| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The Mac and Speed
Forget 18 knots, at least fully loaded with the ballast tank full, that is. But
it still does really well with a 50 hp motor. And it really sails well, too. And for that reason, I say get a 9 hp motor only. The boat is a better sailing vessel than it is a speed boat and it should be appreciated for that. It's funny, my wife and I now sail a dinghy just about every weekend. We never got a motor for it, because that would have only ruined it. Now that we've learned to sail well (which we really didn't know how to do with our Mac), we have no need for a motor. I make this recommendation: if you've already ordered the boat with the 50 hp motor, get it and use it as you like, but don't consider it a bad move to remove it and switch to a 9 hp. The Veridican |
The Mac and Speed
Holy smokes!
To the batpoles Robin! RB "Veridican" wrote in message ... Forget 18 knots, at least fully loaded with the ballast tank full, that is. But it still does really well with a 50 hp motor. And it really sails well, too. And for that reason, I say get a 9 hp motor only. The boat is a better sailing vessel than it is a speed boat and it should be appreciated for that. It's funny, my wife and I now sail a dinghy just about every weekend. We never got a motor for it, because that would have only ruined it. Now that we've learned to sail well (which we really didn't know how to do with our Mac), we have no need for a motor. I make this recommendation: if you've already ordered the boat with the 50 hp motor, get it and use it as you like, but don't consider it a bad move to remove it and switch to a 9 hp. The Veridican |
The Mac and Speed
Veridican wrote: Forget 18 knots, at least fully loaded with the ballast tank full, that is. But it still does really well with a 50 hp motor. And it really sails well, too. And for that reason, I say get a 9 hp motor only. The boat is a better sailing vessel than it is a speed boat and it should be appreciated for that. It's funny, my wife and I now sail a dinghy just about every weekend. We never got a motor for it, because that would have only ruined it. Now that we've learned to sail well (which we really didn't know how to do with our Mac), we have no need for a motor. I make this recommendation: if you've already ordered the boat with the 50 hp motor, get it and use it as you like, but don't consider it a bad move to remove it and switch to a 9 hp. The Veridican Becuase of the weight issue, I'm getting a 50 hp two-stroke engine that is relatively lightweight (about 200 pounds). I don't think this will be that significant a factor in its sailing characteristics. (Of course, some on this ng think that the Mac doesn't sail under any conditions. -If that's the case, I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around.) Jim |
The Mac and Speed
the Mac doesn't sail under any conditions.
-If that's the case, I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around.) Jim put a 75 hp engine on the back, a bunch of lead in the bow and it still won't go 22 mph. |
The Mac and Speed
Becuase of the weight issue, I'm getting a 50 hp two-stroke engine that
is relatively lightweight (about 200 pounds). I don't think this will be that significant a factor in its sailing characteristics. (Of course, some on this ng think that the Mac doesn't sail under any conditions. -If that's the case, I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around.) Jim That's what we had (the Merc 50 hp two stroke). But the boat is balanced with or without it, and you're right 200 lbs on a 3000 pound boat just doesn't matter. I think you'll find the Mac sails pretty good. It's got a more narrow beam than some boats and this makes it faster, in my opinion. People on here don't like the Mac because they have to defend their own choice of boat. They like to talk about storms and heavy seas. Yesterday the wind was blowing about 30 mph and the sea was all white caps and dust and debrie was blowing everywhere. I didn't like driving in my car, much less would I have liked sailing. I don't sail when there are small craft advisories. It's not that I'm afraid to (well, maybe I am); it's more that I don't want to rig my boat in that wind and try to get it away from the dock. My boat could have handled it. A Mac can handle it. It's not like they're going to sink. But no boats go out when the wind is like that. That's just the reality of the situation. If you're in your Mac sailing the FL keys and 40 knot winds start to kick up; You're going to do what everyone else does: reef, and head for a bay or cove until it passes. Or you're going to ride it out; either way, you're boat's going to be just fine. Do they really think that in wind and waves, the Mac is going to splinter into fiberglass pieces? If you wanted to sail the boat around the world, you could do it. The boat would be just fine. But it's 26 feet. You can't sail from the Galapagose Islands to Tahiti, because you can't carry enough food or water for that trip. The Mac is a costal cruiser not because of it's "strength" but because if it's size. I don't care what kind of boat a person has--if it's 26 feet long, it can only cary so much food an water. The Veridican |
The Mac and Speed
"Jim Cate" wrote I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around. The Mac credo. |
The Mac and Speed
