On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What about unexpected weather??

In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.

Now THAT'S what we've been praying for.





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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?


My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
to see how it might be compromised.

--
-jeff www.sv-loki.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friend. Like an old man trying to send back soup
at the deli."

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What about unexpected weather??

In that case, I would plan to take the sails down and deploy a sea
anchor. Or, I may perish at sea, in which case you would no longer
have the pleasure of responding to my notes on this discussion string.

Now THAT'S what we've been praying for.





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

Veridican wrote:

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another boat.
BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I would
with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out just a
little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
the bow facing windward. t



I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross the
ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does it?

The Veridican

If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I agree...

But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
bottom of the ocean.

Jim

Nothing substantive to say, Scott?

Scott Vernon wrote:

Jimbo has a son?

"Veridican" veridican Cate @aol.com wrote...

You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a

23

foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off

shore.

But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another

boat.

BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I

would

with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out

just a

little jib and try to keep head to wind.

I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not

cross the

ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does

it?

The Veridican

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?



My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
to see how it might be compromised.

Your boat is an unusual design. Not many on his ng would float after a
collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
down to the bottom.

I agree that sinking because of a failure or accident is a rare event.
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water, and having to make a frantic search
for the faulty through hull hose or connection. Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.

Jim

Jim

John,

I'm still waiting for your responce to this note. - In particular, my
question asking you whether you believed that Practial Saior
deliberately chose not to sail the boat (there wasn't any wind, by the
way) so that they wouldn't have to report on its sailing performance.

John, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT PC WAS AFRAID TO REPORT ON THE SAILING
PERFORMANCE OF THE BOAT? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THEY WAITED UNTIL
THERE WAS A CALM DAY SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE NOT TO SAIL THE
BOAT?

Far out, John.- Did Roger paid them a big bribe to keep them off the
boat? (Your theory is absolutely absurd, John, but it's rather typical
of the Mac bashers.

Jim




In particular, I would like you to clarify your statement that
concludes, from the fact that Practical Sailor didn't sail the boat
(becasue of the calm) that they "would have
reported that it sails poorly." Nothing in the
article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing
performances. (You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind
so that they wouldn't have to report on it's sailing
characteristics??) In fact, they
quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.





Jim Cate wrote:



John Cairns wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I'm still here because it's clear that the ng needs some balance and
fresh air and differing viewpoints on some issues. And also because
some Mac owners have come on the group and been intimidated and driven
off, and because I frankly don't like your attitude.

What HASN'T been explained is why you and your buddies are so very
concerned and stressed out about my remarks that you can't simply press
the "down button" and move on to another topic. Why do you want to
continue wasting time in this discussion if you REALLY think my comments
are totally insignificant and absurd and without merit? It should be
clear to you by now that you aren't going to drive me away. - So what's
keeping you in this discussion? Why can't you just leave it alone?

Jim



You can't seriously believe this crap you've been posting, can you?
You're
basically posting, verbatim, what you've been reading in the mac sales
literature. I can offer you one unbiased review of the mac, culled from
"Practical Sailor", which accepts no advertising and can't possibly be
accused of harboring biases when it comes to sailboat evaluations. It's
free.
http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview2.html
Very interesting that they didn't bother to ACTUALLY SAIL THE THING. Also
very interesting that this was one of the 2 reviews that they're offering
free of charge. A public service announcement, perhaps? You'll note, even
the man himself doesn't claim that this is an "offshore" boat.






John, from reading the Practical Sailor article in its entirety, it's
actually quite favorable. (Incidentally, I'm a subscriber to PC, and
have read selected articles from it for many years. You seem to think I
had never heard of it.) Interesting that you cited this rather favorable
report on the (old) Mac 26 as a fatal hatchet job. I'm wondering if you
actually read the entire article.

Your suggestion that they are publishing this article as a "warning" to
inexperienced sailors is totally out of it, John. - They CONCLUDE the
article with a very favorable comment by a Mac owner, and the THEME of
the entire article is that the (previous) Mac 26 has lots of things
going for it provided one understands its limitations and doesn't plan
on using it to make long ocean crossings. (There is one quote from an
owner in San Francisco, not from "the man," that he wouldn't take the
boat out to blue water. - This isolated statement from one owner doesn't
mean much, of course. It may merely mean that that particular owner
hasn't learned how to sail well.) - Your statement inferring, from the
fact that they didn't sail the boat indicates that they "would have
reported that it sails poorly" is total bull ****. - Nothing in the
article suggests that they were going to trash its sailing performances.
(You think they deliberately selected a day with no wind so that they
wouldn't have to report on it's sailing characteristics??) In fact, they
quote from several owners who are obviously satisfied with the boat.


