Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:
Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the

current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



Let me be a little more specific. - What percentage of them were
specifically referring to the Mac 26M.

(Don't forget that it's a sin to tell a lie Sotty.)



(2) How many of the quotes were from individuals who had

actually

sailed the Mac, and in particular, the 26M?


5


Do you have any evidence for this ridiculous statement Sotty?

Of course he doesn't! Like you could *find* 5 people who's admit to
doing anything so stupid....

PDW

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

CJH wrote:
DSK wrote:


But he won't do more sailing than any other trailerable sailboat,
he'll just go slower and have a harder time steering. Why do people
have to act like the Mac26 is the *only* trailerable sailboat?


Sorry, just catching up. I couldn't find my thread. No I haven't
joined the cult just yet. There are too many things to consider and
will have analysis paralysis for a while. So what are the
recommendations for other trailerable sailboats suitable for a family of
four as described in my initial post. If I carry a dingey with motor my
kids would be satiated. Don't worry about tow weight too much, F-350 SD
Diesel can pull quite a bit. I don't want to break the bank on my first
boat. I have some experience but would like to cut my teeth for 2-3
years and then break the bank.

Carl

Your F-350 would easily tow a fairly large boat. The problem with larger
boats is the difficulty involved with getting them launched and taken
out. You might want to look at trailorable boats from Catalina, Hunter,
O'Day, etc. Also consider used boats (check yachtworld.com).

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" wrote in message
et...
Your F-350 would easily tow a fairly large boat. The
problem with larger
boats is the difficulty involved with getting them
launched and taken
out. You might want to look at trailorable boats from
Catalina, Hunter,
O'Day, etc. Anything but a Mac26M!


Good advice Jim.

SBV

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the

current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



Let me be a little more specific. - What percentage of
them were
specifically referring to the Mac 26M.


100%



(2) How many of the quotes were from individuals who
had

actually

sailed the Mac, and in particular, the 26M?


5


Do you have any evidence for this ridiculous statement
Sotty? Like
comments about when and where they sail the 26M, under
what
circumstances, what motor they use, what accessories they
added, and
why they bought a Mac 26M (if they did), etc.

Yes

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Scotty wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
y.net...


Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the

current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



Let me be a little more specific. - What percentage of

them were

specifically referring to the Mac 26M.



100%



(2) How many of the quotes were from individuals who

had

actually


sailed the Mac, and in particular, the 26M?


5


Do you have any evidence for this ridiculous statement

Sotty? Like

comments about when and where they sail the 26M, under

what

circumstances, what motor they use, what accessories they

added, and

why they bought a Mac 26M (if they did), etc.


Yes


Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng, I know of none
who have actually sailed the 26M.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" wrote in message
m...

Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng, I
know of none
who have actually sailed the 26M.


what you know is not necessarily reality.

S

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Your F-350 would easily tow a fairly large boat. The

problem with larger

boats is the difficulty involved with getting them

launched and taken

out. You might want to look at trailorable boats from

Catalina, Hunter,

O'Day, etc. Anything but a Mac26M!



Good advice Jim.

SBV


Thanks,
Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Your F-350 would easily tow a fairly large boat. The

problem with larger

boats is the difficulty involved with getting them

launched and taken

out. You might want to look at trailorable boats from

Catalina, Hunter,

O'Day, etc., in addition to the Mac.



Good advice Jim.

SBV


Thanks,
Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" wrote in message
m...


You might want to look at trailorable boats from

Catalina, Hunter,

O'Day, etc. Anything but a Mac26M!



Good advice Jim.

SBV


Thanks,
Jim

you're welcome.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:

Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng, I know of none
who have actually sailed the 26M.

There was a 26X at my old marina for several years - I even got a bit
friendly with them and had hopes of getting a ride, but in two years I
only saw them out of the slip once. (Curiously, it was when we were
dashing in to beat a major thunderstorm, and they were headed out. I
hoped they were actually headed to the local ramp to haul out.)

I thought my luck would change at my new marina when I realized there
were two Macs within a few slips. In this case I never saw the
owners, and to my knowledge, each one only went out once last summer.

