MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What about unexpected weather??

In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.

Now THAT'S what we've been praying for.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?


My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
to see how it might be compromised.

--
-jeff www.sv-loki.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friend. Like an old man trying to send back soup
at the deli."

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What about unexpected weather??

In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.

Now THAT'S what we've been praying for.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Veridican wrote:

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another boat.
BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I would
with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out just a
little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
the bow facing windward. t



I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross the
ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does it?

The Veridican

If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I agree...

But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
bottom of the ocean.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Nothing substantive to say, Scott?

Scott Vernon wrote:

Jimbo has a son?

"Veridican" veridican Cate @aol.com wrote...

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a

23

foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off

shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another

boat.

BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I

would

with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out

just a

little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not

cross the

ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does

it?

The Veridican

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?



My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
to see how it might be compromised.

Your boat is an unusual design. Not many on his ng would float after a
collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
down to the bottom.

I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.

Jim

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

John,

I'm still waiting for your responce to this note. - In particular, my
question asking you whether you believed that Practial Saior
deliberately chose not to sail the boat (there wasn't any wind, by the
way) so that they wouldn't have to report on its sailing performance.

John, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT PC WAS AFRAID TO REPORT ON THE SAILING
PERFORMANCE OF THE BOAT? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THEY WAITED UNTIL
THERE WAS A CALM DAY SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE NOT TO SAIL THE
BOAT?

Far out, John.- Did Roger paid them a big bribe to keep them off the
boat? (Your theory is absolutely absurd, John, but it's rather typical
of the Mac bashers.

Jim




In particular, I would like you to clarify your statement that
concludes, from the fact that Practical Sailor didn't sail the boat
(becasue of the calm) that they "would have
reported that it sails poorly." Nothing in the
article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing
performances. (You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind
so that they wouldn't have to report on it's sailing
characteristics??) In fact, they
quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.





Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.

What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?

Jim



You can't seriously believe this crap you've been posting, can you?
You're
basically posting, verbatim, what you've been reading in the mac sales
literature. I can offer you one unbiased review of the mac, culled from
"Practical Sailor", which accepts no advertising and can't possibly be
accused of harboring biases when it comes to sailboat evaluations. It's
free.
http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html
Very interesting that they didn't bother to ACTUALLY SAIL THE THING. Also
very interesting that this was one of the 2 reviews that they're offering
free of charge. A public service announcement, perhaps? You'll note, even
the man himself doesn't claim that this is an "offshore" boat.






John, from reading the Practical Sailor article in its entirety, it's
actually quite favorable. (Incidentally, I'm a subscriber to PC, and
have read selected articles from it for many years. You seem to think I
had never heard of it.) Interesting that you cited this rather favorable
report on the (old) Mac 26 as a fatal hatchet job. I'm wondering if you
actually read the entire article.

Your suggestion that they are publishing this article as a "warning" to
inexperienced sailors is totally out of it, John. - They CONCLUDE the
article with a very favorable comment by a Mac owner, and the THEME of
the entire article is that the (previous) Mac 26 has lots of things
going for it provided one understands its limitations and doesn't plan
on using it to make long ocean crossings. (There is one quote from an
owner in San Francisco, not from "the man," that he wouldn't take the
boat out to blue water. - This isolated statement from one owner doesn't
mean much, of course. It may merely mean that that particular owner
hasn't learned how to sail well.) - Your statement inferring, from the
fact that they didn't sail the boat indicates that they "would have
reported that it sails poorly" is total bull ****. - Nothing in the
article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing performances.
(You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind so that they
wouldn't have to report on it's sailing characteristics??) In fact, they
quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.


This article, relating to the 26X model some 7-8 years ago, notes a
number of improvements MacGregor incorporated in the 26X. I'm talking
about the new 26M, which includes improvements made from their
experience over the past eight years. - Here's the conclusion of the
article:

As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for
typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal
sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It wont
hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion
of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew.

