"katy" wrote in message
...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship
and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I
were
to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.


We'd give you a tomato broadside! Har har.
snort...catch up...snort

Seahag


THAT was SO bad!

Not as bad as ''pin your skin to the yardarm....''.

Scotty

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"Scotty" wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote:
Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games
when
sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship
and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I
were
to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.

We'd give you a tomato broadside! Har har.
snort...catch up...snort


Awk.....a tossed salad !

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast,
but then
you're in deep **** if it died,


you're in DEEP **** as soon as you step aboard a
Mac26Xm.

Scotty




Even on the trailer?


deep, DEEP.....

Scotty wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship
and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I

were

to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.


We'd give you a tomato broadside! Har har.
snort...catch up...snort

Seahag



THAT was SO bad!


Not as bad as ''pin your skin to the yardarm....''.

Scotty



There's bad..and then there's wicked...

"JimC" wrote in message
t...
Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad nauseum, the
following is still true:

crap snipped


You both need to learn how to trim your posts.


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

"katy" wrote:
Scotty wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when

sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship
and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were
to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.



We;d kull you...deader than a doornail....and pin your
skin to the yardarm....

Might need it for a spinnaker to outrun Jonathan!

Seahag

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad nauseum, the
following is still true:






1. Your theories relating to the effects of weight DISTRIBUTION on
the boat are wrong. - The boat does not pitch excessively, and it
sails steadily with little corrective helm. - When you have sailed a
26M on several occasions, then you can come back and tell us about all
the terrible effects weight DISTRIBUTION on the 26M were causing. -
Meanwhile, despite all your yada, yada, yadas, and all your theories,
you have never sailed the 26M and you really don't know how it handles
or sails. And meanwhile, I'll continue enjoying sailing the boat.


My theories are wrong? Sorry, this isn't my theory at all. It's common
physics and will be mentioned in any text on yacht design. Calculation
of the pitch moment is a fundamental of design. Anyone who has raced
one designs understands this - having a few crew members move to the bow
and stern while sailing alongside a sister ship provides an easy
demonstration. Most sailors take this very seriously - they will
carefully consider the weight of any gear placed in the bow or stern.
Powerboats also - those big Hatteras' have their 1000 gallon fuel tanks
placed precisely at the "pitch center" of the boat.

Further, nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably. I did mention once that I've seen them
"bob around" a lot more than other boats, but I've also said I've seen
so few of them actually sailing that I can't make a definitive statement.

The problem is that you've focused all of your energy denying that the
Mac has weight distributed more towards the extremities than normally
ballasted boats. This is an obvious, undeniably fact and yet you wasted
any shred of credibility you think you have on claiming that it not so.

What you should have done is consider what other features of your boat
work to reduce any tendency to pitch. For example, boats that are
overly symmetrical tend to pitch more because the resistance doesn't
change as it pitches. Full bows and overhangs that provide reserve
buoyancy work in the opposite way and reduce the tendency to pitch, as
does moving the point of maximum beam well aft. But no, you preferred
to look like a fool arguing that an oversized outboard hanging on the
stern doesn't affect the moment at all.


Jeff, when you have sailed one of the 26Ms several times, come back and
tell us all about the problems you think are caused by weight
distribution or "over symmetrical" design in the Mac 26M. Until then,
you are guestimating about the sailing characteristics of a rather small
boat with a number of unusual design characteristics.

2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant
safety factor are just that. - Theories. Neither you or I have stats
on the significance of the efficacy of the double hull section. The
difference between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge it, whereas
you want to continue ranting and raving about it. But from my
experience with the boat, the double-hull section, positioned along
the lowermost portion of the hull from bow to aft of amidships, could
be effective to prevent incursion of sea water into the cabin if the
boat were planing and ran over a piece of wood or whatever floating at
or just below the surface. - A further factor is that visibility
directly forward of the boat can be partially obscured when planing.

I have little doubt that the double layer in certain parts of the hull
could, in some circumstances, prevent a hull breech. I'm not sure what
you mean by "from my experience" unless you're saying you frequently hit
things and while they penetrate the outer layer, you have never holed
the inner layer.


