MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

Then why are you still here?


Because: there weren't very many owners of the
new 26M, and I thought I might get some further substantive information
from this group, which is larger than the Mac group. I'm remaining on
the ng because it's become increasingly obvious that many on this ng
have become opinionated, set in their ways and rigid in their views, and
because the ng needs some new insights and some contributors who are
willing to state and defend some differing points of view.

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:


Jimbo, did you ask your silly questions on the Mac list, like I

suggested?

SV


Yes. The great majority on the Mac lists have one of the the older
models. I did correspond with and speak with some 26M owners.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

What is bass-ass? Is that an ugly fish?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Wally wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


This isn't what happened at all. I posted my questions several times
on this an on the cruising ng and scanned the reponses for over a
month hoping to get some factual or substantive information regarding
the 26M. It was only after weeks of "Mac bashings" ...


What, you came into a sailing newsgroup to enquire about about a boat
you
knew little about, it's gets slagged off something rotten for a month...

...and then you go and *buy* one?

Nobody is that stupid.

You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally. I came onto this newsgroups
hoping to get some substantive, factual information. Instead, I found
out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone who
likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are either: (1)
stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar. In any event, it
put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought might be some
problems with the Mac, other than its inherent limitations that I
already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified, and I proceeded to
place my order. Because they are substantially sold out for the rest of
the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few who will be able to take
delivery of this spectacular and innovated boat this season.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Wally, please don't be cruel to JHM.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jim Cate wrote:

What's a "depth-knot"?

It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.

Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what sort of
handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much reef would
you
put in the main, and what size of jib would you use? How much heel would
you
expect when going to windward?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wally, please don't be cruel to JHM.

As a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b, I'm interested in learning about
this sort of thing.

A couple of Sundays ago, we had some gusts on the Sonata I'm crewing on - no
reef, standard jib, at least 40 degrees of heel (the lee rail was dipping
under). Being a n00b, I didn't know what the windspeeds were until I read
the OOD's notes on the club web site, which calmly stated that they were
29-45kts. Damned excellent fun...


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:

So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
he "won"?

He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
many ASA points Joe will give me...)


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Yep, it's fun for a short period, then it gets old fast.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wally, please don't be cruel to JHM.

As a sweet, innocent, fresh-faced n00b, I'm interested in learning about
this sort of thing.

A couple of Sundays ago, we had some gusts on the Sonata I'm crewing on -
no
reef, standard jib, at least 40 degrees of heel (the lee rail was dipping
under). Being a n00b, I didn't know what the windspeeds were until I read
the OOD's notes on the club web site, which calmly stated that they were
29-45kts. Damned excellent fun...


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:
Jim claimed:
I'm not afraid to die.

Prove it.

Good Christian sentiment there Katy! ;-)

Cheers
Marty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Yep, it's fun for a short period, then it gets old fast.

It's been okay for the couple of hours round-the-cans racing we've been
doing. I can well imagine that it would get tedious on a longer sail.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Not only tedious, but increases the potential for failure of
boat parts and mistakes by the crew.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Yep, it's fun for a short period, then it gets old fast.

It's been okay for the couple of hours round-the-cans racing we've been
doing. I can well imagine that it would get tedious on a longer sail.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote ...
Scott, in case you hadn't realized it, there's no law requiring you to
continue following this discussion.

As I told you before, as the NG moderator, I am required to read every post.

I'm really that stupid, and my
remarks are really that vacuous, why in hell do you continue to waste
your time in this discussion string?

Cause reading your dribble makes me feel oh so superior.



(Actually, of course, you are obviously
stressed out over your inability to put me down,




it's increasingly obvious that you and your buddies have almost nothing
to say of substance.


they're not my buddies, they're my gang.


It's obvious that you have given up on citing any
objective issues,


the Mac is a cheap piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a damn. How's
that?

S

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote

are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?
..


Yes it is.

NO, it's NOT

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote
(Scotty, for a change, why don't you just
admit that I was right?

cause you're wrong. The mac is NOT double hulled.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Wally" wrote in message ...
katysails wrote:

So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
he "won"?

He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
many ASA points Joe will give me...)



****, anyone brave enough to be on a mac even at the dock durin a
hurricane deserves at least 3 asa points. All that windage from the
high freeboard and vortexes created from wind rounding the square
corners will make mini tornados that will pull his shackles and
thimbles lose from the dock. Jim's a brave man and since he scored a
98 on his ASA test he is surley qualified to venture into the
navigable simi circle of any hurricane.

