"chrisR" wrote in :


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* Duncan McC (NZ) wrote, On 6/10/2007 10:02 PM:
My issue with this situation is that the boat is marketed to
novices, yet requires extra attention to issues that are found on
very few other boats.

Absolutely - so really the instructions should be *always* operate
the boat with the ballast in place (when on the water).


Here is the decal from the 26M. I don't know if the 26X had the same
warning, but IIRC the boat that rolled didn't have a decal.

http://www.macgregor26.com/safety/sa...l_apr_2006.pdf

The M version was redesigned to include several hundred pounds of
ballast plus foam in the mast which means that it should be
self-righting in most situations. In the X version, they say that if
the boat heels 50 degrees without water ballast it will quite
possibly capsize and not self-right.

Here is the full list of safety recommendations/warnings on the site:

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

Some of the warnings would apply to any boat, but many are unique for
a 26 foot sailboat sold as a "cruiser." In particular, without the
water ballast crew size is limited to 4 people/640 pounds. Having
sailed many years in daysailers 15-19 feet, the concept of a 26 foot
cruising boat with a cabin that is unsafe with 5 people on board is
quite unexpected.

That is a bit of an eye-opener!
It is hard to believe that a boat designed with these use restrictions
is offered to its target market, even for use in calm coastal waters.
I wonder how many dealers ensure that buyers know exactly what they
are getting? ChrisR



Is that a dealer's job? I don't think so. The dealers job is to deliver
a ready-to-go boat with all the paperwork. It's up to the buyer to
educate himself. Sure the dealer should answer all questions honestly
but how many people ask intelligent questions these days? If I were a
dealer I'd just caution the buyer to be sure to familiarize himself with
the owner's manual and pay attention to the warnings in it and on
stickers on the boat.

How many car dealers give lessons and warnings when selling a high
performance Mustang? That would probably be insulting to most customers.


--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

It would be dumb to sail back. What they'd be doing is more like a
delivery captain trip. Have two adverturesome young men sail down each
taking a Mac26M and sailing in company for safety. Deliver the boats and
make about 20 grand profit or more each. Then fly back to California and
do it again. What's an airline ticket cost from Australia to California?
Two grand? That's a eighteen grand profit for about a month's work. You
could do as many trips as you could during the off season to not run
into typhoons. I think you could do six trips a year by flying back.
According to sailing instructions it's a downwind milk run from
California to Australia. You'd have to cross a bit of doldrums around
Hawaii but then you're in the trades and going like all getout right for
Australia. Remember how Capt. Bligh went from Tahiti all the way past
Australia in an open row boat? It would be a piece of cake in a Mac.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

FWIW, "World Cruising Routes" puts it at 3563 miles from San Diego to
Tahiti, non-stop. This alone is in excess of a month of sailing, without
landfall, in your Mac. A month's worth of food, water, fuel, etc. This is
assuming you make good time and have no delays crossing the ITCZ. Forget
about using the ballast tanks for storing drinking water, as you are going
to NEED that ballast. And since the vessel is not equipped with light air
sails, it would be best to allow at least 45 days for this passage alone,
with the distinct possibility that it could take longer.

Tahiti to New Zealand is another 2500 miles or so -- in reverse. But you
can't go that way. You'll go first to Tonga, then head south. Make it
3000 -- another month. New Zealand to Australia is another 1200 or so,
perhaps two weeks.

Still think it's doable? We're not even talking about the wear and tear on
the "brand new" Mac, or taking time for repairs along the way. Or rest for
the crew, or stopping for supplies...

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:41:33 +0200 (CEST), Ed Gordon
wrote:

A Mac is like riding a thorobred.

Right.

Duncan McC (NZ) wrote in
. nz:

Agreed it was the skipper's fault - however, *when* do you have the
water ballast in?

Or better... when do you operate with no water ballast in?


You launch the boat. Then you fill the ballast tank. You pull the boat
back onto the trailer and out and then you drain the tank. You just need
to remember those two simple things.



IMO, that's a curly question - and best answered (unlike the info
online) - "all the time the boat is in the water".

Exactly right!!!



I would disagree and say it's not a very fast sailboat, and not a very
fast motorboat (people don't *really* waterski behind them do they!!!)

