Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff wrote:
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

I love that expression "cherry-picked"! I think that would be a good
defense - "Your Honor, the prosecution is just cherry-picking. What
about the 6 billion people that my client didn't kill that night?"

substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it.

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. "


You've tried to "un-ring this bell" many times, but I think everyone
here understands what you meant.
....

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?

Once more, Jim, no one is buying it.
....


Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
....

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.

Actually, they look a lot bigger than tubes - but since my argument is
that there is a significant mass in the extremities your point really
doesn't mean much.




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.

And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound
engine hanging off the transom.


As should now be understood, the
volume and mass of the ballast is in an area slightly forward of
amidships, rather near the mast.

No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between
the mast and the bow.

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.

Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong, so
why do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the tank is
in the forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the
centerline, there is little tapering forward until you get very close
to the bow.


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

In simple English, you're saying that the water ballast is close to
the bow. Yes, that's my point exactly! Thank you!

(remembering also that the forward
portion or the tank is tapered, thereby reducing pitching inertia).

Actually, the tapering has little affect until the last few feet.

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.

Yah think???




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?

Once again, we have a case of you making a claim of and inner and
outer hull and than after you were called on that you started
backpedaling and trying to explain that its only the vulnerable part
that is "protected." In fact, now you're claiming that its only a
small portion that is protected. There are two basic facts he
First, the water ballast does not extend the full width, it is
concentrated in the middle, so that any blow off the centerline is not
protected. And while the bow area is protected, at high speed that is
lifted out of the water and thus needs no protection. And now you're
claiming there is little protection aft. And the second point is that
MacGregor itself never touts this as a feature - it one that you made
made up!

You tried to sell this one and got caught, so don't complain to me
about "ethics."


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?

Sorry Jim, this is another bell that you can't un-ring! When you made
the comment originally you were quite happy to make it sound as if the
boat had all the protection of a double hull. It was only after it
was clear that the "protection" was very limited that you admitted
that it doesn't have what is commonly referred to as a double hull.



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.

not bad so far.

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.

Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine" which
is about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern??? And what
about the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow of
the boat???

Only a lawyer could say this with a straight face!


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.)

So you're saying that in addition to having a large pitch moment it
has other problems? I was trying to deal with just one at a time.

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?

As I've said, There have been a number at the marinas I've stayed in,
but I've hardly ever seen them go out. Also, I've almost never seen
Mac owners hanging out at the dock. At my new marina there are two
in nearby slips - I've never met the owners.

In any event, I was out sailing my Mac yesterday. - When was the last
time you took your boat out Jeff?

Being in Boston, we had to haul our boat a few weeks ago. For the
last 5 years we've averaged 50-60 nights on the boat - never at the
slip, usually 50 to 200 miles away. Before that we were out for a
full year.


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.

Actually, the question at hand is whether the Mac bobs around more
than other 4000 pound boats. That's the issue of having a large
moment of inertia.

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.

I've never argued the virtues of fast powering, that by itself is a
reasonable feature. The question is, what are the other properties of
the boat, and is this a worthwhile compromise. The only way the Mac
makes sense to me is if it is trailered to different locations.
Keeping it in a slip makes no sense to me.

!!
 

Doubtful... you bought a Mac.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. com...


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


On the other hand, I could be right.

Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

JG, in my previous note I forgot to mention the safety factors entailed
with having a fairly powerful motor on the Mac. - For example, when I
had the boat out Saturday, we had a rather substantial incoming tide and
headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the way out to the
sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes. The Mac is
lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had had a 10 -
15 hp motor as is usual for boats of this size, I don't think I could
have kept it on track within the channel all the way out. Also, I would
not have been able to keep up with the other traffic going out, which
causes further problems. The reserve power is also a safety factor in
the event of inclement weather, tides, etc., out in the Bay or beyond.

As to "ranting all I want," I'm afraid you will have to get use to my
providing a little balance to these discussions from time to time. Get
over it Capt. - If you don't like my notes, you don't have to respond
to them or even read them. Better than going hyper as you seem to be
doing. Incidentally, Capt., as I recall, you have never sailed a 26M. -
Is that right? That figures.

As I have mentioned before, I had over 30 years sailing experience
before getting the Mac, having sailed on a number of medium sized and
smaller boats, including a Beneateux 39, O'Day 38/9, Valiant 40, and
various Endeavors, Cals, Catalinas, and others in the 30-34-ft range. My
point is not that I'm a great sailor, but rather, that I have enough
experience on a variety of boats to recognize the limitations of the Mac
26M. I also have enough experience on the Mac 26M to understand its
limitations, but also, to understand that sailing it is a lot of fun. -
Actually, I thought that was why most of us like to sail in the first
place.

Jim


Capt. JG wrote:

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.

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:

"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

Neal, Ellen, or whoever, when did you have your bicycle (I meant boat,
of course)out last?

Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Oh come on... safety with a 70hp vs. a 30 or a 20? My 13hp diesel powering
my 30' sailboat is more than adequate to work against the currents and winds
found in one of the most challenging sailing areas in the US. If you had a
decent sailboat, you wouldn't have to be concerned as much with needing a
huge engine for a small job.

You're not providing balance with your rants. You're demonstrating the
lengths you need to go to to justify a severely compromised boat.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
m...
JG, in my previous note I forgot to mention the safety factors entailed
with having a fairly powerful motor on the Mac. - For example, when I had
the boat out Saturday, we had a rather substantial incoming tide and
headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the way out to the
sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes. The Mac is
lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had had a 10 -
15 hp motor as is usual for boats of this size, I don't think I could have
kept it on track within the channel all the way out. Also, I would not
have been able to keep up with the other traffic going out, which causes
further problems. The reserve power is also a safety factor in the event
of inclement weather, tides, etc., out in the Bay or beyond.

As to "ranting all I want," I'm afraid you will have to get use to my
providing a little balance to these discussions from time to time. Get
over it Capt. - If you don't like my notes, you don't have to respond to
them or even read them. Better than going hyper as you seem to be doing.
Incidentally, Capt., as I recall, you have never sailed a 26M. - Is that
right? That figures.

As I have mentioned before, I had over 30 years sailing experience before
getting the Mac, having sailed on a number of medium sized and smaller
boats, including a Beneateux 39, O'Day 38/9, Valiant 40, and various
Endeavors, Cals, Catalinas, and others in the 30-34-ft range. My point is
not that I'm a great sailor, but rather, that I have enough experience on
a variety of boats to recognize the limitations of the Mac 26M. I also
have enough experience on the Mac 26M to understand its limitations, but
also, to understand that sailing it is a lot of fun. - Actually, I thought
that was why most of us like to sail in the first place.

Jim


Capt. JG wrote:

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.

!!
 

Jeff wrote:

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.

Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you stated:
that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the stern
there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it Jeff? - A
"huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of difference
in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter your arguments
about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of the boat during
pitching movement?


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.

As I said, 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.)


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.

As I have agreed all along, the Mac hull is something of a compromise. -
It doesn't sail nearly as well, or point as high, as the Valiant 40 (my
favorite). Nevertheless, it's a heck of a lot of fun to sail. (Also,
the current model, the 26M, has a substantially different hull than that
of the 26X, including a substantially deeper V configuration from the
stern to amidships.)


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 understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?



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?

What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main, and
the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise. ... Now, where is your last trip
report?

Cheers,
Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Oh come on... safety with a 70hp vs. a 30 or a 20?

On my boat, it's safety with a 50hp as opposed to a 10 or 15 hp
outboard. Those with 70hp or above are using their larger motors to get
across open water quickly with heavy loads, e.g., to Catalina Island,
or for water sports, etc.


My 13hp diesel powering
my 30' sailboat is more than adequate to work against the currents and winds
found in one of the most challenging sailing areas in the US. If you had a
decent sailboat, you wouldn't have to be concerned as much with needing a
huge engine for a small job.


You've got a heavier, conventional boat with weighted keel, and you
don't need as much power to get through chop, etc. By contrast, I have a
lightweight (4,000 lb) boat with high freeboard that needs the power to
get through currents, tides, and/or unfavorable winds. I'm also able to
cruise to a desired sailing area or back to the marina at 14 knots if
desired.


You're not providing balance with your rants. You're demonstrating the
lengths you need to go to to justify a severely compromised boat.


Well, once again, if you don't like my notes, you don't have to read or
respond to them at all, Ganz. - There are lots of other discussions in
progress on the ng that might be of interest to you.

Jim

!!
 

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:

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.

Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you stated:
that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the stern
there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it Jeff? - A
"huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of difference
in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter your arguments
about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of the boat during
pitching movement?

I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need to
fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?

And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


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 understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?

7.5 to 9 knots in most conditions, though in a breeze its seen 13+ knots.

The powercat with twin 100's cruises at 16-18 knots, using only 4
gal/hour. They originally offered smaller engines, but found the big
ones actually had better efficiency, so there was little point.

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

What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main, and
the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise.

Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

... Now, where is your last trip
report?

No reports this summer, my spare time (and a chunk of the cruising
time) got preempted by family issues. However, here's the most recent
set of pictures:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Summer_06/summer_06.html

In years gone by I've posted a few reports each summer, such as this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...994c6e8d4fd9bf
or this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4bf089a2629977


If you want to see a long trip report, here's two.
First, a delivery from Toronto to New Bedford:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Delivery/delivery.html

And then a long trip:
http://www.sv-loki.com/The_Trip/the_trip.html

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Exactly my point... due to bad compromises you're forced to use a huge
engine when on a sailboat that actually has the potential to sail well, a
smaller engine would do.

Why would anyone want to "get back at 14 knots" unless they have a powerboat
mentality?

It's Captain Ganz to you Jimbo.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Capt. JG wrote:
Oh come on... safety with a 70hp vs. a 30 or a 20?

On my boat, it's safety with a 50hp as opposed to a 10 or 15 hp outboard.
Those with 70hp or above are using their larger motors to get across open
water quickly with heavy loads, e.g., to Catalina Island, or for water
sports, etc.


My 13hp diesel powering
my 30' sailboat is more than adequate to work against the currents and
winds found in one of the most challenging sailing areas in the US. If
you had a decent sailboat, you wouldn't have to be concerned as much with
needing a huge engine for a small job.


You've got a heavier, conventional boat with weighted keel, and you don't
need as much power to get through chop, etc. By contrast, I have a
lightweight (4,000 lb) boat with high freeboard that needs the power to
get through currents, tides, and/or unfavorable winds. I'm also able to
cruise to a desired sailing area or back to the marina at 14 knots if
desired.


You're not providing balance with your rants. You're demonstrating the
lengths you need to go to to justify a severely compromised boat.


Well, once again, if you don't like my notes, you don't have to read or
respond to them at all, Ganz. - There are lots of other discussions in
progress on the ng that might be of interest to you.

Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

"JimC" wrote
| Neal, Ellen, or whoever, when did you have your bicycle (I meant boat,
| of course)out last?