My experience with the boat has indicated that in it's typical
orientatin when plaining, the lower portion of the hull (where the
ballast tank is) is the portion cutting throught the surface of the
water below which where partially submerged objects float. Also, my
experience is that it's difficult to see objects immediately forward of
the hull when the boat is plaining.


The issues are whether this represents a significant safety feature, or
whether this can be considered a "double hull."

Clarification. - I never said that it was a "significant" safety
feature. (That was your intepretation.) It is, however, a safety factor
not available on most sailing vessels.


1. First and foremost, the manufacturer makes absolutely no claims
about this on the web site or in any literature. One would think that
if this is a significant feature, it would be mentioned.

(See comments below.)

2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere. The doubled portion of the Mac's hull is less than half,
perhaps less than a quarter. While this might offer some benefit, it
really isn't much different from any other hull where certain areas have
extra reinforcement, or an integral water or fuel tank. My boat, BTW,
has collision bulkheads in the forward part of each bow such that I
could totally crunch one or even both bows and not take in a drop of
water. This is a true safety feature, worth mentioning.

3. For any boat with a traditional hull form and keel, the risk of a
breech in the areas so protected in the Mac are pretty low. For
instance, hitting a rock on the centerline would be much more likely to
strike the keel, or the heavily protected stem. Almost every case of a
serious breech that I've seen has actually been on the side, which is
unprotected on the Mac. (This is from collisions, or a glancing blow to
a rock.)

As explained above, the lower portion of the Mac (the centerline ridge
and adjacent portions extending under the ballast tank), is the the
portion that cuts through the water when planing. I therefore submit tha
it's likely, in at least some instances, to try to "cut through" a
floating object in the path of the boat. (Incidentally, how many cases
of serious breech of a Mac 26M have you seen?)

4. This is actually a pretty small risk for most sailboats - the number
of sinkings is extremely small. In spite of the fact that you've
mentioned many times that all other sailboats would "sink to the bottom"
there are very, very few deaths occur from this in protected waters.

By "protected waters," are you implying that most skippers of
conventional sailboats don't venture out beyond protected bays or
waterways, Jeff? Also, "most sailboats" aren't capable of planing, as is
the 26M. I would suspect that there is some increased potential for
accidents as speed increases, though I don't know that. As mentioned in
my note, NEITHER YOU NOR I know how much of a safety factor the double
hull provided by the 26M is. - (It might help clarify the matter if you
would admit that particular fact.)


5. You have mentioned many times that the boat has flotation and is
unsinkable. Thus, this is not a feature that would prevent sinking.


Nope. But its another safety factor that would be nice to have in an
emergency. Might permit sailing or motoring the boat back to shore at
low speeds, for example.


6. If the outer layer of the tank were breeched and you continued on at
speed, you would actually have a dangerous situation of a partially full
tank which could induce a capsize. This is actually a bigger risk than
sinking.


Maybe. Maybe not. And in all probability a responsible skipper would
sense a collision with a floating object large enough to breech the
outer hull, and stop the boat.

7. Did I mention that even the manufacturer doesn't seem to consider
this a safety feature?


Yes, you did Jeff. But you never explained why you mentioned it. -
Plausible reasons could include the fact that the manufacturer doesn't
want to discuss such unpleasant, negative possibilities in sales
literature intended to promote the pleasures of sailing.


I could probably find a few more items to add, but this is enough.

My objection to your numerous references to the double hull or liner is
that you have often described this as an important feature

where did I say it was an "important factor"? The note you reference
lists it as only one of a number of features.


that makes
the Mac superior to other boats.

Where did I say that the Mac was superior to other boats? - Although I
have said that it includes a number of advantages, I haven't said it was
"superior to other boats." In fact, I have said that my personal
preference would be the Valiant 40. - I have consistently stated that
the Mac entails both advantages and limitations.


For example, on 9/15/04 you responded
to a request for recommendations by extolling the virtues of the Mac.
You listed as "advantages over other boats" in this order: a "double
double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is penetrated,
water from the resulting opening normally does not enter the cabin,"
flotation in the mast, and foam flotation. You made no mention of the
fact that the "double hull" only gives very limited protection. Also,
you never mentioned that the mast flotation, while handy in dinghies,
shouldn't be needed in boats unless they are prone to capsizing. Even
the Mac shouldn't ever capsize, assuming the ballast tank is full.