BTW, we had a fire at my storage yard last winter. The Carver
protected the above mentioned 26X:
http://www.sv-loki.com/AH-Fire-1.jpg

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
JimC wrote:

Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng,
I know of none
who have actually sailed the 26M.

There was a 26X at my old marina for several years - I
even got a bit
friendly with them and had hopes of getting a ride, but in
two years I
only saw them out of the slip once. (Curiously, it was
when we were
dashing in to beat a major thunderstorm, and they were
headed out. I
hoped they were actually headed to the local ramp to haul
out.)

I thought my luck would change at my new marina when I
realized there
were two Macs within a few slips. In this case I never
saw the
owners, and to my knowledge, each one only went out once
last summer.


A dock neighbor once commented that he almost always sees my
boat in the slip. He was a weekend warrior, and I usually
go out during the week.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:
(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive answers, just avoid
answering the questions. - Post some more propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the fastest
sailboat"? Or maybe your references to how the water ballast
"begins to work after being lifted above the waterline"?

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:
Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng, I know of
none who have actually sailed the 26M.


I guess having seen several of them sailing many times
doesn't count? BTW did you ever substantiate *any* of your
claims abot the differences between the 26X and 26M other
than the hull color & the (cough) rotating mast?

FWIW I have sailed the 26X a couple of times as well as
sailing in company with them amny times over most of a decade.

Jeff wrote:
There was a 26X at my old marina for several years - I even got a bit
friendly with them and had hopes of getting a ride, but in two years I
only saw them out of the slip once.

Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat
that makes so many compromises to be trailerable, then
keeping it in a slip.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat
that makes so many compromises to be trailerable, then
keeping it in a slip.


Uh oh, where's Scout?

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

DSK wrote:

Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat that makes so
many compromises to be trailerable, then keeping it in a slip.

Not all the compromises are geared soley toward trailerability. For
instance:

o The near-rectangular cross-section gives roominess below.

o The ability to drain the ballast tank, unstep the mast and
turn it into a powerboat.

o The ease of stepping and unstepping the mast if you sail where
there are low bridges.

o Swing up centerboard for getting into (and out of) shallow areas.


All of the above compromises give a certain result that may be desirable
to some. All inhibit sailing performance, but performance isn't the
last word in picking a boat.

And for someone like me who wants to keep their boat right on the water
for easy access, but who takes half a dozen trailering excursions a
season, trailerability & renting a slip aren't necessarily incompatible.

Of course, I'd never own a Mac 26X or 26M.
It has a *motor*. Yeech.

//Walt

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

For the record, let me say that I have seen Scout's boat,
and it sure ain't no Mac26X!



Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat that makes so
many compromises to be trailerable, then keeping it in a slip.


Walt wrote:
Not all the compromises are geared soley toward trailerability. For
instance:


Agreed.

o The near-rectangular cross-section gives roominess below.


Umm, yes... but hey it really doesn't pound in big waves!
Really!!

And that is somewhat of a compromise oriented towards
trailering, it makes it very easy & cheap to make a trailer
that fits the hull ;)


o The ability to drain the ballast tank, unstep the mast and
turn it into a powerboat.


Agreed.

o The ease of stepping and unstepping the mast if you sail where
there are low bridges.


Agreed... although if you couldn't unstep & lower the mast,
trailering would be MUCH more difficult.


o Swing up centerboard for getting into (and out of) shallow areas.


Agreed again, but also (again) lack of this would make
trailering much more difficult.

Some of the features of the Mc26X (and/or M) are synergistic
with trailerability & some other function... but those are
all features shared by MANY other trailerable boats.

That is why I say it's a cult. They acknowledge no other
possibility and declare that their faith trumps facts which
are obvious to other people.



And for someone like me who wants to keep their boat right on the water
for easy access, but who takes half a dozen trailering excursions a
season, trailerability & renting a slip aren't necessarily incompatible.


Yes they are, dammit. Don't be a fence-straddler!


Of course, I'd never own a Mac 26X or 26M.
It has a *motor*. Yeech.


The first boat I ever owned with a motor was after 25 years
of sail-only (and a few row-only or paddle-only) boats, and
one of the first things we did was take the motor out.

Of course, another decade or so went by, and I realized that
motors were not inherently evil...

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

But he won't do more sailing than any other trailerable sailboat,
he'll just go slower and have a harder time steering. Why do people
have to act like the Mac26 is the *only* trailerable sailboat?


CJH wrote:
Sorry, just catching up. I couldn't find my thread.

I told you, those darn cultists are pernicious!

... No I haven't
joined the cult just yet. There are too many things to consider and
will have analysis paralysis for a while. So what are the
recommendations for other trailerable sailboats suitable for a family of
four as described in my initial post. If I carry a dingey with motor my
kids would be satiated.

Get a hell-for-leather sport boat then your kids would
probably have fun blasting past the motorboats with
asymmetric spinnaker. A Henderson 33 or SR-33 or Melges 32?
They're a bit pricey though.


... Don't worry about tow weight too much, F-350 SD
Diesel can pull quite a bit. I don't want to break the bank on my first
boat. I have some experience but would like to cut my teeth for 2-3
years and then break the bank.


OK
Another question I have is, what are your tastes?
Traditional? How about this?
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1441758
or this one (no trailer included it looks like, but these
boats are made to be trailerable
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1468052

Or if your tastes are mor emodern, here's a boat that blow
the doors off a Mac26X (or -M) with their motor at full throttle
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1572063

Or one of these (these boats are actually changing hands in
the mid to upper teen$ so are not as expensive as you might
think)
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1479746

Here's a nice conventional sloop, good performance (popular
racing class, in fact) that should be roomy enough
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1593489

There are a LOT of options out there in the price range of
the Mac 26X, or much cheaper (look for a Mac 25 swing keel,
a good performing boat and the basis of two later model
MacGregors). It may take a bit of hunting but the more
leg-work you do, the better of a boat you'll find.

Hope all the BS that popped up in this thread didn't totally
turn you against sailing, or this ASA newsgroup. The Mac26X
is a controversial boat and attracts doo-flinging. Check out
the Sailing Anarchy forums on the subject and you'll see
some real artists (and cultists) at work.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:
(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive answers, just
avoid answering the questions. - Post some more propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the fastest sailboat"? Or
maybe your references to how the water ballast "begins to work after
being lifted above the waterline"?

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

I missed that comment the first time around. I'd like to see a
stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.

And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:
(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive
answers, just
avoid answering the questions. - Post some more
propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the
fastest sailboat"? Or
maybe your references to how the water ballast "begins
to work after
being lifted above the waterline"?

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

I missed that comment the first time around. I'd like to
see a
stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high
center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.

And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all
the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment
at all.

I think they're including the holding tank on that one.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I used to have a Mac 26D for 10 years and found it a great lake boat as it
only need 18" water and to tow was a dream as you don't need a truck (we
used a Van) because when the water is out, the tow weight is 2500 lbs. while
catalina and Hunters require 3 feet of water but then they are better built
and are heavyer to tow.

The reason I sold the Mac is I now have a Catalina 310.

"CJH" wrote in message
...

Thanks Jim. Interesting comments.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff wrote:

DSK wrote:

JimC wrote:

(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive answers, just
avoid answering the questions. - Post some more propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the fastest sailboat"?

Of course, I never claimed that it would sail faster than other boats.

Or maybe your references to how the water ballast "begins to work
after being lifted above the waterline"?

Where did I say this? - That wasn't my comment at all. - As explained
above.

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

Glad to. As soon as you start quoting what I said, rather than what you
think I said.

stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within the the hull,
in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going vessels. And the
same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.



And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.

Wrong again. it extends about 2/3rds, and the front and rear portions of
the tank taper to sharp end portions and are therefore of little mass
and no real consequence re the distribution of mass.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

CJH wrote:

DSK wrote:


But he won't do more sailing than any other trailerable sailboat,
he'll just go slower and have a harder time steering. Why do people
have to act like the Mac26 is the *only* trailerable sailboat?


