Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:

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.


Nope. Cross-sections #4 and #5 clearly show that the ballast tank has
narrowed toward the stern such that there is an insignificant volume
(and mass) toward the stern. Instead, by far the greatest volume (and
mass) is in the area near the mast. Thus, the water ballast tank, with
greatest mass located near the center of the boat, would help rather
than augment any pitching moment.





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.


I never questioned whether there was a substantial amount forward of the
mast. Nevertheless, since the hull, and the tank, narrows toward the
bow, and since the lever arm extending from the mast to the bow is
relatively short, water ballast at the bow would have little effect on
the distribution of mass.

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.


Actually, I majored in Naval Architecture for two years before switching
to Physics. Then I worked for NASA for 6 years. Any more questions?


Yes, several. - If you majored in physics and Naval Architecture, why do
you seem to know so little about them. And, what did you do for NASA. -
Surely you weren't designing any boats for them, I hope. (Incidentally,
I worked for NASA for 11 years, and was recently asked to do more work
for them.)


- 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.


It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area. The
cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to be by
far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water ballast is
forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?


The issue, of course, is whether the mass is substantially centered
or whether substantial mass exists at the bow and stern, which might
affect the distribution of mass throughout the length of the boat. Since
that's the substantive issue, why don't we concentrate on that one.

And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of mass
in the extremities.


Nope. The hull is built to handle the weight of the motor. As well as
the weight of several adults in the cockpit.


(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?)


Because I made it. And is what is your problem with it? Are you
claiming that the diagram on the Mac site is faulty, that the tank does
not run the entire length? Or are you arguing on the meaning of "stem
to stern"?

As stated, the drawings clearly show that the ballast tank has narrowed
toward the stern such that there is an insignificant volume of ballast
water (and mass) toward the stern. Instead, by far the greatest volume
(and mass) is in the area near the mast. Thus, the water ballast tank,
with greatest mass located near the center of the boat, would help
rather than augment any pitching moment.


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.


Clearly, there seems to be little ballast in the stern, but with the
heavy engine, plus the possibility of a full cockpit, its probably not
possible. However, the largest cross-section of the tank is shown at
the station halfway between the keel and the bow at the waterline.

While the bow obviously "tapers in" (yes indeed, they did make the bow
at the pointy end) which means the ballast must be reduced in the
forward few feet, but so is the buoyancy.

Additionally, the heavier, permanent ballast is positioned amidships,
below the mast.


Just where ballast should be. Good for them.


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?)


I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out. I have
sailed by them a number of times and they do seem to bob around more
than heavier boats.


Perhaps you need to have your eyes examined.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:

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.


Nope. Cross-sections #4 and #5 clearly show that the ballast tank has
narrowed toward the stern such that there is an insignificant volume
(and mass) toward the stern. Instead, by far the greatest volume (and
mass) is in the area near the mast. Thus, the water ballast tank, with
greatest mass located near the center of the boat, would help rather
than augment any pitching moment.

Yes, there is less ballast aft, but it is certainly not
"insignificant." You have a way twisting the truth around. You're
saying, "Yes, I lied about the ballast but it doesn't really matter."

And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the stern there's a
huge amount of weight back there. In fact, with a 50Hp engine running
well over 200 pounds, or perhaps 8% of the displacement, that's like a
30 foot cruising boat carrying a 800 pound dinghy in davits. Now
try telling us that has no affect on the pitch moment of inertia.






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.


I never questioned whether there was a substantial amount forward of the
mast. Nevertheless, since the hull, and the tank, narrows toward the
bow,

Actually, it doesn't look like it narrows that quickly. In fact there
looks like there's a lot more water ballast at station 1 than anywhere
else. Since you keep denying the truth, we'll just keep posting the
diagram so that everyone can appreciate your sense of reality:

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

and since the lever arm extending from the mast to the bow is
relatively short,

Gee, isn't the lever arm forward of the center of mass roughly half
the length? Actually, we want to use the center of buoyancy, which is
well aft, thus increasing the lever arm.

water ballast at the bow would have little effect on
the distribution of mass.

This is total nonsense. Most designers make an effort to keep the
fuel and water tanks as close as possible to the center of the boat.
My large water tank, for example is athartships at the center. Look
at any large Hatteras and many other powerboats and you'll find the
fuel tank is at the center.

You've been making a big deal about the water ballast, but now you're
claiming its not in the stern, its not in the middle (because that's
where the fixed ballast is), and the amount forward would have "little
effect." What are you Jim, some sort of lawyer?



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.


Actually, I majored in Naval Architecture for two years before
switching to Physics. Then I worked for NASA for 6 years. Any more
questions?


Yes, several. - If you majored in physics and Naval Architecture, why do
you seem to know so little about them.

Right Jim. You sound like a total idiot saying one thing when the
drawing of your boat clearly shows you're lying.

And, what did you do for NASA. -

I was the senior programmer for the data analysis for the Einstein
X-ray Observatory. Everything from telemetry to navigation to image
processing.

Surely you weren't designing any boats for them,

No, but I did work for a year for a successful America's Cup defender.
However, my work was almost entirely in sail research. Does that
count?

I hope. (Incidentally,
I worked for NASA for 11 years, and was recently asked to do more work
for them.)

So how much engineering did you do?



- 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.


It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area. The
cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to be by
far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water ballast
is forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?


The issue, of course, is whether the mass is substantially centered
or whether substantial mass exists at the bow and stern, which might
affect the distribution of mass throughout the length of the boat. Since
that's the substantive issue, why don't we concentrate on that one.

OK. The boat weighs 3700 lbs with 1150 lbs, or 31%, of that water
ballast. Now you just claimed that at sections 4 and 5 the water
ballast is "insignificant." And the diagram clearly shows that much
of the ballast tank at section 2 and 3 is actually occupied by the
fixed ballast. So in fact, a large portion of that 1150 pounds of
water is well forward. And while the boat obviously narrows at the
bow, since the ballast tank doesn't extend the entire width, there is
actually very little narrowing of the tank until you get to the last
two feet. And, since there isn't much of a bow overhang, its pretty
clear the there is a lot of mass well forward when the tank is full.




And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of mass
in the extremities.


