MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

It's sort of like when you get your head stuck up your ass, Johnathan.
You don't seem to be able to find your way out.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
than that.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I think you're lying. Prove you aren't.

How would you suggest that I "prove" that I ordered the boat on March 25?

- Get a grip on yourself Jonathan. - Consider how stupid and irrational
you will be perceived from these childish remarks.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You're a liar and a fraud as best as I can tell. You're an old fool
at best.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

No. You let it go. You're the newbie fool. You're the one
making an even bigger fool out of himself with each post.
I'll be here long after you're gone and your piece of junk is
in the trash heap.


Actually, I've been posting notes to this ng since 1997, and I've been
sailing for some 30 years. You ought to listen to us older, experienced
sailors, Johanthan.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

MacBoy,

What I'm saying is that "there aren't many owners of Macs
that would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule that
you've done. Even they are smarter than you, because they've
figured out Macs are crap and don't wish to embarrass themselves
any further in public.

So MacBoy.. when are you going to prove you didn't buy your
boat prior to posting about buying it?

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
would prefer to "go along to get along"?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Oh. Thanks for the explanation from an expert such as yourself
MacBoy. Do let us know when you finally unstick your head
from your ass.


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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

It's sort of like when you get your head stuck up your ass, Johnathan.
You don't seem to be able to find your way out.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Wally wrote:

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?

Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, I have
ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety, etc. -
These include three reefing points in the main, roller furling, all
lines let aft to the cockpit, depth and knot meters, gps chart readers
(plus paper charts and compass), and auto steering. The depth and knot
meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in view of the fact that
much of our bay waters are relatively shallow, and some of the channels
are narrow and not kept in good condition.

When going offshore, I plan to reef early and severely, and to sail with
the water ballast filled. The exact preferences for reefing, keeling,
etc., for going to windward, or reaching or running will have to be
derived and fine tuned from actual sailing experience over several
months on the boat. However, I understand that the boat makes better
speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.
Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive at preferred
reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc., for various
conditions.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Joe wrote:

"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.



Of course, if the boat and I to down, you won't have to put up with my
comments on rsa any longer. If I suddently disapear sometime after May
1, you can check the web site of the Houston Chronicle (houstonchronicle
..com) for the details.

Jim

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
 

MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast? Actually,
the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac. But, since
you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an experience,
it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full report
including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
rush out and buy one.

I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I have
no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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.

Nope. Not at all. I would want to be prepared for any potential
circumstance, but I would plan on motoring and/or sailing back to port
if conditions worsened unexpectantly. If that was not possible, I think
the Macgregor, with reefed or no sails, and storm anchor, could survive
with the best of them. Not comfortably, but it would survive.

By the way, Johathan, are you going to buy one of the heavy-weather
Satori's?



"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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

No. It doesn't make MacBoy sound like an idiot. He is an idiot.

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull
to
hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it
only
draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the
real
risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is
meaningless. Of
course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks -
that's
why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.

Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like
an
idiot.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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.


BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially
drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving
the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off
capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to
1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not
clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of
keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd.
the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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.

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
....
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.


What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat?
What
about all of those "bowriders" outs there?

The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments
include:
no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't
even
stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward
bunks
when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So
much
for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone
might
grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat,
nor
is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)

Total nonsense. First you extol all the "virtues," asserting everything claimed
by the factory must be true; now you're saying all their warnings and
disclaimers are meaningless because a lawyer told them add this in. Frankly,
I've never warnings like this from any other sailboat manufacturer. Why is it
that this one feels the need?

If you did look at the statistics, you'd realize that death from sinking in
medium size sailboats in coastal waters is rather uncommon. The vast majority
of deaths is from capsizing or falling off of unstable boats; followed closely
by hitting something at speed. All of these are much greater risks in a boat
like a mac. I'm not talking about 2 or 3 times more common - there's only a
handful of deaths from traditional cruising boats sinking, but hundreds from
falling overboard, or capsizing. Think about it, Jim. 99% of drownings
involved boats with foam floation.