It's Ellen! Ellen MacFitness. Funny you should ask....
I just got back from a 36 mile bike ride. Me and a friend ride most every day. We usually
only go 25 miles but today I lost her. I turned around and looked after a fast sprint and she
wasn't anywhere to be seen. So I went back and forth about five miles looking for her. Thought
she might have flatted or had to stop to pee. But she was nowhere to be found. Turned out her
lungs were bothering her and she couldn't keep up so she turned around and went back without
hollering out or anything. She said it felt like the flu coming on or something. I was happy she
was OK.
Guess what my top speed was. No, higher. It was 36.3mph. I bet none of you big strong
men can do that. Guess how many calories I burned up. 2,376. Guess what my average speed
not counting the back and forth slow for looking was. 21.6mph. Now you know why my legs
and butt look so good. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen

!!
 

DSK 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.


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.

I never stated that the ballast mass is "far forward", DSK, and I don't
think Jeff did either. As to the moment of inertia during pitching, the
motor, after all, is about the same weight as a crew member, and though
its slightly aft of the cockpit, its weight (mass) is not a great
factor, as some of your buddies claim. (As previously stated: "I doubt
seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.")


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.


Actually, of course, the ballast is centered only slightly forward of
amidships, as we have already discussed. The motor, weighing only 200 -
250 lb., is of little consequence.


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?

As you probably know, a weighted keel positioned five or six feet below
the hull entails more leverage and provides a more efficient righting
moment than the same weight of ballast,particularly water ballast,
positioned within the hull. For its size, it a deep, weighted keel is
more efficient in keeping the boat in a nearly upright position as winds
increase, permitting more efficient translation of the force of the wind
into forwardly directioned forces. The aspect ration of the keel is, of
course, also a factor in preventing lateral "sliding" of the boat, and
the Mac 26M has a retractable dagger board that is quite narrow. To
compensate for the relative inefficiency of the water ballast as
compared with a heavy,weighted keel, the Mac has a total ballast
sufficiently large to keep the boat upright. After years of mods and
improvements, the current model, with appropriate reefing, sails ratehr
well in pretty heavy weather. (For example, mine was heeling at only 20
degrees Saturday in 15 knot winds, with the first reef taken in.)


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

No I'm not tacitly admitting anything. I'm openly stating (once again)
that they don't sail to windward as well as conventional sailboats with
weighted keels. It's one of the compromises of the particular design.



... 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.

I'll remember that the next time I'm racing, DSK. But actually, I didn't
buy the Mac with that in mind. I bought it to enjoy the overall sailing
experience.


... 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."

The metacentric height is considered the distance between the center of
gravity and the metacenter. By "metacentric effect", I was referring to
the fact that the righting force is proportional to the metacentric
height times the sine of the angle of heel. Thus, a conventional boat,
with weighted keel low in the water, would have a lower center of
gravity than the Mac and would therefor tend to be less tender. Again,
the Mac 26M does entail compromises, but after a number of years of
development and modifications, it does the job. (If it didn't, I would
have capsized Saturday in the 15-knot winds instead of sailing along
with a 20 degree heel.- Right?

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.

No, the 2M isn't flat aft. Instead, as can be readily seen from looking
at the stern, it has a pronounced V-shape, which extends from the stern
to amidships. In contrast with your statement, it does plane easily and
smoothly. And it's also a lot of fun to sail.


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.


And just where did I say that the Mac 26M is a "sooper-dooper hot
performing sailing machine", or anything of the kind? I've said that the
Mac 26M is fun to sail, but I have consistently stated that it doesn't
sail or point as well as a large displacement boat. Instead of saying
the Mac is a great sailing machine, I've said that it has limitations
and disadvantages when compared with conventional vessels.

Do you consider lying about what I said, as you just did, a necessary
evil acceptable when convenient, DSK? Do you consider it appropriate to
ignore any principles of ethics because, after all, you are merely
involved in some more Mac-Bashing, apparently for the amusement and
"atta-boys" of your buddies? Do you have no self-respect whatsoever, DSK?

Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Capt. JG wrote:

Exactly my point... due to bad compromises you're forced to use a huge
engine when on a sailboat that actually has the potential to sail well, a
smaller engine would do.

Should I just hang down my head and die Ganz? I wouldn't call a 220 lb.
motor "huge." - Incidentally, how much does the motor in Your boat (or
do you have one?) weigh, Ganz? With generator, fuel pump, fuel filters,
shaft to prop, and other accessories?


Why would anyone want to "get back at 14 knots" unless they have a powerboat
mentality?

In certain circumstances, such as when you're 5 - 10 miles from the
marina, the wind is in your face, it's hot as hell, and you have guests
who want to get back home ASAP, its rather convenient and even pleasant
to be able to motor back at a moderately high rate of speed.


It's Captain Ganz to you Jimbo.

I'll call you captain when I feel like it, or when you grow up,
whichever comes first.

Jim

!!
 

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



Jeff wrote:

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.


Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you
stated: that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the
stern there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it
Jeff? - A "huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of
difference in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter
your arguments about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of
the boat during pitching movement?


I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need to
fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?

I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A 250
pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the pitch
moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is built
to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the cockpit. And
it is. Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting
in the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the
transom. However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the
same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


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 understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?


7.5 to 9 knots in most conditions, though in a breeze its seen 13+ knots.

The powercat with twin 100's cruises at 16-18 knots, using only 4
gal/hour. They originally offered smaller engines, but found the big
ones actually had better efficiency, so there was little point.

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


What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main,
and the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise.


Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds yet,
because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.


... Now, where is your last trip report?


No reports this summer, my spare time (and a chunk of the cruising time)
got preempted by family issues. However, here's the most recent set of
pictures:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Summer_06/summer_06.html

In years gone by I've posted a few reports each summer, such as this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...994c6e8d4fd9bf

or this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4bf089a2629977



If you want to see a long trip report, here's two.
First, a delivery from Toronto to New Bedford:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Delivery/delivery.html

And then a long trip:
http://www.sv-loki.com/The_Trip/the_trip.html

Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can anchor
in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf in
a few hours.

Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Jim

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Well Cate, you can if you want to. It's not a matter of weight for my boat,
since it's sized for a real sailboat that doesn't need 70 hp to work. I have
an inboard diesel, 13hp Westerbeke on a Sabre 30. It's not particularly
large, but I'm sure it weighs a fair amount. The 26' (or close) sailboats
that I sail on use 5-10 hp outboards and work fine. Oh, and my Sabre was
well under $30K used and is 5 times your boat in quality. Of course, your
limitations dictate the boat you own.

In certain circumstances, I get on a ferry. Sounds like bad planning to me
if you're that far away and it's too hot and your guests are upset. Perhaps
you need to do a better job. I don't bring guests or paying customers for
that matter who have the expection that they'll be transported back quickly
because they're too hot or cold. We deal with the situation where we are.
Perhaps you need different guests.

You can't carry on an intelligent conversation can you. If you don't like
what you hear, then you get nasty, which indicates to me that you're not
very grown up yourself.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Capt. JG wrote:

Exactly my point... due to bad compromises you're forced to use a huge
engine when on a sailboat that actually has the potential to sail well, a
smaller engine would do.

Should I just hang down my head and die Ganz? I wouldn't call a 220 lb.
motor "huge." - Incidentally, how much does the motor in Your boat (or do
you have one?) weigh, Ganz? With generator, fuel pump, fuel filters, shaft
to prop, and other accessories?


Why would anyone want to "get back at 14 knots" unless they have a
powerboat mentality?

In certain circumstances, such as when you're 5 - 10 miles from the
marina, the wind is in your face, it's hot as hell, and you have guests
who want to get back home ASAP, its rather convenient and even pleasant to
be able to motor back at a moderately high rate of speed.


It's Captain Ganz to you Jimbo.

I'll call you captain when I feel like it, or when you grow up, whichever
comes first.

Jim

!!
 

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


JimC wrote:
I never stated that the ballast mass is "far forward", DSK, and I don't
think Jeff did either.

If Jeff didn't, then why were you arguing with him over that
exact point?

... As to the moment of inertia during pitching, the
motor, after all, is about the same weight as a crew member

A very very large & well-fed crew member.

... and though
its slightly aft of the cockpit

In other words, it is as far aft as it can be, and still be
part of the boat.

.... its weight (mass) is not a great
factor, as some of your buddies claim. (As previously stated: "I doubt
seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.")


Whoever stated that is an idiot.
It's 200+ pounds at the farthest aft extremity of the boat.
You want to claim this doesn't affect pitching moment "very
much" whereas knowledgable sailors know that weight in the
far ends of the boat is bad for steering & worse for
pitching. Not a "major factor?"




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


Actually, of course, the ballast is centered only slightly forward of
amidships, as we have already discussed. The motor, weighing only 200 -
250 lb., is of little consequence.


Yeah, I bet you can carry it with one hand.

"Of little consequence" except for the boat's poor steering
& worse pitching.


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?


As you probably know, a weighted keel positioned five or six feet below
the hull entails more leverage

Which does *what* exactly, for POINTING?
Please explain.


.... provides a more efficient righting
moment than the same weight of ballast,particularly water ballast,
positioned within the hull.

Why "particularly" water ballast? Does gravity care if a ton
of ballast is water or lead or feathers?

.... For its size, it a deep, weighted keel is
more efficient in keeping the boat in a nearly upright position as winds
increase, permitting more efficient translation of the force of the wind
into forwardly directioned forces.

That may help it's speed, but how will it affect the boat's
pointing?


... The aspect ration of the keel is, of
course, also a factor in preventing lateral "sliding" of the boat,

No it isn't. The aspect ratio is a factor in the expected
lift/drag ratio of the foil.

The total amount of lift generated by the foil determines
the leeway or lateral sliding of the boat.



.... and
the Mac 26M has a retractable dagger board that is quite narrow.

Meaning what?
You started out to explain pointing, and so far you've
fumbled around in the dark in left field. You *almost*
mentioned something that might be related to pointing, but
you got it worng anyway.



... To
compensate for the relative inefficiency of the water ballast as
compared with a heavy,weighted keel, the Mac has a total ballast
sufficiently large to keep the boat upright. After years of mods and
improvements, the current model, with appropriate reefing, sails ratehr
well in pretty heavy weather. (For example, mine was heeling at only 20
degrees Saturday in 15 knot winds, with the first reef taken in.)


And what was your VMG to windward? Best speed on a reach? If
the wind is strong enough to reef, then you should be able
to plane.

You say the boat sails rather well, my observation (many
times over) is that they sail poorly. Almost any decent
sailboat will beat them downwind and a potting shed will
beat them upwind.



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


No I'm not tacitly admitting anything. I'm openly stating (once again)
that they don't sail to windward as well as conventional sailboats with
weighted keels. It's one of the compromises of the particular design.


So... we can agree it sucks at sailing to windward.

Do you think perhaps the weight of the motor... and the huge
flat aft sections necessary to float it... have anything to
do with that?



I'll remember that the next time I'm racing, DSK. But actually, I didn't
buy the Mac with that in mind. I bought it to enjoy the overall sailing
experience.


Actually, if you're reefing & heeling & all that stuff, it
must be almost the same as sailing.You mean, the experience
of sitting on a boat with sails up? Pity you need that huge
motor to actually go anywhere.

BTW many sailboats will go faster than 13 knots.



