MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

We started at 1030, still going strong, taking a break while waiting for the
pies to cool off.

Burp!
Scotty

"katysails" wrote in message
...
Scotty,
Havne't you had your dinner yet? I was thinking it was time for the
cholesterol induced heart attack...

--
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
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
the Mac is a cheap piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a damn. How's
that?

How can you be so certain?



Regards

Donal
--

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"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.




Because of its light weight, I don't think that the Mac is likely to
come apart striking something head on under sail. (Momentum and kinetic
energy are proportional to the square of the velocity, which is thus the
more significant factor.) On the other hand, if the Mac is under
power, planing at around 15 knots, for example, I can see a possible
hazard if the boat strikes floating depris, such a partially submerged
log, or some other non-visible hazard. In that event, it seems likely
that the portion of the boat that would get the major impact would be
the lower or center portion of the V-shaped hull. Below is a crude
pictorial representation:




deck
x
x x
x x x x x
x x
x x
x
water inner liner i x
~~~~~~~~~ x i i i x~~~~~~~
surface i o
~ o o o o o o o o oo ~ LLLLL
^ outer hull LLLLL
LLLLL
^^^
(partially
submerged log)


The drawing is not accurate or true to scale, and the boat would
probably be on an incline while planing, such that the lowermost,
longitudinally extending, center "edge portion" of the V bottom
was cutting through the water, and was therefore exposed to
submerged objects on the surface or just below the surface. But it
seems that under such circumstances, the lower hull
could strike the submerged object but not the inner liner,
which is higher in the boat than the lower hull. Also,
under these circumstances, it's likely that the log would be impacted by
only the lowermost, center portion of the keel (where the ballast tank
extends) but not the port and starbord portions of the V-shaped hull,
which are higher than the center of the V bottom. Of course, other
circumstances could arise in which the lower hull might be damaged

In any event, the inner liner is a safety factor, though probably not as
important one as the foam flotation that keeps the entire boat afloat in
the event water enters the cockpit.

Of course, I don't think these outcomes are likely if the limits of the
boat are respected. Of greater importance is a conservative skipper who
keeps the boat out of trouble in the first place, if at all possible,
and who is equipted and thoroghly trained for heavy weather conditions
and man-overboard, etc.







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.

And which boat is that?

....


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?

Another question is, would four of your crew be standing on top of the
cabin in such conditions? If they remained partially submerged within
the cockpit or the top of the (open) cabin, the boat would be floating
much higher.

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.


The new model (the 26M) has 300 pounds of permanent ballast. It would
tend to keep the boat upright.


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.

Toute et possible. (Anything is possible.) But a boat that would stay
afloat, even if it didn't ride well,
far safer than a keel boat in which the heavy keel tends to QUICKLY pull
the boat to the bottom in the event substantial water enters the cabin,
from any cause. On a small boat, you aren't going to have much room for
a fully equiped life boat, and the heavier ones are not easy to launch
in high winds, according to Reese Paulley, who has made a number of
crossings.




would be far


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.

Have you sailed, or motored, the Mac 26M? No?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Bullsh*t. You need meds.


Have a nice day Johathan.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

It's nice that you admit you're a fool. Good show.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Feel free to keep replying to all my posts. YOU WIN.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

They're a piece of junk compared to other boats in the same
price range. Nothing they could have done would improve
them enough to justify buying one.

Have a nice day Jonathan.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:

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.

Katy, that particular note was a response to Jeff's comments concerning
the speed of the boat under power. If I'm posting a response to a note
regarding the boat's performance under power, logically, I am going to
talk about the boat's performance under power. - That doesn't mean i'm
into power boats over sail. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the
ability to motor out out to a desired sailing, fishing, diving, or
swimming area quickly, and to return quickly at the end of the cruise,
is an advantage in that it permits you to spend more time sailing,
fishing, diving, or swimming, etc. - Whatever floats your boat. - So, it
is an advantage, even if you aren't into powerboats.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim said: it
is an advantage, even if you aren't into powerboats.

Only for those with gearhead mentalities...

--
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
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"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.

Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)

Of course, if I were sailing or motoring with several guests, or with
children (our grandkids), I would certainly make sure that they didn't
head out to the foredeck when the boat was motoring without the water
ballast. Also, if I was going to go offshore, I would want to make sure
that the water ballast was filled. Uimately, however, this is a "lawyer
thing." Remember, the boat is manufactured in California.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

progress......his first admission to his lies.

Nope. My comment is that, whether or not you call it a "double hull"
if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
a duck. In this case, the inner liner acts like a double hull (IN THE
LOWER PORTION OF THE HULL THAT IS LIKELY TO SUFFER DAMAGE FROM IMPACT
WITH SUBMERGED OBJECTS), and whether or not you call it a double hull,
it provides the same advantages.

Additionally, the boat has positive flotation such that, even if the
hull is compromised, the boat stays afloat. - Scotty, does your boat
stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
boat to the bottom?????????

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote

Obviously the Mac don't have a complete double hull