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

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

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

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.

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

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

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