Sold any paintings yet Wally? What would you charge to paint my boat?
Id like a stary night theme after Van G in red and yellow.

Joe

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Joe" wrote in message So, when do you all guess
Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
he "won"?

He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
many ASA points Joe will give me...)

****, anyone brave enough to be on a mac even at the dock durin a
hurricane deserves at least 3 asa points. All that windage from the
high freeboard and vortexes created from wind rounding the square
corners will make mini tornados that will pull his shackles and
thimbles lose from the dock. Jim's a brave man and since he scored a
98 on his ASA test he is surley qualified to venture into the
navigable simi circle of any hurricane.


You're too quick to award points - he doesn't even have the boat yet! If talk
counted, jax and RB would be the world's greatest sailors.

The truth is, the first time he goes out in rough conditions (i.e. over 10
knots), his grandchildren will get seasick and refuse to go on the boat again.
Jim will discover that the worst aspect of the boat is that it won't sink.















Sold any paintings yet Wally? What would you charge to paint my boat?
Id like a stary night theme after Van G in red and yellow.

Joe

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Oh.

"Jim Cate" wrote


Actually, I knew what you meant too, Katy.
It was just too tempting to act like an asshole.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Marty chided:
Good Christian sentiment there Katy! ;-)

I didn't tell him to run out and get killed...he seems to be doing very well
at doing himself in all by himself....
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Comparing a Mac26M with the remarkable Valiant 40 ...
is a high compliment to the Mac26M.

THe Valiant 40 is a high-end sailor's dream yacht..
always a beautiful sight to see on the sea.. and
in the harbour.

The Mac26M is a compromise.. between a sailing vessel
and a motorboat.. the nautical engineers working to
meet the wishes and needs of the marketplace.. and in
my view succeeding beyond expectations.. creating a
very attractive yacht.. not perfect.. but getting there
with the state-of-the-art technology of the day.

And some day.. when I can no longer singlehand my
C&C27 Mark III ... I will invest in a Mac26M..
and continue sailing into the sunset...
and dream..

Best Regards
JWB

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

John remarked: The Mac26M is a compromise.. between a sailing vessel
and a motorboat

Right..it's a hermaphrodite..neither male nor female, beast nor fowl. It's
for people who can't decide whether to S*it or get off the pot.
If you're going to be a sailor, for goodness sake, sail. If you want to be
a motorboater, then go buy a motorboat. And if I ever get that decrepit
that I have to make a choice, it will be a trawler, thank you, and not a
pile of junk.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"katysails" wrote

And if I ever get that decrepit ( LIKE DOUG )
that I have to make a choice, it will be a trawler, thank you, and not a
pile of junk.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:
Jim claimed:
I'm not afraid to die.

Prove it.

What would you suggest?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:

Jim asked: But why are you wasting your time in this discussion, if what I'm
saying
is that insignificant and doesn't have an element of truth?

Because we're all sick s*its who have nothing better to do than make you
miserable.


Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Jim Cate wrote:

katysails wrote:


Jim, still not gettingIf I'm that stupid and my notes are that
insignificant, why is
this discussion string the most extensive on the ng,

SHADES OF LONG ISLANDWE HAVE A MACKEREL!!!!!!!!


But why are you wasting your time in this discussion, if what I'm saying
is that insignificant and doesn't have an element of truth?



Jim, you keep asking this question in one form or another, so it
appears you don't really see the answer. As I'm a kind and
generous soul, much more so than the rest of these
bottom-dwellers here, here's a bit of help for you.

This newsgroup has been notable for years in its exercise of
virtual cruelty, especially on the innocent, to the point where
even the FAQs are full of dire warnings. The cruellest of the
virtual cruelties is, of course, the goading of the
uncomprehending. When such goading has been done expertly, these
sadists can sit back, and apply only the lightest of touches,
while the suffering goad themselves into increasing frenzy, in an
almost self-perpetuating cycle, providing hours of entertainment
for the watchers, for minimal effort on their part. Do you now
see why most of the regulars in this group are here "wasting
their time in this discussion?"

Tadpole,

Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
bashing them for a number of years.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim asked: What would you suggest?

Actually, it's already been thrown out that you're trying awfully hard
already to prove that, so a double-dog dare wouldn't be appropriate at this
time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim stated: Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

You're welcome Jim...any time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Tadpole,

Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
bashing them for a number of years.

