MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim claims: Folks, with a 50 hp motor, the boat will sink with a full load,
and
with the water ballast

That's very nice if planing with a 50 hp engine is what you want to do. I'm
sure the guys at alt. motoboater. would be very happy for you.

--
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
...
- 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.

But is only extends one third of the width. It is more likely that you will hit
a floating obstruction on the side.


Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant,

Only to a non-boater with no experiance.

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.

In a boat that only draws one foot it would take a complete idiot to hit a rock
dead on at high speed. Is that what you're claiming, Jim? That this design
feature is only there to protect the complete idiot? Far more likely is a
glancing blow to a floating object.

Obviously, the
boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
entire hull. (Does your boat?)

Actually, my boat has two complete hulls, running the entire length.

.....

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.

Look again, Jim, its down to the rail on both sides. Given the very high
freeboard, that's closer to two feet below her lines. The question is, how
much foam floatation is left above the water? That tells you how close it is to
sinking. That picture is taken at the dock - in almost any sea conditions the
deck would be awash amd the boat would flip.

Clearly, positive floatation is a advantage, but its not clear a flooded mac is
a better platform than a liferaft. On the other hand, the time may come when
you decided that unsinkable is a disadvantage.



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.

Not enough stability, given the stern warnings about aperating without ballast.




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 would prefer a good sailboat that provides these advantages. In fact, I have
one. The mac is a poor powerboat, and a worse sailboat.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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?)

My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.


But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.

All this means is that there are some situations where there is some extra
protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is implied by
"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a marketing
claim.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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.

What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat? What
about all of those "bowriders" outs there?

The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments include:
no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't even
stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward bunks
when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So much
for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone might
grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat, nor
is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected?

I've never encountered conditions I wasn't prepared for. I've never assumed
that the ability to get back to port quickly is the primary safety factor.
That's admitting you're completely screwed if the engine doesn't start.



In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.

Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.


If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).


The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.


Although the three larger boats (over 22 feet) that I've owned were designed for
coastal cruising, they have all proven themselves capable of long passages. But
you're right that I wouldn't want a Westsail, or even a Valiant.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote ...

I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags,

Pussy!

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Funny, he never mentioned the problem of blisters, from the inside of the
ballast tank, that Macgregors are infamous for.

SV

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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?)

My boat has two complete hulls, running the full length.


But it does have what amounts to
a double hull extending along its lowermost section for most of the
length of the hull.

All this means is that there are some situations where there is some extra
protection. It does not mean you have the full protection that is implied
by
"double hull." This is not a real "safety feature," it is just a
marketing
claim.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Where would you put all the fuel?

Bart

Scott Vernon wrote

Some ''blue water'' sailing in a Mac26XM would do.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

Prove it.

What would you suggest?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

John W. Bienko wrote:

Comparing a Mac26M with the remarkable Valiant 40 ...
is a high compliment to the Mac26M.

THe Valiant 40 is a high-end sailor's dream yacht..
always a beautiful sight to see on the sea.. and
in the harbour.

I do agree that the Valiant 40 is a great boat, certainly the best
handling and sailing boat I have had the privilege of sailing.



The Mac26M is a compromise.. between a sailing vessel
and a motorboat.. the nautical engineers working to
meet the wishes and needs of the marketplace.. and in
my view succeeding beyond expectations.. creating a
very attractive yacht.. not perfect.. but getting there
with the state-of-the-art technology of the day.


I also agree with this statement. If I'm correct, the Mac 26 is the
most popular cruising sailboat in production today. What hasn't been
addressed in this discussion is that they have made incremental changes
and improvements in the various models and incorporated a number of
changes and improvements in the new 26M model, based on experiences with
thousands of other boats over the years. These include a completely
different hull design, different, more narrow keel, thicker lower hull
wall entailing with additional fiberglass layer, new chain plates,
different positioning of the motor, pivotable mast, substantially taller
rig, etc.



And some day.. when I can no longer singlehand my
C&C27 Mark III ... I will invest in a Mac26M..
and continue sailing into the sunset...
and dream..

Best Regards
JWB

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
you know nothing about sailing.


Sure thing Johathan. But if I'm lost at sea, at least you won't have to
waste more of your time reading my notes on asa.

Jim