Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"She's DEAD Jim"...... ;-)

CM


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
| PLEASE NOTE: THE POINT OF THIS POST IS TO CLARIFY AGAIN THE FACT THAT
| THE 26M AND 26X ARE NOT THE SAME BOAT, AND THAT THE 26M WAS NOT A MERE
| COSMETIC MODEL CHANGE RELATIVE TO THE 26X. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PREFER THE
| 26X OR THE 26M, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD PREFER EACH OF THE ABOVE
| MODIFICATIONS, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD EVER BE WILLING TO SAIL ON
| ANY OF THE MACGREGORS, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE TWO BOATS ARE
| SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.
|
| Jim
|

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

chain plates have been added

Strange, what was used before?

Flotation has been added to upper sections of the mast to provide
further resistance to "turtleing."

Just what I would want. A 26 foot boat that uses flotation in the mast to
keep from turtleing. I doubt if that would work in a 26 footer. I've only
seen that in beach cats and daysailors.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
| chain plates have been added
|
| Strange, what was used before?

No fair Loco.... it was a different model year and you know yourself how
boats can change radically from one model year to the next!!!


|
| Flotation has been added to upper sections of the mast to provide
| further resistance to "turtleing."
|
| Just what I would want. A 26 foot boat that uses flotation in the mast
to
| keep from turtleing. I doubt if that would work in a 26 footer. I've
only
| seen that in beach cats and daysailors.

I understand that Hunter 285's might be incorporating 'Fat Buoy's on the
mast head in 2005 line up!
Then again you know how confusing it is ...what with all the annual, radical
design changes in this industry! ;-)

I think Hunter is merely emulating Macgregor to boost sales... er-r-r
Sails!

CM

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Be nice Scott Venom

"FamilySailor" girlishly giggled....

hehehehe ; )

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

My daughter likes the looks of the Mac 26'X, but she also likes the looks of
the Toyota Echo.....

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

You keep claiming these are "different" boats. Whether the changes are
sufficient to call them different is academic. The bottom line, however, is
that the company has a long history of building cheap boats and making
exaggerated marketing claims targeting inexperienced sailors. Nothing seems
different in this regard.

BTW, I'm not claiming that this boat is not appropriate for you, or any other
potential boater; I'm only saying that the changes are not as significant as you
(or the marketers) are claiming. Most of the problems and complaints associated
with the 26X still apply to the 26M.

comments interspersed ...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
....

Doug, I don't know where you were at the time, but this was discussed
over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago. One of the strings
exceeded 600 notes. The truth is that the 26M has a completely new
hull. Differences include the fact that:

A. The swing keel and the (200 gallon) longitudinal open cavity built
into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted
upwardly into the slot) has been eliminated in the 26M, eliminating the
drag produced by the large open cavity.

200 Gallons??? That's about 27 cubic feet! I can see why they wanted to
correct that!


B. The 26M incorporating a vertically retractable dagger-board instead
of a swing keel.

Certainly this is a difference, but the drag of the slot isn't that high. The
change was really to save money.


C. The hull of the 26M has a deep-V forward configuration for minimizing
pitch, particularly when motoring. Thus, the 26X had a much "flatter"
bow configuration.

A small difference - it may help performance in a chop, but reduces speed under
power flat seas. Actually, when you look at the boats side by side its a rather
small change.

A number of powerboats offer two different hulls, but are considered the same
boat.



D. The ballast of the 26X was exclusively water ballast, the water being
let into the ballast chamber prior to sailing the boat. The 26M has
a combination of water ballast and permanent ballast built into the hull.

This was probably done because an unballasted 26X had a tendency to roll over if
several adults sat on one side. Changes like the daggerboard and V hull reduced
the stability even further.



E. The hull of the 26M has an additional layer of fiberglass, and over
100 additional pounds of resin; chain plates have been added, the
hull-to-deck joint has been modified, and the deck structure has been
modified for greater rigidity.


In other words, the 26X was too flexible?

F. In the M, a traveler has been added for providing greater control
of the mainsheet.

Useful, but not a major change.


G. The M has an axially rotatable mast, mounted on two sets of
bearings, permitting it to rotate with the luff of the mainsail.

Useful, but not a major change. One more thing to break.


H. Flotation has been added to upper sections of the mast to provide
further resistance to "turtleing." (This is in addition to the
righting forces provided by the water ballast and the permanent ballast.)