... 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."


The metacentric height is considered the distance between the center of
gravity and the metacenter. By "metacentric effect", I was referring to
the fact that the righting force is proportional to the metacentric
height times the sine of the angle of heel. Thus, a conventional boat,
with weighted keel low in the water, would have a lower center of
gravity than the Mac and would therefor tend to be less tender.


Good, but not quite right. The metacenter is figured as
height above the waterline. A lower center of gravity
doesn't affect the metacenter at all, it is strictly a
function of hull shape.

Shall I explain curves of righting moment? It's a key to
understanding how different boats sail differently... nah,
maybe some other time. For now, let's just say that there
are effectively 2 forces producing righting moment, one is
the hull shape which produces initial stability... how
tender the boat feels when you step onto the gun'l from the
dock, for example... and the other is reserve stability,
which is affected by how low & heavy the ballast is, and
produces righting moment at high angles of heel.


... Again,
the Mac 26M does entail compromises, but after a number of years of
development and modifications, it does the job. (If it didn't, I would
have capsized Saturday in the 15-knot winds instead of sailing along
with a 20 degree heel.- Right?


The fact that the boat doesn't fall over helplessly in 15
knot winds is good, agreed.



No, the 2M isn't flat aft.

I guess it depends on what you call "flat."
http://www.improb.com/airchives/pape...i3/kansas.html


... In contrast with your statement, it does plane easily and
smoothly.

Then why won't it plane under sail?
Lots and lots and lots of boats plane under sail. It has
been known how to design sailboat hulls & rigs to plane
since 1928. How the heck modern can the Mac 26 M be if it
doesn't incorporate this concept?



And just where did I say that the Mac 26M is a "sooper-dooper hot
performing sailing machine", or anything of the kind?

Well, lately, you've been admitting that it's slow. But hey,
that's of no consequence, just like the increased
hobby-horsing due to the weight of the engine on the transom.


... I've said that the
Mac 26M is fun to sail, but I have consistently stated that it doesn't
sail or point as well as a large displacement boat.

Or a small one.

... Instead of saying
the Mac is a great sailing machine, I've said that it has limitations
and disadvantages when compared with conventional vessels.


It's all about compromises.


Do you consider lying about what I said, as you just did, a necessary
evil acceptable when convenient, DSK?

I haven't lied at all. You however have not only lied but
also contradicted yourself a number of times. Why is that
necessary to defend your boat?



... Do you have no self-respect whatsoever, DSK?


Of course. I also have a lot of fun sailing, only not on a
Mac 26 M or X.

I am glad you enjoy sailing your boat. That's what it should
be all about.

DSK

!!
 

JimC wrote:



I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need to
fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?

I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.

But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)




And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is built
to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the cockpit. And
it is.

Totally irrelevant. Either you're too stupid to follow the
discussion, or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are.
Obviously the boat was designed to float on its lines with full
ballast and an engine. The issue is whether a different distribution
of mass would lead to a boat that sails better.

Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting
in the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the
transom.

If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)

However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the
same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?

I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this
is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits
and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel
generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a
huge weight advantage on that front.



....
Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds yet,
because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.

Yes, buts that's been my point. If you want to keep the boat very
light, and are willing to forgo ballast on a flat clam, you can
achieve the high speeds. But you've just proven my old point that
loaded up with a bit a gear, and dealing with a bit of weather, you
won't want to go that fast.



Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can anchor
in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf in
a few hours.

I've only sailed on the FL side of the Gulf - I enjoyed it a lot, the
Naples area has been on our short list of possible places to move to
in a few years.


Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Fresh baked.

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
Now you know why my legs
and butt look so good. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen

Photos please... :)

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

CJH wrote:
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
Now you know why my legs
and butt look so good. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen

Photos please... :)


Found them!
http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery....2&galleryid=3#
http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=8#
Favorite: http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=7#

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

"CJH" wrote | Found them!
| http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery....2&galleryid=3#
| http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=8#
| Favorite: http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=7#


Wrong Ellen. That famous Ellen the sailor's my namesake and hero.
I'm sexier than her but she's a better sailor, of course. . Here's a photo album of
me. http://ellenmacarthur.badongo.com/album/01

Cheers,
Ellen

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Wrong Ellen. That famous Ellen the sailor's my namesake and hero.
I'm sexier than her but she's a better sailor, of course. . Here's a photo album of
me. http://ellenmacarthur.badongo.com/album/01

Cheers,
Ellen

Well, um, those photos were easy on the eyes.

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Ellen is a guy called Neal. As soon as he stopped posting pictures of he
model, he got boring again.

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

"CJH" wrote in message
...
Wrong Ellen. That famous Ellen the sailor's my namesake and hero.
I'm sexier than her but she's a better sailor, of course. . Here's a
photo album of
me. http://ellenmacarthur.badongo.com/album/01

Cheers,
Ellen

Well, um, those photos were easy on the eyes.

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote
| Ellen is a guy called Neal. As soon as he stopped posting pictures of he
| model, he got boring again.


http://www.frogstar.com/wav/displayw...l=twilzone.wav


Cheers,
Ellen

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..




Should I just hang down my head a

in shame for owning a Mac26X? YES!


- Incidentally, how much does the motor in Your boat (or
do you have one?) weigh, Ganz? With generator, fuel pump,
fuel filters,
shaft to prop, and other accessories?


generator?


?

In certain circumstances, such as when you're 5 - 10 miles
from the
marina, the wind is in your face,


You tack. That's what most sailors ( this *is* a sailing NG,
BTW ) would do.

!! Compromises work both ways.
 

Are you saying that Macs are not tacky?

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..




Should I just hang down my head a

in shame for owning a Mac26X? YES!


- Incidentally, how much does the motor in Your boat (or
do you have one?) weigh, Ganz? With generator, fuel pump,
fuel filters,
shaft to prop, and other accessories?


generator?


?

In certain circumstances, such as when you're 5 - 10 miles
from the
marina, the wind is in your face,


You tack. That's what most sailors ( this *is* a sailing NG,
BTW ) would do.

Scotty - Please respond
 

Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the

current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



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

actually

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


5


Scotty, to make sure I'm not misinterpeting your note, are you saying
that five of your six quotes were from individuals who had sailed a
MacGregor 26M?

Jim

!!
 

Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:



I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need
to fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?


I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.


But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)


If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be on
the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side.
Regarding my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and
licensing attorney, not a trial lawyer.

Our legal system has problems, and I'm not defending it, except to say
that most cases are settled more or less equitably without going to
trial. - It's the outrageous ones that get the publicity, not the other
95%. Sort of like the rest of the news - everyday hard work and ethical
standards isn't newsworthy.


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.


Totally irrelevant.

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
It's built to sail and motor as efficiently as possible with the
compromises inherent for it's intended use. In general, it's well
balanced,it doesn't "pitch" excessively, and it is fun to sail.

Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,
or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.

Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all? The reason I
bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race it.) Also, I
believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for sailing, and
smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as efficient) as the
older model.

Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting in
the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the transom.


If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)


So, what's your point. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size range wouldn't be as comfortable
or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. Plus, it's lots of fun to sail.

However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with generator,
fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the same as a
modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is 249
lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter, and the
muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this is only a
few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits and pieces
not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel generates
almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a huge weight
advantage on that front.


That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:

"JAX, did it ever occur to you that some owners of cruising sailboats may
take them out to enjoy a pleasant day of cruising with friends or family
from time to time rather than racing their boats? If I'm taking my
family or grandkids out for a day on the water, there may actually be
times when I sail the boat with everyone sitting in the rear and with
less than optimum balance and sail trim. - Shame, shame on me!

On other days I may want to take more care in adjusting the sails and
balancing the distribution of weight in the boat to get as much speed as
possible. (Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18
knots under power.)

The bottom line is that some of us sail for the pleasure of it, and some
of us go sailing as a competitive sport, so that they will be able to
brag about winning a race or sailing by several other boats. I enjoy
both aspects, but I recognize that the Mac isn't a J-boat and isn't
designed as a racer. So I don't expect to pass many large displacement
boats"

Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without the
ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.



This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds
yet, because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.


Yes, buts that's been my point. If you want to keep the boat very
light, and are willing to forgo ballast on a flat clam, you can achieve
the high speeds. But you've just proven my old point that loaded up
with a bit a gear, and dealing with a bit of weather, you won't want to
go that fast.

I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the Bay,
and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I didn't have
the throttle wide open.)


Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can
anchor in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf
in a few hours.


I've only sailed on the FL side of the Gulf - I enjoyed it a lot, the
Naples area has been on our short list of possible places to move to in
a few years.


Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Fresh baked.

The best.

Jim

!!
 

Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:



I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need
to fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?


I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.


But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)


If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be on
the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side.
Regarding my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and
licensing attorney, not a trial lawyer.

Our legal system has problems, and I'm not defending it, except to say
that most cases are settled more or less equitably without going to
trial. - It's the outrageous ones that get the publicity, not the other
95%. Sort of like the rest of the news - everyday hard work and ethical
standards isn't newsworthy.


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.


Totally irrelevant.

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
It's built to sail and motor as efficiently as possible with the
compromises inherent for it's intended use. In general, it's well
balanced, it doesn't "pitch" excessively, and it is fun to sail.

Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,
or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.

Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all? The reason I
bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race it.) Also, I
believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for sailing, and
smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as efficiently) as the
older model.

Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting in
the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the transom.


If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)


So, what's your point. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size range wouldn't be as comfortable
or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. Plus, it's lots of fun to sail.

However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with generator,
fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the same as a
modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is 249
lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter, and the
muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this is only a
few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits and pieces
not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel generates
almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a huge weight
advantage on that front.


That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:

"JAX, did it ever occur to you that some owners of cruising sailboats may
take them out to enjoy a pleasant day of cruising with friends or family
from time to time rather than racing their boats? If I'm taking my
family or grandkids out for a day on the water, there may actually be
times when I sail the boat with everyone sitting in the rear and with
less than optimum balance and sail trim. - Shame, shame on me!

On other days I may want to take more care in adjusting the sails and
balancing the distribution of weight in the boat to get as much speed as
possible. (Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18
knots under power.)

The bottom line is that some of us sail for the pleasure of it, and some
of us go sailing as a competitive sport, so that they will be able to
brag about winning a race or sailing by several other boats. I enjoy
both aspects, but I recognize that the Mac isn't a J-boat and isn't
designed as a racer. So I don't expect to pass many large displacement
boats"

Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without the
ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.



This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds
yet, because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.


Yes, buts that's been my point. If you want to keep the boat very
light, and are willing to forgo ballast on a flat clam, you can achieve
the high speeds. But you've just proven my old point that loaded up
with a bit a gear, and dealing with a bit of weather, you won't want to
go that fast.

I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the Bay,
and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I didn't have
the throttle wide open.)


Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can
anchor in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf
in a few hours.


I've only sailed on the FL side of the Gulf - I enjoyed it a lot, the
Naples area has been on our short list of possible places to move to in
a few years.


Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Fresh baked.

The best.

Jim

!!
 

DSK wrote:

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



JimC wrote:

I never stated that the ballast mass is "far forward", DSK, and I
don't think Jeff did either.


