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

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

Nobody has *that* much time


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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


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

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


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


If you're not picky.

DSK

DSK wrote:

JimC wrote:

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


Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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



JimC wrote:

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Jim










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


If you're not picky.

DSK

Once again... Doug not I....

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

"JimC" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:

JimC wrote:

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


Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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



JimC wrote:

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Jim










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


If you're not picky.

DSK

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


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



Totally irrelevant.


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

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

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


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

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


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

That's nonsense!!!

It's relatively inexpensive,

debatable

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

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


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

only for those with low standards.


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


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


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

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

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


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

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







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



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



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


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

It has enough.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

The Yanmar 1GM is 179 pounds with transmission.


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

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

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

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


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




Totally irrelevant.



Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be
balanced, under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in
the cockpit.

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


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

Jeff, I have not wanted to get into the issue of weight distribution in
detail, since you pretty well had your assed kicked all over the ng on
that one. - Don't forget that you initially claimed that the ballast
extends the full length of the boat, and that was a bad distribution of
mass (and would tend to increase pitching movement). After carefully
explaining to you what the Mac drawings were showing, and responding to
numerous notes, you were finally forced to back off your original
claims, and admit that, well, there wasn't a lot of ballast in the aft
portions of the boat. You then claimed that the ballast extended all
the way to the bow, so that was a problem also. - I then patiently
explained that the ballast tank was pointed toward the bow and tapered
BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY as it approached the bow (as shown in
the side sectional view and the cross-sections in the drawings you
posted). Not making much headway on either of these points, you then
started to become hyper and jump up and down about the fact that the
ballast tank was near the forward end of the bow, and the motor was at
the stern. - I then explained that the center of mass of the ballast
tank (tapered forwardly and rearwardly) was actually just slightly
forward of amidships, and the motor, while positioned at the stern,
actually comprises only a relatively small portion of the weight near
the stern. - The greatest weight factor being the skipper and crew
and/or guests in the cockpit. Thus, although the motor is in the aft end
of the boat, the crew/guests/skipper comprise a much greater mass factor
at the aft end of the boat.

Jeff, I've gone over this with you and patiently explained it to you a
number of times, yet you refuse to acknowledge that you just didn't get
it. I'm concluding that you thought you had a good "gotcha" to throw at
me, but it turned out you didn't, and you just can't admit it to
yourself or the ng.

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.


Yet you HAVE NO SUGGESTIONS WHATSOEVER as to how to improve the
distribution of mass. - If a bad distribution of mass is a key problem
(actually, it isn't, since the boat sails and motors steadily and
exhibits no excessive pitching movement) then, at a minimum, you should
be able to tell us where you would move the outboard and/or the ballast.
- But you don't want to get into that one, do you Jeff?




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


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


Nope. I responded to each of your points about weight distribution (see
the above note), and then went on to further, related issues. The bottom
line is that, if your theories were correct, the boat would pitch
uncontrollably and bounce around in heavy weather. - But it doesn't.



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


That's nonsense!!!

Really? And you have sailed the 26m how many times??????


It's relatively inexpensive,


debatable

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


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


Where are your stats on that one, Jeff????



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


only for those with low standards.

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




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,

As one of the few on this ng willing to defend the Macs, I'll continue
to do my part to ensure that Mac discussions have at least a semblance
of balance and accuracy. If I'm right, I'll try provide a good, but
balanced and fair defense of the Mac.

even when you
know you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying
because I'm having fun."

You may disagree with my conclusions, Jeff, but tell me where I have
lied to you or anyone else? (Paying attention to what I actually said
in several notes, for a change, and ignoring for a moment WHAT YOU
INTERPRETED as the meaning of portions of some of my comments.) Jeff,
which are the top ten most egregious lies I have posted on the ng? Or,
failing that, the top five? --- Two, maybe?




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


Being a clever lawyer, you word things so that they will be taken one
way, but you can claim you said something different. Your comment above
about balance was one such example.

See comments above. The bottom line is that you simply misunderstood
the Mac drawings.

The "double liner" discussion is
another.

See prior comments. - I NEVER said that the ballast tank protected the
entire boat. - That was another of your own, rather convenient "gotcha"
interpretations.