Probably required by the lawyers because of fatalities caused from the 26X
turtleing at anchor. Serious - this actually happened.



Both models incorporate the usual Mac features such as positive
flotation, trailerability, ability to move over very shallow water,
ability to be brought to the shore and beached, etc.


PLEASE NOTE: THE POINT OF THIS POST IS TO CLARIFY AGAIN THE FACT THAT
THE 26M AND 26X ARE NOT THE SAME BOAT, AND THAT THE 26M WAS NOT A MERE
COSMETIC MODEL CHANGE RELATIVE TO THE 26X. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PREFER THE
26X OR THE 26M, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD PREFER EACH OF THE ABOVE
MODIFICATIONS, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD EVER BE WILLING TO SAIL ON
ANY OF THE MACGREGORS, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE TWO BOATS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Elmers.

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

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
chain plates have been added

Strange, what was used before?

Flotation has been added to upper sections of the mast to provide
further resistance to "turtleing."

Just what I would want. A 26 foot boat that uses flotation in the mast
to
keep from turtleing. I doubt if that would work in a 26 footer. I've
only
seen that in beach cats and daysailors.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jim Cate wrote:
Doug, I don't know where you were at the time

I do.

, but this was discussed
over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago.

Yep. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. The "completely
different hull design" is a bit of advertising fluff from MacGregor.
There are a few differences in the deck & cabin molding. There may be
invisible differences in the structural details, although I wouldn't
believe it myself without more proof than MacGregor's say-so (after all
they have already lied once). The biggest difference is that the Mac 26M
comes in two different colors.

DSK

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"DSK" wrote

Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.

That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

SV

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "DSK" wrote
|
| Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
| Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
| painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.
|
| That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

The Hell You Say!... I have it on good advise that yearly models can be
completely different in quuality, style and performance! ;-)

CM

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "DSK" wrote
|
| Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
| Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
| painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.
|
| That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

The Hell You Say!... I have it on good advise that yearly models can be
completely different in quuality, style and performance! ;-)


Nah. only Hunter pulls that crap.

SV

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

| Nah. only Hunter pulls that crap.

No Kiddin'....??!!

Isn't Hunter like the American version of Benneteau?

CM

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote

Isn't Hunter like the American version of Benneteau?



No, Hunter is below Bendytoes, but above MacGregor (barely).

Scotty

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

how old is she?

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
My daughter likes the looks of the Mac 26'X, but she also likes the looks
of
the Toyota Echo.....

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

name calling? How juvenile.

SV

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Be nice Scott Venom

"FamilySailor" girlishly giggled....

hehehehe ; )

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
You keep claiming these are "different" boats. Whether the changes are
sufficient to call them different is academic. The bottom line, however, is
that the company has a long history of building cheap boats and making
exaggerated marketing claims targeting inexperienced sailors. Nothing seems
different in this regard.


I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats have
incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available in most
displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition forward
as did the earlier models. The Macs were one of the first cruising
sailboats to popularize the use of water ballast, the advantages of
which are so obvious that their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are
now offering it also. Further advantages include positive flotation (the
boats actually float, even if the hull is compromised. - Imagine that. -
A boat that actually floats!). Further advantages that are unique with
respect to most of their competition is the ability to "fly away" from
the "displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in
their place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).
Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc. A
still further advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to
be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles
from their usual port.

All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed over
the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition forward to
a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.

Jim

Jim


BTW, I'm not claiming that this boat is not appropriate for you, or any other
potential boater; I'm only saying that the changes are not as significant as you
(or the marketers) are claiming. Most of the problems and complaints associated
with the 26X still apply to the 26M.

comments interspersed ...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
...

Doug, I don't know where you were at the time, but this was discussed
over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago. One of the strings
exceeded 600 notes. The truth is that the 26M has a completely new
hull. Differences include the fact that:

A. The swing keel and the (200 gallon) longitudinal open cavity built
into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted
upwardly into the slot) has been eliminated in the 26M, eliminating the
drag produced by the large open cavity.


200 Gallons??? That's about 27 cubic feet! I can see why they wanted to
correct that!


B. The 26M incorporating a vertically retractable dagger-board instead
of a swing keel.


Certainly this is a difference, but the drag of the slot isn't that high. The
change was really to save money.


C. The hull of the 26M has a deep-V forward configuration for minimizing
pitch, particularly when motoring. Thus, the 26X had a much "flatter"
bow configuration.


