MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

And, he replaces a lot of fenders.

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
No one in this newsgroup owns a high quality boat.....

LOL................. But you own a high stern ladder.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Well, what is it? I'm thinking you don't have a boat. That's
ok, but if you do, what is it? Got pictures?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:52:58 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Not talking about average retail. I'm talking about your boat.


My particular boat would go for above the average due to extremely
good condition and equipment.

BB


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:39:33 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

I've forgotten... what kind of boat do you own? Do you
think it'll go up in value?


My boat model's average retail is slightly higher today than the
original
selling price... And don't worry about today's dollar versus 1986
dollars.
During those years, I've taken equity in the form of use out of the
boat
that
more than makes up for inflation. Nobody goes sailing to save money,
anyway.

What did Porta Scotty's Siedlemann go for new? What would it reasonably
bring
today. Don't forget to factor in that Scotty probably paid too much for
it. What
did your Cal20 go for new? What would it resonably sell for today?

BB

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:52:45 -0500, "Scott Vernon"

wrote:

I see your math is no better than your English.



You are right! $30k would probably get you at least 15 or more
Sidelmanns
in
today's market. They sure aren't ever going to go UP in value.

BB


wrote in message
.. .
On 01 Mar 2004 23:15:48 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

But maybe $30K is a horrendous lot
of money to you, Jax?


It's a horendous amount for THAT boat. 30K can buy....

A J30 and a J24
Two Pearson 30s
A C&C 30 late model
A Catalina 30 late 80's
A Bristol 29.5

And so on....

RB

or an even dozen Sidelmanns!

BB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

It's really not almost worth the wait to find out.

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Wait till his kid does a Google and finds out how much of an asshole his
ol
man is. :o

SV


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Total bs and, of course, a lie.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Alt.Sailing.Asa for some years now. It's up to you if you want to
take
any
of
it seriously.

Which you are 85% responsible for yourself.

That's in the past. There are only a few trollers left in this NG now.
I
was
not "warned by AOL" or contacted by them in any way. I just got
stunningly
bored with it all; the same insults day after day. It was enough
already.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.

Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's NEW & IMPROVED!!

BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only painted darker colors
which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been able to
determine. And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts either.... anyway
that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.

The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or so. They are not
even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local class, which rates
252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.

The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not care about
sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling, then go for it. If
you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter to me one way or
the other.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim,
Waterline length is actually a rather poor indicator of performance and is only
useful when comparing boats of similar design. It only measures the length when
level in calm water, and does not measure the effective length when heeled and
with bow and stern wave generated. Further, even if it predicts "hull speed"
(not a fixed limit, but the speed where wave making resistance grows
dramatically), it says nothing about how effective the rig is in generating a
driving force.

Also, PHRF ratings must be taken with a grain of salt. By definition, they only
tell the performance under race conditions, and not leisurely cruising. For
instance, much of the data is from upwind sailing - certainly an important point
of sailing, but one that many cruisers will avoid, especially when carrying
guests. Also, most rating include spinnakers, sometimes large racing chutes
that you are not likely to use with an inexperience crew.

Also remember that certain configurations don't fit well in traditional
estimates. A Nonsuch 30, for instance, is the equal of many 36 foots in almost
all regards except length on deck. On the other hand, the Mac 26X may appeal to
some as a reasonable "flat water" boat is very much out of its element even in a
moderate chop (sailing, at least). (I've never seen the new Mac, but very
little this company has produced over the years has impressed me.)

here's a few useful links:
http://www.phrfne.org/baseh.htm
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html


--
-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."



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

Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
speed you get from your 32?

Jim


Bobsprit wrote:

I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
under these conditions and in this price range.

Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to follow
the
idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea. Without that
you could end up stuck with her.
My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and quite a
few
more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see what
"fits"
and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the numbers.
Sail
area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a design
will
treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always
compromises,
but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at lesser
boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a magic
deal
will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were married. We
were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had the
chance
to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we still
get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're in a
hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2 people in
this
group.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Hey Doug,My Hobie had a rotating mast, I can't remember exactly how the
shrouds were mounted but I'm guessing they just 'twisted' a bit with the
mast. How would a mast with spreaders be able to rotate?

Scotty

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

And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.

Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's NEW
& IMPROVED!!

BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only painted
darker colors
which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been
able to
determine. And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts
either.... anyway
that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.

The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or so.
They are not
even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local class,
which rates
252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.

The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not
care about
sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling, then
go for it. If
you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter to
me one way or
the other.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Could a WB boat, like the Mac, legally race without the water ballast in?

SV


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Jim,
Waterline length is actually a rather poor indicator of performance and is
only
useful when comparing boats of similar design. It only measures the
length when
level in calm water, and does not measure the effective length when heeled
and
with bow and stern wave generated. Further, even if it predicts "hull
speed"
(not a fixed limit, but the speed where wave making resistance grows
dramatically), it says nothing about how effective the rig is in
generating a
driving force.

Also, PHRF ratings must be taken with a grain of salt. By definition,
they only
tell the performance under race conditions, and not leisurely cruising.
For
instance, much of the data is from upwind sailing - certainly an important
point
of sailing, but one that many cruisers will avoid, especially when
carrying
guests. Also, most rating include spinnakers, sometimes large racing
chutes
that you are not likely to use with an inexperience crew.

Also remember that certain configurations don't fit well in traditional
estimates. A Nonsuch 30, for instance, is the equal of many 36 foots in
almost
all regards except length on deck. On the other hand, the Mac 26X may
appeal to
some as a reasonable "flat water" boat is very much out of its element
even in a
moderate chop (sailing, at least). (I've never seen the new Mac, but very
little this company has produced over the years has impressed me.)

here's a few useful links:
http://www.phrfne.org/baseh.htm
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html


--
-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."



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

Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
speed you get from your 32?

Jim


Bobsprit wrote:

I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
under these conditions and in this price range.

Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to
follow
the
idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea.
Without that
you could end up stuck with her.
My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and
quite a
few
more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see
what
"fits"
and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the
numbers.
Sail
area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a
design
will
treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always
compromises,
but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at
lesser
boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a
magic
deal
will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were
married. We
were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had
the
chance
to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we
still
get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're
in a
hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2
people in
this
group.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the
MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?

Interesting. For my information, just what would someone who DIDN'T
care what others think post on the ASA ng?


Well they wouldn't write ;

Also, of course, owning a larger,
traditional boat would certainly get me more respect from fellow
sailors, whereas sailing a Mac 26 will make me the subject of continued
ridicule and disdain (I should expect continued comments like: He
doesn't know enough about sailboats to realize what a mistake he
made...").


as you did.

SV

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, but I've seen them and they are butt ugly , high freeboard,
powerboat boat looking, plastic bathtubs.

Scotty



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
know what the Hell I'm talking about."

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

The rules may be different for various fleets, but I thought that generally
water ballast must be used on WB boats. Also, I think moveable keels or
centerboards that provide ballast, must be down.



"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Could a WB boat, like the Mac, legally race without the water ballast in?

SV


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Jim,
Waterline length is actually a rather poor indicator of performance and is
only
useful when comparing boats of similar design. It only measures the
length when
level in calm water, and does not measure the effective length when heeled
and
with bow and stern wave generated. Further, even if it predicts "hull
speed"
(not a fixed limit, but the speed where wave making resistance grows
dramatically), it says nothing about how effective the rig is in
generating a
driving force.

Also, PHRF ratings must be taken with a grain of salt. By definition,
they only
tell the performance under race conditions, and not leisurely cruising.
For
instance, much of the data is from upwind sailing - certainly an important
point
of sailing, but one that many cruisers will avoid, especially when
carrying
guests. Also, most rating include spinnakers, sometimes large racing
chutes
that you are not likely to use with an inexperience crew.

