Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Yes - the PHRF I've seen for the 26X is 320. I've been rather surprised that so
few fleets even list the newer Macs (X or M) - none of the larger East Coast
fleets list them at all, I've only seen them in isolated inland fleets.

Normally, the rules preclude racing without water ballast tanks full, so I'm
always surprised to hear of situations where someone was allowed to race with
empty tanks.



"DSK" wrote in message
...
Parallax wrote:
How slow is the Mac26 under sail? I tried to check. Found a SF Bay
site that listed the Mac 26 as PHRF 221, Morgan OI as 216 (amazing)
and the Westsail 32 as 222.

That's the older model Mac26, not the 26X. I have only seen one
"provisional" rating on the Mac26X and it was around 250, issued to a
guy on the Chesapeake who sailed it with no ballast and a crew on trapezes.

I suspect that a fair PHRF rating for this boat, with the factory sails,
to be somewhere around 320.

BTW Morgan Out Islands came in many different sizes... are you seriously
going to compare the Mac26X to an OI41?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

How slow is the Mac26 under sail? I tried to check. Found a SF Bay
site that listed the Mac 26 as PHRF 221, Morgan OI as 216 (amazing)
and the Westsail 32 as 222. A Chesapeake based site listed the Mac 26
as being 234, Alberg 30s as over 240 , most Freedoms as over 240. I
was surprised at the "Name Brands" that had high PHRF. So, the Mac26
may be slow under sail but seems to be in good company with many REAL
sailboats being much slower.


*if* you hope to "sail", or motor, a mac 26 anywhere you might take any one of
those other boats you are going to die.

consistent reports are the Bahamas beaches are littered in mac 26's the owners
did not wish to "sail" or motor back to Florida in.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
Yes - the PHRF I've seen for the 26X is 320. I've been rather surprised that so
few fleets even list the newer Macs (X or M) - none of the larger East Coast
fleets list them at all, I've only seen them in isolated inland fleets.

Well, a Google search turns one up in Narragansett Bay sailing at 233! I
wonder if he's allowed to use his motor on the windward legs?

Anyway, there are a couple of other interesting links... USSA is
awarding a medal to the vessel "Irish Mist" (and presumably her skipper)
for rescuing 7 people off a MacGregor 26X in SanFran Bay. Then there is
the guy who announced he is going to sail his Mac26X up the NW coast to
the Arctic Circle, then circumnavigate South America by way of Cape
Horn.... his web site hasn't been updated for a few months BTW.


Normally, the rules preclude racing without water ballast tanks full, so I'm
always surprised to hear of situations where someone was allowed to race with
empty tanks.

This guy was a dealer for them Mayo, Md; and apparently a pretty good
racing sailor in other boats. According to the story I've heard, he
wanted the boat to have a provisional 240 rating, and did this
no-ballast-&-trap stunt to show how fast the boat was, and ended up
proving that it could sail to a rating around 260. Some of the
Chesapeake Bay guys may have more details.

It seems likely to me that very few Mac 26X sailors would be interested
in racing. OTOH I know of a bunch of old-model Mac 26 and Mac 25 sailors
who race PHRF and these boats' performance is pretty well documentable.
They're rated in the low 200s some places, up to about 225 in others
(which is why I find a hard time believing a Mac26X at 233).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

"Parallax" wrote in message
Checking out the Practical Sailor rewview of the Mac 26:

They state a PHRF of 240-250. Would have to refigure the PHRF of
other boats to make them consistent with this figure.


Perhaps - but that still make them very slow. Slower that virtually every other
rated boat, including numerous smaller boats.

PS says the Mac 26 is built with a hull deck joint on an outward
turning flange with SS bolts every 4", this is pretty good. Look at
some older boats, even "name brands" and you find riveted joints,
sometimes "pop" rivets to hold them together while the glue in the
joint dries.

PS implies the Mac26 has too light rigging. Macgregor says it has
never been a problem. Any remarks about this anyone?

Mac specs show Lewmar winches and Doyle sails, could be ok.

It could be, but it really doesn't mean anything. Lewmar makes many sizes and
styles, And, given the quantities involved, Doyle would accomodate any budget.