A small difference - it may help performance in a chop, but reduces speed under
power flat seas. Actually, when you look at the boats side by side its a rather
small change.

A number of powerboats offer two different hulls, but are considered the same
boat.



D. The ballast of the 26X was exclusively water ballast, the water being
let into the ballast chamber prior to sailing the boat. The 26M has
a combination of water ballast and permanent ballast built into the hull.


This was probably done because an unballasted 26X had a tendency to roll over if
several adults sat on one side. Changes like the daggerboard and V hull reduced
the stability even further.



E. The hull of the 26M has an additional layer of fiberglass, and over
100 additional pounds of resin; chain plates have been added, the
hull-to-deck joint has been modified, and the deck structure has been
modified for greater rigidity.



In other words, the 26X was too flexible?


F. In the M, a traveler has been added for providing greater control
of the mainsheet.


Useful, but not a major change.


G. The M has an axially rotatable mast, mounted on two sets of
bearings, permitting it to rotate with the luff of the mainsail.


Useful, but not a major change. One more thing to break.


H. Flotation has been added to upper sections of the mast to provide
further resistance to "turtleing." (This is in addition to the
righting forces provided by the water ballast and the permanent ballast.)


Probably required by the lawyers because of fatalities caused from the 26X
turtleing at anchor. Serious - this actually happened.



Both models incorporate the usual Mac features such as positive
flotation, trailerability, ability to move over very shallow water,
ability to be brought to the shore and beached, etc.


PLEASE NOTE: THE POINT OF THIS POST IS TO CLARIFY AGAIN THE FACT THAT
THE 26M AND 26X ARE NOT THE SAME BOAT, AND THAT THE 26M WAS NOT A MERE
COSMETIC MODEL CHANGE RELATIVE TO THE 26X. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PREFER THE
26X OR THE 26M, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD PREFER EACH OF THE ABOVE
MODIFICATIONS, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD EVER BE WILLING TO SAIL ON
ANY OF THE MACGREGORS, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE TWO BOATS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

Doug, I don't know where you were at the time


I do.

, but this was discussed

over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago.


Yep. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. The "completely
different hull design" is a bit of advertising fluff from MacGregor.
There are a few differences in the deck & cabin molding.

A change from a hull with a substantially flat forward contour to one
with a deep-V configuration is merely "advertising fluff", and not a
substantive, change? - It's just the same hull with new color choices?
Or, a change from pivotable keel with a hull having a corresponding
12-inch deep cavity for receiving the keel, the cavity extending five
feet along the length of the hull and containing some 200 gallons of
water is also just more "advertising fluff", and not a real physical
change? The addition of permanent ballast is also just "advertising
fluff", and not a "real" change? The incorporation of dual bearing
mounts for the mast that permit it to rotate on its major axis with the
mainsail is just "advertising fluff", and not a "real" change?

Get real Doug. You may get some "atta-boy" points from Mooron and others
with comments like those, but you have lost all semblance of credibility
and logic. (But then again, maybe what you wanted in the first place was
merely some brownie points from Moron et. al.)

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Scott Vernon wrote:

"DSK" wrote

Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.


That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

SV

If they're using the same molds, how do they manage to produce a deep-V
hull with a contour substantially different from that of the 26X? And if
they're using the same molds, how do they get rid of the five-foot
cavity in which the dagger board nested in the 26X? (Maybe they use some
dry-wall compound to fill in the cavity, and then paint to match the
rest fo the hull?) And if they're using the same mold, how do they
manage to fit the dagger board housing into the hull while adding the
permanent ballast?

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Capt. Mooron wrote:

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "DSK" wrote
|
| Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
| Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
| painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.
|
| That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

The Hell You Say!... I have it on good advise that yearly models can be
completely different in quuality, style and performance! ;-)

Moron, has anyone ever suggested that you ought to think about spouting
off a little less, and listening to what others are saying, or reading
their notes, a little more carefully? Has anyone told you that you are
getting so full of yourself that you're actually loosing touch with reality?

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:
You keep claiming these are "different" boats. Whether the changes are
sufficient to call them different is academic. The bottom line, however, is
that the company has a long history of building cheap boats and making
exaggerated marketing claims targeting inexperienced sailors. Nothing seems
different in this regard.


