|
Mac26X fit for all waters
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm
Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. If you're too much of a coward to admit how good the Mac26X is don't click the link and don't read a little of what it has in it that I pasted right here.-- Owing to "focally ruptured gangreous acute appendicitis", I spent the better part of January 2001 arguing about this (the Mac26x is fit for all waters), rather than sailing or working, and have 80 pages of emails as well as several magazines and books on boat design involving the subject. According to Sea magazine (April 2005) "California's coastline is not particularly trailerboat-friendly - the areas where you can take small or trailerboats are limited, so it also would stand to reason that boaters would be heading to inland lakes and rivers in droves." But MacGregor Yachts has always oriented its products for world-wide coastal ocean and not just Califorina sales. The manufacturer believes that a 26 footer is too small to hold enough gear and supplies for passage. However, at least one Mac26x dealer considers ocean passage to be within the boat's design parameters and in 1999 more that a few Mac26x vessels made the trip from Crandon Park marina on Miami's Key Biscayn or nearby to the Bahamas. At least one Mac26x yacht made the trip from the city marina at Garison Bight in Key West to the Marquesas and on to the Tortugas. The 1000 mile coast of Florida has been sailed by a Mac26x. And two Mac26x cruisers (from Bellingham and Everett) were outfitted for an Alaskan inside passage (over 2000 miles) following the Cassiopeia in that regard. Those who find the ride of a light displacement under 30 foot sailboat preferable in ocean swells see its potential as a long-distance passage maker. This is demonstrated by reports that MacGregor Yachts receives many unsolicited requests for sponsorship of expeditions involving Mac26x ocean passages and by the consideration given to adding a platform (as discussed above) which would be used for storage during an extended cruise. It is also a favorite for chartering at blue water destinations such as the BVI, Bahamas Malaysia, Spain and Belize. Told you so. I enjoy being your mentor... Oh, be sure to visit my new anti-drug abuse site linked under my name. Also please click on a link or two for the sponsors to keep this site free of charges. Much appreciated. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
In article , egordon873
@aol.com says... http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. Wow gee whiz. I didn't read all the guff - what a god awful website. I did find this though... http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html My own comments on a Mac 26X - which I tried out (a new one) two years ago. Is it a sailing boat or a speedboat? My biggest gripe, for a brand new boat, is that it is beaten on the water (sailing) by boats that are 25 years old (eg Farr 7.5, Noelex 25). (I bought a Farr 7.5 in the end, BTW). I was pleasantly surprised by it's pointing ability, but again much older boats out point it (as probably expected given it's 'cross nature' design). And is it a speedboat? No, no way. It's good to have the motor to get out of trouble (before the weather hits) quickly. But *in* the heavier stuff, presumably you have the ballast in place, so a reduced speed, and would be going much slower than that anyway given it's hull design in rough sea. The price is good, and the cabin is spacious in feel. I like that. The rigging looks and feels *way* too light for my liking - however I note of few reports of breakages - so I supose that's good. The whole rudder assembly likewise seems too light in construction. Overall I think the Mac retains it's - it's neither this, and it's neither that - label, sorry. -- Duncan |
Mac26X fit for all waters
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:31:54 +1200, Duncan McC (NZ)
wrote: My own comments on a Mac 26X - which I tried out (a new one) two years ago. Is it a sailing boat or a speedboat? My biggest gripe, for a brand new boat, is that it is beaten on the water (sailing) by boats that are 25 years old (eg Farr 7.5, Noelex 25). (I bought a Farr 7.5 in the end, BTW). I was pleasantly surprised by it's pointing ability, but again much older boats out point it (as probably expected given it's 'cross nature' design). I couldn't find any Farr 7.5's for sale in the U.S., but maybe they come on market sometimes. Do they still make them? Looks like a nice boat. Probably not many made the trip to the U.S. There was a long thread in the Mac forum where an Aussie went through contortions having a Mac 26X shipped there. Shipping container prices, fumigation, trailer rules/modifications, etc. Ended costing him quite a bit. I couldn't quite figure why he would do it. Then another Aussie mentioned the outrageous price asked for the Mac there (60k AUS for the X, 70k AUS for the M) and said that despite his costs he will come out ahead should he decide to sell it off. He is himself arranging an import. The X and M are almost identical, with the M being the newer version. A new M in the U.S. will cost maybe 30-34K U.S. tricked out with a 4-stroke 50HP and other common add-ons. I think the bare boat itself with trailer and just a mainsail is 20-24K U.S. Apparently trade between