailed good sailboats, I seriously think
> you'll be dissapointed in the Mac and regret buying one.
>
> Best of Luck,
>
> Robert B
> C&C 32, Alien
> NY

Robert,
In any event, my notes apparently provide some entertainment value to
the group, since this seems to be one of the more active current
discussion topics. I was aware of the general reputation of the Mac
boats before posting my questions, but I was looking for information
about the new model, that includes significant mods that may have
resolved at least some of the limitations of previous models. Looking
for some "logical" and "rational" advice.

I appreciate your balanced and helpful comments. I'm aware that all
boats, including the Mac, would entail compromises for my particular
intended uses in the Galveston-Kemah environment. I'm not settled on a
trailorable boat, and there are lots of used, larger boats available in
our area. As mentioned previously, if I bought a fixed-keel boat I would
plan to leave it with a local charter company to minimize the time spent
in maintaining and checking on the boat. I wouldn't expect to get a
positive cash flow from the rentals, but my CPA mentioned that there may
be some tax benefits from such an arrangement. - It's largely a matter
of minimizing marina fees and being able to leave the boat with someone
who would keep an eye on it. I plan to meet with the charterer this
week and then check out some of the used boats they might accept.

Boats offered for sale in this area in the $20,000 - $30,000 price range
include 30 to 33-foot: Catalinas, S-2s, (older) Pearsons, Cals, C&Cs,
Siedlemanns, Hunters (nasty word - sorry), Columbias, Ericsons, and
several others that I wasn't familiar with. These boats vary in age
(1970 - 1985) and condition, but many of the ads claim that they have
been carefully maintained and upgraded. For more money, there are some
Tartans, O'Days, Sabres, Island Packets, etc. Although I would
obviously need to check out the condition and equipment of the boats and
obtain a survey if I were seriously considering one, do you have any
suggestions as to what to look for in this price range and venue?
Features that I think would be important are: roller reefing and lines
led aft; wheel steering (required by the charter company); adequate sail
inventory in good condition; diesel engine in good condition; suitable
electronics; clean interior and recent bottom treatment; through-hull
valves, sump pumps, etc., in either new or good condition; no evidence
of water in the bilge; fun, fast, and exciting to sail, etc. For the
Houston weather, air conditioning would be nice, although few of the
boats also have an on-board generator to power it at anchor. Also, what
about one of the retractable-extendable keel boats, or the shoal draft
boats, for our shallow bay waters? - Would this mess up the offshore
sailing capabilities?

I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
under these conditions and in this price range.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

sniff, sniff.......kinda funny how 'Jim' and 'Bob' use the same phrases and
misspell the same words.

SV

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobsprit wrote:
> > You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said
was:>>>
> >
> >
> > Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they
soon tire
> > of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature
of
> > Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take
any of
> > it seriously.
> > The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be
ugly, cheap
> > and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are. I was
aboard
> > a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
> > anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat. I was told
it
> > could do nearly 25 knots, though 3 foot chop would cut that by a 3rd. A
3rd?
> > Such a loss of performance from moderate chop is indicative of design
limits
> > too steep for my blood.
> > Few people, other than a Mac owner will encourage you to buy one. While
it may
> > be the "best" compromise between power and sail, the trade offs are
downright
> > offensive to sailors. If you have sailed good sailboats, I seriously
think
> > you'll be dissapointed in the Mac and regret buying one.
> >
> > Best of Luck,
> >
> > Robert B
> > C&C 32, Alien
> > NY
>
> Robert,
> In any event, my notes apparently provide some entertainment value to
> the group, since this seems to be one of the more active current
> discussion topics. I was aware of the general reputation of the Mac
> boats before posting my questions, but I was looking for information
> about the new model, that includes significant mods that may have
> resolved at least some of the limitations of previous models. Looking
> for some "logical" and "rational" advice.
>
> I appreciate your balanced and helpful comments. I'm aware that all
> boats, including the Mac, would entail compromises for my particular
> intended uses in the Galveston-Kemah environment. I'm not settled on a
> trailorable boat, and there are lots of used, larger boats available in
> our area. As mentioned previously, if I bought a fixed-keel boat I would
> plan to leave it with a local charter company to minimize the time spent
> in maintaining and checking on the boat. I wouldn't expect to get a
> positive cash flow from the rentals, but my CPA mentioned that there may
> be some tax benefits from such an arrangement. - It's largely a matter
> of minimizing marina fees and being able to leave the boat with someone
> who would keep an eye on it. I plan to meet with the charterer this
> week and then check out some of the used boats they might accept.
>
> Boats offered for sale in this area in the $20,000 - $30,000 price range
> include 30 to 33-foot: Catalinas, S-2s, (older) Pearsons, Cals, C&Cs,
> Siedlemanns, Hunters (nasty word - sorry), Columbias, Ericsons, and
> several others that I wasn't familiar with. These boats vary in age
> (1970 - 1985) and condition, but many of the ads claim that they have
> been carefully maintained and upgraded. For more money, there are some
> Tartans, O'Days, Sabres, Island Packets, etc. Although I would
> obviously need to check out the condition and equipment of the boats and
> obtain a survey if I were seriously considering one, do you have any
> suggestions as to what to look for in this price range and venue?
> Features that I think would be important are: roller reefing and lines
> led aft; wheel steering (required by the charter company); adequate sail
> inventory in good condition; diesel engine in good condition; suitable
> electronics; clean interior and recent bottom treatment; through-hull
> valves, sump pumps, etc., in either new or good condition; no evidence
> of water in the bilge; fun, fast, and exciting to sail, etc. For the
> Houston weather, air conditioning would be nice, although few of the
> boats also have an on-board generator to power it at anchor. Also, what
> about one of the retractable-extendable keel boats, or the shoal draft
> boats, for our shallow bay waters? - Would this mess up the offshore
> sailing capabilities?
>
> I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
> under these conditions and in this price range.
>
> Jim
>

[Bobsprit]

I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
under these conditions and in this price range.>>

Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to follow the
idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea. Without that
you could end up stuck with her.
My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and quite a few
more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see what "fits"
and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the numbers. Sail
area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a design will
treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always compromises,
but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at lesser
boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a magic deal
will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were married. We
were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had the chance
to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we still
get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're in a
hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2 people in this
group.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

No, but a spell checker would have caught 'resonably'.

AND fix your word wrap!

Scotty



> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:27:09 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hey stupid, don't you know what I paid? Everybody else does. Do a
Google,
> >if you're capable. And while you're at it, learn how to use a spell
check.
> >
>
> Spell checkers, like the rest of the world, don't care enough about
> Siedelmannnn's to give a rats ass if you spell their name correctly.
> They aren't worth the bother. Owning one, you must know that without
> me having to tell you. What did you pay to buy your Siddelmunn? The
> answer is that you are STILL paying for it!
>
> BB
>
>
>
> >Scotty
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:39:33 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
> >> >think it'll go up in value?
> >> >
> >>
> >> My boat model's average retail is slightly higher today than the
original
> >> selling price... And don't worry about today's dollar versus 1986
dollars.
> >> During those years, I've taken equity in the form of use out of the
boat
> >that
> >> more than makes up for inflation. Nobody goes sailing to save money,
> >anyway.
> >>
> >> What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably
> >bring
> >> today. Don't forget to factor in that Scotty probably paid too much for
> >it. What
> >> did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today?
> >>
> >> BB
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:45 -0500, "Scott Vernon"
>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I see your math is no better than your English.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You are right! $30k would probably get you at least 15 or more
> >Sidelmanns
> >> >in
> >> >> today's market. They sure aren't ever going to go UP in value.
> >> >>
> >> >> BB
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> >> >> >> >of money to you, Jax?>>>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A J30 and a J24
> >> >> >> >Two Pearson 30s
> >> >> >> >A C&C 30 late model
> >> >> >> >A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >> >> >> >A Bristol 29.5
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >And so on....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >RB
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> or an even dozen Sidelmanns!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BB
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
>

[Scott Vernon]

Your logic eludes me.


> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:25:22 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
> wrote:
>
> >The new reformed & warned "Bobsprit" > wrote
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they
soon
> >tire
> >> of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature
of
> >> Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take
any
> >of
> >> it seriously.
> >
> >Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be
ugly,
> >cheap
> >> and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are.
> >
> >
> >Yet they are the best selling sailboat in history.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, and to you, McDonalds is the worlds best restaurant for the same
> reason.
>
> BB

[felton]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:14:52 -0600, Jim Cate > wrote:

>
>
>Bobsprit wrote:
>> You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said was:>>>
>>
>>
>> Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they soon tire
>> of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature of
>> Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take any of
>> it seriously.
>> The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be ugly, cheap
>> and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are. I was aboard
>> a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
>> anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat. I was told it
>> could do nearly 25 knots, though 3 foot chop would cut that by a 3rd. A 3rd?
>> Such a loss of performance from moderate chop is indicative of design limits
>> too steep for my blood.
>> Few people, other than a Mac owner will encourage you to buy one. While it may
>> be the "best" compromise between power and sail, the trade offs are downright
>> offensive to sailors. If you have sailed good sailboats, I seriously think
>> you'll be dissapointed in the Mac and regret buying one.
>>
>> Best of Luck,
>>
>> Robert B
>> C&C 32, Alien
>> NY
>
>Robert,
>In any event, my notes apparently provide some entertainment value to
>the group, since this seems to be one of the more active current
>discussion topics. I was aware of the general reputation of the Mac
>boats before posting my questions, but I was looking for information
>about the new model, that includes significant mods that may have
>resolved at least some of the limitations of previous models. Looking
>for some "logical" and "rational" advice.
>
>I appreciate your balanced and helpful comments. I'm aware that all
>boats, including the Mac, would entail compromises for my particular
>intended uses in the Galveston-Kemah environment. I'm not settled on a
>trailorable boat, and there are lots of used, larger boats available in
>our area. As mentioned previously, if I bought a fixed-keel boat I would
>plan to leave it with a local charter company to minimize the time spent
>in maintaining and checking on the boat. I wouldn't expect to get a
>positive cash flow from the rentals, but my CPA mentioned that there may
>be some tax benefits from such an arrangement. - It's largely a matter
>of minimizing marina fees and being able to leave the boat with someone
>who would keep an eye on it. I plan to meet with the charterer this
>week and then check out some of the used boats they might accept.
>
>Boats offered for sale in this area in the $20,000 - $30,000 price range
>include 30 to 33-foot: Catalinas, S-2s, (older) Pearsons, Cals, C&Cs,
>Siedlemanns, Hunters (nasty word - sorry), Columbias, Ericsons, and
>several others that I wasn't familiar with. These boats vary in age
>(1970 - 1985) and condition, but many of the ads claim that they have
>been carefully maintained and upgraded. For more money, there are some
>Tartans, O'Days, Sabres, Island Packets, etc. Although I would
>obviously need to check out the condition and equipment of the boats and
>obtain a survey if I were seriously considering one, do you have any
>suggestions as to what to look for in this price range and venue?
>Features that I think would be important are: roller reefing and lines
>led aft; wheel steering (required by the charter company); adequate sail
>inventory in good condition; diesel engine in good condition; suitable
>electronics; clean interior and recent bottom treatment; through-hull
>valves, sump pumps, etc., in either new or good condition; no evidence
>of water in the bilge; fun, fast, and exciting to sail, etc. For the
>Houston weather, air conditioning would be nice, although few of the
>boats also have an on-board generator to power it at anchor. Also, what
>about one of the retractable-extendable keel boats, or the shoal draft
>boats, for our shallow bay waters? - Would this mess up the offshore
>sailing capabilities?
>
>I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
>under these conditions and in this price range.
>
>Jim

Jim...I always cringe when I see people mention leaving their boat in
a charter program. There really aren't any tax benefits these days.
My experience is that there is a huge PITA factor, coupled with
enormous wear and tear on the boat. Many charter companies will let
just about any bozo take a boat out and your boat will certainly
reflect that fact in broken, lost or stolen gear. If you are looking
for a way to minimize expenses, perhaps you have a friend with whom
you might start a boat partnership. While there are some pitfalls
there, I would do that before I would ever leave a boat in charter,
based on my experience.

As to air conditioning, I agree that it is nice to have in Texas, but
I don't think you need it when you are anchored out. I sail in North
Texas and I am never hot out on the water, although it can be
miserable at the dock. I do have a/c, but no genset. As long as a
boat is properly ventilated and has a few fans, don't worry about the
genset. Those are really only practical on much larger boats than you
are thinking about anyway.

My advice, use reason to narrow down your choices, based on where and
how you will sail your boat. Then buy the boat that makes your heart
skip a beat when you see her.

The most dangerous words in sailing are "a lot of boat for the money."

There should be plenty of boats that would meet your needs. Just
start looking and studying. That is half the fun:)

[Bobsprit]

Really, Scotty. So boring. Give it a rest.


RB

[Scott Vernon]

"Marc" > wrote in message
...
> Two piece or solid? 6'?
>
> On 02 Mar 2004 13:56:39 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
>
> >Are you getting the canvas from your friend who never showed up to
> >give me a quote?>>>
> >
> >That guy was good for deals, but really unreliable time-wise. He offered
me a
> >complete dodger for 500 bucks, but then wasn't even sure he could get it
to me
> >before this spring! He's a good guy, but way overextended and a poor
business
> >man. Too bad because he does nice work. He made a dodger for catalina
with SS
> >frame, grab handles, zip out windows and even a built in cockpit light
for 700
> >bucks.
> >My ebay sales worked out to make a deal with a local canvas guy who does
work
> >for the City Island yards. I'm basically paying nothing for the dodger.
I'll
> >let you know how well it turns out.
> >Let me know if you need a set of oars..I'll give you a nice 6 foot pair
for 20
> >bucks!
> >
> >RB
>

[Scott Vernon]

Spamming NG is frowned on, bob. You'd better hope Jon doesn't report you.

