BoatBanter.com - Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/75574-google-proves-macgregor-26-flimsy.html)

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...

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

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

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

Jim

He? Oh, Jim. I get it. You're going to "appoint a watch"? I wouldn't suggest
it. When is the F8 not appropriate? When is it appropriate? Should you never
use the engine? If you should, when?

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...

. On the other hand, I
personally don't want to SAIL out in ANY conditions.

Jim

Well then, you bought the right boat.

S

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

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

Might need it for a spinnaker to outrun Jonathan!

What about the 'big hole' in the middle?

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

Looks like you erased all my remarks POSTED IN THAT
DISCUSSION

That was the only merciful thing to do.

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

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

1. the Mac 26 XM sucks!

2. the Mac 26 XM is NOT a sailboat.

3. I are a idiot.

4. There should be an open season on lawyers.

Jimbo C.

Oiy!

Seahag wrote:

Yo Ho Ho !.

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

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

Scotty wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

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

Might need it for a spinnaker to outrun Jonathan!

What about the 'big hole' in the middle?

sail tape....

Martin Baxter wrote:
Seahag wrote:

Yo Ho Ho !.

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

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and she has better
aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Cheers
Marty

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

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

Yes, I appreciate that your boat has problems that could be considered
"lack of seaworthiness."

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

First, I'm not saying that you "need 50 hp to power the boat." You could
probably get by with 15 - 25. I do think that you need something larger
than the typical 5 - 10 hp often used on boats of this size,

The problem here is that the sails don't generate much more than 5-10
HP. Actually, at 20 knots your full sail would generate 17 hp, but
you already told us that even at 15 knots you need to reef the sails.

The actual engine that would be appropriate for a boat your size would
be about 10 Hp, though with outboards you can generally get a 15 for
the same weight as a 10.

As I've mentioned most of my sisterships are powered by twin 9.9
outboards. These boats are considerably larger than yours, with a lot
of windage and no ballast. Many of them (in fact all of them, since
they are rather difficult to put on a trailer) have done extended
trips under power.

and that
having a large motor provides reserve power and additional control that
is nice to have in severe conditions. The 50 hp is needed if you want to
plane with full load, but I think 20 hp would probably be enough for
getting through most heavy weather conditions.

If that is true, you're saying that the boat is unmanageable under
sail in heavy weather. This is quite disturbing - I've never been on
a sailboat billed as a "cruising boat" that could not be trusted under
sail in winds up to 40 knots or more. This was a lesson learned early
on, when we had to sail off the anchor on a dangerous lee shore.

I'm not claiming that when push came to shove I wouldn't appreciate an
engine, the bigger the better. But the boat should be able to handle
anything under sail, and you're claiming it can't.

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

So now you're saying that the boat can handle heavy weather, but it
isn't fun. Sorry Jim, you can have this both ways. You've said many
times that the boat is "fun to sail" but its well known that the Mac
is very slow in light air (with ballast) and here you're saying its
not fun in heavy air. So I guess it fun as long as the wind is
between 14.5 and 15.5 knots.

Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
. net...

Capt. JG wrote:

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

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

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

Jim

He? Oh, Jim. I get it. You're going to "appoint a watch"? I wouldn't suggest
it. When is the F8 not appropriate? When is it appropriate? Should you never
use the engine? If you should, when?

A watch, meaning someone who would keep an eye on the mob. - I would
use the engine if my crappy Mac 26M couldn't come about near the mob or
was being blown all over the place by a stiff 10-mph wind.

Jim

Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the
conditions experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't
read of any instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in
heavy weather that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a
coastal cruiser, and I have never claimed that it was suitable for
extended crossings, live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back
to shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off
the crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the
Mac, which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

What confuses me, Jeff, is the fact that I post the same comments, such
as those above about the limitations of the boat, over and over and over
again. - Yet to you, each day seems to be a brand new discussion, a
fresh clean slate.

Jim

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

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

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

Yes, I appreciate that your boat has problems that could be considered
"lack of seaworthiness."

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

First, I'm not saying that you "need 50 hp to power the boat." You
could probably get by with 15 - 25. I do think that you need
something larger than the typical 5 - 10 hp often used on boats of
this size,

The problem here is that the sails don't generate much more than 5-10
HP. Actually, at 20 knots your full sail would generate 17 hp, but you
already told us that even at 15 knots you need to reef the sails.