Nope. The hull is built to handle the weight of the motor. As well as
the weight of several adults in the cockpit.

Again, you sound like an idiot here, Jim. You should quit trying to
sound like an engineer. There was no claim that the stern was going
to fall off. The point is that boats are usually designed to minimize
mass in the extremities, and thus reduce the pitch moment of inertia.

By comparison, on my boat, which weighs triple yours, I use the
lightest possible ground tackle to save a hundred pounds or so from
the bows. There is no excess mass at all in the forward ten feet of
the boat.



As stated, the drawings clearly show that the ballast tank has narrowed
toward the stern such that there is an insignificant volume of ballast
water (and mass) toward the stern. Instead, by far the greatest volume
(and mass) is in the area near the mast.

No, the drawing clearly shows that there is even more water forward of
the mast. Have you even looked at the drawing? By claiming there's
little water ballast aft you're claiming there's even more forward of
the mast!

Thus, the water ballast tank,
with greatest mass located near the center of the boat, would help
rather than augment any pitching moment.

Sorry Jim, anyone can clearly see that you're lying. Let's have
another look at that drawing:

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Yup, it still shows the largest cross section of water ballast at
section 1, well forward of the the mast.

Sorry, Jim. The Republican approach of repeating the lie over and
over until someone thinks it must be true has been discredited.

Perhaps you can get someone else here to explain it to you.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:

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.


Actually, I majored in Naval Architecture for two years before switching
to Physics. Then I worked for NASA for 6 years. Any more questions?

Yes. If you majored in Naval Architecture and Physics, how do you
explain the fact that you know so little about them?
And, what did you do for NASA during those 6 years? - I certainly
hope you weren't designing boats for them.
(Incidentally, it happens that I worked for NASA also, for 11
years. - Does that make me 11/6 more qualified than you?)



- 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.


It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area. The
cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to be by
far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water ballast is
forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?

Yes, there is another way to interpret it. - The correct way. The Mac
26M has a a drainage opening and large gate valve positioned on the
lower portion of its transom, the purpose of which is to permit the
ballast water to drain out of the tank when desired. The narrow,
elongated, cross-hatched "bulges" shown at the bottom of the hull in
cross-sections 4 and 5 are actually channels that conduct ballast water
from the ballast tank to the drainage opening when the bow is elevated.
When the gate valve on the stern is opened with the boat sitting on a
launch ramp, for example, water from the ballast tank is permitted to
drain out through the drainage valve, a process that takes about 4
minutes. - In other words, the cross-hatched portions you interpreted
as being part of the ballast tank are actually conduits that communicate
with the ballast tank for permitting the ballast water to drain out, but
they are not part of the tank itself. And, because of their small
volume, they have little effect on the distribution of mass along the
longitudinal axis of the boat.



And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of mass
in the extremities.


Nope. The boat is designed to be balanced fore and aft with an outboard
and several persons in the cockpit.



(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?)


Because I made it. And is what is your problem with it? Are you
claiming that the diagram on the Mac site is faulty, that the tank does
not run the entire length? Or are you arguing on the meaning of "stem
to stern"?

No, I'm not claiming the diagram is faulty. - I'm simply claiming that
you need to get your eyes examined. Also, that you ought to do your
homework before pontificating like that.


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.


Clearly, there seems to be little ballast in the stern, but with the
heavy engine, plus the possibility of a full cockpit, its probably not
possible. However, the largest cross-section of the tank is shown at
the station halfway between the keel and the bow at the waterline.

While the bow obviously "tapers in" (yes indeed, they did make the bow
at the pointy end) which means the ballast must be reduced in the
forward few feet, but so is the buoyancy.

Additionally, the heavier, permanent ballast is positioned amidships,
below the mast.


Just where ballast should be. Good for them.


As noted above, the boat is designed to be balanced with an outboard and
with several persons in the cockpit. And it is.



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?)


I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out. I have
sailed by them a number of times and they do seem to bob around more
than heavier boats.

And, when did you last have your eyes examined, Jeff?


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.


From everything you've posted Jim, there's no evidence you've ever been
on one either.

Well, have a nice evening anyway Jeff. Happy sailing.


Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:

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.


Actually, I majored in Naval Architecture for two years before
switching to Physics. Then I worked for NASA for 6 years. Any more
questions?

Yes. If you majored in Naval Architecture and Physics, how do you
explain the fact that you know so little about them?

You really like the ad hominem attacks, don't you? But what do you
have to gain? Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an idiot.

And, what did you do for NASA during those 6 years? - I certainly
hope you weren't designing boats for them.

No, but I did do that for an America's Cup syndicate.

(Incidentally, it happens that I worked for NASA also, for 11
years. - Does that make me 11/6 more qualified than you?)

I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored. Unless, of course, it can be used to
save the company when children die as the boat rolls over in calm
weather. It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your
need. Is that what you learn in lawyer school?

It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area. The
cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to be by
far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water ballast
is forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?

Yes, there is another way to interpret it. - The correct way. The Mac
26M has a a drainage opening and large gate valve positioned on the
lower portion of its transom, the purpose of which is to permit the
ballast water to drain out of the tank when desired. The narrow,
elongated, cross-hatched "bulges" shown at the bottom of the hull in
cross-sections 4 and 5 are actually channels that conduct ballast water
from the ballast tank to the drainage opening when the bow is elevated.
When the gate valve on the stern is opened with the boat sitting on a
launch ramp, for example, water from the ballast tank is permitted to
drain out through the drainage valve, a process that takes about 4
minutes. - In other words, the cross-hatched portions you interpreted
as being part of the ballast tank are actually conduits that communicate
with the ballast tank for permitting the ballast water to drain out, but
they are not part of the tank itself. And, because of their small
volume, they have little effect on the distribution of mass along the
longitudinal axis of the boat.

OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast. Of
course, my point has really been that there's a lot forward of the
mast, so you just helped prove my point.

And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of mass
in the extremities.


Nope. The boat is designed to be balanced fore and aft with an outboard
and several persons in the cockpit.

In other words, you are totally ignorant of the concept of "moment of
inertia." Perhaps you should take some time off now and review basic
physics. This is the central issue of the discussion, and now you're
confessing that you have no idea what its about. Good one, Jim.

