Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:



Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:



Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or
on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms
of stress.




Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving
such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to
try it.

Cheers
Marty



Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere,
has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking
up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,




Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty


Marty, as I suspect you're sixth-grade teachers probably told you, you
need to read and understand the question before you write your answer. -

Clearly, I didn't say that "thousands of Mac26m's broke up." Instead,
I said that even though there are thousands of Mac 26s out there being
sailed in US and foreign waters,

"no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted ANY accounts of ANY of
the thousands of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY
conditions..."

Read your own post Marty.

Jim



Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing
ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you.


Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,,

Get back to us on that one.

Cheers
marty

If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such
evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of
the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. -
Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.

Jim

JimC wrote:

If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such
evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of
the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. -
Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.

Jim, you most certainly made such a statement, when you returned I
couldn't resist.

I am pleased to see you have no intention of trying to support such folly.

Cheers
Marty

Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:


If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such
evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of
the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. -
Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.


Jim, you most certainly made such a statement, when you returned I
couldn't resist.

I am pleased to see you have no intention of trying to support such folly.

Cheers
Marty



Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses or
challenges to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to
have said, or what your caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather
than what I did say. As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac
is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In
fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited
for extended crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.

Have a nice day Marty.

Jim

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:


If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for
such evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted
anyting of the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. -
Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.


Jim, you most certainly made such a statement, when you returned I
couldn't resist.

I am pleased to see you have no intention of trying to support such
folly.

Cheers
Marty



Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses or
challenges to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to
have said, or what your caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather
than what I did say. As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac
is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In
fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited
for extended crossings.

Good Lord folks, this still going on?

As for it being any type of "blue-water cruiser", here's what Roger
MacGregor says about it in a Practical Sailor interview
(http://www.practical-sailor.com/samp...t_Review.html:

As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for
typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal
sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It won’t
hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion
of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew.

“There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught
in, and survived, some really extreme weather conditions, on both lakes
and oceans. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high
winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase
dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our
owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe
conditions.”

So...once again, the *designer* clearly states that it's built for light
duty. What's the mystery?


Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26,
with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed
afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the
floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

With 10K pounds of coffee in it?

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for, i.e.
"inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they designed for
heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they survive? Sure, but
one can always assume that there is a high likelihood that a boat will
fail, often catastrophically, when used *well* outside of its designed
operating range. A simple matter of engineering, not speculation.

Keith Hughes

wrote:

JimC wrote:



Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:


If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for
such evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted
anyting of the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion.
- Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.



Jim, you most certainly made such a statement, when you returned I
couldn't resist.

I am pleased to see you have no intention of trying to support such
folly.

Cheers
Marty




Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses or
challenges to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to
have said, or what your caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said,
rather than what I did say. As previously noted, I have not stated
that the Mac is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended
crossings. In fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue
water boat suited for extended crossings.


Good Lord folks, this still going on?

As for it being any type of "blue-water cruiser", here's what Roger
MacGregor says about it in a Practical Sailor interview
(http://www.practical-sailor.com/samp...t_Review.html:

As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for
typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal
sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It won’t
hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion
of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew.

“There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught
in, and survived, some really extreme weather conditions, on both lakes
and oceans. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high
winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase
dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our
owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe
conditions.”

So...once again, the *designer* clearly states that it's built for light
duty. What's the mystery?


Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore
in difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.


With 10K pounds of coffee in it?


Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the
Mac would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing
machine) in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN
HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS.


I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for, i.e.
"inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they designed for
heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they survive? Sure, but
one can always assume that there is a high likelihood that a boat will
fail, often catastrophically, when used *well* outside of its designed
operating range. A simple matter of engineering, not speculation.

Keith Hughes


As I said, they are not suited for extended crossings or blue water
cruising. While they are a coastal cruiser, they are not comfortable in
heavy weather. As to carrying 10K pounds of coffee, that would have to
be cut back somewhat. As also discussed previously, the Macs aren't
large enough to store provisions for extended cruising.

