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

Peter Wiley wrote:
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
\
Actually, I would have reefed a long time before experiencing 30 knot
winds in any direction. The Mac has some obvious advantages and also
some obvious disadvantages. One of the disadvantages (with respect to
sailing in heavy weather offshore) is that it isn't a heavy
discplacement boat weighing over 15,000 pounds that can readily handle
30 knot winds. On the other hand, one of its advantages (with respect
to 90% of the conditions I expect to sail in) is that it isn't a heavy
displacment boat weighing over 15,000 pounds, but can still survive in
heavy weather.

Jim

You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
you know nothing about sailing.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Peter Wiley wrote:
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
\
Actually, I would have reefed a long time before experiencing 30 knot
winds in any direction. The Mac has some obvious advantages and also
some obvious disadvantages. One of the disadvantages (with respect to
sailing in heavy weather offshore) is that it isn't a heavy
discplacement boat weighing over 15,000 pounds that can readily handle
30 knot winds. On the other hand, one of its advantages (with respect
to 90% of the conditions I expect to sail in) is that it isn't a heavy
displacment boat weighing over 15,000 pounds, but can still survive in
heavy weather.

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
you know nothing about sailing.


Sure thing Johathan. But if I'm lost at sea, at least you won't have to
waste more of your time reading my notes on asa.

Jim

It's nice that you admit you're a fool. Good show.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You would really be a fool to even attempt to sail
your Mac in 30 kts. To even suggest it implies that
you know nothing about sailing.


Sure thing Johathan. But if I'm lost at sea, at least you won't have to
waste more of your time reading my notes on asa.

Jim

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