If Jeff didn't, then why were you arguing with him over that exact point?

Jeff had said that the ballast extended the entire length of the boat.
It doesn't, and the ballast tank itself extends about the same distance
forwardly and rearwardly from amidships. You need to remember that the
ballast tank is tapered (both vertically and laterally) as it approaches
the bow. Thus, the largest volume (and greatest mass) of ballast is
concentrated amidships, slightly behind the mast.


... As to the moment of inertia during pitching, the motor, after all,
is about the same weight as a crew member


A very very large & well-fed crew member.

... and though its slightly aft of the cockpit


In other words, it is as far aft as it can be, and still be part of the
boat.



.... its weight (mass) is not a great factor, as some of your buddies
claim. (As previously stated: "I doubt seriously that the weight of
the motor is a major factor.")


Whoever stated that is an idiot.
It's 200+ pounds at the farthest aft extremity of the boat. You want to
claim this doesn't affect pitching moment "very much" whereas
knowledgable sailors know that weight in the far ends of the boat is bad
for steering & worse for pitching. Not a "major factor?"



Sure thing DSK. - Whatever you say. The motor is about a foot behind
the skipper's seat, so I'm sure that must create lots and lots of
problems. The Mac is built with a wide hull, extending from amidships
to the stern. - It's not a canoe hull, and it doesn't taper toward the
stern as much as most boats do. Pitching isn't a problem, Ganz.





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


Actually, of course, the ballast is centered slightly behind
amidships, as already discussed. Additionally, there is several hundred pounds of fixed ballast amidships.
In a boat such as the 26M with wide hull, 250 lb., is of little consequence.


Yeah, I bet you can carry it with one hand.

"Of little consequence" except for the boat's poor steering & worse
pitching.

Really? And what's your experience sailing the 26M? How many hours? It's
always interesting to me that those who are the most adamant in their
condemnation of the boat are the very ones who have never sailed one.


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?

A conventional boat with deep, heavily weighted keel can stand up to
more wind than the Mac before reefing, permitting a greater forward
force on the boat than mine. Thus, the conventional boat can generally
carry more sail, proportionally, and sail faster.



As you probably know, a weighted keel positioned five or six feet
below the hull entails more leverage


Which does *what* exactly, for POINTING?
Please explain.


A boat with heavy weighted keel remains relatively upright even with
lots of sail out, it can therefore be sailed faster upwind, and can
point higher. Without the weighted keel,the boat tends to heel to a
greater extent, requiring reefing in earlier, and to a greater extent,
thus lessening it's forward speed while pointing. I'm not saying that
the Mac doesn't sail well upwind, but it doesn't sail as well upwind as
larger, heavier boats. In a boat without sufficient ballast, the boat
develops weather helm, and it can't sail very well if pointing directly
into the wind.


.... provides a more efficient righting moment than the same weight of
ballast,particularly water ballast, positioned within the hull.


Why "particularly" water ballast? Does gravity care if a ton of ballast
is water or lead or feathers?

Yes, actually it cares a lot, DSK. - Because if the ballast is a ton of
lead, which of course is substantially denser than water, the ballast
will be substantially smaller than water ballast of the same mass.
Therefore, its center of mass can be positioned lower in the hull.


.... For its size, it a deep, weighted keel is more efficient in
keeping the boat in a nearly upright position as winds increase,
permitting more efficient translation of the force of the wind into
forwardly directioned forces.


That may help it's speed, but how will it affect the boat's pointing?

As previously discussed, if the boat heels excessively because of
insufficient ballast, it would tend to round up into the wind and loose
speed. Boats with deep, heavy keels are less susceptible to the problem.
(Incidentally, DSK, it seems to me that, instead of making me prove in
infinite detail why the Macs don't point as well, you ought to jump on
this as a negative factor in the Mac. - Whose side are you on anyway?)


... The aspect ration of the keel is, of course, also a factor in
preventing lateral "sliding" of the boat,


No it isn't. The aspect ratio is a factor in the expected lift/drag
ratio of the foil.

The total amount of lift generated by the foil determines the leeway or
lateral sliding of the boat.


I'll agree with you on that one.


.... and the Mac 26M has a retractable dagger board that is quite narrow.


Meaning what?

It helps the boat point higher.

You started out to explain pointing, and so far you've fumbled around in
the dark in left field.

You *almost* mentioned something that might be
related to pointing, but you got it worng anyway.


Sorry DSK. But it's still lots of fun to sail.


... To compensate for the relative inefficiency of the water ballast
as compared with a heavy,weighted keel, the Mac has a total ballast
sufficiently large to keep the boat upright. After years of mods and
improvements, the current model, with appropriate reefing, sails
ratehr well in pretty heavy weather. (For example, mine was heeling at
only 20 degrees Saturday in 15 knot winds, with the first reef taken in.)


And what was your VMG to windward?

Are you talking about velocity over ground? - Around 6 knots or so with
the main and jib reefed. - I was sailing solo, and didn't want to let it
heel more than around 25 degrees.

Best speed on a reach? If the wind is
strong enough to reef, then you should be able to plane.

You say the boat sails rather well, my observation (many times over) is
that they sail poorly. Almost any decent sailboat will beat them
downwind and a potting shed will beat them upwind.

Once again, DSK, I didn't buy the Mac because I wanted to race it. - I
bought it to enjoy sailing, cruising, etc. How many times do I have to
repeat it? If all you are interested in is "beating" other boats, you
have a ****-poor understanding of the joys of sailing IMHO.


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



No I'm not tacitly admitting anything. I'm openly stating (once again)
that they don't sail to windward as well as conventional sailboats
with weighted keels. It's one of the compromises of the particular
design.


So... we can agree it sucks at sailing to windward.

Nope. It doesn't suck sailing to windward. But it doesn't do as well as
some others.

Do you think perhaps the weight of the motor... and the huge flat aft
sections necessary to float it... have anything to do with that?


I've had mine two years, DSK, and so far haven't seen any "huge, flat
aft section," DSK. Where exactly is it?



I'll remember that the next time I'm racing, DSK. But actually, I
didn't buy the Mac with that in mind. I bought it to enjoy the overall
sailing experience.


Actually, if you're reefing & heeling & all that stuff, it must be
almost the same as sailing.You mean, the experience of sitting on a boat
with sails up? Pity you need that huge motor to actually go anywhere.

BTW many sailboats will go faster than 13 knots.

I'm aware of some that will, but most don't do it very often. Or were
you talking about going down hill off a wave?

... 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."


The metacentric height is considered the distance between the center
of gravity and the metacenter. By "metacentric effect", I was
referring to the fact that the righting force is proportional to the
metacentric height times the sine of the angle of heel. Thus, a
conventional boat, with weighted keel low in the water, would have a
lower center of gravity than the Mac and would therefor tend to be
less tender.


Good, but not quite right. The metacenter is figured as height above the
waterline. A lower center of gravity doesn't affect the metacenter at
all, it is strictly a function of hull shape.

Actually, I think you may be wrong there. I'll try to get the article I
was quoting.

Shall I explain curves of righting moment? It's a key to understanding
how different boats sail differently... nah, maybe some other time. For
now, let's just say that there are effectively 2 forces producing
righting moment, one is the hull shape which produces initial
stability... how tender the boat feels when you step onto the gun'l from
the dock, for example... and the other is reserve stability, which is
affected by how low & heavy the ballast is, and produces righting moment
at high angles of heel.


... Again, the Mac 26M does entail compromises, but after a number of
years of development and modifications, it does the job. (If it
didn't, I would have capsized Saturday in the 15-knot winds instead of
sailing along with a 20 degree heel.- Right?


The fact that the boat doesn't fall over helplessly in 15 knot winds is
good, agreed.



No, the 2M isn't flat aft.


I guess it depends on what you call "flat."
http://www.improb.com/airchives/pape...i3/kansas.html

The hull of the 26M has a sharp V contour extending forwardly from the
stern, substantially greater than that of the 26X. Perhaps you were
confusing it with the older model.



... In contrast with your statement, it does plane easily and smoothly.


Then why won't it plane under sail?
Lots and lots and lots of boats plane under sail. It has been known how
to design sailboat hulls & rigs to plane since 1928. How the heck modern
can the Mac 26 M be if it doesn't incorporate this concept?

Lots of boats plane under sail? - Does that include lots of family
cruisers with standing headroom, queen-sized berth, high freeboard, etc.?



And just where did I say that the Mac 26M is a "sooper-dooper hot
performing sailing machine", or anything of the kind?


Well, lately, you've been admitting that it's slow. But hey, that's of
no consequence, just like the increased hobby-horsing due to the weight
of the engine on the transom.

And you have sailed the 26M how many times?



... I've said that the Mac 26M is fun to sail, but I have consistently
stated that it doesn't sail or point as well as a large displacement
boat.


Or a small one.

... Instead of saying the Mac is a great sailing machine, I've said
that it has limitations and disadvantages when compared with
conventional vessels.


It's all about compromises.


Do you consider lying about what I said, as you just did, a necessary
evil acceptable when convenient, DSK?


I haven't lied at all. You however have not only lied but also
contradicted yourself a number of times.

You didn't lie, DSK. That in itself is another lie. - I have never said
that the 26M was a "sooper-dooper sailing machine." I have consistently
admitted that it entails compromises.



Why is that necessary to defend
your boat?

Because the discussions have become too one-sided and need a little
balance. Also, quite frankly, I get a lot of enjoyment seeing some of
the Mac-Bashers becoming increasingly frustrated and embarrassed at not
being able to put me down.

Those condemning the Macs on this ng in the past have been ridiculously
ill-informed. (And, once more, it's nearly always those who have never
sailed a 26M who are the most critical and the most dogmatic in their
opinions.) So I intend to continue providing some balance to the
discussions from time to time, as my schedule permits.



... Do you have no self-respect whatsoever, DSK?


Of course. I also have a lot of fun sailing, only not on a Mac 26 M or X.

I am glad you enjoy sailing your boat. That's what it should be all about.

I also enjoy sailing other boats, DSK.

Jim

Scotty - Please respond
 

JimC wrote:


Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the


current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



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


actually

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



5



Scotty, to make sure I'm not misinterpeting your note, are you saying
that five of your six quotes were from individuals who had sailed a
MacGregor 26M?

Jim

It's a simple yes/no question Scotty. - Answering it will take only a
few moments of your time.

Jim

!!
 

DSK wrote:

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



JimC wrote:

I never stated that the ballast mass is "far forward", DSK, and I
don't think Jeff did either.


If Jeff didn't, then why were you arguing with him over that exact point?

Jeff had said that the ballast extended the entire length of the boat.
It doesn't, and the ballast tank itself extends about the same distance
forwardly and rearwardly from slightly forward of amidships. You need
to remember that the ballast tank is tapered (both vertically and
laterally) as it approaches the bow. Thus, their is very little mass
near the bow, and the largest volume (and greatest mass) of ballast is
concentrated forward of amidships.


... As to the moment of inertia during pitching, the motor, after all,
is about the same weight as a crew member


A very very large & well-fed crew member.


