MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Bobsprit wrote:

From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.


Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape of
sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.

RB

Some can appreciate the design and shape of a power-sail-planing boat,
or a sailboat capable of planing under sail, AND ALSO appreciate the
design of traditional sailing vessels. The mac 25M attractive and
impressive, IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,
but that's my opinion also. My favorite sailing experience was on a
40-foot Valiant cutter with canoe stern, which looked and sailed
beautifully in blue water. I also crewed for several years on an 1883
150-foot tall ship (the Elissa) that is maintained in operating
condition in the Galveston area. Again, it's definitely impressive and
beautiful under sail, but it's a different beauty than that of a Swan,
Newport, Valiant, etc., or a cup contender.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
stated that:

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
(such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.

In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
(No one, after all, is required to participate.)

Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.

Jim



Jim Cate wrote:


I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
on the boat. Or, anyone else.

For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
finder.)

OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
can reportedly plane under sail.

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
of the new 26M would be appreciated.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

There are many, many beautiful 26 foot sailboats.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit wrote:

From your
particular bias regarding their looks, you don't like them.


Jim, Scotty's bias is well founded. Anyone who's grown to love the shape
of
sailboats is offended by the looks of the Mac.

RB

Some can appreciate the design and shape of a power-sail-planing boat,
or a sailboat capable of planing under sail, AND ALSO appreciate the
design of traditional sailing vessels. The mac 25M attractive and
impressive, IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,
but that's my opinion also. My favorite sailing experience was on a
40-foot Valiant cutter with canoe stern, which looked and sailed
beautifully in blue water. I also crewed for several years on an 1883
150-foot tall ship (the Elissa) that is maintained in operating
condition in the Galveston area. Again, it's definitely impressive and
beautiful under sail, but it's a different beauty than that of a Swan,
Newport, Valiant, etc., or a cup contender.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Well, the Mac line of boats are bottom of the barrel. Not sure what
else "we" can tell you. If you like/want the compromise, go for it.
At this point, I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
stated that:

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the
Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used
30
- 32-foot boats.

In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
(such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.

In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
(No one, after all, is required to participate.)

Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.

Jim



Jim Cate wrote:


I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
on the boat. Or, anyone else.

For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have some
advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and doing
some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant, although
a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots under
motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina to
the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
finder.)

OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel (which
I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the years.
As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the video.)
With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
can reportedly plane under sail.

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used 30
- 32-foot boats.

Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring characteristics
of the new 26M would be appreciated.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:16:53 -0600, Jim Cate wrote:

IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful


I think this 26 is quite nice:


http://huizen.dds.nl/~bonekamp/boot1.jpg



Cheers!


Remco

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I've seen the 26X rated at both 220 and 249. Maybe there's a fleet that allows
racing without the water ballast. Its also possible that the V-bottom allows
for the daggerboard to be raised when reaching, which could account for
considerable improvement in some situations.

BTW, there are several 26X's that I see in Boston harbor, one has a slip near
me, another used to come down the Charles River every Saturday morning, headed
for the outer harbor. I've been somewhat impressed that the large engine gives
them the ability to pick destinations 10 or 12 miles away. However, when I
catch up with them later in the morning after they've raised sail, I've never
actually seen them moving in the water. As near as I can tell, they power out,
raised sail, bob around for a while, then power to their destination. Frankly,
there's nothing wrong with this, if its what you want to do. But it isn't
sailing




"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Where did you read or hear that
MacGregor claimed the boat would make 25 mph with four adults, or with
water ballast? Again, honesty, rationality? - Or would being honest
take away all the fun?

Mac ads constantly list top speeds of more than 20 knots; something the boats
don't actually do under normal usage.
The comments on the Macgregor website are more laughable than most for such a
site. Here are a few clipped comments from the website about initial tests of
the M:

This boat tacks at will under main only, even gybing at low speed against the
wind when most boats will just head up. I have never been on boat with better
behavior.

Wow! Poor guy's never been on a REAL sailboat I guess!

Speed taken using GPS on both boats up to 21 knots with breeze/waves and
18-19 against. Surprise! They are even. Over and over, we drag race from
standing start to top end with no speed difference.

What kind of waves??!!!

Roger orders "full ballast tanks". The M now pulls up on a plane better with
much less bow rise and goes faster by 2 Knots.

NO mention of actual speeds anymore!
Later on it's indicated that the M and X may only do 12 knots under typical
load. The facts are burried, if you care to dig.

RB

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

There's a long list of beautiful 26 footers.

Here's my favorite:
http://www.eastlandyachts.com/nonsuch.html#Anchor-26

But also:
http://www.proper-yachts.com/alerion26.htm

You can also get a lot of boat in smaller packages, like:
http://www.marshallcat.com/default.htm

or allow a few extra feet of pinched stern:
http://www.marinebrokerage.com/cgi-b...en.compassrose

If you think the Mac 26M is more beautiful than these, you run to the dealer and
buy one now Its a match made in heaven!