Again, I only mentioned the double liner as one of a number of
advantageous features. And in many others of my notes citing
advantageous features of the Mac, I haven't even mentioned the double
hull factor.

3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics. - In view of the thousands of
Macs sold and in use, if they were inherently unsafe, you should be
able to come up with hundreds of examples of crews being lost, boats
sinking, rigging coming to pieces, boat foundering and filling with
water, etc., etc. - But all you have is an example in which the
captain was drunk, the boat severely overloaded, and in which the
captain did not have any understanding of the boat or its water
ballast system. ANECDOTES, and statements like: "everybody knows
that....." don't cut it, Jeff. If the boat is inherently dangerous,
give us evidence or stats on the percentages of Macs that have failed
at sea, or on which crew or skipper have been killed or critically
injured. While its true that positive flotation COULD be installed in
conventional sailboats, it normally IS NOT offered. And its a
significant safety factor on the Mac.


You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there would
be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few accidents
at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over.

If that's true, why is the title of this particular subject string
"Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy"? And why do many other notes on
this ng (from you and others) speak of safety issues of the Mac? -
Why waste our time talking about safety issues if they aren't a major
factor?


You've frequently
claimed the Mac is safer than other boats because of certain features,
but if these other boats are so unsafe, why aren't there hundreds of
fatalities with them?

The truth is, while there are over 50,000 aux sailboats 26-40 feet there
are only a couple of fatalities per year in this class of boats. I
don't have access to the raw data so its hard to break things out, but
the numbers would seem to indicate a risk on the order of 1 per 20,000
per year.


Again, why have multiple contributors to discussions on asa posted
notes wailing about poor construction and related safety hazards on the
Mac? That pattern is pretty obvious, Jeff. Again, why waste our time if
it's not of concern?


There are two implications of this. One is that any claim that the Mac
is safer than other boats suffers from a lack of evidence the other
boats are in any way unsafe. But on the other hand, we know of at least
three deaths related specifically to the unique properties of the Mac
26X. If we assume 5000 were built, this represent more than what one
might expect.

One of 5000 represens more than what one would expect, Jeff?? Where did
you get that particular assertion? - Also, the production of Macs of
this class is much more than 5,000.


In other words, from this single incident the 26X has had
more than its share of fatalities since its launch and for some years
into the future.


Nope. That's another example of one of theories you have thrown out for
which you have no evidence whatsoever.


What was more troubling about these deaths is that they were caused
specifically by the unusual properties of the Mac. On any other 26 foot
sailboat, 8 adults would not be "seriously overloaded." On any other 26
foot sailboat, goosing the throttle when stopped would not result in an
roll over in a flat calm, windless evening.

Of course, you actually don't know don't know whether a drunk skipper
"goosing" the throttle and making a sharp turn in another small sailboat
overloaded with drunk adults sitting close to the bow could result in a
roll over.


Yes, the company avoided a
disastrous lawsuit because helmsman was inebriated, but so are half the
boaters out there, especially on the 4th of July when this took place.
Had those children been in any other 26 foot sailboat, they would still
be alive.

That's enother of your unsubstantiated theories, of course. But even if
true, the fact that this is the ONLY example you can come up with
strongly suggests that the boat is not inherently unsafe. Also, you
conveniently forget that the boat in question was not the current model
(which, after all, is the boat I have been discussing all along) which
includes permanent ballast in addition to the water ballast, and foam
flotation built into the mast. - (The permanent ballast on the 26M works
even when the skipper is drunk.) Again, I'm not saying that I know a 26M
wouldn't have capsized under the circumstances. - I'm merely saying
that neither you or I know what would have happened if the boat had been
a 26M, or if it had been a small boat from another manufacturer. And
please don't tell me you KNOW what would have happened under the
circumstances on another boat. - You don't.


My point on the Mac is not that it is so unsafe that anyone foolish
enough to buy one will likely die. My point has been that some of the
features that are used as selling points have safety risks that would
not be an issue on any other sailboat. In particular, the high speeds
that can be achieved without ballast are only safe if the operator
follows a lengthy list of warnings. These include only four people on
the boat (2 if they are your weight), no one on deck, no one forward
below, sails removed, board and rudders up, chop under one foot (and
therefore presumably a light wind), water should be warm.