Your claim that the outboard is much lighter than a diesel is
another.

I'm claiming that the outboard is lighter than a diesel with sufficient
power for the Mac when all the associated components, including the
drive shaft and supporting structures are included. Also, I seriously
doubt that a small (e.g., 10-15 hp motor would be sufficient to drive
the Mac through heavy chop and adverse winds.


Your claim that the ballast is very close to the center is yet
another.

It is. - Your problem is that you didn't understand the drawings.


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

Although I don't claim omniscience, I have certainly endeavored to be
truthful and to present a balanced response and evaluation of the Mac.
For example, I have noted a number of limitations inherent with the
boat. - I have acknowledged that it normally doesn't sail as fast or
point as high as most conventional boats with weighted keels. I have
acknowledged that it isn't suitable for extended blue water crossings,
etc. I have acknowledged that it is lightly built. - - - Why haven't you
complemented me for being upfront concerning THESE issues, Jeff?


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


All boats are fun to sail. That's not the point.

It is to me.


You make lots of
claims, and then try to write them off by saying, "but its fun to
sail." What's your point?


Because that's the key factor, from my perspective.




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.

You're omitting some items, such as the drive shaft, shaft bushing
assembly, supporting framework in the boat, etc. You're also comparing a
15 hp motor with a 50 hp motor, and you're not addressing the fact that
the Mac requires lots of power to keep in on course in heavy weather,
chop, winds, etc.


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.


Re weight distribution, see my comments above. - I can understand why
you would be embarrassed about that one and prefer that we not discuss
it again.

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


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

Having powered the Mac 26M in somewhat heavy weather, I don't think a
small engine will do the job Jeff. It's a large, light weight boat with
high freeboard and no weighted keel, and it needs lots of power to keep
it one course. Of course, most Mac skippers appreciate the fact that a
50+ hp motor provides a lot of conveniences and enhances the versatility
of the boat. (Incidentally, most Mac buyers seem initially to think that
they don't want a larger engine, but they eventually come to appreciate
the advantages available with the larger engine.)


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


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

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


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

First, although the transom is sufficiently strong to support the motor,
I don't see any additional support structures for the motor. The
"mounting hardware" consists of some bolts, washers, and the like.
Secondly, there are controls, consisting largely of a tubular connecting
bar and cables extending to the steering mechanism. - Again, nothing
that would add any substantial mass, unless you consider the small
steering wheel to be "massive." The fuel tank is a 10-gal. plastic tank.
- Again, only a few pounds of "mass." Next, regarding the cost of all
that fuel, we get around 3 - 5 miles per gallon at plaining speeds, and
I have probably spent about $25 on gas during the past six months. Of
course, as an attorney, I have lots of money to spend on all that gas,
so it really isn't a major factor. (That's a joke, Jeff. Of course.)
Actually, I spend most of the time sailing, not motoring. Also, because
of work assignments last Summer and Fall I was limited in how much I was
able to take the boat out. Still, gas costs haven't been a major factor.


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




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


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


The Yanmar 1GM is 179 pounds with transmission.


And, as mentioned above, remember that the Mac, with its high

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


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

Jeff, in reviewing my note and your responses, I now think I was wrong
in saying the weight of my 50 hp outboard was "much lighter" than a
typical diesel on most sailboats in the 27 - 29 ft range. I think it is
somewhat lighter when all factors are considered, and it's more
powerful, but my statement as written was apparently incorrect. - I had
come to a (mistaken) judgment from working with larger diesels on larger
boats.

Still, my statement about the safety factors entailed in having a fairly
powerful motor on the Mac is accurate, IMO. - For example, when I had
the boat out last, as mentioned earlier, we had a rather substantial
incoming tide and headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the
way out to the sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes.
The Mac is lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had
had a 10 - 15 hp motor as is often the case for boats of this size, I
don't think I could have kept it on track within the channel all the way
out. Also, I would not have been able to keep up with the other traffic
going out, which causes further problems. The reserve power is also a
safety factor in the event of inclement weather, tides, etc., out in the
Bay or beyond. Obviously, a 40 - 50 hp diesel would weigh substantially
more. And I also agree that your boat is more efficient using the
smaller diesel, and that the positioning of the diesel is better for
achieving a low cog. - It does take up more interior space than my outboard.

