"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


John Cairns wrote:

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
As a cruiser of a design known to have split the civilised world
in two, I don't have a problem with the looks of the Mac26*.
--
snip

While Bolger designs might look ugly and
boxy(not saying they do) they look like sailing vessels.

What a diplomatic man you are, Mr Cairns!

The macs look too
much like powerboats, especially the new ones.

The confined-to-cockpit-or-cabin layout of the 26m seems to me to
be a real deterrent to forward on-deck movement at any time.
Unfortunate, since the boat is conventionally rigged with a
headsail providing most of the sail power. But after all, it
does have those stylish two-story windows (for want of a more
appropriate word).
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Double windows are mac's crude attempt at eurostyling, which seems to be
popular in new powerboats built over here. Hunter does the same thing with
their small sailboats, all cabin and no deck.
http://www.huntermarine.com/models/260/index.html
Ironic, old "jim" could probably own something that can sail properly for
close to what he's going to pay for a mac, and it seems to meet all of the
other requirements, light weight, water ballast.
John Cairns

I'd say it would still be recognizable -especiually if the backing board
were cheap ply covered in lots of epoxy.

Cheers

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Scott Vernon wrote:

One thing that's really neat about a Bolger boat, you can make your own
half-hull model by simply cutting a shoe box in half and gluing to a wall.



Wrong!!! A shoebox has insufficient rocker.

It's alright Taddy, you don't need to justify your choice of boat. I
uderstand the compromises you live with.

Cheers

Flying Tadpole wrote:

As a cruiser of a design known to have split the civilised world
in two, I don't have a problem with the looks of the Mac26*.

Navigator wrote:

It's alright Taddy, you don't need to justify your choice of boat. I
uderstand the compromises you live with.


Indeed, you're one of them.

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

I always thought those small (2-4 seater) Yamaha jet-drive boats looked like
fun, if one were into that sort of thing.

Scotty, if I wanna go fast, I'll ride my motorcycle.


"felton" wrote

"The most dangerous words in sailing are a lot of boat for the
money."

I'm not sure who originated this, but it strikes a chord of
truthfulness with me. In fairness to Jim, though, if my dominant
criteria for selecting a boat were the ability to motor swiftly in
water less than 2' deep, well...I guess I would be depressed, but I
still wouldn't pick a Mac. He should have just gone ahead and bought
a pontoon motor boat with a grill on the back.

"jlrogers" wrote in message
om...
Scott Vernon wrote:
One thing that's really neat about a Bolger boat, you can make your
own half-hull model by simply cutting a shoe box in half and gluing
to a wall.

Now that''s funny!

and practical.

I'm not a compromise -I'm not Australian.

Cheers

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Navigator wrote:

It's alright Taddy, you don't need to justify your choice of boat. I
uderstand the compromises you live with.



Indeed, you're one of them.

"Navigator" wrote ...
I'm not a criminal -I'm not Australian.

DSK wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:

As a cruiser of a design known to have split the civilised world
in two, I don't have a problem with the looks of the Mac26*.


Let's first acknowledge that there are two very different water
ballasted MacGregor 26s... the old "sailboat" ones built from approx
1988 (and were a development from the Mac 25)... and the Mac 26 X (now
labelled the "M") Pow-R-Sail-R which was a development of the Mac 19
motorsailer. Very very different boats. The older Mac 26s have built a
reputation as good sailing boats, tender but fast & weatherly.


For those who sail in desperately thin water, there is a great
deal to be said for swing keels, extreme shallow draught, hard
bilges and, to a much lesser extent, high sides if one must have
sizeable accommodations. But the ultimate question has to be,
how does the boat sail, and...how _is_ it sailed?


Very good point. I can address the issue on both series and from both
directions. Since there were three or four of each type in our sailing
club, I got a chance to sail them and observe them sailing under a
variety of conditions. Only on of the "X" type owners was an experienced
sailor, a guy who could (say just for example) take out a racing class
dinghy and handle it well in a breeze. The others were novices. Didn't
make much difference. The "X" boats go downwind OK, but they aren't fast
relative to anything except the doggiest crab-crusher, and they don't
like to go upwind (in fact there is a wide range of conditions where
they cannot make any progress to windward). They are a PITA to steer,
the rudders & steering were prone to breakage. They pound miserably in a
chop.

The "older" Mac to which you refer had a dagger board keel instead of
the wider, swing keel of the Mac 26x. From discussions with those who
have sailed the new 26M (which has a narrow dagger board and a draft of
almost 6 feet) the new boat is much better under sail, particularly
going upwind.


The older Mac 26 has a respectable handicap and sails to it often. On
fleet cruises, they often were circling back to let the other boats
catch up. The Mac 26X boats were always motoring to keep up.

When I see a boat that I can sail rings around in a Hunter 19, and do it
consistently in a wide range of conditions, that is not a factor that
leads me to say it is a good sailing boat.


That big motor is a trap, and my objection to the Mac26 series is
not the looks, not the light construction, not even the
observably poor sailing qalities other than well off the wind,
but the role which that motor plays in seducing the owners away
from sailing!


But it's main marketing strategy is to guys who want a motorboat. That's
what it is, a cheap motorboat. The sailing rig is an afterthought
(plumage?). If you go to a boat show and compare prices of new boats
with similar accomodation, most of them cost about twice what the Mac 26
X or M does. Most of them also displace significantly more and have
bigger motors. IMHO it doesn't "seduce" anybody away from sailing,
nobody who likes to sail would want one.



Jim the Deafer makes much play of motoring at speed to get
through the narrow, thin waters and out into "blue water" sailing
grounds, no more than 70 miles offshore, or was it 100? ie out of
the shallow, near coastal waters for which one uses swing keels,
extreme shallow draught, hard bilges etc etc. Yet, leaving aside
the pointlessness of taking a light shallow-water craft way out
to sea, the very business of motoring at speed through the narrow
thin waters misses totally the pleasures and the skills to be
gained in learning to handle a sailing craft skilfully and
deftly. It is just too easy to open the motor up and rush away,
never committing to the discipline of learning to sail in such
waters.


Tadpole, you are a poet.

... Alas for human
frailty--I've found the newsgroup's cruel and harsh view of Macs
to be borne out in local practice.


I hope that the things I have said about the Mac 26 X and/or M isn't
"bashing" since I have friends who own them. They have their good
points. In the new boat market, they are a lot of boat for the money.
They are a lot more practical to trailer than a lot of other boats
marketed as "trailerable." But if they want to argue about whether or
not we've sailed rings around them, there's no point... not only has the
whole sailing seen it many times... I have pictures!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

felton wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:39:24 -0400, DSK wrote:

snip

I hope that the things I have said about the Mac 26 X and/or M isn't
"bashing" since I have friends who own them. They have their good
points. In the new boat market, they are a lot of boat for the money.
They are a lot more practical to trailer than a lot of other boats
marketed as "trailerable." But if they want to argue about whether or
not we've sailed rings around them, there's no point... not only has the
whole sailing seen it many times... I have pictures!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King


Which reminds me of the following:

"The most dangerous words in sailing are a lot of boat for the
money."

I'm not sure who originated this, but it strikes a chord of
truthfulness with me. In fairness to Jim, though, if my dominant
criteria for selecting a boat were the ability to motor swiftly in
water less than 2' deep, well...I guess I would be depressed, but I
still wouldn't pick a Mac. He should have just gone ahead and bought
a pontoon motor boat with a grill on the back.


You have it bass-ass backwards. The Mac 26M has the ability to quickly
motor out to the best sailing waters. The motor is a means of getting
better sailing in an afternoon,or a weekend, rather than a week.

Jim