MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

DSK wrote:

The original poster claims to already be an experienced sailor.

Once more, in a futile attempt to bring some intellectual honesty and
rationality into the discussion - -

Nope. I never alimed to be an experienced sailor. I claimed to have
some experience in sailing fixed hull sailboats in the 30-40 ft range,
and I specifically noted that there were more experienced sailors on the
ng. I didn't claim to be an expert.


Bobsprit wrote:
He's also under the impression that Macgregor's design tweaks have
transformed
the X into a capable sailing boat. The website says so.

Nope. (Getting sort of monotonous, isn't it?) What I claimed was that
the new boat is a significantly different design. - A new hull having a
15-degree forward V is not the same as a hull having a relatively
shallow, 8-degree V. And a dagger board isn't the same thing as a
pivotable fin keel requiring a 5-foot longitudinal notch in the hull
behind it. (It's not just a "tweeked" 26X.) I also stated that, whether
or not these differences made it a "good" boat, it definitely was a
"different boat".



Just like the website says that the hull has been redesigned with a
basically different shape.

The website is wrong, and you ought to admit it. If, again, you have any
interest in posting truthful, rational comments.

DSK

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Nope. (Getting sort of monotonous, isn't it?) What I claimed was that
the new boat is a significantly different design.


Let's get something straight. The changes are not huge. The design of the boat
remains quite close to the 26X. No large jumps were made. You only have to look
at the numbers to see that. Perhaps the M will have marginal advantages. But
let's put that is honest perspective. It'll have marginal advantages over a
boat with pretty poor sailing characteristics. Is that what you want?

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

felton wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:15:03 -0500, DSK wrote:


Jim Cate wrote:

It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over.

Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).

Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
at the hull shape.

It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
enlighten you.

DSK


Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.

He starts off asking for advice and then begins his debates, claiming
that anyone who hasn't sailed one can't possibly have an informed
opinion. Although he seemed to know nothing of boats, which would
make him the target demographic for these things, he then begins to
articulate all the goofy advertising claims for the "new and improved"
Mac26, while lamenting that he might have to settle for a Cal or C&C.


One more time, I think we need to have some respect for basic principles
of logic and intellectual honesty. I asked for advice alright, but
instead, I got a crock of opinionated s___ from members who had never
sailed a 26M, and never spoke with anyone who had sailed one. I may not
be as experienced as you, but most of the responses so far are from
individuals who don't have a clue as to the changes made in the new 26M
model (no I DID NOT SAY THAT THE CHANGES MADE THE BOAT A GREAT SAILBOAT,
I merely said it's a subtantially different boat). Apparently, some
participants in this discussion are so stressed out that they get some
sort of weird satisfaction or pleasure from ridiculing someone they
think is a novice, who, they think, is going to be an "easy mark." I'll
be the first to agree with or express appreciation to anyone who posts
rational comments, including criticisms of the boat, etc., based on some
understanding of what the boat actually is. But this discussion is
largely a discussion of mostly hearsay about the characteristics of the
previous model.


a diwhat commentsthose who

I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
him.

Really, How many people have you met who have sailed the 26M? Perhaps
50? Maybe 25? At least 10, right?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote
I claimed to have
some experience in sailing fixed hull sailboats

as opposed to the flex hull of a Mac26XM ?

SV

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

DSK wrote:

felton wrote:

Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.


Good call. I should have ignored him, but it's a slow day. And the
weather has really turned beautiful, I need to go sailing!

Actually, you are enjoying the Hell out of it. - You can't leave it
alone. - I should get an entertainment fee.


I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
him.

How many people have you met who sailed the 26M's? This, after all, is
what I asked about, not the MacGregor line in general.


I have a number of friends who've owned the things... all but one have
moved on.

How many of your friends had sailed the 26M?

We went sailing & cruising in company many times in the
mid/late 90s. They are kinda fun if you don't mind the looks (and this
is one improvement in the new version)and don't expect much to happen
when you work at getting the sail trim right (once you get the rudders
fixed). It's really a camper trailer that also functions as a boat!

I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference.

The front portion of the hull has a 15-degree hull, flatening out toward
the middle and aft. Additinally, the older model has a 5-foot
longitudinal recess in which the pivotable fin can nest, whereas the 26M
model doesn't have such a recess, since its vertical dagger board
doesn't require one. It's difficult for me to comprehend how you could
consider these two hull designs the same. (One more time, I didn't say
that the design changes made the boat a great sail or power vessel, did
I? I merely said that it made it a substantially different hull, and
that comments about the performance of the new boat shouldn't be based
on characteristics of the older model.) Again, some basic intellectual
honesty about what I said, and what others said, would be helpful.


You could literally swap trailers and not notice. But then
MacGregor has unfortunately gone down the road from mildly deceptive
advertising, to flirting with outright falsehood... maybe now they've
crossed the line?



wrote:
Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
person aboard, no water ballast, and the rigging entirely REMOVED.

I believe I mentioned something along those lines. The speeds I've
observed for the things in real life is more in the neighborhood of 15
knots (18 mph)


..... The water ballast
weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
for every 100 pounds added.)