SV

"Bobsprit" > wrote
> Need any oars, Scotty? 20 bucks to Alt.Sailing.Asa members.
>
> RB

[Joe]

Jim Cate > wrote in message >...

Translation of the below message:

I bought a Mac, and I need someone to tell me it's OK.



> After reading the numerous responses to my note, I conclude that: (1) No
> one has sailed the new 26M extensively, and no one so far has any real
> experience with or knowledge about the 26M Model; and (2) This doesn't
> stop most responders from confidently and dogmatically telling me abpit
> all the shortcomings of the 26M (which they have never seen, much less
> sailed). In contrast, those I have talked with elsewhere who HAVE
> actually sailed and motered the boat are quite impressed with it. What
> seems to be overlooked repeatedly is that if I bought the Mac, I could
> still charter a number of larger vessels for offshore cruising. In
> discussions such as this, it seems to me that it's important to approach
> the issues logically and with balanced consideration of all the related
> issues. - So far, I see very little logic and lots of emotional ranting
> and raving and put-downs of someone some apparently percieved as as a
> convenient (novice) target. Nevertheless, I appreciate the helpful
> suggestions and comments of those who have some useful information for
> me to consider. Again, I can still charter some fine, heavy boats when
> going offshore. And one more time..... I can still charter a wide
> selection of heavy boats when going offshore.
> Jim
>
> Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> > I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
> > area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
> > on the boat. Or, anyone else.
> >
> > For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
> > advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
> > regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
> > sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
> > some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
> > will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
> > get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
> > than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
> > issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
> > hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
> > ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
> > islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
> > a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
> > motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
> > the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
> > finder.)
> >
> > OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
> > anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
> > the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
> > now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
> > I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
> > extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
> > reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
> > and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
> > As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
> > comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
> > much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
> > With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
> > can reportedly plane under sail.
> >
> > A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> > still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> > kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> > conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
> > (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> > a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> > fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
> > - 32-foot boats.
> >
> > Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
> > of the new 26M would be appreciated.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Bobsprit]

I bought a Mac, and I need someone to tell me it's OK.>>

Doesn't sound like he bought one yet. But like many people looking at them,
he'd love to hear that it's a great compromise.

RB

[JAXAshby]

>I conclude that: (1) No
>one has sailed the new 26M extensively,

good conclusion. Same thing is likely to happen to you as well should you buy
one.

[JAXAshby]

>got stunningly
>bored with it

easy to happen.

[Bobsprit]

Two piece or solid? 6'?>>


I've got 6 and 7 foot solid oars. I also have 4 foot paddles for canoe. Never
been used. I may end up donating the paddles (I have a lot) since they don't
cost much. I've sold about 15 pairs of oars so far, from 66 dollar down to
20.00.
Let me know and I'll hold a pair for you.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

TOS violation!!!!!!

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> Two piece or solid? 6'?>>
>
>
> I've got 6 and 7 foot solid oars. I also have 4 foot paddles for canoe.
Never
> been used. I may end up donating the paddles (I have a lot) since they
don't
> cost much. I've sold about 15 pairs of oars so far, from 66 dollar down to
> 20.00.
> Let me know and I'll hold a pair for you.
>
> RB

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<The funny thing is, he came here to ask advice (more than once
actually), and is walking away thinking it's somebody else who's the
dummy in this picture.<>>>>>>

That's why I made the comment. One day he's thanking people and the next he's
POed.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Bobsprit]

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

TOS violation!!!!!!>>>


Bad news, Scott. It's not a TOS violation.


RB

[Marc]

No thanks, I'll pass. I'm looking for 2 piece

On 02 Mar 2004 16:12:05 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

>Two piece or solid? 6'?>>
>
>
>I've got 6 and 7 foot solid oars. I also have 4 foot paddles for canoe. Never
>been used. I may end up donating the paddles (I have a lot) since they don't
>cost much. I've sold about 15 pairs of oars so far, from 66 dollar down to
>20.00.
>Let me know and I'll hold a pair for you.
>
>RB

[Bobsprit]

I also have boxes of new battery operated nav lights with suction cup and clamp
bases, trailer taillight lens assemblies, bronze props, troller motor props and
so on. If anyone needs the nav lights...6 bucks a pop.

RB

[Scott Vernon]

"Marc" > wrote
> No thanks, I'll pass. I'm looking for 2 piece ones that aren't stolen.

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, there's one way to find out I suppose....

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
>
> TOS violation!!!!!!>>>
>
>
> Bad news, Scott. It's not a TOS violation.
>
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

So, you're claiming that they do increase in value using todays
dollars?

Oh, and I thought you were the one so much above flaming
people.. Guess not. Another liar has revealed himself.

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:25:55 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
> > said:
>
> >
> >I kinda doubt that they've exceeded their original cost in today's
dollars.
> >
> >"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> C&Cs have, in fact, risen in value since the company's new incarnation
> >took
> >> flight.
>
> I kinda doubt that there are pigs on the moon too.
>
> And since it's Jonathan, I should probably say the point is that my
> statement above has as much to do with Bobsprit's claim as yours did.
>
>
> Dave
> S/V Good Fortune
> CS27

[Bobsprit]

I kinda doubt that there are pigs on the moon too.

And since it's Jonathan, I should probably say the point is that my
statement above has as much to do with Bobsprit's claim as yours did.>>>

Dave, 5 years ago it was easy to get a C&C 32 for under 30K. They were often
around for 25-28K. Check the average price now. Two sold on City Island for mid
30's last season.

RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

Not talking about average retail. I'm talking about your boat.

As to the Cal 20, I don't know. I didn't buy it as a stepping stone.
I put way more into it than I could ever recover by selling. I like
sailing it, and when I decide to get another boat, I'll probably
donate it.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:39:33 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
>
> wrote:
>
> >I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
> >think it'll go up in value?
> >
>
> My boat model's average retail is slightly higher today than the original
> selling price... And don't worry about today's dollar versus 1986 dollars.
> During those years, I've taken equity in the form of use out of the boat
that
> more than makes up for inflation. Nobody goes sailing to save money,
anyway.
>
> What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably
bring
> today. Don't forget to factor in that Scotty probably paid too much for
it. What
> did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today?
>
> BB
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:45 -0500, "Scott Vernon" >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >I see your math is no better than your English.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You are right! $30k would probably get you at least 15 or more
Sidelmanns
> >in
> >> today's market. They sure aren't ever going to go UP in value.
> >>
> >> BB
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> >> >> >of money to you, Jax?>>>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A J30 and a J24
> >> >> >Two Pearson 30s
> >> >> >A C&C 30 late model
> >> >> >A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >> >> >A Bristol 29.5
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And so on....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >RB
> >> >>
> >> >> or an even dozen Sidelmanns!
> >> >>
> >> >> BB
> >>
> >
>

[Bobsprit]

No thanks, I'll pass. I'm looking for 2 piece>>>

As I dig through the yard's storage rooms, I'll keep an eye out.

RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

Being a "bargain basement boat" has nothing to do with being a minor
classic. It was originally intended to be a high quality, affordable boat.
It still is after 40 years.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> What
> did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today? >>>
>
>
> The Cal20 is a bargain basement boat, but it's also a minor classic that
> deserves some respect, I think. It's value is well beyond it's cost and
Cal was
> a good builder much of the time.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

And, just look how Bobby feels *compelled* to answer every post.
Looks like he's going to be back to "normal" any day now.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said
was:>>>
>
>
> Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they soon
tire
> of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature of
> Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take any
of
> it seriously.
> The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be ugly,
cheap
> and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are. I was
aboard
> a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the 26X
> anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat. I was told it
> could do nearly 25 knots, though 3 foot chop would cut that by a 3rd. A
3rd?
> Such a loss of performance from moderate chop is indicative of design
limits
> too steep for my blood.
> Few people, other than a Mac owner will encourage you to buy one. While it
may
> be the "best" compromise between power and sail, the trade offs are
downright
> offensive to sailors. If you have sailed good sailboats, I seriously think
> you'll be dissapointed in the Mac and regret buying one.
>
> Best of Luck,
>
> Robert B
> C&C 32, Alien
> NY

[Jonathan Ganz]

Total bs and, of course, a lie.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> > Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take
any
> of
> > it seriously.
>
> Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.>>
>
> That's in the past. There are only a few trollers left in this NG now. I
was
> not "warned by AOL" or contacted by them in any way. I just got stunningly
> bored with it all; the same insults day after day. It was enough already.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

I would never confirm or deny it.

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Spamming NG is frowned on, bob. You'd better hope Jon doesn't report you.
>
> SV
>
> "Bobsprit" > wrote
> > Need any oars, Scotty? 20 bucks to Alt.Sailing.Asa members.
> >
> > RB
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Sure is... SOCKPUPPET ALERT. Danger Will Robinson.

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> sniff, sniff.......kinda funny how 'Jim' and 'Bob' use the same phrases
and
> misspell the same words.
>
> SV
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Bobsprit wrote:
> > > You need to read the notes you respond to more carefully. What I said
> was:>>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim, while this group can offer valid and often helpful advice, they
> soon tire
> > > of a subject and turn to school yard in-fighting. It's been the nature
> of
> > > Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take
> any of
> > > it seriously.
> > > The Mac line of power sailors is generally considered by MANY to be
> ugly, cheap
> > > and poor sailing boats. They are also expensive for what they are. I
was
> aboard
> > > a new M at the AC Boat show (I didn't even know it wasn't called the
26X
> > > anymore). It was a laughable excuse for a power or sailboat. I was
told
> it
> > > could do nearly 25 knots, though 3 foot chop would cut that by a 3rd.
A
> 3rd?
> > > Such a loss of performance from moderate chop is indicative of design
> limits
> > > too steep for my blood.
> > > Few people, other than a Mac owner will encourage you to buy one.
While
> it may
> > > be the "best" compromise between power and sail, the trade offs are
> downright
> > > offensive to sailors. If you have sailed good sailboats, I seriously
> think
> > > you'll be dissapointed in the Mac and regret buying one.
> > >
> > > Best of Luck,
> > >
> > > Robert B
> > > C&C 32, Alien
> > > NY
> >
> > Robert,
> > In any event, my notes apparently provide some entertainment value to
> > the group, since this seems to be one of the more active current
> > discussion topics. I was aware of the general reputation of the Mac
> > boats before posting my questions, but I was looking for information
> > about the new model, that includes significant mods that may have
> > resolved at least some of the limitations of previous models. Looking
> > for some "logical" and "rational" advice.
> >
> > I appreciate your balanced and helpful comments. I'm aware that all
> > boats, including the Mac, would entail compromises for my particular
> > intended uses in the Galveston-Kemah environment. I'm not settled on a
> > trailorable boat, and there are lots of used, larger boats available in
> > our area. As mentioned previously, if I bought a fixed-keel boat I would
> > plan to leave it with a local charter company to minimize the time spent
> > in maintaining and checking on the boat. I wouldn't expect to get a
> > positive cash flow from the rentals, but my CPA mentioned that there may
> > be some tax benefits from such an arrangement. - It's largely a matter
> > of minimizing marina fees and being able to leave the boat with someone
> > who would keep an eye on it. I plan to meet with the charterer this
> > week and then check out some of the used boats they might accept.
> >
> > Boats offered for sale in this area in the $20,000 - $30,000 price range
> > include 30 to 33-foot: Catalinas, S-2s, (older) Pearsons, Cals, C&Cs,
> > Siedlemanns, Hunters (nasty word - sorry), Columbias, Ericsons, and
> > several others that I wasn't familiar with. These boats vary in age
> > (1970 - 1985) and condition, but many of the ads claim that they have
> > been carefully maintained and upgraded. For more money, there are some
> > Tartans, O'Days, Sabres, Island Packets, etc. Although I would
> > obviously need to check out the condition and equipment of the boats and
> > obtain a survey if I were seriously considering one, do you have any
> > suggestions as to what to look for in this price range and venue?
> > Features that I think would be important are: roller reefing and lines
> > led aft; wheel steering (required by the charter company); adequate sail
> > inventory in good condition; diesel engine in good condition; suitable
> > electronics; clean interior and recent bottom treatment; through-hull
> > valves, sump pumps, etc., in either new or good condition; no evidence
> > of water in the bilge; fun, fast, and exciting to sail, etc. For the
> > Houston weather, air conditioning would be nice, although few of the
> > boats also have an on-board generator to power it at anchor. Also, what
> > about one of the retractable-extendable keel boats, or the shoal draft
> > boats, for our shallow bay waters? - Would this mess up the offshore
> > sailing capabilities?
> >
> > I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
> > under these conditions and in this price range.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>

[Bobsprit]

It was originally intended to be a high quality, affordable boat.
It still is after 40 years.>>

No it wasn't.
No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.

RB

[JAXAshby]

>No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.
>

Hey!! That's not true. *I* own an Achilles dinghy!!

[Bobsprit]

Hey!! That's not true. *I* own an Achilles dinghy!!>>>


A very good dinghy.


RB

[Scott Vernon]

> wrote
> >
>
> My particular boat would go for above the average due to extremely
> good condition and equipment due to no sailing.
>
> BB

[Scott Vernon]

Wait till his kid does a Google and finds out how much of an asshole his ol
man is. :o

SV


"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> Total bs and, of course, a lie.
>
> "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to take
> any
> > of
> > > it seriously.
> >
> > Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.>>
> >
> > That's in the past. There are only a few trollers left in this NG now. I
> was
> > not "warned by AOL" or contacted by them in any way. I just got
stunningly
> > bored with it all; the same insults day after day. It was enough
already.
> >
> > RB
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

It kills him to see other people happy with their boats.

