Jim Cate wrote:
In our area, some of the many "obvious advantages" include the ability
to get out to good sailing waters, sail for half a day, and return to
port within a few hours.

Umm, no. The "obvious advantage" here is that you can get shaken and
deafened while putt-putting out into more open water, then bobbing
around with (or without, doesn't make much difference) sail up, then
reversing the process.

A few days ago I went sailing around our marina. Slaloming among the
outer pilings is fun.

"Good sailing waters" is where good sailors sail.


... If you can only sail on weekends, that's an
"obvious advantage" over a boat that takes six hours to motor to a good
sailing area, and six hours to motor back.

You've been sold a bill of goods. You either should 1- keep the boat
closer to where you want to sail or 2- get a boat that can be enjoyably
sailed in waters a practical distance away. There are many solutions to
every problem, and the one you've fixed on is a rather poor one IMHO.

Meanwhile, you get to ride around on your new boat (did you get red or
blue?) while subsidizing your local Macgregor dealers lifestyle. Enjoy.

FB
Doug King

DSK wrote:
Jim Cate wrote:

In our area, some of the many "obvious advantages" include the ability
to get out to good sailing waters, sail for half a day, and return to
port within a few hours.


Umm, no. The "obvious advantage" here is that you can get shaken and
deafened while putt-putting out into more open water, then bobbing
around with (or without, doesn't make much difference) sail up, then
reversing the process.

So, it would be better for me to get a larger, keel boat that takes 5
hours to "ROAR" out to the good sailing water, and then another 5 hours
to "ROAR" back to home port? Under that scenario, When do we start
having fun? How long to I have to listen to that diesel?

Jim



A few days ago I went sailing around our marina. Slaloming among the
outer pilings is fun.

"Good sailing waters" is where good sailors sail.


... If you can only sail on weekends, that's an "obvious advantage"
over a boat that takes six hours to motor to a good sailing area, and
six hours to motor back.


You've been sold a bill of goods. You either should 1- keep the boat
closer to where you want to sail or 2- get a boat that can be enjoyably
sailed in waters a practical distance away. There are many solutions to
every problem, and the one you've fixed on is a rather poor one IMHO.

Meanwhile, you get to ride around on your new boat (did you get red or
blue?) while subsidizing your local Macgregor dealers lifestyle. Enjoy.


Actually, I'm one of the fortunate few who will be able to get delivery
of this spectacular new boat this year. Most of their production for the
year has already been commited. (I'm getting the white model.)

FBhis
Doug King

or a smaller boat.

DSK wrote:
Jim Cate wrote:

In our area, some of the many "obvious advantages" include the ability
to get out to good sailing waters, sail for half a day, and return to
port within a few hours.


Umm, no. The "obvious advantage" here is that you can get shaken and
deafened while putt-putting out into more open water, then bobbing
around with (or without, doesn't make much difference) sail up, then
reversing the process.

So, it would be better for me to get a larger, keel boat that takes 5
hours to "ROAR" out to the good sailing water, and then another 5 hours
to "ROAR" back to home port? Under that scenario, When do we start
having fun? How long to I have to listen to that diesel?

Jim



A few days ago I went sailing around our marina. Slaloming among the
outer pilings is fun.

"Good sailing waters" is where good sailors sail.


... If you can only sail on weekends, that's an "obvious advantage"
over a boat that takes six hours to motor to a good sailing area, and
six hours to motor back.


You've been sold a bill of goods. You either should 1- keep the boat
closer to where you want to sail or 2- get a boat that can be enjoyably
sailed in waters a practical distance away. There are many solutions to
every problem, and the one you've fixed on is a rather poor one IMHO.

Meanwhile, you get to ride around on your new boat (did you get red or
blue?) while subsidizing your local Macgregor dealers lifestyle. Enjoy.


Actually, I'm one of the fortunate few who will be able to get delivery
of this spectacular new boat this year. Most of their production for the
year has already been commited. (I'm getting the white model.)

FBhis
Doug King

Nah, his ego is way too big for that. He bought a loser, now
he has to justify it.

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

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
or a smaller boat.

DSK wrote:
Jim Cate wrote:

In our area, some of the many "obvious advantages" include the ability
to get out to good sailing waters, sail for half a day, and return to
port within a few hours.


Umm, no. The "obvious advantage" here is that you can get shaken and
deafened while putt-putting out into more open water, then bobbing
around with (or without, doesn't make much difference) sail up, then
reversing the process.

So, it would be better for me to get a larger, keel boat that takes 5
hours to "ROAR" out to the good sailing water, and then another 5 hours
to "ROAR" back to home port? Under that scenario, When do we start
having fun? How long to I have to listen to that diesel?

Jim



A few days ago I went sailing around our marina. Slaloming among the
outer pilings is fun.

"Good sailing waters" is where good sailors sail.


... If you can only sail on weekends, that's an "obvious advantage"
over a boat that takes six hours to motor to a good sailing area, and
six hours to motor back.


You've been sold a bill of goods. You either should 1- keep the boat
closer to where you want to sail or 2- get a boat that can be enjoyably
sailed in waters a practical distance away. There are many solutions to
every problem, and the one you've fixed on is a rather poor one IMHO.

Meanwhile, you get to ride around on your new boat (did you get red or
blue?) while subsidizing your local Macgregor dealers lifestyle. Enjoy.


Actually, I'm one of the fortunate few who will be able to get delivery
of this spectacular new boat this year. Most of their production for the
year has already been commited. (I'm getting the white model.)

FBhis
Doug King

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Nah, his ego is way too big for that. He bought a loser, now
he has to justify it.

Johathan, the following note lists five advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of such substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous personal attacks?

Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
criteria, however. With respect to safety for coastal cruising, the Mac
seems to have several advantages.

(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.

(2) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keep boats) is
compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant will
quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of drunk red-necks
racing around the bays at 60 mph while downing another six-pack.)

(3) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat.

(4) The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending weather,
is also a safety factor in the Mac. When we sailed the Valiant, there
were several channels in the Galveston area that weren't clearly marked
and in which we could not maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to
turn back from a preferred anchorage we were trying to reach. In
contrast, the dagger board of the MacGregor can be raised incrementally
as desired, with a minimum draft of around 18 inches. Again, with
respect to its ability to maneuver in shallow or unmarked channels, or
to anchor in shallow water, or beach on shore to permit grandkids to
play on the sand, the MacGregor is a "better" boat, since the Valiant
must be kept in much deeper water and doesn't have the versatility of
the Mac for such shallow water activities.

I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).

(5) However, if I can't get out to the blue water on weekends because of
the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from our area to
the blue water, then the fine sailing characteristics of the Valiant
wouldn't be of much benefit to me. (With the exception of being able to
talk about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could
only get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a
larger boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.

Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
used in the evaluation, and how the boat will be used.

Jim

Sure, I'm bored Jhm.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Nah, his ego is way too big for that. He bought a loser, now
he has to justify it.

Johathan, the following note lists five advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of such substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous personal attacks?

Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
criteria, however. With respect to safety for coastal cruising, the Mac
seems to have several advantages.

(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.

Get a catamaran or trimaran. Not only will you sail faster on most
points of sail, you can't sink them, you'll have the same if not more
room below, they don't heel much, so guests will feel safe. They
require less engine power to move, thus less fuel, noise, etc. Tris
and some cats can be trailered. They cost a bit more, but you could
easily find a used one in great shape for the same or less than a
piece of junk Mac26(who cares).


(2) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keep boats) is
compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant will
quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of drunk red-necks
racing around the bays at 60 mph while downing another six-pack.)

See #1.

(3) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat.


See #1.

(4) The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending weather,
is also a safety factor in the Mac. When we sailed the Valiant, there
were several channels in the Galveston area that weren't clearly marked
and in which we could not maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to
turn back from a preferred anchorage we were trying to reach. In
contrast, the dagger board of the MacGregor can be raised incrementally
as desired, with a minimum draft of around 18 inches. Again, with
respect to its ability to maneuver in shallow or unmarked channels, or
to anchor in shallow water, or beach on shore to permit grandkids to
play on the sand, the MacGregor is a "better" boat, since the Valiant
must be kept in much deeper water and doesn't have the versatility of
the Mac for such shallow water activities.

See #1.

I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).

(5) However, if I can't get out to the blue water on weekends because of
the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from our area to
the blue water, then the fine sailing characteristics of the Valiant
wouldn't be of much benefit to me. (With the exception of being able to
talk about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could
only get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a
larger boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.

See #1.

Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
used in the evaluation, and how the boat will be used.

Jim

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

Sure, I'm bored Jhm.

Well, he's good for something, then. My thoughts on his list of points
was exactly the same as yours - get a catamaran.

As someone else said, let's see that thing plane or move at 18 knots in
a nasty chop and 30 knot headwind. Isn't going to happen.

PDW

Johathan, the following note lists five advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of such substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous personal attacks?

Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
criteria, however. With respect to safety for coastal cruising, the Mac
seems to have several advantages.

(1) - If the lower hull is compromised, the inner hull remains.

