MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Don't worry Horass. We know you're not smart enough to
get it. You can go back to winning fags. I mean flags.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:46:01 -0700, "Jon-boy Ganz"
wrote this crap:

When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.


Maybe when you grow up, you'll have an IQ just as high, Jon-boy.






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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

That's right Horass! I don't know anyone named PC and
I've never heard of Practial Saior. Is the latter your boyfriend?

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:33:32 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Right.. I lost. You won... that piece of crap. BTW, who is PC and what is
Practial Saior?


Not you, Jon-boy.






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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

And normal people stay the hell away from hunters and
fags. I mean flags.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:24:49 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote this crap:

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


Sane people would rather spend a month in jail, than sail a MacGregor
for one day.




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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

felton wrote:

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.


Where did I state that I thought the Mac is a more seaworthy boat than
the Valiant?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

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



In other words, you can't come up with a substantve response to my note.
Is that what you're trying to tell us, Scott?

Jim




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
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

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

Scotty


Whatever floats your boat, Scotty. I prefer to sail a MacGregor, and
get out on the water more frequently, AND ALSO sail some of the larger
boats when I want to, by chartering. When I'm through chartering the
larger boat, I leave it, and let the owner take care of the dock fees,
insurance, financing, bottom treatments, engine repairs, rigging
repairs, electronics, sail replacements, etc.

Ever hear about "BOTH AND" instead of "EITHER OR," Scotty?

Jim



"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
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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.


Look around, Jim. Cats may be a minority, but many thousands have been built.
Prout built 5000, and possibly has had more circumnavigations than Valiant; the
French have built even more. Certainly, a lot more money is spent on cruising
cats than tralorable sailboats with 50 hp engines.





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.

I didn't mean this particular boat. I meant you implied you were willing to
spend more when you were searching.


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.

Sounds like you didn't look at many boats.




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.

Maybe, but in how many pieces? And how far would you grandchildren be
scattered? Remember, drownings don't happen from sinking (according to the
statistics), the happen from capsizing and falling off of unstable boats. You
keep solving the problems that don't exist.


....

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.

Oh, yes, Jim, you're prepared all right!

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're full of it. The Valient has a host of great sailing
and construction pluses. The Mac has NONE of these.
The Mac is garbage, which isn't fit to sink in the wake
of a Valient, even though it likely would at the very
first opportunity.


Actually, you again have got it all wrong, Johnathan. Wrong again!

Contrary to your note, I'm actually a great admirer of the Valiant,
having sailed one for a week along the Texas coast. It's probably the
best handling and best performing boat of its size that I have sailed. -
We were routinely making over 9 knots in around 15-knot winds, with the
main, staysail, and jib deployed. The boat had all lines led aft
including multiple reefing lines led to the cockpit so that you could
easily set the main at a particular desired reefing point from the
cockpit. The boat had a canoe stern which enhanced its speed and was a
safety factor in the event of large following seas. So, I'm totally sold
on the Valiant.

Regarding the comparison with the Mac 26M, however, as has been
overwhelmingly demonstrated to anyone willing to read the notes with an
open mind (this doesn't include you, of course), the Mac has a number of
advantages and capabilities that the Valiant doesn't have and never
will. For most sailors who work for a living, the Mac addresses the
issue of time, and the limited amount each of us has, far more
intelligently than the Valiant.

Get a grip on yourself Johnny. - You are obviously loosing it, and you
seem to be getting worse with each passing day.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out).

Perhaps you should look at a map, Jim. Catalina is somewhat closer than 25 miles
from the mainland - its more like 18 miles. Perhaps it just feels like 25 miles
in a Mac.

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.

Is that when he offered to take you out on his boat? What, he doesn't actually
have one himself? That's odd!



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.

This is why Roger MacGregor said, "The 26 was designed for typical small
cruising boat use-inland waters and limited coastal sailing." By "limited," I
think he's saying one should stay close to safe refuge, and watch the weather
very, very carefully. Note that he didn't use the word "cruising" which implies
longer voyages.



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

Maybe that's why his literature seems to have more disclaimers than the rest of
the boating industry combined.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

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),

Jeff, in a 26-foot boat weighing 3,500 pounds having a normal sail area
of around 300 sq. feet, you don't need a big, heavy storm anchor or a
big, heavy storm jib. They don't weigh very much or take up much space.
(There are storage compartments throughout the boat, incidentally.)

do you really
think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
stuff?

Maybe. Maybe not. I expect the boat to make good time motoring under
moderate wind contitions, permitting it to motor back before most heavy
weather.

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?

The furling jib would have to be taken down and replaced early, before
conditions were excessive. Regarding crawling up on the bow, the Mac
26M has provides access to the jib through the hatch located near the
bow, in which you can stand or sit on the V-berth and reach the jib
through the hatch. It gives slightly better footing than trying to walk
forward topside.

Obviously, this is a small boat, and it would be foolhardy to sail out
in blue water in potentially severe conditions without reefing down
early, motoring back early if unusually severe conditions were
anticipated, and putting a storm jib or storm anchor out early if
necessary.

Jim




"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