I think Chicago is the windiest city.

The term "Windy City" in reference to Chicago comes from an 1890's political
cartoon in that city's newspaper.

wrote in message
...
MacGregor has a long and well documented history of being the builder of
low end
boats. VERY low end. That's why I don't have to sail one to tell you it is
a
piece of crap. That's all Macgregor has ever built. Reputations for
sailboats
are not built by advertising campaigns or glossy brochures. Macgregor has
built
themselves a solid reputation, but it's not a good one.

BB

Being slightly harsh, I would say that mac builds and sells cheap boats on
the cheap, builds 'em cheap, sells 'em cheap. That's how the company got
started, as an academic exercise. You do have to give Roger credit though,
he did introduce a lot of people to sailing, some of them saw enough in it
to graduate to boats that more closely mimic the experience of sailing.
"jim" is the odd case of devolution, I guess.
John Cairns

According to this web-site http://www.havencraft.com/26m.asp the blue
painted hull is an option. $400

SV


"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
MacGregor has a long and well documented history of being the builder of
low end
boats. VERY low end. That's why I don't have to sail one to tell you it
is
a
piece of crap. That's all Macgregor has ever built. Reputations for
sailboats
are not built by advertising campaigns or glossy brochures. Macgregor
has
built
themselves a solid reputation, but it's not a good one.

BB

Being slightly harsh, I would say that mac builds and sells cheap boats on
the cheap, builds 'em cheap, sells 'em cheap. That's how the company got
started, as an academic exercise. You do have to give Roger credit though,
he did introduce a lot of people to sailing, some of them saw enough in it
to graduate to boats that more closely mimic the experience of sailing.
"jim" is the odd case of devolution, I guess.
John Cairns

Careful Jax. He might be ELIZA.

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

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
can you say "cognitive diffidence"?

In other words, you don't really have a substantive answer to my last
note? Is that what you mean, JAX?

Jim

the only substantive comment on your last note is that you have deluded
yourself.

No it means he either made an honest mistake or he was
trying to beat you out for being the dumbest one here.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


felton wrote:

On 14 Apr 2004 17:32:12 GMT, (Veridican) wrote:


Jeff,

You say 25 knots is more like a jog in the park and 35 is survival
conditions,
and then you say it's no big deal. 25 knots is 21 mph sustained. It's a
force 6
wind. In a cruising boat, you should be in harnesses and reefed. In a
dinghy
you shouldn't go out at all. I'm not saying it can't be fun, but don't
make it
sound like it's a normal sailing experience. To use your own words, It's
a jog
in the park.

The Veridican


I think your math needs a second look. 25 knots is roughly 29 mph.

In other words, it's even higher, in mph, than he indicated, which
further emphasizes the point he was making.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:
Chicago is not even close. Their reputation is not from the real wind, its
from the politicians.

Ever sailed there? I have. Not a lot, but more than a dozen times... and
I don't recall any light air, most of the time it was blowing 20 ~ 25.



http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...d/avgwind.html

Thanks for the link. Interesting... some of the places I think of as
good for sailing in *real* wind, like Charleston SC, are not even in the
upper half. OTOH upper NY harbor which has almost always been drifters
the times I sailed there, has a pretty high average wind.

Boston does have good breeze. Usually pretty good when we've been up
there. The tides & currents are challenging too.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Two modern
designs I admire, the Viper and the Johnson 18, can race and have lots
of fun in 30 ~ 35... maybe more.

You've lost the distinction between your fantasies and reality! I'd go
so far as top say that 35kn is outside the range of manageability for
all dinghies.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:
Two modern designs I admire, the Viper and the Johnson 18, can race
and have lots of fun in 30 ~ 35... maybe more.


Navigator wrote:
You've lost the distinction between your fantasies and reality!

Not at all. When I have fantasies about sailing, it usually involves
something like 18-footer skiffs or brigantines. Why fantasize about
sailing in 35 knots when that happens a few times every season?

... I'd go
so far as top say that 35kn is outside the range of manageability for
all dinghies.


We used to take the NC State racing team out for practice in 20+ knot
winds any time we got the chance, and often got out in 30+. That was in
420s (which get to be more than a handful) and in JY-15s (which are nice
heavy air boats).

