MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
gear do you intend to carry? How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger), do you really
think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
stuff?

BTW, what kind of storm jib are you going to use with the roller furling jib?
Are you really going to crawl up to the bow offshore in a chop to swap jibs, or
even to set a storm anchor?



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

you best stay on land, jimmy.

"Jim Cate" wrote
But it's nice to know that you won't wake up in the middle of the night
with the boat filling with water,

Or finding out that
your displacement boat can't quite sail (or motor) on through 15-30-ft
breaking waves.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



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

While there have been reports of Valiants being rolled, none have ever
gone to the bottom. Why you persist in claiming that the Mac is a
more seaworthy boat has to be the most absurd thing ever posted in
this group, and that is really saying something.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

It really wasn't that big a bribe, at least not compared to what I
have to pay off the DEP and OSHA. Those bums at PS are a bunch of worn
out, drugged out old hippies. A few lbs. of hash and any boat can get
a good review.

Roger M.


"Jim Cate" wrote in


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:45:38 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:

You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
gear do you intend to carry? How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger), do you really
think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
stuff?


You need to buy a clue.





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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.

I agree that the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic,
and that many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal
attacks, and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if you don't
have anything substantive to say in the first place......)

There has been lots of bickering about side issues, and little
discussion of the underlying thesis. - Which is, that both the MacGregor
26M and the Valiant 40 (or other comparable displacement boats) have
good and bad characteristics, and each has capabilities that the other
doesn't.

The Valiant can sail faster, point higher, and manage heavy seas well,
up to a point. On the other hand, it's difficult to navigate through
shallow waters, poorly kept channels that are shallow or silting, etc.
Its utility is also limited by the fact that it can't sail or motor
faster than its hull speed (unless you are surfing down a large wave.)
The MacGregor, of course, can motor through very shallow water, and
anchor in less than 1.5 feet of water, permitting the grandkids to swim
and enjoy playing in the water. Or, it can be beached, for a picnic, or
motored through shallow bay waters.

One of the more significant advantages of the MacGregor 26M is the fact
that it addresses one of the most basic human limitations, limited time.
Most of us work for a living, and most of us have many other
responsibilities vying for our limited free time. In this respect, the
Mac has it all over the Valiant. - As previously mentioned, in our
region in the Galveston Bay area northwest of Galveston, it takes around
four hours to motor from the marinas to the ship channel and down to
Galveston, and even more time to get out to the blue water. (There are
very few marinas located near the Gulf, and 99% of boat owners leave
their boats in the many marinas in Kemah or Seabrook.) In contrast, the
Mac can get from our marinas to the blue water far more quickly, making
it feasible to get out to blue water sailing in less than two hours. In
one day one can motor down, sail, visit Galveston restaurants and shops
if desired, and then return to the Kemah marinas. Thus, time limitations
relative to weekend sailing are substantially overcome. Similarly, the
design of the boat makes it possible to motor out to other portions of
the bays quickly, and sail, fish, swim, picnic, etc., and then return,
in one afternoon. Again, time limitations experienced with larger boats
are substantially mitigated.

Also, although 99% of the displacement sailboats in our area seldom
leave the bay, the Mac permits sailing in an entirely different part of
the the State, several hundred miles away, because it can be
conveniently trailered to the desired area. - Again, time limitations
are overcome, and a variety of new sailing areas are made conveniently
available.

Of course, you can say that you don't care about time limitations, and
that you would rather have a large displacement boat despite its
shortcomings. However, the fact remains that most of the owners of
displacement boats in this area that I have spoken with tell me that
they seldom find the time to take their boats out, and almost never have
time to take them out to the blue water. My own conclusion is that it's
better to sail slightly slower, and point slightly farther off, then to
seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:

"I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
interesting things...."

Instead of:

"Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
pointed higher than you."


Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
are closed.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

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.


No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran.

As I said, your boat is an unusual design. Only a smallpercentge of
cruising sailboats are cats.



BTW, you once
mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat.

Its far less than that even fully equipped with 50 hp motor, roller
reefing, lines led aft, GPS chart plotter, auto steering, vhf, radar, etc.

For that money,
you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
under power and sail, a LOT more fun.

Lots of used boats here at reasonable prices, but all of them had
problems. u


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.


Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put a
boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.) However,
I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been chopped in
half.

In that unlikely event, the Mac would still float.

BTW, positive flotation isn't unique to the Mac. Its required on all
small boats, and pretty common on boats up to 25 feet. I'm sure the Hunter
water ballast boats have positive floatation. The problem is that while it
takes a lot of water to sink a large boat, a small one can be taken down pretty
easily.

So can a large boat.



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.


You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves.

Not really.

You need
professional help, not a boat.

Actually, I rather thing that anyone who DOESN'T take such weather
conditions seriously, and prepare for them, is the one who needs
professional help.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're rather typical of Mac owners... stupid.

As I thought, you didn't want to answer that one. In other words, you
lost that one, didn't you Ganz. And as usual, you aren't willing to
admit it.

Hun

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
never sailed in your life.

I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

Actually, no. I had sailed various Macs and followed their development
over the years as different models were introduced. However, there were
several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like. The the 26M has
corrected them, for the first time.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


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