....
Additionally, the heavier, permanent ballast is positioned amidships,
below the mast.


Just where ballast should be. Good for them.


As noted above, the boat is designed to be balanced with an outboard and
with several persons in the cockpit. And it is.


Yes, the large mass in the stern (the engine) is nicely balanced by
the large mass of the water ballast in the bow. Now explain to us the
meaning and significance of "moment of inertia."



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?)


I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out. I have
sailed by them a number of times and they do seem to bob around more
than heavier boats.

And, when did you last have your eyes examined, Jeff?

Funny thing, as I've grown older my vision has improved. Now I spend
most of the time without wearing the glasses I've worn since I was
ten. I guess that means I've just gotten smarter.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an
idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an
idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:



Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

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.



Actually, I majored in Naval Architecture for two years before
switching to Physics. Then I worked for NASA for 6 years. Any more
questions?


Yes. If you majored in Naval Architecture and Physics, how do you
explain the fact that you know so little about them?


You really like the ad hominem attacks, don't you? But what do you have
to gain? Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just makes you
look like an asshole in addition to being an idiot.

And, what did you do for NASA during those 6 years? - I certainly
hope you weren't designing boats for them.


No, but I did do that for an America's Cup syndicate.

(Incidentally, it happens that I worked for NASA also, for 11
years. - Does that make me 11/6 more qualified than you?)


I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored.

Although I did say that I thought that attorneys were involved in
wording the warnings, where did I say that the warnings can be ignored?



Unless, of course, it can be used to
save the company when children die as the boat rolls over in calm
weather. It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your
need. Is that what you learn in lawyer school?

It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area.
The cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to
be by far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water
ballast is forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?


Yes, there is another way to interpret it. - The correct way. The Mac
26M has a a drainage opening and large gate valve positioned on the
lower portion of its transom, the purpose of which is to permit the
ballast water to drain out of the tank when desired. The narrow,
elongated, cross-hatched "bulges" shown at the bottom of the hull in
cross-sections 4 and 5 are actually channels that conduct ballast
water from the ballast tank to the drainage opening when the bow is
elevated. When the gate valve on the stern is opened with the boat
sitting on a launch ramp, for example, water from the ballast tank is
permitted to drain out through the drainage valve, a process that
takes about 4 minutes. - In other words, the cross-hatched portions
you interpreted as being part of the ballast tank are actually
conduits that communicate with the ballast tank for permitting the
ballast water to drain out, but they are not part of the tank itself.
And, because of their small volume, they have little effect on the
distribution of mass along the longitudinal axis of the boat.

Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they are
actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the
ballast tank itself.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast.

I'm not sure I follow that last statement, Jeff. - Are you now saying I
was right (after all that discussion) in describing the ballast tank as
not extending along the full length of the boat? Or that your statement,
copied below, was wrong?

"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."



And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

Give us a break Jeff. - Where did I say that the "entire boat" was
protected by a doubled hull? A large portion of the lower portion of
the hull is, indeed, "doubled," but the two-layer "doubled" portion
doesn't extend beyond the ballast tank. In all prior discussions of the
matter, I have certainly attempted to make that point clear.

Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually, my
friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable kind
of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion. - I
would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and other
Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve, and I'll do
so just as soon as I see some of the same from you and the other
Mac-Bashers. Meanwhile, I suppose that I'll continue to give as well as
I get.

Jim

!!
 

Jeff wrote:
Scotty wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an
idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.

Macgregors are the BEST sailing ships ever constructed. !!

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:



I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored.

Although I did say that I thought that attorneys were involved in
wording the warnings, where did I say that the warnings can be ignored?


Your comment was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

I really don't see how anyone can reasonably interpret this as meaning
anything other than this is just lawyer talk. So Jim, do you think
anyone is going to take your side on this one???



Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they are
actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the ballast
tank itself.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast.

I'm not sure I follow that last statement, Jeff. - Are you now saying I
was right (after all that discussion) in describing the ballast tank as
not extending along the full length of the boat? Or that your statement,
copied below, was wrong?

"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."



You really don't get it. First of all, the tank truly does extend all
the way from the stem to the stern. If all they wanted was a conduit,
they could have put in a tube with a lot less expense. You're only
claiming that the volume aft is relatively small. But that just means
the the volume forward of the mast is that much higher. This supports
my claim that there is a lot of mass in the extremities. Go back to
my comments, this is about mass in the extremities which increase the
moment of inertia.

And of course, your claim that the ballast tank is only a "conduit"
rather blows away your "double hull" assertion.



And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

Give us a break Jeff. - Where did I say that the "entire boat" was
protected by a doubled hull? A large portion of the lower portion of
the hull is, indeed, "doubled," but the two-layer "doubled" portion
doesn't extend beyond the ballast tank. In all prior discussions of the
matter, I have certainly attempted to make that point clear.

But the problem is that when the boat is at high speed it will be
planing with the bow raised up. Thus the vulnerable portion is the
aft part that you're claiming now is not double hulled. In other
words, although you have repeatedly claimed this as a significant
advantage, its value is really limited. In fact, even the Mac
marketing literature doesn't mention this; why do you think this is?
Is this something you made up, or just something a salesman told a
gullible customer?

BTW, if the hull was compromised and you brought it up on a plane, the
tank could possibly drain, leaving you in the dangerous situation of
having several hundred pounds of water surging around.




Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually, my
friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable kind
of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion.

I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)

- I
would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and other
Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve,

I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat. In fact, my
involvement in this thread only started with a consideration of how
water ballast affects stability. You've tried to make it sound like
all proper boats (you said "most ocean-going vessels") use internal
ballast, but in fact most designers would consider it a choice of last
resort. Of course, for a trailerable boat it makes sense, but a lot
of Macs I see are kept in slips, which certainly minimizes that.

and I'll do
so just as soon as I see some of the same from you and the other
Mac-Bashers. Meanwhile, I suppose that I'll continue to give as well as
I get.

I wouldn't get too excited about how much you've "given."

!!
 

"CJH" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
Scotty wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an
idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.

Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been brain-damaged/dead for
years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles for that. As for the utter
lack of civility, what do you expect from sockpuppets?