The actual engine that would be appropriate for a boat your size would
be about 10 Hp, though with outboards you can generally get a 15 for the
same weight as a 10.

As I've mentioned most of my sisterships are powered by twin 9.9
outboards. These boats are considerably larger than yours, with a lot
of windage and no ballast. Many of them (in fact all of them, since
they are rather difficult to put on a trailer) have done extended trips
under power.

and that having a large motor provides reserve power and additional
control that is nice to have in severe conditions. The 50 hp is needed
if you want to plane with full load, but I think 20 hp would probably
be enough for getting through most heavy weather conditions.

If that is true, you're saying that the boat is unmanageable under sail
in heavy weather. This is quite disturbing - I've never been on a
sailboat billed as a "cruising boat" that could not be trusted under
sail in winds up to 40 knots or more. This was a lesson learned early
on, when we had to sail off the anchor on a dangerous lee shore.

I'm not claiming that when push came to shove I wouldn't appreciate an
engine, the bigger the better. But the boat should be able to handle
anything under sail, and you're claiming it can't.

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

So now you're saying that the boat can handle heavy weather, but it
isn't fun. Sorry Jim, you can have this both ways. You've said many
times that the boat is "fun to sail" but its well known that the Mac is
very slow in light air (with ballast) and here you're saying its not fun
in heavy air. So I guess it fun as long as the wind is between 14.5 and
15.5 knots.

Scotty wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

"Scotty" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:
In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast,

but then

you're in deep **** if it died,

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

Mac26Xm.

Scotty

Even on the trailer?

deep, DEEP.....

Deeper than in a Seidleman(sp)? At least the Mac would be floating ON
the water, rather than sinking below it.

Jim

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad

nauseum, the

following is still true:

1. the Mac 26 XM sucks!

2. the Mac 26 XM is NOT a sailboat.

3. I are a idiot.

4. There should be an open season on lawyers.

Jimbo C.

Oiy!

Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about the lies you
posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think it's OK to lie
when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?

Jim
Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

Ummm... I think you're getting befuddled. Doug wrote this... as much as I
would have liked to. :-)

Sorry.

"katy" wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
Seahag wrote:

Yo Ho Ho !.

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

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and she
has better aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Seahag

Seahag wrote:

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and she
has better aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond. Rats.

Marty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

JimC wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Oiy!

Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about the lies you
posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think it's OK to lie
when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?

What difference would it make? Judging from your responses they don't
like it, and won't listen when you tell them the truth, so why not tell
them lies and make 'em happy?

Cheers
Marty

Jim
Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Capt. JG wrote:

Ummm... I think you're getting befuddled. Doug wrote this... as much as I
would have liked to. :-)

Sorry.

No problem... you own a Mac. :-)

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

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

Might need it for a spinnaker to outrun Jonathan!

What about the 'big hole' in the middle?

It wasn't my fault. A Mac did it.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
et...
Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the conditions
experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't read of any
instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in heavy weather that
prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a coastal cruiser, and I
have never claimed that it was suitable for extended crossings,
live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

Maybe they're smarter than we think?

At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back to
shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off the
crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the Mac,
which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

I don't think you can know this for certain. I think it's a wishful guess,
since you would never get out in those conditions.

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

Martin Baxter wrote:
Seahag wrote:

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and she
has better aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond. Rats.

Marty

hehehe...more space to plunder...and don't ahve to chop through the ice
to get there!

Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the conditions
experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't read of any
instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in heavy weather that
prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a coastal cruiser, and I
have never claimed that it was suitable for extended crossings,
live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

Maybe they're smarter than we think?

At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back to
shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off the
crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the Mac,
which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

I don't think you can know this for certain. I think it's a wishful guess,
since you would never get out in those conditions.

Guess I'll never know, Capt.

Jim

Scotty - Please respond

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:
I think that you should accept his silence with gratitude.

Donal, you're too nice a guy. Maybe that's why you don't
hang around here much any more?

I've never been accused of being "too nice" before.

The reasons for my absence are Astronomy and the piano. I've been trying to
do astrophotography, and it is much more difficult than I could have
believed. I have also been trying to learn to play the piano.....

The piano requires about 3 hours a night, and astrophotography requires
every single second of clear dark sky that is available.

