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



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


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


Agreed.

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


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

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


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


Agreed.

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


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


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


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

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

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



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


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


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


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

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

DSK