(John, If you read the article carefully you will note that Roger was
saying that the boat wasn't designed as a long-distance passagemaker. it
would be uncomfortable, and wouldn't hold the needed supplies. Duhh!
That's rather obvious, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as a
coastal cruiser (using good sense and restricting it to reasonable
weather conditions, for limited use.) As discussed in the PC report,
the boats are sailed routinely in San Francisco bay, rather choppy and
high-wind area, as discussed in the article, and sail out to Catalina
island routinely.

As stated,
“There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught
in, AND SURVIVED, SOME REALLY EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS, on BOTH lakes
AND OCEANS. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high
winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase
dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our
owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe
conditions.”

Conclusion
There's no question MacGregor is building an inexpensive product that
sells for $4,000-$6,000 LESS THAN ITS PRIMARY COMPETITORS. The list
price for boat, sails and trailer is $14,995 FOB the factory. Genoa and
gear, roller furling, cruising spinnaker, vang, mast raising system,
stove, cushions and transportation jump the price to $17,000; add
$5,000-$7,000 for engine and electronics.

[According to PC] THEY ALSO ENJOY RELATIVELY HIGH RESALE. Two-year-old
boats on the market are selling for 85%-90% of their original prices.

The owner of a recent model sums it up well, “She is fast enough to be
pleasurable, forgiving enough that I can be stupid, balanced enough that
I can be lazy.”

The two-year warranty covers all parts manufactured by MacGregor.

Contact- MacGregor Yacht Corp., 1631 Placentia, Costa Mesa, CA, 92627;
949/642-6830.


No one will

drive you away, but at some point you'll get plonked by just about
everyone
here. And one last thing, if you really think your comments are
"balanced"
and "fresh air", why do YOU keep trying to justify them?


Obviously, it's because my arguments are being ignored and aren't being
responded to, and because I enjoy providing some balance and new inputs
to otherwise biased discussions such as this. (And because I like to
see people like you squirming and stressed out.) But I have read the
previous discussions, and the reactions don't surprise me. Frankly, my
experience is that it takes several months of a discussion such as this
before people like you finally realize that your aren't going to be able
to run over me, or run away from me, and that you can't intimidate or
smoke-screen your way out of responding to my points. - -

It's actually amazing to me that you thought you cite that PC report as
a great triumph for those bashing the Mac 26, and then totally twist the
meaning and conclusions of the article. (Did you think we wouldn't read
it?) - According to you, the fact that PC didn't sail the boat and
didn't report on its handling was because they knew it would sail
poorly?? And didn't want to offend anyone?? In other words, according to
your interpretation, they intentionally selected a day without wind so
that they wouldn't have to sail the boat, and so they wouldn't have to
report on it?? Tell me, John, do you think Roger was paying them off so
that they wouldn't bash his boats?? (But no, you also told us that you
think PS is completely neutral because of their no-advertising policy.)
What are you saying, John? You are something else.



After all, you

asked for the input from us, we didn't come looking for YOU. And, of
course,
I've never actually sailed one, but I've sailed by them many times in
my 28
ft. keelboat, I should say, I've passed them many times in my 28 ft.
keelboat, more often than not they didn't appear to be moving.


Actually, you might be able to sail by my new 26M also, provided I
wasn't planing under sail. But as the PC article concludes, the
(previous) 26X sailed fast enough to be pleasurable. That's one thing
I'm looking for, although I intend to make several mods, such as three
reefing points and roller furling, to enhance the sailing characteristics.


I will also

admit, because I've seen it also, that they can definitely motor a lot
faster than I can sail, but if I was REALLY interested in powerboating
I'd
own a powerboat and wouldn't be posting ANY of this here.


While I'm primarily interested in sailing, particularly in blue water, I
don't have an objection to motoring also. I particularly don't have an
objection to motoring to a desired destination prior to sailing,
fishing, picnicking, swimming with the grandkids, scuba diving, etc., in
order to have more time at the desired destination, get back more
quickly, and maintain a more convenient and less stressful schedule.

