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into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted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