I'd say it's a bit on the slow side for water skiing but knee boarding
and tubing it's plenty fast.


What is the Macs?

It looks like 1/8 inch to me. I don't think it's metric being made in
California.

You can't make the rigging too tight on a Mac because the roof supports
the mast and there isn't a post under it. You could bend the roof if you
tried to make the mast too tight.


--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...
I like to look at it this way. Macs are for the more intelligent and
careful sailors. Heavy keel boats perform poorer but are harder to
capsize so you can get drunk and sloppy and get away with it more often.
A Mac is like riding a thorobred. Hang on and enjoy the greater speed
and versatility but don't get complacent.


--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

With the ballast tanks full, it's a displacement hull limited in its
hullspeed just like any "heavy keel boat." It's also under-rigged compared
to those heavier deep keel displacement boats, and can't carry much in the
way of light air sails.

"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...

You can't make the rigging too tight on a Mac because the roof supports
the mast and there isn't a post under it. You could bend the roof if you
tried to make the mast too tight.


--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

So when the wind pipes up to force 6 or 7 and the mast starts pumping and
flexing that cabintop and you're 2000 miles from anywhere... "Oh God, thy
sea is so big and my boat is so small, and why didn't you bless me with two
broken legs on the day before I was to set off on this voyage?"

Wayne.B wrote in
:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:01:24 +1200, Duncan McC (NZ)
wrote:

I think the rigging on say an F7.5 or a Noelex 25 is about right - I
think the Mac is too light (but admit I've read of few rigging
failures).

We have a bunch of them around here in SW FL. When I see them
underway they are almost always under power in protected water. The
ability to sail seems to be primarily an illusion and marketing
gimmick. Once you get out into open water here with the wind blowing
20+, we sometimes get beat up a bit even on a 49 ft, 50,000 lb
trawler. Going out in the Gulf Stream on a windy day in a lightly
ballasted 26 footer of any type would be comparable to volunteering
for the submarine service.



Now, that's a pretty dumb statement!!! Maybe if you spent some time out of
"protected water" you might see some Macs in "unprotected" water. Macs sail
pretty well. Go to the sail calculator and compare a Mac 26X to a Hunter 26
water ballast. The Mac is better in most of the graphs. Compare it to some
heavy keel boats and it makes them look slow and heavy like they are.

http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

Jeff wrote in
:

* Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/10/2007 12:08 PM:
Jeff wrote in
:

It was that web site that made me lose all respect for certain Mac
owners. It is, like some Mac proponents, a stream of nautical
gibberish. There's enough nautical nonsense to fill a pineapple
under the sea.

That's because you admitted you hate Macs, man!!!

Where did I "admit" that? I love innovative boats. I just dislike
foolish claims by ignorant novices.

...
That makes sense - the boat dances at anchor and therefore must be
just like a multihull.

He's talking about the speed not the kind of hull. I think he's
thinking about shallow draft like most catamarans are shallow draft
so they dance around at anchor because they don't have a big heavy
deep keel to keep them in one place. It makes sense to me.

Sorry, boats "dance" because of their windage relative to the lateral
resistance. Boat with high freeboard (like a Mac) or a rig forward
(Nonsuch or Freedom) or forward coachroof (many cruising cats) dance.
Shallow draft is usually not the significant factor.


I disagree. Take an old deep keel and long keel boat like a Westerly 32.
It will barely move at all at anchor. The deep long keel keeps it
straight into the wind like a weather vane.Boat's that dance at anchor
say "shallow draft".


In another place he asserts a tacking angle of 64 degrees, even
though most Mac owners report the expected 95 degrees.

You gotta know how to sail them, man. 64 degrees is too low and 95
degrees is dreaming. Even the Americas cup boats can't do 95% unless
the wind is maybe blowing six or seven mph. I used to tack about 75
or 80 degrees with mind in moderate breezes. In heaver winds it might
be low around 60 because of the slippage because of the short keel
that doesn't bite that great.

As I said, I don't like foolish claims by ignorant novices.

I'm hardly a novice. I've owned and sailed a Mac 26X. I was always
worried about how sea worthy it was and one of the main reasons was
because it was shallow draft and seaworthy boats are usually deep draft.
But, not all of them.