Sorry, just catching up. I couldn't find my thread. No I haven't
joined the cult just yet. There are too many things to consider and
will have analysis paralysis for a while. So what are the
recommendations for other trailerable sailboats suitable for a family of
four as described in my initial post. If I carry a dingey with motor my
kids would be satiated. Don't worry about tow weight too much, F-350 SD
Diesel can pull quite a bit. I don't want to break the bank on my first
boat. I have some experience but would like to cut my teeth for 2-3
years and then break the bank.

Carl

As you can see, the Mac discussions can get pretty wild. As pointed
out, most of those who are the most adamant (even bitter) in their
criticism of the Mac have never sailed one of the current models (the
26M), which includes a number of changes. Many have never even sailed
one of the older model Macs!! But if you simply prefer not to subject
yourself to ridicule and sarcasm (as seen on this ng) by going with a
Mac, it would certainly be understandable.

I suggest you check into all the boats mentioned. There are lots of
options and lots of used boats (including Macs) for sale. Keep in mind
that many of the heavier, larger boats are going to be more difficult to
launch and pull out on a trailer because they require substantially more
water depth to float off the trailer. I chose a trailerable boat
because it eliminates the upkeep, slip fees, and maintenance entailed in
keeping the boat in the water. Ours is kept in a lot "mast up" and towed
about 100 yards to the launch area. Some of the smaller ones don't have
the interior room you were looking for. And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there, or when you want to get back to
the marina before heavy weather hits, or when you want to et back to the
marina after a hot day's sail, coming back against the wind. And, of
course, cost is a factor.

If you weren't limited to trailerable boats, your choices on the used
market would be much wider. - But your plan to buy a smaller, cheaper
boat and keep it for three years or so before moving to a larger one
makes sense.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

DSK wrote:

I told you, those darn cultists are pernicious!

Yeah, I didn't want people to think I lobbed a grenade and ran as my
first post to the group.

Get a hell-for-leather sport boat then your kids would probably have fun

That's what they want...all that matters is to go fast and beat the 21ft
Chris-Craft. Oh, and water ski and tube, etc. I was just looking at
sailboats and my sons were changing "motor boat, motor boat" in the
background.

OK
Another question I have is, what are your tastes? Traditional?

Ignoring my family's taste as described above, my taste is traditional.
My first preference would be a traditional sail boat in a slip
at Oceanside Harbor.

I like this boat below. I am 90% sure it is owned by the guy who sold
my friend his boat (he had 3). It's not what I'm looking for but I like it.
http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_de...p%26is%3Dfalse

Here's another that I like that is more in my price range.
http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_de...0%26is%3Dfalse

I'm not in any hurry. The key is to have the money on stand by and wait
for the right boat to come along.

I have been thinking about building a Bateau V10 with my boys while I
research and wait. The idea is that we can use this as a lake boat when
we go camping and they can learn from the building process. Then I
change my mind and think that I should just buy a small sail or motor
boat and enjoy it while waiting. Analysis paralysis sets in and I take
a valium and go to bed.


Hope all the BS that popped up in this thread didn't totally turn you
against sailing, or this ASA newsgroup.

No, it hasn't turned me off but I have held my tongue! You definitely
need to watch what you say around here. I haven't taken the Mac off of
my list yet. (oh god, I said it.)

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" wrote in message
m...
.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within
the the hull,
in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going
vessels. And the
same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.


Tall ships had oversized outboards?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare, in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:
stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within the the hull,
in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going vessels.

Yes, and more than a few modern vessels have rolled over. Keeping
track of weight distribution is one of the primary jobs if the first
officer on most ships. Using phrases like "operates on the same
principle" is like saying it "obeys the laws of physics." It was wise
of you to avoid those boats that don't obey the laws of physics.

When you look at the long list of warnings, such as:

NO MORE THAN 6 PERSONS, 960 POUNDS.

WHEN POWERING OVER 6 MILES PER HOUR:
- NO ONE ON THE CABIN TOP OR FOREDECK.

and

NEVER POWER THE BOAT OVER 6 MILES PER HOUR WITH THE SAILS UP.
The result could be instant capsize.

its clear that there are issues here. And I should add, the my real
point here is that these issues simply do not exist on "normal" boats.