I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats have
incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available in most
displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition forward
as did the earlier models. The Macs were one of the first cruising
sailboats to popularize the use of water ballast, the advantages of
which are so obvious that their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are
now offering it also. Further advantages include positive flotation (the
boats actually float, even if the hull is compromised. - Imagine that. -
A boat that actually floats!)

Flotation is nothing new - I sailed for a dozen years before using a boat
without positive flotation. It has long been required by law for boats a bit
smaller than yours.

. Further advantages that are unique with
respect to most of their competition is the ability to "fly away" from
the "displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in
their place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).

Your boat can't do that under sail unless it is used recklessly - without
ballast in a strong wind. THis is exactly the type of exaggeration I'm talking
about. They make it sound like it performs better than any other boat, even
under sail, when in fact its a dog.


Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc. A
still further advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to
be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles
from their usual port.

Most of what you're talking about are standard features, long available on a
large number of boats. You can claim the 26X has a unique combination of these
features, but the question the prospective buyer must answer is whether this is
enough to overcome the obvious shortcomings.



All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed over
the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition forward to
a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.

And a damning one.

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
| Moron, has anyone ever suggested that you ought to think about spouting
| off a little less, and listening to what others are saying, or reading
| their notes, a little more carefully?

Why would I entertain that...???

Has anyone told you that you are
| getting so full of yourself that you're actually loosing touch with
reality?

Daily..... usually by useless dipwads whose opinions count as much than
yours.
Arrogance is a Captain's prerogative..... don't blame me for utilizing a
power granted to me by superior genetics and keen insight, a sharp wit
and....... a god-like bronze tan.

Now that you understand your place in the food chain around here.... I'll
expect more deference and timidity on your part Jim!

CM

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
| If they're using the same molds, how do they manage to produce a deep-V
| hull with a contour substantially different from that of the 26X? And if
| they're using the same molds, how do they get rid of the five-foot
| cavity in which the dagger board nested in the 26X? (Maybe they use some
| dry-wall compound to fill in the cavity, and then paint to match the
| rest fo the hull?) And if they're using the same mold, how do they
| manage to fit the dagger board housing into the hull while adding the
| permanent ballast?

They took an old 26X mould, a pair of shears and some junk plywood to make
the changes.

CM

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Hehehe, I strive for juvenile. :-)

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

She is 18 and has no sense of classic style.

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jim Cate wrote:
I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats have
incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available in most
displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition forward
as did the earlier models.

You really are addicted to Macgregor advertising, aren't you?


... The Macs were one of the first cruising
sailboats to popularize the use of water ballast, the advantages of
which are so obvious that their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are
now offering it also.

Except that the Mac 26X was so poorly designed that it needed to have
lead ballast added. My wife & I owned a water ballasted Hunter 19 for 10
years and it sailed fine... in fact we outsailed Mac 26Xs many times in
it, and a Mac 26M a couple of times.


... Further advantages include positive flotation (the
boats actually float, even if the hull is compromised.

Imagine that... I've been sailing boats with positive flotation since
about 1968.



... Further advantages that are unique with
respect to most of their competition is the ability to "fly away" from
the "displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in
their place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).

If that's true, then why is the Mac 26X and Mac 26M so slow under sail,
compared to other boats of similar size? You don't have to look ver far
at all to find 26' boats that will sail rings around it.


... Still
further advantages include the ability to float in waters as shallow as
one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc.

Comes in very handy, but it's hardly unique to MacGregors. There are
quite a few centerboarders that can be beached, including some 40+ footers.


... A still further
advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to be
conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles from
their usual port.

Comes in handy as long as you have a behemoth SUV to tow it. We used a
minivan with a V-6 for our trailerable... got about 25 MPG with it. It
is nice to be able to cruise far waters on a short vacation.

But again, this is hardly unique to the Mac 26X or Mac 26M. If you knew
more than what Macgregor told you, you'd find that out.


All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed over
the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition forward to
a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.

And when are you going to actually look at a Mac 26X and compare hull
shapes, and realize it's the exact same as your boat? Not very
perceptive on your part.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

I know a guy who has a 26X and he keeps up with everyone. I confided in me
one day that his 50 horse iron wind is always idling in gear. It keeps his
batteries charged. hehehehe

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

You keep claiming these are "different" boats. Whether the changes are
sufficient to call them different is academic. The bottom line, however, is
that the company has a long history of building cheap boats and making
exaggerated marketing claims targeting inexperienced sailors. Nothing seems
different in this regard.


I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats have
incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available in most
displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition forward
as did the earlier models. The Macs were one of the first cruising
sailboats to popularize the use of water ballast, the advantages of
which are so obvious that their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are
now offering it also. Further advantages include positive flotation (the
boats actually float, even if the hull is compromised. - Imagine that. -
A boat that actually floats!)


Flotation is nothing new - I sailed for a dozen years before using a boat
without positive flotation. It has long been required by law for boats a bit
smaller than yours.

And did I say that the Mac's are the ONLY boats to provide positive
flotation, Jef? I can't seem to find a statement to that effect in my
previous note. - What I DID say was that the Macs included that
particular advantage. And if you're honest, you will admit that only a
relatively small number of cruising sailboats incorporate positive
flotation. - If you don't believe me, try conducting a poll of this
newsgroup, asking them whether their boats would float if the hull were
compromised. Or whether their boat would quickly sink to the bottom
under such circumstances.


. Further advantages that are unique with
respect to most of their competition is the ability to "fly away" from
the "displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in
their place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).


Your boat can't do that under sail unless it is used recklessly - without
ballast in a strong wind. THis is exactly the type of exaggeration I'm talking
about. They make it sound like it performs better than any other boat, even
under sail, when in fact its a dog.

Once again, Jeff, did I say that I was talking about planing UNDER SAIL?
The facts are that very few of the boats owned by contributors to this
ng could plane REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE POWERED OR UNDER SAIL. -
Unless, of course,they were caught in a storm and planing down a wave.
It's also true that the Mac CAN plane under sail, under certain
conditions.




Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc. A
still further advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to
be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles
from their usual port.


Most of what you're talking about are standard features, long available on a
large number of boats.

Really Jeff? Why don't you ask the contributors to this ng whether their
boats can be beached for picnics, float in one foot of water, trailered
down the coast to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles away, etc.
The point isn't that the Mac is the only boat to incorporate each and
every feature named above. Rather, the point is that it offers a package
of advantageous features not often available in a 26-foot cruising
sailboat.


You can claim the 26X has a unique combination of these
features, but the question the prospective buyer must answer is whether this is
enough to overcome the obvious shortcomings.


And what are those shortcomings, Jeff? (Remembering that in my case, we
sail in the Galveston Bay area in which there are hundreds of square
miles of waters of limited depth.) My boat is fast, comfortable, and
stable in severe conditions. Also, it incorporates a number of controls
and lines that can be adjusted for tuning the boat to achieve
substantial speed.

Jim


All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed over
the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition forward to
a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.


And a damning one.


Damming? I suppose you mean damming for its competitors who don't offer
anywhere near the same package of features, yet charge substantially more?

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats
have incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available
in most displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition
forward as did the earlier models.


You really are addicted to Macgregor advertising, aren't you?

If you can point to errors in my notes, I'll accept that criticism.
Until then, however, you are just another of the "Moorons" who aren't
willing to put up or shut up.



... The Macs were one of the first cruising sailboats to popularize
the use of water ballast, the advantages of which are so obvious that
their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are now offering it also.


Except that the Mac 26X was so poorly designed that it needed to have
lead ballast added. My wife & I owned a water ballasted Hunter 19 for 10
years and it sailed fine... in fact we outsailed Mac 26Xs many times in
it, and a Mac 26M a couple of times.


Really? From other ngs, it seems that lots of owners still prefer the 26X.



... Further advantages include positive flotation (the boats actually
float, even if the hull is compromised.


Imagine that... I've been sailing boats with positive flotation since
about 1968.


Interesting. And how many of the contributors to this newsgroup would
you think own boats with positive flotation? - Maybe 20%? Or 10%? Or
Maybe five percent?





... Further advantages that are unique with respect to most of their
competition is the ability to "fly away" from the
"displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in their
place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).


If that's true, then why is the Mac 26X and Mac 26M so slow under sail,
compared to other boats of similar size? You don't have to look ver far
at all to find 26' boats that will sail rings around it.


Where, and when, have you seen such races involving the 22M?



... Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc.


Comes in very handy, but it's hardly unique to MacGregors. There are
quite a few centerboarders that can be beached, including some 40+ footers.



And, did I say it was "unique" to the MacGregors? What I said was that
they offered a package of advantageous features not often found in a
such a cruising sailboat. If you don't believe me, why not conduct a
poll of the contributors to this ng.


... A still further advantage is that they are trailerable,
permitting them to be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area
hundreds of miles from their usual port.


Comes in handy as long as you have a behemoth SUV to tow it. We used a
minivan with a V-6 for our trailerable... got about 25 MPG with it. It
is nice to be able to cruise far waters on a short vacation.

With the water ballast removed, the boat weighs only 3,500 pounds. I
pull it with my 2002 Mercury sedan, which I also drive to work, to the
symphony, to the opera, etc.

But again, this is hardly unique to the Mac 26X or Mac 26M. If you knew
more than what Macgregor told you, you'd find that out.


Again, did I say that the Mac was "unique" in being trailerable? -
Perhaps you should read my notes a little more carefully. (And once
again, what percentage of those owned by contributors to this ng do you
think are trailerable?)

All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed
over the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition
forward to a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.


And when are you going to actually look at a Mac 26X and compare hull
shapes, and realize it's the exact same as your boat? Not very
perceptive on your part.


Once again, Doug, you're dead wrong. When are you going to actually
compare the two boats?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King



Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Capt. Mooron wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
| Moron, has anyone ever suggested that you ought to think about spouting
| off a little less, and listening to what others are saying, or reading
| their notes, a little more carefully?

Why would I entertain that...???

Has anyone told you that you are
| getting so full of yourself that you're actually loosing touch with
reality?

Daily..... usually by useless dipwads whose opinions count as much than
yours.
Arrogance is a Captain's prerogative..... don't blame me for utilizing a
power granted to me by superior genetics and keen insight, a sharp wit
and....... a god-like bronze tan.

Now that you understand your place in the food chain around here.... I'll
expect more deference and timidity on your part Jim!

CM


I think all those years in the sun have finally got to you, Moron. My
suggestion is that you consider getting some professional help. - Maybe
there are some new medications that might still be somewhat effective,
even in your advanced condition.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:
....
Flotation is nothing new - I sailed for a dozen years before using a boat
without positive flotation. It has long been required by law for boats a
bit
smaller than yours.

And did I say that the Mac's are the ONLY boats to provide positive
flotation, Jef? I can't seem to find a statement to that effect in my
previous note. - What I DID say was that the Macs included that
particular advantage. And if you're honest, you will admit that only a
relatively small number of cruising sailboats incorporate positive
flotation. - If you don't believe me, try conducting a poll of this
newsgroup, asking them whether their boats would float if the hull were
compromised. Or whether their boat would quickly sink to the bottom
under such circumstances.

As I said, flotation is required on smaller boats, and is pretty standard on
trailer boats and water ballast boats. In fact, I would guess that most boats
26 feet and under that don't have significant ballast have positive flotation.

Although not common in larger boats, my boat is 36 feet and has positive
flotation. It would not sink if the hull was compromised.

Your boat can't do that under sail unless it is used recklessly - without
ballast in a strong wind. THis is exactly the type of exaggeration I'm
talking
about. They make it sound like it performs better than any other boat, even
under sail, when in fact its a dog.

Once again, Jeff, did I say that I was talking about planing UNDER SAIL?
The facts are that very few of the boats owned by contributors to this
ng could plane REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE POWERED OR UNDER SAIL. -

Again, my boat will fly away from the "displacement-speed-barrier," and it will
do it under sail. A few days ago I averaged over 9 knots for about 15 miles
under main alone.


Unless, of course,they were caught in a storm and planing down a wave.
It's also true that the Mac CAN plane under sail, under certain
conditions.

That's not what most of the owners report. I've only heard of this when sailing
without ballast in strong winds, a practise considered rather dangerous for a
Mac.






Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc. A
still further advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to
be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles
from their usual port.


Most of what you're talking about are standard features, long available on a
large number of boats.

Really Jeff? Why don't you ask the contributors to this ng whether their
boats can be beached for picnics,

My boat can be beached.

float in one foot of water,

Mine takes almost 3 feet, but with the optional daggerboards its about 18
inches. Funny, though, they only called it a different version of the same
boat!

trailered

Mine is too big to be trailered, but others of its style can be.

down the coast to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles away, etc.
The point isn't that the Mac is the only boat to incorporate each and
every feature named above. Rather, the point is that it offers a package
of advantageous features not often available in a 26-foot cruising
sailboat.