The drag increases on a curve, so each added 100 lbs would decrease the
speed a bit less. Anyway, the ballast tank is designed so that it can be
emptied while motoring.


No one told me that I could expect 25 mph with a full load, and the Mac
brochure also states that the speed will be less under full loads,
particularly with the water ballast. Where did you read or hear that
MacGregor claimed the boat would make 25 mph with four adults, or with
water ballast? Again, honesty, rationality? - Or would being honest
take away all the fun?

Jim

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

DSK wrote:


I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference.


Bobsprit wrote:

Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull.
It "is"
different.


You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
link may be more convincing than real life, when I said "I've seen both
on their trailers, and there ain't any visible difference" I meant just
exactly that.

Did you look at the bottom of the hull, DK, or just the sides? The
bottom is the area that rides over or through the water and influences
the performance of the boat, for the most part. Perhaps you just looked
at the sides and didn't check out the lower contour.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Bobsprit" wrote ...
I believe that's the
Mac target market.

You just figured this out now?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

DSK wrote:

felton wrote:

Spring is almost here, as well. I can always tell when they start
forecasting golfball sized hail and possible tornados:)


Spring, phooey! It's 80+ degrees (28C) outside!


In fairness to MacGregor, people who own the things do seem to enjoy
them. I sort of view them in the same way as those old cars that
looked a bit like the Studebaker that were capable of driving on land
or powering through the water. Oddly interesting but nothing that I
would want to own unless I just wanted an oddity. I suppose if I was
in a big hurry to get somewhere, I wouldn't own a sailboat. If I
wanted a powerboat, I would get a decent one and not stick a little
sail on top. Obviously I am not the target market, though.


True enough... sort of like Britney Spear's "music" ;)


Wouldn't life be dull if we all liked the same thing:)


Depends... if everybody liked Bach and bicycles instead of
gawdawful-noise-music and SUVs, the world would be a better place.

At least we have some narrow grounds of agreement. - If I owned a
Mac26M, It would include a good stereo or surround system and would play
Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. 90% of the time.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I've stayed away from this a lot because I think the Mac approach has some
benefits for the flat water boater. However, I don't think changing the
deadrise makes it a different boat; in fact there are some power boat companies
that offer the same hull with either a 15 degree or an 8 degree deadrise. It
will make it perform differently in some situations, and I have little doubt
that it may sail a bit better, but then it couldn't sail much worse.

The MacGregor approach may be the right thing for you, but don't delude yourself
that while the previous boat may have been junk the new one is totally
different.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


felton wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:15:03 -0500, DSK wrote:


Jim Cate wrote:

It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over.

Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).

Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
at the hull shape.

It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
enlighten you.

DSK


Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.

He starts off asking for advice and then begins his debates, claiming
that anyone who hasn't sailed one can't possibly have an informed
opinion. Although he seemed to know nothing of boats, which would
make him the target demographic for these things, he then begins to
articulate all the goofy advertising claims for the "new and improved"
Mac26, while lamenting that he might have to settle for a Cal or C&C.


One more time, I think we need to have some respect for basic principles
of logic and intellectual honesty. I asked for advice alright, but
instead, I got a crock of opinionated s___ from members who had never
sailed a 26M, and never spoke with anyone who had sailed one. I may not
be as experienced as you, but most of the responses so far are from
individuals who don't have a clue as to the changes made in the new 26M
model (no I DID NOT SAY THAT THE CHANGES MADE THE BOAT A GREAT SAILBOAT,
I merely said it's a subtantially different boat). Apparently, some
participants in this discussion are so stressed out that they get some
sort of weird satisfaction or pleasure from ridiculing someone they
think is a novice, who, they think, is going to be an "easy mark." I'll
be the first to agree with or express appreciation to anyone who posts
rational comments, including criticisms of the boat, etc., based on some
understanding of what the boat actually is. But this discussion is
largely a discussion of mostly hearsay about the characteristics of the
previous model.


a diwhat commentsthose who

I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
him.

Really, How many people have you met who have sailed the 26M? Perhaps
50? Maybe 25? At least 10, right?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Bobsprit wrote:

Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
standing still.

Jim, I watched the video. Something is VERY wrong there. Sailboats don't show
such a wide variant in speed from design improvements. The results are
significant, but still subtle overall. A J35 which is FAR faster than my C&C 32
doesn't pass a Catalina 30 "like it's standing still." The M & X models are
still pretty close in their performance envelope and I'm doubtful that the
video was done honestly.

RB


Obviously, I don't know whether the video and/or the "race" was a fair
representation. - However, I read comments by one of the participants,
and he didn't seem to have any ulterior or deceptful motives. (As an
attorney, I would say that he sounded believable and plausable.) He also
stated that he was amazed at how easily the 26M passed the 26X. I don't
think it's reasonable to compare such relatively unique, lighter boats
with traditional fixed keel sailing vessels. I also spoke with a former
M26 owner, and he also said that he had found the new boat to be
significanly faster under sail. (He sold his boat because he wanted a
larger one with room for a bigger crowd.) Again, I don't know how
representative the video demo was, but I tend to think it's fairly
representative. I also think that the camera included a high zoom factor
that may have exaggerated the speed delta to some degree.

Jim