My wife and I have raced the Johnson 18 several times in 30+ and twice
won regattas where the wind was measured 33 steady and 40+ peak. This
was in racing mode, playing shifts and tactics, rather than survival
mode. Would you call that "in the range of manageability?"

In one of those regattas, the Johnsons and the Vipers were the only
classes to finish races. BTW there were a bunch of small keelboats and
ballasted centerboarders that gave up and/or suffered a lot of breakage.

A 470 in 35 knot winds is most likely in survival mode, except for the
very top sailors in the class. A lot of the more traditional boats would
be over the top. Lightnings, for example, get to be a very difficult
handful in 25 knots and over. The Daysailer, a nice Uffa Fox design, is
one that suffers breakage and unmanageability in 30+.

I can see how you arrived at your opinion... but you just don't have the
experience. You have scorned dinghy sailing all along.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:


Bull**** Jim, you're the one being dishonest. I led off the quotes with the
comment "I've seen very little about the 26M, but for the 26x from the

Sailnet

list:"



Funny, you didn't address this point. You did call me dishonest when its pretty
obvious I explicitly stated where my quotes were from and what they referred to.
...

the 26M is

a totally different boat. It may be true that the M performs a bit better

in

some situations, and is a step forward, but they are 95% identical.

How can you possibly believe that?


Because I've watched designs from various architects evolved over the years.
Changes like swapping a centerboard for a dagger are interesting but do not
change the fundamental nature of the boat. A number of powerboat companies even
offer the same boat with two different hulls - one with a deeper vee - so people
can chose which is best for their environent; but most will view the boats as
essentially the same. Adding 12 feet of sail area, and shifting the cockpit aft
a few inches may make a difference, but its not that big. Clearly, taken as a
whole, the differences are big enough to consider the X and M different boats,
but still, they are so close that most statement made about one, when comparing
to any other boats, will apply to the other.

BTW, my builder just introduced a new version of my boat, designed for racing.
The sail area was increased 29%, the weight was reduced 20% (probably 30% off of
my "cruising" version), and the fixed (unweighted) keels were replaced with
daggerboards. Now that's making a serious difference in the design.


The hull design of the 26M is
substantially and significantly changed, now having with a deep
16-degree V rather than a relatively flat bottom throughout; the swing
keel of the x boat has been replaced by a dagger board that is much more
narrow, and that can be adjusted vertically as desired without altering
the center of lateral resistance, as with a swing keel; the boat no
longer depends on a water ballast exclusively, but additionally includes
permanent ballast to enhance stability and provide greater safety when
motoring without the water ballast. Additionally, the 26M includes a new
rotatable mast, floatation in the mast to minimize the possibility of
capsizing, new chain plates, new standing rigging design, more
attractive and more comfortable cabin, etc., etc.


Mostly, these are improvements. But stepping back just a few feet, they are the
same boat.


When you realize the it has an entirely different hull, different keel,
different sail plan, rigging, and taller mast, rotaing mast, addition of
permanent ballast, I would call this a substantially different boat.
If you want to call it the "same" boat with some improvements, I suppose
it may depend on your definition of terms. In any event, please
understand that I am not trying to say that the Mac26M is a racing boat
capable of winning races against J boats or the like. It's a cruising
sailboat with a number of capabilities, but it isn't a racer.
Nevertheless, I think that it will sail fast enough, and point high
enough, to be fun to sail. That's what I have been told by several who
have sailed the boat. If I'm wrong (and it turns out that I don't enjoy
sailing the boat because of its limitations), I'll post a note saying
that I was wrong.


The "foam in the mast" sound like a good thing, until you consider that the mast
is so small its only provideding a few pounds of floatation. In moderate
conditions there's no reason why it should turtle, unless you forgot the water
ballast. In heavy conditions, the modest amount of floatation is meaningless.

The foamed mast isn't the only thing tending to keep the boat upright
and afloat. It's an addition that apparently keeps the mast from going
under.

...

It may be the performance under sail has improved a bit, but frankly it

couldn't

get much worse.