John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Dear Mr. Cate,
Please stop talking about the 26M Powersailer on this news group. You
have generated more negative publicity for my product than any
competitor has ever been able to. This is a news group filled ,for the
most part with real sailors, who know what a crappy, shoddy product we
peddle. My beloved 26M powersailer is targeted to the beginner boater
who has no clue what-so-ever as to what he wants or how bad our boat
really is. Let's keep that our little secret, shall we? Otherwise I
will be forced to sic my lawyers on you.

Roger MacGregor


Jim Cate wrote in message ...
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
 

Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
NOT responsible for your boat!

Roger MacGregor


"Jim Cate" wrote in message ...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You're rather typical of Mac owners... stupid.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
bs removed

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You are a total fool. Why would I want to sail a boat in 30 foot breaking
waves? And, even if I did, it would not go to the bottom unless, like you,
I was stupid enough to let the water below decks.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I agree...

But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
bottom of the ocean.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Nothing substantive to say, Scott?

Scott Vernon wrote:

Jimbo has a son?

"Veridican" veridican Cate @aol.com wrote...

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in
a

23

foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off

shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than
another

boat.

BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I

would

with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out

just a

little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not

cross the

ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter,
does

it?

The Veridican

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You think? Wow. That's amazing.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Veridican wrote:

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in
a 23
foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than
another boat.
BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
would
with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
just a
little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
the bow facing windward. t



I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not
cross the
ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter,
does it?

The Veridican

If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
never sailed in your life.

I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Hahaha... now, now. I think you shouldn't discourage him!

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

"Roger MacGregor" wrote in message
om...
Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
NOT responsible for your boat!

Roger MacGregor


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote

If you were 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing
a Mac you'd be dead by now.

jimbo

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat
forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete
hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I
have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without
damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my
previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings
happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is
easy
to see how it might be compromised.

Your boat is an unusual design.

No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran. BTW, you once
mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat. For that money,
you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
under power and sail, a LOT more fun.



Not many on his ng would float after a
collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
down to the bottom.

Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put a
boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.) However,
I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been chopped in
half. BTW, positive flotation isn't unique to the Mac. Its required on all
small boats, and pretty common on boats up to 25 feet. I'm sure the Hunter
water ballast boats have positive floatation. The problem is that while it
takes a lot of water to sink a large boat, a small one can be taken down pretty
easily.



I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.

You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves. You need
professional help, not a boat.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Then why post?

"Jim Cate" wrote
Nothing substantive to say, Scott.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
gear do you intend to carry? How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger), do you really
think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
stuff?

BTW, what kind of storm jib are you going to use with the roller furling jib?
Are you really going to crawl up to the bow offshore in a chop to swap jibs, or
even to set a storm anchor?



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Veridican wrote:

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another
boat.
BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
would
with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
just a
little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
the bow facing windward. t



I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross
the
ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does
it?

The Veridican

If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

you best stay on land, jimmy.

"Jim Cate" wrote
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water,

Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I agree...

But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
bottom of the ocean.

Jim

While there have been reports of Valiants being rolled, none have ever
gone to the bottom. Why you persist in claiming that the Mac is a
more seaworthy boat has to be the most absurd thing ever posted in
this group, and that is really saying something.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

It really wasn't that big a bribe, at least not compared to what I
have to pay off the DEP and OSHA. Those bums at PS are a bunch of worn
out, drugged out old hippies. A few lbs. of hash and any boat can get
a good review.

Roger M.


"Jim Cate" wrote in


Far out, John.- Did Roger paid them a big bribe to keep them off the
boat? (Your theory is absolutely absurd, John, but it's rather typical
of the Mac bashers.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:45:38 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:

You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
gear do you intend to carry? How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger), do you really
think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
stuff?


You need to buy a clue.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of:

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


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

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat

forward,

forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete

hulls

(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I

have no

lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without

damaging

the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my

previous

boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings

happen

at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is

easy

to see how it might be compromised.