Also remember that certain configurations don't fit well in traditional
estimates. A Nonsuch 30, for instance, is the equal of many 36 foots in
almost
all regards except length on deck. On the other hand, the Mac 26X may
appeal to
some as a reasonable "flat water" boat is very much out of its element
even in a
moderate chop (sailing, at least). (I've never seen the new Mac, but very
little this company has produced over the years has impressed me.)

here's a few useful links:
http://www.phrfne.org/baseh.htm
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html


--
-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."



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

Can you give me some hints as to which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings? Also, from their specs, it seems that the C&C's have a
relatively short water-line for their length. - Does this limit the hull
speed you get from your 32?

Jim


Bobsprit wrote:

I would appreciate knowing what you and others recommend looking for
under these conditions and in this price range.

Jim, as you can see there are a LOT of used boats around. I tend to
follow
the
idea that buying a reasonably respectable brand is a good idea.
Without that
you could end up stuck with her.
My favorite used boats: Pearson, C&C, Tartan, bristol, Catalina and
quite a
few
more makes, models and odd designs. You need to get aboard and see
what
"fits"
and what pleases your eye first and foremost. Learn to read the
numbers.
Sail
area/Disp. and PHRF ratings are a good initial inidcator for how a
design
will
treat you under sail. Above all, take your time. There are always
compromises,
but you can shave them down. If financial limits have you looking at
lesser
boats, perhaps it's worth saving a bit longer. You never know when a
magic
deal
will float along. My wife and I sold our Pearson 30 when we were
married. We
were going to wait 2 or 3 years and then buy a big boat. Then I had
the
chance
to buy a C&C 32 for 16K. So, while waiting for the "big" boat plan, we
still
get to sail a nice boat. I think the watchword is patience. If you're
in a
hurry the wrong boat may find YOU! That's happened to at least 2
people in
this
group.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
om...
Don't pay no never mind to what ....

Huh?

Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

JAXAshby wrote:
which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings?


MacGregor 65. An **incredible** PHRF, AND about the same price used as a Mac
26 new.



Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

JAXAshby wrote:

jim, buy the damn thing. nobody but nobody will laugh at you. why should
they?


I would, but I'm not sure I can afford one. Older Cal 34's, O'Days,
C&C's, etc. are cheaper than the new 26Ms.

Jim



I'm worried about what others will think? So I continue to defend the

MacGregor boats and respond to the cynics on ASA who have never sailed
the boat, but nevertheless, know all about it?

Interesting. F

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?

You may want to contact some previous owners to see what they spent to make the
boat competitive.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, but I've seen them and they are butt ugly , high freeboard,
powerboat boat looking, plastic bathtubs.

Scotty


If I understand your note, at least you are honest enough to admit that
you don't know how the sail or how they handle under power. From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.

At least you aren't trying to analyze their handling and characteristics
under sail and/or power before you have sailed or powered them.

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
know what the Hell I'm talking about."

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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


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. Speaking with owners of the M model, they say that it is
significantly faster, making around 6.5 on a reach. Maybe it's
something like the comparisons of the Cal, Catalina, and O'Day 34's I
have also been looking at. It seems like there are lots of factors other
than full speed, etc., that affect the speed of the boats.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

There's been one sitting in a slip here in Boston for at least 10 years without
moving. You could probably get that one real, real cheap.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


JAXAshby wrote:
which popular boats have good PHRF
ratings?


MacGregor 65. An **incredible** PHRF, AND about the same price used as a
Mac
26 new.



Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Why would you care if its "competitive"? Would you really race it? Would Jim?


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
Great. a Mac 65 for around $28K. Whom do I make my check out to?

You may want to contact some previous owners to see what they spent to make
the
boat competitive.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.


Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's NEW & IMPROVED!!

BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only painted darker colors
which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been able to
determine.