Max

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff, when the shaved-headed religious cultists come to your
door, do you argue with them too?


JimC wrote:
Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they
are actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the
ballast tank itself.


????


Jeff wrote
.... Go back to my
comments, this is about mass in the extremities which increase the
moment of inertia.


Well, JimC pretty much admitted that the ballast was placed
in such a way as to "balance" a load of people in the
cockpit (far aft) and the large heavy motor (even further aft).

I don't think he understands the issue of weight in the ends
increasing the moment of inertia at all.


JimC wrote:
Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually,
my friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable
kind of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion.


Except when the discussion revolves around whether or not
the Mac26-M is a WONDERFULLY PERFECT HIGH PERFORMANCE
sailboat or whether such claims are, shale we say, just a
bit exaggerated.



Jeff wrote
I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)


Why? The Venture 22 is an OK boat. Now, if he'd had a
Venture of Newport, that would be different ;)




- I would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and
other Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve,


Well there you go.

According to you and the other cultists, anybody who doesn't
actknowledge the INCREDIBLE PERFECTION and the BLAZING SPEED
of the Mac26-M is bashing it.


Jeff wrote
I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat.

-snicker-


In fact, my
involvement in this thread only started with a consideration of how
water ballast affects stability.

Actually, water ballast isn't a problem. The overall design
of the boat has to be appropriate though.

I sailed a water-ballasted boat for years and was quite
happy with it. I didn't try to claim that it was wonderful &
perfect & faster than everything else.

DSK

!!
 

Maxprop wrote:
"CJH" wrote in message
...

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.


Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been brain-damaged/dead for
years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles for that. As for the utter
lack of civility, what do you expect from sockpuppets?

Max


I'm not a socpuppet..and I don't care for MacGregor's...why can only
sickpuppets hate them? I think it should be an equal opportunity event...

!!
 

"CJH" wrote
Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about
a Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage
and an utter lack of civility.


Who, us?!?


Maxprop wrote:
Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been
brain-damaged/dead for years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles
for that.

Speak for yourself.
My conduct is a very model of rationality.


As for the utter lack of civility, what do you expect from
sockpuppets?


katysails wrote:
I'm not a socpuppet..and I don't care for MacGregor's...why can only
sickpuppets hate them? I think it should be an equal opportunity event...

Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but hey
they're cheap & readily available.

Fresh Breezes- Doug "not a sockpuppet, either" King

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

DSK wrote:
Jeff, when the shaved-headed religious cultists come to your door, do
you argue with them too?


I sortof enjoy arguing with the like of RB and Jax to the extent that
I get to exercise the techie skills that have been dormant since
retiring. But Jim hasn't been much of a challenge.



.... Go back to my comments, this is about mass in the extremities
which increase the moment of inertia.


Well, JimC pretty much admitted that the ballast was placed in such a
way as to "balance" a load of people in the cockpit (far aft) and the
large heavy motor (even further aft).

I don't think he understands the issue of weight in the ends increasing
the moment of inertia at all.

No he doesn't. And I'm sure the mention of "metacentric height" just
blew right past him.



I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)


Why? The Venture 22 is an OK boat. Now, if he'd had a Venture of
Newport, that would be different ;)

I'll have to ask him which model it was. He was already trying to
live it down when I met him in '73.

....

Jeff wrote
I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat.

-snicker-

no - really - honest



In fact, my involvement in this thread only started with a
consideration of how water ballast affects stability.

Actually, water ballast isn't a problem. The overall design of the boat
has to be appropriate though.

Actually, given the design goals of the boat, I think the 26X/M is
pretty successful. I think that buyers are often naive about their
own needs. For instance, why have water ballast and then leave the
boat in the water all summer? And the water ballast has little to do
with the large engine/high speed powering, so why don't we see other
sailboats with this attribute?


I sailed a water-ballasted boat for years and was quite happy with it. I
didn't try to claim that it was wonderful & perfect & faster than
everything else.


Did your's have a weighted keel?

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff, when the shaved-headed religious cultists come to your door, do
you argue with them too?


Jeff wrote:
I sortof enjoy arguing with the like of RB and Jax to the extent that I
get to exercise the techie skills that have been dormant since
retiring. But Jim hasn't been much of a challenge.


Neither was Bubbles.

I thought Jax was really funny, most of the time. I wondered
if he was a cleverly-played sockpuppet, or an AI program.
But there's evidence that he was/is a real person.




.... Go back to my comments, this is about mass in the extremities
which increase the moment of inertia.


Well, JimC pretty much admitted that the ballast was placed in such a
way as to "balance" a load of people in the cockpit (far aft) and the
large heavy motor (even further aft).

I don't think he understands the issue of weight in the ends
increasing the moment of inertia at all.


No he doesn't. And I'm sure the mention of "metacentric height" just
blew right past him.


Doesn't really matter, as long he is really happy with the
way his boat sails.

I suspect that, like a lot MacGregor 26X and -M buyers, he
isn't really all that happy with the boat... so he tells
himself all this stuff about how great it is, and gets
offended when anybody "bashes" his wonderful boat.



.... The Venture 22 is an OK boat. Now, if he'd had a Venture of
Newport, that would be different ;)


I'll have to ask him which model it was. He was already trying to live
it down when I met him in '73.


I don't get it. I know a lot of people who have either
started in Ventures, or maybe still have them (or downsized
to one) and are quite happy. The Venture 21 is actually a
pretty nice sailing boat... not very roomy, but especially
considering it's age, it's a mini-sled. The V-22 wasn't a
bad boat at all.

OK, it's not a Hinckley. Unlike the Mac26X/M it was never
claimed to be some kind of incredibly superior do-everything
boat.



Actually, water ballast isn't a problem. The overall design of the
boat has to be appropriate though.


Actually, given the design goals of the boat, I think the 26X/M is
pretty successful. I think that buyers are often naive about their own
needs.

Of course. They can't decide if they want a sailboat or a
motorboat, and are too dumb to realize that for the same
money, they could get both. It's a success in the same way
that "diet soda" is a success.




I sailed a water-ballasted boat for years and was quite happy with it.
I didn't try to claim that it was wonderful & perfect & faster than
everything else.


Did your's have a weighted keel?