I'm no good at either yet, but I am sort of getting there with the
astrophotography.

Regards

Donal
--

Scotty - Please respond

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hey Donal... where you been?

Busy with piano and telescope. See my answer to Doug.

Have you posted the photos?

Regards

Donal
--

"Martin Baxter" wrote:
bb Seahag wrote:

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and
she
has better aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond. Rats.

Well Hell, if it was up to me and my boat, under sail or
power, I'd just turn in to the passing boat and squish em!

Seahag

"katy" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
Seahag wrote:

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and
she
has better aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond.
Rats.

Marty

hehehe...more space to plunder...and don't ahve to chop
through the ice to get there!

I meant to ask...what was that wine? I want some for
Christmas Eve Fondu!

You really put on a great feast that day, Thank-you!

Seahag

Scotty - Please respond

Donal wrote:
The reasons for my absence are Astronomy and the piano. I've been trying to
do astrophotography, and it is much more difficult than I could have
believed. I have also been trying to learn to play the piano.....

The piano requires about 3 hours a night, and astrophotography requires
every single second of clear dark sky that is available.

I'm no good at either yet, but I am sort of getting there with the
astrophotography.

I used to do Astrophotography. It was easy. NASA sent me all the
data from a $250,000,000 satellite, I ran it through several megabucks
of computers (with all the power of about one iPod), displayed it on a
$30,000 screen (now called a VGA), and then took a picture with a 35mm
camera. All I had to do for them is give them about 80 hours a week
of my time.

Scotty - Please respond

What kind of telescope is that, Donald? And what aperture? - I have a
16-inch Dob, great for visual, but not for photography. I recently
completed logging in all the Messier Objects.

Interestingly, I'm also practicing piano, on a Yamaha P90 keyboard.

Jim

Donal wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Donal wrote:

I think that you should accept his silence with gratitude.

Donal, you're too nice a guy. Maybe that's why you don't
hang around here much any more?

I've never been accused of being "too nice" before.

The reasons for my absence are Astronomy and the piano. I've been trying to
do astrophotography, and it is much more difficult than I could have
believed. I have also been trying to learn to play the piano.....

The piano requires about 3 hours a night, and astrophotography requires
every single second of clear dark sky that is available.

I'm no good at either yet, but I am sort of getting there with the
astrophotography.

Regards

Donal
--

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about the
lies you
posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think it's
OK to lie
when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?

You talking to me?

Scotty

Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy

JimC wrote:
....
But no, you preferred
to look like a fool arguing that an oversized outboard hanging on the
stern doesn't affect the moment at all.

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

Let me repeat because you seem to have a reading problem:
Nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably.

This entire discussion was not about how badly the Mac pitched, it was
about its weight distribution. You wanted to look like an idiot, and
you succeeded in that admirably! Congrats!

2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant
safety factor are just that. - Theories....

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

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

Actually, when the boat is up on a plane, the striking point would
likely be where the permanent ballast is.

Also, my
experience is that it's difficult to see objects immediately forward of
the hull when the boat is plaining.

Are you actually telling us that you would drive the boat at high
speed when you weren't able to see the water in front of you??? Do
you go home at night wondering how many swimmers you hit? Jim, you
really have to think about what you say before you post!

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

Clarification. - I never said that it was a "significant" safety
feature. (That was your intepretation.)

When asked for recommendations you touted the Mac and listed three
safety features in particular and explained that these were advantages
over other boats. The first one you mentioned was the "double liner."
The second was the foam in the mast, which of course should be
meaningless if the Mac never capsizes.

It is, however, a safety factor
not available on most sailing vessels.

What most boats have as an alternative is a strong hull. Really, the
part of the Mac you're saying is protected by the double liner is that
part of a normal boat that has the thickest hull, followed by the keel.

And are you actually claiming that a significant number of sailboats
sink in protected waters due to collisions that would be prevented by
the small amount of the "double liner" of the Mac? There must be a
terrible loss of life - what do you think? 100 a year? 200?

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

(See comments below.)

right. You say they don't want to be alarmist.

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

of course, you choose to ignore the fact the your terminology is
misleading.

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

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

Isn't this where the permanent ballast it?

(Incidentally, how many cases
of serious breech of a Mac 26M have you seen?)