"Veridican" wrote I don't sail when there are small craft advisories. It's not that I'm afraid to (well, maybe I am); it's more that I don't want to rig my boat in that wind and try to get it away from the dock. My boat could have handled it. Pussy! |
The Mac and Speed
"Veridican" wrote
If you wanted to sail the boat around the world, you could do it. The boat would be just fine. But it's 26 feet. You can't sail from the Galapagose Islands to Tahiti, because you can't carry enough food or water for that trip. The Mac is a costal cruiser not because of it's "strength" but because if it's size. I don't care what kind of boat a person has--if it's 26 feet long, it can only cary so much food an water. Hence the need for the USCG. |
The Mac and Speed
Veridican wrote:
Becuase of the weight issue, I'm getting a 50 hp two-stroke engine that is relatively lightweight (about 200 pounds). I don't think this will be that significant a factor in its sailing characteristics. (Of course, some on this ng think that the Mac doesn't sail under any conditions. -If that's the case, I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around.) Jim That's what we had (the Merc 50 hp two stroke). But the boat is balanced with or without it, and you're right 200 lbs on a 3000 pound boat just doesn't matter. You must be kidding. I've got a boat that's a similar length and weighs around 5000 lb., putting 200 lb. on the stern sure a **** makes a big difference. If you can't feel and see it on a 3000 lb boat you must blind, deaf, and numb from the neck down, (from the neck up I'll leave for others to speculate about). Cheers Marty |
The Mac and Speed
I think you're right. Go for the 50hp. You'll have a higher
resale value. You can sell it more easily to anyone who doesn't have a clue about sailing. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Veridican wrote: Forget 18 knots, at least fully loaded with the ballast tank full, that is. But it still does really well with a 50 hp motor. And it really sails well, too. And for that reason, I say get a 9 hp motor only. The boat is a better sailing vessel than it is a speed boat and it should be appreciated for that. It's funny, my wife and I now sail a dinghy just about every weekend. We never got a motor for it, because that would have only ruined it. Now that we've learned to sail well (which we really didn't know how to do with our Mac), we have no need for a motor. I make this recommendation: if you've already ordered the boat with the 50 hp motor, get it and use it as you like, but don't consider it a bad move to remove it and switch to a 9 hp. The Veridican Becuase of the weight issue, I'm getting a 50 hp two-stroke engine that is relatively lightweight (about 200 pounds). I don't think this will be that significant a factor in its sailing characteristics. (Of course, some on this ng think that the Mac doesn't sail under any conditions. -If that's the case, I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around.) Jim |
The Mac and Speed
200 lbs on a 3000 lbs boat does matter. Quite a bit in fact.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Veridican" wrote in message ... Becuase of the weight issue, I'm getting a 50 hp two-stroke engine that is relatively lightweight (about 200 pounds). I don't think this will be that significant a factor in its sailing characteristics. (Of course, some on this ng think that the Mac doesn't sail under any conditions. -If that's the case, I might as well put on the larger motor and enjoy motoring around.) Jim That's what we had (the Merc 50 hp two stroke). But the boat is balanced with or without it, and you're right 200 lbs on a 3000 pound boat just doesn't matter. I think you'll find the Mac sails pretty good. It's got a more narrow beam than some boats and this makes it faster, in my opinion. People on here don't like the Mac because they have to defend their own choice of boat. They like to talk about storms and heavy seas. Yesterday the wind was blowing about 30 mph and the sea was all white caps and dust and debrie was blowing everywhere. I didn't like driving in my car, much less would I have liked sailing. I don't sail when there are small craft advisories. It's not that I'm afraid to (well, maybe I am); it's more that I don't want to rig my boat in that wind and try to get it away from the dock. My boat could have handled it. A Mac can handle it. It's not like they're going to sink. But no boats go out when the wind is like that. That's just the reality of the situation. If you're in your Mac sailing the FL keys and 40 knot winds start to kick up; You're going to do what everyone else does: reef, and head for a bay or cove until it passes. Or you're going to ride it out; either way, you're boat's going to be just fine. Do they really think that in wind and waves, the Mac is going to splinter into fiberglass pieces? If you wanted to sail the boat around the world, you could do it. The boat would be just fine. But it's 26 feet. You can't sail from the Galapagose Islands to Tahiti, because you can't carry enough food or water for that trip. The Mac is a costal cruiser not because of it's "strength" but because if it's size. I don't care what kind of boat a person has--if it's 26 feet long, it can only cary so much food an water. The Veridican |
The Mac and Speed
Must have been living on the walls to quote an author...