Yes, but just barely enough that it would sink when you
released the pennant. The centerboard did not form any
meaningful percentage of the ballast.

FWIW that boat (1994 model Hunter 19) sailed rings around
the Mac 26X in all conditions.... we did so many times while
sailing in company with the ones in our sailing club. And I
have a great deal of confidence it would also sail rings
around the new -M model. It was a practical and fun little boat.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

!!
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"CJH" wrote in message
...

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.


Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been brain-damaged/dead
for years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles for that. As for the
utter lack of civility, what do you expect from sockpuppets?

Max
I'm not a socpuppet..and I don't care for MacGregor's...why can only
sickpuppets hate them? I think it should be an equal opportunity event...

I know you're not a "sickpuppet" (sic) but you weren't uncivil, either.

Max

!!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"CJH" wrote
Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and
an utter lack of civility.


Who, us?!?


Maxprop wrote:
Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been brain-damaged/dead
for years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles for that.

Speak for yourself.
My conduct is a very model of rationality.

Most of the time, yes. Then occasionally you become completely irrational
while accosting "right-wing fascists."

As for the utter lack of civility, what do you expect from sockpuppets?


katysails wrote:
I'm not a socpuppet..and I don't care for MacGregor's...why can only
sickpuppets hate them? I think it should be an equal opportunity
event...

Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but hey they're cheap &
readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for Catalina or Hunter for
the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be ashamed to sail one.

Max

!!
 

DSK wrote:
"CJH" wrote

Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about
a Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage
and an utter lack of civility.



Who, us?!?


Maxprop wrote:

Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been
brain-damaged/dead for years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles
for that.


Speak for yourself.
My conduct is a very model of rationality.


As for the utter lack of civility, what do you expect from sockpuppets?



katysails wrote:

I'm not a socpuppet..and I don't care for MacGregor's...why can only
sickpuppets hate them? I think it should be an equal opportunity
event...


Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but hey they're cheap
& readily available.

Fresh Breezes- Doug "not a sockpuppet, either" King

I should qualify that...I only include the Mac 26 lines....Ventures and
the little daysailor MacGregor's are ok learning boats...

!!
 

Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

"CJH" wrote in message
...


Jeff wrote:


Scotty wrote:


"Jeff" wrote


Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.

I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.


Nah. Everyone here, including yours truly, has been brain-damaged/dead
for years. You can thank Capt. Neal and Bubbles for that. As for the
utter lack of civility, what do you expect from sockpuppets?

Max

I'm not a socpuppet..and I don't care for MacGregor's...why can only
sickpuppets hate them? I think it should be an equal opportunity event...


I know you're not a "sickpuppet" (sic) but you weren't uncivil, either.

Max


hic

!!
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but
hey they're cheap &
readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for
Catalina or Hunter for
the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be
ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

!!
 

Wow... never realized how expensive they are... there a lots and lots of
better boats out there for that and less.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but
hey they're cheap &
readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for
Catalina or Hunter for
the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be
ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff, I have had other matters to take care of the past several days
(including cooking Thanksgiving dinner for family and guests, and also
taking the boat out), and I have been somewhat derelict in not
responding to some comments in your more recent notes. -

Jeff wrote:


I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored. Unless, of course, it can be used to
save the company when children die as the boat rolls over in calm
weather. It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your
need. Is that what you learn in lawyer school?

Sure thing Jeff. - Of course, it's clear that you cherry-picked and
substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it. In fact,
in the very discussion from which you quote, I made that point quite
clear. What I said was that, IMHO, attorneys were involved in the
wording and display of the warning, and that in later sections of the
owners' manual instructions are given for motoring WITHOUT the water
ballast! (Incidentally, Jeff, do you actually think that attorneys were
NOT involved in this matter?) As far as my own interpretation and
practice, I have never sailed or motored my Mac 26M without the ballast,
though I would not be adverse to motoring WOB in relatively calm
conditions. I note that many other Mac owners routinely motor the boat
without the ballast. Also, remember that the 26M includes substantial
permenant ballast that remains without the water ballast.

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?
Or were you confusing your own particular interpretation of supposed
implications with what I actually said? Also, why would you stoop to
cherry-pick that one statement, when you know full well that my further
statements during that particular discussion made it quite clear that I
certainly did not think the warnings should be ignored?


It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area.
The cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to
be by far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water
ballast is forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?


Yes, there is another way to interpret it. - The correct way. The Mac
26M has a a drainage opening and large gate valve positioned on the
lower portion of its transom, the purpose of which is to permit the
ballast water to drain out of the tank when desired. The narrow,
elongated, cross-hatched "bulges" shown at the bottom of the hull in
cross-sections 4 and 5 are actually channels that conduct ballast
water from the ballast tank to the drainage opening when the bow is
elevated. When the gate valve on the stern is opened with the boat
sitting on a launch ramp, for example, water from the ballast tank is
permitted to drain out through the drainage valve, a process that
takes about 4 minutes. - In other words, the cross-hatched portions
you interpreted as being part of the ballast tank are actually
conduits that communicate with the ballast tank for permitting the
ballast water to drain out, but they are not part of the tank itself.
And, because of their small volume, they have little effect on the
distribution of mass along the longitudinal axis of the boat.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast. Of
course, my point has really been that there's a lot forward of the mast,
so you just helped prove my point.

I think it's pretty clear by now that you lost on that point, Jeff. The
sections you thought were extensions of the ballast tank were drainage
tubes for permitting the tank to drain out the valve on the stern when
parked on the launch ramp.

More significantly, your original theory was that, because the ballast
extended "the entire length of the boat," you thought it would
contribute to pitching of the boat. As should now be understood, the
volume and mass of the ballast is in an area slightly forward of
amidships, rather near the mast. Moreover, the ballast tank is tapered
at its forward and rear end portions, further reducing the mass of
ballast spaced furthest from the central or largest portion, thereby
lessening the moment of inertia of the ballast when the boat pitches
upon a wave, etc. As to the fact that the ballast tank extends forward
to the bow, two factors apply. First, the distance from the longitudinal
center (largest or widest portion) of the ballast tank to the bow is
substantially shorter then that to the stern, so it's appropriate that
the ballast tank extend to the bow (remembering also that the forward
portion or the tank is tapered, thereby reducing pitching inertia).
Secondly, for balancing the boat in the water to compensate for the
weight of crew and motor at the stern, it would again be appropriate to
position the longitudinal center of mass of the ballast tank somewhat
forward along the length of the hull.