Your boat is an unusual design.


No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran.

As I said, your boat is an unusual design. Only a smallpercentge of
cruising sailboats are cats.



BTW, you once
mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat.

Its far less than that even fully equipped with 50 hp motor, roller
reefing, lines led aft, GPS chart plotter, auto steering, vhf, radar, etc.

For that money,
you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
under power and sail, a LOT more fun.

Lots of used boats here at reasonable prices, but all of them had
problems. u


Not many on his ng would float after a
collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
down to the bottom.


Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put a
boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.) However,
I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been chopped in
half.

In that unlikely event, the Mac would still float.

BTW, positive flotation isn't unique to the Mac. Its required on all
small boats, and pretty common on boats up to 25 feet. I'm sure the Hunter
water ballast boats have positive floatation. The problem is that while it
takes a lot of water to sink a large boat, a small one can be taken down pretty
easily.

So can a large boat.



I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.


You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves.

Not really.

You need
professional help, not a boat.

Actually, I rather thing that anyone who DOESN'T take such weather
conditions seriously, and prepare for them, is the one who needs
professional help.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're rather typical of Mac owners... stupid.

As I thought, you didn't want to answer that one. In other words, you
lost that one, didn't you Ganz. And as usual, you aren't willing to
admit it.

Hun

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
never sailed in your life.

I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

Actually, no. I had sailed various Macs and followed their development
over the years as different models were introduced. However, there were
several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like. The the 26M has
corrected them, for the first time.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Roger MacGregor wrote:

Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
NOT responsible for your boat!

Roger MacGregor

In that case, you need to correct those on your staff who respond to
inquiries from those of us who call and request information about your
boats. When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
designed for. They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out). And the water
between the California coast and Catalina island is certainly blue. My
own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore. Also, I
have made it clear to him several times that that's what I intend to do.
Another dealer I spoke with said the same thing and told me that he
had sailed Macs offshore many times, sailed to the Bahamas 12 times, and
would not hesitate to do it again. I also note that there is absolutely
NOTHING in your literature (if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)
warning your customers not to take their boats more than three miles
offshore.

In other words, you are either a troll, or if not, MacGregor has some
serious legal liability issues.

Jim





"Jim Cate" wrote in message ...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Roger MacGregor wrote:

Dear Mr. Cate,
Please stop talking about the 26M Powersailer on this news group. You
have generated more negative publicity for my product than any
competitor has ever been able to. This is a news group filled ,for the
most part with real sailors, who know what a crappy, shoddy product we
peddle. My beloved 26M powersailer is targeted to the beginner boater
who has no clue what-so-ever as to what he wants or how bad our boat
really is. Let's keep that our little secret, shall we? Otherwise I
will be forced to sic my lawyers on you.

Roger MacGregor


Sure thing, Roger.





Jim Cate wrote in message ...

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
 

Veridican wrote:

I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.



I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for them.
I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.

Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what difference
does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the slip or
driveway as good as any other boat.

My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on the ocean
and we sail all the time. That's what matters.

The Veridican

You make a valid point, Veradican. If they don't sail their boats, what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

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.



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


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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of:

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


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

Jim

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks for
the laughs.

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of:

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


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

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
26Mx every day.

Scotty


"Jimbo Mac" wrote ...
seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:

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

Instead of:

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


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

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

How can he say that when he's never driven a Mac26x?

jimbo's a Mac basher, just like the rest of us.

SV


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

However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote

When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
designed for.

and you believed them??????

My
own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore.


BWaaaaaaaaHahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha


(if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)


What a maroon!

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

In your case, it wouldn't matter either way.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Veridican wrote:

I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.



I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for
them.
I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.

Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what
difference
does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the
slip or
driveway as good as any other boat.

My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on
the ocean
and we sail all the time. That's what matters.

The Veridican

You make a valid point, Veradican. If they don't sail their boats, what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote
what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

he just doesn't get it.