otnmbrd wrote:



Jim Cate wrote:



Jeff Morris wrote:

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



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


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

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

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




Gee, I scored 98 on the test given in the ASA basic sailing course,
which I took as a review last month with my wife. - Better tell them
that they obviously made a mistake. But I do agree that the "double
hull" issue (whether to call it a double hull or not, and whether it
provides some of the same benefits) is something of a side issue.

Actually, the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic, and
many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal attacks,
and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if one doesn't have
anything substantive to say in the first place......)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of:

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


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

Jim

otn