SV


"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> It was originally intended to be a high quality, affordable boat.
> It still is after 40 years.>>
>
> No it wasn't.
> No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.
>
> RB

[Jeff Morris]

I resent that! My boat was chosen as "one of the world's best sailboats" by no less an authority
than Ferenc Mate! I'm sure there are others with high quality boats.
--
-jeff

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message ...
> It was originally intended to be a high quality, affordable boat.
> It still is after 40 years.>>
>
> No it wasn't.
> No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.
>
> RB

[felton]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:50:50 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
> wrote:

>I resent that! My boat was chosen as "one of the world's best sailboats" by no less an authority
>than Ferenc Mate! I'm sure there are others with high quality boats.

My boat was also built by one of the "best builders" according to
Mate. I consider it to be a "high quality" boat for my purposes,
though not a museum piece:)

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.>>>>>....

LOL................. But you own a high stern ladder.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<It kills him to see other people happy with their boats.>>>

Right. He wouldn't know a high quality boat if it T-Boned him.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Scott Vernon]

er, I'm sure you meant, if HE T-boned one.

SV

"SAIL LOCO" > wrote in message
...
> <<<It kills him to see other people happy with their boats.>>>
>
> Right. He wouldn't know a high quality boat if it T-Boned him.
> S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
> "No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Bobsprit]

I resent that! My boat was chosen as "one of the world's best sailboats" by no
less an authority
than Ferenc Mate! >>>


Jeff, you have a fine boat, but a Swan or Shannon it aint. Maybe Loco thinks
his Express is on that level or maybe he's never been aboard a 1st class yacht,
which is more probable.

RB

[Bobsprit]

My particular boat would go for above the average due to extremely
good condition and equipment. >>>


C&C 27s are instant sellers if they're well kept. Even the older ones, and
Bill's is a late model. I have been unable to find a good C&C 30 or post 1980
C&C 29 for my friend. They have gone too high in price over the last few years.

RB

[Jeff Morris]

A Swan? Probably not. But a Shannon, sure. Shannons are very nice but they're
not museum quality, like Little Harbors and Hinckley's.


"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> I resent that! My boat was chosen as "one of the world's best sailboats" by
no
> less an authority
> than Ferenc Mate! >>>
>
>
> Jeff, you have a fine boat, but a Swan or Shannon it aint. Maybe Loco thinks
> his Express is on that level or maybe he's never been aboard a 1st class
yacht,
> which is more probable.
>
> RB

[DSK]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> A Swan? Probably not. But a Shannon, sure. Shannons are very nice but they're
> not museum quality, like Little Harbors and Hinckley's.

Our Hunter 19 was greatly admired & praised one day a few years back, by the owner
of a ~ 50' Oyster. I had helped with his dock lines, and then later said hello to
him from our cockpit as he was walking ashore. My wife, friendly soul, struck up a
conversation with him & invited him aboard. She had no idea he was from the
capital-Y Yacht at the end of the pier! But we had a cup of coffee in our small
cabin and discussed sailing & cruising.

One comment he made I remember verbatim: "You could go *anywhere* in this boat!"
Kinda ironic, isn't it? Of course we were discussing draft at the time....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[JAXAshby]

>Kinda ironic, isn't it?

yup

>Of course we were discussing draft at the time....
>

and he was discussing the upper back creeks of the ICW.

[Scott Vernon]

the new reformed & warned "Bobsprit" wrote...
>
>
> Jeff, you have a fine boat, but a Swan or Shannon it aint. Maybe Loco
thinks
> his Express is on that level or maybe he's never been aboard a 1st class
yacht,
> which is more probable.
>

or maybe he's happy with the boat he has and isn't worried about impressing
people with names.

SV

[Peter Wiley]

In article >, Joe
> wrote:

> Jim Cate > wrote in message
> >...
>
> Translation of the below message:
>
> I bought a Mac, and I need someone to tell me it's OK.

Yeah, that's what it reads like to me, too. I've never even seen one,
so have no opinion pro/con, but I see a made-up mind.

PDW

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<Jeff, you have a fine boat, but a Swan or Shannon it aint. Maybe Loco thinks
his Express is on that level or maybe he's never been aboard a 1st class yacht,
which is more probable. >>>>.

The Express isn't a Swan but it's a step up from a C&C.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Scott Vernon]

A big step? Is that why they have those huge ladders?

"SAIL LOCO" > wrote
>
> The Express isn't a Swan but it's a step up from a C&C.
> S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
> "No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Jim Cate]

Joe wrote:
> Jim Cate > wrote in message >...
>
> Translation of the below message:
>
> I bought a Mac, and I need someone to tell me it's OK.


Nope. I can afford a nice 32-ft. Catalina, Pearson, Cal, etc., but I'm
not sure whether I can afford the MacGregor 26M. I suppose it's a case
of you get what you pay for, particularly if you want current technology.

Jim
>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.

Jim

DSK wrote:

> SAIL LOCO wrote:
>
>
>>Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best choice
>>for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of fishing you
>>can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the Mac and
>>you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
>
>
> Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or "M" if that's
> what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who can't make up
> their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing. First of all,
> the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power, unless you
> either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom open in 1
> season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers, cooler, mast,
> etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot faster than
> most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real motorboat,
> and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
>
> If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a marina
> closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving large amounts
> of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at 65mph)... with
> the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
>
> If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble, you
> probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult, because I
> have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>

[Jim Cate]

I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the
MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?

Interesting. For my information, just what would someone who DIDN'T
care what others think post on the ASA ng?

Jim



Scott Vernon wrote:

> That's the first I've seen the 'M' model. Looks like they took a big step
> backwards re the cabin, which looks exactly like the old (pre 'X') 26'. The
> hull still has that ugly step in it, and the gross power-boat type
> 'windows'.
> I've seen a few Xs sailing and talked to a few owners who really love them.
> They're not bad boats for their purpose (shallow draft/power/sailboat) if
> you can get past the look. Not for ocean sailing, though.
> If you really want to talk to owners, Sailnet has a Mac mailing list, and
> one just for X owners.
>
> It sounds like you're worried what others will think. In that case, stay
> away from the Mac.
>
> S.Vernon
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>DSK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>SAIL LOCO wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best
>
> choice
>
>>>>for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of
>
> fishing you
>
>>>>can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the
>
> Mac and
>
>>>>you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or
>
> "M" if that's
>
>>>what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who
>
> can't make up
>
>>>their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing.
>
> First of all,
>
>>>the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power,
>
> unless you
>
>>>either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom
>
> open in 1
>
>>>season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers,
>
> cooler, mast,
>
>>>etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot
>
> faster than
>
>>>most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real
>
> motorboat,
>
>>>and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
>>>
>>>If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a
>
> marina
>
>>>closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving
>
> large amounts
>
>>>of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at
>
> 65mph)... with
>
>>>the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
>>>
>>>If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble,
>
> you
>
>>>probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult,
>
> because I
>
>>>have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
>>>
>>>Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the suggestions. As noted previously, most of my sailing
>>experience over the past 25 years has been on larger boats, in the 30-35
>>ft range, that we chartered for family vacations. We would live aboard
>>the boats for a week, sailing (sometimes in in some pretty high winds),
>>swimming, cooking meals and sleeping at anchor. I've had training from
>>several sailing "schools," including an Annapolis Sailing School nav and
>>heavy boat handling course. So, although I'm sure there are many more
>>experienced sailors on this ng, I'm well-aware that such heavier boats
>>are "better" than the MacGregor in a number of ways, particularly for
>>blue water sailing. The 40 foot Valiant, for example, had three
>>mainsail reefing lines led to the cockpit, color coded, such that you
>>could adjust the main to any desired reefing point without leaving the
>>cockpit, along with roller furling on the jib, plus a staysail.- It was
>>stable and fast and great for sailing in blue water, making some 9 knots
>> with the staysail and jib up. Also, of course, owning a larger,
>>traditional boat would certainly get me more respect from fellow
>>sailors, whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
>>ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
>>doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
>>made...").
>>
>>But for our area and conditions and the anticipated uses of the boat,
>>I'm not sure that these heavier boats would be the best choice or
>>provide the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction, which I suppose is the
>>ultimate criteria. (Remember that I can still charter a variety of
>>larger boats when desired.) In the Kehmah-Seabrook (Houston) area, we
>>have some huge marinas with thousands of beautiful sailboats of all
>>types and sizes. But most of these boats sit in their slips in the
>>marinas for 99.9 percent of the time. - I have had friends tell me
>>that, after the initial purchase, they had such difficulty in getting
>>time to go out and in getting crews to go with them, that the boat sat
>>there, with ongoing maintenance costs, bottom treatments, marina fees,
>>insurance, etc., so that they finally sold the boat. In my particular
>>situation, my former crew (my kids) is not available, and my wife
>>doesn't seem to be too keen on getting out in anything but ideal
>>weather. Maybe I could get some of my friends to go, but probably not on
>>the schedule or frequency I would prefer, and I'm not sure I want to go
>>out on a large boat by myself, even with roller furling, etc. As
>>mentioned, we have grandkids who I think would not enjoy the relatively
>>extended motoring and cruising time entailed in getting a heavy boat to
>>good sailing areas as is necessary in our area and then back to the
>>dock. For family outings, the Mac has the advantage that you can anchor
>>it in shallow water, or beach it on an island, etc. (I'll investigate
>>other marina choices, however.)
>>
>>Regarding the new Mac model 26M, several pretty substantial changes have
>>been made as compared with the 26X model. They include a new hull
>>design entailing a deeper, heavier, 15 degree bottom, rounded corners at
>>the sides, a partial lead ballast rather than full water ballast, a
>>flatter hull, adjustable dagger board rather than pivotable fin keel,
>>rotatable mast, additional fiberglass and roving, etc. WHETHER OR NOT
>>these changes are going to be effective in improving the handling and
>>performance of the boat, they are significant, substantive changes, so I
>>don't think it is logical or reasonable to describe the handling and
>>performance of the new M model based on observations or (usually)
>>hearsay relating to the older models. The interior of the boat is open,
>>with lots of windows, and gives the impression that you are on a much
>>larger boat. (The Valiant 40 that we sailed in the gulf had a
>>traditional interior that was segregated into several cabins, and the
>>main salon was therefore not exceptionally roomy or bright and
>>"cheery.") (By the way, the Mac 26 can be powered with a much larger
>>motor if you want high speeds and water-skiing capability. - I don't
>>need or want to go over around 18-20mph, which is still three times
>>faster than most fixed keel boats.) On the other hand, I don't know how
>>the new boat sails or handles under power, which is why I posted my
>>questions. Their video of the M and S models saling side-by-side shows
>>the M model sailing by the older model as if it were standing still.
>>Again, I don't know if the "race" was rigged, etc. - You might want to
>>take a look at the video, that can be downloaded from the MacGregor
>>site.
>>
>>Meanwhile, I'll also be looking at some of the larger used boats for
>>sale in our area. Apparently, I can get an older 30-32 Cal, Catalina,
>>C&C, etc., for about the same price as a fully equipped Mac 26.
>>Conditions and needed repairs and maintenance are another question, of
>>course.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>

[JAXAshby]

jim, buy the damn thing. nobody but nobody will laugh at you. why should
they?

