John,

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

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

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

Jim




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





Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.

What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?

Jim



You can't seriously believe this crap you've been posting, can you?
You're
basically posting, verbatim, what you've been reading in the mac sales
literature. I can offer you one unbiased review of the mac, culled from
"Practical Sailor", which accepts no advertising and can't possibly be
accused of harboring biases when it comes to sailboat evaluations. It's
free.
http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html
Very interesting that they didn't bother to ACTUALLY SAIL THE THING. Also
very interesting that this was one of the 2 reviews that they're offering
free of charge. A public service announcement, perhaps? You'll note, even
the man himself doesn't claim that this is an "offshore" boat.






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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


No one will

drive you away, but at some point you'll get plonked by just about
everyone
here. And one last thing, if you really think your comments are
"balanced"
and "fresh air", why do YOU keep trying to justify them?


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

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



After all, you

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


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


I will also

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


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

John Cairns