By way of perspective, there may be several crew members and/or guests
in the cockpit, weighing far more than the motor. Though the motor is
slightly to the rear of the cockpit, the weight of the
crew/skipper/guests (when guests/crew are onboard) is by far the
greatest weight factor. And the boat is designed to be balanced and sail
well with such a load.


... and though its slightly aft of the cockpit


In other words, it is as far aft as it can be, and still be part of the
boat.



.... its weight (mass) is not a great factor, as some of your buddies
claim. (As previously stated: "I doubt seriously that the weight of
the motor is a major factor.")


Whoever stated that is an idiot.
It's 200+ pounds at the farthest aft extremity of the boat. You want to
claim this doesn't affect pitching moment "very much" whereas
knowledgable sailors know that weight in the far ends of the boat is bad
for steering & worse for pitching. Not a "major factor?"



Sure thing DSK. - Whatever you say. The motor is about a foot behind
the skipper's seat, so I'm sure that must create lots and lots of
problems. In fact, the Mac is built with a wide (but not "huge", flat
bottomed") hull, extending from amidships to the stern. - It's not a
canoe hull, and it doesn't taper toward the stern as in the case of some
boats. Pitching isn't a problem, Ganz.





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


Actually, of course, the ballast is centered slightly forward of
amidships, as already discussed. Additionally, there is several hundred pounds of fixed ballast amidships.
In a boat such as the 26M with wide hull, 250 lb., is of little consequence.


Yeah, I bet you can carry it with one hand.

"Of little consequence" except for the boat's poor steering & worse
pitching.

Really? And what's your experience sailing the 26M? How many hours? It's
always interesting to me that those who are the most adamant in their
condemnation of the boat are the very ones who have never sailed one.


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?

A conventional boat with deep, heavily weighted keel can stand up to
more wind than the Mac before reefing, and since more sail can be let
out proportionally to the size of the boat, the conventional boat has a
greater forward force vector than mine. Thus, the conventional boat can
generally carry more sail, proportionally, and sail faster upwind. Also,
since the conventional boat can stand up (more vertically) to the wind,
the keel serves more efficiently to minimize lateral movement of the
boat, keeping it on a straight, upwind course.



As you probably know, a weighted keel positioned five or six feet
below the hull entails more leverage


Which does *what* exactly, for POINTING?
Please explain.


A boat with heavy weighted keel remains relatively upright even with
lots of sail out, it can therefore be sailed faster upwind. Without the
weighted keel,the boat tends to heel to a greater extent, requiring
reefing in earlier and to a greater extent, thus lessening it's forward
speed while pointing. I'm not saying that the Mac doesn't sail well
upwind, but it doesn't sail as well upwind as larger, heavier boats. In
a boat without sufficient ballast, the boat heels and develops weather
helm, forcing it into the wind. It can't sail upwind very well if
pointing directly into the wind.


.... provides a more efficient righting moment than the same weight of
ballast,particularly water ballast, positioned within the hull.


Why "particularly" water ballast? Does gravity care if a ton of ballast
is water or lead or feathers?

Yes, actually it cares a lot, DSK. - Because if the ballast is a ton of
lead, which of course is substantially denser than water, the necessary
ballast will be substantially smaller than water ballast of the same
mass. Therefore, it can be positioned lower in the hull, making it more
efficient, in that the center of mass is lower (and the "lever arm" is
longer). Or, if desired, more lead ballast can be used within a given
space, for providing still more stability.


.... For its size, it a deep, weighted keel is more efficient in
keeping the boat in a nearly upright position as winds increase,
permitting more efficient translation of the force of the wind into
forwardly directioned forces.


That may help it's speed, but how will it affect the boat's pointing?

As previously discussed, if the boat heels excessively because of
insufficient ballast, it would tend to round up into the wind and loose
speed. Boats with deep, heavy keels are less susceptible to the problem.
(Incidentally, DSK, it seems to me that, instead of making me prove in
infinite detail why the Macs don't point as well, you ought to jump on
this as a negative factor in the Mac that I have acknowledged. - Whose
side are you on anyway?)


... The aspect ration of the keel is, of course, also a factor in
preventing lateral "sliding" of the boat,


No it isn't. The aspect ratio is a factor in the expected lift/drag
ratio of the foil.

The total amount of lift generated by the foil determines the leeway or
lateral sliding of the boat.


I'll agree with you on that one. The narrow keel provides greater
maneuverability, but not more lift.


.... and the Mac 26M has a retractable dagger board that is quite narrow.


Meaning what?

It helps the boat maneuver more efficiently.

You started out to explain pointing, and so far you've fumbled around in
the dark in left field.

You *almost* mentioned something that might be
related to pointing, but you got it worng anyway.


Sorry to disapoint you DSK. But the boat is still lots of fun to sail.


... To compensate for the relative inefficiency of the water ballast
as compared with a heavy,weighted keel, the Mac has a total ballast
sufficiently large to keep the boat upright. After years of mods and
improvements, the current model, with appropriate reefing, sails
well in pretty heavy weather. (For example, mine was heeling at
only 20 degrees Saturday in 15 knot winds, with the first reef taken in.)


And what was your VMG to windward?

I'm assuming you talking about velocity over ground? - Around 6 knots or
so with the main and jib reefed. - I was sailing solo, and didn't want
to let it heel more than around 25 degrees.

Best speed on a reach? If the wind is
strong enough to reef, then you should be able to plane.

You say the boat sails rather well, my observation (many times over) is
that they sail poorly. Almost any decent sailboat will beat them
downwind and a potting shed will beat them upwind.

Once again, DSK, I didn't buy the Mac because I wanted to race it. - I
bought it to enjoy sailing, cruising, etc. How many times do I have to
repeat that? If all you are interested in is "beating" other boats, you
have a ****-poor understanding of the joys of sailing IMHO.


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



No I'm not tacitly admitting anything. I'm stating opently (once again)
that they don't sail to windward as well as conventional sailboats
with weighted keels. It's one of the compromises of the design.


So... we can agree it sucks at sailing to windward.

Nope. It doesn't suck sailing to windward. But it doesn't do as well as
some others.

Do you think perhaps the weight of the motor... and the huge flat aft
sections necessary to float it... have anything to do with that?


I've had mine two years, DSK, and so far I haven't seen any "huge, flat
aft section," Where exactly is it?



Actually, if you're reefing & heeling & all that stuff, it must be
almost the same as sailing.You mean, the experience of sitting on a boat
with sails up? Pity you need that huge motor to actually go anywhere.

Cute DSK. But rather childish. - And, you have sailed the 26M how many
times?


BTW many sailboats will go faster than 13 knots.

I'm aware of some that will, but most don't do it very often. Or were
you talking about going down off a wave?

... 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."


The metacentric height is considered the distance between the center
of gravity and the metacenter. By "metacentric effect", I was
referring to the fact that the righting force is proportional to the
metacentric height times the sine of the angle of heel. Thus, a
conventional boat, with weighted keel low in the water, would have a
lower center of gravity than the Mac and would therefor tend to be
less tender.


Good, but not quite right. The metacenter is figured as height above the
waterline. A lower center of gravity doesn't affect the metacenter at
all, it is strictly a function of hull shape.

Actually, I think you may be wrong there. I'll try to get the materials
I was quoting.

Shall I explain curves of righting moment? It's a key to understanding
how different boats sail differently... nah, maybe some other time. For
now, let's just say that there are effectively 2 forces producing
righting moment, one is the hull shape which produces initial
stability... how tender the boat feels when you step onto the gun'l from
the dock, for example... and the other is reserve stability, which is
affected by how low & heavy the ballast is, and produces righting moment
at high angles of heel.


... Again, the Mac 26M does entail compromises, but after a number of
years of development and modifications, it does the job. (If it
didn't, I would have capsized Saturday in the 15-knot winds instead of
sailing along with a 20 degree heel.- Right?


The fact that the boat doesn't fall over helplessly in 15 knot winds is
good, agreed.



No, the 2M isn't flat aft.


I guess it depends on what you call "flat."
http://www.improb.com/airchives/pape...i3/kansas.html

The hull of the 26M has a sharp V contour extending forwardly from the
stern, substantially greater than that of the 26X. Perhaps you were
confusing it with the older model.



... In contrast with your statement, it does plane easily and smoothly.


Then why won't it plane under sail?
Lots and lots and lots of boats plane under sail. It has been known how
to design sailboat hulls & rigs to plane since 1928. How the heck modern
can the Mac 26 M be if it doesn't incorporate this concept?

Lots of boats plane under sail? - Does that include lots of family
cruisers with standing headroom, queen-sized berth, high freeboard,
capable of being stored on a trailer, etc.? - I once had a Lido that
would plane. It didn't have a cabin, or a head, or a galley, however.



And just where did I say that the Mac 26M is a "sooper-dooper hot
performing sailing machine", or anything of the kind?


Well, lately, you've been admitting that it's slow. But hey, that's of
no consequence, just like the increased hobby-horsing due to the weight
of the engine on the transom.

And you have sailed the 26M how many times?



... I've said that the Mac 26M is fun to sail, but I have consistently
stated that it doesn't sail or point as well as a large displacement
boat.


Or a small one.

... Instead of saying the Mac is a great sailing machine, I've said
that it has limitations and disadvantages when compared with
conventional vessels.


It's all about compromises.


Do you consider lying about what I said, as you just did, a necessary
evil acceptable when convenient, DSK?


I haven't lied at all. You however have not only lied but also
contradicted yourself a number of times.

You didn't lie, DSK? That in itself is another lie. - I have never said
that the 26M was a "sooper-dooper sailing machine." I have consistently
admitted that it entails compromises.

- Incidentally, could you please cite ten incidences in which I have
lied? Or if you can't find ten, how about five? Two?

Why is that necessary to defend
your boat?

Because discussions of the Macs on this ng have been too one-sided and
need a little balance. There is also the matter of the possible damage
to the reputation of the MacGregor company, one of the great
manufacturers of modern sailing craft caused by comments from people
who, for the most part, have never sailed one and don't know what they
are talking about. Also, quite frankly, I get a lot of enjoyment seeing
some of the Mac-Bashers becoming increasingly frustrated and embarrassed
at not being able to put me down.

Those condemning the Macs on this ng in the past have been ridiculously
ill-informed. (And, once more, it's nearly always those who have never
sailed a 26M who are the most critical and the most dogmatic in their
opinions.) So I intend to continue providing some balance to the
discussions from time to time, as my schedule permits.



... Do you have no self-respect whatsoever, DSK?


Of course. I also have a lot of fun sailing, only not on a Mac 26 M or X.

I am glad you enjoy sailing your boat. That's what it should be all about.

I also enjoy sailing other boats, DSK.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

Jeff, this note included your misleading comments on a number of
subjects, and I have tried to address most of them. Because of your
lengthy comments, the response is also lengthy. - Perhaps it would be
more helpful if you would limit each response (if you choose to respond)
to one or two subjects per note.

Jim



Jeff wrote:

Jeff wrote:

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


I love that expression "cherry-picked"! I think that would be a good
defense - "Your Honor, the prosecution is just cherry-picking. What
about the 6 billion people that my client didn't kill that night?"

