More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
never sailed in your life.

I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
same page.


John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
lost at sea.



Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
never sailed in your life.

I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.

Actually, no. I had sailed various Macs and followed their development
over the years as different models were introduced. However, there were
several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like. The the 26M has
corrected them, for the first time.

Jim

Jim Cate wrote:

However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

How can he say that when he's never driven a Mac26x?

jimbo's a Mac basher, just like the rest of us.

SV


"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jim Cate wrote:

However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:52:07 +0100, "Wally"
wrote this crap:

Jim Cate wrote:

However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.

What things on the 26x didn't you like?


Lack of storage for beer and rum.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

Wally wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.


What things on the 26x didn't you like?


I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)

I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.

I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability. The new
deep-V hull is more efficient going through chop under power, and has
good sailing characteristics, according to owners with whom I have
spoken. (It is reported as loosing a little in top speed under power,
which I can accept in view of the more comfortable and stable ride in
heavy weather.)

The interior of the 26x seemed cramped to me, and the seating was
somewhat uncomfortable. The new boat is more roomy, more pleasant, and
more comfortable, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question? Or were you hoping to get another answer.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)

Although I generally prefer the daggerboard, the ability to shift the CLF
(Center of Lateral Resistance) aft is very handy.



I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.

The permanent ballast was required because the V hull raised the Center of
Gravity too much.



I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability.

Meaning the new hull will not plane as easily.

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)


Although I generally prefer the daggerboard, the ability to shift the CLF
(Center of Lateral Resistance) aft is very handy.

I understand that there are tradeoffs, and that moving the CLF might be
useful in some circumstances. From everyone I have spoken with who has
sailed her, that the dagger board permits the boat to do better upwind.
It also permits removing the cavity in which the swing keel nested,
reducing drag. And it can be extended partially or fully, as desired for
the particular point of sail.


I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.


The permanent ballast was required because the V hull raised the Center of
Gravity too much.

I think that some permanent ballast is a safety factor in any such boat.

I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability.


Meaning the new hull will not plane as easily.

Agreed. Despite what others have said, it's still primarily a sailboat,
not a power boat, though the new hull permits the boat to cut through
chop more smoothly. Again, there are tradeoffs in any design.


Jim

And you're primarily stupid.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Agreed. Despite what others have said, it's still primarily a sailboat,
not a power boat, though the new hull permits the boat to cut through
chop more smoothly. Again, there are tradeoffs in any design.

Jim Cate wrote:

... Or were you hoping to get another answer.

What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music