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