>I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the
>MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
>the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?
>
>Interesting. For my information, just what would someone who DIDN'T
>care what others think post on the ASA ng?
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>Scott Vernon wrote:
>
>> That's the first I've seen the 'M' model. Looks like they took a big step
>> backwards re the cabin, which looks exactly like the old (pre 'X') 26'. The
>> hull still has that ugly step in it, and the gross power-boat type
>> 'windows'.
>> I've seen a few Xs sailing and talked to a few owners who really love them.
>> They're not bad boats for their purpose (shallow draft/power/sailboat) if
>> you can get past the look. Not for ocean sailing, though.
>> If you really want to talk to owners, Sailnet has a Mac mailing list, and
>> one just for X owners.
>>
>> It sounds like you're worried what others will think. In that case, stay
>> away from the Mac.
>>
>> S.Vernon
>>
>> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>DSK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>SAIL LOCO wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best
>>
>> choice
>>
>>>>>for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of
>>
>> fishing you
>>
>>>>>can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the
>>
>> Mac and
>>
>>>>>you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or
>>
>> "M" if that's
>>
>>>>what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who
>>
>> can't make up
>>
>>>>their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing.
>>
>> First of all,
>>
>>>>the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power,
>>
>> unless you
>>
>>>>either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom
>>
>> open in 1
>>
>>>>season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers,
>>
>> cooler, mast,
>>
>>>>etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot
>>
>> faster than
>>
>>>>most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real
>>
>> motorboat,
>>
>>>>and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a
>>
>> marina
>>
>>>>closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving
>>
>> large amounts
>>
>>>>of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at
>>
>> 65mph)... with
>>
>>>>the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
>>>>
>>>>If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble,
>>
>> you
>>
>>>>probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult,
>>
>> because I
>>
>>>>have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
>>>>
>>>>Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for the suggestions. As noted previously, most of my sailing
>>>experience over the past 25 years has been on larger boats, in the 30-35
>>>ft range, that we chartered for family vacations. We would live aboard
>>>the boats for a week, sailing (sometimes in in some pretty high winds),
>>>swimming, cooking meals and sleeping at anchor. I've had training from
>>>several sailing "schools," including an Annapolis Sailing School nav and
>>>heavy boat handling course. So, although I'm sure there are many more
>>>experienced sailors on this ng, I'm well-aware that such heavier boats
>>>are "better" than the MacGregor in a number of ways, particularly for
>>>blue water sailing. The 40 foot Valiant, for example, had three
>>>mainsail reefing lines led to the cockpit, color coded, such that you
>>>could adjust the main to any desired reefing point without leaving the
>>>cockpit, along with roller furling on the jib, plus a staysail.- It was
>>>stable and fast and great for sailing in blue water, making some 9 knots
>>> with the staysail and jib up. Also, of course, owning a larger,
>>>traditional boat would certainly get me more respect from fellow
>>>sailors, whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
>>>ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
>>>doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
>>>made...").
>>>
>>>But for our area and conditions and the anticipated uses of the boat,
>>>I'm not sure that these heavier boats would be the best choice or
>>>provide the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction, which I suppose is the
>>>ultimate criteria. (Remember that I can still charter a variety of
>>>larger boats when desired.) In the Kehmah-Seabrook (Houston) area, we
>>>have some huge marinas with thousands of beautiful sailboats of all
>>>types and sizes. But most of these boats sit in their slips in the
>>>marinas for 99.9 percent of the time. - I have had friends tell me
>>>that, after the initial purchase, they had such difficulty in getting
>>>time to go out and in getting crews to go with them, that the boat sat
>>>there, with ongoing maintenance costs, bottom treatments, marina fees,
>>>insurance, etc., so that they finally sold the boat. In my particular
>>>situation, my former crew (my kids) is not available, and my wife
>>>doesn't seem to be too keen on getting out in anything but ideal
>>>weather. Maybe I could get some of my friends to go, but probably not on
>>>the schedule or frequency I would prefer, and I'm not sure I want to go
>>>out on a large boat by myself, even with roller furling, etc. As
>>>mentioned, we have grandkids who I think would not enjoy the relatively
>>>extended motoring and cruising time entailed in getting a heavy boat to
>>>good sailing areas as is necessary in our area and then back to the
>>>dock. For family outings, the Mac has the advantage that you can anchor
>>>it in shallow water, or beach it on an island, etc. (I'll investigate
>>>other marina choices, however.)
>>>
>>>Regarding the new Mac model 26M, several pretty substantial changes have
>>>been made as compared with the 26X model. They include a new hull
>>>design entailing a deeper, heavier, 15 degree bottom, rounded corners at
>>>the sides, a partial lead ballast rather than full water ballast, a
>>>flatter hull, adjustable dagger board rather than pivotable fin keel,
>>>rotatable mast, additional fiberglass and roving, etc. WHETHER OR NOT
>>>these changes are going to be effective in improving the handling and
>>>performance of the boat, they are significant, substantive changes, so I
>>>don't think it is logical or reasonable to describe the handling and
>>>performance of the new M model based on observations or (usually)
>>>hearsay relating to the older models. The interior of the boat is open,
>>>with lots of windows, and gives the impression that you are on a much
>>>larger boat. (The Valiant 40 that we sailed in the gulf had a
>>>traditional interior that was segregated into several cabins, and the
>>>main salon was therefore not exceptionally roomy or bright and
>>>"cheery.") (By the way, the Mac 26 can be powered with a much larger
>>>motor if you want high speeds and water-skiing capability. - I don't
>>>need or want to go over around 18-20mph, which is still three times
>>>faster than most fixed keel boats.) On the other hand, I don't know how
>>>the new boat sails or handles under power, which is why I posted my
>>>questions. Their video of the M and S models saling side-by-side shows
>>>the M model sailing by the older model as if it were standing still.
>>>Again, I don't know if the "race" was rigged, etc. - You might want to
>>>take a look at the video, that can be downloaded from the MacGregor
>>>site.
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, I'll also be looking at some of the larger used boats for
>>>sale in our area. Apparently, I can get an older 30-32 Cal, Catalina,
>>>C&C, etc., for about the same price as a fully equipped Mac 26.
>>>Conditions and needed repairs and maintenance are another question, of
>>>course.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model, and the
deep V hull seems to slice through waves smoothly with little braking or
bouncing, based on the video of the two boats.

My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
know what the Hell I'm talking about."

In the interest of logic and rationality and intellectual honesty, I
think this would clear up most of the confusion and obfuscation that has
been involved in this discussion.

Jim


s I'vefor example,

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Not at all. I think the X version are trash. The M isn't as bad as
> that and is capable of sailing on the bay (for example) without
> compromising one's safety. It's a different boat.
> "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.>>>
>>
>>
>>What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
>>Mac26X as a viable vessel?
>>
>>RB
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Bob,

Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
speed you get from your 32?

Jim


Bobsprit wrote:

> I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
> under these conditions and in this price range.>>
>
> Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to follow the
> idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea. Without that
> you could end up stuck with her.
> My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and quite a few
> more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see what "fits"
> and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the numbers. Sail
> area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a design will
> treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always compromises,
> but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at lesser
> boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a magic deal
> will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were married. We
> were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had the chance
> to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we still
> get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're in a
> hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2 people in this
> group.
>
> RB

[JAXAshby]

jim, buy the damned thing. nobody is going to laugh at you, and those who do
are just jealous. be a man among men, jim. go for it.

>The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
>a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
>plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
>Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
>standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
>previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
>owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
>are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
>apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model, and the
>deep V hull seems to slice through waves smoothly with little braking or
>bouncing, based on the video of the two boats.
>
>My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
>model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
>if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
>fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
>those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
>"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
>anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
>know what the Hell I'm talking about."
>
>In the interest of logic and rationality and intellectual honesty, I
>think this would clear up most of the confusion and obfuscation that has
>been involved in this discussion.
>
>Jim
>
>
>s I'vefor example,
>
>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
>> Not at all. I think the X version are trash. The M isn't as bad as
>> that and is capable of sailing on the bay (for example) without
>> compromising one's safety. It's a different boat.
>> "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
>>>Mac26X as a viable vessel?
>>>
>>>RB
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[JAXAshby]

melges 24. mumm 30. j-22. j-29. j-30. Cape Dory Typhoon. venture 22.
Flicka.

Anything. Buy a boat!

>which popular boats have good PHRF
>ratings?

[JAXAshby]

>which popular boats have good PHRF
>ratings?

MacGregor 65. An **incredible** PHRF, AND about the same price used as a Mac
26 new.

[Bobsprit]

Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings? >>

It really depends on what you think is "good." When I see a thirty to 33 foot
boat with a rating below 180 or so, I can expect reasonable sailing ability on
the LIS. As for waterlines, my C&C and Pearson have nearly the same WL, but the
C&C is quite a bit faster.

RB

[Bobsprit]

or maybe he's happy with the boat he has and isn't worried about impressing
people with names>>>

Doubtful.


RB

[Bobsprit]

<<<Jeff, you have a fine boat, but a Swan or Shannon it aint. Maybe Loco thinks
his Express is on that level or maybe he's never been aboard a 1st class yacht,
which is more probable. >>>>.

The Express isn't a Swan but it's a step up from a C&C. >>>


Too bad no one else feels the way you do...and the market reflects it.

RB

[JAXAshby]

Don't pay no never mind to what Squathead Vermin writes. The fool
drives a Sidelmann.

JAX

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message ...
> I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the
> MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
> the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?
>
> Interesting. For my information, just what would someone who DIDN'T
> care what others think post on the ASA ng?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > That's the first I've seen the 'M' model. Looks like they took a big step
> > backwards re the cabin, which looks exactly like the old (pre 'X') 26'. The
> > hull still has that ugly step in it, and the gross power-boat type
> > 'windows'.
> > I've seen a few Xs sailing and talked to a few owners who really love them.
> > They're not bad boats for their purpose (shallow draft/power/sailboat) if
> > you can get past the look. Not for ocean sailing, though.
> > If you really want to talk to owners, Sailnet has a Mac mailing list, and
> > one just for X owners.
> >
> > It sounds like you're worried what others will think. In that case, stay
> > away from the Mac.
> >
> > S.Vernon
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>DSK wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>SAIL LOCO wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sounds like a 25 foot power boat with a small cabin might be the best
> >
> > choice
> >
> >>>>for your intended use. After the kids grow up and you get tired of
> >
> > fishing you
> >
> >>>>can sell the power boat without loosing your ass like you would on the
> >
> > Mac and
> >
> >>>>you can buy a real sailboat. This was not a flame.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sure it is... just one with a healthy dose of reality. The Mac26X (or
> >
> > "M" if that's
> >
> >>>what they are calling it now) PowR-SailR is a choice for people who
> >
> > can't make up
> >
> >>>their minds and don't know much about either motorboats or sailing.
> >
> > First of all,
> >
> >>>the advertising is very misleading. They will not go 24 mph under power,
> >
> > unless you
> >
> >>>either put a bigger motor than it's rated for (and crack the transom
> >
> > open in 1
> >
> >>>season) or strip the boat of all extraneous weight like passengers,
> >
> > cooler, mast,
> >
> >>>etc etc. You're more likely to see 15 ~ 18 mph... which is still a lot
> >
> > faster than
> >
> >>>most sailboats can go in most conditions. But much slower than a real
> >
> > motorboat,
> >
> >>>and the PowR-SailR sails poorly at best... not enjoyable sport IMHO.
> >>>
> >>>If the issue is distance to cover, then either get a boat to keep at a
> >
> > marina
> >
> >>>closer to good sailing grounds and drive 65mph to there, thus saving
> >
> > large amounts
> >
> >>>of time... or get a trailerable boat that can be trailered (again at
> >
> > 65mph)... with
> >
> >>>the benefit that you can take it other places as well.
> >>>
> >>>If you're not sure if you like sailing enough to go to all that trouble,
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>probably won't. Get a motorboat (and this isn't intended as an insult,
> >
> > because I
> >
> >>>have a motorboat myself... along with three sailboats).
> >>>
> >>>Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[John Cairns]

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216 which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
> a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
> plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
> Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
> standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
> previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
> owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
> are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
> apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,

[Jonathan Ganz]

It's not my fault if you're an idiot.

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Mar 2004 17:52:24 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:
>
> >Dave, 5 years ago it was easy to get a C&C 32 for under 30K. They were
often
> >around for 25-28K. Check the average price now. Two sold on City Island
for mid
> >30's last season.
>
> I'm not shocked to hear it. Jonathan just seems to have a problem
> understanding your point, which I take it has nothing whatever to do with
> what the boats cost when new.
>
>
> Dave
> S/V Good Fortune
> CS27

[Jonathan Ganz]

Speak for yourself.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> It was originally intended to be a high quality, affordable boat.
> It still is after 40 years.>>
>
> No it wasn't.
> No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

I think a C&C in good condition is a quality boat. Many of the Cals are
quality
boats. I've seen some Swans that were crap boats. Horass' hunter is a crap
boat,
mostly because of him.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> I resent that! My boat was chosen as "one of the world's best sailboats"
by no
> less an authority
> than Ferenc Mate! >>>
>
>
> Jeff, you have a fine boat, but a Swan or Shannon it aint. Maybe Loco
thinks
> his Express is on that level or maybe he's never been aboard a 1st class
yacht,
> which is more probable.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

And, he replaces a lot of fenders.

"SAIL LOCO" > wrote in message
...
> <<<No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.>>>>>....
>
> LOL................. But you own a high stern ladder.
> S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
> "No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, what is it? I'm thinking you don't have a boat. That's
ok, but if you do, what is it? Got pictures?

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:52:58 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Not talking about average retail. I'm talking about your boat.
> >
>
> My particular boat would go for above the average due to extremely
> good condition and equipment.
>
> BB
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:39:33 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
> >> >think it'll go up in value?
> >> >
> >>
> >> My boat model's average retail is slightly higher today than the
original
> >> selling price... And don't worry about today's dollar versus 1986
dollars.
> >> During those years, I've taken equity in the form of use out of the
boat
> >that
> >> more than makes up for inflation. Nobody goes sailing to save money,
> >anyway.
> >>
> >> What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably
> >bring
> >> today. Don't forget to factor in that Scotty probably paid too much for
> >it. What
> >> did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today?
> >>
> >> BB
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:45 -0500, "Scott Vernon"
>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I see your math is no better than your English.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You are right! $30k would probably get you at least 15 or more
> >Sidelmanns
> >> >in
> >> >> today's market. They sure aren't ever going to go UP in value.
> >> >>
> >> >> BB
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
> >> >> >> >of money to you, Jax?>>>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A J30 and a J24
> >> >> >> >Two Pearson 30s
> >> >> >> >A C&C 30 late model
> >> >> >> >A Catalina 30 late 80's
> >> >> >> >A Bristol 29.5
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >And so on....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >RB
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> or an even dozen Sidelmanns!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BB
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

It's really not almost worth the wait to find out.

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Wait till his kid does a Google and finds out how much of an asshole his
ol
> man is. :o
>
> SV
>
>
> "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Total bs and, of course, a lie.
> >
> > "Bobsprit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to
take
> > any
> > > of
> > > > it seriously.
> > >
> > > Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.>>
> > >
> > > That's in the past. There are only a few trollers left in this NG now.
I
> > was
> > > not "warned by AOL" or contacted by them in any way. I just got
> stunningly
> > > bored with it all; the same insults day after day. It was enough
> already.
> > >
> > > RB
> >
> >
>

[DSK]

Jim Cate wrote:

> And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
> ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.

Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's NEW & IMPROVED!!

BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only painted darker colors
which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been able to
determine. And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts either.... anyway
that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.

The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or so. They are not
even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local class, which rates
252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.