the U.S. and Oz/NZ is well restricted between distance and regs. One of my sons recently sold his Chicago based Bayliner powerboat for an attractive price (he wanted a quick sale) to an Aussie working in Indiana. The fellow told my son he would be sending the boat off for sale in Australia and pocket 10k U.S. on the deal. All very strange. Another of my sons now resides in Sydney and tells me there are similar price anomalies with some U.S. cars, where older models not given a second look here (Ford Taurus, eg) sell for seemingly large sums in Australia. If I had more energy I might look into U.S./Oz import/export business. The price is good, and the cabin is spacious in feel. I like that. Pretty scary you would say the price is good for a Mac 26 in Oz/NZ, given what I've heard. Were you looking there or in the U.S.? Agree on the Mac 26 cabin. The spartan nature gives it a less claustrophobic feel than similar sized boats. But some will see that lack of cabinetry as inadequate stowage. --Vic |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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. A typical example: "the Mac26x dances like a butterfly when on the anchor supports the notion that the vessel is a form of trimaran. ... The point is that the behavior at anchor probably means X owners can expect multihull behavior when underway as well." That makes sense - the boat dances at anchor and therefore must be just like a multihull. In another place he asserts a tacking angle of 64 degrees, even though most Mac owners report the expected 95 degrees. I don't believe I "bash" Macs (well maybe just once), but I do react against outlandish claims. As for being an "offshore" boat, the fact that out of the thousands of Macs out there, a few of them have made short ocean trips doesn't mean a lot. All of the "passages" you mention are only a few hours, in good weather they can be done by almost any boat. In fact, there are numerous examples windsurfers, jetskis, racing dinghies, etc. making exactly these hops. Given that the Mac can do 12-15 mph under power, these trips are no big deal. I've been going from Boston to Provincetown (about 50 miles, dock to dock) for 40 years in boats as small as an Rhodes 18, and almost every time I see a number of small boats out there. A telling thing about some of the ventures you mention is that they are in groups, not alone. For whatever reason, they didn't want to be alone out there. And, for all the claims, I've never actually seen a Mac outside of protected waters, nor have I ever seen one at a "cruisers' anchorage." * Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/9/2007 5:45 PM: http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. If you're too much of a coward to admit how good the Mac26X is don't click the link and don't read a little of what it has in it that I pasted right here.-- Owing to "focally ruptured gangreous acute appendicitis", I spent the better part of January 2001 arguing about this (the Mac26x is fit for all waters), rather than sailing or working, and have 80 pages of emails as well as several magazines and books on boat design involving the subject. According to Sea magazine (April 2005) "California's coastline is not particularly trailerboat-friendly - the areas where you can take small or trailerboats are limited, so it also would stand to reason that boaters would be heading to inland lakes and rivers in droves." But MacGregor Yachts has always oriented its products for world-wide coastal ocean and not just Califorina sales. The manufacturer believes that a 26 footer is too small to hold enough gear and supplies for passage. However, at least one Mac26x dealer considers ocean passage to be within the boat's design parameters and in 1999 more that a few Mac26x vessels made the trip from Crandon Park marina on Miami's Key Biscayn or nearby to the Bahamas. At least one Mac26x yacht made the trip from the city marina at Garison Bight in Key West to the Marquesas and on to the Tortugas. The 1000 mile coast of Florida has been sailed by a Mac26x. And two Mac26x cruisers (from Bellingham and Everett) were outfitted for an Alaskan inside passage (over 2000 miles) following the Cassiopeia in that regard. Those who find the ride of a light displacement under 30 foot sailboat preferable in ocean swells see its potential as a long-distance passage maker. This is demonstrated by reports that MacGregor Yachts receives many unsolicited requests for sponsorship of expeditions involving Mac26x ocean passages and by the consideration given to adding a platform (as discussed above) which would be used for storage during an extended cruise. It is also a favorite for chartering at blue water destinations such as the BVI, Bahamas Malaysia, Spain and Belize. Told you so. I enjoy being your mentor... Oh, be sure to visit my new anti-drug abuse site linked under my name. Also please click on a link or two for the sponsors to keep this site free of charges. Much appreciated. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
Duncan McC (NZ) wrote in