This article, relating to the 26X model some 7-8 years ago, notes a
number of improvements MacGregor incorporated in the 26X. I'm talking
about the new 26M, which includes improvements made from their
experience over the past eight years. - Here's the conclusion of the
article:

As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for
typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal
sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It wont
hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion
of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew.

(John, If you read the article carefully you will note that Roger was
saying that the boat wasn't designed as a long-distance passagemaker. it
would be uncomfortable, and wouldn't hold the needed supplies. Duhh!
That's rather obvious, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used as a
coastal cruiser (using good sense and restricting it to reasonable
weather conditions, for limited use.) As discussed in the PC report,
the boats are sailed routinely in San Francisco bay, rather choppy and
high-wind area, as discussed in the article, and sail out to Catalina
island routinely.

As stated,
“There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught
in, AND SURVIVED, SOME REALLY EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS, on BOTH lakes
AND OCEANS. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high
winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase
dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our
owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe
conditions.”

Conclusion
There's no question MacGregor is building an inexpensive product that
sells for $4,000-$6,000 LESS THAN ITS PRIMARY COMPETITORS. The list
price for boat, sails and trailer is $14,995 FOB the factory. Genoa and
gear, roller furling, cruising spinnaker, vang, mast raising system,
stove, cushions and transportation jump the price to $17,000; add
$5,000-$7,000 for engine and electronics.

[According to PC] THEY ALSO ENJOY RELATIVELY HIGH RESALE. Two-year-old
boats on the market are selling for 85%-90% of their original prices.

The owner of a recent model sums it up well, “She is fast enough to be
pleasurable, forgiving enough that I can be stupid, balanced enough that
I can be lazy.”

The two-year warranty covers all parts manufactured by MacGregor.

Contact- MacGregor Yacht Corp., 1631 Placentia, Costa Mesa, CA, 92627;
949/642-6830.


No one will

drive you away, but at some point you'll get plonked by just about
everyone
here. And one last thing, if you really think your comments are
"balanced"
and "fresh air", why do YOU keep trying to justify them?


Obviously, it's because my arguments are being ignored and aren't being
responded to, and because I enjoy providing some balance and new inputs
to otherwise biased discussions such as this. (And because I like to
see people like you squirming and stressed out.) But I have read the
previous discussions, and the reactions don't surprise me. Frankly, my
experience is that it takes several months of a discussion such as this
before people like you finally realize that your aren't going to be able
to run over me, or run away from me, and that you can't intimidate or
smoke-screen your way out of responding to my points. - -

It's actually amazing to me that you thought you cite that PC report as
a great triumph for those bashing the Mac 26, and then totally twist the
meaning and conclusions of the article. (Did you think we wouldn't read
it?) - According to you, the fact that PC didn't sail the boat and
didn't report on its handling was because they knew it would sail
poorly?? And didn't want to offend anyone?? In other words, according to
your interpretation, they intentionally selected a day without wind so
that they wouldn't have to sail the boat, and so they wouldn't have to
report on it?? Tell me, John, do you think Roger was paying them off so
that they wouldn't bash his boats?? (But no, you also told us that you
think PS is completely neutral because of their no-advertising policy.)
What are you saying, John? You are something else.



After all, you

asked for the input from us, we didn't come looking for YOU. And, of
course,
I've never actually sailed one, but I've sailed by them many times in
my 28
ft. keelboat, I should say, I've passed them many times in my 28 ft.
keelboat, more often than not they didn't appear to be moving.


Actually, you might be able to sail by my new 26M also, provided I
wasn't planing under sail. But as the PC article concludes, the
(previous) 26X sailed fast enough to be pleasurable. That's one thing
I'm looking for, although I intend to make several mods, such as three
reefing points and roller furling, to enhance the sailing characteristics.


I will also

admit, because I've seen it also, that they can definitely motor a lot
faster than I can sail, but if I was REALLY interested in powerboating
I'd
own a powerboat and wouldn't be posting ANY of this here.


While I'm primarily interested in sailing, particularly in blue water, I
don't have an objection to motoring also. I particularly don't have an
objection to motoring to a desired destination prior to sailing,
fishing, picnicking, swimming with the grandkids, scuba diving, etc., in
order to have more time at the desired destination, get back more
quickly, and maintain a more convenient and less stressful schedule.

John Cairns

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

Dear Mr. Cate,
Please stop talking about the 26M Powersailer on this news group. You
have generated more negative publicity for my product than any
competitor has ever been able to. This is a news group filled ,for the
most part with real sailors, who know what a crappy, shoddy product we
peddle. My beloved 26M powersailer is targeted to the beginner boater
who has no clue what-so-ever as to what he wants or how bad our boat
really is. Let's keep that our little secret, shall we? Otherwise I
will be forced to sic my lawyers on you.