And how many Macs have ever had their "outer hull" punctured and they
were saved by the inner hull? This is your claim.

I've seen a number of boats holed, but its never been on the center
line. So you claim this is a safety feature, how many boats of any
type have you seen holed that would have been saved by the Mac's
protection? How many lives would be saved? I'll give you a hint: it
begins with "Z" and ends with "row".

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

By "protected waters," are you implying that most skippers of
conventional sailboats don't venture out beyond protected bays or
waterways, Jeff?

Actually, I didn't think it was fair to include boats that sink in the
middle of the ocean, and I was thinking specifically the area where a
mac would be. If you want, I would include the near coastal waters,
in fact all the waters that are included in the CG safety reports.

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

It might help to clarify things if you stated why you think that a
boat that already has positive flotation also needs a small portion of
its hull protected by a little extra fiberglass. I'm quite happy to
give you the flotation as a feature, in fact I've been curious as to
why some (but not all) of the competition doesn't have it. But it
would seem that flotation greatly reduces to value of a "double liner"
as a safety feature.

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

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

You're just being silly Jim. This is what I've been talking about.
You fight tooth and nail on every little feature even after it been
shown that it really isn't significant.

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

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

but you just said you would try to power in. You're like that
comedienne that screams out "IT COULD HAPPEN!" Face it Jim, you're
just flailing here!

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

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

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're cracking me up, Jim!

Mac has no trouble mentioning the flotation in the mast which implies
they're afraid of turning turtle. They have no trouble mentioning the
flotation which implies they're afraid they will get holed. So if the
tiny protection offered by the "double liner" was significant, why
wouldn't they mention it?

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

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

where did I say it was an "important factor"? The note you reference
lists it as only one of a number of features.
that makes
the Mac superior to other boats.

This was the first of three. You obviously considered it important
enough that it would be one of three extra features that would
influence a decision. But why are you denying this? Are you just so
much of an asshole lawyer that you do this out of force of habit?

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

You've certainly implied that it is superior to any other of its size.

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

Again, I only mentioned the double liner as one of a number of
advantageous features.

It was listed as the first of three, the second being foam in the mast
which is only useful if you assume the boat can capsize.

And in many others of my notes citing
advantageous features of the Mac, I haven't even mentioned the double
hull factor.

What does that mean? Sometimes you don't mention it? Is that like
saying you didn't murder anyone last Thursday?

3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics.
....
You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there
would be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few
accidents at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over.

If that's true, why is the title of this particular subject string
"Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy"?

no one saw fit to change it.

And why do many other notes on
this ng (from you and others) speak of safety issues of the Mac? -
Why waste our time talking about safety issues if they aren't a major
factor?

Because you seem to claim things as "safety features" when they aren't.

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

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

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

Are you really asking me to explain why other people don't like the Mac?

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

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

The Coast Guard Annual Boating Statistics are out there for everyone.
The bottom line is that there are actually very few fatalities in
Aux sailboats 26+ feet. Statistically if you have a boat and a car,
you're roughly five times more likely to die in a car accident. There
are only perhaps 2 or 3 fatalities a year. When an incident is in the
news (such as the man who fell off the racing boat, or the boat the
got crunched by a large boat, etc.) that will generally be the only
incident, or perhaps one of two for the year. IIRC, the kids in the
capsized Mac in 2002 were the only fatalities that year from a 26+
foot sailboat.

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

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

Hey, the data is out there. Feel free to read:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2005.pdf

The problem with this data is that they don't break it out at a fine
enough level. So while we can find the number of fatalities in aux
sailers, we can't tell how many of those were in smaller boats, or
from different causes such as sinking, or falling overboard, etc.
However, by deduction, you can at least guess that the number of
incidents in smaller sailboat versus larger should parallel the stats
for other boats. However, we do have upper limits, which are
themselves pretty low. For most years, the are only a total of 6-7
deaths in sailboats, and large boats are less than half.

The odd thing in the stats is while there are clear trends that some
classes of boats are somewhat safer than others, and in particular
there are certain types of accidents that some boats are more prone
to, there is no overwhelming difference, like you can't show the
powerboats are 10 times more dangerous than sailboats. This is
because so many of the incidents really are human error, often not
related to the vessel at all. There are also reporting issues, like a
large number of deaths are from boats that aren't registered.