Actually, almost all of the features can be had in other boats. There are only
two things that make it unique: First, the hull sacrifices considerable sailing
performance to give speed under power. However, the claims of speed are
exaggerated, since they are based on a totally stripped boat; in reality they
are only about 50% faster than many sailboats under power. Second, they are
built to a lower quality standard than many boaters consider prudent. This
allows them to be cheaper, and allows you to claim that this is a unique
combination that no other builder can match.



You can claim the 26X has a unique combination of these
features, but the question the prospective buyer must answer is whether this
is
enough to overcome the obvious shortcomings.


And what are those shortcomings, Jeff?

Very poor performance under sail. Serious stability issues - the 26X has been
known to roll over in clam conditions. Poor resale - I've seen 5 year old 26X's
offered for about half price.

(Remembering that in my case, we
sail in the Galveston Bay area in which there are hundreds of square
miles of waters of limited depth.) My boat is fast, comfortable, and
stable in severe conditions.

Tell that to the parents of the children who died because they were trapped
below when their boat rolled in calm conditions.

Also, it incorporates a number of controls
and lines that can be adjusted for tuning the boat to achieve
substantial speed.

Total nonsense. It's stuff like this that marks you as a novice that believed
all the hype. They added a traveler and you think its a performance machine.

If you want a boat with all the features you list, you could get one of these:

http://www.geminicatamarans.com/Performance_Telstar.htm

It would sail and power circles around yours, is infinately safer, draws one
foot, can be trailered, has positive floatation, and has a nicer interior. This
price is somewhat higher, but the depreciation is probably less.

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Really Jeff? Why don't you ask the contributors to this ng whether their
boats can be beached for picnics,

I have a dinghy for that.

float in one foot of water,

I need 3'.

trailered
down the coast to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles away, etc.

down, up, over to the left coast, anywhere I want.


Can you sail into an anchorage without being laughed at?

SV

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Interesting. And how many of the contributors to this newsgroup would
you think own boats with positive flotation? - Maybe 20%? Or 10%? Or
Maybe five percent?

I owned a Merit 22 for 9 years that had positive foam flotation. Turned out
to be a help when it was hit by lightning one evening at the pier. It only
partially sank during the night.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

A few days ago I averaged over 9 knots for about 15 miles
under main alone..

Averaged! Wind speed?______

S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jim Cate wrote:

If you can point to errors in my notes, I'll accept that criticism.
Until then, however, you are just another of the "Moorons" who aren't
willing to put up or shut up.

Hey Jim... I have pointed out many of your errors and you seem very
hostile to new ideas...

As for "put up or shut up" I am not the one making ridiculous & false
claims about my boat because I fervently believe the advertising.

Oh well, everybody needs a hobby.

DSK

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

About 25 knots wind, broad reach. This was the middle part of a leg were we
did about 8.5, waypoint to waypoint.

Had the seas been flatter and the wind a bit closer we would have done a knot or
two better. With more sail we've held over 12 knots for extended reaches.
However, that was before we filled the boat with crap. Now things have to be
perfect to see 11 knots.



"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
A few days ago I averaged over 9 knots for about 15 miles
under main alone..

Averaged! Wind speed?______

S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

In article , Jim Cate
wrote:

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats
have incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available
in most displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition
forward as did the earlier models.


You really are addicted to Macgregor advertising, aren't you?

If you can point to errors in my notes, I'll accept that criticism.
Until then, however, you are just another of the "Moorons" who aren't
willing to put up or shut up.



... The Macs were one of the first cruising sailboats to popularize
the use of water ballast, the advantages of which are so obvious that
their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are now offering it also.


Except that the Mac 26X was so poorly designed that it needed to have
lead ballast added. My wife & I owned a water ballasted Hunter 19 for 10
years and it sailed fine... in fact we outsailed Mac 26Xs many times in
it, and a Mac 26M a couple of times.


Really? From other ngs, it seems that lots of owners still prefer the 26X.



... Further advantages include positive flotation (the boats actually
float, even if the hull is compromised.


Imagine that... I've been sailing boats with positive flotation since
about 1968.


Interesting. And how many of the contributors to this newsgroup would
you think own boats with positive flotation? - Maybe 20%? Or 10%? Or
Maybe five percent?





... Further advantages that are unique with respect to most of their
competition is the ability to "fly away" from the
"displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in their
place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).


If that's true, then why is the Mac 26X and Mac 26M so slow under sail,
compared to other boats of similar size? You don't have to look ver far
at all to find 26' boats that will sail rings around it.


