Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:
...
But no, you preferred
to look like a fool arguing that an oversized outboard hanging on the
stern doesn't affect the moment at all.
Jeff, when you have sailed one of the 26Ms several times, come back
and tell us all about the problems you think are caused by weight
distribution or "over symmetrical" design in the Mac 26M. Until then,
you are guestimating about the sailing characteristics of a rather
small boat with a number of unusual design characteristics.
Let me repeat because you seem to have a reading problem:
Nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably.
Jeff, what, exactly, are the weight distribution "problems", and exactly
what deleterious effects do those "weight distribution problems" have on
the boat? What effects (such as pitching, wandering, etc.) result from
the "weight distribution" problem? - In your own words.
This entire discussion was not about how badly the Mac pitched, it was
about its weight distribution. You wanted to look like an idiot, and
you succeeded in that admirably! Congrats!
2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant
safety factor are just that. - Theories....
I have little doubt that the double layer in certain parts of the
hull could, in some circumstances, prevent a hull breech. I'm not
sure what you mean by "from my experience" unless you're saying you
frequently hit things and while they penetrate the outer layer, you
have never holed the inner layer.
My experience with the boat has indicated that in it's typical
orientatin when plaining, the lower portion of the hull (where the
ballast tank is) is the portion cutting throught the surface of the
water below which where partially submerged objects float.
Actually, when the boat is up on a plane, the striking point would
likely be where the permanent ballast is.
Also, my experience is that it's difficult to see objects immediately
forward of the hull when the boat is plaining.
Are you actually telling us that you would drive the boat at high speed
when you weren't able to see the water in front of you??? Do you go
home at night wondering how many swimmers you hit? Jim, you really have
to think about what you say before you post!
As with any boat on a plane, the raised bow has the effect of limiting
visibility of the water immediately forward of the boat, along it's
course. But as you have repeatedly discussed, the Mac normally doesn't
plane above 15 - 18 knots, which is rather slow relative to many power
boats. Also, the boat doesn't rise substantially above the water as do
high-powered speed boats. So, the effects on visibility are less than
that for a skipper of a power boat planing at high speeds and/or with a
greater inclination. So, which is it, Jeff? Does the Mac really plane
at "high speeds." Or is it's speed rather limited? Obviously, in any
boat on a plane, the skipper has the responsibility not to take the boat
into waters he hasn't carefully observed. And certainly, he shouldn't
run the boat at high speeds in areas that might have swimmers, divers,
small boats, etc.
The issues are whether this represents a significant safety feature,
or whether this can be considered a "double hull."
Clarification. - I never said that it was a "significant" safety
feature. (That was your intepretation.)
When asked for recommendations you touted the Mac and listed three
safety features in particular and explained that these were advantages
over other boats. The first one you mentioned was the "double liner."
The second was the foam in the mast, which of course should be
meaningless if the Mac never capsizes.
It is, however, a safety factor not available on most sailing vessels.
What most boats have as an alternative is a strong hull. Really, the
part of the Mac you're saying is protected by the double liner is that
part of a normal boat that has the thickest hull, followed by the keel.
And are you actually claiming that a significant number of sailboats
sink in protected waters due to collisions that would be prevented by
the small amount of the "double liner" of the Mac? There must be a
terrible loss of life - what do you think? 100 a year? 200?
1. First and foremost, the manufacturer makes absolutely no claims
about this on the web site or in any literature. One would think
that if this is a significant feature, it would be mentioned.
(See comments below.)
right. You say they don't want to be alarmist.
2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere.
If I had claimed or suggested that the Mac has a double hull that is
"double everywhere," then that statement might have relevance. But not
only is that not the case, but I have also explained, in several
previous notes, that the double hull results from the closed ballast
tank positioned in the lower portion of the boat. I have also stated,
in a number of previous notes (which you conveniently ignore), that the
double hull only extends in the area beneath the ballast tank. (Why do
you continue to ignore my prior discussions of this limitation, Jeff?)
