MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Bobsprit wrote:

From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.


Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape of
sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.

RB

Some can appreciate the design and shape of a power-sail-planing boat,
or a sailboat capable of planing under sail, AND ALSO appreciate the
design of traditional sailing vessels. The mac 25M attractive and
impressive, IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,
but that's my opinion also. My favorite sailing experience was on a
40-foot Valiant cutter with canoe stern, which looked and sailed
beautifully in blue water. I also crewed for several years on an 1883
150-foot tall ship (the Elissa) that is maintained in operating
condition in the Galveston area. Again, it's definitely impressive and
beautiful under sail, but it's a different beauty than that of a Swan,
Newport, Valiant, etc., or a cup contender.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
stated that:

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
(such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.

In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
(No one, after all, is required to participate.)

Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.

Jim



Jim Cate wrote:


I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
on the boat. Or, anyone else.

For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
finder.)

OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
can reportedly plane under sail.

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
of the new 26M would be appreciated.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

There are many, many beautiful 26 foot sailboats.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit wrote:

From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.


Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape
of
sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.

RB

Some can appreciate the design and shape of a power-sail-planing boat,
or a sailboat capable of planing under sail, AND ALSO appreciate the
design of traditional sailing vessels. The mac 25M attractive and
impressive, IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,
but that's my opinion also. My favorite sailing experience was on a
40-foot Valiant cutter with canoe stern, which looked and sailed
beautifully in blue water. I also crewed for several years on an 1883
150-foot tall ship (the Elissa) that is maintained in operating
condition in the Galveston area. Again, it's definitely impressive and
beautiful under sail, but it's a different beauty than that of a Swan,
Newport, Valiant, etc., or a cup contender.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Well, the Mac line of boats are bottom of the barrel. Not sure what
else "we" can tell you. If you like/want the compromise, go for it.
At this point, I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
stated that:

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the
Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used
30
- 32-foot boats.

In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
(such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.

In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
(No one, after all, is required to participate.)

Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.

Jim



Jim Cate wrote:


I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
on the boat. Or, anyone else.

For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
finder.)

OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
can reportedly plane under sail.

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
of the new 26M would be appreciated.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:16:53 -0600, Jim Cate wrote:

IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful


I think this 26 is quite nice:


http://huizen.dds.nl/~bonekamp/boot1.jpg



Cheers!


Remco

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I've seen the 26X rated at both 220 and 249. Maybe there's a fleet that allows
racing without the water ballast. Its also possible that the V-bottom allows
for the daggerboard to be raised when reaching, which could account for
considerable improvement in some situations.

BTW, there are several 26X's that I see in Boston harbor, one has a slip near
me, another used to come down the Charles River every Saturday morning, headed
for the outer harbor. I've been somewhat impressed that the large engine gives
them the ability to pick destinations 10 or 12 miles away. However, when I
catch up with them later in the morning after they've raised sail, I've never
actually seen them moving in the water. As near as I can tell, they power out,
raised sail, bob around for a while, then power to their destination. Frankly,
there's nothing wrong with this, if its what you want to do. But it isn't
sailing




"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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?

Mac ads constantly list top speeds of more than 20 knots; something the boats
don't actually do under normal usage.
The comments on the Macgregor website are more laughable than most for such a
site. Here are a few clipped comments from the website about initial tests of
the M:

This boat tacks at will under main only, even gybing at low speed against the
wind when most boats will just head up. I have never been on boat with better
behavior.

Wow! Poor guy's never been on a REAL sailboat I guess!

Speed taken using GPS on both boats up to 21 knots with breeze/waves and
18-19 against. Surprise! They are even. Over and over, we drag race from
standing start to top end with no speed difference.

What kind of waves??!!!

Roger orders "full ballast tanks". The M now pulls up on a plane better with
much less bow rise and goes faster by 2 Knots.

NO mention of actual speeds anymore!
Later on it's indicated that the M and X may only do 12 knots under typical
load. The facts are burried, if you care to dig.

RB

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

There's a long list of beautiful 26 footers.

Here's my favorite:
http://www.eastlandyachts.com/nonsuch.html#Anchor-26

But also:
http://www.proper-yachts.com/alerion26.htm

You can also get a lot of boat in smaller packages, like:
http://www.marshallcat.com/default.htm

or allow a few extra feet of pinched stern:
http://www.marinebrokerage.com/cgi-b...en.compassrose

If you think the Mac 26M is more beautiful than these, you run to the dealer and
buy one now Its a match made in heaven!

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,