Once again, Jeff, as to the weights of the 50 hp outboard and your 15 hp
diesel, you're right, and I was wrong. My purpose in these Mac
discussions is not to distort the facts or win arguments, but rather to
do my part from time to time in contributing to a more balanced discussion.

Jim

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be
balanced, under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in
the cockpit.

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


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

Jeff, I have not wanted to get into the issue of weight distribution in
detail, since you pretty well had your assed kicked all over the ng on
that one. -

How so? Only a total idiot could claim that a 250 pound engine
hanging on the stern plus 300+ pounds of water up in the bow could
have negligible affect on the pitch moment of a boat that only weighs
3600 pounds! Do you really think there's a single reader here that
believes you???

Don't forget that you initially claimed that the ballast
extends the full length of the boat,

And it does. If you claim otherwise, you're a boldface liar. The
most that you can claim is that the tank is rather small aft (its
still much bigger than simply a drainage tube) but all this mean is
that there's more weight up forward. You loose either way.

and that was a bad distribution of
mass (and would tend to increase pitching movement).

So are you claiming that all naval architects are wrong when they try
to minimize weight in the extremities? You can certainly claim the
pitching isn't too bad (though few here would believe you) but you
certainly can't claim that the mass distribution has no affect.


After carefully
explaining to you what the Mac drawings were showing, and responding to
numerous notes, you were finally forced to back off your original
claims, and admit that, well, there wasn't a lot of ballast in the aft
portions of the boat.

As I said only a liar would claim the tank doesn't extend the entire
distance. I only admitted there wasn't much water ballast aft.

You then claimed that the ballast extended all
the way to the bow, so that was a problem also. - I then patiently

though incorrectly

explained that the ballast tank was pointed toward the bow and tapered
BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY as it approached the bow

The tapering is clearly only in the last few inches. With the
majority of the water ballast well forward of the mast, this is the
equivalent of having a hundred gallon water tank under the vee of a
slightly larger boat. Not a good thing.


(as shown in
the side sectional view and the cross-sections in the drawings you
posted).

I POSTED???? Those are on the MacGregor site!!! I posted no drawing,
I merely posted a link to the factory site! My God, you really are a
boldface liar!

Not making much headway on either of these points,

Find one reader of this that believes you.

you then
started to become hyper and jump up and down about the fact that the
ballast tank was near the forward end of the bow, and the motor was at
the stern. -

As clearly shown in the factory diagram.

I then explained that the center of mass of the ballast
tank (tapered forwardly and rearwardly) was actually just slightly
forward of amidships,

Are you saying the diagram from the factory lies??? It clearly shows
the largest cross-section to be halfway between the mast and the bow.

and the motor, while positioned at the stern,
actually comprises only a relatively small portion of the weight near
the stern.

Nonsense. Even a 5th grader can do the math that shows that the
contribution to the moment of inertia of the engine is roughly equal
to that of the crew.

- The greatest weight factor being the skipper and crew

But the moment is proportional to the distance SQUARED from the center
of mass. So the moment of the engine will clearly be larger than that
of the skipper and one or two crew, and possibly be equal to a full
crew. Its math Jim, hard to argue with.

and/or guests in the cockpit. Thus, although the motor is in the aft end
of the boat, the crew/guests/skipper comprise a much greater mass factor
at the aft end of the boat.

Its the moment, not the mass.


Jeff, I've gone over this with you and patiently

though stupidly, because you seem to ignore the moment, and focus on
the fact that the large mass hanging off the stern is balanced by the
large mass towards the bow.

explained it to you a
number of times, yet you refuse to acknowledge that you just didn't get
it.

Get what? That you can't do simple sums? That you can read a simple
drawing?

I'm concluding that you thought you had a good "gotcha" to throw at
me, but it turned out you didn't, and you just can't admit it to
yourself or the ng.

Sure thing. SHow me someone that believes you on that, Jim.



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.


Yet you HAVE NO SUGGESTIONS WHATSOEVER as to how to improve the
distribution of mass. - If a bad distribution of mass is a key problem
(actually, it isn't, since the boat sails and motors steadily and
exhibits no excessive pitching movement) then, at a minimum, you should
be able to tell us where you would move the outboard and/or the ballast.
- But you don't want to get into that one, do you Jeff?

