MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:
Jim claimed:
I'm not afraid to die.

Prove it.

What would you suggest?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:

Jim asked: But why are you wasting your time in this discussion, if what I'm
saying
is that insignificant and doesn't have an element of truth?

Because we're all sick s*its who have nothing better to do than make you
miserable.


Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Jim Cate wrote:

katysails wrote:


Jim, still not gettingIf I'm that stupid and my notes are that
insignificant, why is
this discussion string the most extensive on the ng,

SHADES OF LONG ISLANDWE HAVE A MACKEREL!!!!!!!!


But why are you wasting your time in this discussion, if what I'm saying
is that insignificant and doesn't have an element of truth?



Jim, you keep asking this question in one form or another, so it
appears you don't really see the answer. As I'm a kind and
generous soul, much more so than the rest of these
bottom-dwellers here, here's a bit of help for you.

This newsgroup has been notable for years in its exercise of
virtual cruelty, especially on the innocent, to the point where
even the FAQs are full of dire warnings. The cruellest of the
virtual cruelties is, of course, the goading of the
uncomprehending. When such goading has been done expertly, these
sadists can sit back, and apply only the lightest of touches,
while the suffering goad themselves into increasing frenzy, in an
almost self-perpetuating cycle, providing hours of entertainment
for the watchers, for minimal effort on their part. Do you now
see why most of the regulars in this group are here "wasting
their time in this discussion?"

Tadpole,

Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
bashing them for a number of years.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim asked: What would you suggest?

Actually, it's already been thrown out that you're trying awfully hard
already to prove that, so a double-dog dare wouldn't be appropriate at this
time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim stated: Finally, an honest, substantive, truthful response.

Thanks Katy.

You're welcome Jim...any time.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

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

Thanks for your heads-up. Actually, I knew what I was getting into when
I decided to defend the Macs on this ng, since this group has been
bashing them for a number of years.

Jim

You need to try a google search, we don't spend our time bashing macs, we
try to limit our discussion to sailing and sailboats, which naturally would
exclude macs. Occasionally, someone comes a trolling, lauding the merits of
macs, we educate them. We weren't talking about macs until you showed up, we
won't be talking about them after you leave. And one last thing, if you
thought your mac was as good a boat as you claim it is, you wouldn't feel
the need to convince us, remembering, we didn't ask you for your opinion on
the subject, you asked for ours.
John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Perhaps you should look at the drawings of your beloved boat


Incidentally, I never claimed that the MacGregor 26M was a perfect boat
that would meet the needs of everyone, or that it was suitable for all
types of sailing. My interest in this discussion is that the boat has
got a bad rap on this ng in previous discussion, and I want to see that
it gets somewhat more accurate and balanced treatment.

- its doesn't have
a double hull either. The portion of the hull the is protected by the ballast
tank is about a third of the underwater surface - and its the part least likely
to be damaged in a collision.

The water ballast chamber extends along the lowermost part of the hull
rearwardly from the bow for around 2/3rds of the length of the boat.
Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant, since if the boat runs over
an obstruction, the lowermost portions of the hull are the part that is
most likely to hit the obstruction and become punctured. Obviously, the
boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
entire hull. (Does your boat?)


If you hit a log (especially at speed) you're
going to need that foam flotation.

I don't intend to, but if I did, having a boat that didn't sink would be
nice. And helpful. And, perhaps, critical.


And the boat will be a total loss,

Maybe. Maybe not.


the
engine certainly wasted. BTW, they never actually say that there is enough foam
to float the boat if the engine is attached, do they? Do you think they
destroyed a $8000 engine just to take that picture?

My engine weighs around 200 lbs., so I doubt that it is going to pull
the boat to the bottom. The picture of the boat afloat after they cut a
hole through the hull doesn't show the motor (so its not clear whether
they removed it or not), but it does indicate that, with five men aboard
the boat, the boat has sunk about a foot or so from its normal position.
In other words, with five adult passengers, the boat isn't anywhere near
sinking. 200 lbs of motor not make that much difference, and there is
plenty of capacity for more people, particularly if they didn't try to
stand on top of the cabin.

And, if you have any damage to the ballast tank, it could lose water and the
partially filled tank becomes dangerously unstable. This is not so bad if
you're on a lake where the mac belongs, but offshore this becomes treacherous.

Actually, the new 26M model has a combination of both water ballast and
permanent ballast. The permanent ballast provides stability for the
boat when the water ballast isn't being used.


So the question is, would you prefer a boat with a solid hull that can withstand
a beating without being compromised, or one that is likely to be compromised by
a minor collision?

I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags, and I would prefer a
boat with foam flotation. I would rather have a boat that would survive
even under critical emergency situations in which the hull was
compromised rather than one that would survive a minor collision but not
a major or critical one, in which case the keel would quickly pull the
boat to the bottom.

I suppos



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


wrote:


On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:54:53 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:



wrote


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


It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,

which


gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.

and the space in-between your ears is a vacuum if you think the Mac is
double hulled.