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

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

The two biggest factors were the empty ballast tank and the big
engine. If you "goose the throttle" on most sailboats not much
happens at all. And eight adults is not overloading for most
ballasted sailboats.

But I will give you this: for any 26 foot sailboat that has only water
ballast but the tank is empty, if it has a 50 hp engine and you goose
it and turn sharply, it will quite possibly capsize.

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

That's enother of your unsubstantiated theories, of course. But even if
true, the fact that this is the ONLY example you can come up with
strongly suggests that the boat is not inherently unsafe.

I never heard the final verdict, but I do know that the expert witness
from US Sailing (Jim Teeters) testified that the design of the boat
was partially at fault.

Also, you
conveniently forget that the boat in question was not the current model
(which, after all, is the boat I have been discussing all along) which
includes permanent ballast in addition to the water ballast, and foam
flotation built into the mast. - (The permanent ballast on the 26M works
even when the skipper is drunk.) Again, I'm not saying that I know a 26M
wouldn't have capsized under the circumstances. - I'm merely saying
that neither you or I know what would have happened if the boat had been
a 26M, or if it had been a small boat from another manufacturer. And
please don't tell me you KNOW what would have happened under the
circumstances on another boat. - You don't.

I can't say about a lot of boats but I can pretty confidently say that
any normally ballasted sailboat with a normal sized engine would not
have capsized. I've sailed an awful lot of small keel boats over they
years and I don't know of any that could come close to this behavior.
Perhaps you know of one?

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

Not a particularly "long" list, IMO,

Ah, I'm not sure what else they could add - the crew size is limited
and you have to stay huddled in the cockpit. The seas must be flat
and the water warm. All of the rigging (sails, rudders, board) must
be in a particular position. And I forgot one, no sharp turns. Is
there any discretionary freedom they have??? You're not allowed to go
to the head. You're not even allowed to stand or lean over the side
so that you might see something floating ahead!

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

My issue, as I've said a number of times, is that the Mac is marketed
to novices ("Learn to sail in an afternoon...") These are the people
that would not understand how dangerous it really is to ignore the
warnings. That is why when there is an incident with a Mac it is
usually explained off as operator error because the skipper was new,
or borrowed the boat.

Frankly, if I had one, and lived on flat water, I'd probably be out
there trying to break speed records by running stripped down with no
ballast. But not with my kid in the boat.

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

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

True, but they say every 100 pounds of crew or gear subtracts a knot
from the speed. This is why I kept saying that when you used it for
cruising your top speed would only be 12-13 knots. Since a number of
"normal" boats can power at close to 8 knots, your speed advantage
really isn't that great.

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

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

Gee, that sounds like a good point to me! My brother had a Carrara
and I was staggered at how quickly it got up to 100 MPH without even
thinking; I was quite pleased when he gave it up.

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

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

Sorry Jim. I never signed any agreement saying I would fairly review
any boat that was mentioned here. If you (or anyone one else) says
something blatantly stupid or wrong, I have the right to call you on
it. I have no obligation at all to say something nice about the boat
to balance it. And again, I've objected more to the way you represent
the boat, not its actually qualities.

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

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

Yes, you have made that claim, Jeff. - But you haven't backed it up with
any meaningful stats. Quickly glancing through the current listings of
Mac 26M's on Yachtworld.com, the asking prices are as follows:
$29,900, 25,000, 25,625, 32,500, 48,476, 19,900, 40,457, 29,900, 26,900,
23,900, 33,500.

The fact that some of them are pretty cheap is very telling. And none
of them are more than what, 4 years old? Why would a $30K boat be
asking only $20K after 4 years?

Yachtworld isn't the best for raw numbers since many of the boat are
in Europe. If you look in Soundings you'll find a number of 4-6 y/o
26X's for under 20K meaning they could eventually sell for half of the
original price.

My boat is 7 years old and has probably lost about 20%.

Going back another five years (which would relate to the
older,26X model) the average asking price is around $20,000. Obviously,
these figures don't tell us what the boats are actually selling for, or
what condition they're in, or how they're equipped or what motor they
have, if any. (Nor do your figures re the 2002 model.)

They all list engines - a 50 hp is common. The particular boat I
mentioned said 50hp Honda, I think. They said the PortaPotti was
never used.