Jim

You need to try a google search, we don't spend our time bashing macs, we
try to limit our discussion to sailing and sailboats, which naturally would
exclude macs. Occasionally, someone comes a trolling, lauding the merits of
macs, we educate them. We weren't talking about macs until you showed up, we
won't be talking about them after you leave. And one last thing, if you
thought your mac was as good a boat as you claim it is, you wouldn't feel
the need to convince us, remembering, we didn't ask you for your opinion on
the subject, you asked for ours.
John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Perhaps you should look at the drawings of your beloved boat


Incidentally, I never claimed that the MacGregor 26M was a perfect boat
that would meet the needs of everyone, or that it was suitable for all
types of sailing. My interest in this discussion is that the boat has
got a bad rap on this ng in previous discussion, and I want to see that
it gets somewhat more accurate and balanced treatment.

- its doesn't have
a double hull either. The portion of the hull the is protected by the ballast
tank is about a third of the underwater surface - and its the part least likely
to be damaged in a collision.

The water ballast chamber extends along the lowermost part of the hull
rearwardly from the bow for around 2/3rds of the length of the boat.
Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant, since if the boat runs over
an obstruction, the lowermost portions of the hull are the part that is
most likely to hit the obstruction and become punctured. Obviously, the
boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
entire hull. (Does your boat?)


If you hit a log (especially at speed) you're
going to need that foam flotation.

I don't intend to, but if I did, having a boat that didn't sink would be
nice. And helpful. And, perhaps, critical.


And the boat will be a total loss,

Maybe. Maybe not.


the
engine certainly wasted. BTW, they never actually say that there is enough foam
to float the boat if the engine is attached, do they? Do you think they
destroyed a $8000 engine just to take that picture?

My engine weighs around 200 lbs., so I doubt that it is going to pull
the boat to the bottom. The picture of the boat afloat after they cut a
hole through the hull doesn't show the motor (so its not clear whether
they removed it or not), but it does indicate that, with five men aboard
the boat, the boat has sunk about a foot or so from its normal position.
In other words, with five adult passengers, the boat isn't anywhere near
sinking. 200 lbs of motor not make that much difference, and there is
plenty of capacity for more people, particularly if they didn't try to
stand on top of the cabin.

And, if you have any damage to the ballast tank, it could lose water and the
partially filled tank becomes dangerously unstable. This is not so bad if
you're on a lake where the mac belongs, but offshore this becomes treacherous.

Actually, the new 26M model has a combination of both water ballast and
permanent ballast. The permanent ballast provides stability for the
boat when the water ballast isn't being used.


So the question is, would you prefer a boat with a solid hull that can withstand
a beating without being compromised, or one that is likely to be compromised by
a minor collision?

I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags, and I would prefer a
boat with foam flotation. I would rather have a boat that would survive
even under critical emergency situations in which the hull was
compromised rather than one that would survive a minor collision but not
a major or critical one, in which case the keel would quickly pull the
boat to the bottom.

I suppos



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


wrote:


On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:54:53 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:



wrote


are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?


It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,

which


gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.

and the space in-between your ears is a vacuum if you think the Mac is
double hulled.



Scotty,

There is a space between the bottom of the boat and the floor of the
boat. It is a tank for water ballast. Jim thinks that means the same
thing as double hulled.

Whether or not you call it a second hull, it is a second wall that preents

entry of water into the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. - Does
the Valiant have one of these back-up walls? I didn't see one on the one
we sailed.

Jim
barrier that would pre or not

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double hulled".
The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be easy
to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.

Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending throughout
the hull and chines. (Does your boat?) But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.


BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?

If it strikes the bottom while the boat is moving at high speed, as when
it is motoring or planing under sail, the dagger board may break.
Replacing it costs around $300.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


wrote:


On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"

wrote:


are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?



It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,

which

gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.

BB




Of course, if only the lower hull is penetrated, water doesn't get into
the cabin at all. Also, as mentioned above, the built-in flotation will
keep the boat afloat even if water enters the cabin.

Jim



SV

"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...


(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will plane with a full load, and
with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can plane with two
people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
any event, it's going to go substantially faster than most displacement
boats. It can also plane faster without the water ballast, and the new
26M includes 300 pounds of permenant ballast, in addition to the water
ballast, for added stability in that condition. Obviously, it would be
foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

In one place they say they lose 3 mph when the ballast if full. In another,
they say they lose one mph for every 100 pounds added. Also, the "22 mph" is
with empty tanks, no rigging, one person, flat seas. They advise not running
without ballast, but if you must, there's a long list of safety precautions,
like not going on deck, staying seated, only do it if the seas are under one
foot and the water is warm, etc.



"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
wrote:


On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:23:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:


Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double

hulled".

The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be
easy
to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.

BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?



The daggerboard stays, and the rest of the boat keeps going.

