MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Now look at what you've done, Jon...you've unearthed Ed Gordon from whatever
cave he's been dweklling in these past few years....

--
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:

check the Mac list, dufASS.\


Why don't you show us some evidence proving that blisters inside the
water ballast chamber are a serious problem for most Mac owners? YOU are
the one who introduced this issue, not me, and you should at least
provide your sources and the probabilities that most Mac owners will or
will not experience such difficulties.

Jim






"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.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast?


Nope. Not more than 100 miles offshore.

Actually,
the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac.


What a ridiculous, asinine statement. - I'm not a sailor, since I bought
a Mac. - The bottom line, Jonathan, is that you have no understanding
whatsoever of the most basic aspects of logic, rationality, and
intellectual honesty. - In other words, you aren't willing to tell the
truth.


But, since
you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an experience,
it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full report
including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
rush out and buy one.

I'll be happy to provide detailed reports of my offshore trips in the
Mac26M.

I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I have
no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.

Sure Johnathan. But would you recommend the Satori to anyone else on
this ng???


Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

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.

It's not "along the waterline." It's below the waterline. And in a boat
plaining under power, the portion protected by the extra wall is
precisely the area most likely to be damaged by impacts with submerged
objects just below the surface.


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.

Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
advertising the boat has having a double hull.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.............................................. .................................................. .............................................



"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
 

otnmbrd wrote:



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.


If it walks like a duck, and talks like a
duck...................................

In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
positioned over the lower hull IN EXACTLY THE AREAS MOST LIKELY TO BE
COMPROMISED IF THE BOAT STRIKES A SUBMERGED OBJECT WHEN PLANING.



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..

Although you may be right technically in questioning whether the term
"double hulled" should be applied, SUBSTANTIVELY, the extra, inner layer
serves the same purpose in the event the boat is compromised along its
central axis.

While your nomentclature might be more precise, if the extra layer
prevents water from entering the cabin, the end result is that your ass,
and that of my passengers, might be saved.


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.


One factor I'M SEEING is that most contributors to this ng don't have
the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that they are
wrong, and/or, that they have never sailed the26m, or that they really
don't know what they are talking about.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.......................................

Jim



otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

jimbo, you are full of ****.


Thanks for your note, Scott. Have a nice evening.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:


"Jim Cate" wrote


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

.

Yes it is.


NO, it's NOT


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
 

"Jim Cate" wrote


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


Maybe.

Stop acting like an obnoxious little prick. There's no maybe about it, no
probably, or possibly, or almost. Listen up dickweed, the MAC 26 IS ****N
O T**** DOUBLE HULLED!






And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?


Man the pumps and patch the breech PDQ.

Scotty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

And, with some 30,000 boats sold, how many people drowned last year from
falling off one of the the Mac 26? Was it around 1,000? Or, perhaps,
about 500?? Or, even around 100??? Or about 50????? No? How about
20????? (No? Then how many. Put up or shut the hell up.)


How how many drowned from all the keel boats that you think are unsafe? The
point is you've been making a big claim that safety, compared to keel boats, is
one of the prime virtues of the mac, but you forgot to notice that keel boats
aren't particularly dangerous, especially in inland sailing. The safety factor
that impresses you so much solves a problem that doesn't really exist!




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%.

The catalina is a nice boat (I've saild on several 30s), and we did
consider several of them, but it's boring, boring, boring.

And bobbing around in a clorox bottle is exciting? Its hard to imaginge a
sailboat more boring than a mac! I only mention the Cat 30 because there are
so many of them that its easy to determine the price and depreciation. There
are easily 100 models in the same range that would be vastly superior.

The Mac only has two advantages over a traditional boat. First, its trailorable.
If you lived in Minnesota and wanted to sail a different lake each weekend, this
would be very handy. Second is the increased speed. However, if you travel
with a crew, and any amount of gear, you won't really see speeds over 12 knots.
Clearly this is enough to pass other boats, but it won't really get you places
that much faster. And, if you have a head wind and any chop, the speed is
greatly reduced, and its very wet and uncomfortable.

And, its a horrible sailor. I haven't seen a PHRF number for the 26M, but on
the mac boards you'll see comments of rating the 26X at somewhere between 280
and 300. And this is for lake racing - imagine how slow it is "75 miles
offshore." You're thinking its safe to venture that far out because you can
scoot in at 20 knots. However, if you get a nasty chop you could end up
spending all night trying to get back.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
than that.


Jonathan, I ordered the boat last month, as indicated. Whay are you so
concerned about when I ordereed it? What are you trying to prove?

Regarding your statement that the Mac is a piece of crap, actually, I'm
very fortunate to be able to get one of the few 26Ms still available in
the next few months. It's a spectacular, high-tech, innovative new
vessel incorporating a number of improvements derived from Mac's
extensive exeperience over the years. I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Why, I'm not the one dumb enough to buy a Mac26xM.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

check the Mac list, dufASS.\


Why don't you show us some evidence proving that blisters inside the
water ballast chamber are a serious problem for most Mac owners? YOU are
the one who introduced this issue, not me, and you should at least
provide your sources and the probabilities that most Mac owners will or
will not experience such difficulties.

Jim






"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.