Jim Cate wrote:
... Fyi, the Mac 26M is an entirely new boat incorporating a
totally different hull design, a pivotable mast, and a dagger board,
NONE OF WHICH were used in the Mac 26X or 19.

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.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:
Jim Cate wrote:

... Fyi, the Mac 26M is an entirely new boat incorporating a totally
different hull design, a pivotable mast, and a dagger board, NONE OF
WHICH were used in the Mac 26X or 19.


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.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

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into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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

"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
|

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"

"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

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"

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

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

"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.

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