And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of
mass in the extremities.


Nope. The boat is designed to be balanced fore and aft with an
outboard and several persons in the cockpit.


Jeff, you again misquote what I said to make your point. - I never said
that the "entire boat" was protected by a doubled hull. Only that
adjacent the ballast tank. - Do you have any ethics at all?

You also again cherry picked the statement you relied on, since in later
portions of that discussion some months ago I made it quite clear that
the boat didn't have a doubled hull protecting the entire boat. - But
you knew that when you decided to misrepresent and cherry pick my
statement, didn't you Jeff? You shamelessly misquote and cherry-pick
when you think you can get by with it. - Do you have no self-respect
whatsoever, Jeff?


In other words, you are totally ignorant of the concept of "moment of
inertia." Perhaps you should take some time off now and review basic
physics. This is the central issue of the discussion, and now you're
confessing that you have no idea what its about. Good one, Jim.

...

Additionally, the heavier, permanent ballast is positioned
amidships, below the mast.



Just where ballast should be. Good for them.


As noted above, the boat is designed to be balanced with an outboard
and with several persons in the cockpit. And it is.


Yes, the large mass in the stern (the engine) is nicely balanced by the
large mass of the water ballast in the bow. Now explain to us the
meaning and significance of "moment of inertia."


Moment of inertia in this context relates to rotational inertia, that
is, the tendency of the boat during pitching movement to keep rotating,
or pitching, in the same rotational direction. The moment of intertia of
a body with respect to any axis is the sum of the products obtained by
multiplying each elementary mass by the square of its distance from the
axis. Since it's proportional to the square of the distance from the
axis of pitching rotation, MacGregor's design (positioning most of the
mass near amidships rather than evenly distributed along the entire
length of the boat) was proper.

Incidentally, Jeff, there are other forms of inertia (e.g., resistance
to upward and downward movement, resistance to deceleration of the boat
during forward movement) that are in some respects disadvantages to
small, light boats such as the Mac. As I have consistently stated, the
Mac has good and bad features, and one of the disadvantages to any light
boat is that it doesn't sail as steadily, with as much forward momentum,
as does a large, heavy vessel. (You would have done better to ignore the
ballast issue altogether and concentrated instead on some of the
obvious disadvantages of small, light boats.)


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?)


I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out.

Really? And do you have any evidence to back up that bit of propaganda?
In any event, I was out sailing my Mac yesterday. - When was the last
time you took your boat out Jeff?



I have
sailed by them a number of times and they do seem to bob around more
than heavier boats.

Actually, it's probably true that the Macs, weighing only around 4,000
pounds with ballast and crew, "bob" around more than a 20,000 lb vessel.
Then again, its also true that a Ferrari or Porsche weighs less than and
has a stiffer ride than a Lincoln Town Car. It sort of relates to
personal taste, and what you're going to do with the vehicle or vessel.
For example, I motored back to the marina at around 13 knots, despite
rather choppy water conditions, which gave me more time out on the Bay
for sailing.



And, when did you last have your eyes examined, Jeff?


Funny thing, as I've grown older my vision has improved. Now I spend
most of the time without wearing the glasses I've worn since I was ten.
I guess that means I've just gotten smarter.


Interesting. I also stopped wearing glasses several years ago. - Does
that mean I'm getting smarter too?

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:48:01 -0500, DSK wrote:


Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.




It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.




http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm


The point I was trying to make is that, although it's possible in a
larger boat, there are costs to pay in terms of lost space for
provisioning, costs of additional structural detailing, etc., that have
until now discouraged most manufacturers of larger boats from including
it. As mentioned above, buyers don't seem to want to pay these costs or
accept the compromises involved.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Scotty wrote:

I think my boat, even on the bottom of the ocean, would
still sail better than a Mac 26 XM.


Scotty


In a downward direction?

Jim

!!
 

Scotty wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but

hey they're cheap &

readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for

Catalina or Hunter for

the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be

ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

Of course, the 26X's were replaced by the current 26M's several years
ago, so you would have a difficult time getting a new 26X. Used 26X and
26M's are, of course, available for less. In my case, the cost new
(which was less than $30K) included Garmin GPS chartreader, additional
depth and knot-meter, autopilot, radio, stereo, roller furling, all
lines aft, reefing system, three sails, five berths, safety equipment,
trailer, and new 50 hp outboard.

Costs more than other boats? Compare apples to apples. - Compare the
costs of a new, well equipped Mac with new 50-70 hp motor to that of
other new boats of similar size and equipment, and with comparable
accommodations.

Jim

!!
 

I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a 70hp
engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Scotty wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but

hey they're cheap &

readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for

Catalina or Hunter for

the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be

ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

Of course, the 26X's were replaced by the current 26M's several years ago,
so you would have a difficult time getting a new 26X. Used 26X and 26M's
are, of course, available for less. In my case, the cost new (which was
less than $30K) included Garmin GPS chartreader, additional depth and
knot-meter, autopilot, radio, stereo, roller furling, all lines aft,
reefing system, three sails, five berths, safety equipment, trailer, and
new 50 hp outboard.

Costs more than other boats? Compare apples to apples. - Compare the costs
of a new, well equipped Mac with new 50-70 hp motor to that of other new
boats of similar size and equipment, and with comparable accommodations.

Jim

!!
 

CJH wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.


I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.

Macgregors are the BEST sailing ships ever constructed. !!


Actually, CJH, such Mac discussions have been going on for over 10 years
on this ng. - You merely gave everyone an excuse to jump in (jump on,
actually) once again.

No, in my opinion the Macs aren't the best sailing ships ever
constructed (personally, I prefer a cutter-rigged Valiant 40), but they
are a lot of fun to sail. Although I could be wrong, I think Mac owners
sail their boats more often, on average, than owners of many others. -
I had mine out yesterday in some fairly decent winds, for example,
having a great time.

Jim

!!
 

Yes, you could be wrong.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


CJH wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.