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful,

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

but don't delude yourself
that while the previous boat may have been junk the new one is totally
different.


Jim, I saw the M at the AC boat show. It's the same junk, built just as lightly
as the original 26X. It's slightly reformed Junk.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

However, I read comments by one of the participants,
and he didn't seem to have any ulterior or deceptful motives.


For god's sake, Jim. It's an AD.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.


Jim, few "sailors" favor the Mac. To them it's both ugly and ungainly. It won't
sail well compared to a traditional sailing vessel and this is a "sailing NG,
so the responses are easy to understand. About the only place where you might
find favor is in a Mac26 discussion group.
I've responded to your comments honestly and thoughtfully. It's a boat. If you
like it, buy it.
I'm out of this one, folks.

RB
C&C 32
City Island, NY

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer.


Well done, John.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Careful Jon, the older Macs (pre X ) were pretty good little boats.


The older Macs, like Coronado's and a few other low end makes were built at the
lowest price point possible and were passable at best.
A "pretty good little boat" is a C&C 25, Cape Dory 25, Pearson 26 and so on.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Careful Jon, the older Macs (pre X ) were pretty good little boats.

SV

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well, the Mac line of boats are bottom of the barrel. Not sure what
else "we" can tell you. If you like/want the compromise, go for it.
At this point, I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Well, this discussion string is now up to around 250 responses, not
including my own. It's interesting that no one has commented on my
initial "both and" rather than "either or" plan. As you may recall, I
stated that:

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the
Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours
on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used
30
- 32-foot boats.

In other words, my plan was to consider getting a 26M Mac for: (1) it's
obvious advantages in shallow bay waters and close-in coastal cruising
(such as, for fishing, and for getting to fishing or sailing areas
quickly and for returning quickly, for anchoring in areas where small
childred (grandkids) could swim, for beaching on local islands, etc.),
AND ALSO (2) to continue to charter larger boats for more extended
cruising without the younger (3 to 5 year old) set.

In any event, it's obvious that my note and my refusal to "cave" are
either generating increasing frustration or providing some perverse form
of pleasure to participants in this discussion string.
(No one, after all, is required to participate.)

Again, I'm not asking for agreement or "approval" or even acquiescence.
I would like to seem some semblance of logic, rationality and
intellectual honesty, however. - Like, for starters, talking about the
same boat I'm talking about.

Jim



Jim Cate wrote:


I'm considering the new MacGregor 26M for use in the Galveston-Houston
area and would like to get comments from anyone who has seen or sailed
on the boat. Or, anyone else.

For sailing and motoring in this area, the MacGregor seems to have
some
advantages. - I'm aware of the largely negative comments on this ng
regarding the MacGregor line. However, for the intended use, e.g.,
sailing and motoring with small kids (grandchildren), fishing, and
doing
some limited coastal cruising, the Mac 26M has the advantage that it
will motor to a desired destination at around 24 mph and can therefore
get to a desired sail or fishing area, and return, much more quickly
than a fixed keel boat. This tends to minimize the "are we home yet"
issue with small kids and non-sail-type guests. Also, in view of the
hundreds of square miles of shallow bay waters in our area, the boat's
ability to anchor in 15 inches of water, or to beach at one of the
islands, would be an obvious advantage. (The 40-foot Valiant,
although
a great boat under sail offshore, was limited to around 8-10 knots
under
motor or sail. So, it took us five hours to get from the Kemah marina
to
the gulf, and we had to be careful to keep a sharp watch on the depth
finder.)

OK, the comparison is admittedly somewhat ludicrous. For the uses
anticipated, however, the Mac may be a practical and fun choice. Also,
the new "M" model seems to include some substantive improvements. - It
now has both lead and the removable water ballast, has a fin keel
(which
I'm assuming may help in pointing), and a structural keel housing
extending vertically from the deck to the ballast area. The boat
reportedly includes additional fiberglass layers and other structural
and ergonomic improvements derived from their experience over the
years.
As to it's sailing abilities, there is a video on the Mac web site
comparing the 26M and the 26X under sail, and the new model is clearly
much faster. (Assuming they didn't stage the race or doctor the
video.)
With a large genoa, it looks like it might be a fast sailing boat; it
can reportedly plane under sail.

A further consideration is that, if I bought the MacGregor, I would
still have the opportunity to charter a wide variety of heavier boats
kept under charter in our area. Conversely, I couldn't purchase a
conventional fixed-keel boat and also charter a boat similar to the
Mac.
(I'm not into motor boats, or staying out in the Texas sun for hours
on
a powered fishing boat.) A negative factor is that the new Mac is
fairly expensive when fully equiped, comparable in price to many used
30
- 32-foot boats.

Comments from anyone regarding the sailing and motoring
characteristics
of the new 26M would be appreciated.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Saweeeet! Love those fenders.

Scotty

"Remco Moedt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:16:53 -0600, Jim Cate wrote:

IMO. I don't think you can call any 26-foot boat beautiful


I think this 26 is quite nice:


http://huizen.dds.nl/~bonekamp/boot1.jpg



Cheers!


Remco

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Back when I was on the Mac list there was a few who raced them, one guy
filled in the swingboard trunk with something . Claimed more speed from it.
They modified them quite extensively to race.

Scotty

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I've seen the 26X rated at both 220 and 249. Maybe there's a fleet that
allows
racing without the water ballast. Its also possible that the V-bottom
allows
for the daggerboard to be raised when reaching, which could account for
considerable improvement in some situations.

BTW, there are several 26X's that I see in Boston harbor, one has a slip
near
me, another used to come down the Charles River every Saturday morning,
headed
for the outer harbor. I've been somewhat impressed that the large engine
gives
them the ability to pick destinations 10 or 12 miles away. However, when
I
catch up with them later in the morning after they've raised sail, I've
never
actually seen them moving in the water. As near as I can tell, they power
out,
raised sail, bob around for a while, then power to their destination.
Frankly,
there's nothing wrong with this, if its what you want to do. But it isn't
sailing




"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail
than
the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one
Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for
a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at
216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the
26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your
stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M
is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and
purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever
advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got
boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to
the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of
your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and
give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question,
and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question
was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is
20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled
under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You're a lawyer? That would explain a lot.

SV


"Jim Cate" wrote

(As an
attorney, I would say that he sounded believable and plausable.)

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

Careful Jon, the older Macs (pre X ) were pretty good little boats.

Yeah, what he said!

Xtually the Mac26 PowR-SailR isn't a bad boat if you understand it's limits and
agree with the basic design philosophy. MacGregor has always built their boats
to be very inexpensive but that doesn't necessarily make them bad, or flimsy.
There are a heck of a lot of 20 and 30 year old Ventures & MacGregors out there
sailing.

Most of the older MacGregor models sail fairly well. Some are quite good, the
Mac 25, which was the predecessor to the older water ballast 26, has left many a
more expensive & prestigious yacht in it's wake.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

When a car ad claims 'top speed' and 'zero to 60' speeds, do you think
they're testing them with 4 adults , a full gas tank and a trunk full of
luggage?

SV


"Bobsprit" wrote ...
Where did you read or hear that
MacGregor claimed the boat would make 25 mph with four adults, or with
water ballast? Again, honesty, rationality? - Or would being honest
take away all the fun?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Bobsprit" wrote


Jim, I saw the M at the AC boat show. It's the same junk, built just as
lightly
as the original 26X. It's slightly reformed Junk.


and yet, Macs have sailed to the Bahamas and to Hawaii. How far have you
sailed Bob?

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

Saweeeet! Love those fenders.

Scotty


My wife would get all cranky when I showed her how much
brightwork she had to look after.

Cheers
Marty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

and yet, Macs have sailed to the Bahamas and to Hawaii. How far have you
sailed Bob?


Dugout canoes and make-shift rafts have made those trips. Please explain to
everyone why you find the 26M and X so appealing. Outside of Jim you're the
only one who thinks this way.
As far as distance sailed, I did get to the Thimble Islands last summer, did
some of the Jersey Coast, logged plenty of daysails, overnighters and so on.
Pretty much what most people do. Let the group understand why you think this
has any bearing on the quality of the Mac sailboats.

We're all awaiting your thoughtful answers.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

which was the predecessor to the older water ballast 26, has left many a
more expensive & prestigious yacht in it's wake.

Meaning what exactly? A Mac 25 will outrun a Dana 24 as well.
I guess you'd call the Mac a "better" boat.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Xtually the Mac26 PowR-SailR isn't a bad boat if you understand it's limit

How PC is this comment? Let's look at these so called "limits."

Mac 26X or M

Ugly design
Very light build quality
Poor sailing performance
Poor power boat performance
Not cheap compared to better used boats

Yeah...I guess if you're okay with that, then the Mac26 is GREAT! I also have a
1983 OMC saildrive for sale...great if you understand it's limits.

RB

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

When a car ad claims 'top speed' and 'zero to 60' speeds, do you think
they're testing them with 4 adults , a full gas tank and a trunk full of
luggage?

Most cars don't lose half of their speed potential when passengers are added.
With three passengers the Mac26m dropped to 13 knots in tests. See the website!
Try again, Scotty. Still, you should look into becoming a Mac dealer.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Please repost where I wrote that.

You've been defending the Mac X and M. Fact.
Sorry. Both sides of the rail doesn't suit you.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

which was the predecessor to the older water ballast 26, has left many a
more expensive & prestigious yacht in it's wake.