. nz: In article , egordon873 @aol.com says... http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. Wow gee whiz. I didn't read all the guff - what a god awful website. I did find this though... http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html You can't blame the boat for that terrible tragedy. It said the guy was drunk and it said this too: "The boat that capsized on the Fourth of July and killed two children was overloaded and was being used incorrectly, according to the boat's manufacturer." "The 26-foot MacGregor, which is a cross between a sailboat and a power boat, is designed to hold up to six people, according to Roger MacGregor, the boat company's owner. The boat carried 11 people the night of July 4." "The boat's hybrid design uses a water tank on the bottom to provide stability. The tank should be filled when there are more than four people on board, MacGregor said. The tank on the boat driven July 4 by George Dean Martin was empty, according to the prosecutor in the case." The guy was dumb and drunk. Don't blame the Mac!!! My own comments on a Mac 26X - which I tried out (a new one) two years ago. Is it a sailing boat or a speedboat? My biggest gripe, for a brand new boat, is that it is beaten on the water (sailing) by boats that are 25 years old (eg Farr 7.5, Noelex 25). (I bought a Farr 7.5 in the end, BTW). I was pleasantly surprised by it's pointing ability, but again much older boats out point it (as probably expected given it's 'cross nature' design). And is it a speedboat? No, no way. It's good to have the motor to get out of trouble (before the weather hits) quickly. But *in* the heavier stuff, presumably you have the ballast in place, so a reduced speed, and would be going much slower than that anyway given it's hull design in rough sea. The price is good, and the cabin is spacious in feel. I like that. The rigging looks and feels *way* too light for my liking - however I note of few reports of breakages - so I supose that's good. The whole rudder assembly likewise seems too light in construction. Overall I think the Mac retains it's - it's neither this, and it's neither that - label, sorry. It's what you make of it. If you want it to be a saiboat it's a pretty fast and safe sailboat. If you want a motorboat it's a pretty fast and safe motor boat. It's the best of both worlds. Everybody who doesn't know anything complains about the rudders. They say they are too lightly built. They are too dumb to remember they are slender because they also are a power boat rudders that have to be able to go throught the water way faster than a heavy keelboat rudder has to. They are tuffer than you think since they hold up going twenty or more mph. The rigging is light so it's easier to put the mast up and down. It's a trailerable boat remember. You can't make the mast and wiring too big or it'll be too heavy to put it up. It's designed to be light and strong and is plenty strong for the sails you get with it. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
Vic Smith wrote in
: I couldn't find any Farr 7.5's for sale in the U.S., but maybe they come on market sometimes. Do they still make them? Looks like a nice boat. Probably not many made the trip to the U.S. There was a long thread in the Mac forum where an Aussie went through contortions having a Mac 26X shipped there. Shipping container prices, fumigation, trailer rules/modifications, etc. Ended costing him quite a bit. I couldn't quite figure why he would do it. Then another Aussie mentioned the outrageous price asked for the Mac there (60k AUS for the X, 70k AUS for the M) and said that despite his costs he will come out ahead should he decide to sell it off. He is himself arranging an import. The X and M are almost identical, with the M being the newer version. A new M in the U.S. will cost maybe 30-34K U.S. tricked out with a 4-stroke 50HP and other common add-ons. I think the bare boat itself with trailer and just a mainsail is 20-24K U.S. Apparently trade between the U.S. and Oz/NZ is well restricted between distance and regs. One of my sons recently sold his Chicago based Bayliner powerboat for an attractive price (he wanted a quick sale) to an Aussie working in Indiana. The fellow told my son he would be sending the boat off for sale in Australia and pocket 10k U.S. on the deal. All very strange. Another of my sons now resides in Sydney and tells me there are similar price anomalies with some U.S. cars, where older models not given a second look here (Ford Taurus, eg) sell for seemingly large sums in Australia. If I had more energy I might look into U.S./Oz import/export business. The price is good, and the cabin is spacious in feel. I like that. Pretty scary you would say the price is good for a Mac 26 in Oz/NZ, given what I've heard. Were you looking there or in the U.S.? Agree on the Mac 26 cabin. The spartan nature gives it a less claustrophobic feel than similar sized boats. But some will see that lack of cabinetry as inadequate stowage. --Vic Think of the opportunity for some young Australian adventurer who wants to make some good money. Hitch a ride on a yacht as crew en route to California. Buy a Mac26M in California and sail it to Australia. Then sell it there. Good sailing for the adventurer and good bargain for the buyer and everybody's happy. I bet some young man or woman could do three or four trips a year and make a decent enough living.Might even write a book about it and make even more money. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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!!! A typical example: "the Mac26x dances like a butterfly when on the anchor supports the notion that the vessel is a form of trimaran. ... The point is that the behavior at anchor probably means X owners can expect multihull behavior when underway as well." 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. 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. I don't believe I "bash" Macs (well maybe just once), but I do react against outlandish claims. As for being an "offshore" boat, the fact that out of the thousands of Macs out there, a few of them have made short ocean trips doesn't mean a lot. All of the "passages" you mention are only a few hours, in good weather they can be done by almost any boat. In fact, there are numerous examples windsurfers, jetskis, racing dinghies, etc. making exactly these hops. Given that the Mac can do 12-15 mph under power, these trips are no big deal. I've been going from Boston to Provincetown (about 50 miles, dock to dock) for 40 years in boats as small as an Rhodes 18, and almost every time I see a number of small boats out there. 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. A telling thing about some of the ventures you mention is that they are in groups, not alone. For whatever reason, they didn't want to be alone out there. Even you adimitted Mac owners are a friendly group of people who enjoy some company of fellow enthusiasts. Having the same boat makes it easier to stay together. And, for all the claims, I've never actually seen a Mac outside of protected waters, nor have I ever seen one at a "cruisers' anchorage." Well, I guess that means it NEVER happens. You sail everwhere all the time and know about what all the boats in the world are doing. You da man! I bet it burns you up when a Mac comes sailing by your slow heavy keel boat. 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. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"Ed Gordon" wrote in message 8... Think of the opportunity for some young Australian adventurer who wants to make some good money. Hitch a ride on a yacht as crew en route to California. Buy a Mac26M in California and sail it to Australia. Then sell it there. Good sailing for the adventurer and good bargain for the buyer and everybody's happy. I bet some young man or woman could do three or four trips a year and make a decent enough living.Might even write a book about it and make even more money. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm You don't really think that's a feasible plan, do you Ed? |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et: You don't really think that's a feasible plan, do you Ed? Why not? Some kid just crossed from England to the BVI islands in a sailboat that's a Mac copy. A real Mac should be capable of an easy downwind Pacific run. You'd have to stock up on groceries carefully and maybe use the water ballast tank for your fresh water but you could make it. The engine would do you little good for such a long trip so maybe be a purist and go engineless?? They probably have cheap engines in Australia anyway, think? -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"Ed Gordon" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in et: You don't really think that's a feasible plan, do you Ed? Why not? Some kid just crossed from England to the BVI islands in a sailboat that's a Mac copy. A real Mac should be capable of an easy downwind Pacific run. You'd have to stock up on groceries carefully and maybe use the water ballast tank for your fresh water but you could make it. The engine would do you little good for such a long trip so maybe be a purist and go engineless?? They probably have cheap engines in Australia anyway, think? -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm Well, let's look at it rationally. Three to four trips in one year? That means sailing year-round, in all weather conditions, including winter storms and summer cyclone season, not to mention three or four trips across the doldrums. Let's say three round trips, to make it easier on our lucky sailor. Six crossings of the Pacific round trip in one year. And not a simple rhumb-line passage from, say San Diego to Sydney, because that is simply impossible. No, our sailor will need to follow the prevailing winds and currents, meaning a southerly course down and a northerly course up. Essentially, the return trip will mean sailing at least as far north as Washington, then coming back down the west coast. Of course, they could always just fly back, but that would eat into their profits. They'd be lucky to do two trips in a year, and would be beaten up pretty well by the time it's over. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
On Jun 9, 2:45 pm, Ed Gordon wrote:
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Cheerio, Ed Gordon Dude................. quit yapin and go do it. Post a few pictures when ya get to England. If its so easy to do in a Mac somone with your obvious skill, experince, and intellignece will have no problems at all............. I look forward to you reports of a safe, quick, and relaxing voyage. I bet you and Skip, and Lydia will have lots of stories to swap. Bob |
Mac26X fit for all waters
* Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/10/2007 11:49 AM:
