MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

"Jim Cate" wrote


The score of 98 was the score
on an IQ test.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)


Although I generally prefer the daggerboard, the ability to shift the CLF
(Center of Lateral Resistance) aft is very handy.

I understand that there are tradeoffs, and that moving the CLF might be
useful in some circumstances. From everyone I have spoken with who has
sailed her, that the dagger board permits the boat to do better upwind.
It also permits removing the cavity in which the swing keel nested,
reducing drag. And it can be extended partially or fully, as desired for
the particular point of sail.


I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.


The permanent ballast was required because the V hull raised the Center of
Gravity too much.

I think that some permanent ballast is a safety factor in any such boat.

I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability.


Meaning the new hull will not plane as easily.

Agreed. Despite what others have said, it's still primarily a sailboat,
not a power boat, though the new hull permits the boat to cut through
chop more smoothly. Again, there are tradeoffs in any design.


Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You should pay more attention to what people are telling
you. You're the childish asshole, going on and on about a
piece of junk boat and pie-in-the-sky adventures you'll
never take.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wow. 20 people tell you you'll full of sh*t and you don't
believe them. Well, you've got a lot of undeserved self-esteem.

If they could come up with subtantive responses to my notes instead of
posting childish, personal attacks like that one, I might pay more
attention to them.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You are so stupid that it's beyond belief.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious

reasons.

BB

You better explain why this is, I don't think "jim" understands the
concept
of waves and where they might end up.


This is one of those lessons that has to be learned the hard way. It
seems so
easy to understand that forward hatches must be kept shut, but it only
really
sinks in after you see 6 inches of water on top of the bunk you have to
sleep in
that night.

Last summer we had serious green water all the way to the dodger for the
first
time. Fortunately I anticipated it - we were exiting the Cape Cod Canal
on a 5
knot current against a 20 knot breeze - and was able to convince my wife
that
*all* hatches must be sealed. We rode up and over the first two big
square
waves (about 5-6 footers) but dove through the 8 footer before being
squirted
out into Cape Cod Bay. My wife was in the cabin below and freaked when
she saw
6 inches of water over her head!

I've wondered how a mac would handle this. With a good hand on the
wheel, it
should be able to blast through; but get twisted a bit in the first wave
....



If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
"bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

What about "unexpected weather"???

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:48:26 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:

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.



Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
reasons.

BB

Thanks for that helpful suggestion, Binary. However,I think I've made
it clear that I intend to be very conservative when going off-shore, to
reef early, and substantially, if there is any question of threatening
weather. This would also apply to putting out a storm anchor. ... As
stated above:

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.

Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without a
sea anchor.

Jim

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

MacBoy,

Add to the discussion?? How could one possibly have a discussion
with an idiot... at least not for very long.

Really? Then why are you still here?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

And you're primarily stupid.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Agreed. Despite what others have said, it's still primarily a sailboat,
not a power boat, though the new hull permits the boat to cut through
chop more smoothly. Again, there are tradeoffs in any design.

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Actually, I do understand, since you said you have an above average
IQ. Above average = 101. The 98% is meaningless, as an ASA or
other test has NO MEANING. What counts is sailing ability. If I
had been your instructor, I would have told you to pick another
hobby.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

It sounds like you don't know anything about IQ tests. 101 is "above
average," 98 means nothing, being reasonably satisfied is a euphemism
for not finding an excuse to fire you, it is for sure my opinion, I
don't
speak for others, and you do have a problem MacBoy.


As usual, you don't get it, do you John? The score of 98 was the score
on the ASA basic sailing course, not an IQ test. It was 98 percent, or
128 questions correct out of 130. - - As a suggestion, John, you
probably ought to slow down and read the notes somewhat more carefully
before you spout off. It might help you to avoid making a fool of
yourself, as you just did, quite so frequently.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:

... Or were you hoping to get another answer.

What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?

Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were hoping for another
answer.

Then why ask if was hopng for another answer? What were you alluding to?


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

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.


And you really believe that Roger is posting these notes? Notes stating
that: real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE."
That his customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT
REALLY IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?

Scott, I happen to have a bridge for sale that you might be interested
in buying.

Jim


SV


"Jim Cate" wrote

Scott, you obviously don't get it. The point in this particular exchange
isn't whether the boat is suitable for blue water sailing, it's whether
the note purportedly posted by Roger MacGregor was a farce. (Which it
obviously was.)