Other tidbits from Macgregor: The factory does not supply gas tank
hold downs. If you wish to add your own, DO NOT drill any holes! You
must glass in the hold downs.

If you install a second battery, DO NOT put it next to the existing
one. It will cause too much stress (what's that battery weigh? 50
pounds?) You must mount it on the opposite side of the boat.


By the way, if you motor with the ballast tank empty, bear in mind
that the boat is then VERY top heavy, and extremely prone to
capsizing. Make all turns very slowly and gradually, and always avoid
the wakes from other boats and large fish.

I did wonder about that. Next question is, does the thing plane with
the ballast tank full? If not, there goes the 18 knots.....

PDW

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

felton wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:16:19 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



felton wrote:


On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:



are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV


He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
"improve" their boats with some of these innovations:)

Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
choose?:) If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.


If I could anticipate that a drunken powerboater were going to hit me
going 50 mph, I would prefer a Valiant, although even then, I don't
think you could predict what would happen. (It's possible that the hull
of the Valiant would be compromised, in which case its keel would
quickly pull it to the bottom.) But a new Valiant would cost around
$400,000, normally equiped, or more than 10 times the cost of the Mac
loaded with navigation and autosteering. - You can't always get what you
want, but sometimes, if you try real hard, you just might get what you
need. - Which in my case is the 26M.


Hmmm. Moving the goalposts it would seem. Of course a Valiant is a
vastly more expensive boat that frankly is "overkill" for the kind of
sailing that you or I do. I am unclear why you keep choosing to
compare the Mac to the Valiant,

The reason I refer to the 40-ft. Valiant is that I had experience
sailing one on a charter situation and learned to appreciate what a
great boat it is. If I were going to make a crossing or an extended blue
water cruise, I would prefer the Valiant.


but since you do I keep pointing out
the obvious. The fact that no Valiant has ever gone to the bottom but
have logged many a circumnavigation should put your mind at ease,

What is your source for that assertion? - No Valiant has ever sunk?


but
yet the fact that you still cling to the belief that a 3500lb clorox
bottle is somehow "safer" than a Valiant, or any "real" sailboat,
speaks volumes to any real sailor.


Actually, a closed bottle is going to survive a storm that would sink a
Valiant.


Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
bottom within a few minutes?


I would absolutely prefer to be on a displacement boat than rely on
foam floatation in a lightly built clorox bottle. There is absolutely
no doubt in my mind which would be the safer boat. My boat has a real
rig, unlike the Mac. I can depower my rig, shorten sail, or even go
bare poles if need be. Anyone on a Mac 26 is going to be SOL. It
really doesn't give me much comfort knowing that there may be some
foam floatation on which I can cling waiting for rescue.


The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.


Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
quickly, and also
permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.

Jim


While I am not a fan of powerboats either, given your objectives, you
should have bought one. A Mac 26 is the worst of both worlds.
Something for everyone, I suppose. Someone even married my ex-wife:)


p,


"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...


(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.

Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.


If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).


The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


katysails wrote:
Jim claimed:
I'm not afraid to die.

Prove it.

What would you suggest?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

get a room, you two!


"katysails" wrote in message
...
Jim stated: Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

You're welcome Jim...any time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

The reason I started this discussion string was that I had hoped to
initiate some discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of widely
differing boats, such as the heavy, displacement Valiant 40 and the much
lighter, Mac 26M, which is a planing boat under power.

As I expected from past treatment of Mac enthusiasts on this ng, many
were highly offended that I would even suggest that there were
substantive advantages to both boats, including the Mac. They were even
more frustrated that I would CONTINUE to hold to my positions. Most
responses have been from contributors who didn't know anything about the
changes made on the 26m, and when told it wasn't the same hull, insisted
on swearing that it was. (In other words, many respondents (not all)
were pontificating about a boat they knew very little about.) Another
frequent comment was that I was obviously a paid shill for MacGregor,
repeating their advertising propaganda. In this regard, has anyone ever
heard of restrictions relative to Deceptive Trade Practices, or false
advertising? Or, has anyone ever heard about actions in tort (assuming
that MacGregor has tortuously misled or misinformed their customers, or
class actions? Or, has anyone read Section 3369 of the California Civil
Code? In other words, MacGregor can't merely publish a series of lies
about their boats, and they are subject to potential litigation of
various kinds if it can be demonstrated that their advertising is
deceptive, as some on this ng have asserted, and if buyers have been
relied on it and been damaged.