The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not care about
sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling, then go for it. If
you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter to me one way or
the other.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Jeff Morris]

Jim,
Waterline length is actually a rather poor indicator of performance and is only
useful when comparing boats of similar design. It only measures the length when
level in calm water, and does not measure the effective length when heeled and
with bow and stern wave generated. Further, even if it predicts "hull speed"
(not a fixed limit, but the speed where wave making resistance grows
dramatically), it says nothing about how effective the rig is in generating a
driving force.

Also, PHRF ratings must be taken with a grain of salt. By definition, they only
tell the performance under race conditions, and not leisurely cruising. For
instance, much of the data is from upwind sailing - certainly an important point
of sailing, but one that many cruisers will avoid, especially when carrying
guests. Also, most rating include spinnakers, sometimes large racing chutes
that you are not likely to use with an inexperience crew.

Also remember that certain configurations don't fit well in traditional
estimates. A Nonsuch 30, for instance, is the equal of many 36 foots in almost
all regards except length on deck. On the other hand, the Mac 26X may appeal to
some as a reasonable "flat water" boat is very much out of its element even in a
moderate chop (sailing, at least). (I've never seen the new Mac, but very
little this company has produced over the years has impressed me.)

here's a few useful links:
http://www.phrfne.org/baseh.htm
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html


--
-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."



"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Bob,
>
> Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
> ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
> relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
> speed you get from your 32?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Bobsprit wrote:
>
> > I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
> > under these conditions and in this price range.>>
> >
> > Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to follow
the
> > idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea. Without that
> > you could end up stuck with her.
> > My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and quite a
few
> > more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see what
"fits"
> > and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the numbers.
Sail
> > area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a design
will
> > treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always
compromises,
> > but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at lesser
> > boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a magic
deal
> > will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were married. We
> > were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had the
chance
> > to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we still
> > get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're in a
> > hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2 people in
this
> > group.
> >
> > RB
>

[Scott Vernon]

Hey Doug,My Hobie had a rotating mast, I can't remember exactly how the
shrouds were mounted but I'm guessing they just 'twisted' a bit with the
mast. How would a mast with spreaders be able to rotate?

Scotty

"DSK" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> > And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
> > ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.
>
> Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's NEW
& IMPROVED!!
>
> BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only painted
darker colors
> which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been
able to
> determine. And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts
either.... anyway
> that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.
>
> The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or so.
They are not
> even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local class,
which rates
> 252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.
>
> The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not
care about
> sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling, then
go for it. If
> you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter to
me one way or
> the other.
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>

[Scott Vernon]

Could a WB boat, like the Mac, legally race without the water ballast in?

SV


"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
> Waterline length is actually a rather poor indicator of performance and is
only
> useful when comparing boats of similar design. It only measures the
length when
> level in calm water, and does not measure the effective length when heeled
and
> with bow and stern wave generated. Further, even if it predicts "hull
speed"
> (not a fixed limit, but the speed where wave making resistance grows
> dramatically), it says nothing about how effective the rig is in
generating a
> driving force.
>
> Also, PHRF ratings must be taken with a grain of salt. By definition,
they only
> tell the performance under race conditions, and not leisurely cruising.
For
> instance, much of the data is from upwind sailing - certainly an important
point
> of sailing, but one that many cruisers will avoid, especially when
carrying
> guests. Also, most rating include spinnakers, sometimes large racing
chutes
> that you are not likely to use with an inexperience crew.
>
> Also remember that certain configurations don't fit well in traditional
> estimates. A Nonsuch 30, for instance, is the equal of many 36 foots in
almost
> all regards except length on deck. On the other hand, the Mac 26X may
appeal to
> some as a reasonable "flat water" boat is very much out of its element
even in a
> moderate chop (sailing, at least). (I've never seen the new Mac, but very
> little this company has produced over the years has impressed me.)
>
> here's a few useful links:
> http://www.phrfne.org/baseh.htm
> http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html
>
>
> --
> -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."
>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bob,
> >
> > Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
> > ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
> > relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
> > speed you get from your 32?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > Bobsprit wrote:
> >
> > > I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
> > > under these conditions and in this price range.>>
> > >
> > > Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to
follow
> the
> > > idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea.
Without that
> > > you could end up stuck with her.
> > > My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and
quite a
> few
> > > more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see
what
> "fits"
> > > and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the
numbers.
> Sail
> > > area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a
design
> will
> > > treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always
> compromises,
> > > but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at
lesser
> > > boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a
magic
> deal
> > > will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were
married. We
> > > were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had
the
> chance
> > > to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we
still
> > > get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're
in a
> > > hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2
people in
> this
> > > group.
> > >
> > > RB
> >
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the
> MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
> the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?
>
> Interesting. For my information, just what would someone who DIDN'T
> care what others think post on the ASA ng?


Well they wouldn't write ;

>Also, of course, owning a larger,
>>traditional boat would certainly get me more respect from fellow
>>sailors, whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
>>ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
>>doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
>>made...").


as you did.

SV

[Scott Vernon]

Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, but I've seen them and they are butt ugly , high freeboard,
powerboat boat looking, plastic bathtubs.

Scotty



"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
> model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
> if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
> fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
> those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
> "Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
> anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
> know what the Hell I'm talking about."
>

[Jeff Morris]

The rules may be different for various fleets, but I thought that generally
water ballast must be used on WB boats. Also, I think moveable keels or
centerboards that provide ballast, must be down.



"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Could a WB boat, like the Mac, legally race without the water ballast in?
>
> SV
>
>
> "Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim,
> > Waterline length is actually a rather poor indicator of performance and is
> only
> > useful when comparing boats of similar design. It only measures the
> length when
> > level in calm water, and does not measure the effective length when heeled
> and
> > with bow and stern wave generated. Further, even if it predicts "hull
> speed"
> > (not a fixed limit, but the speed where wave making resistance grows
> > dramatically), it says nothing about how effective the rig is in
> generating a
> > driving force.
> >
> > Also, PHRF ratings must be taken with a grain of salt. By definition,
> they only
> > tell the performance under race conditions, and not leisurely cruising.
> For
> > instance, much of the data is from upwind sailing - certainly an important
> point
> > of sailing, but one that many cruisers will avoid, especially when
> carrying
> > guests. Also, most rating include spinnakers, sometimes large racing
> chutes
> > that you are not likely to use with an inexperience crew.
> >
> > Also remember that certain configurations don't fit well in traditional
> > estimates. A Nonsuch 30, for instance, is the equal of many 36 foots in
> almost
> > all regards except length on deck. On the other hand, the Mac 26X may
> appeal to
> > some as a reasonable "flat water" boat is very much out of its element
> even in a
> > moderate chop (sailing, at least). (I've never seen the new Mac, but very
> > little this company has produced over the years has impressed me.)
> >
> > here's a few useful links:
> > http://www.phrfne.org/baseh.htm
> > http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html
> >
> >
> > --
> > -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."
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
> > > ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
> > > relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
> > > speed you get from your 32?
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > > Bobsprit wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
> > > > under these conditions and in this price range.>>
> > > >
> > > > Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to
> follow
> > the
> > > > idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea.
> Without that
> > > > you could end up stuck with her.
> > > > My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and
> quite a
> > few
> > > > more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see
> what
> > "fits"
> > > > and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the
> numbers.
> > Sail
> > > > area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a
> design
> > will
> > > > treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always
> > compromises,
> > > > but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at
> lesser
> > > > boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a
> magic
> > deal
> > > > will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were
> married. We
> > > > were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had
> the
> > chance
> > > > to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we
> still
> > > > get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're
> in a
> > > > hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2
> people in
> > this
> > > > group.
> > > >
> > > > RB
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Donal]

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
om...
> Don't pay no never mind to what ....

Huh?

Regards


Donal
--

[Jim Cate]

JAXAshby wrote:
>>which popular boats have good PHRF
>>ratings?
>
>
> MacGregor 65. An **incredible** PHRF, AND about the same price used as a Mac
> 26 new.
>
>
>
Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?

Jim

[Jim Cate]

JAXAshby wrote:

> jim, buy the damn thing. nobody but nobody will laugh at you. why should
> they?


I would, but I'm not sure I can afford one. Older Cal 34's, O'Days,
C&C's, etc. are cheaper than the new 26Ms.

Jim


>
> >I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the
>
>>MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
>>the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?
>>
>>Interesting. F

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?>>>

You may want to contact some previous owners to see what they spent to make the
boat competitive.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
> anyone who has, but I've seen them and they are butt ugly , high freeboard,
> powerboat boat looking, plastic bathtubs.
>
> Scotty
>

If I understand your note, at least you are honest enough to admit that
you don't know how the sail or how they handle under power. From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.

At least you aren't trying to analyze their handling and characteristics
under sail and/or power before you have sailed or powered them.

Jim
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
>>model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
>>if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
>>fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
>>those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
>>"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
>>anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
>>know what the Hell I'm talking about."
>>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

John Cairns wrote:

> The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the old
> boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
> broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a test
> sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216 which
> is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
> than the old model, what would it's rating be?
> John Cairns
>

Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
standing still. Speaking with owners of the M model, they say that it is
significantly faster, making around 6.5 on a reach. Maybe it's
something like the comparisons of the Cal, Catalina, and O'Day 34's I
have also been looking at. It seems like there are lots of factors other
than full speed, etc., that affect the speed of the boats.

Jim



> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
>>a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
>>plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
>>Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
>>standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
>>previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
>>owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
>>are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
>>apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,
>
>
>

[Jeff Morris]

There's been one sitting in a slip here in Boston for at least 10 years without
moving. You could probably get that one real, real cheap.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> JAXAshby wrote:
> >>which popular boats have good PHRF
> >>ratings?
> >
> >
> > MacGregor 65. An **incredible** PHRF, AND about the same price used as a
Mac
> > 26 new.
> >
> >
> >
> Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?
>
> Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

John Cairns wrote:

> The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the old
> boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
> broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a test
> sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216 which
> is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
> than the old model, what would it's rating be?
> John Cairns
>
>

John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

[Jeff Morris]

Why would you care if its "competitive"? Would you really race it? Would Jim?


"SAIL LOCO" > wrote in message
...
> <<<Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?>>>
>
> You may want to contact some previous owners to see what they spent to make
the
> boat competitive.
> S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
> "No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
>>ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.
>
>
> Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's NEW & IMPROVED!!
>
> BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only painted darker colors
> which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been able to
> determine.

It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over. The M model is definitely a "new hull
design." The M model includes a deep, 15-degree V-hull, as compared with
the X model's much flatter, 8-degree hull. Additionally, the boat has a
vertically retractable, relatively dagger board instead of the pivotable
fin keel of the older boat, which nested in an a rearwardly extending
groove in the hull. Whether or not these changes make the boat "better"
or "improved, there is no question that the hull is, in fact,
substantially different. In the interests of logic, intellectual
honesty, and plain old truthfullness, you shouln't post false assertions
concerning matters about which you really don't know what you are
talking about.


And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts
either.... anyway
> that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.


Again, the M model does has a rotating mast. If the one you are
describing doesn't, it's further evidence that you really don't know
which model it is. Again, in the interest of plain old logic and
intellectual honesty, you ought to do your homework and get your facts
straight.
>
> The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or so. They are not
> even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local class, which rates
> 252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.
>
> The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not care about
> sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling, then go for it. If
> you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter to me one way or
> the other.
>

I may get one of the 26M's. However, I'm not sure I can afford one, and
my budget may dictate that I have to settle for a 34-foot O'Day, Cal, or
C&C.

Jim
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>

[Jim Cate]

Bobsprit wrote:

> My particular boat would go for above the average due to extremely
> good condition and equipment. >>>
>
>
In addition to the 26M's, I'm looking at C&C's, Cals, O'Days, etc., in
the 30 to 34-foot range. I noticed that the water line lenght of the
O'Day is several feet longer than the C&C and others of similar overall
length. Would his mean that, if I multiplied the wL by a factor of 1.4
or 1.3, that the cruising speed of the boats that the speed of the
O'Day would usually be be proportionatly higher than that of the C&C or
Cal? It's a substantial difference, something like 25 feet vs. 29 feet.

Thanks,
Jim

[SAIL LOCO]

<<<Why would you care if its "competitive"? Would you really race it?>>

The original 65 was avail. in 2 versions. The "race" version had a tall rig,
deep keel etc. Cost a little over a hundred grand new. That's unheard of for
a new 65' ULDB. Problem was owners had to put over a hundred and fifty more in
the boat to make it work. Yea, I'd like to race one if I had it. I would
imagine it would be a hoot going down wind on a 20kt night with the chute up.
Should hit 20kts on the right angle. At least mid teens easy. I wouldn't want
the responsibility of a 65' boat though.
Later 65s had raised salons and other stupid stuff. Problem was anybody
who could afford to keep a 65' boat wouldn't want to be seen arriving on a Mac.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

[Jonathan Ganz]

Just to give you some more perspective on the MacGregor 26 line...

While I haven't sailed on any of them, I've seen a few out on the bay
(sans my friend who has one, who I know is a good sailor). All have
been sailed very poorly. The rigging is light weight compared to other
boats of a similar size. For the bay, they're mostly inappropriate in my
opinion.

Also, I have a family friend who owns the largest (I believe) MacGregor
dealership in Northern Cal. They sell a lot of them. Even his wife thinks
there's trash and the only reason they sail them at all is so they can sell
them. They don't really push them. People come in and basically tell
them to sell it to them.