Last week I spoke with an owner who does race his boat, and he stated
that the 26M's performance was a substantial improvement over the 26x,
and that he is now routinely beating many boats that he hadn't with his
26x. He wasn't saying that he was coming in first, but he did say that
it was doing much better. I don't know what boats he was racing, and
it's a little early to make judgments on the new model, with relatively
few having been sold to potential racers. (Most are bought for family
cruising, not racing.)

Jim


But the sail isn't that much bigger, and the hull isn't

that

different, and the fundamental problems with the design haven't been

changed.

See my comments above. I think the boat will perform competitively
against most 26-ft boats. But it wasn't designed as a racer, and that's
not my primary interest.


Competitive with other 26 footers??? Very doubtful. Why is it that there's no
record yet of a PHRF rating for it? And don't give the 175 nonsense!

Why do you keep harping on the racing performance of the boat? It isn't
sold as a racing yacht, and very few of the new model have been sold to
sailors who are into competitive racing.
d abIsn't



But if it does perform so much better, why was the salesman afraid to let

you

test it?



He wasn't "afraid" to let me test it. - He didn't have any of the boats
in stock. He had sold one other one, that arrived later, and he didn't
want me to sail one that had been sold to someone else. He was going to
get only one more in the next five months or so, which I ordered.


Whatever you say, Jim. This is so ridiculous its hardly worth commenting on.

But still true, nonetheless.

However, you claimed several times that they were backordered and hard to get.
But somehow you were able to get your dealers entire spring allotment, with a 2
month delivery. Given that the boat has to be finished and setup at the
factory, that sounds like instant delivery. You'll probably get you boat faster
than I'll get my new kitchen chairs that I just ordered.


I'll get it on the water about 1.5 months after I placed the order. The
dealer had sold two of his allotment, and had one left or this Spring.


As previously explained, I have sailed a number of MacGregor boats, and
the new model has corrected the several problems I saw with the x model,
while retaining its advantages and versatility.


So now you're admitting they're mostly the same.

I'm saying that it incorporates the many good features and handling
provided in the previous models, and also eliminates several of the
features with which I had a problem in the 26x. It's a somewhat
heavier, faster, more stable, better pointing boat.


In discussing the boat
with Mac owners, everyone I spoke with who had sailed the 26M was
positive regarding the new boat.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Once again, your post quotes from owners of Macs, but not owners of Mac
26Ms. One owner states that he has owned his boat for four years. - But
the Mac 26M was first sold in 2003, only 10 months ago. (AN OBVIOUSLY
DECEPTIVE CITE.)

Read my note again, a little more carefully. I never stated that I
spoke with an owner who had had his boat four years, but hadn't sailed
the 26M. My statement in this regard was:

I have sailed a number of MacGregor boats, and the new model has
corrected the several problems I saw with the x model, while retaining
its advantages and versatility. In discussing the boat with Mac owners,
everyone I spoke with WHO HAD SAILED THE 26M was positive regarding the
new boat. [Emphasis added] That is a true statement and there is no
deception whatsoever.



Regarding pointing ability and speed under sail,
eveyone I speak with who has saild the 26M tells me that the new hull
and keel arrangment are a significant improvement.

How about a little more intellectual honesty when repeating quotes like
these.

Jim


Jeff Morris wrote:



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...



You could have sailed the boat yourself. I suppose the dealer told you

that is



not possible now because he doesn't have a demonstrator.


Maybe, if I had wanted to travel across the country to another dealer.

Jim



I have sailed several of the previous models, and I've been following
their development and improvements for over 10 years. The Mac 26M
incorporates several changes that I had wanted to see in the other
boats. Regarding sailing the boat, however, it is almost impossible to
get a dealer to permit you to sail the boat out because of the very
limited supply and heavy demand for the boats.



Especially on April 1.






Or, you could listen to what owners say.

(Owners of what? The 26x? And, why should I listen to what the owners
say, since you just warned me (in the note copied below) that the
owners can't be trusted since they don't want to admit that they made a
mistake in buying the boat.