I don't see your point. If you stay with a variety of the design
parameters, such as light weigh on the trailer, a large engine, etc,
it becomes hard to distribute the weight otherwise. It may even be
that this is a reasonable solution, perhaps even the best, given the
constraints.

But for most sailers, the constraints that led to this design are not
important, and the required compromises are not desirable. You're
asking me to make one change that would reduce the pitch moment, and
the answer is that's hard given that you want a 250 pound engine
hanging off the stern.





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


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


Nope. I responded to each of your points about weight distribution (see
the above note),

No - you denied the obvious truths.

and then went on to further, related issues. The bottom
line is that, if your theories were correct, the boat would pitch
uncontrollably and bounce around in heavy weather. - But it doesn't.

Why would you say that? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer.

I never made any claim that it "pitches uncontrollably" but since you
bring it up, maybe it does.





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


That's nonsense!!!

Really? And you have sailed the 26m how many times??????

What is the significance of that?



It's relatively inexpensive,


debatable

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


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


Where are your stats on that one, Jeff????

Just look at the asking prices. We've been through this before.




As one of the few on this ng willing to defend the Macs, I'll continue
to do my part to ensure that Mac discussions have at least a semblance
of balance and accuracy. If I'm right, I'll try provide a good, but
balanced and fair defense of the Mac.

That's a laugh.


even when you
know you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm
lying because I'm having fun."

You may disagree with my conclusions, Jeff, but tell me where I have
lied to you or anyone else?

Its hard to find a place where you told the truth. You keep saying
"show me where I lied" but you ignore it when I do.

(Paying attention to what I actually said
in several notes, for a change, and ignoring for a moment WHAT YOU
INTERPRETED as the meaning of portions of some of my comments.) Jeff,
which are the top ten most egregious lies I have posted on the ng? Or,
failing that, the top five? --- Two, maybe?

I did that in my last post. So that's one lie right there.






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


Being a clever lawyer, you word things so that they will be taken one
way, but you can claim you said something different. Your comment
above about balance was one such example.

See comments above. The bottom line is that you simply misunderstood
the Mac drawings.

Are you denying that the largest cross-section of the ballast tank is
at station one, well forward of the mast? Are you?



The "double liner" discussion is
another.

See prior comments. - I NEVER said that the ballast tank protected the
entire boat. - That was another of your own, rather convenient "gotcha"
interpretations.

By going into detail on the "double liner" you implied such
protection. Especially after you were informed the the term "double
hull" specifically implies such complete protection. You're being
disingenuous here, Jim.



Your claim that the outboard is much lighter than a diesel is
another.

I'm claiming that the outboard is lighter than a diesel with sufficient
power for the Mac when all the associated components, including the
drive shaft and supporting structures are included. Also, I seriously
doubt that a small (e.g., 10-15 hp motor would be sufficient to drive
the Mac through heavy chop and adverse winds.

That's not what you claimed originally Jim, and you you know it.
That's another lie! You specifically claimed that the diesel in
similar sized boats was much heavier than the outboard on a Mac. Now
you claiming that because of the poor design of the hull it needs the
huge engine that no other 26 footer requires.




Your claim that the ballast is very close to the center is yet
another.

It is. - Your problem is that you didn't understand the drawings.

Again - are you claiming that the cross-section of the tank is not
substantially large at station one than at any other? Are you trying
to say blue is red over and over and hoping someone will buy it?



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

Although I don't claim omniscience, I have certainly endeavored to be
truthful and to present a balanced response and evaluation of the Mac.
For example, I have noted a number of limitations inherent with the
boat. - I have acknowledged that it normally doesn't sail as fast or
point as high as most conventional boats with weighted keels. I have
acknowledged that it isn't suitable for extended blue water crossings,
etc. I have acknowledged that it is lightly built. - - - Why haven't you
complemented me for being upfront concerning THESE issues, Jeff?

They do seem to be self evident.



You make lots of
claims, and then try to write them off by saying, "but its fun to
sail." What's your point?


