Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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*.

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?

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!

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.

Perhaps the Mac26 owners have an aversion to beating their 26
foot boat through a 60ft wide slough, brushing the reeds on each
turn, or working their way up a larger but busier channel,
against a flow/tide, beacon to beacon. But it's a _learnt_
skill, and to do is to learn. Yet that huge motor sits, like
some mind-control machine, saying "use me instead", and they do.
The learning-to-sail never happens.

Meet a schedule? yes, at times we all have to, but the big motor
is an extreme. Yesterday, after 3 hours near-becalmed (1.2knots)
I gave up with 10miles to go and fired up the (10hp) motor, then
proceeded on at about 4knots (sails still up, giving me about
1knot and the motor working gently). And took great interest in
watching a Mac26 two miles away, still in light breeze and moving
at about 2knots, pull down all sail then use the giant motor to
move at ... 3 knots. What was the point, one wonders?

And yes, Jim, I know one set of the local Mac owners, who appear
highly defensive of their craft even before anyone asks questions
(!) and, with the Mac-bashing of this newsgroup to spur my
interest, watched closely for some years the pattern of use and
sailing of the local Mac26x'ers (all two of them, but numerous
serial owners--a new one each year in one case). Alas for human
frailty--I've found the newsgroup's cruel and harsh view of Macs
to be borne out in local practice.

--
Tim & Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
The Light Schooner Website
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/index.htm
SquareBoats! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sbhome.htm
Bolger Boats netted! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sites2.htm

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

Taddy, I agree with you 100%. But, they're still butt-ugly and
MacBoy is still dumber than a squirrel in the middle of the road.

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

"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*.

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?

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!

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.

Perhaps the Mac26 owners have an aversion to beating their 26
foot boat through a 60ft wide slough, brushing the reeds on each
turn, or working their way up a larger but busier channel,
against a flow/tide, beacon to beacon. But it's a _learnt_
skill, and to do is to learn. Yet that huge motor sits, like
some mind-control machine, saying "use me instead", and they do.
The learning-to-sail never happens.

Meet a schedule? yes, at times we all have to, but the big motor
is an extreme. Yesterday, after 3 hours near-becalmed (1.2knots)
I gave up with 10miles to go and fired up the (10hp) motor, then
proceeded on at about 4knots (sails still up, giving me about
1knot and the motor working gently). And took great interest in
watching a Mac26 two miles away, still in light breeze and moving
at about 2knots, pull down all sail then use the giant motor to
move at ... 3 knots. What was the point, one wonders?

And yes, Jim, I know one set of the local Mac owners, who appear
highly defensive of their craft even before anyone asks questions
(!) and, with the Mac-bashing of this newsgroup to spur my
interest, watched closely for some years the pattern of use and
sailing of the local Mac26x'ers (all two of them, but numerous
serial owners--a new one each year in one case). Alas for human
frailty--I've found the newsgroup's cruel and harsh view of Macs
to be borne out in local practice.

--
Tim & Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
The Light Schooner Website
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/index.htm
SquareBoats! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sbhome.htm
Bolger Boats netted! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sites2.htm

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

"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*.
--
Tim & Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
The Light Schooner Website
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/index.htm
SquareBoats! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sbhome.htm
Bolger Boats netted! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sites2.htm

I have a problem with their looks. While Bolger designs might look ugly and
boxy(not saying they do) they look like sailing vessels. The macs look too
much like powerboats, especially the new ones.
John Cairns

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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 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

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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.

Scotty


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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 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

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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!

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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.


Would it be better to have a boat that you could make a model of by
taking a shoe, instead of the box?

DSK

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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.

--
Flying Tadpole

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

Ignore the aesthetics, can it sail, and...WILL it be sailed?
 

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.