The doubled portion of the Mac's hull is less than half,
perhaps less than a quarter. While this might offer some benefit, it
really isn't much different from any other hull where certain areas
have extra reinforcement, or an integral water or fuel tank. My
boat, BTW, has collision bulkheads in the forward part of each bow
such that I could totally crunch one or even both bows and not take
in a drop of water. This is a true safety feature, worth mentioning.
of course, you choose to ignore the fact the your terminology is
misleading.
Had I merely posted the initial note and posted no further discussions
of the area of the double hull, Jeff, your remarks MIGHT have some
semblance of rationality. But, as you well know, I have repeatedly
explained that the double hull does not extend throughout the hull. And
you have consistently ignored those posts in which I specifically
addressed the issue, haven't you?
3. For any boat with a traditional hull form and keel, the risk of a
breech in the areas so protected in the Mac are pretty low. For
instance, hitting a rock on the centerline would be much more likely
to strike the keel, or the heavily protected stem. Almost every case
of a serious breech that I've seen has actually been on the side,
which is unprotected on the Mac. (This is from collisions, or a
glancing blow to a rock.)
As explained above, the lower portion of the Mac (the centerline ridge
and adjacent portions extending under the ballast tank), is the the
portion that cuts through the water when planing. I therefore submit
tha it's likely, in at least some instances, to try to "cut through" a
floating object in the path of the boat.
Isn't this where the permanent ballast it?
The permanent ballast is considerably aft of the portion of the
centerline ridge that cuts through the water. But as previously,
stated, neither you nor I know how well the Mac 26M double hull (with
permanent ballast) would protect it in the event of a collision with a
floating object. Again, the difference between us is that I'm willing
to acknowledge this fact, but you can't seem to admit you don't really
know whether or not the double hull would be a significant safety
factor.
(Incidentally, how many cases of serious breech of a Mac 26M have you
seen?)
And how many Macs have ever had their "outer hull" punctured and they
were saved by the inner hull? This is your claim.
As I said, I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how much of a
safety factor the double hull is. - Are you?
I've seen a number of boats holed, but its never been on the center
line. So you claim this is a safety feature, how many boats of any type
have you seen holed that would have been saved by the Mac's protection?
How many lives would be saved? I'll give you a hint: it begins with "Z"
and ends with "row".
Are you talking about conventional sailboats Jeff? If so, they would be
far less susceptible to puncture while surfing over a sunken or
partially sunken object, wouldn't they?
4. This is actually a pretty small risk for most sailboats - the
number of sinkings is extremely small. In spite of the fact that
you've mentioned many times that all other sailboats would "sink to
the bottom" there are very, very few deaths occur from this in
protected waters.
By "protected waters," are you implying that most skippers of
conventional sailboats don't venture out beyond protected bays or
waterways, Jeff?
Actually, I didn't think it was fair to include boats that sink in the
middle of the ocean, and I was thinking specifically the area where a
mac would be. If you want, I would include the near coastal waters, in
fact all the waters that are included in the CG safety reports.
Also, "most sailboats" aren't capable of planing, as is
the 26M. I would suspect that there is some increased potential for
accidents as speed increases, though I don't know that. As mentioned
in my note, NEITHER YOU NOR I know how much of a safety factor the
double hull provided by the 26M is. - (It might help clarify the
matter if you would admit that particular fact.)
It might help to clarify things if you stated why you think that a boat
that already has positive flotation also needs a small
(large)
portion of its
hull protected by a little extra fiberglass. I'm quite happy to give
you the flotation as a feature, in fact I've been curious as to why some
(but not all) of the competition doesn't have it. But it would seem
that flotation greatly reduces to value of a "double liner" as a safety
feature.
5. You have mentioned many times that the boat has flotation and is
unsinkable. Thus, this is not a feature that would prevent sinking.