I did find this though... http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html You can't blame the boat for that terrible tragedy. It said the guy was drunk and it said this too: "The boat that capsized on the Fourth of July and killed two children was overloaded and was being used incorrectly, according to the boat's manufacturer." "The 26-foot MacGregor, which is a cross between a sailboat and a power boat, is designed to hold up to six people, according to Roger MacGregor, the boat company's owner. The boat carried 11 people the night of July 4." "The boat's hybrid design uses a water tank on the bottom to provide stability. The tank should be filled when there are more than four people on board, MacGregor said. The tank on the boat driven July 4 by George Dean Martin was empty, according to the prosecutor in the case." The guy was dumb and drunk. Don't blame the Mac!!! Sure we can blame the Mac. Half the boaters out there were probably drunk and yet only one capsized. And he didn't just capsize it, it rolled within seconds of leaving the anchorage because he goosed the throttle by mistake. While there were 11 people on board, 3 were small children and down below, so the boat was not grossly overloaded by the standards of ordinary boats. 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. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
Jeff wrote in
: * Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/10/2007 11:49 AM: I did find this though... http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html You can't blame the boat for that terrible tragedy. It said the guy was drunk and it said this too: "The boat that capsized on the Fourth of July and killed two children was overloaded and was being used incorrectly, according to the boat's manufacturer." "The 26-foot MacGregor, which is a cross between a sailboat and a power boat, is designed to hold up to six people, according to Roger MacGregor, the boat company's owner. The boat carried 11 people the night of July 4." "The boat's hybrid design uses a water tank on the bottom to provide stability. The tank should be filled when there are more than four people on board, MacGregor said. The tank on the boat driven July 4 by George Dean Martin was empty, according to the prosecutor in the case." The guy was dumb and drunk. Don't blame the Mac!!! Sure we can blame the Mac. Half the boaters out there were probably drunk and yet only one capsized. And he didn't just capsize it, it rolled within seconds of leaving the anchorage because he goosed the throttle by mistake. While there were 11 people on board, 3 were small children and down below, so the boat was not grossly overloaded by the standards of ordinary boats. 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. Well, then maybe they should sit down and read the owner's manual. What do you expect? a warning sticker plastered on every part of the boat? No matter how hard you try to think of how people can screw up people can always screw up worse than you think they can. If you had a warning that said don't get drunk and operate this boat, don't put more than six people in it, and so forth you'd just get ignored. If you don't count the little kids you end up with eight adults. That's still two too many. Would you blame an airplane that crashed because it said it was for four passengers and they crammed eight people in it? Nope. That would be pilot error. So don't blame the Mac. If you built a boat that was idiot proof it'd be a square room with rubber walls firmly stuck to the ground. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
* Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/10/2007 7:06 PM:
Jeff wrote in .... 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. Well, then maybe they should sit down and read the owner's manual. What do you expect? a warning sticker plastered on every part of the boat? No matter how hard you try to think of how people can screw up people can always screw up worse than you think they can. If you had a warning that said don't get drunk and operate this boat, don't put more than six people in it, and so forth you'd just get ignored. If you don't count the little kids you end up with eight adults. That's still two too many. You miss the important issue here. There are very few other boats that would have capsized in this situation. If this had been a keel boat, or if the ballast tank were filled, or if it didn't have a 50hp engine, there would not have been a problem. Would you blame an airplane that crashed because it said it was for four passengers and they crammed eight people in it? The people were not "crammed" onto the Mac. I'm sure that they felt there was plenty of room. A Rhodes 19 would be "crammed," but not a 16 footer. Nope. That would be pilot error. So don't blame the Mac. If you built a boat that was idiot proof it'd be a square room with rubber walls firmly stuck to the ground. Sorry. I prefer boats that do not suddenly roll over when there is no wind or waves. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
