MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
....
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.)

Total nonsense. First you extol all the "virtues," asserting everything claimed
by the factory must be true; now you're saying all their warnings and
disclaimers are meaningless because a lawyer told them add this in. Frankly,
I've never warnings like this from any other sailboat manufacturer. Why is it
that this one feels the need?

If you did look at the statistics, you'd realize that death from sinking in
medium size sailboats in coastal waters is rather uncommon. The vast majority
of deaths is from capsizing or falling off of unstable boats; followed closely
by hitting something at speed. All of these are much greater risks in a boat
like a mac. I'm not talking about 2 or 3 times more common - there's only a
handful of deaths from traditional cruising boats sinking, but hundreds from
falling overboard, or capsizing. Think about it, Jim. 99% of drownings
involved boats with foam floation.

If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here. Do
you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of what
you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote...

if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
a duck.

right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.


- Scotty, does your boat
stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
boat to the bottom?????????

If my hull were 'penetrated' where my sink drain through hull is, the water
would be contained by the drain hose which is double hose clamped as a
safety precaution.

Scotty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

check the Mac list, dufASS.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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.

double hulled
 

aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Jim Cate wrote:


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.

Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scotty wrote....
the Mac26Xm is a cheap plastic piece of crap that doesn't sail worth a
damn.


"Jim Cate" wrote ...


Agreed.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
.

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

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Smart-ass Jim Cate" wrote ...


It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.



And then wrote.....

the boat makes better
speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.

Jim


So now the mac has an adjustable weight keel?

SV

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

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.

So, armed with this lack of information, you went and bought one. Why do
that when, by your own admission, you aren't sufficiently well informed to
assert its worthiness?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what
sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much
reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you use?
How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, ...

70 knots is not 'moderate'.


I
have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
furling,

Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you propose
to bend on a small jib?


The depth and knot meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in
view of the fact that much of our bay waters are relatively shallow,

How does a knot meter help in shallow water?


and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.

What do you mean?



However, I understand that the boat
makes better speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than
heavily keeled. Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive
at preferred reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc.,
for various conditions.

I asked:

1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
use?
3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
out in 70kt winds. Your trolling skills are a joke - try to be less obvious.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

double hulled
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ...
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American


Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


Jim Cate wrote:


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.

Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the
bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.

otn