And when did I say that owners of the 26x made a mistake when they
bought their boats? Do you have any concern for accuracy, or a minimal
level of intellectual honesty, Jeff?? Do you consider distorting my
statements to be great sport?





No, you just have to be careful when you interpret them. The comments of a
novice sailer who just spent $30K are not that reliable.





You can find dozens of comments that



the top speed under power in flat water to be 12-13 knots,

You may be thinking of a discussion regarding the top speed of the boat
WITH the water ballast and with a full load of passengers. The MacGregor
site makes it clear that the top speeds are only possible under certain
conditions. For example:

Top speed is obtained with an empty ballast tank, no rigging, and
one person aboard. With a full ballast tank, it will be about 3 mph
slower than with an empty tank

No one is trying to claim that the boat will sail at 18 knots with the
water ballast, in heavy chop, and with a full load of passengers. Also,
it would be foolhardy to go offshore without the water ballast.


and that it

could


be



hard to get on a plane in a moderate chop.

I suppose it may depend on what you consider a moderate chop, and
whether you have the boat loaded down with multiple passengers, and what
kind of motor you have, and what direction the wind is blowing and the
waves running, and how high the wind is and what direction it is coming
from, and whether you remembered to put down all the sails, and whether
you have developed some skill in handling the boat, etc., etc., etc. You
apparently are taking the few negative statements about the boat WITHOUT
QUESTION, and swallowing them hook-line-and-sinker. (Searching for them,
in fact.) How do you know that the quotes you are citing aren't from
total novices with little sailing know-how. - Why do you assume that
every negative comment is the gospel truth, and every positive comment
is propaganda or naiveté? How about giving the boat a little more time,
and giving it's skippers a little more time to develop their skills with
the boat.


Yet you keep insisting you

can

make



18 knots offshore.

Could you give me the date and time of that post? I can't seem to find it.



(Top speed of what? The 26x?) From the comments I have seen on various
ngs, the X has sailed and motored much faster than that.


There are 6,000 26x boats, and lots and lots of owners have sailed them,
modified them, and raced them. There are only about 500 26m boats, and
comparatively few owners have had much time on the water with the Ms, to
sail or race the boat. From everyone I have spoken to who has sailed
both boats, the 26M is faster. Nevertheless, in view of the statistics
of 6,000 owners vs 400 owners, it would be highly unlikely that Mac 26M
owners would have bested all the records set over the past seven years
by owners of the 26x.



Yes, there are people that power very "light" and get more speed. There

are

also people that almost did it once and talk about like its an everyday
occurrence. But if you go through the lists you'll find people that give

more


believable accounts. The web site itself is explicit that 18 knots is
completely unloaded: no ballast, no mast and rigging, no crew or gear.

As I stated above.


I

heard


the skipper they chose weighed 130 pounds.




In fact, it was
recently stated on the Mac discussion group that the PHRF of the Mac 26x
has recently been lowered from over 200 to 135. If the boat is as slow
as you say, how did it get a PHRF of 135? (And if you should disagree
with this or if you want to question the accuracy of this statement,
give us a web site or reference sourses on which we can check out
whatever you claim it is.)


Now that you've admitted that this was a hoax that you bought, "hook, line

and


sinker," perhaps you should consider what other fantasies you've bought

into.

Wrong again, Jeff. I didn't accept that statement "hook, line, and
sinker" at all. I noted that someone had made the statement on another
discussion group, and asked if anyone had any information about it.





If you google "mac 26x phrf" the first hit is:
http://www.vycsd.com/summer-comb.pdf




I may not have sailed one, but I've sailed by them a number of times. In

a

small chop they bob around and don't move. The people on board wonder

why

all



the other boats are going by; it doesn't look like fun at all.

To my knowledge, and after extensive searching, no one who owns one of
the Mac 26M's has posted any comments of that nature. (If you know of
such a site, give me a link.) By contrast, the reports I have seen
regarding the 26M have been universally positive.