* 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. 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. 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. A telling thing about some of the ventures you mention is that they are in groups, not alone. For whatever reason, they didn't want to be alone out there. Even you adimitted Mac owners are a friendly group of people who enjoy some company of fellow enthusiasts. Having the same boat makes it easier to stay together. ALL boaters are friendly, and most will sail in company. However, it seems that Macs can only do a few miles offshore if its a "Coordinated Event." And, for all the claims, I've never actually seen a Mac outside of protected waters, nor have I ever seen one at a "cruisers' anchorage." Well, I guess that means it NEVER happens. You sail everwhere all the time and know about what all the boats in the world are doing. 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. At my marina there are two in slips nearby. Last summer I saw each go out once. At my previous marina there was once that I saw out once in two years. You da man! I bet it burns you up when a Mac comes sailing by your slow heavy keel boat. 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. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"Ed Gordon" wrote in The guy was dumb and drunk when he bought the Mac!!! that's no excuse. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
|
Mac26X fit for all waters
In article , egordon873
@aol.com says... Duncan McC (NZ) wrote in . nz: In article , egordon873 @aol.com says... http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. Wow gee whiz. I didn't read all the guff - what a god awful website. I did find this though... http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html You can't blame the boat for that terrible tragedy. It said the guy was drunk and it said this too: "The boat that capsized on the Fourth of July and killed two children was overloaded and was being used incorrectly, according to the boat's manufacturer." "The 26-foot MacGregor, which is a cross between a sailboat and a power boat, is designed to hold up to six people, according to Roger MacGregor, the boat company's owner. The boat carried 11 people the night of July 4." "The boat's hybrid design uses a water tank on the bottom to provide stability. The tank should be filled when there are more than four people on board, MacGregor said. The tank on the boat driven July 4 by George Dean Martin was empty, according to the prosecutor in the case." The guy was dumb and drunk. Don't blame the Mac!!! 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? IMO, that's a curly question - and best answered (unlike the info online) - "all the time the boat is in the water". It just isn't safe otherwise. snip Overall I think the Mac retains it's - it's neither this, and it's neither that - label, sorry. It's what you make of it. If you want it to be a saiboat it's a pretty fast and safe sailboat. If you want a motorboat it's a pretty fast and safe motor boat. It's the best of both worlds. Everybody who doesn't know anything complains about the rudders. They say they are too lightly built. They are too dumb to remember they are slender because they also are a power boat rudders that have to be able to go throught the water way faster than a heavy keelboat rudder has to. They are tuffer than you think since they hold up going twenty or more mph. The rigging is light so it's easier to put the mast up and down. It's a trailerable boat remember. You can't make the mast and wiring too big or it'll be too heavy to put it up. It's designed to be light and strong and is plenty strong for the sails you get with it. 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!!!) So it doesn't fit into either world. 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). I certainly have no problem at all steppping my mast, even by myself (bit tricky, but I can do it - it's not the weight that's the problem, it's hanging onto the lines and holding the mast up that's the tricky bit)). I'd guess the standing rigging is 4mm SS... http://hitime.no-ip.info What is the Macs? I also thought (and it could just be the particular setup) that the rigging on the Mac I went out on was set *way* too light - I have the F75 set to a sorta dull piano twang tension (at a guess, twice as taut as the Mac I went out on). -- Duncan |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
* 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. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"chrisR" wrote in message
... "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 I used to know the owner of one of the largest dealers of them in Northern California. He told me two things. They sell like crazy, and they're crap boats. No, they don't fully inform the prospective owners certainly.... they want to make the sale. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac26X fit for all waters
All a bit evangelical for me