If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here. Do
you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of what
you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote...

if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
a duck.

right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.


- Scotty, does your boat
stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
boat to the bottom?????????

If my hull were 'penetrated' where my sink drain through hull is, the water
would be contained by the drain hose which is double hose clamped as a
safety precaution.

Scotty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

check the Mac list, dufASS.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
links to any sources you cite.

Jim



Scott Vernon wrote:

Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of
the
ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.

SV

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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?)

My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.



But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.

All this means is that there are some situations where there is some
extra
protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is
implied

by

"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a

marketing

claim.

double hulled
 

aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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.

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scotty wrote....
the Mac26Xm is a cheap plastic piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a
damn.


"Jim Cate" wrote ...


Agreed.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
.

In essence, the 26M provides the disadvantages from the several previous
models of water ballast power sailboats, plus the disadvantages of
"lessons
learned" over the past eight years of advertising.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Smart-ass Jim Cate" wrote ...


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



And then wrote.....

the boat makes better
speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.

Jim


So now the mac has an adjustable weight keel?

SV

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

I was hoping to get some reports from contributors who had actually
sailed the 26M (not the previous models), or who had spoken with
experienced sailors who had sailed the boat. No one on this ng had
sailed the boat, and few had spoken with anyone who had. If someone on
the ng had actually sailed the boat, his or her report regarding how
the boat handled under varying conditions would have been helpful.

So, armed with this lack of information, you went and bought one. Why do
that when, by your own admission, you aren't sufficiently well informed to
assert its worthiness?


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

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?

Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...

70 knots is not 'moderate'.


I
have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
furling,

Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you propose
to bend on a small jib?


The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,

How does a knot meter help in shallow water?


and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.

What do you mean?



However, I understand that the boat
makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
for various conditions.

I asked:

1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
use?
3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
out in 70kt winds. Your trolling skills are a joke - try to be less obvious.


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

double hulled
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ...
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American


Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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.

otn

double hulled
 

Actually, I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty certain
that something like 2/3 that enter US ports are not because
of the longevity of the tankers. If you have data to suggest
otherwise, I'd like to see it. I do believe the US registered
fleet is double-hulled, however.

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

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American


Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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.

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

And, he's not moderately stupid either.

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

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

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?

Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...

70 knots is not 'moderate'.


I
have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
furling,

Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you
propose
to bend on a small jib?


The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,

How does a knot meter help in shallow water?


and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.

What do you mean?



However, I understand that the boat
makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
for various conditions.

I asked:

1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
use?
3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
out in 70kt winds. Your trolling skills are a joke - try to be less
obvious.


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

double hulled
 

They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
carry does not fall under "oil" transport.

otn

Scott Vernon wrote:
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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.

otn

double hulled
 

Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"



"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
carry does not fall under "oil" transport.

otn

Scott Vernon wrote:
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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.

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
would prefer to "go along to get along"?


I don't feel the need to knock your choice of boat. I may not agree with
it, but I suspect that you will enjoy it.

Don't worry about how *most* contributers feel. They won't be sailing the
boat - You will.



Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
claimed it handled better than my SVX.

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

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
would prefer to "go along to get along"?


I don't feel the need to knock your choice of boat. I may not agree with
it, but I suspect that you will enjoy it.

Don't worry about how *most* contributers feel. They won't be sailing
the
boat - You will.



Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
...

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.


What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat?

What

about all of those "bowriders" outs there?

The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments

include:

no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't

even

stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward

bunks

when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So

much

for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone

might

grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat,

nor

is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)


Total nonsense. First you extol all the "virtues," asserting everything claimed
by the factory must be true;

Actually, this is not true. What I cited from the "factory" (whatever
that is) are the objective specifications of the boat. - Dimensions,
design changes (dagger board vs. swing keel, deep V-hull vs rounded
hull, additional fiberglass in hull, use of permantent ballast in
addition to water ballast. I DID NOT cite unobjective marketing verbage
relating to the sailing or motoring characteristics of the boat.



now you're saying all their warnings and
disclaimers are meaningless because a lawyer told them add this in.