Nope. But its another safety factor that would be nice to have in an
emergency. Might permit sailing or motoring the boat back to shore at
low speeds, for example.
You're just being silly Jim. This is what I've been talking about. You
fight tooth and nail on every little feature even after it been shown
that it really isn't significant.
Jeff, did you ever try to sail a monohull (or cat) that had sunk to the
top of its gunwales?
6. If the outer layer of the tank were breeched and you continued on
at speed, you would actually have a dangerous situation of a
partially full tank which could induce a capsize. This is actually a
bigger risk than sinking.
Maybe. Maybe not. And in all probability a responsible skipper would
sense a collision with a floating object large enough to breech the
outer hull, and stop the boat.
but you just said you would try to power in. You're like that
comedienne that screams out "IT COULD HAPPEN!" Face it Jim, you're just
flailing here!
But I didn't say that I would continue powering "at speed" (your words)
did I Jeff? Obviously, the skipper would have to check out the extend of
the damage and monitor the effects of motoring or sailing the boat.
7. Did I mention that even the manufacturer doesn't seem to consider
this a safety feature?
Yes, you did Jeff. But you never explained why you mentioned it. -
Plausible reasons could include the fact that the manufacturer doesn't
want to discuss such unpleasant, negative possibilities in sales
literature intended to promote the pleasures of sailing.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're cracking me up, Jim!
Mac has no trouble mentioning the flotation in the mast which implies
they're afraid of turning turtle. They have no trouble mentioning the
flotation which implies they're afraid they will get holed. So if the
tiny protection offered by the "double liner" was significant, why
wouldn't they mention it?
Actually, Jeff, discussing running into floating logs could very well
turn some people off of buying a sailboat capable of high-speeds under
power. Also, I don't think they have to mention it. - There are so many
other good features to discuss that they continue to be one of the best
selling sailboats on the market.
I could probably find a few more items to add, but this is enough.
My objection to your numerous references to the double hull or liner
is that you have often described this as an important feature
where did I say it was an "important factor"? The note you reference
lists it as only one of a number of features.
that makes
the Mac superior to other boats.
This was the first of three. You obviously considered it important
enough that it would be one of three extra features that would influence
a decision. But why are you denying this?
I never denied that I mentioned it as a beneficial feature. I have NOT
emphasized it in later notes. I normally discuss it unless I'm
responding to someone else. The person who keeps on discussing it, over
and over and over and over again is: (guess who) - you.
Are you just so much of an
asshole lawyer that you do this out of force of habit?
Watch your language, Jeff. Remember that your words can be read on the
www by people around the world, including young people who may aspire to
become skippers of their own boats some day. - What kind of an example
are you setting for all those young, aspiring sailors, Jeff?
Where did I say that the Mac was superior to other boats? - Although I
have said that it includes a number of advantages, I haven't said it
was "superior to other boats." In fact, I have said that my personal
preference would be the Valiant 40. - I have consistently stated that
the Mac entails both advantages and limitations.
You've certainly implied that it is superior to any other of its size.
Your interpretation, again.
For example, on 9/15/04 you responded
to a request for recommendations by extolling the virtues of the
Mac. You listed as "advantages over other boats" in this order: a
"double double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is
penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter
the cabin," flotation in the mast, and foam flotation. You made no
mention of the fact that the "double hull" only gives very limited
protection. Also, you never mentioned that the mast flotation, while
handy in dinghies, shouldn't be needed in boats unless they are prone
to capsizing. Even the Mac shouldn't ever capsize, assuming the
ballast tank is full.
Again, I only mentioned the double liner as one of a number of
advantageous features.
It was listed as the first of three, the second being foam in the mast
which is only useful if you assume the boat can capsize.
And in many others of my notes citing advantageous features of the
Mac, I haven't even mentioned the double hull factor.
What does that mean? Sometimes you don't mention it? Is that like
saying you didn't murder anyone last Thursday?