Where, and when, have you seen such races involving the 22M?



... Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc.


Comes in very handy, but it's hardly unique to MacGregors. There are
quite a few centerboarders that can be beached, including some 40+ footers.



And, did I say it was "unique" to the MacGregors? What I said was that
they offered a package of advantageous features not often found in a
such a cruising sailboat. If you don't believe me, why not conduct a
poll of the contributors to this ng.


... A still further advantage is that they are trailerable,
permitting them to be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area
hundreds of miles from their usual port.


Comes in handy as long as you have a behemoth SUV to tow it. We used a
minivan with a V-6 for our trailerable... got about 25 MPG with it. It
is nice to be able to cruise far waters on a short vacation.

With the water ballast removed, the boat weighs only 3,500 pounds. I
pull it with my 2002 Mercury sedan, which I also drive to work, to the
symphony, to the opera, etc.

But again, this is hardly unique to the Mac 26X or Mac 26M. If you knew
more than what Macgregor told you, you'd find that out.


Again, did I say that the Mac was "unique" in being trailerable? -
Perhaps you should read my notes a little more carefully. (And once
again, what percentage of those owned by contributors to this ng do you
think are trailerable?)

Boat I looked at the other day is. You need a prime mover and a wide
load permit, but it has its own trailer and is therefore trailerable.
39' LOD, 12' beam, 4'6" draft.

PDW

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jim Cate wrote
... what percentage of those owned by contributors to this ng do you
think are trailerable?)


I don't know. Check the roll call on the "Where Be Ye" thread. Anyway I
happen to own two, so I can loan somebody else one ;)


Peter Wiley wrote:
Boat I looked at the other day is. You need a prime mover and a wide
load permit, but it has its own trailer and is therefore trailerable.
39' LOD, 12' beam, 4'6" draft.

Big trailer, I bet. Could you launch that at a local ramp?

Seriously what kind of boat? I thought you had too much fun playing with
OPBs.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

Jim Cate wrote
... what percentage of those owned by contributors to this ng do you
think are trailerable?)


I don't know. Check the roll call on the "Where Be Ye" thread. Anyway I
happen to own two, so I can loan somebody else one ;)


Peter Wiley wrote:
Boat I looked at the other day is. You need a prime mover and a wide
load permit, but it has its own trailer and is therefore trailerable.
39' LOD, 12' beam, 4'6" draft.

Big trailer, I bet. Could you launch that at a local ramp?

The current owner does but the ramp's 400m from his place, uses a big
tractor to tow the trailer.

Seriously what kind of boat? I thought you had too much fun playing with
OPBs.

John Pugh Morning Mist 2 modified a little. Stern cabin centre cockpit
cutter rigged sloop with hard dodger - gets cold & rough down here.
Arguably closer to a motor-sailer than a sailboat with an aux. Just
looking ATM; the current owner built it but has got to the point where
his health isn't up to keeping it. It's been out of the water the last
3 years. No modern electronics etc which is a plus; nothing to go
wrong.

Actually I'd appreciate any info people have on this design; can't find
any web sites tho there have been quite a few John Pugh designs built.
There are a couple for sale on Boatpoint but in Qld. Long way from
home.

I do have fun playing with OPB but once I finish building my house I'll
have more discretionary time and after the bad fall I had this year,
I'm reconsidering some of my priorities. If I can pass my annual
fitness exam I'll had off southwest of Heard Is in December, loop down
to the continent and get back to Hobart in March. After that, who
knows.

PDW

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

DSK wrote:
Jim Cate wrote:


If you can point to errors in my notes, I'll accept that criticism.
Until then, however, you are just another of the "Moorons" who aren't
willing to put up or shut up.


Hey Jim... I have pointed out many of your errors and you seem very
hostile to new ideas...

As for "put up or shut up" I am not the one making ridiculous & false
claims about my boat because I fervently believe the advertising.

Really? And could you be just a little more specific? Like, if I posted
all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could you cite a few of them?
(And please quote my own words. - No paraphrases or caricatures.)

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Capt. Mooron wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message

| Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
| Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
| painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.
|
| What is a "pivotable" mast? The rig of the Mac 26M appears to be very
| similar to the X. It would be interesting to compare the rig dimensions
| and the IJPE of each.

Amazing! ;-)
Maybe they were different model years?

CM


Ha-ha-ha! Another of your brilliant, erudite essays, Mooron. - How
stupid can you get.

Jim