Buy one if you really want but don't inflict it on anyone else "Ed Gordon" wrote in message 8... http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. If you're too much of a coward to admit how good the Mac26X is don't click the link and don't read a little of what it has in it that I pasted right here.-- Owing to "focally ruptured gangreous acute appendicitis", I spent the better part of January 2001 arguing about this (the Mac26x is fit for all waters), rather than sailing or working, and have 80 pages of emails as well as several magazines and books on boat design involving the subject. According to Sea magazine (April 2005) "California's coastline is not particularly trailerboat-friendly - the areas where you can take small or trailerboats are limited, so it also would stand to reason that boaters would be heading to inland lakes and rivers in droves." But MacGregor Yachts has always oriented its products for world-wide coastal ocean and not just Califorina sales. The manufacturer believes that a 26 footer is too small to hold enough gear and supplies for passage. However, at least one Mac26x dealer considers ocean passage to be within the boat's design parameters and in 1999 more that a few Mac26x vessels made the trip from Crandon Park marina on Miami's Key Biscayn or nearby to the Bahamas. At least one Mac26x yacht made the trip from the city marina at Garison Bight in Key West to the Marquesas and on to the Tortugas. The 1000 mile coast of Florida has been sailed by a Mac26x. And two Mac26x cruisers (from Bellingham and Everett) were outfitted for an Alaskan inside passage (over 2000 miles) following the Cassiopeia in that regard. Those who find the ride of a light displacement under 30 foot sailboat preferable in ocean swells see its potential as a long-distance passage maker. This is demonstrated by reports that MacGregor Yachts receives many unsolicited requests for sponsorship of expeditions involving Mac26x ocean passages and by the consideration given to adding a platform (as discussed above) which would be used for storage during an extended cruise. It is also a favorite for chartering at blue water destinations such as the BVI, Bahamas Malaysia, Spain and Belize. Told you so. I enjoy being your mentor... Oh, be sure to visit my new anti-drug abuse site linked under my name. Also please click on a link or two for the sponsors to keep this site free of charges. Much appreciated. -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"Richard" wrote in message
... All a bit evangelical for me Buy one if you really want but don't inflict it on anyone else "Ed Gordon" wrote in message 8... http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/p11.htm Myth#11 Mac26 is not for ocean sailing. Go ahead, click the link and see just how good and seaworthy a professional captain thinks the Mac really is. Dare you. Jeff expecially. If you're too much of a coward to admit how good the Mac26X is don't click the link and don't read a little of what it has in it that I pasted right here.-- Owing to "focally ruptured gangreous acute appendicitis", I spent the better part of January 2001 arguing about this (the Mac26x is fit for all waters), rather than sailing or working, and have 80 pages of emails as well as several magazines and books on boat design involving the subject. According to Sea magazine (April 2005) "California's coastline is not particularly trailerboat-friendly - the areas where you can take small or trailerboats are limited, so it also would stand to reason that boaters would be heading to inland lakes and rivers in droves." But MacGregor Yachts has always oriented its products for world-wide coastal ocean and not just Califorina sales. The manufacturer believes that a 26 footer is too small to hold enough gear and supplies for passage. However, at least one Mac26x dealer considers ocean passage to be within the boat's design parameters and in 1999 more that a few Mac26x vessels made the trip from Crandon Park marina on Miami's Key Biscayn or nearby to the Bahamas. At least one Mac26x yacht made the trip from the city marina at Garison Bight in Key West to the Marquesas and on to the Tortugas. The 1000 mile coast of Florida has been sailed by a Mac26x. And two Mac26x cruisers (from Bellingham and Everett) were outfitted for an Alaskan inside passage (over 2000 miles) following the Cassiopeia in that regard. Those who find the ride of a light displacement under 30 foot sailboat preferable in ocean swells see its potential as a long-distance passage maker. This is demonstrated by reports that MacGregor Yachts receives many unsolicited requests for sponsorship of expeditions involving Mac26x ocean passages and by the consideration given to adding a platform (as discussed above) which would be used for storage during an extended cruise. It is also a favorite for chartering at blue water destinations such as the BVI, Bahamas Malaysia, Spain and Belize. Told you so. I enjoy being your mentor... 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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et: Well, let's look at it rationally. Three to four trips in one year? That means sailing year-round, in all weather conditions, including winter storms and summer cyclone season, not to mention three or four trips across the doldrums. Let's say three round trips, to make it easier on our lucky sailor. Six crossings of the Pacific round trip in one year. And not a simple rhumb-line passage from, say San Diego to Sydney, because that is simply impossible. No, our sailor will need to follow the prevailing winds and currents, meaning a southerly course down and a northerly course up. Essentially, the return trip will mean sailing at least as far north as Washington, then coming back down the west coast. Of course, they could always just fly back, but that would eat into their profits. They'd be lucky to do two trips in a year, and would be beaten up pretty well by the time it's over. 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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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 Okay, give us a report when you've completed the first "delivery." :-) |