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> DSK wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> >>And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
> >>ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.
> >
> >
> > Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's
NEW & IMPROVED!!
> >
> > BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only
painted darker colors
> > which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been
able to
> > determine.
>
> It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
> either confused or hung over. The M model is definitely a "new hull
> design." The M model includes a deep, 15-degree V-hull, as compared with
> the X model's much flatter, 8-degree hull. Additionally, the boat has a
> vertically retractable, relatively dagger board instead of the pivotable
> fin keel of the older boat, which nested in an a rearwardly extending
> groove in the hull. Whether or not these changes make the boat "better"
> or "improved, there is no question that the hull is, in fact,
> substantially different. In the interests of logic, intellectual
> honesty, and plain old truthfullness, you shouln't post false assertions
> concerning matters about which you really don't know what you are
> talking about.
>
>
> And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts
> either.... anyway
> > that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.
>
>
> Again, the M model does has a rotating mast. If the one you are
> describing doesn't, it's further evidence that you really don't know
> which model it is. Again, in the interest of plain old logic and
> intellectual honesty, you ought to do your homework and get your facts
> straight.
> >
> > The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or
so. They are not
> > even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local
class, which rates
> > 252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.
> >
> > The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not
care about
> > sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling,
then go for it. If
> > you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter
to me one way or
> > the other.
> >
>
> I may get one of the 26M's. However, I'm not sure I can afford one, and
> my budget may dictate that I have to settle for a 34-foot O'Day, Cal, or
> C&C.
>
> Jim
> > Fresh Breezes- Doug King
> >
>

[John Cairns]

From someone who's opinion I trust, and from my own experience. I've run
these boats down like they were standing still, in one case, the wind was
4kts. and the Mac did appear to be standing still. This person also told me
that the Mac26x would not move in winds much below 8kts., and couldn't sail
upwind in winds much above 10. Like I said, you should be able to find a Mac
broker who's willing to take you out on a test sail, hell, that's how they
sell them in these parts. No store, the broker rents a slip in our marina
and keeps a boat there. BTW, I own a Catalina 28, not exactly a greyhound on
the water if you get my drift.
John Cairns
"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Cairns wrote:
>
> > The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the
old
> > boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
> > broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
> > sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
> > is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
> > than the old model, what would it's rating be?
> > John Cairns
> >
>
> Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
> identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
> standing still. Speaking with owners of the M model, they say that it is
> significantly faster, making around 6.5 on a reach. Maybe it's
> something like the comparisons of the Cal, Catalina, and O'Day 34's I
> have also been looking at. It seems like there are lots of factors other
> than full speed, etc., that affect the speed of the boats.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
> >>a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
> >>plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
> >>Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
> >>standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
> >>previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
> >>owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
> >>are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
> >>apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,
> >
> >
> >
>

[Bobsprit]

Later 65s had raised salons and other stupid stuff. Problem was anybody
who could afford to keep a 65' boat wouldn't want to be seen arriving on a
Mac.>>>


Sort of like a Yugo Limo.

RB

[Bobsprit]

From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.>>>


Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape of
sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.

RB

[Bobsprit]

Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
standing still. >>

Jim, I watched the video. Something is VERY wrong there. Sailboats don't show
such a wide variant in speed from design improvements. The results are
significant, but still subtle overall. A J35 which is FAR faster than my C&C 32
doesn't pass a Catalina 30 "like it's standing still." The M & X models are
still pretty close in their performance envelope and I'm doubtful that the
video was done honestly.

RB

RB

[JAXAshby]

donny, you got suckered. pay attention to the " ID in the
address line. that is the id of the imposter clown.

notice also that I don't post from a @yahoo.com address.



>"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
om...
>> Don't pay no never mind to what ....
>
>Huh?
>
>Regards
>
>
>Donal
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[DSK]

Jim Cate wrote:
> It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
> either confused or hung over.

Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).

Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
at the hull shape.

It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
enlighten you.

DSK

[Bobsprit]

Doug, while I wouldn't want a Mac26 in my worst nightmare, you're wrong about
the hull, though Macgregor says the performance edge was for POWERING. The
daggerboard is the other big whoop along with the larger "rotating" rig. It's
improved...like New Coke.

http://www.macgregor26.com/comparison_26x_and_26m.htm

RB

[Bobsprit]

The water ballast
weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
for every 100 pounds added.) That's with all the other caveats (one
person, no rigging, etc) remaining. >>

So with a crew of 4 adults, food and water and other supplies, the 26M will
actually do -4 knots.

RB

[felton]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:15:03 -0500, DSK > wrote:

>Jim Cate wrote:
>> It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
>> either confused or hung over.
>
>Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
>they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
>bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
>old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).
>
>Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
>are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
>For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
>at the hull shape.
>
>It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
>to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
>self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
>lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
>enlighten you.
>
>DSK

Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.

He starts off asking for advice and then begins his debates, claiming
that anyone who hasn't sailed one can't possibly have an informed
opinion. Although he seemed to know nothing of boats, which would
make him the target demographic for these things, he then begins to
articulate all the goofy advertising claims for the "new and improved"
Mac26, while lamenting that he might have to settle for a Cal or C&C.

I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
him.

[DSK]

felton wrote:
> Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
> owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
> disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
> well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.

Good call. I should have ignored him, but it's a slow day. And the
weather has really turned beautiful, I need to go sailing!


> I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
> be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
> he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
> anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
> him.

I have a number of friends who've owned the things... all but one have
moved on. We went sailing & cruising in company many times in the
mid/late 90s. They are kinda fun if you don't mind the looks (and this
is one improvement in the new version)and don't expect much to happen
when you work at getting the sail trim right (once you get the rudders
fixed). It's really a camper trailer that also functions as a boat!

I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference. You could literally swap trailers and not notice. But then
MacGregor has unfortunately gone down the road from mildly deceptive
advertising, to flirting with outright falsehood... maybe now they've
crossed the line?



wrote:
> Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
> person aboard, no water ballast, and the rigging entirely REMOVED.

I believe I mentioned something along those lines. The speeds I've
observed for the things in real life is more in the neighborhood of 15
knots (18 mph)


> ..... The water ballast
> weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
> speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
> for every 100 pounds added.)

The drag increases on a curve, so each added 100 lbs would decrease the
speed a bit less. Anyway, the ballast tank is designed so that it can be
emptied while motoring.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Jonathan Ganz]

Not really true. It's more about being offended by the people
who try to pass themselves off as sailors. The shape of a boat
doesn't offend me nor how lousy is the construction. It's just
an inanimate object.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> From your
> particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.>>>
>
>
> Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape
of
> sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

Like the previous calculation of -4 knots, he should have
already bought one.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:02:56 -0600, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
> >area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
> >on the boat. Or, anyone else.
> >
> >For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
> >advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
> >regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
> >sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
> >some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
> >will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
> >get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
> >than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
> >issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
> >hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
> >ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
> >islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
> >a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
> >motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
> >the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
> >finder.)
> >
> >OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
> >anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
> >the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
> >now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
> >I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
> >extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
> >reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
> >and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
> >As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
> >comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
> >much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
> > With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
> >can reportedly plane under sail.
> >
> >A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> >still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> >kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> >conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
> >(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> >a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> >fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
> >- 32-foot boats.
> >
> >Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
> >of the new 26M would be appreciated.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
> >
>
> This boat sounds like a PERFECT match for you. You should buy one
> immediately, if not sooner. If you can afford it, maybe you should
> consider buying two of them.
>
> BB

[Bobsprit]

The shape of a boat
doesn't offend me nor how lousy is the construction. It's just
an inanimate object.>>>


We certainly don't feel the same way about boats. I hardly find them inanimate.


RB

[DSK]

wrote:
> And you can always throw the passengers and your rigging overboard if
> you are in a hurry.

Or, if you're crowded and overweight yet there's only one real person on
board, you can throw away a few sock puppets....

Just a friendly note to say you're getting your BittyBill and Boobsie
postings mixed up. Oh, and also to say: "Bubbles, you're nuts!"

DSK

[Bobsprit]

I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference.>>

Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull. It "is"
different.

RB

[felton]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:16:30 -0500, DSK > wrote:

>felton wrote:
>> Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
>> owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
>> disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
>> well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.
>
>Good call. I should have ignored him, but it's a slow day. And the
>weather has really turned beautiful, I need to go sailing!

Spring is almost here, as well. I can always tell when they start
forecasting golfball sized hail and possible tornados:)

>
>> I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
>> be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
>> he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
>> anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
>> him.
>
>I have a number of friends who've owned the things... all but one have
>moved on. We went sailing & cruising in company many times in the
>mid/late 90s. They are kinda fun if you don't mind the looks (and this
>is one improvement in the new version)and don't expect much to happen
>when you work at getting the sail trim right (once you get the rudders
>fixed). It's really a camper trailer that also functions as a boat!

In fairness to MacGregor, people who own the things do seem to enjoy
them. I sort of view them in the same way as those old cars that
looked a bit like the Studebaker that were capable of driving on land
or powering through the water. Oddly interesting but nothing that I
would want to own unless I just wanted an oddity. I suppose if I was
in a big hurry to get somewhere, I wouldn't own a sailboat. If I
wanted a powerboat, I would get a decent one and not stick a little
sail on top. Obviously I am not the target market, though.


>I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
>hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
>difference. You could literally swap trailers and not notice. But then
>MacGregor has unfortunately gone down the road from mildly deceptive
>advertising, to flirting with outright falsehood... maybe now they've
>crossed the line?

Wouldn't life be dull if we all liked the same thing:)

>
wrote:
> > Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
> > person aboard, no water ballast, and the rigging entirely REMOVED.
>
>I believe I mentioned something along those lines. The speeds I've
>observed for the things in real life is more in the neighborhood of 15
>knots (18 mph)
>
>
> > ..... The water ballast
> > weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
> > speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
> > for every 100 pounds added.)
>
>The drag increases on a curve, so each added 100 lbs would decrease the
>speed a bit less. Anyway, the ballast tank is designed so that it can be
>emptied while motoring.
>
>Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[JAXAshby]

Lanode, don't get suckered by the fake jaxass. see the '' ID
in the address line? that is the id of the imposterer clown.

also notice that I don't post from a @yahoo.com address.

I;m the real deal,
JAX




"JAXAshby" > wrote in message ...
> donny, you got suckered. pay attention to the " ID in the
> address line. that is the id of the imposter clown.
>
> notice also that I don't post from a @yahoo.com address.
>
>
>
> >"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Don't pay no never mind to what ....
> >
> >Huh?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >
> >Donal
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[DSK]

>
> I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
> hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
> difference.>>
>

Bobsprit wrote:
> Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull. It "is"
> different.

You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
link may be more convincing than real life, when I said "I've seen both
on their trailers, and there ain't any visible difference" I meant just
exactly that. Well, wait... there is one visible difference.... the new
ones are painted a dark color. I've been told the choices are blue or
red, but the two I've seen are both blue. A handsome color, but it
doesn't change the hull shape.

DSK

[Bobsprit]

??? Learn to read headers. Dougie, you're nuts, and technically inept.>>

He can't. Nor could he read the Mac26M link that clearly explained how the hull
had been changed.
While I don't endorse the Mac in any way (quite the opposite) I won't ignore
the obvious facts about it.
To his "eye" the hulls are remain identical and "that's that."
With that sort, do you expect the checking of headers?

RB

[DSK]

felton wrote:
> Spring is almost here, as well. I can always tell when they start
> forecasting golfball sized hail and possible tornados:)

Spring, phooey! It's 80+ degrees (28C) outside!


> In fairness to MacGregor, people who own the things do seem to enjoy
> them. I sort of view them in the same way as those old cars that
> looked a bit like the Studebaker that were capable of driving on land
> or powering through the water. Oddly interesting but nothing that I
> would want to own unless I just wanted an oddity. I suppose if I was
> in a big hurry to get somewhere, I wouldn't own a sailboat. If I
> wanted a powerboat, I would get a decent one and not stick a little
> sail on top. Obviously I am not the target market, though.

True enough... sort of like Britney Spear's "music" ;)


> Wouldn't life be dull if we all liked the same thing:)

Depends... if everybody liked Bach and bicycles instead of
gawdawful-noise-music and SUVs, the world would be a better place. There
would still be plenty of room for diversity of opinions on boats,
hobbies, women, food, drink, religion, etc etc.

But I digress. You're right. Humans are not meant to live like ants.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[felton]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:00:11 -0500, DSK > wrote:

> >
> > I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
> > hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
> > difference.>>
> >
>
>Bobsprit wrote:
>> Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull. It "is"
>> different.
>
>You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
>link may be more convincing than real life, when I said "I've seen both
>on their trailers, and there ain't any visible difference" I meant just
>exactly that. Well, wait... there is one visible difference.... the new
>ones are painted a dark color. I've been told the choices are blue or
>red, but the two I've seen are both blue. A handsome color, but it
>doesn't change the hull shape.
>
>DSK

A red one you say? That changes everything:) I wonder what the
waiting time would be for one of those? I can see myself now behind
that tiny wheel sailing around on a 100+ degree day in a red
sailboat.:)

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, only in the philosophical sense are they more than inanimate.
In the real world of fiberglass, wood, and steel, they're inanimate.
The "personality" one might feel a boat has, is basically a collection
of mechanical interactions. That doesn't diminish the sensation, but
it does explain it.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> The shape of a boat
> doesn't offend me nor how lousy is the construction. It's just
> an inanimate object.>>>
>
>
> We certainly don't feel the same way about boats. I hardly find them
inanimate.
>
>
> RB

[Bobsprit]

The "personality" one might feel a boat has, is basically a collection
of mechanical interactions. >>

That said, aren't you somewhat "offended" by the company of a Mac26 on an
otherwise nice day?

RB

[Bobsprit]

You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets>>

Doug, I have no alternate addresses except for CandChelp and my Ebay email.
Learn to read a header.

RB

[Bobsprit]

You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
link may be more convincing than real life,>>


You wrote that jim "had been handed a bill of good on the hull changes."
No you can't even admit you were wrong about it.
Okay, Doug.


