The salesman told me that you have to put a heavy 50 hp 4 stroke
outboard on the M or the nose will dive into the waves.

BM

(JAXAshby) wrote in message ...
yo-yo, you put 200# on one end of a boat you have to put 200# on the other end
of the boat to balance. makes for truly terrible performance in a chop.

Whatever you say you stupid ninny.


Calm down Johnny. Get a grip on yourself!

The Mac 26M is specifically designed to sail and motor with the 50-hp
outboard. Ballast is distributed forward in the boat for longitudinal
balance. Obviously, it isn't a Valiant 40, so if you intend to have four
or five large adults in the cockpit in addition to the motor, you might
want to re-distribute some of the load, move some heavier objects
forward, or the like.

It's interesting that you think a 200-lb. motor is going to simply ruin
the sailing characteristics of a 26-ft boat SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for
it, yet you don't seem to have any problem with the much larger load of
several large passengers sitting in the cockpit. - Why the concern about
the motor itself? Think logic, and the basic laws of physics, Johnny. -
And intellectual honesty. (What you're trying to do, of course, is
maintain that the boat, with the motor, is fatally flawed because it
can't achieve proper longitudinal balance for sailing. - It simply isn't
so.)

Jim

jim, if you have to ask such a stupid question you plainly do not have the
intelligence to pass junior high school science class.

just to point out to you, jimmy, but race boats weighing much more than that
puny 3,000# mac won't allow a 200# crew to sit in the back of the cockpit for
what it does to the boat's perforance.

yo-yo, you put 200# on one end of a boat you have to put 200# on the other
end
of the boat to balance. makes for truly terrible performance in a chop.


Does this mean that if passengers and helmsman in the cockpit weigh
1,000 pounds, you have to bring an additional 1,000 pounds onboard and
store it in the bow? No? Then why do you have add 200# on the "other
end" to balance the motor? What's the difference between a little
weight, added by the motor, and lots more weight added by the crew? The
fact is that the boat is balanced for typical loads, which include the
motor.

Of course, it's a small boat, and as in any small boat, if you have an
very heavy load in the aft end of the boat, you would probably sail
better if you distributed the load somewhat.

Jim


Whatever you say you stupid ninny.


Calm down Johnny. Get a grip on yourself!

The Mac 26M is specifically designed to sail and motor with the 50-hp
outboard. Ballast is distributed forward in the boat for longitudinal
balance. Obviously, it isn't a Valiant 40, so if you intend to have four
or five large adults in the cockpit in addition to the motor, you might
want to re-distribute some of the load, move some heavier objects
forward, or the like.

It's interesting that you think a 200-lb. motor is going to simply ruin
the sailing characteristics of a 26-ft boat SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for
it, yet you don't seem to have any problem with the much larger load of
several large passengers sitting in the cockpit. - Why the concern about
the motor itself? Think logic, and the basic laws of physics, Johnny. -
And intellectual honesty. (What you're trying to do, of course, is
maintain that the boat, with the motor, is fatally flawed because it
can't achieve proper longitudinal balance for sailing. - It simply isn't
so.)

Jim

I never owned an 'X'.

wrote

I think Scotty is willing to help out.

As a former Mac owner himself, Scotty probably has had plenty of practice.

BB

Quite the opposite. At that time I had enough cash to buy one. My wife liked
the 'X'. We looked at one at the Atlantic City boat show. She wanted me to
buy it. I considered it. Fortunatly, I just couldn't get past the ugly motor
boatish lines of it. One of the few times *I* made the decision.

Scotty

wrote

I never owned an 'X'.


Only due to severe budget constraints.

BB


wrote

I think Scotty is willing to help out.

As a former Mac owner himself, Scotty probably has had plenty of
practice.

BB

When does the divorce become final?

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Quite the opposite. At that time I had enough cash to buy one. My wife
liked
the 'X'. We looked at one at the Atlantic City boat show. She wanted me
to
buy it. I considered it. Fortunatly, I just couldn't get past the ugly
motor
boatish lines of it. One of the few times *I* made the decision.

Scotty

wrote

I never owned an 'X'.


Only due to severe budget constraints.

BB


wrote

I think Scotty is willing to help out.

As a former Mac owner himself, Scotty probably has had plenty of
practice.

BB

check the headers, BB.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:14:35 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:

Quite the opposite. At that time I had enough cash to buy one. My wife
liked
the 'X'. We looked at one at the Atlantic City boat show. She wanted me
to
buy it. I considered it. Fortunatly, I just couldn't get past the ugly
motor
boatish lines of it. One of the few times *I* made the decision.

Scotty


This really doesn't speak well for you, from any angle.

BB

wrote

I never owned an 'X'.


Only due to severe budget constraints.