Mac26X fit for all waters
Duncan McC (NZ) wrote in
. nz: In article , says... On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:31:54 +1200, Duncan McC (NZ) wrote: My own comments on a Mac 26X - which I tried out (a new one) two years ago. Is it a sailing boat or a speedboat? My biggest gripe, for a brand new boat, is that it is beaten on the water (sailing) by boats that are 25 years old (eg Farr 7.5, Noelex 25). (I bought a Farr 7.5 in the end, BTW). I was pleasantly surprised by it's pointing ability, but again much older boats out point it (as probably expected given it's 'cross nature' design). I couldn't find any Farr 7.5's for sale in the U.S., but maybe they come on market sometimes. Do they still make them? Looks like a nice boat. Probably not many made the trip to the U.S. Naa, haven't made 'em for years. That said there are several trailer sailors still made in Australia. There was a long thread in the Mac forum where an Aussie went through contortions having a Mac 26X shipped there. Shipping container prices, fumigation, trailer rules/modifications, etc. Ended costing him quite a bit. I couldn't quite figure why he would do it. Then another Aussie mentioned the outrageous price asked for the Mac there (60k AUS for the X, 70k AUS for the M) and said that despite his costs he will come out ahead should he decide to sell it off. He is himself arranging an import. Sorry, it was the latest model I went out in - the M model it must be. They are about $75K (NZD) here - which is good value for a brand new boat I think. (Actually with the high exchange rate, I'd expect to see a much lower price, but I don't have it at hand). The X and M are almost identical, with the M being the newer version. A new M in the U.S. will cost maybe 30-34K U.S. tricked out with a 4-stroke 50HP and other common add-ons. I think the bare boat itself with trailer and just a mainsail is 20-24K U.S. Apparently trade between the U.S. and Oz/NZ is well restricted between distance and regs. One of my sons recently sold his Chicago based Bayliner powerboat for an attractive price (he wanted a quick sale) to an Aussie working in Indiana. The fellow told my son he would be sending the boat off for sale in Australia and pocket 10k U.S. on the deal. All very strange. Another of my sons now resides in Sydney and tells me there are similar price anomalies with some U.S. cars, where older models not given a second look here (Ford Taurus, eg) sell for seemingly large sums in Australia. If I had more energy I might look into U.S./Oz import/export business. The price is good, and the cabin is spacious in feel. I like that. Pretty scary you would say the price is good for a Mac 26 in Oz/NZ, given what I've heard. Were you looking there or in the U.S.? Agree on the Mac 26 cabin. The spartan nature gives it a less claustrophobic feel than similar sized boats. But some will see that lack of cabinetry as inadequate stowage. Indeed the word 'spartan' came to mind - and indeed there is not a lot of locker space as a result - probably not *that* bad for a weekend or even a week away - at least everything is at hand (don't have to rumage around lockers - as I do on my boat). Spartan is another word for sensible when it comes to a small cruiser. You don't want a bunch of carpets and upholtery to get moldy or dank. You want surfaces that clean up easily with a sponge and some fresh water. On one of the Mac sites I was reading the other day there are pages and pages of modifications owners have made to customize their Macs. One guy showed where he did extra storage shelves. Here's the link to the main page. http://macgregorsailors.com/index.php -- Cheerio, Ed Gordon http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm |
Mac26X fit for all waters
Jeff wrote in
: * 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. You've got to get back to basics. The Mac26X or M are trailerable boats. The ballast is water so it can be drained for trailering. That's all you have to remember. Fill the ballast tank right after you launch and drain it right after you pull. That's not so hard is it? Once you got the basics down you just have to remember that even with the ballast tank full it's still a trailer boat that can't be treated like a heavy ballast keel boat. It's a compromise and a damned good one but you gotta keep it in mind all the time. Get drunk and forget and you might pay for your stupidity. 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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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... |
Mac26X fit for all waters
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:41:33 +0200 (CEST), Ed Gordon
wrote: A Mac is like riding a thorobred. Right. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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. |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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?" |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
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 |
Mac26X fit for all waters
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com