I've seen very little about the 26M, but for the 26x from the Sailnet list:

When asked about max speed:

"My max speed under sail was
6.25 knots on a 90 degree beam reach (wind coming directly off starboard)

in

a 10 knot wind with 15 knot gusts. What a great day of sailing! I have a
combo depth and speedometer on my boat that actually registered 7+ knots

but

only momentarily during the same run. Two people on board (total) with I'm
guessing about 300 lbs of gear and provisions for a week long trip. That 21
mph thing is for powering with no gear, no sail rigging etc. The fastest
I've been under power w/ a Honda 50 is 12 to 13 knots - according to my
g.p.s. - 14 m.p.h. I hopes this helps."

"The best speed, under standard sails, I have ever done
is 7 MPH. Checked with GPS."

"5.5 knots (est., before I got my GPS)"


There were a few impressive comments such as:

"Our fastest sustained speed has been 11.2 knots.
...
150 genoa + main
...
Winds were at our aft quarter @ 25 knots, gusting to 35. Waves were 4 - 5
feet. We were on a large inland lake. We were surfing on the waves, so
some of the speed was certainly from the wave action.
...
As a side note, working our way back into those same winds (gusting to 40
knots by that time), the speed was very slow, due to the steep, close wave
action. The light weight of the X is a disadvantage when going to weather
with any significant wave action."


Other comments:
"When it gets choppy, you may want to fill the ballast tank.
Then you can cruise effortlessly at about 10 mph or about 14-15 max. When
the wind is forward of the bow, the ride gets pretty wet above about 10 mph
if there is any chop at all. In summary, powering will increase your

range,

but maybe not as much as you think. It is the trailer that really opens up
new areas."


From an owner of 4 years:


(For the benefit of your readers, Jeff, it should be noted that this,
and several of your other lengthy quotes, are from owners of the 26x,
not the 26M.)

"Initial tenderness: The boat will initially heel the first 10 degrees
rather quickly when presented to the wind. Once there, it will become
quite stable. This is a feature of all water ballasted boats, as there
is no righting moment until the ballast is lifted out of the water, and
the long slender CB doesn't present a lot of lateral resistance.




"Poor Pointing: Light weight, transom drag, and high freeboard all
impair the boats ability to maintain speed pointing high. While the
boat will point quite high, you'll sacrifice speed to do so. Sailing
about 10 degrees off maximum point, and making wide tacks to maintain
speed is one solution.

"High freeboard: You'll find the boat makes quite a bit more leeway than
your Cat. Windward, you'll find pointing well above the mark and then
bearing down to maintain speed around it is effective. Docking in a
crosswind can be tricky, but this same light weight makes the helm
pretty responsive (NTM having a lot of power available).

"Light wind: Not very fast. The relatively small sailplan and the drag
created by the CB slot and the flat, square transom. Sometimes these
are just the conditions where having high speed ability is nice. I've
often powered out into the Strait to higher winds, leaving the other
boats behind in the doldrums (going slightly faster than I used to be..)

"Waves and Chop: You really have to pay attention to prevent being
stopped. Light weight translates into low momentum. Bear into the base
of the wave and then bear off as it passes under you. Having a smooth
hand on the responsive helm can nearly eliminate this."

I have no trouble with someone choosing a Mac because they want to

trailer it toflat water lakes. That's what its designed for. But not for taking it
offshore.

According to the manufacturer, their boat is designed for coastal
cruising. Which is what I intend to do.
Actually, I think Roger MacGregor's words were "limited coastal cruising"

Jeff, could I possibly interest you in a bridge I have for sale? The
purported comments of Roger MacGregor on his ng were an obvious hoax. -
Check my several previous notes on this subject.

Jim

When you realize it's a piece of crap...

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
When you realize the it

Foamed mast??? I guess they're expecting the worst!

The foamed mast isn't the only thing tending to keep the boat upright
and afloat. It's an addition that apparently keeps the mast from going
under.

Greater than 3 kts on a beam... wow... speedster.

Last week I spoke with an owner who does race his boat, and he stated
that the 26M's performance was a substantial improvement over the 26x,
and that he is now routinely beating many boats that he hadn't with his
26x. He wasn't saying that he was coming in first, but he did say that
it was doing much better. I don't know what boats he was racing, and
it's a little early to make judgments on the new model, with relatively
few having been sold to potential racers. (Most are bought for family
cruising, not racing.)