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

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

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

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

Why not? Now that I have lots of experience I still have a lot of fun
sailing a small dink or riding a kayak.

JimC wrote:
Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the
conditions experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't
read of any instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in
heavy weather that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a
coastal cruiser, and I have never claimed that it was suitable for
extended crossings, live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

But, you keep saying that the big engine is an safety feature, but
then you claim it isn't needed because the Mac is safe without it.
Which is it? This is the fundamental problem - you make these claims,
I point out the paradox, you come back with the opposite claim. I
point out your hypocrisy, you then claim I'm ranting and raving.

At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back
to shore.

Would it? You keep saying that the windage on the hull makes the
engine a safety feature, and that it doesn't do well upwind. Are you
really saying you can make progress upwind against 40 knots?

Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off
the crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the
Mac, which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

What would I do? Perhaps you can show me an example of even a single
modern production cruising cat, 35 feet or bigger, that has capsized
within 100 miles of land. There have been a few cases of older
smaller cats capsizing, and some homemade boats. And there's no
trouble finding racing cats that have capsized, but that's different.
And there have been a few caught in hurricanes offshore, but
generally the crew survived. Do you really want to compare your boat
to a passage-maker?

But would your boat pop up? These people got a medal for rescuing Mac
sailers:
http://www.ussailing.org/Pressreleas...HIrishMist.htm

There have actually been a number of Macs that have capsized - one was
lost in the Bristol Channel in F6, for example. Most of the cases
seem to involve using the engine in unprotected waters.

BTW, Have you ever read the CG safety reports? Capsizing is much more
of a risk than sinking.

What confuses me, Jeff, is the fact that I post the same
comments, such as those above about the limitations
of the boat, over and over and over
again. - Yet to you, each day seems to be a brand new discussion, a
fresh clean slate.

What you keep missing Jim, is that I haven't been complaining about
the Mac, which I always thought was an interesting design, and a good
choice for some people. While I would never buy one, I actually have
nothing against water ballast or even the big engine. What I've been
complaining about is the way that you tout every aspect of it that you
perceive as a feature, especially when many of them are non-existent.
I also object to the fact that it is marketed as a beginner's boat
("learn to sail in an afternoon...") but to operate it safely requires
an understanding beyond most beginners. Dismissing capsizes as
operator error is not fair if the operators are novices.

And then when the obvious flaws in your logic are pointed out, you
fight tooth and nail, never giving up an inch, even when everyone can
see you're completely wrong. Your "double hull" is a great example,
you're still defending that as though it somehow makes the boat
superior. Claiming that an oversized outboard contributes nothing to
the moment of inertia is another case. In fact, you even denied that
the pitch moment of inertia is something that boaters are even
concerned with, claiming that my "theories are all wrong."

No Jim, the Mac is an OK boat, within its limitations. Its you that I
object to.

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote:

"Seahag" wrote:

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the
first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

My boat is Taiwanese...It would eat your boat?

Seahag

Seahag wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Martin Baxter wrote:

Seahag wrote:

But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and
she
has better aim...so it all works out well...

snort...catch up...snort

See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond.
Rats.

Marty

hehehe...more space to plunder...and don't ahve to chop
through the ice to get there!

I meant to ask...what was that wine? I want some for
Christmas Eve Fondu!

You really put on a great feast that day, Thank-you!

Seahag

It was a pino grigio, I think (can't remember which cellar)

Scotty wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty

No, it wouldn't...it would roll over and die laughing...

Scotty - Please respond

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hey Donal... where you been?

Busy with piano and telescope. See my answer to Doug.

Have you posted the photos?

Regards

Donal
--

I never did actually... I can do that if you like.

Sounds like fun...

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

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the conditions
experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't read of any
instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in heavy weather
that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a coastal cruiser,
and I have never claimed that it was suitable for extended crossings,
live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

Maybe they're smarter than we think?

At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back
to shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off
the crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the
Mac, which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

I don't think you can know this for certain. I think it's a wishful
guess, since you would never get out in those conditions.

Guess I'll never know, Capt.

Jim

Well, good for you!

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

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

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the
first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty

No, it wouldn't...it would roll over and die...

and then surrender?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

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

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the
first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty

No, it wouldn't...it would roll over and die...

and then surrender?

Well, it does fly white sails.

Max