Roger MacGregor


Jim Cate wrote in message ...
The reason I started this discussion string was that I had hoped to
initiate some discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of widely
differing boats, such as the heavy, displacement Valiant 40 and the much
lighter, Mac 26M, which is a planing boat under power.

As I expected from past treatment of Mac enthusiasts on this ng, many
were highly offended that I would even suggest that there were
substantive advantages to both boats, including the Mac. They were even
more frustrated that I would CONTINUE to hold to my positions. Most
responses have been from contributors who didn't know anything about the
changes made on the 26m, and when told it wasn't the same hull, insisted
on swearing that it was. (In other words, many respondents (not all)
were pontificating about a boat they knew very little about.) Another
frequent comment was that I was obviously a paid shill for MacGregor,
repeating their advertising propaganda. In this regard, has anyone ever
heard of restrictions relative to Deceptive Trade Practices, or false
advertising? Or, has anyone ever heard about actions in tort (assuming
that MacGregor has tortuously misled or misinformed their customers, or
class actions? Or, has anyone read Section 3369 of the California Civil
Code? In other words, MacGregor can't merely publish a series of lies
about their boats, and they are subject to potential litigation of
various kinds if it can be demonstrated that their advertising is
deceptive, as some on this ng have asserted, and if buyers have been
relied on it and been damaged.

Few of the responses have addressed the advantages pointed out for the
Mac 26M in my first few notes. Instead, many of the responses are
essentially something like this:

Jim, anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
doesn't know what he is talking about, so I'm not even going to address
the five points you made concerning advantages you see in the Mac.
(Of course, that's a convenient cover if you really don't have an
answer and can't respond rationally or substantively.)

In an attempt to get the discussion back on track and move it beyond the
ridiculous, childish, personal attacks, I'm again listing several of
the substantive advantages claimed for the Mac 26M. In considering the
advantages of any boat, the elements of comfort, safety, suitability for
the intended applications and environment, are all valid issues, IMO.
In addition, the element of time is of substantial importance. So, I
have added a sixth relating to its ability to conserve the precious,
limited amount of time each of us has to enjoy the sea, sailing, family
outings on the water, etc.


the following are five (now six) advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of these substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous, childish personal attacks?

Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
criteria. With respect to coastal cruising, and sailing and motoring in
areas such as the Galveston bay area, the Mac seems to have several
advantages.


(1) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat. The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending
weather, is also a safety factor in the Mac.

(2) When we sailed the Valiant, there were several channels in the
Galveston area that weren't clearly marked and in which we could not
maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to turn back from a preferred
anchorage we were trying to reach. In contrast, the dagger board of the
MacGregor can be raised incrementally as desired, with a minimum draft
of around 18 inches. Again, with respect to its ability to maneuver in
shallow or unmarked channels, or to anchor in shallow water, or beach on
shore to permit grandkids to play on the sand, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat, since the Valiant must be kept in much deeper water and
doesn't have the versatility of the Mac for such shallow water activities.

I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).

(3) However, if one can't get out to the blue water on weekends because
of the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from port to the
blue water, then the excellent sailing characteristics of the Valiant
wouldn't be of much benefit. (With the exception of being able to talk
about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could only
get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a larger
boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.

(4) - If the lower hull is compromised along its lowermost centerline,
the inner liner, extending 2/3 rd the length of the boat, remains and
acts to prevent entry of water into the cockpit. - No,it's not a
complete double hull, and yes, it doesn't protect one from side impacts,
but it is an added safety factor.

(5) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keel boats) is
compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant (and the
keel of your boat) will quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect,
the MacGregor is a "better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of
drunk red-necks racing around the bays while downing another six-pack.)

(6) Regarding the issue of time, and the limited quantity thereof
available to most adults, because of its ability to motor to a desired
area quickly, or to be trailered to a desired area at 65 mph, the boat
provides added versatility in several respects. Unless you don't have
to go to work every week or have lots of free time such that you don't
worry about spending substantial time motoring out to desired sailing
areas, or sailing for several days to another desired sailing area down
the coast, the Mac 26M has advantages in that it permits you to get to
many areas not otherwise available on a weekend trip, or unless you can
spend several weeks sailing to a new port, etc. For example, in our
area, this permits one to sail in the Galveston area one weekend, from
the Corpus Christi area on another weekend, and from the Rockport area
on another, etc. The ability to remove the boat from the water on its
trailer also serves to minimize upkeep, marina fees, bottom treatments, etc.

Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
accepted for the evaluation, and how the boat will be used. My point
isn't that the Mac is the greatest boat made for all purposes. It's
rather an attempt to bring a little balance to such discussions.

Jim