Not a particularly "long" list, IMO, and it's certainly understood
clearly by Mac 26M skippers who post to the Mac discussion groups. In my
case, since I'm rather conservative and often sail solo, I haven't
sailed or motored without the ballast. - That makes it rather simple.


None of these warnings would apply on a traditional boat. However, the
speed of the boat is its major feature, and the feature that drives most
of the design.

It's plenty fast with the ballast tank filled. Removing the water
ballast adds only a few mph to top speed.

Further, the boat appeals mainly to novices. I find it
rather troubling that people unfamiliar with boats would have to
understand a list of warnings that would never come up in their ordinary
experience.


That's sort of like telling an inexperienced sports car enthusiast to
stick with a Honda or Toyota instead of buying a Vette or a Porsche,
because the Vette and Porsche has the potential of going over 140, or
whatever, and he COULD get into trouble. - What's the point?


BTW, I'll remind you that although you mentioned the high speeds a
number of times before you bought the boat, since then you've admitted
that you actually power at the lower speed that I predicted you would.

At partial throttle, with the ballast, when coming back through
high-traffic waters.

4. You have consistently ignored or brushed aside the many advantages
of the Mac design. - You fail to acknowledge that the ability to carry
a larger outboard does indeed provide a number of advantages relating
both to the ability to get to desired sailing areas, the ability to
maneuver against adverse winds and weather, family recreational uses,
etc. While not denying the advantages of a diesel as far as cog, etc.,
the larger engines does get the job done and does provide greater
versatility and other advantages. - Yes, a conventional sailboat
doesn't need such an engine, and may have a greater range, but that
doesn't mean that the Mac arrangement doesn't provide a number of
other advantages. While the high freeboard does entail disadvantages,
it also provides a number of advantages. - Very few small sailboats
have anywhere near the room and accommodations provided in the Mac.


I reserve the right to ignore anything I want. The Mac has enough
attributes that I dislike that I have no desire to belabor the few that
might be of interest.

In other words, you have all the time in the world to belabor what you
consider the limitations of the Mac, but very little time to consider
the advantages. - Well, we all know what a busy guy you are Jeff.

However, I will admit that I appreciate boats that can power fast, and
I've admitted that a substantial amount of my cruising has been done
under power.

I've even said that for some people the Mac is a reasonable boat. I've
even said that given its design goals it might be the best solution out
there. There is certainly no doubt that it is popular.

However, the particular combination of features is meaningless unless
you actually need them. For instance, if you leave the boat in the
slip, the easy trailorability is of marginal value. While a few people
can argue a real need to power at speed to get to a reasonable cruising
ground, the vast majority of sailors seem to make do with powering at a
lower speed.

Only if you need them? How about if you want them? Re the vast majority
of sailors, most of them haven't sailed a Mac. In effect, they actually
don't know what they are missing. (Considering not only the advantages
of speed, but also the numerous other factors. )


And given that the Mac is one of the worst sailers out there, its hard
to justify your claim elsewhere that it "serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time."
Certainly anyone who has as a high priority a boat that is a good sailer
would not choose a Mac.


The Mac is lots of fun to sail, to power, to use for family recreation,
for socializing, for cruising, for anchoring, etc. It's not suitable
for extended crossings, live aboards, extended cruises with a large
crew, etc. My point was that 90% of sailors don't take their boats on
extended crossings or live aboard their boats. Actually, judging from
the thousands of boat kept in marinas in our area (third largest center
of pleasure boats in the country) most of them leave their boats tied up
alongside thousands of other boats in various marinas while they work to
pay the slip fees and maintenance costs.



6. As to costs, you and others seem to always compare the cost of
15-year old used boats to that of new Macs. If you are going to
compare costs, take the apples and apples approach. - If you you want
to talk about new boats, compare costs of both new conventional boats
and new Macs, with equivalent equipment. And then add in the costs of
slip fees, maintenance, bottom treatments, etc.


Actually I haven't made that big an issue of the costs. I do think that
there are much better ways to spend 30 kilobucks. I, for instance,
might buy a nice used overnighter plus a small powerboat. But I might
also look for a small cruiser, like a Nonsuch 26.

However, one point I've made about Macs is that they seem to depreciate
faster than other boats.