Jeff, the Macs and Mac owners have been bashed over and over again on
this ng in recent months. I have responded to some of these Mac bashers
from time to time, posting comments which I had hoped would tend to
provide a somewhat more balanced discussion. In some of my notes I have
mentioned the double hull as a safety factor. Are you saying that I
emphasize the double hull aspect more frequently than other factors? Or,
are you saying that, when I have mentioned it, I usually list it first,
before discussing other features? I certainly don't think that's the
case, but if you want to review my notes over the past two years and
provide some sort of chart on the subject, have at it. I doubt if you
would even want to begin such a survey, however, because you know you
would loose.
3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics.
...
You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there
would be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few
accidents at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over.
How about sailboats 26 feet and under, Jeff?
If that's true, why is the title of this particular subject string
"Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy"?
no one saw fit to change it.
And why do many other notes on
this ng (from you and others) speak of safety issues of the Mac? -
Why waste our time talking about safety issues if they aren't a major
factor?
Because you seem to claim things as "safety features" when they aren't.
Other than the double hull issue, which "things" are you talking about Jeff?
You've frequently
claimed the Mac is safer than other boats because of certain
features, but if these other boats are so unsafe, why aren't there
hundreds of fatalities with them?
The truth is, while there are over 50,000 aux sailboats 26-40 feet
there are only a couple of fatalities per year in this class of
boats. I don't have access to the raw data so its hard to break
things out, but the numbers would seem to indicate a risk on the
order of 1 per 20,000 per year.
Jeff, when you come across that "raw data," let me know.
Again, why have multiple contributors to discussions on asa posted
notes wailing about poor construction and related safety hazards on
the Mac? That pattern is pretty obvious, Jeff. Again, why waste our
time if it's not of concern?
Are you really asking me to explain why other people don't like the Mac?
There are two implications of this. One is that any claim that the
Mac is safer than other boats suffers from a lack of evidence the
other boats are in any way unsafe.
I know of one incident resulting in deaths, and that accident involved a
drunk skipper who hadn't sailed the boat before and who apparently
hadn't even been instructed re Mac-related safety features, and
passengers that were also drunk. Also, the boat in question was a 26X,
not the current model, which includes additional, permanent ballast. As
to whether the design of the boat is inherently unsafe, that issue was
specifically raised by the plaintiff, and the appeal court ruled that
the cause of the accident was the negligence of the drunk skipper, not
the MacGregor Company.
But on the other hand, we know of
at least three deaths
What deaths, other than those in the drunk skipper case, Jeff?
related specifically to the unique properties
of the Mac 26X. If we assume 5000 were built, this represent more
than what one might expect.
One of 5000 represens more than what one would expect, Jeff?? Where
did you get that particular assertion? - Also, the production of Macs
of this class is much more than 5,000.
The Coast Guard Annual Boating Statistics are out there for everyone.
The bottom line is that there are actually very few fatalities in Aux
sailboats 26+ feet. Statistically if you have a boat and a car, you're
roughly five times more likely to die in a car accident. There are only
perhaps 2 or 3 fatalities a year. When an incident is in the news (such
as the man who fell off the racing boat, or the boat the got crunched by
a large boat, etc.) that will generally be the only incident, or perhaps
one of two for the year. IIRC, the kids in the capsized Mac in 2002
were the only fatalities that year from a 26+ foot sailboat.
Actually, the Mac is a 26- foot sailboat, being a few inches shorter
than 26 ft. The point, however, is that it's relatively small compared
with most coastal cruising sailboats, and obviously smaller than those
of most posting on this ng.
In other words, from this single incident the 26X has had
more than its share of fatalities since its launch and for some years
into the future.