Nope. I merely suggested that you take them with a grain of salt.

Frankly,
I've never warnings like this from any other sailboat manufacturer. Why is it
that this one feels the need?

- - Because MacGregor cares about it's customers and their passengers,
and is willing to warn them about potential hazards even if it means
that such warinings might be interpreted as a criticism of the boat itself.

If you did look at the statistics, you'd realize that death from sinking in
medium size sailboats in coastal waters is rather uncommon. The vast majority
of deaths is from capsizing or falling off of unstable boats; followed closely
by hitting something at speed. All of these are much greater risks in a boat
like a mac. I'm not talking about 2 or 3 times more common - there's only a
handful of deaths from traditional cruising boats sinking, but hundreds from
falling overboard, or capsizing. Think about it, Jim. 99% of drownings
involved boats with foam floation.

And, with some 30,000 boats sold, how many people drowned last year from
falling off one of the the Mac 26? Was it around 1,000? Or, perhaps,
about 500?? Or, even around 100??? Or about 50????? No? How about
20????? (No? Then how many. Put up or shut the hell up.)



If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here. Do
you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of what
you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

The catalina is a nice boat (I've saild on several 30s), and we did
consider several of them, but it's boring, boring, boring.


Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote...

if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
a duck.


right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.


Maybe. But if the Mac inner liner serves the same purpose, if the
central, lowermost portion of the hull is penetrated, then it's a case
of the Mac walking like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like
a duck. Seems to me that whether you call it a doublehull or not is
actually a non sequitor.




- Scotty, does your boat
stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
boat to the bottom?????????


If my hull were 'penetrated' where my sink drain through hull is, the water
would be contained by the drain hose which is double hose clamped as a
safety precaution.

Scotty


And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
claimed it handled better than my SVX

Ah, the rich sailor. God I hate rich sailors. I mean the Mac is a piece of
****, I agree, but rich people suck worse than cable steering and a 50 hp power
motor strapped on the back of a milk carton boat.

The Veridican

double hulled
 

The bad news: Yup ...... The good news: all the birds etc. would get
fat, licking themselves clean.
Thankfully, that is one cargo I never carried ..... it's a pain to heat.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:
Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Now look at what you've done, Jon...you've unearthed Ed Gordon from whatever
cave he's been dweklling in these past few years....

--
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
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

check the Mac list, dufASS.\


Why don't you show us some evidence proving that blisters inside the
water ballast chamber are a serious problem for most Mac owners? YOU are
the one who introduced this issue, not me, and you should at least
provide your sources and the probabilities that most Mac owners will or
will not experience such difficulties.

Jim






"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
links to any sources you cite.

Jim



Scott Vernon wrote:


Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of

the

ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.

SV

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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?)

My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.




But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.

All this means is that there are some situations where there is some

extra

protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is

implied

by


"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a

marketing


claim.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast?


Nope. Not more than 100 miles offshore.

Actually,
the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac.


What a ridiculous, asinine statement. - I'm not a sailor, since I bought
a Mac. - The bottom line, Jonathan, is that you have no understanding
whatsoever of the most basic aspects of logic, rationality, and
intellectual honesty. - In other words, you aren't willing to tell the
truth.


But, since
you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an experience,
it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full report
including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
rush out and buy one.

I'll be happy to provide detailed reports of my offshore trips in the
Mac26M.

I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I have
no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.

Sure Johnathan. But would you recommend the Satori to anyone else on
this ng???


Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull to
hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it only
draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the real
risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless.

It's not "along the waterline." It's below the waterline. And in a boat
plaining under power, the portion protected by the extra wall is
precisely the area most likely to be damaged by impacts with submerged
objects just below the surface.


Of
course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks - that's
why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.

Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like an
idiot.

Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
advertising the boat has having a double hull.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.............................................. .................................................. .............................................