By "cherry-picking", I refer to the fact that you keep repeating the
statement quoted below, but you totally ignore the other statements I
made during that discussion in which I said that the warnings,
particularly those relating to sailing the boat without ballast, should
be observed. - You also ignore the instructions IN THE MAC OWNERS'
MANUAL about motoring without the ballast. - Cherry-picking at it's
best, Jeff.

- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:

"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.) - What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

On the other hand, IF you are suggesting that the warnings should be
strictly followed under all circumstances, then you should tell us which
portion of the warnings you want us to follow. - Are you talking about
the part that advises us never to use the boat without the water
ballast, or, conversely, are you talking about the sections that tell us
about using the boat without the water ballast? - You can't have it both
ways, Jeff. "


Here's some more detailed discussion of the same matter (again, posted
over a year ago, and conveniently ignored by you):


"- But if
you insist, ONCE AGAIN, the fact that the warnings obviously had legal
overtones, and the fact that they are contradictory, doesn't mean that
they should be ignored or dismissed out of hand. The fact that I suspect
that they have at least a partially CYA purpose also doesn't mean that I
would ignore the warnings, when taken IN CONTEXT with the rest of the
owners manual. For example, at page 1 of the owners manual for the 26M
it states IN BOLD, UNDERLINED PRINT, that THE BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE
FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING. This warning clearly states that
the tank should be full under all circumstances.

But on the same page, the manual also states that: "THERE MAY BE TIMES
WHEN YOU WISH TO OPERATE THE BOAT WITH AN EMPTY BALLAST TANK For
example, when puling a water skier, when trying to conserve fuel, when a
faster ride is desired, ..." Obviously, when read in context, the first
statement is meant as a general warning, with apparent legal
overtones, which is expected to be read in light of the second section
dealing with operation of the boat WITHOUT the water ballast, under
certain conditions. - Once again, Jeff, the fact that the initial
warning may have been inserted at least in part with legal
considerations in mind, and the fact that I suspect it was, DOES NOT
mean that it should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it's clear
from the SECOND statement that, in fact, it is recognized [by MacGregor]
that the boat can be operated without the ballast under certain
conditions. Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?



substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it.


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. "


You've tried to "un-ring this bell" many times, but I think everyone
here understands what you meant.
...

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?


Once more, Jim, no one is buying it.


(In other words, I didn't say they could be innored, and you can't find
any such statement.)
...

Jeff, I asked you whether you thought MacGregors' attorneys were not
involved with the inclusion of those warnings. - You never answered me.
- Why?



Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

...

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.


Actually, they look a lot bigger than tubes - but since my argument is
that there is a significant mass in the extremities your point really
doesn't mean much.




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.


And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound engine
hanging off the transom.

Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the crew/guests/skipper,
not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed solo). The motor is
slightly farther aft, but not much. (The captains seat is about a foot
forward of the motor.)



As should now be understood, the volume and mass of the ballast is in
an area slightly forward of amidships, rather near the mast.


No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between the
mast and the bow.

The first and second "station" are substantially the same. Additionally,
the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned 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.


Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong, so why
do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the tank is in the
forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the centerline, there
is little tapering forward until you get very close to the bow.


Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches the bow.

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


In simple English, you're saying that the water ballast is close to the
bow. Yes, that's my point exactly! Thank you!

(remembering also that the forward portion or the tank is tapered,
thereby reducing pitching inertia).


Actually, the tapering has little affect until the last few feet.


In the Mac, the "last few feet" comprise a substantialy proportion of
the distance from the mast to the bow.


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.


Yah think???




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?


Once again, we have a case of you making a claim of and inner and outer
hull and than after you were called on that you started backpedaling and
trying to explain that its only the vulnerable part that is
"protected."

You quote from an ongoing discussion on this ng as if every time I post,
they each of my notes should be scrutinized and foot-noted, as if I were
drafting a legal brief to be sent to the Supreme Court. In the
discussion to which you refer, I made the point that the Mac has what is
in essence a double hull. - WHICH IS TRUE. Then, during the ongoing
discussion, I explained that the ballast tank served to provide the same
function as a double hull, in that if the outer hull below the tank was
compromised, water would not be let into the hull. Jeff, don't you think
that you ought to refer to my comments during the entire discussion,
conducted months ago, rather than leap gleefully on one introductory
comment of mine? From an ethical standpoint, wouldn't that be the thing
to do?



In fact, now you're claiming that its only a small portion
that is protected.

Nope. It's rather a large portion. - (In fact, you claimed the ballast
extended along the entire length of the boat.)



There are two basic facts he First, the water
ballast does not extend the full width, it is concentrated in the
middle, so that any blow off the centerline is not protected. And while
the bow area is protected, at high speed that is lifted out of the water
and thus needs no protection.

If the bow is lifted out of the water, the Mac "double hull" can provide
protection if the boat runs into or over a floating object. - My
experience is that some of them are hard to see, even at slow speeds.


And now you're claiming there is little
protection aft.

Most impact would occur forward of amidships, Jeff. - Unless you were
sailing backwards.

And the second point is that MacGregor itself never
touts this as a feature - it one that you made made up!


I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire boat
has a double hull.

You tried to sell this one and got caught, so don't complain to me about
"ethics."


The ethics problems are your own, Jeff, not mine. - See below.


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?


Sorry Jim, this is another bell that you can't un-ring! When you made
the comment originally you were quite happy to make it sound as if the
boat had all the protection of a double hull.

See earlier discussion. You cherry-picked one introductory statement
and ignored a numberof later ones.


It was only after it was
clear that the "protection" was very limited that you admitted that it
doesn't have what is commonly referred to as a double hull.

Here's the original note:



"Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a
lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted boat having a 1-foot (you read
right) minimal draft with its dagger board up, and a 5-foot draft with
the board down. It's termed a power-sailor, in that it can be powered at
15 - 20 mph with a 50 hp outboard quickly delivering you to a desired
sailing area. It can then be sailed in the desired sailing area, then
beached for picnics, etc., and then brought back to shore and stored on
its trailer out the water (minimizing maintenance and marina fees). With
a new 50 hp motor, the new models won't be available for $5,000, however.

Despite the derogatory remarks you will see on this board regarding the
Macs, more of them are sold each year than almost any other sailboat of
comparable size. In addition to its versatility, the Macs can be pretty
exciting to sail. As mentioned above, under power, in certain
conditions, they can be brought to a plane, even with a full water
ballast tank. It has sufficient bunk space to sleep 6, plus another two
in the cockpit, although you probably wouldn't want to sail for an
extended trip with more than two to four. It isn't a racer, and it
doesn't have the room and stability of a 40-foot cruiser, so I don't
think you should try to sail to England, or South America on such a
boat. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, you probably won't get 6' 4"
headroom on a small boat, although with the top pushed forward on the
Mac, you will.

As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper
who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the
boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank. Additionally, the
mast is partially foam-filled, thereby resisting a complete "hurtling"
of the boat under a broach. Additionally, the boat includes sufficient
built-in foam floatation to keep the boat afloat even if its hull is
severely compromised during a collision, etc. In other words, whereas
most of the boats mentioned on this ng will quickly sink to the bottom
if their hulls are compromised due to their heavily weighted keels, the
MacGregor will stay afloat.

One thing you should be aware of relative to the Macs. - Despite (or
maybe because of) their popularity around the world, some of the old
salts on this ng will ridicule your choice of a Mac from now till the
cows come home. Its one of the few amusements that seems always to
interest them, - Keep in mind, however, that most of them have never
sailed the Mac 26M model. In fact, to be honest about it, most of the
Mac-bashers on this ng really don't know their ass from a hole in the
ground. It's always interesting to see their reaction when they are
asked for some evidence to back up their wild statements about the Macs.
(Such as their being light, under built, etc.) - Usually, they have no
evidence whatsoever, and resort to wild and irrelevant anecdotes. (Fyi,
the Macs are a light boat, so, of course, they use relatively light and
simple standing rigging, etc.)

More importantly, the Mac 26M is roomy, comfortable, and fun and
exciting to sail.

Jim"

It's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a double
hull.





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.


not bad so far.

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.


Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine" which is
about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern??? And what about
the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow of the
boat???

Nope.


Only a lawyer could say this with a straight face!


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.)


So you're saying that in addition to having a large pitch moment it has
other problems? I was trying to deal with just one at a time.

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?


As I've said, There have been a number at the marinas I've stayed in,
but I've hardly ever seen them go out. Also, I've almost never seen Mac
owners hanging out at the dock. At my new marina there are two in
nearby slips - I've never met the owners.

In any event, I was out sailing my Mac yesterday. - When was the last
time you took your boat out Jeff?
---

---snip----

Jim

!!
 

JimC wrote:
But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)


If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be on
the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side. Regarding
my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and licensing
attorney, not a trial lawyer.

So what part of my (admittedly unfounded) claim that the forces of
wrong can afford more lawyers? You're just proving my point that
many lawyers will lie steal and cheat to win. It seems to be in their
blood.


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.


Totally irrelevant.

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
It's built to sail and motor as efficiently as possible with the
compromises inherent for it's intended use. In general, it's well
balanced,it doesn't "pitch" excessively, and it is fun to sail.

And once again, you prove my point that you will blatantly lie in
order to claim that, as you say, you "seldom loose." The issue has
nothing to to with "balance," it has to do with distribution.

I told you to learn about "moment of inertia" and you even posted the
fundamentals. Its clear, however, that you didn't bother to read it.


Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,
or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.

Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?

Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that your
standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail, even when you know
you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying
because I'm having fun."

The reason I
bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race it.) Also, I
believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for sailing, and
smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as efficient) as the
older model.

That's like saying that a piece of **** can be good when judged
against another piece of ****. I think I see your point there, Jim.

If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)


So, what's your point. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size range wouldn't be as comfortable
or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. Plus, it's lots of fun to sail.

Half the time you claim your boat is fast, the rest of the time you
claim your boat is slow but you don't care. This discussion was
specifically about how the distribution of mass affects stability and
performance, and all you shown is that you have no concept of these
matters, nor do you care.




However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with generator,
fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the same as a
modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this
is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits
and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel
generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a
huge weight advantage on that front.


That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.

Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull supporting
its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers lie, aren't
you?

You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard, and
that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do with the
possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the distribution.

And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be
a single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your
outboard.




Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:


No, that wasn't the specific quote, but it was one of several.
Actually, I objected to the claim that the high speeds could be used
when returning in bad weather. Given all of the warnings about
running at high speed or without ballast in chop over one foot, this
appears unrealistic, if not impossible.


Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without the
ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.

There is no doubt that it can be fast in flat water and unloaded. Of
course, put that engine on a proper powerboat and you'd do about 40
knots, so what's your point?

I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the Bay,
and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I didn't have
the throttle wide open.)

yada yada yada

bragging that you can power faster than sailboats. impressive.

!!
 

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)



If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be
on the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side.
Regarding my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and
licensing attorney, not a trial lawyer.


So what part of my (admittedly unfounded) claim that the forces of wrong
can afford more lawyers? You're just proving my point that many
lawyers will lie steal and cheat to win. It seems to be in their blood.

Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng. - I hardly have
time to discuss the Mac. But I do remember that the usual quote from
Shakespeare - "The first thing we'll do, let's kill all the lawyers"
was from the thieves and robbers who didn't want lawyers interfering
with their "businesses".


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location.
A 250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.



Totally irrelevant.


Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


And once again, you prove my point that you will blatantly lie in order
to claim that, as you say, you "seldom loose." The issue has nothing to
to with "balance," it has to do with distribution.

I told you to learn about "moment of inertia" and you even posted the
fundamentals. Its clear, however, that you didn't bother to read it.


Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,

or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.


And just how would you redistribute the mass, Jeff? - Where would you
move the outboard, and where would you move the ballast?

The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do. If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time. It's
relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the costs of new
boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not compare the
costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly
equipped. And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?


Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that your
standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail, even when you know
you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying because
I'm having fun."


Jeff, we may have differing opinions, and you seem to have confused your
own opinions as facts, but would you please name the more egregious
instances of my lying? Perhaps you could list the top ten instances?

The reason I bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race
it.) Also, I believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for
sailing, and smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as
efficient) as the older model.


That's like saying that a piece of **** can be good when judged against
another piece of ****. I think I see your point there, Jim.

If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being
more uncomfortable.)



So, what's your point, Jeff. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size and price range wouldn't be as
comfortable or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. (Plus, it's lots of
fun to sail.)


Half the time you claim your boat is fast, the rest of the time you
claim your boat is slow but you don't care. This discussion was
specifically about how the distribution of mass affects stability and
performance, and all you shown is that you have no concept of these
matters, nor do you care.


The boat is fast enough to be fun to sail, Jeff. It's not as fast as
some other boats, but it's still fun to sail. - Isn't that the important
factor.? (Actually, I wasn't having too much problem keeping up with
some, though not all, of the larger boats on my last cruise.)





However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about
the same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?



I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of
this is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few
extra bits and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since
the diesel generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one
can claim a huge weight advantage on that front.



That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull supporting
its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers lie, aren't you?

It has enough.


You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard, and
that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do with the
possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the distribution.

As to the relative weight, it seems that you want us to accept your
personal opinions about how much the typical diesel engine for a small
sailboat weighs from your single example, which omitted the necessary
weight of the drive shaft, the mounting, etc.. From your note, it seems
that you are saying that I should just shut up and accept your
propaganda based on that example. - Perhaps it would clarify things if
you provided some stats about the weight of several typical diesel
installations on smaller boats. (Including ALL associated components,
including drive shaft, cooling system, through-hull components, fuel and
water filters, pumps, mounting structures, controls, fuel tanks, etc.)
Remember also that the Mac, with its light weight and high freeboard,
needs reserve power for control and to get through chop, adverse winds,
etc. (And to avoid going through the usual discussion of why the Mac
should have been designed differently to avoid such limitations in the
first place, I acknowledge that the high freeboard is a disadvantage,
but it's also an advantage in that the boat is roomy and comfortable and
includes an unusually large cabin. - The light weight and lack of
weighted keel are disadvantages, but they permit convenient tailoring,
motoring or sailing in shallow waters, and high-speed motoring, etc.)
As previously noted, my comments on this ng are intended to help provide
a balanced representation of the Mac (missing in other discussions), not
to claim it has no limitations.)


And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be a
single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your outboard.

Care to provide specs on a few examples, Jeff, along with their gross
weight? And, as mentioned above, remember that the Mac, with its high
freeboard and light weight, needs substantial power to get through chop
and adverse wind conditions, to stay on course in extreme weather, and
to dock efficiently. - A small diesel isn't going to cut it. Also, a
small diesel isn't going to get the boat on a plane either. - No more
quick runs back to the marina, no quick passages to desired skiing
areas, no water tubing for the kids, etc.)

Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.


Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:


No, that wasn't the specific quote, but it was one of several. Actually,
I objected to the claim that the high speeds could be used when
returning in bad weather. Given all of the warnings about running at
high speed or without ballast in chop over one foot, this appears
unrealistic, if not impossible.


Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without
the ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.


There is no doubt that it can be fast in flat water and unloaded.

I was referring to comments of Mac owners about powering from California
to Catalina and elsewhere with full loads at high speed, but without
ballast. Flat water, Jeff? All the way to Catalina?


Of course, put that engine on a proper powerboat and you'd do about 40
knots, so what's your point?

Most owners of 26-foot cabin cruiser power boats seem to use two or
three outboards substantially larger than mine, or large
inboard-outboards. Don't think your plan (one 50 hp outboard) is going
to work Jeff.


I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the
Bay, and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I
didn't have the throttle wide open.)


yada yada yada


And, despite the "yada yada yada", ..... doesn't that example indicate
that the Mac has obvious advantages relative to its capabilities under
power? I think most unbiased readers would acknowledge that fact.

bragging that you can power faster than sailboats. impressive.

You didn't quite get it, Jeff. I was responding to your remarks to the
effect that the Macs can't power efficiently under severe weather
conditions. (On this trip we had chop, white-caps, winds sufficient to
convince skippers of several larger boats to sail with only a main or
jib, and I was motoring under partial power.) You introduced the topic.
You then tried to put me down, referring to (selected portions of)
remarks of mine posted over a year ago, because I was "only" doing 13
knots. - I merely responded.


Jim

Scotty - Please respond
 

Still waiting for your answer Scotty.

Jim





JimC wrote:



JimC wrote:



Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the



current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



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



actually

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




5




Scotty, to make sure I'm not misinterpeting your note, are you saying
that five of your six quotes were from individuals who had sailed a
MacGregor 26M?

Jim


It's a simple yes/no question Scotty. - Answering it will take only a
few moments of your time.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy
 

JimC wrote:
Jeff, this note included your misleading comments on a number of
subjects, and I have tried to address most of them. Because of your
lengthy comments, the response is also lengthy. - Perhaps it would be
more helpful if you would limit each response (if you choose to respond)
to one or two subjects per note.

Jim, not a single one of my claims is misleading. Yours, on the other
hand, speak volumes about your ethics.


Jeff wrote:

Jeff wrote:

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


I love that expression "cherry-picked"! I think that would be a good
defense - "Your Honor, the prosecution is just cherry-picking. What
about the 6 billion people that my client didn't kill that night?"

By "cherry-picking", I refer to the fact that you keep repeating the
statement quoted below, but you totally ignore the other statements I
made during that discussion in which I said that the warnings,

Sorry, I really don't understand your point. You claimed that some of
the warnings made can be ignored, by saying there were analogous to
warnings to wear the seatbelt on an exercise machine.

particularly those relating to sailing the boat without ballast, should
be observed. - You also ignore the instructions IN THE MAC OWNERS'
MANUAL about motoring without the ballast. - Cherry-picking at it's
best, Jeff.

I'm not cherry picking, you're the one who says that some warnings can
be ignored.


- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:

"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.)

Gee, how many times do I have to repost your comments? I post them,
you delete them. Over and over.

- What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

You said:
"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. "

Everyone, except perhaps a lying lawyer, would understand that to mean
that the warnings can be ignored. Are you telling me that you assume
everyone wears a seatbelt on the exercise machine? Are you saying
that everyone who reads that should be thinking "Yes, I always wear
the seatbelt on the exercise machine so these must be real serious
warnings"???

Do you really expect anyone to buy that Jim?

snip lawyer talk that everyone knows can be ignored


Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?


blah blah blah. You're arguing this as a lawyer. This is why lawyers
are considered by many to be the Scum of the Earth. Is that what you
are, Jim?

Everyone reading this knows you're digging this hole deeper and deeper
with everything you say. And yet you continue. Did they teach you
that if you lie often enough someone will believe you?

I made the point that the Mac comes with a long list of warnings not
found on other boats, and possibly not well understood by novice
boaters. You've been going around in circles now for years claiming
that first that these warnings can be ignored because they're just
lawyer talk, then saying they can't be ignored, then saying that
they're only there to protect from law suits.

The bottom line is that what I said in the beginning still holds.


substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it.


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. "


You've tried to "un-ring this bell" many times, but I think everyone
here understands what you meant.
...

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?


Once more, Jim, no one is buying it.


(In other words, I didn't say they could be innored, and you can't find
any such statement.)

You said:
"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. "

Gee, this is easy. You're really a masochist. Or do you think ...
well, I don't know what you think. Any reasonable person would say,
"Ooops, I made a mistake, better not go there any more."

Anyone who reads this knows what you said, why one Earth would you
deny it???

...

Jeff, I asked you whether you thought MacGregors' attorneys were not
involved with the inclusion of those warnings. - You never answered me.
- Why?

What's the point? How is it relevant? Are you claiming that the
warnings can be ignored because a lawyer wrote them? Are you claiming
lawyers are liars?


And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound
engine hanging off the transom.

Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the crew/guests/skipper,
not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed solo). The motor is
slightly farther aft, but not much. (The captains seat is about a foot
forward of the motor.)

What a crock of ****. Do you actually read the stuff you write?
Since the moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the
distance from the center of mass, the mass of the engine is actually
equivalent to a mass 4 time larger but half the distance to the center
of mass. In other words, the engine on the stern contributes roughly
the same to the moment as crew that would equal the safe limit of the
boat.

You can't take a very light boat, and then claim that the heaviest
feasible motor hung as far aft as possible only has negligible affect.
Unless of course, you don't care if everyone thinks you're an idiot!


As should now be understood, the volume and mass of the ballast is in
an area slightly forward of amidships, rather near the mast.


No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between
the mast and the bow.

The first and second "station" are substantially the same.

You're ****ting me, right? I mean you have looked at the diagram?

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

Or are you just assuming that someone out there hasn't looked and
might believe you? The diagram pretty clearly shows a much larger
cross section at the first station, perhaps almost double that of the
second.


Additionally,
the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned near the mast.

We're not talking about the 300 pounds of permanent ballast. We're
talking about the amount that is forward. You've got 1150 pounds to
distribute. The diagram clearly shows the largest cross section of
the tank at the first station, halfway to the bow. You're claiming
there's very little aft. That would seem to imply 300 or so pounds in
the far forward area. You can babble all you want, but it doesn't
change that fact.

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


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.


Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong, so
why do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the tank is
in the forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the
centerline, there is little tapering forward until you get very close
to the bow.


Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches the bow.

The largest cross section is already way forward. QED. End of story.
The best that you can claim is that there isn't much in the last
few inches. This is hundreds of pounds of ballast where a normally
ballasted boat has no extra mass.

Actually, the tapering has little affect until the last few feet.


In the Mac, the "last few feet" comprise a substantialy proportion of
the distance from the mast to the bow.

yada yada yada. We're talking distance from center of mass which is
the center of flotation. If there is nothing submerged, that implies
that the center of mass is further aft. You loose.


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?


Once again, we have a case of you making a claim of and inner and
outer hull and than after you were called on that you started
backpedaling and trying to explain that its only the vulnerable part
that is "protected."

