Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
Mac26X as a viable vessel?

RB

Better still, Jonathan...can you explain to us under what circumstances YOU
would buy a Mac26X?
I can't think of ANY for myself. I'd rather have a sailboat or a
powerboat...never the Mac.

RB

No. I can't. Perhaps if I was stupid like Jax....

Again, I'm talking about the M, which doesn't have the huge engine
as is a "sailboat" not a horrible compromise.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Better still, Jonathan...can you explain to us under what circumstances
YOU
would buy a Mac26X?
I can't think of ANY for myself. I'd rather have a sailboat or a
powerboat...never the Mac.

RB

Not at all. I think the X version are trash. The M isn't as bad as
that and is capable of sailing on the bay (for example) without
compromising one's safety. It's a different boat.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
Mac26X as a viable vessel?

RB

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model, and the
deep V hull seems to slice through waves smoothly with little braking or
bouncing, based on the video of the two boats.

My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
know what the Hell I'm talking about."

In the interest of logic and rationality and intellectual honesty, I
think this would clear up most of the confusion and obfuscation that has
been involved in this discussion.

Jim


s I'vefor example,

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Not at all. I think the X version are trash. The M isn't as bad as
that and is capable of sailing on the bay (for example) without
compromising one's safety. It's a different boat.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...

Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
Mac26X as a viable vessel?

RB

jim, buy the damned thing. nobody is going to laugh at you, and those who do
are just jealous. be a man among men, jim. go for it.

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model, and the
deep V hull seems to slice through waves smoothly with little braking or
bouncing, based on the video of the two boats.

My point is not that I know or have evidence to the effect that the M
model is a good sailing and/or motoring vessel. Not at all. It's that,
if we are going to give any consideration whatsoever to the most
fundamental principles of logic, reasoning, clear thinking, etc., then
those who criticize the new boat should preface their remarks by saying
"Jim, to be truthful, I haven't sailed the boat, and I haven't talked to
anyone who has, so actually you should understand that I really don't
know what the Hell I'm talking about."

In the interest of logic and rationality and intellectual honesty, I
think this would clear up most of the confusion and obfuscation that has
been involved in this discussion.

Jim


s I'vefor example,

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Not at all. I think the X version are trash. The M isn't as bad as
that and is capable of sailing on the bay (for example) without
compromising one's safety. It's a different boat.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...

Oh please. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you supporting the
Mac26X as a viable vessel?

RB

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216 which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,

John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216 which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30% faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns


Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
standing still. Speaking with owners of the M model, they say that it is
significantly faster, making around 6.5 on a reach. Maybe it's
something like the comparisons of the Cal, Catalina, and O'Day 34's I
have also been looking at. It seems like there are lots of factors other
than full speed, etc., that affect the speed of the boats.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,

From someone who's opinion I trust, and from my own experience. I've run
these boats down like they were standing still, in one case, the wind was
4kts. and the Mac did appear to be standing still. This person also told me
that the Mac26x would not move in winds much below 8kts., and couldn't sail
upwind in winds much above 10. Like I said, you should be able to find a Mac
broker who's willing to take you out on a test sail, hell, that's how they
sell them in these parts. No store, the broker rents a slip in our marina
and keeps a boat there. BTW, I own a Catalina 28, not exactly a greyhound on
the water if you get my drift.
John Cairns
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


John Cairns wrote:

The new boat is probably only slightly less of a pig under sail than the
old
boat, if you want to verify this, I'm sure you'll find at least one Mac
broker that has an M in stock and will be happy to take you out for a
test
sail. I have one of the NE phrf lists, it rates this boat(26X) at 216
which
is probably charitable. You do the math. If it is indeed 20 to 30%
faster
than the old model, what would it's rating be?
John Cairns


Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
standing still. Speaking with owners of the M model, they say that it is
significantly faster, making around 6.5 on a reach. Maybe it's
something like the comparisons of the Cal, Catalina, and O'Day 34's I
have also been looking at. It seems like there are lots of factors other
than full speed, etc., that affect the speed of the boats.

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

The "M" model has a new deep V- hull, an adjustable dagger board keel,
a rotatable mast, additional layers of fiberglass in the hull, SS chain
plates, partial fixed lead ballast, and a number of other changes. -
Whether these changes bring the boat up to acceptable off-shore sailing
standards or not, they ARE substantive differences relative to the
previous model. From discussing the boat with owners and previous
owners, it seems that it's speed and handling under both sail and motor
are significantly improved relative to the previous model. It is
apparently 20-30% faster under similar sails than the X model,

Interesting. When I look at their video of the 26M racing the 26X with
identical sails, the 26M is passing the X model as if the X model is
standing still.

Jim, I watched the video. Something is VERY wrong there. Sailboats don't show
such a wide variant in speed from design improvements. The results are
significant, but still subtle overall. A J35 which is FAR faster than my C&C 32
doesn't pass a Catalina 30 "like it's standing still." The M & X models are
still pretty close in their performance envelope and I'm doubtful that the
video was done honestly.

RB

RB