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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.


BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving

the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off

capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not

clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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.


If it walks like a duck, and talks like a
duck...................................

In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
positioned over the lower hull IN EXACTLY THE AREAS MOST LIKELY TO BE
COMPROMISED IF THE BOAT STRIKES A SUBMERGED OBJECT WHEN PLANING.



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..

Although you may be right technically in questioning whether the term
"double hulled" should be applied, SUBSTANTIVELY, the extra, inner layer
serves the same purpose in the event the boat is compromised along its
central axis.

While your nomentclature might be more precise, if the extra layer
prevents water from entering the cabin, the end result is that your ass,
and that of my passengers, might be saved.


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.


One factor I'M SEEING is that most contributors to this ng don't have
the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that they are
wrong, and/or, that they have never sailed the26m, or that they really
don't know what they are talking about.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.......................................

Jim



otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

jimbo, you are full of ****.


Thanks for your note, Scott. Have a nice evening.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:


"Jim Cate" wrote


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

.

Yes it is.


NO, it's NOT


Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote


right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.


Maybe.

Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it, no
probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS ****N
O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!






And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?


Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.

Scotty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

And, with some 30,000 boats sold, how many people drowned last year from
falling off one of the the Mac 26? Was it around 1,000? Or, perhaps,
about 500?? Or, even around 100??? Or about 50????? No? How about
20????? (No? Then how many. Put up or shut the hell up.)


How how many drowned from all the keel boats that you think are unsafe? The
point is you've been making a big claim that safety, compared to keel boats, is
one of the prime virtues of the mac, but you forgot to notice that keel boats
aren't particularly dangerous, especially in inland sailing. The safety factor
that impresses you so much solves a problem that doesn't really exist!




If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here.
Do
you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of
what
you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

The catalina is a nice boat (I've saild on several 30s), and we did
consider several of them, but it's boring, boring, boring.

And bobbing around in a clorox bottle is exciting? Its hard to imaginge a
sailboat more boring than a mac! I only mention the Cat 30 because there are
so many of them that its easy to determine the price and depreciation. There
are easily 100 models in the same range that would be vastly superior.

The Mac only has two advantages over a traditional boat. First, its trailorable.
If you lived in Minnesota and wanted to sail a different lake each weekend, this
would be very handy. Second is the increased speed. However, if you travel
with a crew, and any amount of gear, you won't really see speeds over 12 knots.
Clearly this is enough to pass other boats, but it won't really get you places
that much faster. And, if you have a head wind and any chop, the speed is
greatly reduced, and its very wet and uncomfortable.

And, its a horrible sailor. I haven't seen a PHRF number for the 26M, but on
the mac boards you'll see comments of rating the 26X at somewhere between 280
and 300. And this is for lake racing - imagine how slow it is "75 miles
offshore." You're thinking its safe to venture that far out because you can
scoot in at 20 knots. However, if you get a nasty chop you could end up
spending all night trying to get back.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
than that.


Jonathan, I ordered the boat last month, as indicated. Whay are you so
concerned about when I ordereed it? What are you trying to prove?

Regarding your statement that the Mac is a piece of crap, actually, I'm
very fortunate to be able to get one of the few 26Ms still available in
the next few months. It's a spectacular, high-tech, innovative new
vessel incorporating a number of improvements derived from Mac's
extensive exeperience over the years. I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Why, I'm not the one dumb enough to buy a Mac26xM.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

check the Mac list, dufASS.\


Why don't you show us some evidence proving that blisters inside the
water ballast chamber are a serious problem for most Mac owners? YOU are
the one who introduced this issue, not me, and you should at least
provide your sources and the probabilities that most Mac owners will or
will not experience such difficulties.

Jim






"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
links to any sources you cite.

Jim



Scott Vernon wrote:


Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of

the

ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.

SV

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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?)

My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.




But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.

All this means is that there are some situations where there is some

extra

protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is

implied

by


"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a

marketing


claim.