Few of the responses have addressed the advantages pointed out for the
Mac 26M in my first few notes. Instead, many of the responses are
essentially something like this:

Jim, anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
doesn't know what he is talking about, so I'm not even going to address
the five points you made concerning advantages you see in the Mac.
(Of course, that's a convenient cover if you really don't have an
answer and can't respond rationally or substantively.)

In an attempt to get the discussion back on track and move it beyond the
ridiculous, childish, personal attacks, I'm again listing several of
the substantive advantages claimed for the Mac 26M. In considering the
advantages of any boat, the elements of comfort, safety, suitability for
the intended applications and environment, are all valid issues, IMO.
In addition, the element of time is of substantial importance. So, I
have added a sixth relating to its ability to conserve the precious,
limited amount of time each of us has to enjoy the sea, sailing, family
outings on the water, etc.


the following are five (now six) advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of these substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous, childish personal attacks?

Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
criteria. With respect to coastal cruising, and sailing and motoring in
areas such as the Galveston bay area, the Mac seems to have several
advantages.


(1) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat. The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending
weather, is also a safety factor in the Mac.

(2) When we sailed the Valiant, there were several channels in the
Galveston area that weren't clearly marked and in which we could not
maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to turn back from a preferred
anchorage we were trying to reach. In contrast, the dagger board of the
MacGregor can be raised incrementally as desired, with a minimum draft
of around 18 inches. Again, with respect to its ability to maneuver in
shallow or unmarked channels, or to anchor in shallow water, or beach on
shore to permit grandkids to play on the sand, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat, since the Valiant must be kept in much deeper water and
doesn't have the versatility of the Mac for such shallow water activities.

I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).

(3) However, if one can't get out to the blue water on weekends because
of the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from port to the
blue water, then the excellent sailing characteristics of the Valiant
wouldn't be of much benefit. (With the exception of being able to talk
about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could only
get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a larger
boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.

(4) - If the lower hull is compromised along its lowermost centerline,
the inner liner, extending 2/3 rd the length of the boat, remains and
acts to prevent entry of water into the cockpit. - No,it's not a
complete double hull, and yes, it doesn't protect one from side impacts,
but it is an added safety factor.

(5) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keel boats) is
compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant (and the
keel of your boat) will quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect,
the MacGregor is a "better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of
drunk red-necks racing around the bays while downing another six-pack.)

(6) Regarding the issue of time, and the limited quantity thereof
available to most adults, because of its ability to motor to a desired
area quickly, or to be trailered to a desired area at 65 mph, the boat
provides added versatility in several respects. Unless you don't have
to go to work every week or have lots of free time such that you don't
worry about spending substantial time motoring out to desired sailing
areas, or sailing for several days to another desired sailing area down
the coast, the Mac 26M has advantages in that it permits you to get to
many areas not otherwise available on a weekend trip, or unless you can
spend several weeks sailing to a new port, etc. For example, in our
area, this permits one to sail in the Galveston area one weekend, from
the Corpus Christi area on another weekend, and from the Rockport area
on another, etc. The ability to remove the boat from the water on its
trailer also serves to minimize upkeep, marina fees, bottom treatments, etc.

Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
accepted for the evaluation, and how the boat will be used. My point
isn't that the Mac is the greatest boat made for all purposes. It's
rather an attempt to bring a little balance to such discussions.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote ...
Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will sink with a full load, and
with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can sink with two
people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
any event, it's going to sink substantially faster than most
displacement boats.

It can also sink faster with the new
300 pounds of permenant ballast, Obviously, it would be
foolhardy to permit any passengers to
ride in the Mac under any conditions.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

progress......his first admission to his lies.


"Jim Cate" wrote

Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

more progress jimbo.


"Jim Cate" wrote only one true comment...

anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
doesn't know what he is talking about.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

That's right. We only bash them infrequently. The rest of the
time we ignore them.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Tadpole,

Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
bashing them for a number of years.

Jim

You need to try a google search, we don't spend our time bashing macs, we
try to limit our discussion to sailing and sailboats, which naturally
would
exclude macs. Occasionally, someone comes a trolling, lauding the merits
of
macs, we educate them. We weren't talking about macs until you showed up,
we
won't be talking about them after you leave. And one last thing, if you
thought your mac was as good a boat as you claim it is, you wouldn't feel
the need to convince us, remembering, we didn't ask you for your opinion
on
the subject, you asked for ours.
John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I'll kick in a one-day rental on a EPIRB. That's all it'll take... one day.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


katysails wrote:
Jim claimed:
I'm not afraid to die.

Prove it.

What would you suggest?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
By definition, it's only a guess.

So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.

Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.

Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.


If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).


It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
find on the ocean.

The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.

Jim