Bobsprit wrote:
Meaning what exactly? A Mac 25 will outrun a Dana 24 as well.
I guess you'd call the Mac a "better" boat.

For some purposes, it is definitely a better boat. For others, it may not
be. You got a problem with that?

Is the Mac25 a better boat than a C&C 32 that never sails and has a host of
long term structural problems?

Maybe you should argue about it with Marc and BittyBill. Jax could referee
it.

DSK

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Isn't the M25 in the Sail hall of fame? Ever seen a Mac/Venture 23' cutter
rigged? Cool looking boat.

Scotty

SV

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Scott Vernon wrote:

Careful Jon, the older Macs (pre X ) were pretty good little boats.

Yeah, what he said!

Xtually the Mac26 PowR-SailR isn't a bad boat if you understand it's
limits and
agree with the basic design philosophy. MacGregor has always built their
boats
to be very inexpensive but that doesn't necessarily make them bad, or
flimsy.
There are a heck of a lot of 20 and 30 year old Ventures & MacGregors out
there
sailing.

Most of the older MacGregor models sail fairly well. Some are quite good,
the
Mac 25, which was the predecessor to the older water ballast 26, has left
many a
more expensive & prestigious yacht in it's wake.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Back when I was on the Mac list there was a few who raced them, one guy
filled in the swingboard trunk with something . Claimed more speed from it.


Dilithium cyrstals?


RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Yer a regular Josh Slocum, ain't ya?


Ah, well. Same old tune from Scotty...and no real answer as usual.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Please repost where I wrote that.


"Bobsprit" wrote

Please explain to
everyone why you find the 26M and X so appealing.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Yer a regular Josh Slocum, ain't ya?

"Bobsprit" wrote
As far as distance sailed, I did get to the Thimble Islands last summer,
did
some of the Jersey Coast, logged plenty of daysails, overnighters and so
on.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Bobsprit wrote:



We're all awaiting your thoughtful answers.


Not really.

Cheers
Marty

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

Isn't the M25 in the Sail hall of fame? Ever seen a Mac/Venture 23' cutter
rigged? Cool looking boat.

Yes, the "Venture of Newport" which was intended to cash in on the growing
popularity of classic boats at that time.

Not to disillusion you Scott but it is really just a Venture 21 with a bowsprit
& quarter rail screwed on. It is pretty cool looking though. There is one that
sails a lake nearby, the owner has changed it to a quasi-gaff rig, added a row
of bronze portholes, and some other old-timey nautical gear. Makes you want to
grab a rusty cutlass and shout "Argh, matey!"

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Name another boat in this size/price range that can be trailered, sailed,
motored as fast, has as much cabin space.

Take a few days, then get back to me.

SV

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Xtually the Mac26 PowR-SailR isn't a bad boat if you understand it's
limit

How PC is this comment? Let's look at these so called "limits."

Mac 26X or M

Ugly design
Very light build quality
Poor sailing performance
Poor power boat performance
Not cheap compared to better used boats

Yeah...I guess if you're okay with that, then the Mac26 is GREAT! I also
have a
1983 OMC saildrive for sale...great if you understand it's limits.

RB

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Is the Mac25 a better boat than a C&C 32 that never sails and has a host of
long term structural problems?


Yes it would be. But I know of no C&C 32s or any C&Cs in my area with problems
you list.
Can't you manage to stay on topic without belittling yourself with tired
trolls? I don't like the Mac26 or any Macs for that matter. I have been aboard
the old macs and found them horribly cheap. The new X and M are simply awful.
It's my opinion, based on watching them sail and being aboard several. If they
sailed well (we all agree they DON'T) it would be another matter.
This is a sailing group, Doug. You directed a large portion of your time to a
powerboat, which in part explains your easy acceptance of a 26M. But I like
sailboats that sail well, that look nice, and that haven't been built to the
lowest price point available. I won't defend a Mac anymore than I'd defend a
boat with bad decks. I'll leave that to you and Scotty. It's sooooo easy to go
the "they're okay for some people" route. Show a little backbone and let's have
YOUR opinion. I seem to recall that you claimed you'd NEVER buy the Hunter 19
again after you discovered the weaknesses and quality. But they're "okay for
some people?" Or are they just crappy boats?

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Name another boat in this size/price range that can be trailered, sailed,
motored as fast, has as much cabin space.


Yeah, and the Amphi car was also unique in it's abilities. It was also junk. I
suspect you ordered a lot of Smokeless Ashtrays, Inside the Egg-Egg Scramblers
and Mister Microphones in the 70's and 80's.

RB

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Repost where I said I '' find the 26M and X so appealing''.

A lie, fo course. I never quoted you as saying this. I indicated that you like
the boat and continue to defend it, listing it's virtues. Clear to everyone.
You should get one!

RB