You quote from an ongoing discussion on this ng as if every time I post,
they each of my notes should be scrutinized and foot-noted, as if I were
drafting a legal brief to be sent to the Supreme Court. In the
discussion to which you refer, I made the point that the Mac has what is
in essence a double hull. - WHICH IS TRUE. Then, during the ongoing
discussion, I explained that the ballast tank served to provide the same
function as a double hull, in that if the outer hull below the tank was
compromised, water would not be let into the hull. Jeff, don't you think
that you ought to refer to my comments during the entire discussion,
conducted months ago, rather than leap gleefully on one introductory
comment of mine? From an ethical standpoint, wouldn't that be the thing
to do?

why? It doesn't change anything. You tried to claim:

"the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank."

You were quite happy to leave the reader with the impression that this
is a double hull, which has a very specific meaning in marine
terminology. This is 6 months after I, and others, had already called
you on this, so if this does not make you a blatant liar, I don't know
what does.




In fact, now you're claiming that its only a small portion
that is protected.

Nope. It's rather a large portion. - (In fact, you claimed the ballast
extended along the entire length of the boat.)

Yes I did, and you corrected me on that.

BTW, what the area is, it doesn't include the majority of the outside
waterline, since the ballast runs down the center. Every case I've
ever seen of a major hull breech has been on the side where there is
no protection.




There are two basic facts he First, the water
ballast does not extend the full width, it is concentrated in the
middle, so that any blow off the centerline is not protected. And
while the bow area is protected, at high speed that is lifted out of
the water and thus needs no protection.

If the bow is lifted out of the water, the Mac "double hull" can provide
protection if the boat runs into or over a floating object. - My
experience is that some of them are hard to see, even at slow speeds.

If this is such a strong feature, why is it never mentioned in the Mac
literature. Could it be that its a bogus safety feature?



And now you're claiming there is little
protection aft.

Most impact would occur forward of amidships, Jeff. - Unless you were
sailing backwards.

This is clearly not true for a boat that is planing.



And the second point is that MacGregor itself never
touts this as a feature - it one that you made made up!


I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire boat
has a double hull.

You were quite happy to word it in such a way as to leave that
impression, while still maintaining denyability.




You tried to sell this one and got caught, so don't complain to me
about "ethics."


The ethics problems are your own, Jeff, not mine. - See below.

Yes, we know you have no problem with ethics.




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?


Sorry Jim, this is another bell that you can't un-ring! When you made
the comment originally you were quite happy to make it sound as if the
boat had all the protection of a double hull.

See earlier discussion. You cherry-picked one introductory statement
and ignored a numberof later ones.

So? I ignored your comments after it was pointed out that you initial
comments were bogus. Your backpedaling is not a fun target. However,
6 months later you came back again with our "double liner" comment.



It was only after it was
clear that the "protection" was very limited that you admitted that it
doesn't have what is commonly referred to as a double hull.

Here's the original note:
....

As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper
who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the
boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank.
....

It's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a double hull.

First of all, that was 6 months after we had a lengthy discussion on
the topic, so you're lying when you say that was the original note.

Secondly, you obviously have no trouble wording that so that one might
assume the "double liner" actually covers the hull, not a small
portion of it. You could have easily said that there is "partial
protection" but you preferred to use terminology easily confused with
"double hull" which you know has a very specific meaning in the
nautical world.

But then, I can see how these little problems would not concern you.


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.


Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine" which
is about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern??? And what
about the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow of
the boat???

Nope.

Again, reality has no place in your logic, does it?

!!
 

JimC wrote:
Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng.

Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:
.... The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.

By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


But not as much fun as a boat that sails better.

What is pitching "excessively"? Enough to notice? Enough to
cause ridicule by other sailors?

If the boat's moment of inertia is too high, then the boat
sails slowly and pitches more than it would if the weights
were closer to the hull's center of volume.

In other words, the hull, motor, and ballast, are inherently
flawed in design to enable the big heavy motor. A
compromise, not an efficient or effective design.


JimC wrote:
The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do.

It also doesn't do a few basic things that most sailboats
do; and of things that most sailboats do well, it does poorly.




.... If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time.

Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would probably be more
popular.


.... It's
relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the costs of new
boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not compare the
costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly
equipped.

It's cheap compared to motorboats of similar cabin size.
*That* is the key selling point, plus the bonus that
trailerable motorboats of similar cabin room require a much
heavier & more expensive towing vehicle.


And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


If you're not picky.

DSK

!!
 

JimC wrote:
And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location.
A 250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to
the pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.



Totally irrelevant.


Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.

Nice backpedal. It clearly isn't what you meant the first few times
around, but if you think it saves some face for you, so be it.

or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously
the boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.


And just how would you redistribute the mass, Jeff? - Where would you
move the outboard, and where would you move the ballast?

I would not have designed this boat at all, so don't asked me have I
might change it. All I wanted to do when I started this topic of
discussion was to rationally consider how the different weight
distribution affects stability and balance. But you wanted to turn
this into something quite different.


The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do. If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time.

That's nonsense!!!

It's relatively inexpensive,

debatable

if you are willing to compare the costs of new
boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not compare the
costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly
equipped.

So why do they seem to depreciate twice as fast as other boats?


And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.

only for those with low standards.


Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?


Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that your
standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail, even when you know
you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying
because I'm having fun."


Jeff, we may have differing opinions, and you seem to have confused your
own opinions as facts, but would you please name the more egregious
instances of my lying? Perhaps you could list the top ten instances?

Being a clever lawyer, you word things so that they will be taken one
way, but you can claim you said something different. Your comment
above about balance was one such example. The "double liner"
discussion is another. Your claim that the outboard is much lighter
than a diesel is another. Your claim that the ballast is very close
to the center is yet another.

They question is, Jim, when have you been completely truthful?


The boat is fast enough to be fun to sail, Jeff. It's not as fast as
some other boats, but it's still fun to sail. - Isn't that the important
factor.? (Actually, I wasn't having too much problem keeping up with
some, though not all, of the larger boats on my last cruise.)

All boats are fun to sail. That's not the point. You make lots of
claims, and then try to write them off by saying, "but its fun to
sail." What's your point?







However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about
the same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?



I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of
this is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few
extra bits and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since
the diesel generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel,
one can claim a huge weight advantage on that front.



That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull supporting
its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers lie, aren't
you?

It has enough.


You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard, and
that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do with the
possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the distribution.

As to the relative weight, it seems that you want us to accept your
personal opinions about how much the typical diesel engine for a small
sailboat weighs from your

I was quoting from the Yanmar specs, using the most frequently spec'd
diesel for small sailboats. Originally I mentioned to two cylinder
version, because you had asked what someone had in their boat. But
for one as light as the Mac, a one cylinder could do.

single example, which omitted the necessary
weight of the drive shaft, the mounting, etc..

I mentioned to driver shaft. However, the weight on that could vary a
lot, and its so low it could be considered ballast.

From your note, it seems
that you are saying that I should just shut up and accept your
propaganda based on that example. - Perhaps it would clarify things if
you provided some stats about the weight of several typical diesel
installations on smaller boats. (Including ALL associated components,
including drive shaft, cooling system, through-hull components, fuel and
water filters, pumps, mounting structures, controls, fuel tanks, etc.)

More lies! I mentioned that the weight for a diesel doesn't include
several items, including the drive shaft. It does include most of the
others you've mentioned - fuel filter, cooling system, pumps,
alternators etc. Some of what you claim are needed for your
installation. Are you trying to claim there is no mounting hardware
or reinforcement, no controls, no fuel tanks? How about the fact that
the gas engine needs twice the fuel?

And of course, the primary issue here is that the weight of the diesel
is well forward, while the outboard is as far aft as possible.




And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be
a single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your
outboard.

Care to provide specs on a few examples, Jeff, along with their gross
weight?

The Yanmar 1GM is 179 pounds with transmission.


And, as mentioned above, remember that the Mac, with its high
freeboard and light weight, needs substantial power to get through chop
and adverse wind conditions, to stay on course in extreme weather, and
to dock efficiently. - A small diesel isn't going to cut it. Also, a
small diesel isn't going to get the boat on a plane either. - No more
quick runs back to the marina, no quick passages to desired skiing
areas, no water tubing for the kids, etc.)

Hey, you're the one who brought this up. You claimed your engine was
much lighter than the diesel on most similarly sized sailboats. I
pointed out you're wrong.

!!
 

JimC wrote:
And you have sailed the 26M how many times?


The same number of times you have, judging by how well
you've observed the boat's characteristics.

However, I have not ridden in one with the big white flappy
things up.

DSK

!!
 

DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:

And you have sailed the 26M how many times?


The same number of times you have, judging by how well you've observed
the boat's characteristics.

However, I have not ridden in one with the big white flappy things up.

DSK



Real cute Ganz. When you have sailed one, let me know.

Jim

!!
 

DSK wrote:

JimC wrote:

Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng.


Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:

.... The boat is built to be balanced, under sail or power, with the
motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.


By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


But not as much fun as a boat that sails better.

And you have sailed the 26M how many times, Ganz?

What is pitching "excessively"? Enough to notice? Enough to cause
ridicule by other sailors?

Actually, I have sailed a number of different boats. I am familiar with
the sailing characteristics of the Beneteaux 39, the O'Day 39, the
Valiant 40, the Cal 32, and a number of others. I can assure you Ganz
that "pitching" is not a problem on the Mac 26M.


If the boat's moment of inertia is too high, then the boat sails slowly
and pitches more than it would if the weights were closer to the hull's
center of volume.

In other words, the hull, motor, and ballast, are inherently flawed in
design to enable the big heavy motor.


Yes, but they aren't flawed. And, once more, how many times have you
sailed the 26M?



JimC wrote:

The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do.


It also doesn't do a few basic things that most sailboats do; and of
things that most sailboats do well, it does poorly.

And how many times have you sailed the 26M? How many hours?


.... If serves the needs of most sailors, under the conditions
experienced 90% of the time.


Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would probably be more popular.


If popularity is a factor, then you lose. The Mac is one of the most
popular boats ever built.


.... It's relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the
costs of new boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not
compare the costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M
similarly equipped.


It's cheap compared to motorboats of similar cabin size. *That* is the
key selling point, plus the bonus that trailerable motorboats of similar
cabin room require a much heavier & more expensive towing vehicle.

In this case, I tow and launch the boat with a conventional Mercury
sedan. - No pickup needed. But I don't think that is the "key selling
point." The key selling points include the fact that it's fun to sail,
it's versatile, it's safe (including sufficient flotation to keep it
afloat even if the hull is compromised, it can be used as a coastal
sailor or power boat, it has five berths, it can float in one foot of
water, it can motor out to a desired sailing area quickly, and motor
back quickly, to permit more sailing time, it's dagger board, motor, and
rudders can be adjusted as desired for particular sailing conditions,
the ballast can be removed to reduce the weight of the boat for
tailoring, it can be launched in very little water (in contrast to many
"trailerable" boats), it rides low on the trailer, providing safer
trailering, it includes a rotatable mast, permanent ballast plus
removable water ballast, roomy cabin with standing headroom, etc., etc.
Also, it's fun to sail.

Jim










And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


If you're not picky.

DSK