And of course, we don't want to even consider the issues if the
ballast tank is empty.

In the past you've poo-poo'd these warnings as just "lawyer talk," but
I hope now that you've had the boat for a while you take them more
seriously.

And the
same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.

I really don't think you want to use the stability qualities of
traditional ships as an example. And remember, even they used ballast
with a specific gravity somewhat greater than one.



And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.

Wrong again. it extends about 2/3rds, and the front and rear portions of
the tank taper to sharp end portions and are therefore of little mass
and no real consequence re the distribution of mass.

Not according to the published diagram:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Its pretty clear from this that the ballast extends all the way
forward, and that in fact a substantial amount is forward of the mast.
You should really spend some time learning about your boat, Jim.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Get a hell-for-leather sport boat then your kids would probably have fun


CJH wrote:
That's what they want...all that matters is to go fast and beat the 21ft
Chris-Craft. Oh, and water ski and tube, etc. I was just looking at
sailboats and my sons were changing "motor boat, motor boat" in the
background.


http://www.rocketboats.com/home.html

You could name it "Motor Boat."
Actually one of these would be pretty cramped for a family,
but it would make a great camper-cruiser. And it's total
blast, under the right conditions (windy) would beat that
Chris-Craft!


I like this boat below. I am 90% sure it is owned by the guy who sold
my friend his boat (he had 3). It's not what I'm looking for but I like
it.
http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_de...p%26is%3Dfalse


Those are nice, used to be one just down the dock from us...
a couple that had circumnavigated in it. Not a boat for
speed thrills though ;)



Here's another that I like that is more in my price range.
http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_de...0%26is%3Dfalse


Kinda like Pizza Hut though, I mean you see them everywhere.
And not trailerable, although there are a few boats of
similar form that are trailerable. That S-2 7.9 is a bit
smaller but should still be roomy enough for a family of 4
and has better performance than the Catalina 27 (much
better, but it's not a motor boat substitute).




I'm not in any hurry. The key is to have the money on stand by and wait
for the right boat to come along.


Or get something that's relatively inexpensive to start
having fun now... not to be in a hurry but to get some miles
of water under you & your kids!

One of the best things about a small to medium sized
sailboat, from a kids standpoint, is that he (or she) can
command it. It's much much safer than a car (once they learn
the basics), they can be totally independent, they can bring
friends along.



I have been thinking about building a Bateau V10 with my boys while I
research and wait. The idea is that we can use this as a lake boat when
we go camping and they can learn from the building process.

That sounds like fun too. Good basis for practical skills
that will come in handy later on.


Then I
change my mind and think that I should just buy a small sail or motor
boat and enjoy it while waiting. Analysis paralysis sets in and I take
a valium and go to bed.


Old engineering maxim: "If you have enough information, the
decision makes itself."

I'm facing a somewhat similar problem myself, wanting to get
a boat for fun sailing & maybe some racing, but keep
thinking about a traditional boat for sailing with my
father... maybe a small gaff cutter... but then I also have
a lot of major & hectic disturbances in my life this year,
so can't really make any headway on it.



I haven't taken the Mac off of
my list yet. (oh god, I said it.)

S'OK... just don't convince yourself it's the *ONLY* option,
or that you want it for reasons that turn out to be false
(like how it's blazing fast). If it works for you, then that
would be great.

BTW if this helps, I've pulled tubes & boogie boards with
medium size racing sailboats. It's more fun than you'd
think. In fact I once sailed 9 miles pulling a college buddy
on a surfboard, flying a spinnaker, in a Lightning... brief
film on TV with that one.

DSK

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
m...

.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within

the the hull,

in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going

vessels. And the

same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.



Tall ships had oversized outboards?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare, in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV


Both the Mac 26M and most tall ships had internal ballast positioned in
lower portions of the hull. The fact that the Mac also has an outboard
is, of course, not relevant.