Nope. That's another example of one of theories you have thrown out
for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Hey, the data is out there. Feel free to read:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2005.pdf
The problem with this data is that they don't break it out at a fine
enough level. So while we can find the number of fatalities in aux
sailers, we can't tell how many of those were in smaller boats, or from
different causes such as sinking, or falling overboard, etc. However, by
deduction, you can at least guess that the number of incidents in
smaller sailboat versus larger should parallel the stats for other
boats. However, we do have upper limits, which are themselves pretty
low. For most years, the are only a total of 6-7 deaths in sailboats,
and large boats are less than half.
The odd thing in the stats is while there are clear trends that some
classes of boats are somewhat safer than others, and in particular there
are certain types of accidents that some boats are more prone to, there
is no overwhelming difference, like you can't show the powerboats are 10
times more dangerous than sailboats. This is because so many of the
incidents really are human error, often not related to the vessel at
all. There are also reporting issues, like a large number of deaths are
from boats that aren't registered.
What was more troubling about these deaths is that they were caused
specifically by the unusual properties of the Mac. On any other 26
foot sailboat, 8 adults would not be "seriously overloaded." On any
other 26 foot sailboat, goosing the throttle when stopped would not
result in an roll over in a flat calm, windless evening.
See my comments above. - In this particular case, those very questions,
i.e., whether the accident was attributable to the drunk skipper or due
to the design of the boat itself, were discussed IN DETAIL by the
attorneys for the drunk skipper. - The decision of the appellate court
was that it was the fault of the drunk skipper, not MacGregor.
(MacGregor won, and the drunk skipper lost and was imprisoned.)
Of course, you actually don't know don't know whether a drunk skipper
"goosing" the throttle and making a sharp turn in another small
sailboat overloaded with drunk adults sitting close to the bow could
result in a roll over.
The two biggest factors were the empty ballast tank and the big engine.
If you "goose the throttle" on most sailboats not much happens at all.
And eight adults is not overloading for most ballasted sailboats.
But I will give you this: for any 26 foot sailboat that has only water
ballast but the tank is empty, if it has a 50 hp engine and you goose it
and turn sharply, it will quite possibly capsize.
Yes, the company avoided a
disastrous lawsuit because helmsman was inebriated, but so are half
the boaters out there, especially on the 4th of July when this took
place. Had those children been in any other 26 foot sailboat, they
would still be alive.
Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, the attorneys for the drunk skipper tried
their best to put forth the arguments you are trying to make. - But they
lost.
That's enother of your unsubstantiated theories, of course. But even
if true, the fact that this is the ONLY example you can come up with
strongly suggests that the boat is not inherently unsafe.
I never heard the final verdict, but I do know that the expert witness
from US Sailing (Jim Teeters) testified that the design of the boat was
partially at fault.
The final verdict was that MacGregor won, and the drunk skipper lost and
was put in prison for criminal negligence.
Also, you conveniently forget that the boat in question was not the
current model (which, after all, is the boat I have been discussing
all along) which includes permanent ballast in addition to the water
ballast, and foam flotation built into the mast. - (The permanent
ballast on the 26M works even when the skipper is drunk.) Again, I'm
not saying that I know a 26M wouldn't have capsized under the
circumstances. - I'm merely saying that neither you or I know what
would have happened if the boat had been a 26M, or if it had been a
small boat from another manufacturer. And please don't tell me you
KNOW what would have happened under the circumstances on another boat.
- You don't.
I can't say about a lot of boats but I can pretty confidently say that
any normally ballasted sailboat with a normal sized engine would not
have capsized. I've sailed an awful lot of small keel boats over they
years and I don't know of any that could come close to this behavior.
Perhaps you know of one?
Of course, most small keel boats don't have a 50 hp engine, do they
Jeff? Your statement is like saying you can confidently say that
because small, low powered sedans, such as a Toyota Corolla or the like,
can't be driven very fast and are therefore not subject to being driven
over 100 mph, they are designed better than high-speed sports cars which
can. - In reading the Mac discussion groups, I haven't seen any notes
from or about any Mac owner who doesn't understand that the Macs have
certain design considerations that must be observed when sailing or
motoring, including the fact that the ballast must be filled except
under specific conditions. In fact, as we have previously discussed,
the Mac warning is clearly posted on the boat itself. (As previously
stated, I personally have never sailed or motored without the ballast.)