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On 14 Apr 2004 11:38:14 GMT, (Veridican) wrote: If you wanted to sail the boat around the world, you could do it. The boat would be just fine. But it's 26 feet. You can't sail from the Galapagose Islands to Tahiti, because you can't carry enough food or water for that trip. The Mac is a costal cruiser not because of it's "strength" but because if it's size. I don't care what kind of boat a person has--if it's 26 feet long, it can only cary so much food an water. A friend of mine recently circumnavigated in a 27 foot boat. You can be sure, however, that no one would ever select ANY Macgregor for a trip like that, and especially not one of the X/M ****boxes. http://www.otternews.com/ BB |
The Mac and Speed
200 lbs on a 3000 pound boat just doesn't
matter. what a stupid effing thing to say. |
The Mac and Speed
small craft advisories mean wind **might** get to 16 knots. he's a pussy
alright. "Veridican" wrote I don't sail when there are small craft advisories. It's not that I'm afraid to (well, maybe I am); it's more that I don't want to rig my boat in that wind and try to get it away from the dock. My boat could have handled it. Pussy! |
The Mac and Speed
you, a supposedly adult man, can't do it on a mac 26, but an eighteen year old
girl did it around the world on a Contessa 26. but the Contessa is a sailboat, right? "Veridican" wrote If you wanted to sail the boat around the world, you could do it. The boat would be just fine. But it's 26 feet. You can't sail from the Galapagose Islands to Tahiti, because you can't carry enough food or water for that trip. The Mac is a costal cruiser not because of it's "strength" but because if it's size. I don't care what kind of boat a person has--if it's 26 feet long, it can only cary so much food an water. Hence the need for the USCG. |
The Mac and Speed
Wrong as usual, jaxie. The criteria for Small Craft Warnings varies by
district, but is usually either 18 to 33 knots or 20 to 33 knots likely in the next 12 hours, and/or moderate chop (4 feet for the Chesapeake). But I agree, he's a pussy. Of course, since he has a "small craft" it probably just as well. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... small craft advisories mean wind **might** get to 16 knots. he's a pussy alright. "Veridican" wrote I don't sail when there are small craft advisories. It's not that I'm afraid to (well, maybe I am); it's more that I don't want to rig my boat in that wind and try to get it away from the dock. My boat could have handled it. Pussy! |
The Mac and Speed
around here, it is 16+ knots of wind sometime during the day, forecasted.
Reality is that probably half the days are small craft warnings. Wrong as usual, jaxie. The criteria for Small Craft Warnings varies by district, but is usually either 18 to 33 knots or 20 to 33 knots likely in the next 12 hours, and/or moderate chop (4 feet for the Chesapeake). But I agree, he's a pussy. Of course, since he has a "small craft" it probably just as well. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... small craft advisories mean wind **might** get to 16 knots. he's a pussy alright. "Veridican" wrote I don't sail when there are small craft advisories. It's not that I'm afraid to (well, maybe I am); it's more that I don't want to rig my boat in that wind and try to get it away from the dock. My boat could have handled it. Pussy! |
The Mac and Speed
Jonathan Ganz wrote: 200 lbs on a 3000 lbs boat does matter. Quite a bit in fact. Not if the boat is built to handle a 300 pound motor. Jim |
The Mac and Speed
Whatever you say you stupid ninny.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: 200 lbs on a 3000 lbs boat does matter. Quite a bit in fact. Not if the boat is built to handle a 300 pound motor. Jim |
The Mac and Speed
weight, balance and lever arms, d00d.
200 lbs on a 3000 lbs boat does matter. Quite a bit in fact. Not if the boat is built to handle a 300 pound motor. Jim |
The Mac and Speed
|
The Mac and Speed
Jonathan Ganz wrote: 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 |
The Mac and Speed
Sure thing... You're AN IDIOT. Go away MacBoy.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... bs deleted as usual |
The Mac and Speed
Keep trying.
wrote I tried to look at the Mac26m from your perspective, but I was unable to get my head that far up my ass. BB |
The Mac and Speed
wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:27:12 -0500, Jim Cate wrote: I tried to look at the Mac26m from your perspective, but I was unable to get my head that far down my ass. Lessons for Scotty - Part 1. Regards Donal -- |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
JAXAshby wrote: 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 |
The Mac and Speed
I think Scotty is willing to help out.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:27:12 -0500, Jim Cate wrote: Jonathan Ganz wrote: 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 tried to look at the Mac26m from your perspective, but I was unable to get my head that far up my ass. BB |
The Mac and Speed
Well, at least you don't have to worry about the weight of your
brain. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... JAXAshby wrote: 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 |
The Mac and Speed
you sailing with boob****?
"Jim Cate" wrote Does this mean that if helmsman in the cockpit weigh 1,000 pounds, |
The Mac and Speed
|
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
The Mac and Speed
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. |
The Mac and Speed
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com