Because that's the key factor, from my perspective.

Then why don't you just leave it at that? Remember, I've said a
number of times that it a reasonable boat for certainly situations -
I've haven't been claiming its inherently evil. Actually, all I've
done is try try to keep you honest on some of the more outlandish claims.






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.

You're omitting some items, such as the drive shaft, shaft bushing
assembly,

I certainly didn't ignore the shaft, I mentioned right up there.
Another lie.

supporting framework in the boat,

Are you seriously claiming there is no "supporting framework" on the
Mac. I already pointed that out to you, so that's yet another lie on
your part. How can you really claim you never lie?

etc. You're also comparing a
15 hp motor with a 50 hp motor, and you're not addressing the fact that
the Mac requires lots of power to keep in on course in heavy weather,
chop, winds, etc.

Why does the Mac "require" it, when no other 26 foot sailboat does?
Wouldn't that seem like a design flaw?




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.


Re weight distribution, see my comments above. - I can understand why
you would be embarrassed about that one and prefer that we not discuss
it again.

So are your really claiming that weight distribution has no affect?



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


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

Having powered the Mac 26M in somewhat heavy weather, I don't think a
small engine will do the job Jeff. It's a large, light weight boat with
high freeboard and no weighted keel, and it needs lots of power to keep
it one course.

That would seem to be a flaw. My boat has no weighted keel and high
freeboard, and a couple of small engines handle it very nicely. In
fact the original design (and most of my sisterships) only have twin
9.9 HP outboards.

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

First, although the transom is sufficiently strong to support the motor,

Only because its reinforced, you jackass!


I don't see any additional support structures for the motor.

Yah right. Give me a friggin break, Jimbo.

The
"mounting hardware" consists of some bolts, washers, and the like.
Secondly, there are controls, consisting largely of a tubular connecting
bar and cables extending to the steering mechanism. - Again, nothing
that would add any substantial mass, unless you consider the small
steering wheel to be "massive." The fuel tank is a 10-gal. plastic tank.
- Again, only a few pounds of "mass." Next, regarding the cost of all
that fuel, we get around 3 - 5 miles per gallon at plaining speeds, and
I have probably spent about $25 on gas during the past six months. Of
course, as an attorney, I have lots of money to spend on all that gas,
so it really isn't a major factor. (That's a joke, Jeff. Of course.)

It isn't the cost, you bozo! Its the range! You say you get 30 miles
from that tank. A small diesel pushing a normal sailboat your size
would be 3-4 time more efficient. If you wanted to go any distance
you'd need a second tank while the diesel wouldn't. That's about 70
pounds of fuel.


Actually, I spend most of the time sailing, not motoring. Also, because
of work assignments last Summer and Fall I was limited in how much I was
able to take the boat out. Still, gas costs haven't been a major factor.

again, its range, not cost.



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

Jeff, in reviewing my note and your responses, I now think I was wrong
in saying the weight of my 50 hp outboard was "much lighter" than a
typical diesel on most sailboats in the 27 - 29 ft range. I think it is
somewhat lighter when all factors are considered, and it's more
powerful, but my statement as written was apparently incorrect. - I had
come to a (mistaken) judgment from working with larger diesels on larger
boats.

Still, my statement about the safety factors entailed in having a fairly
powerful motor on the Mac is accurate, IMO. - For example, when I had
the boat out last, as mentioned earlier, we had a rather substantial
incoming tide and headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the
way out to the sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes.
The Mac is lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had
had a 10 - 15 hp motor as is often the case for boats of this size, I
don't think I could have kept it on track within the channel all the way
out.

I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as powerful
as all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as powerful as
all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?

Because the "sailor" driving it is either insecure about himself or not
experienced enough to deal with the conditions, including "getting to the
sailing area" under sail. The engine should be a last resort.

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as powerful as
all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?

Because the "sailor" driving it is either insecure about himself or not
experienced enough to deal with the conditions, including "getting to the
sailing area" under sail. The engine should be a last resort.


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.

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.

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?

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as powerful
as all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?

Because the "sailor" driving it is either insecure about himself or not
experienced enough to deal with the conditions, including "getting to the
sailing area" under sail. The engine should be a last resort.


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.

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.