Scotty,

There is a space between the bottom of the boat and the floor of the
boat. It is a tank for water ballast. Jim thinks that means the same
thing as double hulled.

Whether or not you call it a second hull, it is a second wall that preents

entry of water into the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. - Does
the Valiant have one of these back-up walls? I didn't see one on the one
we sailed.

Jim
barrier that would pre or not

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double hulled".
The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be easy
to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.

Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull extending throughout
the hull and chines. (Does your boat?) But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.


BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?

If it strikes the bottom while the boat is moving at high speed, as when
it is motoring or planing under sail, the dagger board may break.
Replacing it costs around $300.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


wrote:


On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"

wrote:


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



It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,

which

gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.

BB




Of course, if only the lower hull is penetrated, water doesn't get into
the cabin at all. Also, as mentioned above, the built-in flotation will
keep the boat afloat even if water enters the cabin.

Jim



SV

"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...


(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will plane with a full load, and
with the water ballast. As to exactly how fast it can plane with two
people, three people, four people, five people, let me suggest that, in
any event, it's going to go substantially faster than most displacement
boats. It can also plane faster without the water ballast, and the new
26M includes 300 pounds of permenant ballast, in addition to the water
ballast, for added stability in that condition. Obviously, it would be
foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

In one place they say they lose 3 mph when the ballast if full. In another,
they say they lose one mph for every 100 pounds added. Also, the "22 mph" is
with empty tanks, no rigging, one person, flat seas. They advise not running
without ballast, but if you must, there's a long list of safety precautions,
like not going on deck, staying seated, only do it if the seas are under one
foot and the water is warm, etc.



"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
wrote:


On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:23:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:


Its funny, the drawing on the web site don't show this to be "double

hulled".

The water ballast is on the center line, not around the chine - it would be
easy
to penetrate the hull with a glancing blow to a rock.

BTW, what would happen to the daggerboard if it touched bottom?



The daggerboard stays, and the rest of the boat keeps going.

Other tidbits from Macgregor: The factory does not supply gas tank
hold downs. If you wish to add your own, DO NOT drill any holes! You
must glass in the hold downs.

If you install a second battery, DO NOT put it next to the existing
one. It will cause too much stress (what's that battery weigh? 50
pounds?) You must mount it on the opposite side of the boat.


By the way, if you motor with the ballast tank empty, bear in mind
that the boat is then VERY top heavy, and extremely prone to
capsizing. Make all turns very slowly and gradually, and always avoid
the wakes from other boats and large fish.

I did wonder about that. Next question is, does the thing plane with
the ballast tank full? If not, there goes the 18 knots.....

PDW

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

felton wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:16:19 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



felton wrote:


On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:



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

SV


He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
"improve" their boats with some of these innovations:)

Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
choose?:) If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.


If I could anticipate that a drunken powerboater were going to hit me
going 50 mph, I would prefer a Valiant, although even then, I don't
think you could predict what would happen. (It's possible that the hull
of the Valiant would be compromised, in which case its keel would
quickly pull it to the bottom.) But a new Valiant would cost around
$400,000, normally equiped, or more than 10 times the cost of the Mac
loaded with navigation and autosteering. - You can't always get what you
want, but sometimes, if you try real hard, you just might get what you
need. - Which in my case is the 26M.


Hmmm. Moving the goalposts it would seem. Of course a Valiant is a
vastly more expensive boat that frankly is "overkill" for the kind of
sailing that you or I do. I am unclear why you keep choosing to
compare the Mac to the Valiant,

The reason I refer to the 40-ft. Valiant is that I had experience
sailing one on a charter situation and learned to appreciate what a
great boat it is. If I were going to make a crossing or an extended blue
water cruise, I would prefer the Valiant.


but since you do I keep pointing out
the obvious. The fact that no Valiant has ever gone to the bottom but
have logged many a circumnavigation should put your mind at ease,

What is your source for that assertion? - No Valiant has ever sunk?


but
yet the fact that you still cling to the belief that a 3500lb clorox
bottle is somehow "safer" than a Valiant, or any "real" sailboat,
speaks volumes to any real sailor.


Actually, a closed bottle is going to survive a storm that would sink a
Valiant.


Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
bottom within a few minutes?


I would absolutely prefer to be on a displacement boat than rely on
foam floatation in a lightly built clorox bottle. There is absolutely
no doubt in my mind which would be the safer boat. My boat has a real
rig, unlike the Mac. I can depower my rig, shorten sail, or even go
bare poles if need be. Anyone on a Mac 26 is going to be SOL. It
really doesn't give me much comfort knowing that there may be some
foam floatation on which I can cling waiting for rescue.


The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.


Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
quickly, and also
permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.

Jim


While I am not a fan of powerboats either, given your objectives, you
should have bought one. A Mac 26 is the worst of both worlds.
Something for everyone, I suppose. Someone even married my ex-wife:)


p,


"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...


(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.