(2) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keep boats) is
compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant will
quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of drunk red-necks
racing around the bays at 60 mph while downing another six-pack.)

(3) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
"better" boat.

(4) The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending weather,
is also a safety factor in the Mac. When we sailed the Valiant, there
were several channels in the Galveston area that weren't clearly marked
and in which we could not maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to
turn back from a preferred anchorage we were trying to reach. In
contrast, the dagger board of the MacGregor can be raised incrementally
as desired, with a minimum draft of around 18 inches. Again, with
respect to its ability to maneuver in shallow or unmarked channels, or
to anchor in shallow water, or beach on shore to permit grandkids to
play on the sand, the MacGregor is a "better" boat, since the Valiant
must be kept in much deeper water and doesn't have the versatility of
the Mac for such shallow water activities.

I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).

(5) However, if I can't get out to the blue water on weekends because of
the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from our area to
the blue water, then the fine sailing characteristics of the Valiant
wouldn't be of much benefit to me. (With the exception of being able to
talk about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could
only get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a
larger boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.

Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
used in the evaluation, and how the boat will be used.

Jim

Can't you sail out to your ''blue water''?

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:
Jim Cate wrote:

In our area, some of the many "obvious advantages" include the ability
to get out to good sailing waters, sail for half a day, and return to
port within a few hours.


Umm, no. The "obvious advantage" here is that you can get shaken and
deafened while putt-putting out into more open water, then bobbing
around with (or without, doesn't make much difference) sail up, then
reversing the process.

So, it would be better for me to get a larger, keel boat that takes 5
hours to "ROAR" out to the good sailing water, and then another 5 hours
to "ROAR" back to home port? Under that scenario, When do we start
having fun? How long to I have to listen to that diesel?

Jim



A few days ago I went sailing around our marina. Slaloming among the
outer pilings is fun.

"Good sailing waters" is where good sailors sail.


... If you can only sail on weekends, that's an "obvious advantage"
over a boat that takes six hours to motor to a good sailing area, and
six hours to motor back.


You've been sold a bill of goods. You either should 1- keep the boat
closer to where you want to sail or 2- get a boat that can be enjoyably
sailed in waters a practical distance away. There are many solutions to
every problem, and the one you've fixed on is a rather poor one IMHO.

Meanwhile, you get to ride around on your new boat (did you get red or
blue?) while subsidizing your local Macgregor dealers lifestyle. Enjoy.


Actually, I'm one of the fortunate few who will be able to get delivery
of this spectacular new boat this year. Most of their production for the
year has already been commited. (I'm getting the white model.)

FBhis
Doug King

Scott Vernon wrote:

Can't you sail out to your ''blue water''?



I have motored and sailed out to the blue water off Galveston, but it
takes around five-six hours. Most of the distance is in the Houston ship
channel, which isn't a pleasant sailing area. Most boat owners in this
area (Kemah-Seabrook, located between Houston and Galveston) seem to
prefer sailing in Galveston bay rather than going down to Galveston. -
This area is the third most popular boating center in the country, in
terms of vessels kept in marinas in the area. I understand that it's a
matter of convenience, in that they can get to their boats more
conveniently, and safety, in that the boats are more sheltered from
weather extremes.

Jim





SV

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


In our area, some of the many "obvious advantages" include the ability
to get out to good sailing waters, sail for half a day, and return to
port within a few hours.


Umm, no. The "obvious advantage" here is that you can get shaken and
deafened while putt-putting out into more open water, then bobbing
around with (or without, doesn't make much difference) sail up, then
reversing the process.

So, it would be better for me to get a larger, keel boat that takes 5
hours to "ROAR" out to the good sailing water, and then another 5 hours
to "ROAR" back to home port? Under that scenario, When do we start
having fun? How long to I have to listen to that diesel?

Jim



A few days ago I went sailing around our marina. Slaloming among the
outer pilings is fun.

"Good sailing waters" is where good sailors sail.



... If you can only sail on weekends, that's an "obvious advantage"
over a boat that takes six hours to motor to a good sailing area, and
six hours to motor back.


You've been sold a bill of goods. You either should 1- keep the boat
closer to where you want to sail or 2- get a boat that can be enjoyably
sailed in waters a practical distance away. There are many solutions to
every problem, and the one you've fixed on is a rather poor one IMHO.

Meanwhile, you get to ride around on your new boat (did you get red or
blue?) while subsidizing your local Macgregor dealers lifestyle. Enjoy.


Actually, I'm one of the fortunate few who will be able to get delivery
of this spectacular new boat this year. Most of their production for the
year has already been commited. (I'm getting the white model.)


FBhis
Doug King