"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



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



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

I've seen the 26X rated at both 220 and 249. Maybe there's a fleet that allows
racing without the water ballast. Its also possible that the V-bottom allows
for the daggerboard to be raised when reaching, which could account for
considerable improvement in some situations.

BTW, there are several 26X's that I see in Boston harbor, one has a slip near
me, another used to come down the Charles River every Saturday morning, headed
for the outer harbor. I've been somewhat impressed that the large engine gives
them the ability to pick destinations 10 or 12 miles away. However, when I
catch up with them later in the morning after they've raised sail, I've never
actually seen them moving in the water. As near as I can tell, they power out,
raised sail, bob around for a while, then power to their destination. Frankly,
there's nothing wrong with this, if its what you want to do. But it isn't
sailing




"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



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



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

Back when I was on the Mac list there was a few who raced them, one guy
filled in the swingboard trunk with something . Claimed more speed from it.
They modified them quite extensively to race.

Scotty

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I've seen the 26X rated at both 220 and 249. Maybe there's a fleet that
allows
racing without the water ballast. Its also possible that the V-bottom
allows
for the daggerboard to be raised when reaching, which could account for
considerable improvement in some situations.

BTW, there are several 26X's that I see in Boston harbor, one has a slip
near
me, another used to come down the Charles River every Saturday morning,
headed
for the outer harbor. I've been somewhat impressed that the large engine
gives
them the ability to pick destinations 10 or 12 miles away. However, when
I
catch up with them later in the morning after they've raised sail, I've
never
actually seen them moving in the water. As near as I can tell, they power
out,
raised sail, bob around for a while, then power to their destination.
Frankly,
there's nothing wrong with this, if its what you want to do. But it isn't
sailing




"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



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



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the
26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your
stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim

Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M
is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and
purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever
advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got
boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to
the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of
your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and
give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question,
and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question
was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is
20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled
under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns

Back when I was on the Mac list there was a few who raced them, one guy
filled in the swingboard trunk with something . Claimed more speed from it.


Dilithium cyrstals?


RB

If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer.


Well done, John.

RB

John Cairns wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jim Cate wrote:



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



John,

I suspect that you don't have much interest in the facts, but the 26X IS
the "old" model. The "new" model is the 26M. In other words, your stats
are either six years out of date or bass-ass-backwards.

Jim

No responses to this note?

Jim


Yes, read the post carefully. I think everyone here knows that the 26M is
the "new" model. I bracket the new, because for all intents and purposes,
this is the same boat as the 26X, regardless of all the clever advertising
blurbs. These are the specs for the 26X, at least 6 years old.
http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/macgr26x.htm

Your note, to which I referred, stated that:

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

From your own note, your new NE phrf list rates THIS BOAT (the 26x) at
216.......... However, the NEW boat is the 26m, not the 26X. Also, the
new boat isn't just the old boat "for all intents and purposes" with
some "subtle changes." In fact, the hull is completely new, an
incorporates a bow section having a deep V design of 15 degrees, as
compared with the flatter, 8-degree hull of the 26X model. Secondly,
the boat incorporates a vertically displaceable dagger board instead of
the old pivotable centerboard. Accordingly, the 5-foot, 16" high
centerboard trunk that extended aft of the pivot point of the
centerboard in the X model is no longer necessary, and is therefore
eliminated, such that the contour of the hull aft of the dagger board
doesn't include the 16" recess or trunk. Other changes include an
additional layer of fiberglass and roving in the lower hull, softer
corners at the transom, etc. The mast is 2' higher than on the X model,
and the ballast is no longer an exclusively water ballast, but instead,
includes 300 lb.. of permanent ballast.

ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying that these changes have solved all potential
deficiencies in the old models, or that the new boat sails or powers
superbly. But there can be no question that the M model incorporates
major, substantive changes, has an entirely different hull, and is not
the same boat as the previous models. As previously noted, I'm not
asking for acquiescence or agreement, I'm asking for some basic
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY in the discussion. - That would include your
admitting that you were wrong in stating that there are only "cosmetic"
differences between the new M boat and the older models. - A 15-degree
Hull IS NOT the same thing as a substantially flat, 8-degree hull.

As for your suggestion that I find a dealer with the new model in stock
who would be "happy" to take me out for a test sail, I haven't found
one. - Most of them tell me that the new model is in such demand and
scarce supply that they can't even keep one in stock for display. Of
course, I doubt that the owner of the 34-foot Cal I'm also looking at
would let me take that boat for a test sail either. - That's why I
posted my questions on this ng in the first place.

Jim





Now compare and contrast these numbers to the "new" 26M
http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/sa...fications.html

Hmm. Interesting. Roger must be the greatest NA in history if he got boat A
to go faster than boat B simply by making a few subtle design changes to the
underbody. But I digress. You think that it(26M) is a boat worthy of your
serious consideration, why don't you take one out for a test sail and give
us all of the details. I noticed that you never answered MY question, and it
wasn't rhetorical, it was a serious suggestion. And the other question was
serious also. If the (OLD) 26X is rated at 216 and the (NEW) 26M is 20-30%
faster (make it easier, say it's 20% faster) what would it's rating be?
Think carefully before you answer. And no, we won't discuss how fast or
stable or maneuverable it is under power, because, after all, this is a
SAILING newsgroup, if we really concerned about how our boats handled under
power we would own POWERBOATS.

John Cairns