There are a number of five year old Macs that
are asking roughly 60% of the original price. This does not speak well
of their quality or desirability. When you see an ad offering a 2002 at
$12-14K under the purchase price and claiming "only used 8 or 9 times"
you really have to wonder if this person was happy he bought it.


Yes, you have made that claim, Jeff. - But you haven't backed it up with
any meaningful stats. Quickly glancing through the current listings of
Mac 26M's on Yachtworld.com, the asking prices are as follows:
$29,900, 25,000, 25,625, 32,500, 48,476, 19,900, 40,457, 29,900, 26,900,
23,900, 33,500. Going back another five years (which would relate to
the older,26X model) the average asking price is around $20,000.
Obviously, these figures don't tell us what the boats are actually
selling for, or what condition they're in, or how they're equipped or
what motor they have, if any. (Nor do your figures re the 2002 model.)
Also, Macs built ten years ago were selling new for substantially less
than new 26 M's today,so the depreciation (for older boats) should be
considered as depreciation from what they were selling for new (ten
years ago), not what the 26M sells for new. Obviously.

Compare those figures with current prices for new, conventional boats
relative to selling prices of equivalents with 5-10 years
depreciation. Also, compare the TOTAL costs new (including equipment,
setup, bottom treatment, transportation, etc.), with the
total cost of a new 26M. (Incidentally, there are lots and lots of
sailboats for sale on YachtWorld in the Houston area, but I don't see
any Mac 26X's or 26M's currently offered, even though there are lots of
them in the area.)


6. And, it's lots of fun to sail.


When I was a kid I found an old cement mixing tub. I turned it into my
yacht and had a ball with it! So that can be your motto: "A Mac! As
much fun as a cement tub!"

And when you played with your cement mixing tub, Jeff, did you have
experience sailing various boats such as the Beneteau 39, the O'Day 39,
Valiant 40, and various Catalinas, Cals, Endeavors, Sabre, etc.?

That was my experience. - Not exactly an equivalent analogy, is it?

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:
Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when sailing...like
what if the engine dies? Can I get back to something resembling a safe-haven
without the engine... is the ebb so strong that in light winds I'll have a
problem if the engine dies...

I wonder if he contemplates reaching for the engine if there's an MOB?


That's not the way he was trained, so I don't think that's what he would
do. - More likely, he would throw a float to the mob, appoint a watch,
and quickly go through a figure-eight maneuver under sail.

Jim

Jeff wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as
powerful as all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?


Because the "sailor" driving it is either insecure about himself or
not experienced enough to deal with the conditions, including "getting
to the sailing area" under sail. The engine should be a last resort.


Yes, this one has had me thinking some. I understand Jim's point that
the high freeboard can cause a bit of a problem. However, the small
sail area on the boat only generates a limited amount of power. I
can't find my reference (Gere's book) but I think all he could count on
from his sails in 14 kts would be around 6 HP. Even doubling the wind
only brings it up to 24 HP. Certainly others of his size, such as
Neal's banana boat, can get up to hull speed with an engine under 10 hp.


The small sail area generates limited power, but the freeboard is rather
large, and under heavy winds, it can also generate "power".
Additionally, the boat is lightweight, has no weighted keel, etc.



So claiming that 50 hp is required to power the boat is essentially
claiming that the boat would be unmanageable under sail. In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast, but then you're
in deep **** if it died, because the sails do not generate enough power
to get you back.

First, I'm not saying that you "need 50 hp to power the boat." You could
probably get by with 15 - 25. I do think that you need something larger
than the typical 5 - 10 hp often used on boats of this size, and that
having a large motor provides reserve power and additional control that
is nice to have in severe conditions. The 50 hp is needed if you want to
plane with full load, but I think 20 hp would probably be enough for
getting through most heavy weather conditions.

As to getting back if the motor failed, I think the boat would get back
safely with reduced sail under most conditions. - In the Mac discussion
groups, other Mac owners speak of their boats performing well (though
not comfortably) in some pretty wild conditions, and I don't recall
hearing about any who couldn't get back to shore. On the other hand, I
personally don't want to head out in known severe or threatening conditions.

Jim

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote:
Scotty wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when

sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.



We;d kull you...deader than a doornail....and pin your skin to the
yardarm....

Might need it for a spinnaker to outrun Jonathan!

Seahag




Cruising chute... :-)

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