MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In my opinion, you're stupid, a liar, and an asshole.

Aren't you getting somehat repetitive, Johnny? Why waste time posting
notes like that one over and over again? We all know you have a problem.
(Oterwise you wouldn't stick around.)

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

HOLY **** ! He's been pulling this same troll since '97.


From: Jim Cate )
Subject: MacGregor 26 pro's/cons
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Date: 1997/03/19


In the dust writes:

Jim Cate wrote:

(The entire text of Roger MacGregor's sales brochure)
Jim Cate

********************************************

Uhhhh Jim.... How's Rog these days?
__________________________________________________ _-

Uhhhh, (Elpolvo???), actually, I don't know Roger, and I don't work for
MacGregor, and I don't own a MacGregor, and I don't often sail a
MacGregor, and I sail a Cal 34 rather than a Mac, and my favorite
cruising boat is the Valiant 40 rather than the Mac. But hey,
"Elpolvo," instead of posting sarcastic putdowns, how about addressing
the substance of what I was saying. I was certainly NOT trying to push
the Mac 26 as a suitable boat for extended blue water passagemaking,
but rather, I merely pointed out some of the features that are often
overlooked by the poor souls who have made huge investments in heavy
boats, and who usually leave them tied up to the dock (all the time
paying the substantial marina bills) because they can seldom get them
out to the blue water over a weekend. There are thousands and thousands
of beautiful boats docked in the marinas in our area, and most of them
just sit there for 99.9% of the time accruing marina bills, insurance
bills, maintenance bills, interest charges, depreciation, etc, etc.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about the light construction
of the Mac, and how much better your boat is than the Mac, but the
facts are that there are some rather substantial practical advantages
in the design, including some significant safety advantages over heavy
boats. Enough to make them the fastest selling sailboat in the world,
the last I checked. Incidentally, it happens that I have been flamed
by some of the best in the business, and I always come back, so don't
start something that you don't want to continue, for whatever time it
takes.
Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.


Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

You're still solving problems that don't exist. This is only important on a mac
where the hull it too thin given the speed it can attain (if you empty the
ballast, leave the mast and sails at the dock, carry one gallon of fuel, and
singlehand).

And, you have to be luck enough to hit something in the middle, not on the side
of the boat. What are you going to do when you see a log? Aim for it so you
hit dead on, rather than a glancing blow?



Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote ...


In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull



it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!


It's a ballast tank that has an upper wall that serves to prevent water
from flowing from the ballast chamber to the interior of the cabin. In
other words, a second hull.

Jim





Although you may be right .
I don't have
the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that I'm
wrong, and that I've never sailed the26m, or that I really
don't know what I'm talking about.

If it walks like an ass, and quacks like an
ass .......................................

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

could you please explain to me how you're going to reef the Macs' working
jib? I'd like to know in case I ever own one.

Scotty

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote


The plan is to reef the working jib before going offshore.



you're going to reef a working jib on a Mac26? he he heeeee OK.


If heavy weather is predicted, I'll substitute a storm jib. Otherwise,
however, I'll reef the working jib and main before going offshore. And
if winds build higher, reef it again.




1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?

The boat should be fairly stable in 40Kt winds if sufficiently reefed.



and by ''sufficiently reefed'' you mean tied down to the trailer, right?




But ultimately, Jim are the one
who demonstrated how stupid Jim really are.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:52:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Well, you have a point. I wouldn't consider my Cal 20 a rich sailor's
boat. Do you?


"Ghetto cruiser," is more correct.




Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim The ASSHOLE Cate" jim the asshole wrote


In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull



it's a frickin ballast tank you asshole!


It's a ballast tank that has an upper wall that serves to prevent water
from flowing from the ballast chamber to the interior of the cabin.

right! You're finaly catching on.


In other words, a second hull.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You're dumber than Horvath!!!!!!!!!

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Comments interspersed:

Jim Cate wrote:

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

You can walk and quack all you want .... that doesn't change the facts.

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.

There's more to operating a boat than just striking submerged objects.
An "additional liner" in some areas, is just that, nothing more. The
main point, is what this "additional liner" is for .... obviously, it's
for improved stability. Some salestype has also come up with the fact
that it could be listed as a "safety" issue in case of grounding or
striking a submerged object,to some extent, as it has been applied to
ships, and you've bought into it, not knowing what they are talking
about or the reality of it's application.





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.

Because, walk and talk as you will, it's NOT 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.

In that case, it would be a DB hull ...... which it's not .... nor is it
a double hull. If you cannot see and understand this distinction and
it's possible importance, I suggest some serious study.


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.

The problem is that some inexperienced sailor such as yourself, might
think that the same would apply in the case of a collision or allision
which compromised the upper hull, or that the entire bottom of the hull
was thusly protected......it is not in either case.



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

BG If you have so much integrity and intellectual honesty, then you
will admit that your walkin talkin duck is wrong. A double hull is
different from a DB hull, which is different from a single hull, which
is different from the MAC hull. I personally don't give a rats ass if
you like my definitions .... they are what they are and yours are BS.
I note that you made no comments on "initial stability" and the 300lbs
of ballast. From this I assume you don't have a clue as to what I was
saying and to be honest, I wouldn't expect you would.
I don't have to have sailed on a Mac26m for my comments to apply or be
correct.

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I was here from the beginning. You're just a MacBoy either way.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.


Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Looks like we have a new winner. But, was he putzed?

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
HOLY **** ! He's been pulling this same troll since '97.


From: Jim Cate )
Subject: MacGregor 26 pro's/cons
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Date: 1997/03/19


In the dust writes:

Jim Cate wrote:

(The entire text of Roger MacGregor's sales brochure)
Jim Cate

********************************************

Uhhhh Jim.... How's Rog these days?
__________________________________________________ _-

Uhhhh, (Elpolvo???), actually, I don't know Roger, and I don't work for
MacGregor, and I don't own a MacGregor, and I don't often sail a
MacGregor, and I sail a Cal 34 rather than a Mac, and my favorite
cruising boat is the Valiant 40 rather than the Mac. But hey,
"Elpolvo," instead of posting sarcastic putdowns, how about addressing
the substance of what I was saying. I was certainly NOT trying to push
the Mac 26 as a suitable boat for extended blue water passagemaking,
but rather, I merely pointed out some of the features that are often
overlooked by the poor souls who have made huge investments in heavy
boats, and who usually leave them tied up to the dock (all the time
paying the substantial marina bills) because they can seldom get them
out to the blue water over a weekend. There are thousands and thousands
of beautiful boats docked in the marinas in our area, and most of them
just sit there for 99.9% of the time accruing marina bills, insurance
bills, maintenance bills, interest charges, depreciation, etc, etc.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about the light construction
of the Mac, and how much better your boat is than the Mac, but the
facts are that there are some rather substantial practical advantages
in the design, including some significant safety advantages over heavy
boats. Enough to make them the fastest selling sailboat in the world,
the last I checked. Incidentally, it happens that I have been flamed
by some of the best in the business, and I always come back, so don't
start something that you don't want to continue, for whatever time it
takes.
Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
No.. you check the notes. I have better things to do Jimmy.


Johnny, I was posting notes on this newsgroup seven years ago. Unless
you were here earlier than 1997, that makes you the "newguy".

Jim