Jim Cate wrote:
It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over.

Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).

Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
at the hull shape.

It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
enlighten you.

DSK

Doug, while I wouldn't want a Mac26 in my worst nightmare, you're wrong about
the hull, though Macgregor says the performance edge was for POWERING. The
daggerboard is the other big whoop along with the larger "rotating" rig. It's
improved...like New Coke.

http://www.macgregor26.com/comparison_26x_and_26m.htm

RB

The water ballast
weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
for every 100 pounds added.) That's with all the other caveats (one
person, no rigging, etc) remaining.

So with a crew of 4 adults, food and water and other supplies, the 26M will
actually do -4 knots.

RB

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:15:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:
It has "Exactly the same hull, except for the dark paint"??? DK, you are
either confused or hung over.

Umm, no. Either the boat(s) that I have seen as "Mac26M"s were not, or
they are the same hull. It might have 15 degree deadrise up near the
bow, but the transom looks like the letter "U". A wide one. Nor did the
old one have 8 degrees of deadrise (except maybe up near the bow).

Before you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, when you
are the one asking me for advice, you check around some other sources.
For starters, park a "new" Mac26 next to an old one, and look carefully
at the hull shape.

It looks to me like you've been sold a bill of goods, and aren't going
to listen to the truth. If your sailing happiness is based on
self-delusion (and these days it seems like a lot of people base quite a
lot on this) then it would be most honorable for me to not try and
enlighten you.

DSK

Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.

He starts off asking for advice and then begins his debates, claiming
that anyone who hasn't sailed one can't possibly have an informed
opinion. Although he seemed to know nothing of boats, which would
make him the target demographic for these things, he then begins to
articulate all the goofy advertising claims for the "new and improved"
Mac26, while lamenting that he might have to settle for a Cal or C&C.

I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
him.

felton wrote:
Actually I am leaning towards the theory that "jim" either already
owns one, is in the business of selling them or is some sort of
disinformation campaign trying to resurrect the Mac26X/M from it's
well deserved position in the sailing Hall of Humor.

Good call. I should have ignored him, but it's a slow day. And the
weather has really turned beautiful, I need to go sailing!


I do wish Jim the best, though, in acquiring the Mac26M as it seems to
be the boat which meets his needs and fulfills his desires. I suspect
he needs to look elsewhere for confirmation. I have never yet met
anyone with any sailing background or ability who would agree with
him.

I have a number of friends who've owned the things... all but one have
moved on. We went sailing & cruising in company many times in the
mid/late 90s. They are kinda fun if you don't mind the looks (and this
is one improvement in the new version)and don't expect much to happen
when you work at getting the sail trim right (once you get the rudders
fixed). It's really a camper trailer that also functions as a boat!

I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference. You could literally swap trailers and not notice. But then
MacGregor has unfortunately gone down the road from mildly deceptive
advertising, to flirting with outright falsehood... maybe now they've
crossed the line?



wrote:
Also note that the claimed speed of 24 MPH is with a 50 HP motor, one
person aboard, no water ballast, and the rigging entirely REMOVED.

I believe I mentioned something along those lines. The speeds I've
observed for the things in real life is more in the neighborhood of 15
knots (18 mph)


..... The water ballast
weighs 1400 pounds, so that would be an instant drop to a possible top
speed of only 10 MPH according to the MacGregor website (1 MPH drop
for every 100 pounds added.)

The drag increases on a curve, so each added 100 lbs would decrease the
speed a bit less. Anyway, the ballast tank is designed so that it can be
emptied while motoring.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference.

Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull. It "is"
different.

RB

I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference.


Bobsprit wrote:
Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull. It "is"
different.

You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
link may be more convincing than real life, when I said "I've seen both
on their trailers, and there ain't any visible difference" I meant just
exactly that. Well, wait... there is one visible difference.... the new
ones are painted a dark color. I've been told the choices are blue or
red, but the two I've seen are both blue. A handsome color, but it
doesn't change the hull shape.

DSK

??? Learn to read headers. Dougie, you're nuts, and technically inept.

He can't. Nor could he read the Mac26M link that clearly explained how the hull
had been changed.
While I don't endorse the Mac in any way (quite the opposite) I won't ignore
the obvious facts about it.
To his "eye" the hulls are remain identical and "that's that."
With that sort, do you expect the checking of headers?

RB

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:00:11 -0500, DSK wrote:


I'd be interested to see what MacGregor bases the claims of redesigned
hull upon. I've seen both on their trailers, and there ain't any visible
difference.


Bobsprit wrote:
Doug, I provided a link that clearly explained the mods to the hull. It "is"
different.

You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
link may be more convincing than real life, when I said "I've seen both
on their trailers, and there ain't any visible difference" I meant just
exactly that. Well, wait... there is one visible difference.... the new
ones are painted a dark color. I've been told the choices are blue or
red, but the two I've seen are both blue. A handsome color, but it
doesn't change the hull shape.

DSK

A red one you say? That changes everything I wonder what the
waiting time would be for one of those? I can see myself now behind
that tiny wheel sailing around on a 100+ degree day in a red
sailboat.

You need to get a life Bubbles. While to you and your sock puppets, a
link may be more convincing than real life,


You wrote that jim "had been handed a bill of good on the hull changes."
No you can't even admit you were wrong about it.
Okay, Doug.


RB