Jim

JimC wrote:


wrote:

I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for,
i.e. "inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they
designed for heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they
survive? Sure, but one can always assume that there is a high
likelihood that a boat will fail, often catastrophically, when used
*well* outside of its designed operating range. A simple matter of
engineering, not speculation.

Keith Hughes


As I said, they are not suited for extended crossings or blue water
cruising. While they are a coastal cruiser, they are not comfortable in
heavy weather. As to carrying 10K pounds of coffee, that would have to
be cut back somewhat. As also discussed previously, the Macs aren't
large enough to store provisions for extended cruising.

Jim

"Somewhat"? Capacity of 960lbs, including crew, would require a
reduction of, oh, say 95%. Ok, then your entire point is rendered moot,
true? If Redcloud had been a Mac, it couldn't have been carrying the
payload, so it wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place.
So it's a pointless argument to say "If Joe were in a Mac...", the Mac
is wholly unsuited to what he was trying to due, irrespective of the
weather component.

BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have:

"IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN."

It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy seas,
the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll.

So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not? It's
a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big
compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does what
it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom the
design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's also
wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are most boats.

Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I
wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a
coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design
parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and
simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design
space, or you're at risk.

Keith Hughes

wrote:

JimC wrote:



wrote:

I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for,
i.e. "inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they
designed for heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they
survive? Sure, but one can always assume that there is a high
likelihood that a boat will fail, often catastrophically, when used
*well* outside of its designed operating range. A simple matter of
engineering, not speculation.

Keith Hughes



As I said, they are not suited for extended crossings or blue water
cruising. While they are a coastal cruiser, they are not comfortable
in heavy weather. As to carrying 10K pounds of coffee, that would have
to be cut back somewhat. As also discussed previously, the Macs
aren't large enough to store provisions for extended cruising.

Jim


"Somewhat"? Capacity of 960lbs, including crew, would require a
reduction of, oh, say 95%. Ok, then your entire point is rendered moot,
true? If Redcloud had been a Mac, it couldn't have been carrying the
payload, so it wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place.
So it's a pointless argument to say "If Joe were in a Mac...", the Mac
is wholly unsuited to what he was trying to due, irrespective of the
weather component.

Actually, the point being made was that the MacGregor had certain safety
features that Joe's boat didn't have. Yes, it's true that he couldn't
have carried 10,000 pounds of coffee in a Mac. On the other hand, he
didn't do a very good job of delivering 10,000 lbs. of coffee in Red
Cloud either.



BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have:

"IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN."


Where in the world did you get that verbage, Keith? Apparently you are
deliberately misquoting the Mac site.- The actual statements regarding
the floatation system a

"The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won’t sail well when fully flooded, and it will be
unstable, but it beats swimming. Most competing boats do not offer this
essential safety protection, and their heavy keels can pull them
straight to the bottom. Don't get a boat without solid flotation!"


-Nothing about the boat becoming "very unstable" or that it "may turn
upside down." - Keith, don't try that BS with me again.



It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy seas,
the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll.

Nope. That's your statement, not MacGregor's.


So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not?

I'm not defending it as something it's not. I have stated over and over
again that it isn't suibable for extended crossings or blue water
cruisings. I have also listed a number of advantages of conventional
boats over the Macs. What I'm doing is providing a degree of balance in
this discussion (typical of many other discussions on this ng) in which
the Macs are totally bashed, usually by guys who have never even sailed
one of the current models (the 26M). They have never sailed one, yet
they feel no hesitation in telling everyone else what they are like and
what they will and will not do.



It's
a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big
compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does what
it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom the
design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's also
wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are most boats.

Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I
wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a
coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design
parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and
simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design
space, or you're at risk.


Well, that's your assesment. And I don't know whether you have sailed a
26M or not. Can I safely assume that you have not?. (I have sailed the
Mac26M, in addition to a number of other boats in the 30 to 40 foot
range.)