Macs can do 20. 12-15 is about half throttle, man. And the article
said there are lots of Macs in England and some of them were probily
saiked there.

Macs can do 20 with some engines in idealized conditions. Loaded with
cruising gear, fuel, ballast tank full, and fighting a minimal ocean
chop, 15 is a more realistic upper limit. In fact, while the Mac
boards have some people claiming extreme speeds, they also have a lot
of folks that admit they have never been above 12 knots.


Well they must have motors that aren't running right if they go that
slow. Or maybe they've got them way overloaded. A Mac is like your
catamaran you claim to have. If you overload them too much it makes them
slow.

Nope. But you're the one claiming that Macs sail more than "keel
boats" and the don't mind going out in the ocean. Since I've done
about 12000 miles cruising since the 26X came out, you would think I
might see one on occasion.

You're as bad as that other guy who said he always sees Macs in
protected waters. That means he's in protected waters himself. If he
wants to see Macs in unprotected waters he needs to go out in
unprotected waters himself.


First of all, I don't have a keel boat. And I can assure you that its
much faster than a Mac on all points of sail.

But, you shouldn't cop an attitude because maybe your boat is
slower and not as versatil but it might have at least one good point.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! What kinda boat do you have anyway?
Probably a cheap Hunter or something like that.

A PDQ 36 catamaran. More boat than you can even dream of.


Not even legal to trailer. You need a wide-load permit for that boat of
yours. I bet you have to pay extra for a wider slip too. Probably double
the cost of a Mac slip. I prefer a boat you don't have to go to the poor
house to own and enjoy.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

Frank wrote in
ps.com:

On Jun 11, 10:31 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
All a bit evangelical for me
Buy one if you really want
but don't inflict it on anyone else

Richard, this guy isn't a sailor and he has no intention of buying
anything. He's a troll... he's cross posting to make himself feel
like more of human being, something for which he barely qualifies.
- Show quoted text -

He was more amusing when he was proselytizing Veridicanism; but I
guess that's the gang who drugged, brainwashed, and robbed him.
According to him, anyway. Now he's proselytizing Macs. Plus ca change,
plus c'est la meme chose.





I've learned that Macs are one of the few things I can have faith in. A
known quantity. Reliable, safe and fun. Veridican means truth. Hah!

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:


"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

It would be dumb to sail back. What they'd be doing is more like a
delivery captain trip. Have two adverturesome young men sail down
each taking a Mac26M and sailing in company for safety. Deliver the
boats and make about 20 grand profit or more each. Then fly back to
California and do it again. What's an airline ticket cost from
Australia to California? Two grand? That's a eighteen grand profit
for about a month's work. You could do as many trips as you could
during the off season to not run into typhoons. I think you could do
six trips a year by flying back. According to sailing instructions
it's a downwind milk run from California to Australia. You'd have to
cross a bit of doldrums around Hawaii but then you're in the trades
and going like all getout right for Australia. Remember how Capt.
Bligh went from Tahiti all the way past Australia in an open row
boat? It would be a piece of cake in a Mac.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

FWIW, "World Cruising Routes" puts it at 3563 miles from San Diego to
Tahiti, non-stop. This alone is in excess of a month of sailing,
without landfall, in your Mac. A month's worth of food, water, fuel,
etc. This is assuming you make good time and have no delays crossing
the ITCZ. Forget about using the ballast tanks for storing drinking
water, as you are going to NEED that ballast. And since the vessel is
not equipped with light air sails, it would be best to allow at least
45 days for this passage alone, with the distinct possibility that it
could take longer.

Tahiti to New Zealand is another 2500 miles or so -- in reverse. But
you can't go that way. You'll go first to Tonga, then head south. Make
it 3000 -- another month. New Zealand to Australia is another 1200 or
so, perhaps two weeks.

Still think it's doable? We're not even talking about the wear and
tear on the "brand new" Mac, or taking time for repairs along the way.
Or rest for the crew, or stopping for supplies...




It's longer than I thought. How about this? Buy the Macs on the US east
coast and then go to Australia via Cape Horn. That way it would be
westerly winds the whole way. Just stay on the edge of the roaring 40s
so it wouldn't be too rough and it would be a milk run the whole way.
One could re-provision in South Africa. Going across the Equator south
of the Windwards would be the only light wind area.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm