MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Where's your evidence that this is a problem for most Mac owners,
Scotty? I'd like to see a report regarding the extent of this problem,
and an estimate of the additional expenses Mac owners can expect. Is it
going to cost $5,000 per year? $2,000 per year? $1,000 per year? Or is
it more like $100 per year, on average? Please provide addresses and
links to any sources you cite.

Jim



Scott Vernon wrote:

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
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
By definition, it's only a guess.

So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.

Nope. Not at all. I would want to be prepared for any potential
circumstance, but I would plan on motoring and/or sailing back to port
if conditions worsened unexpectantly. If that was not possible, I think
the Macgregor, with reefed or no sails, and storm anchor, could survive
with the best of them. Not comfortably, but it would survive.

By the way, Johathan, are you going to buy one of the heavy-weather
Satori's?



"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? 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.


Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.


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).



It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
find on the ocean.


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.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface, probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly, many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.

As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.


BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving
the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off
capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not
clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I think you're lying. Prove you aren't.

How would you suggest that I "prove" that I ordered the boat on March 25?

- Get a grip on yourself Jonathan. - Consider how stupid and irrational
you will be perceived from these childish remarks.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

No. You let it go. You're the newbie fool. You're the one
making an even bigger fool out of himself with each post.
I'll be here long after you're gone and your piece of junk is
in the trash heap.


Actually, I've been posting notes to this ng since 1997, and I've been
sailing for some 30 years. You ought to listen to us older, experienced
sailors, Johanthan.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

katysails wrote:

Jim opined: many on this ng
have become opinionated,

Become???? We came this way...we're original opinionates....

Agreed.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.

In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
would prefer to "go along to get along"?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

felton wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:01:44 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



Wally wrote:


Jim Cate wrote:



This isn't what happened at all. I posted my questions several times
on this an on the cruising ng and scanned the reponses for over a
month hoping to get some factual or substantive information regarding
the 26M. It was only after weeks of "Mac bashings" ...


What, you came into a sailing newsgroup to enquire about about a boat you
knew little about, it's gets slagged off something rotten for a month...

...and then you go and *buy* one?

Nobody is that stupid.


You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally. I came onto this newsgroups
hoping to get some substantive, factual information. Instead, I found
out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone who
likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are either: (1)
stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar. In any event, it
put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought might be some
problems with the Mac, other than its inherent limitations that I
already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified, and I proceeded to
place my order. Because they are substantially sold out for the rest of
the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few who will be able to take
delivery of this spectacular and innovated boat this season.

Jim



Do you really believe that the "new" Mac 26 is some night and day
different boat than the "old" Mac 26? P.T. Barnum was right.

Have you taken the time to check out the changes made in the 26M,
Felton? Do you know anything about the hull design, the changes in the
mast, the sails, etc. No? Then you're the one who doesn't know what the
hell he is talking about, not me.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull to
hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it only
draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the real
risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless. Of
course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks - that's
why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.

Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like an
idiot.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you
that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface, probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly,
many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.

As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.


BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving
the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off
capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not
clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Wally wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


You have it bass-ass backwards, Wally.


In all honesty, and with due respect, I think you have.



I came onto this newsgroups
hoping to get some substantive, factual information.


Would I be correct in assuming that you were looking for said information to
aid you in your purchasing decision?



Instead, I found
out that most of the Mac-bashers have never sailed the current Mac 26,
and don't know what the hell they are talking about, yet despite this,
don't hesitate to pontificate and sneer and try to intimidate anyone
who likes the boat. This reveals to me that the Mac-bashers are
either: (1) stupid (2) incapable of rational thought, or (3) liar.


Frankly, I think "intimidate" is a bit strong. This *is* a newsgroup, after
all. If you know anything about usenet, you'll know that conversation is
often robust to say the least.



In any event, it put my mind at ease with respect to what I thought
might be some problems with the Mac, other than its inherent
limitations that I already knew. Thus, my decision was simplified,
and I proceeded to place my order.


What probelms in partcular were you concerned about, and how could those
concerns be put at ease when all you've had is negative comments?



... Because they are substantially
sold out for the rest of the summer, I'll be one of the fortunate few
who will be able to take delivery of this spectacular and innovated
boat this season.


I was hoping to get some reports from contributors who had actually
sailed the 26M (not the previous models), or who had spoken with
experienced sailors who had sailed the boat. No one on this ng had
sailed the boat, and few had spoken with anyone who had. If someone on
the ng had actually sailed the boat, his or her report regarding how the
boat handled under varying conditions would have been helpful.

Regarding your question about what is spectacular and innovative about
the boat, I have previously discussed the advantages and improvements at
length. If I'm correct, the Mac 26 is the most popular cruising sailboat
on the market, by far. Incremental improvements have been made in the
last two models, and further improvements are incorporated in the new
26M. Advantages of the 26 water ballast sailboat in general include the
fact that the boat addresses the "time factor." As previously discussed
several times, if one owns a fine, 36-foot displacement boat that is
capable of blue water crossings, etc., but which one doesn't have TIME
to sail, then the advantages of the boat don't serve you very well. (Of
course, you can always boast that your boat COULD SAIL ANYWHERE YOU
WANTED TO (if you had time). In the case of the Mac, the ability to
motor out to a desired sailing or fishing or swimming area at 15 knots,
or, alternatively, the ability to motor the boat down to another sailing
are at 65 mph, can change the "COULD SAIL" to a "DID SAIL". In other
words, unless one is retired or has lots of leisure time, the ability to
get to where you want to go, using the power and/or trailoring
capabilities of the Mac 26, can permit you to actually sail in a desired
area, not just talk about it.

With respect to what changes have been incorporated in the 26M, these
have also been discussed several times in previous notes. They include
the addition of permanent ballast, for added safety when motoring or
sailing without the water ballast; the substantial changes to the hull,
which has a new deep V configuration for smoothing out the boat's
performance in heavy chop, the elimination of the pivotal keel, and the
200-gallon slot previously required to receive the pivotal keel (now
replaced by a more narrow, deep dagger board), additional fiber glass
and roving in the hull, etc.; substantially taller mast and rigging,
rotatable mast, etc., etc.

In essence, the 26M provides the advantages from the several previous
models of water ballast power sailboats, plus the advantages of "lessons
learned" over the past eight years of production.

Jim



What is spectacular and innovative about it?