RB

[felton]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:04:51 -0500, DSK > wrote:

>felton wrote:
>> Spring is almost here, as well. I can always tell when they start
>> forecasting golfball sized hail and possible tornados:)
>
>Spring, phooey! It's 80+ degrees (28C) outside!
>
>
>> In fairness to MacGregor, people who own the things do seem to enjoy
>> them. I sort of view them in the same way as those old cars that
>> looked a bit like the Studebaker that were capable of driving on land
>> or powering through the water. Oddly interesting but nothing that I
>> would want to own unless I just wanted an oddity. I suppose if I was
>> in a big hurry to get somewhere, I wouldn't own a sailboat. If I
>> wanted a powerboat, I would get a decent one and not stick a little
>> sail on top. Obviously I am not the target market, though.
>
>True enough... sort of like Britney Spear's "music" ;)
>
>
>> Wouldn't life be dull if we all liked the same thing:)
>
>Depends... if everybody liked Bach and bicycles instead of
>gawdawful-noise-music and SUVs, the world would be a better place. There
>would still be plenty of room for diversity of opinions on boats,
>hobbies, women, food, drink, religion, etc etc.

I think I live in the heart of SUV country, but I was listening to one
of the local auto commentators on the radio and he was mentioning that
there is a lot of interest in the hybrid technology vehicles, even
around here. I was in Italy in January and I was amazed at just how
small their cars are. I guess that is the difference between $1.50
gas and $4.50 gas. I would like to look at a hybrid when it is time
to replace my car. There should be more to look at starting with the
2005 models. All the money I save on gas I will "invest" in Italian
wine:)


>But I digress. You're right. Humans are not meant to live like ants.
>
>Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Bobsprit]

The water ballast was only one element. Are you planning to throw the
rigging, passengers and beer cooler overboard when you want to motor?>>

Don't forget all the gear typically kept aboard. I wonder if the max speed test
was conducted with a painted bottom...

RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

No. I'm offended by the people on the boat, when they usually
show obvious signs of not having a clue, and end up sailing (motoring)
too close or trying to come into a slip at 3 kts.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> The "personality" one might feel a boat has, is basically a collection
> of mechanical interactions. >>
>
> That said, aren't you somewhat "offended" by the company of a Mac26 on an
> otherwise nice day?
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

I am offended by the people who make the boats, however.
They should know better.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> The "personality" one might feel a boat has, is basically a collection
> of mechanical interactions. >>
>
> That said, aren't you somewhat "offended" by the company of a Mac26 on an
> otherwise nice day?
>
> RB

[JAXAshby]

hey **** for brains, why , oh why would you have water ballist in for motoring?

Why?

JAX


> wrote this crap...
>
>
> Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
> person aboard, no water ballast,

[BinaryBillThesailor@Sea++.com BinaryBillThesailor]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Did you tap all the way around with your white cane, Tougboat?
>
> BB


LOL now That's funny

RB

[Bobsprit]

>
> BB


LOL now That's funny

RB>>


Nice try. You must really be bored to keep this up.

RB

[Suzy Brody]

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> We certainly don't feel the same way about boats. I hardly find them >inanimate.


it's true. he's always jerking off in my boat when I'm not there.

Suzy

[Bobsprit]

No. I'm offended by the people on the boat, when they usually
show obvious signs of not having a clue, and end up sailing (motoring)
too close or trying to come into a slip at 3 kts.>>>


The true question is...would ANY sailor with ANY real sailing under his/her
belt consider a Mac26?
I've met a few and NONE had a clue about power or sail. I believe that's the
Mac target market.

RB

[Horvath]

> wrote
>
> The water ballast was only one element. Are you planning to throw the
> rigging, passengers and beer cooler overboard when you want to motor?


If you were the passenger, then yes.



This signature is now the stupidest in the universe

[Horvath]

(Bobsprit) wrote in message >...
>
> The true question is...would ANY sailor with ANY real sailing under his/her
> belt consider a Mac26?


Why don't you find one and ask him/her?




This signature is now the lamest in the universe

[Jonathan Ganz]

Yeah, that's probably right. A few people buy them who don't know
anything about sailing, then learn how to sail on them, actually become
proficient, then either make do or get something else.

"Bobsprit" > wrote in message
...
> No. I'm offended by the people on the boat, when they usually
> show obvious signs of not having a clue, and end up sailing (motoring)
> too close or trying to come into a slip at 3 kts.>>>
>
>
> The true question is...would ANY sailor with ANY real sailing under
his/her
> belt consider a Mac26?
> I've met a few and NONE had a clue about power or sail. I believe that's
the
> Mac target market.
>
> RB

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, that's a good question. There was a MacX in the Oakland
estuary a number of years ago. The guy emptied the ballist in preparation
for putting it on his trailer. Unfortunately, he was a bit slow, and a big
wake knocked it over... or so I'm told.

"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
om...
> hey **** for brains, why , oh why would you have water ballist in for
motoring?
>
> Why?
>
> JAX
>
>
> > wrote this crap...
> >
> >
> > Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
> > person aboard, no water ballast,

[felton]

On 4 Mar 2004 15:16:12 -0600, Dave > wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:33:51 GMT, felton > said:
>
>>I think I live in the heart of SUV country
>
>New York City? <g>
>Dave
>S/V Good Fortune
>CS27

Far North Dallas. All I can say about it is that at least it isn't
Far West Texas where I grew up:)

[Bobsprit]

The original poster claims to already be an experienced sailor.>>

He's also under the impression that Macgregor's design tweaks have transformed
the X into a capable sailing boat. The website says so.

RB

[DSK]

> The original poster claims to already be an experienced sailor.>>
>
>
> Bobsprit wrote:
> He's also under the impression that Macgregor's design tweaks have transformed
> the X into a capable sailing boat. The website says so.

Just like the website says that the hull has been redesigned with a
basically different shape.

DSK

[Peter Wiley]

In article >, Jim Cate
> wrote:

> John Cairns wrote:
>
> > The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the old
> > boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
> > broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a test
> > sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216 which
> > is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
> > than the old model, what would it's rating be?
> > John Cairns
> >
>
> Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
> identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
> standing still.

Jim, Jim, Jim. You believe *anything* you see in an advertising
video??????? The sales guys must love to see you coming.

Take peoples' advice and go sail one for yourself. See if you can get a
friend with a known boat they know how to sail to go out at the same
time, and make your own comparison. Then, if you're happy with the
performance, buy it.

But please, please, do not quote a vendor's ad as any sort of authority.

Peter Wiley

[Scott Vernon]

You are forgetting about the thickness of the blue paint added to the hull.

Scotty

"DSK" > wrote in message
. ..
> > The original poster claims to already be an experienced sailor.>>
> >
> >
> > Bobsprit wrote:
> > He's also under the impression that Macgregor's design tweaks have
transformed
> > the X into a capable sailing boat. The website says so.
>
> Just like the website says that the hull has been redesigned with a
> basically different shape.
>
> DSK
>

[Scott Vernon]

showing Bill to be a fool is something we've all done, and then got tired
of.

SV


"Dave" > wrote
>
> Unless of course you think I add to my
> own stature by showing you to be a fool.
>
>
> Dave
> S/V Good Fortune
> CS27

[Scott Vernon]

Is this another math problem?



"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
om...
> hey **** for brains, why , oh why would you have water ballist in for
motoring?
>
> Why?
>
> JAX
>
>
> > wrote this crap...
> >
> >
> > Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
> > person aboard, no water ballast,

[Jonathan Ganz]

Is it? That's the local urban myth. Don't know for certain.
Of course, you're not telling me you sail one right?

<OzOne> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:19:15 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
> > scribbled thusly:
>
> >Actually, that's a good question. There was a MacX in the Oakland
> >estuary a number of years ago. The guy emptied the ballist in preparation
> >for putting it on his trailer. Unfortunately, he was a bit slow, and a
big
> >wake knocked it over... or so I'm told.
>
> That's a crock Jon, they perform quite well as powerboats without
> ballast and don't fall over.
>
>
> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>
> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[JAXAshby]

>Is this another math problem?
>

no, it was a @posting.google.com in the ID line problem.

plonk @posting.google.com and the number of screen names on the ng drops by 10
or 15, while the number of posts drops by about half.

>
>
>"JAXAshby" > wrote in message
om...
>> hey **** for brains, why , oh why would you have water ballist in for
>motoring?
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> JAX
>>
>>
>> > wrote this crap...
>> >
>> >
>> > Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
>> > person aboard, no water ballast,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

>> The original poster claims to already be an experienced sailor.>>

Once more, in a futile attempt to bring some intellectual honesty and
rationality into the discussion - -

Nope. I never alimed to be an experienced sailor. I claimed to have
some experience in sailing fixed hull sailboats in the 30-40 ft range,
and I specifically noted that there were more experienced sailors on the
ng. I didn't claim to be an expert.
>>
>>
>> Bobsprit wrote:
>> He's also under the impression that Macgregor's design tweaks have
>> transformed
>> the X into a capable sailing boat. The website says so.
>
Nope. (Getting sort of monotonous, isn't it?) What I claimed was that
the new boat is a significantly different design. - A new hull having a
15-degree forward V is not the same as a hull having a relatively
shallow, 8-degree V. And a dagger board isn't the same thing as a
pivotable fin keel requiring a 5-foot longitudinal notch in the hull
behind it. (It's not just a "tweeked" 26X.) I also stated that, whether
or not these differences made it a "good" boat, it definitely was a
"different boat".


>
> Just like the website says that the hull has been redesigned with a
> basically different shape.

The website is wrong, and you ought to admit it. If, again, you have any
interest in posting truthful, rational comments.
>
> DSK
>

[Bobsprit]

Nope. (Getting sort of monotonous, isn't it?) What I claimed was that
the new boat is a significantly different design.>>>


Let's get something straight. The changes are not huge. The design of the boat
remains quite close to the 26X. No large jumps were made. You only have to look
at the numbers to see that. Perhaps the M will have marginal advantages. But
let's put that is honest perspective. It'll have marginal advantages over a
boat with pretty poor sailing characteristics. Is that what you want?

RB

[Jim Cate]

felton wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:15:03 -0500, DSK > wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Cate wrote:
>>
>>>It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
>>>either confused or hung over.
>>
>>Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
>>they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
>>bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
>>old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).
>>
>>Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
>>are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
>>For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
>>at the hull shape.
>>
>>It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
>>to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
>>self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
>>lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
>>enlighten you.
>>
>>DSK
>
>
> Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
> owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
> disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
> well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.
>
> He starts off asking for advice and then begins his debates, claiming
> that anyone who hasn't sailed one can't possibly have an informed
> opinion. Although he seemed to know nothing of boats, which would
> make him the target demographic for these things, he then begins to
> articulate all the goofy advertising claims for the "new and improved"
> Mac26, while lamenting that he might have to settle for a Cal or C&C.


One more time, I think we need to have some respect for basic principles
of logic and intellectual honesty. I asked for advice alright, but
instead, I got a crock of opinionated s___ from members who had never
sailed a 26M, and never spoke with anyone who had sailed one. I may not
be as experienced as you, but most of the responses so far are from
individuals who don't have a clue as to the changes made in the new 26M
model (no I DID NOT SAY THAT THE CHANGES MADE THE BOAT A GREAT SAILBOAT,
I merely said it's a subtantially different boat). Apparently, some
participants in this discussion are so stressed out that they get some
sort of weird satisfaction or pleasure from ridiculing someone they
think is a novice, who, they think, is going to be an "easy mark." I'll
be the first to agree with or express appreciation to anyone who posts
rational comments, including criticisms of the boat, etc., based on some
understanding of what the boat actually is. But this discussion is
largely a discussion of mostly hearsay about the characteristics of the
previous model.


a diwhat commentsthose who
>
> I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
> be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
> he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
> anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
> him.
>
Really, How many people have you met who have sailed the 26M? Perhaps
50? Maybe 25? At least 10, right?

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> I claimed to have
> some experience in sailing fixed hull sailboats

as opposed to the flex hull of a Mac26XM ?

SV

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

> felton wrote:
>
>> Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
>> owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
>> disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
>> well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.
>
>
> Good call. I should have ignored him, but it's a slow day. And the
> weather has really turned beautiful, I need to go sailing!

Actually, you are enjoying the Hell out of it. - You can't leave it
alone. - I should get an entertainment fee.
>
>
>> I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
>> be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
>> he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
>> anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
>> him.
>
How many people have you met who sailed the 26M's? This, after all, is
what I asked about, not the MacGregor line in general.

>
> I have a number of friends who've owned the things... all but one have
> moved on.

How many of your friends had sailed the 26M?

We went sailing & cruising in company many times in the
> mid/late 90s. They are kinda fun if you don't mind the looks (and this
> is one improvement in the new version)and don't expect much to happen
> when you work at getting the sail trim right (once you get the rudders
> fixed). It's really a camper trailer that also functions as a boat!
>
> I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
> hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
> difference.

The front portion of the hull has a 15-degree hull, flatening out toward
the middle and aft. Additinally, the older model has a 5-foot
longitudinal recess in which the pivotable fin can nest, whereas the 26M
model doesn't have such a recess, since its vertical dagger board
doesn't require one. It's difficult for me to comprehend how you could
consider these two hull designs the same. (One more time, I didn't say
that the design changes made the boat a great sail or power vessel, did
I? I merely said that it made it a substantially different hull, and
that comments about the performance of the new boat shouldn't be based
on characteristics of the older model.) Again, some basic intellectual
honesty about what I said, and what others said, would be helpful.


