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

Is that some kind of fish or just the part of the fish you prefer??

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
You have it bass-ass backwards.

Jim said:
You have it bass-ass backwards.

Jim, I hate to chide you on yet one more thing, but if you're going to use
the expression, use it correctly: It is "bass ackwards"...
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:58:22 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



felton wrote:



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

You are obviously unconcerned with the poor sailing characteristics,
the "build quality" and the aesthetics of the boat. You seem
entranced by the "advantages" of the Mac 26MX, as you perceive them.
Suffice it to say that the vast majority of sailors, as evidenced by
this newsgroup, don't share your priorities. A sailor would rather
sail than motor. There is nothing quite like sailing a well tuned
boat to weather with the helm balanced and the sails well trimmed.
That is something that can't be experienced on a Mac 26MX. If you are
in a hurry to get somewhere, then sailing is probably a poor choice of
transportation. If you want to "sail", then a Mac 26MX is a poor
choice of a boat.

Don't get your feelings hurt. People around here just don't share
your views. The same would probably be true if someone dropped in
extolling the advantages of Cigarette boats or jetskis. By and large
this is a group of sailors who appreciate sailing. Unfortunately for
you, the Mac 26M(X) is pretty much universally agreed upon as being
the low water mark in the sailboat world. I think there might be a
few Lancers and Buccaneers that would compete for the title but they
mercifully went out of business, leaving few current alternatives for
the naive and uninformed.

felton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:58:22 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



felton wrote:



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


You are obviously unconcerned with the poor sailing characteristics,
the "build quality" and the aesthetics of the boat. You seem
entranced by the "advantages" of the Mac 26MX, as you perceive them.
Suffice it to say that the vast majority of sailors, as evidenced by
this newsgroup, don't share your priorities. A sailor would rather
sail than motor. There is nothing quite like sailing a well tuned
boat to weather with the helm balanced and the sails well trimmed.
That is something that can't be experienced on a Mac 26MX. If you are
in a hurry to get somewhere, then sailing is probably a poor choice of
transportation. If you want to "sail", then a Mac 26MX is a poor
choice of a boat.

I didn't choose the Mac 26M because I prefer motoring over sailing. And,
from 25 years of sailing experience on many types of boats, I think that
I have an understanding of the pleasure of sailing a well-balanced boat
having good pointing ability. - That's why I chose the Mac 26M.

Regarding the fact that "People around here don't share my views," none
of the "People around here" have sailed the 26M, and few have even
spoken with anyone who has.

The "uninformed" sailors are, therefore, the "People around here."

Jim

"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.

Ummmm, brokers??????

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:35:17 -0400, "Seahag"
wrote:


"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.

Ummmm, brokers??????

Almost anything a broker says is likely to be dangerous Almost
anything a Mac dealer says is likely to be humorous

felton wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:35:17 -0400, "Seahag"
wrote:


"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.

Ummmm, brokers??????

Almost anything a broker says is likely to be dangerous Almost
anything a Mac dealer says is likely to be humorous

And almost anything a Mac buyer says is likely to be...?

--
Flying Tadpole

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

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

Jim Cate wrote:
The "older" Mac to which you refer had a dagger board keel instead of
the wider, swing keel of the Mac 26x.

Wrong.

The older Mac 26 was built in a variety of models, some of which had
daggerboards, some of which had minimally ballasted centerboards. None
had "swing keels" nor did the Mac 26X.

There was an earlier yet boat called the Mac 25 which *did* have a swing
keel and a very similar hull to the old water ballast M26.

You don't know what you're talking about. Go hang out on one of the Mac
discussion lists and learn.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King