Incidentally, I crewed on a tall ship (the 1877 Elissa, docked in
Galveston) and gave tours explaining its operation and history.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand, there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare,
in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV


Both


Oh that's right, you're from Texas.






Incidentally, I crewed on a tall ship (the 1877 Elissa,
docked in
Galveston) and gave tours explaining its operation and
history.


Your point?


SBV

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...


Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this
is laughable. The
lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water
than the MAC26M


Brilliant! Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself?
Did you ask Jax?

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Scotty" wrote
| "Charlie Morgan" wrote |
| Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this
| is laughable. The
| lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water
| than the MAC26M
|
| Brilliant! Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself?
| Did you ask Jax?


Charlie Morgan shoulda said "Sailboats are so different from a Mac26M that this is laughable.
The Mac26M is at the lowest end of sailboats." Who's Jax?

Cheers,
Ellen (just luvs to tease JimC - the dumbest lawyer ever.....)

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Scotty" wrote
| Oh that's right, you're from Texas.

That's where the Dixie Chicks are from, too. And Natalie Mangy. He must be related.....

Cheers,
Ellen

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

So you need to have onboard a battery charger operated off shore power?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I have a pair of solar , trickle chargers, that keep the
batteries up while I'm away. While cruising, I don't use
much power. I like to use the oil lamps and/or candles at
night.

Scotty


"Edgar" wrote in message
...

So you need to have onboard a battery charger operated off
shore power?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina,
and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole
point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other
hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat
requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time
(if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind,
crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so
it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor
most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat,
you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:42:52 -0500, "Scotty"
wrote:

I guess I'm spoiled.

Scotty


You just taste that way.

CWM

very disturbing...

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

I have a shore power connection with bat charger. Haven't started cruising
long distances, so I don't need anything more.

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

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

So you need to have onboard a battery charger operated off shore power?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:46:57 GMT, JimC wrote:



Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.com...


.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within

the the hull,


in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going

vessels. And the


same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.



Tall ships had oversized outboards?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare, in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV


Both the Mac 26M and most tall ships had internal ballast positioned in
lower portions of the hull. The fact that the Mac also has an outboard
is, of course, not relevant.

Incidentally, I crewed on a tall ship (the 1877 Elissa, docked in
Galveston) and gave tours explaining its operation and history.

Jim


Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this is laughable. The
lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water than the MAC26M
relative to the amount of structure and weight carried above the waterline. You
will also note that tall ships did not use water for ballast, because it is far
too light compared to stones, bricks and iron scrap, even when you take into
account the airspaces in piles of stone or scrap. Water ballast is the least
desirable.

CWM


The point is that ships have been using ballast in the lower portions of
their hulls (as does the Mac) for hundreds of years. Whether it's a tall
ship or short ship, a sailboat or power boat, water or permanent
ballast, the principle is the same. And most ocean-going vessels still
use ballast tanks for holding water in the lower portions of such
vessels. (That's what keeps those container vessels from tipping over.)

You say that the tall ships are deeper than a Mac. Still, both used or
use ballast positioned within the hull and below the waterline.

You say that tall ships didn't use water for ballast. Right you are. -
That came later (after marine design became more sophisticated). But
they did use ballast positioned in the lower portion of the hull, as
does the Mac.

You say that tall ships used stones, brick, etc., rather than water.
Nevertheless, the same principles apply.

You imply that water ballast is the least desirable. - In that case,
you should complement MacGregor for adding solid, permanent ballast to
the 26M in addition to water ballast. Of course, if they used only
permanent ballast, they would loose the advantages gained by using
water ballast that can be removed to lighten the boat during trailoring,
or for high-speed motoring, etc. And if they used only permanent
ballast, the boat would quickly sink to the bottom in the event the hull
was seriously compromised, as do most weighted-hull sailboats.

You say that tall ships are so different from the Mac that the
comparison is laughable. Nevertheless, the same principles apply. -
sails acting to power the vessel, keel acting to limit lateral movement,
and ballast, positioned below the waterline, to lower the center of mass
and prevent capsizing of the vessel and limit heeling.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.


It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within the the
hull, in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going vessels.


