MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Roger MacGregor wrote:

Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
NOT responsible for your boat!

Roger MacGregor

In that case, you need to correct those on your staff who respond to
inquiries from those of us who call and request information about your
boats. When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
designed for. They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out). And the water
between the California coast and Catalina island is certainly blue. My
own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore. Also, I
have made it clear to him several times that that's what I intend to do.
Another dealer I spoke with said the same thing and told me that he
had sailed Macs offshore many times, sailed to the Bahamas 12 times, and
would not hesitate to do it again. I also note that there is absolutely
NOTHING in your literature (if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)
warning your customers not to take their boats more than three miles
offshore.

In other words, you are either a troll, or if not, MacGregor has some
serious legal liability issues.

Jim





"Jim Cate" wrote in message ...


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Roger MacGregor wrote:

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


Sure thing, Roger.





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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Veridican wrote:

I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.



I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for them.
I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.

Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what difference
does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the slip or
driveway as good as any other boat.

My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on the ocean
and we sail all the time. That's what matters.

The Veridican

You make a valid point, Veradican. If they don't sail their boats, what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

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.



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..

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.




Gee, I scored 98 on the test given in the ASA basic sailing course,
which I took as a review last month with my wife. - Better tell them
that they obviously made a mistake. But I do agree that the "double
hull" issue (whether to call it a double hull or not, and whether it
provides some of the same benefits) is something of a side issue.

Actually, the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic, and
many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal attacks,
and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if one doesn'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 posted in the first few notes. -
Which is that both the MacGregor 26M and the Valiant 40 (or other
comparable displacement boats) have good and bad characteristics, and
moreover, 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

otn

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks for
the laughs.

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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
 

sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
26Mx every day.

Scotty


"Jimbo Mac" wrote ...
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
 

How can he say that when he's never driven a Mac26x?

jimbo's a Mac basher, just like the rest of us.

SV


"Wally" wrote in message
...
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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote

When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
designed for.

and you believed them??????

My
own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore.


BWaaaaaaaaHahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha


(if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)


What a maroon!

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

In your case, it wouldn't matter either way.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Veridican wrote:

I'm very lucky to be able to get
one of the few available this year.



I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for
them.
I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.

Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what
difference
does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the
slip or
driveway as good as any other boat.

My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on
the ocean
and we sail all the time. That's what matters.

The Veridican

You make a valid point, Veradican. If they don't sail their boats, what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote
what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

he just doesn't get it.