katysails wrote:

Jax cried:
SPAM!!

I'm of the opinion that the guy is a MacGregor infiltrate, sent by the
company to turn the attention of the group on their sorry product...

Katy, the following note lists five advantages of the Mac 26M, while
recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
addressing some of these substantive issues, rather than posting more
ridiculous, childish 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

are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...

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

I think he's under the impression that his head is double hulled.

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...

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

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:

are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV

He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
"improve" their boats with some of these innovations

Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
choose? If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.

The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.



"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...

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

felton wrote:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:


are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV


He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
"improve" their boats with some of these innovations

Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
choose? If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.


If I could anticipate that a drunken powerboater were going to hit me
going 50 mph, I would prefer a Valiant, although even then, I don't
think you could predict what would happen. (It's possible that the hull
of the Valiant would be compromised, in which case its keel would
quickly pull it to the bottom.) But a new Valiant would cost around
$400,000, normally equiped, or more than 10 times the cost of the Mac
loaded with navigation and autosteering. - You can't always get what you
want, but sometimes, if you try real hard, you just might get what you
need. - Which in my case is the 26M.

Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
bottom within a few minutes?



The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.

Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
quickly, and also
permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.

Jim


p,


"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...

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

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:16:19 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



felton wrote:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:


are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV


He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
"improve" their boats with some of these innovations

Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
choose? If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.


If I could anticipate that a drunken powerboater were going to hit me
going 50 mph, I would prefer a Valiant, although even then, I don't
think you could predict what would happen. (It's possible that the hull
of the Valiant would be compromised, in which case its keel would
quickly pull it to the bottom.) But a new Valiant would cost around
$400,000, normally equiped, or more than 10 times the cost of the Mac
loaded with navigation and autosteering. - You can't always get what you
want, but sometimes, if you try real hard, you just might get what you
need. - Which in my case is the 26M.

Hmmm. Moving the goalposts it would seem. Of course a Valiant is a
vastly more expensive boat that frankly is "overkill" for the kind of
sailing that you or I do. I am unclear why you keep choosing to
compare the Mac to the Valiant, but since you do I keep pointing out
the obvious. The fact that no Valiant has ever gone to the bottom but
have logged many a circumnavigation should put your mind at ease, but
yet the fact that you still cling to the belief that a 3500lb clorox
bottle is somehow "safer" than a Valiant, or any "real" sailboat,
speaks volumes to any real sailor.



Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
bottom within a few minutes?

I would absolutely prefer to be on a displacement boat than rely on
foam floatation in a lightly built clorox bottle. There is absolutely
no doubt in my mind which would be the safer boat. My boat has a real
rig, unlike the Mac. I can depower my rig, shorten sail, or even go
bare poles if need be. Anyone on a Mac 26 is going to be SOL. It
really doesn't give me much comfort knowing that there may be some
foam floatation on which I can cling waiting for rescue.


The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.

Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
quickly, and also
permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.

Jim

While I am not a fan of powerboats either, given your objectives, you
should have bought one. A Mac 26 is the worst of both worlds.
Something for everyone, I suppose. Someone even married my ex-wife

p,


"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...

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

felton wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:16:19 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



felton wrote:


On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:49:36 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:



are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?

SV


He may be thinking that a liner is a second hull, which will prevent
him from sinking if one of those drunken powerboaters hits him doing
60mph. Perhaps Macs have foam floatation, as most of them would
otherwise be on the bottom. If I make it up to the Valiant yard in
the next few days, perhaps I will suggest that they may want to
"improve" their boats with some of these innovations

Here is a question for Jim...a drunken powerboater is heading towards
you. You can elect to be in a Valiant or a Mac. Which do you
choose? If you are really so naive as to think that a Mac 26 is a
more survivable boat in any scenario than a Valiant or any other
"real" sailboat, then thanks for the comic relief.


If I could anticipate that a drunken powerboater were going to hit me
going 50 mph, I would prefer a Valiant, although even then, I don't
think you could predict what would happen. (It's possible that the hull
of the Valiant would be compromised, in which case its keel would
quickly pull it to the bottom.) But a new Valiant would cost around
$400,000, normally equiped, or more than 10 times the cost of the Mac
loaded with navigation and autosteering. - You can't always get what you
want, but sometimes, if you try real hard, you just might get what you
need. - Which in my case is the 26M.


Hmmm. Moving the goalposts it would seem. Of course a Valiant is a
vastly more expensive boat that frankly is "overkill" for the kind of
sailing that you or I do. I am unclear why you keep choosing to
compare the Mac to the Valiant,

The reason I refer to the 40-ft. Valiant is that I had experience
sailing one on a charter situation and learned to appreciate what a
great boat it is. If I were going to make a crossing or an extended blue
water cruise, I would prefer the Valiant.


but since you do I keep pointing out
the obvious. The fact that no Valiant has ever gone to the bottom but
have logged many a circumnavigation should put your mind at ease,

What is your source for that assertion? - No Valiant has ever sunk?


but
yet the fact that you still cling to the belief that a 3500lb clorox
bottle is somehow "safer" than a Valiant, or any "real" sailboat,
speaks volumes to any real sailor.


Actually, a closed bottle is going to survive a storm that would sink a
Valiant.


Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
bottom within a few minutes?


I would absolutely prefer to be on a displacement boat than rely on
foam floatation in a lightly built clorox bottle. There is absolutely
no doubt in my mind which would be the safer boat. My boat has a real
rig, unlike the Mac. I can depower my rig, shorten sail, or even go
bare poles if need be. Anyone on a Mac 26 is going to be SOL. It
really doesn't give me much comfort knowing that there may be some
foam floatation on which I can cling waiting for rescue.


The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.


Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
quickly, and also
permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.

Jim


While I am not a fan of powerboats either, given your objectives, you
should have bought one. A Mac 26 is the worst of both worlds.
Something for everyone, I suppose. Someone even married my ex-wife


p,


"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...


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

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Now, let me ask you a question. - If you were sailing in a displacemenet
boat in unexpected high winds, and you had your son tethered to the boat
for safety, and it became obvious that the boat was going to founder,
would you prefer that the boat have positive foam flotation, as in the
MacGregor, or would you prefer that your son be on a discplacement boat
with a heavy keel that would drag the boat and its occupants to the
bottom within a few minutes?

The obvious solution to your dilemma was to have chosen a marina
closer to where you wish to sail. You can drive a car faster than
even the motorboat you have chosen will go. I will grant you that if
your only criteria was how fast you can motor in your "sailboat", then
you have probably chosen wisely. For $30k you could have bought a
pretty decent powerboat instead. Live and learn.

Then why did you buy one?

Felton, I don't like power boats. I want the power capabilities of the Mac
because it will enable us to get to good blue water sailing areas more
quickly, and also
permit us to fish, and let our grandkids play safely in shallow water,
or beach the boat. It will also permit us to motor out, do some sailing
and some fishing and/or some swimming, and motor back within a few
hours, rather than taking the entire weekend.

Jim


p,


"Jim Cate" wrote 6 times...

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

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.

Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.


If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).


The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.

Jim

You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
By definition, it's only a guess.

So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.

Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.

Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.


If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).


It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
find on the ocean.

The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.

Jim