Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:



I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need
to fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?


I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.


But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)


If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be on
the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side.
Regarding my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and
licensing attorney, not a trial lawyer.

Our legal system has problems, and I'm not defending it, except to say
that most cases are settled more or less equitably without going to
trial. - It's the outrageous ones that get the publicity, not the other
95%. Sort of like the rest of the news - everyday hard work and ethical
standards isn't newsworthy.


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.


Totally irrelevant.

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
It's built to sail and motor as efficiently as possible with the
compromises inherent for it's intended use. In general, it's well
balanced, it doesn't "pitch" excessively, and it is fun to sail.

Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,
or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.

Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all? The reason I
bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race it.) Also, I
believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for sailing, and
smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as efficiently) as the
older model.

Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting in
the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the transom.


If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)


So, what's your point. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size range wouldn't be as comfortable
or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. Plus, it's lots of fun to sail.

However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with generator,
fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the same as a
modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is 249
lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter, and the
muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this is only a
few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits and pieces
not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel generates
almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a huge weight
advantage on that front.


That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:

"JAX, did it ever occur to you that some owners of cruising sailboats may
take them out to enjoy a pleasant day of cruising with friends or family
from time to time rather than racing their boats? If I'm taking my
family or grandkids out for a day on the water, there may actually be
times when I sail the boat with everyone sitting in the rear and with
less than optimum balance and sail trim. - Shame, shame on me!

On other days I may want to take more care in adjusting the sails and
balancing the distribution of weight in the boat to get as much speed as
possible. (Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18
knots under power.)

The bottom line is that some of us sail for the pleasure of it, and some
of us go sailing as a competitive sport, so that they will be able to
brag about winning a race or sailing by several other boats. I enjoy
both aspects, but I recognize that the Mac isn't a J-boat and isn't
designed as a racer. So I don't expect to pass many large displacement
boats"

Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without the
ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.



This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds
yet, because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.


Yes, buts that's been my point. If you want to keep the boat very
light, and are willing to forgo ballast on a flat clam, you can achieve
the high speeds. But you've just proven my old point that loaded up
with a bit a gear, and dealing with a bit of weather, you won't want to
go that fast.

I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the Bay,
and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I didn't have
the throttle wide open.)


Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can
anchor in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf
in a few hours.


I've only sailed on the FL side of the Gulf - I enjoyed it a lot, the
Naples area has been on our short list of possible places to move to in
a few years.


Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Fresh baked.

The best.

Jim