It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over. The M model is definitely a "new hull
design." The M model includes a deep, 15-degree V-hull, as compared with
the X model's much flatter, 8-degree hull. Additionally, the boat has a
vertically retractable, relatively dagger board instead of the pivotable
fin keel of the older boat, which nested in an a rearwardly extending
groove in the hull. Whether or not these changes make the boat "better"
or "improved, there is no question that the hull is, in fact,
substantially different. In the interests of logic, intellectual
honesty, and plain old truthfullness, you shouln't post false assertions
concerning matters about which you really don't know what you are
talking about.


And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts
either.... anyway
that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.


Again, the M model does has a rotating mast. If the one you are
describing doesn't, it's further evidence that you really don't know
which model it is. Again, in the interest of plain old logic and
intellectual honesty, you ought to do your homework and get your facts
straight.

The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or so. They are not
even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local class, which rates
252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.

The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not care about
sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling, then go for it. If
you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter to me one way or
the other.


I may get one of the 26M's. However, I'm not sure I can afford one, and
my budget may dictate that I have to settle for a 34-foot O'Day, Cal, or
C&C.

Jim
Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Bobsprit wrote:

My particular boat would go for above the average due to extremely
good condition and equipment.


In addition to the 26M's, I'm looking at C&C's, Cals, O'Days, etc., in
the 30 to 34-foot range. I noticed that the water line lenght of the
O'Day is several feet longer than the C&C and others of similar overall
length. Would his mean that, if I multiplied the wL by a factor of 1.4
or 1.3, that the cruising speed of the boats that the speed of the
O'Day would usually be be proportionatly higher than that of the C&C or
Cal? It's a substantial difference, something like 25 feet vs. 29 feet.

Thanks,
Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Why would you care if its "competitive"? Would you really race it?

The original 65 was avail. in 2 versions. The "race" version had a tall rig,
deep keel etc. Cost a little over a hundred grand new. That's unheard of for
a new 65' ULDB. Problem was owners had to put over a hundred and fifty more in
the boat to make it work. Yea, I'd like to race one if I had it. I would
imagine it would be a hoot going down wind on a 20kt night with the chute up.
Should hit 20kts on the right angle. At least mid teens easy. I wouldn't want
the responsibility of a 65' boat though.
Later 65s had raised salons and other stupid stuff. Problem was anybody
who could afford to keep a 65' boat wouldn't want to be seen arriving on a Mac.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Just to give you some more perspective on the MacGregor 26 line...

While I haven't sailed on any of them, I've seen a few out on the bay
(sans my friend who has one, who I know is a good sailor). All have
been sailed very poorly. The rigging is light weight compared to other
boats of a similar size. For the bay, they're mostly inappropriate in my
opinion.

Also, I have a family friend who owns the largest (I believe) MacGregor
dealership in Northern Cal. They sell a lot of them. Even his wife thinks
there's trash and the only reason they sail them at all is so they can sell
them. They don't really push them. People come in and basically tell
them to sell it to them.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


And how many times have you sailed on the 26M, DK? - Was it five times,
ten times, fifteen? I seem to have forgotten.


Gosh, you're so right... it's gotta be better than the old one... it's
NEW & IMPROVED!!

BTW it does not not have a new hull design. Exactly the same, only
painted darker colors
which does not improve sailng characteristics as far as anybody has been
able to
determine.

It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over. The M model is definitely a "new hull
design." The M model includes a deep, 15-degree V-hull, as compared with
the X model's much flatter, 8-degree hull. Additionally, the boat has a
vertically retractable, relatively dagger board instead of the pivotable
fin keel of the older boat, which nested in an a rearwardly extending
groove in the hull. Whether or not these changes make the boat "better"
or "improved, there is no question that the hull is, in fact,
substantially different. In the interests of logic, intellectual
honesty, and plain old truthfullness, you shouln't post false assertions
concerning matters about which you really don't know what you are
talking about.