Yes, and more than a few modern vessels have rolled over.

----As have more than a few conventional sailboats! - And when they do
roll over, conventional sailboats sometimes don't come back up. And in
that case, they can quickly sink to the bottom (unlike the Mac, which,
because of its lightweight and flotation, will stay afloat.


Keeping track
of weight distribution is one of the primary jobs if the first officer
on most ships.

And your point is.....?


Using phrases like "operates on the same principle" is
like saying it "obeys the laws of physics." It was wise of you to avoid
those boats that don't obey the laws of physics.

Again, what's your point? Obviously, they all obey the laws of physics.
And they all use ballast, positioned within the hull and below the
waterline, to prevent capsizing and limit heeling.



When you look at the long list of warnings, such as:

NO MORE THAN 6 PERSONS, 960 POUNDS.

WHEN POWERING OVER 6 MILES PER HOUR:
- NO ONE ON THE CABIN TOP OR FOREDECK.

and

NEVER POWER THE BOAT OVER 6 MILES PER HOUR WITH THE SAILS UP.
The result could be instant capsize.

its clear that there are issues here. And I should add, the my real
point here is that these issues simply do not exist on "normal" boats.


Right you are. - Macs are different from "normal" sailboats. - "Normal"
sailboats have a weighted keel that can quickly drag the boat to the
bottom of the ocean in the event the boat capsizes or experiences a
breach below the water-line. "Normal" sailboats don't float if the hull
is breached, or if a substantial amount of water enters the cabin, for
whatever reason. The Mac, on the other hand, will stay afloat, and, even
in the event of excessive heeling, with the sails in the water, tends to
come back up.


And of course, we don't want to even consider the issues if the ballast
tank is empty.


Right. But even in that circumstance, the boat would still float,
whereas a conventional boat with weighted keel would quickly sink to the
bottom under the circumstances outlined above.


In the past you've poo-poo'd these warnings as just "lawyer talk," but I
hope now that you've had the boat for a while you take them more seriously.


The Mac 26M owners' manual includes instructions for operating the boat
without the water ballast under power in moderate conditions. It's
another example of the versatility of the boat.


And the same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.


I really don't think you want to use the stability qualities of
traditional ships as an example. And remember, even they used ballast
with a specific gravity somewhat greater than one.

Obviously, principles of marine design have advanced since the days of
Columbus, et al. Nevertheless, both the Mac and early (and modern)
ocean going ships use ballast positioned within the hull and below the
waterline. Most modern ships have ballast tanks that can be filled as
required. Regarding the fact that tall ships used ballast with a
specific gravity somewhat greater than one, so does the Mac 26M. - The
use of permanent ballast, heavier than water, in addition to removable
water ballast is one of the features introduced in the Mac 26M.





And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way
from stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.


Wrong again. it extends about 2/3rds, and the front and rear portions
of the tank taper to sharp end portions and are therefore of little
mass and no real consequence re the distribution of mass.

Not according to the published diagram:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Its pretty clear from this that the ballast extends all the way forward,
and that in fact a substantial amount is forward of the mast. You
should really spend some time learning about your boat, Jim.

Jeff, did you happen to take courses in geometry and logic in high
school or junior high? The reason I ask is that you obviously know
nothing about either subject. - The fact that the water ballast tank in
the Mac extends toward the bow, forward of the mast, is not
determinative of whether it extends about 2/3rd the length of the boat.
(Remember that my statement was in response to Scotty's ridiculous
remark that the water ballast extends "all the way from stem to stern."
- Why didn't you criticize Scotty for making such a stupid remark?)
Also, the ballast tank is tapered at the front and back such that the
volume (and mass) of water held at the front and rear portions is
substantially less then that held toward amidships. Additionally, the
heavier, permanent ballast is positioned amidships, below the mast.

Jeff, I've sailed many boats. The Mac 26M doesn't pitch excessively and
doesn't pitch more than most others. (Have you sailed the 26M? - No?)
Seems to me that this is just one more example of the fact that the most
opinionated, inflexible critics of the Mac 26m are those who have never
sailed one.


Jim