BB


wrote

I think Scotty is willing to help out.

As a former Mac owner himself, Scotty probably has had plenty of
practice.

BB

Are you kidding, this is the biggest ball and the thickest chain I've ever
seen.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
When does the divorce become final?

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Quite the opposite. At that time I had enough cash to buy one. My wife
liked
the 'X'. We looked at one at the Atlantic City boat show. She wanted me
to
buy it. I considered it. Fortunatly, I just couldn't get past the ugly
motor
boatish lines of it. One of the few times *I* made the decision.

Scotty

wrote

I never owned an 'X'.


Only due to severe budget constraints.

BB


wrote

I think Scotty is willing to help out.

As a former Mac owner himself, Scotty probably has had plenty of
practice.

BB

JAX, did it ever occur to you that some owners of cruising sailboats may
take them out to enjoy a pleasant day of cruising with friends or family
from time to time rather than racing their boats? If I'm taking my
family or grandkids out for a day on the water, there may actually be
times when I sail the boat with everyone sitting in the rear and with
less than optimum balance and sail trim. - Shame, shame on me!

On other days I may want to take more care in adjusting the sails and
balancing the distribution of weight in the boat to get as much speed as
possible. (Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18
knots under power.)

The bottom line is that some of us sail for the pleasure of it, and some
of us go sailing as a competitive sport, so that they will be able to
brag about winning a race or sailing by several other boats. I enjoy
both aspects, but I recognize that the Mac isn't a J-boat and isn't
designed as a racer. So I don't expect to pass many large displacement
boats. The Mac 36-foot cat, however, was an outstanding racing boat and
won many races along the California coast for a number of years. The
Mac 65 is also a fast boat and has won many races with more traditional
boats. It is also ridiculed by traditionalists (too narrow, too
spartan), particularly those who have watched it pass them like they
were standing still and quickly disappear over the horizon.

Jim

JAXAshby wrote:

jim, if you have to ask such a stupid question you plainly do not have the
intelligence to pass junior high school science class.

just to point out to you, jimmy, but race boats weighing much more than that
puny 3,000# mac won't allow a 200# crew to sit in the back of the cockpit for
what it does to the boat's perforance.


yo-yo, you put 200# on one end of a boat you have to put 200# on the other

end

of the boat to balance. makes for truly terrible performance in a chop.


Does this mean that if passengers and helmsman in the cockpit weigh
1,000 pounds, you have to bring an additional 1,000 pounds onboard and
store it in the bow? No? Then why do you have add 200# on the "other
end" to balance the motor? What's the difference between a little
weight, added by the motor, and lots more weight added by the crew? The
fact is that the boat is balanced for typical loads, which include the
motor.

Of course, it's a small boat, and as in any small boat, if you have an
very heavy load in the aft end of the boat, you would probably sail
better if you distributed the load somewhat.

Jim


Whatever you say you stupid ninny.


Calm down Johnny. Get a grip on yourself!

The Mac 26M is specifically designed to sail and motor with the 50-hp
outboard. Ballast is distributed forward in the boat for longitudinal
balance. Obviously, it isn't a Valiant 40, so if you intend to have four
or five large adults in the cockpit in addition to the motor, you might
want to re-distribute some of the load, move some heavier objects
forward, or the like.

It's interesting that you think a 200-lb. motor is going to simply ruin
the sailing characteristics of a 26-ft boat SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for
it, yet you don't seem to have any problem with the much larger load of
several large passengers sitting in the cockpit. - Why the concern about
the motor itself? Think logic, and the basic laws of physics, Johnny. -
And intellectual honesty. (What you're trying to do, of course, is
maintain that the boat, with the motor, is fatally flawed because it
can't achieve proper longitudinal balance for sailing. - It simply isn't
so.)

Jim

planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18
knots under power

even well balanced that boat won't hardly do 4 knots under sail, let alone 3x
that, and under power not even 12 knots let alone 18.

300# of engine on the rear and 4 fat-assed people in the cockpit you can't sail
it at all and under power it won't plane.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
200 lbs on a 3000 lbs boat does matter. Quite a bit in fact.

Jim Cate wrote:
Not if the boat is built to handle a 300 pound motor.

Let's see...

Question: does adding weight make the boat sail faster? Does adding
weight on the transom, digging the aft end of the boat into the water,
make it sail faster?

Here are the possible range of verities:
1- yes (counterpoint- this would contradict all sailing knowledge from
prehistory up to today... this is why you don't see 300# motors on the
transoms of America's Cup yachts)

2- no (counterpoint- this would not suit your preconcieved notions &
contradict MacGregor advertising)

3- maybe, but it doesn't matter because you are not skilled or attentive
enough to notice the difference.

Please sign your test paper at the upper left corner and turn it in for
grade.

DSK