You could literally swap trailers and not notice. But then
> MacGregor has unfortunately gone down the road from mildly deceptive
> advertising, to flirting with outright falsehood... maybe now they've
> crossed the line?
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
> > person aboard, no water ballast, and the rigging entirely REMOVED.
>
> I believe I mentioned something along those lines. The speeds I've
> observed for the things in real life is more in the neighborhood of 15
> knots (18 mph)
>
>
> > ..... The water ballast
> > weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
> > speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
> > for every 100 pounds added.)
>
> The drag increases on a curve, so each added 100 lbs would decrease the
> speed a bit less. Anyway, the ballast tank is designed so that it can be
> emptied while motoring.
>

No one told me that I could expect 25 mph with a full load, and the Mac
brochure also states that the speed will be less under full loads,
particularly with the water ballast. Where did you read or hear that
MacGregor claimed the boat would make 25 mph with four adults, or with
water ballast? Again, honesty, rationality? - Or would being honest
take away all the fun?

Jim

Jim

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

> >
> > I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
> > hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
> > difference.>>
> >
>
> Bobsprit wrote:
>
>> Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull.
>> It "is"
>> different.
>
>
> You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
> link may be more convincing than real life, when I said "I've seen both
> on their trailers, and there ain't any visible difference" I meant just
> exactly that.

Did you look at the bottom of the hull, DK, or just the sides? The
bottom is the area that rides over or through the water and influences
the performance of the boat, for the most part. Perhaps you just looked
at the sides and didn't check out the lower contour.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

"Bobsprit" > wrote ...
> I believe that's the
> Mac target market.

You just figured this out now?

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

> felton wrote:
>
>> Spring is almost here, as well. I can always tell when they start
>> forecasting golfball sized hail and possible tornados:)
>
>
> Spring, phooey! It's 80+ degrees (28C) outside!
>
>
>> In fairness to MacGregor, people who own the things do seem to enjoy
>> them. I sort of view them in the same way as those old cars that
>> looked a bit like the Studebaker that were capable of driving on land
>> or powering through the water. Oddly interesting but nothing that I
>> would want to own unless I just wanted an oddity. I suppose if I was
>> in a big hurry to get somewhere, I wouldn't own a sailboat. If I
>> wanted a powerboat, I would get a decent one and not stick a little
>> sail on top. Obviously I am not the target market, though.
>
>
> True enough... sort of like Britney Spear's "music" ;)
>
>
>> Wouldn't life be dull if we all liked the same thing:)
>
>
> Depends... if everybody liked Bach and bicycles instead of
> gawdawful-noise-music and SUVs, the world would be a better place.

At least we have some narrow grounds of agreement. - If I owned a
Mac26M, It would include a good stereo or surround system and would play
Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. 90% of the time.

Jim

[Jeff Morris]

I've stayed away from this a lot because I think the Mac approach has some
benefits for the flat water boater. However, I don't think changing the
deadrise makes it a different boat; in fact there are some power boat companies
that offer the same hull with either a 15 degree or an 8 degree deadrise. It
will make it perform differently in some situations, and I have little doubt
that it may sail a bit better, but then it couldn't sail much worse.

The MacGregor approach may be the right thing for you, but don't delude yourself
that while the previous boat may have been junk the new one is totally
different.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> felton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:15:03 -0500, DSK > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jim Cate wrote:
> >>
> >>>It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
> >>>either confused or hung over.
> >>
> >>Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
> >>they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
> >>bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
> >>old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).
> >>
> >>Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
> >>are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
> >>For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
> >>at the hull shape.
> >>
> >>It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
> >>to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
> >>self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
> >>lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
> >>enlighten you.
> >>
> >>DSK
> >
> >
> > Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
> > owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
> > disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
> > well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.
> >
> > He starts off asking for advice and then begins his debates, claiming
> > that anyone who hasn't sailed one can't possibly have an informed
> > opinion. Although he seemed to know nothing of boats, which would
> > make him the target demographic for these things, he then begins to
> > articulate all the goofy advertising claims for the "new and improved"
> > Mac26, while lamenting that he might have to settle for a Cal or C&C.
>
>
> One more time, I think we need to have some respect for basic principles
> of logic and intellectual honesty. I asked for advice alright, but
> instead, I got a crock of opinionated s___ from members who had never
> sailed a 26M, and never spoke with anyone who had sailed one. I may not
> be as experienced as you, but most of the responses so far are from
> individuals who don't have a clue as to the changes made in the new 26M
> model (no I DID NOT SAY THAT THE CHANGES MADE THE BOAT A GREAT SAILBOAT,
> I merely said it's a subtantially different boat). Apparently, some
> participants in this discussion are so stressed out that they get some
> sort of weird satisfaction or pleasure from ridiculing someone they
> think is a novice, who, they think, is going to be an "easy mark." I'll
> be the first to agree with or express appreciation to anyone who posts
> rational comments, including criticisms of the boat, etc., based on some
> understanding of what the boat actually is. But this discussion is
> largely a discussion of mostly hearsay about the characteristics of the
> previous model.
>
>
> a diwhat commentsthose who
> >
> > I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
> > be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
> > he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
> > anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
> > him.
> >
> Really, How many people have you met who have sailed the 26M? Perhaps
> 50? Maybe 25? At least 10, right?
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

Bobsprit wrote:

> Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
> identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
> standing still. >>
>
> Jim, I watched the video. Something is VERY wrong there. Sailboats don't show
> such a wide variant in speed from design improvements. The results are
> significant, but still subtle overall. A J35 which is FAR faster than my C&C 32
> doesn't pass a Catalina 30 "like it's standing still." The M & X models are
> still pretty close in their performance envelope and I'm doubtful that the
> video was done honestly.
>
> RB
>

Obviously, I don't know whether the video and/or the "race" was a fair
representation. - However, I read comments by one of the participants,
and he didn't seem to have any ulterior or deceptful motives. (As an
attorney, I would say that he sounded believable and plausable.) He also
stated that he was amazed at how easily the 26M passed the 26X. I don't
think it's reasonable to compare such relatively unique, lighter boats
with traditional fixed keel sailing vessels. I also spoke with a former
M26 owner, and he also said that he had found the new boat to be
significanly faster under sail. (He sold his boat because he wanted a
larger one with room for a bigger crowd.) Again, I don't know how
representative the video demo was, but I tend to think it's fairly
representative. I also think that the camera included a high zoom factor
that may have exaggerated the speed delta to some degree.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jim Cate wrote:

>
>
> John Cairns wrote:
>
>> The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
>> the old
>> boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
>> broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
>> test
>> sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
>> which
>> is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
>> than the old model, what would it's rating be?
>> John Cairns
>>
>>
>
> John,
>
> I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
> the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
> are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.
>
> Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Bobsprit wrote:

> From your
> particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.>>>
>
>
> Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape of
> sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.
>
> RB

Some can appreciate the design and shape of a power-sail-planing boat,
or a sailboat capable of planing under sail, AND ALSO appreciate the
design of traditional sailing vessels. The mac 25M attractive and
impressive, IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,
but that's my opinion also. My favorite sailing experience was on a
40-foot Valiant cutter with canoe stern, which looked and sailed
beautifully in blue water. I also crewed for several years on an 1883
150-foot tall ship (the Elissa) that is maintained in operating
condition in the Galveston area. Again, it's definitely impressive and
beautiful under sail, but it's a different beauty than that of a Swan,
Newport, Valiant, etc., or a cup contender.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
stated that:

> A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
>> still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
>> kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
>> conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
>> (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
>> a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
>> fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
>> - 32-foot boats.

In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
(such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.

In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
(No one, after all, is required to participate.)

Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.

Jim



Jim Cate wrote:

>
> I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
> area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
> on the boat. Or, anyone else.
>
> For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
> advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
> regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
> sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
> some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
> will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
> get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
> than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
> issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
> hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
> ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
> islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
> a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
> motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
> the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
> finder.)
>
> OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
> anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
> the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
> now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
> I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
> extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
> reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
> and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
> As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
> comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
> much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
> With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
> can reportedly plane under sail.
>
> A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
> (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
> - 32-foot boats.
>
> Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
> of the new 26M would be appreciated.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>

[John Cairns]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > John Cairns wrote:
> >
> >> The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
> >> the old
> >> boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
> >> broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
> >> test
> >> sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
> >> which
> >> is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
> >> than the old model, what would it's rating be?
> >> John Cairns
> >>
> >>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
> > the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
> > are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.
> >
> > Jim
>
> No responses to this note?
>
> Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sailing-specifications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

[Jonathan Ganz]

There are many, many beautiful 26 foot sailboats.

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobsprit wrote:
>
> > From your
> > particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.>>>
> >
> >
> > Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape
of
> > sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.
> >
> > RB
>
> Some can appreciate the design and shape of a power-sail-planing boat,
> or a sailboat capable of planing under sail, AND ALSO appreciate the
> design of traditional sailing vessels. The mac 25M attractive and
> impressive, IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,
> but that's my opinion also. My favorite sailing experience was on a
> 40-foot Valiant cutter with canoe stern, which looked and sailed
> beautifully in blue water. I also crewed for several years on an 1883
> 150-foot tall ship (the Elissa) that is maintained in operating
> condition in the Galveston area. Again, it's definitely impressive and
> beautiful under sail, but it's a different beauty than that of a Swan,
> Newport, Valiant, etc., or a cup contender.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, the Mac line of boats are bottom of the barrel. Not sure what
else "we" can tell you. If you like/want the compromise, go for it.
At this point, I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
> including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
> initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
> stated that:
>
> > A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> >> still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> >> kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> >> conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the
Mac.
> >> (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> >> a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> >> fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used
30
> >> - 32-foot boats.
>
> In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
> obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
> (such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
> quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
> childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
> AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
> cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.
>
> In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
> either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
> of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
> (No one, after all, is required to participate.)
>
> Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
> I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
> intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
> same boat I'm talking about.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
> > area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
> > on the boat. Or, anyone else.
> >
> > For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
> > advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
> > regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
> > sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
> > some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
> > will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
> > get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
> > than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
> > issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
> > hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
> > ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
> > islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
> > a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
> > motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
> > the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
> > finder.)
> >
> > OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
> > anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
> > the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
> > now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
> > I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
> > extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
> > reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
> > and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
> > As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
> > comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
> > much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
> > With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
> > can reportedly plane under sail.
> >
> > A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
> > still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
> > kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
> > conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
> > (I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
> > a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
> > fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
> > - 32-foot boats.
> >
> > Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
> > of the new 26M would be appreciated.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Remco Moedt]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:16:53 -0600, Jim Cate > wrote:

>IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful


I think this 26 is quite nice:


http://huizen.dds.nl/~bonekamp/boot1.jpg



Cheers!


Remco

[Jeff Morris]

I've seen the 26X rated at both 220 and 249. Maybe there's a fleet that allows
racing without the water ballast. Its also possible that the V-bottom allows
for the daggerboard to be raised when reaching, which could account for
considerable improvement in some situations.

BTW, there are several 26X's that I see in Boston harbor, one has a slip near
me, another used to come down the Charles River every Saturday morning, headed
for the outer harbor. I've been somewhat impressed that the large engine gives
them the ability to pick destinations 10 or 12 miles away. However, when I
catch up with them later in the morning after they've raised sail, I've never
actually seen them moving in the water. As near as I can tell, they power out,
raised sail, bob around for a while, then power to their destination. Frankly,
there's nothing wrong with this, if its what you want to do. But it isn't
sailing




"John Cairns" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > John Cairns wrote:
> > >
> > >> The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
> > >> the old
> > >> boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
> > >> broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
> > >> test
> > >> sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
> > >> which
> > >> is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
> faster
> > >> than the old model, what would it's rating be?
> > >> John Cairns
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
> > > the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
> > > are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > No responses to this note?
> >
> > Jim
>
> Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
> the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
> this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
> blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
> http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm
>
> Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
> http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sailing-specifications.html
>
> Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
> to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
> underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
> serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
> us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
> wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
> serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
> faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
> Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
> stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
> SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
> power we would own POWERBOATS.
>
> John Cairns
>
>

[Bobsprit]

Where did you read or hear that
MacGregor claimed the boat would make 25 mph with four adults, or with
water ballast? Again, honesty, rationality? - Or would being honest
take away all the fun?>>

Mac ads constantly list top speeds of more than 20 knots; something the boats
don't actually do under normal usage.
The comments on the Macgregor website are more laughable than most for such a
site. Here are a few clipped comments from the website about initial tests of
the M:

<<This boat tacks at will under main only, even gybing at low speed against the
wind when most boats will just head up. I have never been on boat with better
behavior. >>>

Wow! Poor guy's never been on a REAL sailboat I guess!

<<Speed taken using GPS on both boats up to 21 knots with breeze/waves and
18-19 against. Surprise! They are even. Over and over, we drag race from
standing start to top end with no speed difference.>>>

What kind of waves??!!!

<<Roger orders "full ballast tanks". The M now pulls up on a plane better with
much less bow rise and goes faster by 2 Knots.>>

NO mention of actual speeds anymore!
Later on it's indicated that the M and X may only do 12 knots under typical
load. The facts are burried, if you care to dig.

RB

RB

[Jeff Morris]

There's a long list of beautiful 26 footers.

Here's my favorite:
http://www.eastlandyachts.com/nonsuch.html#Anchor-26

But also:
http://www.proper-yachts.com/alerion26.htm

You can also get a lot of boat in smaller packages, like:
http://www.marshallcat.com/default.htm

or allow a few extra feet of pinched stern:
http://www.marinebrokerage.com/cgi-bin/data.cgi/29vixen.compassrose

If you think the Mac 26M is more beautiful than these, you run to the dealer and
buy one now Its a match made in heaven!

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,