Here's my assesment:


1) A boat that is FUN TO SAIL! On my Mac 26M, when I get to the sailing
area, raise the sails, turn off the motor, and sense the boat moving
under sail, it's an amazing, almost magical experience. In contrast to
some of the heavier, conventional boats that I have sailed, the Mac is
sufficiently light that it gives you a 'kick in the pants' as it
accelerates under sail. Although larger boats are steadier, and more
comfortable in choppy waters (sort of like a large, heavy Lincoln Town
Car or equivalent) the Macs are responsive enough to give you more of a
feel for the changing conditions (sort of like the feel of a sports car,
such as a Porsche, a car that is fun to drive but not quite as smooth or
comfortable on long trips as the Lincoln). Also, in moderate conditions,
I sometimes like to set the boat on autopilot and sit on the deck
watching the boat gliding silently through the water. - Again, it's an
ethereal, almost magical experience.

2) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the
immediate area. - The Mac26M can be quickly and easily transported by
the owner (with a pickup or SUV) in one weekend to waters hundreds of
miles from it's berth or storage area, thereby making available hundreds
of sailing areas that wouldn't be conveniently available with a larger,
keeled vessel. (Without having it hauled out of the water and hiring a
truck to transport the boat to a distant sailing area.) - Practically
speaking, most large, conventional keeled boats are limited to sailing
within a day or so of their marinas unless the owners are retired or
want to spend several weeks of vacation. (Of course, you can always
point to exceptions, but they ARE the exceptions, not the usual practice
for most owners, most of the time.)

3) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Thus, the storage
fees are substantially less than most marina fees, and ongoing lease and
maintenance fees can be substantially reduced. Or, if desired, I can
(and do) choose to keep it in a Marina, at a relatively modest fee
because of its size and limited draft.

4) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters,
including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for
extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. The
boat has plenty of ballast and plenty of righting forces. Also, it's
suitable for sailing and/or motoring in shallow or restricted waters
that aren't available to large, fixed keel vessels.

5} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including
positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised. The boat is also designed to accommodate a large outboard
which gives the skipper more options in the event of heavy weather,
e.g., for returning to port quickly.

6) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial
cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth.

7) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and
docking by one person.

8) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger
boats (comparing new prices with new prices and used prices with used
prices, of course). This permits getting a fully equipped vessel (with
accessories such as autopilot, chart reader, roller reefing, 50-hp
motor, lines led aft, radio, stereo, etc., etc.), still within an
affordable total cost.

9) A boat that can be sailed or motored with or without the ballast, and
that can be trailord without the ballast, making it a substantially
lighter load when trailoring.

10) A boat that can have a 5.5 feet draft for sailing (with dagger-board
down) but that can be converted to one with only 1.5-ft draft in
shallow waters or waters with variable depth, or for anchoring in
shallow waters, or for bringing it up a ramp for trailoring, or for
simply bringing the boat ashore on a beach for a picnic or the like.
Or, the dagger board can be only partially retracted for increased speed
on a reach or a run, or completely retracted for motoring on a plane.

11) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this
ng, isn't limited to hull speed. With the (typical) 50-hp to 60-hp
outboard, the Mac 26M can be motored on a plane at two or three times
hull speed. While some on this ng have ridiculed this feature, it
offers a number of rather important advantages. - For example, the
skipper can get the boat out to a preferred sailing area substantially
sooner, PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME in the desired area. Similarly, at
the end of the day, he can get the boat back more quickly, regardless of
wind direction, again PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME (since he can stay
out later and still get the family home in time for dinner or other
activities). Practically speaking, it's also an advantage of the wife or
kids or guests are getting tired of sailing and want to get back ASAP.
This capability is also a safety factor, as mentioned above, in the
event the skipper wants to bring the boat in quickly to avoid heavy
weather, or move down the coast to avoid a squall, etc.

12) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. -
Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. - (I also like the looks of some
of the large conventional boats, particularly if they are long enough.)
But if we are comparing apples to apples, consider the looks of other
boats of 26-foot length. - For example, the smaller Island Packets look
something like a tug boat to me. All I know is that it looks good to me
and my guests. - Every time I see him, the owner of the boat in the next
slip compliments me on what a good-looking boat it is.

On the downside, I've previously noted that the Macs aren't as
comfortable in chop or heavy weather, that they don't have sufficient
storage for a long voyage, that they don't point as well as larger
boats, and that they have a shorter waterline, that limits their hull
speed under sail.


Jim