My point on the Mac is not that it is so unsafe that anyone foolish
enough to buy one will likely die. My point has been that some of
the features that are used as selling points have safety risks that
would not be an issue on any other sailboat. In particular, the high
speeds that can be achieved without ballast are only safe if the
operator follows a lengthy list of warnings. These include only four
people on the boat (2 if they are your weight), no one on deck, no
one forward below, sails removed, board and rudders up, chop under
one foot (and therefore presumably a light wind), water should be warm.
Not a particularly "long" list, IMO,
Ah, I'm not sure what else they could add - the crew size is limited and
you have to stay huddled in the cockpit. The seas must be flat and the
water warm. All of the rigging (sails, rudders, board) must be in a
particular position. And I forgot one, no sharp turns. Is there any
discretionary freedom they have??? You're not allowed to go to the
head. You're not even allowed to stand or lean over the side so that
you might see something floating ahead!
Although I don't sail or motor without ballast, lots of Mac sailors do
it routinely. Many prefer it when motoring out to Catalina or other
offshore destinations. They state that the boat is stable and
maneuverable for trips of several hours, under various weather
conditions. I rather think that they do go forward to use the head, and
look over or around the mast to watch the water, though I haven't
specifically asked about that. In other words, the boats are more
stable and more versatile than your purposefully dire description might
suggest.
and it's certainly understood clearly by Mac 26M skippers who post to
the Mac discussion groups. In my case, since I'm rather conservative
and often sail solo, I haven't sailed or motored without the
ballast. - That makes it rather simple.
My issue, as I've said a number of times, is that the Mac is marketed to
novices ("Learn to sail in an afternoon...") These are the people that
would not understand how dangerous it really is to ignore the warnings.
That's why the owner's manual and the notice on the bulkhead include
WARNINGS IN LARGE LETTERS about taking the boat out without completely
filling the ballast tank.
That is why when there is an incident with a Mac it is usually explained
off as operator error because the skipper was new, or borrowed the boat.
"Usually explained"? Where are the others, Jeff?
Frankly, if I had one, and lived on flat water, I'd probably be out
there trying to break speed records by running stripped down with no
ballast. But not with my kid in the boat.
None of these warnings would apply on a traditional boat. However,
the speed of the boat is its major feature, and the feature that
drives most of the design.
Well that's probably correct. That's why the WARNINGS about filling the
ballast tank are all in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.
Speed is one of it's attractions, and it's probably true that speed can
introduce some dangers that wouldn't be present with a conventional
boat. - Rather obvious to most people I would think, even without the
warnings in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.
It's plenty fast with the ballast tank filled. Removing the water
ballast adds only a few mph to top speed.
True, but they say every 100 pounds of crew or gear subtracts a knot
from the speed. This is why I kept saying that when you used it for
cruising your top speed would only be 12-13 knots. Since a number of
"normal" boats can power at close to 8 knots, your speed advantage
really isn't that great.
Mine does better than that, with normal loads and under most weather
conditions. I haven't tried it without the ballast, or on a really
smooth surface. Actually, I seldom motor at full throttle.
Further, the boat appeals mainly to novices. I find it
rather troubling that people unfamiliar with boats would have to
understand a list of warnings that would never come up in their
ordinary experience.
That's sort of like telling an inexperienced sports car enthusiast to
stick with a Honda or Toyota instead of buying a Vette or a Porsche,
because the Vette and Porsche has the potential of going over 140, or
whatever, and he COULD get into trouble. - What's the point?
Gee, that sounds like a good point to me! My brother had a Carrara and
I was staggered at how quickly it got up to 100 MPH without even
thinking; I was quite pleased when he gave it up.
I reserve the right to ignore anything I want. The Mac has enough
attributes that I dislike that I have no desire to belabor the few
that might be of interest.
In other words, you have all the time in the world to belabor what you
consider the limitations of the Mac, but very little time to consider
the advantages. - Well, we all know what a busy guy you are Jeff.
Sorry Jim. I never signed any agreement saying I would fairly review
any boat that was mentioned here. If you (or anyone one else) says
something blatantly stupid or wrong, I have the right to call you on
it. I have no obligation at all to say something nice about the boat to
balance it. And again, I've objected more to the way you represent the
boat, not its actually qualities.
Perhaps so. But think how that consisently one-sided approach must seem
to those young, aspiring sailors around the world who may read your
comments. - Are they thinking: "Gee. If experienced sailors are so
opinionated and one-sided that 90% of their comments about a particular
boat are bashing the boats and those who sail them, do I really want to
get involve with such a sicko group in the first place?"
(Incidentally, you do have the "right" to post anything you wish about
the Macs and about me. Similarly, I have the right to post responses.
And I shall continue to do so.)
However, one point I've made about Macs is that they seem to
depreciate faster than other boats.
There are a number of five year old Macs that
are asking roughly 60% of the original price. This does not speak
well of their quality or desirability. When you see an ad offering a
2002 at $12-14K under the purchase price and claiming "only used 8 or
9 times" you really have to wonder if this person was happy he bought
it.
Yes, you have made that claim, Jeff. - But you haven't backed it up with
any meaningful stats. Quickly glancing through the current listings of
Mac 26M's on Yachtworld.com, the asking prices are as follows:
$29,900, 25,000, 25,625, 32,500, 48,476, 19,900, 40,457, 29,900, 26,900,
23,900, 33,500.
The fact that some of them are pretty cheap is very telling. And none
of them are more than what, 4 years old? Why would a $30K boat be
asking only $20K after 4 years?
Maybe it doesn't have a motor that works??? Who knows what it has, or
what condition it's in.
Yachtworld isn't the best for raw numbers since many of the boat are in
Europe. If you look in Soundings you'll find a number of 4-6 y/o 26X's
for under 20K meaning they could eventually sell for half of the
original price.
In doing my little survey, the location of the boats were listed. Most
were in the United States.
My boat is 7 years old and has probably lost about 20%.
Going back another five years (which would relate to the older,26X
model) the average asking price is around $20,000. Obviously, these
figures don't tell us what the boats are actually selling for, or what
condition they're in, or how they're equipped or what motor they have,
if any. (Nor do your figures re the 2002 model.)
They all list engines - a 50 hp is common. The particular boat I
mentioned said 50hp Honda, I think. They said the PortaPotti was never
used.
Again, neither you nor I know the condition of any such boats. I doubt
6. And, it's lots of fun to sail.
When I was a kid I found an old cement mixing tub. I turned it into
my yacht and had a ball with it! So that can be your motto: "A Mac!
As much fun as a cement tub!"
And when you played with your cement mixing tub, Jeff, did you have
experience sailing various boats such as the Beneteau 39, the O'Day 39,
Valiant 40, and various Catalinas, Cals, Endeavors, Sabre, etc.?
That was my experience. - Not exactly an equivalent analogy, is it?
Why not? Now that I have lots of experience I still have a lot of fun
sailing a small dink or riding a kayak.
Would you still have a lot of fun sailing your cement mixing tub, Jeff?
My point was that when you sailed your cement mixing tub, you hadn't had
any previous sailing experience to compare it to. In my case, I had lots
of previous experience sailing a variety of larger, conventional boats
before I bought the Mac. So, when I say that the Mac 26M is fun to sail,
my statement includes knowledge of and experience on a number of other
boats, and it isn't coming from a novice sailor. If I hadn't sailed
before, as in the case of you with your cement mixing tub, then your
analogy might be appropriate.
Happy sailing.
Jim