And the ones I have seen certainly don't have rotating masts
either.... anyway
that would be a waste of time on a boat with a PHRF rating of 216.


Again, the M model does has a rotating mast. If the one you are
describing doesn't, it's further evidence that you really don't know
which model it is. Again, in the interest of plain old logic and
intellectual honesty, you ought to do your homework and get your facts
straight.

The two Mac26Ms at our marina I have seen out sailing a dozen times or
so. They are not
even a match for the San Juan 21, of which there is a strong local
class, which rates
252. The SJ21 literally sails rings around the M26M. Figure it out.

The point, Jim, is to enjoy your time on the water. If you happen to not
care about
sailing other than to have some sails up and hear the wake gurgling,
then go for it. If
you enjoy really *sailing* then you'll be disappointed. Doesn't matter
to me one way or
the other.


I may get one of the 26M's. However, I'm not sure I can afford one, and
my budget may dictate that I have to settle for a 34-foot O'Day, Cal, or
C&C.

Jim
Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

From someone who's opinion I trust, and from my own experience. I've run
these boats down like they were standing still, in one case, the wind was
4kts. and the Mac did appear to be standing still. This person also told me
that the Mac26x would not move in winds much below 8kts., and couldn't sail
upwind in winds much above 10. Like I said, you should be able to find a Mac
broker who's willing to take you out on a test sail, hell, that's how they
sell them in these parts. No store, the broker rents a slip in our marina
and keeps a boat there. BTW, I own a Catalina 28, not exactly a greyhound on
the water if you get my drift.
John Cairns
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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


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. Speaking with owners of the M model, they say that it is
significantly faster, making around 6.5 on a reach. Maybe it's
something like the comparisons of the Cal, Catalina, and O'Day 34's I
have also been looking at. It seems like there are lots of factors other
than full speed, etc., that affect the speed of the boats.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Later 65s had raised salons and other stupid stuff. Problem was anybody
who could afford to keep a 65' boat wouldn't want to be seen arriving on a
Mac.


Sort of like a Yugo Limo.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

donny, you got suckered. pay attention to the " ID in the
address line. that is the id of the imposter clown.

notice also that I don't post from a @yahoo.com address.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
. com...
Don't pay no never mind to what ....

Huh?

Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Doug, while I wouldn't want a Mac26 in my worst nightmare, you're wrong about
the hull, though Macgregor says the performance edge was for POWERING. The
daggerboard is the other big whoop along with the larger "rotating" rig. It's
improved...like New Coke.

http://www.macgregor26.com/comparison_26x_and_26m.htm

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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.) That's with all the other caveats (one
person, no rigging, etc) remaining.

So with a crew of 4 adults, food and water and other supplies, the 26M will
actually do -4 knots.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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.

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.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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!


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.

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

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Not really true. It's more about being offended by the people
who try to pass themselves off as sailors. The shape of a boat
doesn't offend me nor how lousy is the construction. It's just
an inanimate object.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Like the previous calculation of -4 knots, he should have
already bought one.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:02:56 -0600, 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




This boat sounds like a PERFECT match for you. You should buy one
immediately, if not sooner. If you can afford it, maybe you should
consider buying two of them.

BB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

The shape of a boat
doesn't offend me nor how lousy is the construction. It's just
an inanimate object.


We certainly don't feel the same way about boats. I hardly find them inanimate.


RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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.

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

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:16:30 -0500, 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!

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


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.

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

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.


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. 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?

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


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.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Lanode, don't get suckered by the fake jaxass. see the '' ID
in the address line? that is the id of the imposterer clown.

also notice that I don't post from a @yahoo.com address.

I;m the real deal,
JAX




"JAXAshby" wrote in message ...
donny, you got suckered. pay attention to the " ID in the
address line. that is the id of the imposter clown.

notice also that I don't post from a @yahoo.com address.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
. com...
Don't pay no never mind to what ....

Huh?

Regards


Donal
--