I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.

Macgregors are the BEST sailing ships ever constructed. !!


Actually, CJH, such Mac discussions have been going on for over 10 years
on this ng. - You merely gave everyone an excuse to jump in (jump on,
actually) once again.

No, in my opinion the Macs aren't the best sailing ships ever constructed
(personally, I prefer a cutter-rigged Valiant 40), but they are a lot of
fun to sail. Although I could be wrong, I think Mac owners sail their
boats more often, on average, than owners of many others. - I had mine out
yesterday in some fairly decent winds, for example, having a great time.

Jim

!!
 

Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a 70hp
engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend
to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight of
the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a 27-29
ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.

The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives Mac-bashers
who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up
at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as conventional
boats with weighted keels, I doubt seriously that the weight of the
motor is a major factor. Rather, it's the compromises relating to the
internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The
metactric effect.)

The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.

Jim

!!
 

Sorry, but a 26' sailboat has no business owning a 70 hp engine. Sure, you
can get home or get to your destination in a hurry, but it has nothing to do
with sailing. The whole boat is a compromise that anyone with any sense of
what sailing is all about would only accept in a very, very narrow set of
circumstances.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a
70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend to
"lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight of the
outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a 27-29 ft
boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better positioned.

The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives Mac-bashers
who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up at
Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as conventional boats
with weighted keels, I doubt seriously that the weight of the motor is a
major factor. Rather, it's the compromises relating to the internal
ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The metactric
effect.)

The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.

Jim

!!
 

JimC wrote:


CJH wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.


I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and
an utter lack of civility.

Macgregors are the BEST sailing ships ever constructed. !!


Actually, CJH, such Mac discussions have been going on for over 10 years
on this ng. - You merely gave everyone an excuse to jump in (jump on,
actually) once again.

No, in my opinion the Macs aren't the best sailing ships ever
constructed (personally, I prefer a cutter-rigged Valiant 40), but they
are a lot of fun to sail. Although I could be wrong, I think Mac owners
sail their boats more often, on average, than owners of many others. - I
had mine out yesterday in some fairly decent winds, for example, having
a great time.

Jim







I was just joking around Jim. The thread has gone on way longer tha I
expected and broken up into so many different discussions...I was trying
to be silly.

!!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote
|I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a 70hp
| engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


This has gotta be a Capt. JG sock puppet. The real Capt. JG would never
say something that made so much sense......


Cheers,
Ellen

!!
 

"JimC" wrote
| it gives Mac-bashers
| who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up
| at Mac owners.

Oh? I guess not wanting to be seen with stupid people with lame-o boats
isn't reason enough? :-)

Cheers,
Ellen

!!
 

JimC wrote:


Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a
70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend
to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight of
the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a 27-29

Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims
the lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is
249 with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There
really isn't a lot of difference in weight.

ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.

There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a
diesel could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes
little to the pitch moment.


The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives Mac-bashers
who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up
at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as conventional
boats with weighted keels, I doubt seriously that the weight of the
motor is a major factor. Rather, it's the compromises relating to the
internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The
metactric effect.)

Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think
that if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3
time the power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or
maintenance costs, etc., most would take it. The problem is that most
hulls are designed for sailing, not powering at high speed. The Mac
made a number of compromises - a flat "powerboat" hull, no external
ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing ability.

My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin
100's into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods,
created a best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well
for monohulls.



The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.

So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Sorry, but a 26' sailboat has no business owning a 70 hp engine. Sure, you
can get home or get to your destination in a hurry, but it has nothing to do
with sailing.

Nothing to do with sailing? Sure it does, Capt. - If you can't get out
to the sailing area with time for sailing, and return in time to get
guests home in time to get to the opera or theater (or wherever), you
can't go sailing as often.


The whole boat is a compromise that anyone with any sense of
what sailing is all about would only accept in a very, very narrow set of
circumstances.



Yes, the boat entails compromises, but it's still a lot of fun to sail.

Actually, if we are honest, all boats are compromises Capt. - For
example, the 40-ft Valiant I liked so much entailed a number of
"compromises." For example, it couldn't motor faster than 7-9 knots, if
that, so getting it out from the marina to where we sail, and getting it
back, took quite a long time. - You would have to consider carefully
whether you had the time to get it out and back and cleaned up before
deciding to go out on an afternoon. Also, the draft was so deep that,
at low tide, I couldn't make it through the channel leading to a
preferred anchorage in the Galveston area. Further, because of its
weight and size, it usually required at least one additional crewman
when maneuvering into and away from a dock. Additionally, the costs of
upkeep, bottom treatment, slip rental, etc., were substantial. - In
contrast, I don't suffer from those "compromises" with my Mac. -

I can get out to sailing areas at speeds of 13-14 knots, and similarly
return to the dock after sailing, even in rather breezy weather, so I'm
able to get out and sail even when I can only spare a few hours.
Regarding the "compromise" of not being able to navigate channels at low
tide, on the Mac I can easily raise the dagger board somewhat and motor
through waters of two - three feet. (A big advantage when the local
marina has no more transient slips available.) Moreover, the boat is
small enough for easy single-handed sailing and docking, in contrast
with the larger and heavier boat, which is "compromised" in that it
usually requires putting together a crew before going out. (In my case,
I can go out with or without a crew.) The Valiant was a great sailing
vessel and could reach nine knots in a good wind, but it took a rather
long time to get there. - In contrast, I feel the acceleration and the
effects of the wind more quickly and more directly in the Mac (making it
more like a sports car rather than a Lincoln Town Car or Suburban,
etc.). - Sort of a personal preference thing, of course.

As to the "compromise" of high expenses for maintenance, slip fees,
etc., I pay $70 per month to keep my boat in a lot. Launching involves
merely hooking up to the trailer and towing it 100 yards to the ramp. No
bottom treatments are necessary, no wear and tear in a slip, no
continued salt water exposure, and I don't have to run down to the boat
to move it or chain it down when we get storm warnings. Again, the
"compromises" experienced with a larger conventional vessel are largely
avoided.

Capt., I had my 26M out Saturday, sailing in 15-kt winds. Some of the
heavier, conventional boats (with twice the water line) were faster and
probably pointed higher, but I still had a great day of sailing. - Which
is what I bought the boat for in the first place.

Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Jim, you can rant all you want, but yours is the a very restrictive
application for a compromised vessel. It's not a great sailing vessel; it's
not a great power boat. In fact, it kinda sucks at both.

All your efforts at supporting your boat must take away from your sail time.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
om...


Capt. JG wrote:
Sorry, but a 26' sailboat has no business owning a 70 hp engine. Sure,
you can get home or get to your destination in a hurry, but it has
nothing to do with sailing.

Nothing to do with sailing? Sure it does, Capt. - If you can't get out to
the sailing area with time for sailing, and return in time to get guests
home in time to get to the opera or theater (or wherever), you can't go
sailing as often.


rant removed

!!
 

Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a
70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


I wouldn't mind having a 70hp engine in our 36 foot boat ;)


JimC wrote:
The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend
to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight
of the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a
27-29


In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far
forward, as Jeff was contending earlier.


Jeff wrote:
Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims the
lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is 249
with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There really
isn't a lot of difference in weight.


Big difference in efficiency, though.


ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.


There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a
diesel could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes
little to the pitch moment.


Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far
aft, it's hard to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing
performance.



The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives
Mac-bashers who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn
their noses up at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as
conventional boats with weighted keels,

Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always
thought that had to do with the basic rig design... aspect
ratio, sheeting base, etc etc... keel foil configuration
plays into it somewhat I'm sure, but how does the wind know
(and why would it care) about the weight of the keel?

Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to
windward very well? We already know that's true of the M26X.

... I doubt seriously that the
weight of the motor is a major factor.

OTOH those of us who have been rigorously schooled to sail
*well* have been taught to keep weight out of the ends of
the boat. Any one design racer will have seen (if he's paid
the slightest attention) a boat with crew sitting spread
fore & aft getting passed by a boat with two guys sitting
close together.


... Rather, it's the compromises
relating to the internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of
weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)


Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have
never heard of "the metacentric effect."



Jeff wrote:
Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think
that if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3 time
the power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or
maintenance costs, etc., most would take it.

Sure. Why not? I'm not sure there's any way to seperate the
added horsepower from the added speed & fuel usage though.


... The problem is that most
hulls are designed for sailing, not powering at high speed. The Mac
made a number of compromises - a flat "powerboat" hull, no external
ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing ability.


Ever seen the hull of an 18-footer skiff? They are very wide
& flat aft. Of course, they are *also* designed to generate
significant amounts of horsepower from their rig, and can
plane readily. The Mac26-M is not and can not.


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin 100's
into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods, created a
best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well for monohulls.


I'm not so sure it can't... I am sure that it can't be done
both well and for cheap. A smallish motorsailer that had
very good sailing performance might be quite a nice boat,
but it would look more like a Melges 24 than a Mac26-M.



The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.


So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

Maybe he's too busy having fun?

Frankly, I have had a good time sailing two shipping pallets
skinned with roofing paper & a bedsheet sail. It was like
a really cheap little scow. So I can believe that Jim enjoys
sailing his Mac26-M. However I am not spending the rest of
my life boasting about what super-dooper hot performing
sailing machine that 1-hour scavenged scow was. JimC seems
to be trying to convince others (maybe himself?) of several
claims that contradict the obvious truth.

DSK

!!
 

Neither would I. I just don't want one on a 26'er.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a
70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


I wouldn't mind having a 70hp engine in our 36 foot boat ;)


JimC wrote:
The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend
to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight of
the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a 27-29


In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far forward, as
Jeff was contending earlier.


Jeff wrote:
Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims the
lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is 249 with
transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There really isn't a
lot of difference in weight.


Big difference in efficiency, though.


ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.


There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a diesel
could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes little to
the pitch moment.


Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far aft, it's hard
to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing performance.



The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives Mac-bashers
who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up
at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as conventional
boats with weighted keels,

Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always thought that
had to do with the basic rig design... aspect ratio, sheeting base, etc
etc... keel foil configuration plays into it somewhat I'm sure, but how
does the wind know (and why would it care) about the weight of the keel?

Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to windward very well?
We already know that's true of the M26X.

... I doubt seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.

OTOH those of us who have been rigorously schooled to sail *well* have
been taught to keep weight out of the ends of the boat. Any one design
racer will have seen (if he's paid the slightest attention) a boat with
crew sitting spread fore & aft getting passed by a boat with two guys
sitting close together.


... Rather, it's the compromises relating to the internal ballast,
trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)


Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have never heard of
"the metacentric effect."



Jeff wrote:
Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think that
if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3 time the
power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or maintenance
costs, etc., most would take it.

Sure. Why not? I'm not sure there's any way to seperate the added
horsepower from the added speed & fuel usage though.


... The problem is that most hulls are designed for sailing, not powering
at high speed. The Mac made a number of compromises - a flat
"powerboat" hull, no external ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing
ability.


Ever seen the hull of an 18-footer skiff? They are very wide & flat aft.
Of course, they are *also* designed to generate significant amounts of
horsepower from their rig, and can plane readily. The Mac26-M is not and
can not.


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin 100's
into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods, created a
best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well for
monohulls.


I'm not so sure it can't... I am sure that it can't be done both well and
for cheap. A smallish motorsailer that had very good sailing performance
might be quite a nice boat, but it would look more like a Melges 24 than a
Mac26-M.



The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to
sail.


So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

Maybe he's too busy having fun?

Frankly, I have had a good time sailing two shipping pallets skinned with
roofing paper & a bedsheet sail. It was like a really cheap little scow.
So I can believe that Jim enjoys sailing his Mac26-M. However I am not
spending the rest of my life boasting about what super-dooper hot
performing sailing machine that 1-hour scavenged scow was. JimC seems to
be trying to convince others (maybe himself?) of several claims that
contradict the obvious truth.

DSK

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote
| Can you imagine someone posting in a group of bicycle enthusiasts
| raving about how great his moped is?


You are BRILLIANT!!! I've been thinking all along something like that. I just couldn't
put it in words. It didn't gel in my brain. Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

Cheers,
Ellen

!!
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Yes, you could be wrong.


On the other hand, I could be right.

Jim