Other than the remark about the light rigging, PS has little bad to
say about the Mac26.

They also had very little good to say. They never sailed the boat. Actually,
they said very little other than echoing Roger's comments, and those of a
dealer. The most important comment is a direct quote from Roger: "The 26 was
designed for typical small cruising boat use-inland waters and limited coastal
sailing." I interpret "limited coastal sailing" as significantly more limited
than what is appropriate for a "coastal cruiser."

http://www.boatus.com/reviews/sail/review2.asp

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

On 18 May 2004 09:52:35 -0700, (Parallax)
wrote:

They state a PHRF of 240-250. Would have to refigure the PHRF of
other boats to make them consistent with this figure.

I guess this rating is without an 50 BHP outboard?


Cheers!


Remco

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

In article ,
(Parallax) wrote:

They state a PHRF of 240-250. Would have to refigure the PHRF of
other boats to make them consistent with this figure.

As far as I can tell, your S2 runs 180 or better. That's significantly
faster. Considering how fast the Mac seems off the wind, it's pretty bad
working to windward.

And as others have said, loaded for cruising, you won't get the
advertized performance. Yes, you can get momentary bursts of speed,
perhaps an hour at a time, but you'll have to be very alert and active
to keep it going. For cruising, expect to sail somewhat slower than the
S2 -- and to motor more.

PS says the Mac 26 is built with a hull deck joint on an outward
turning flange with SS bolts every 4", this is pretty good. Look at
some older boats, even "name brands" and you find riveted joints,
sometimes "pop" rivets to hold them together while the glue in the
joint dries.

The other factor is how beefy the flange is that they're bolted through.
Our 21's flange and the deck at three stanchions disintegrated when
sideswiped on a mooring.

PS implies the Mac26 has too light rigging. Macgregor says it has
never been a problem. Any remarks about this anyone?

We had trouble with the 21's rigging (which is essentially the same). As
I said in an earlier message, expect to replace it fairly regularly
(about 5 years, I found); immediately inspect it thoroughly if it's been
shock loaded; buy and learn to use Nicropress fittings.

And other things will break. I had to replace our mainsheet
fairlead-cleat after about 10 years. (it broke at the swivel). Various
other items broke about that same year. It's been a while, so I can't
give you a full list, but they mounted up. The equivalent gear on our
Xan is now 30 years old and still going strong; we sail her much more
(and harder) than we could have sailed the Mac.

Other than the remark about the light rigging, PS has little bad to
say about the Mac26.

PS doesn't pan many boats. They instead concentrate on how well each
works *for the intended purpose*. Macs are inexpensive entry-level
trailed boats, built strong enough for protected waters for a few years
and light to tow.

-----

It seems you're trying to justify getting one, no matter what others
say. Try to borrow or rent one for a while and see how it actually works
for your purposes. I suspect you'll find life on a Mac isn't as rosy as
you're imagining it.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Macs are inexpensive entry-level
trailed boats,

$30,000, plus sales tax, doesn't seem all that "inexpensive" for mickey mouse
26 foot boat.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

On 20 May 2004 06:29:40 -0700, (Parallax)
wrote:


The 8.5M S2 is supposed to be a fast boat but not being a racer I am
unappreciative of this. Being a cruiser who is impatient, if I have
to tack all over the chart to get where I want to go, the engine gets
turned on.

OK, not uncommon, but the S2 *is* pretty fast, but pretty fast for
that size is six knots unless you plane or surf in big air. I race one
in our club and it does better than the quarter tonners and runs even
with the Viking 28 and usually burns the Catalina 30.

I like the Mac26 concept but wish she were better made.

One word: Custom!

I am leaning toward a trailerable tri of some kind but a planing
monohull (if it really worked) would be so much easier.

F28, if you can stand the narrow hull. Everything's a compromise,
recall, but they can sustain more speed than a Macgregor.

As planing
monohulls do exist (Mike Plants boat was such), I expect some bright
person to develop such a thing for cruising eventually, not sure how.

Many cruisers will plane given the right conditions, but they tend to
be racer cruisers with the flatter bottoms condusive to planing.
J-Boats come to mind, and yes, many people cruise them "racing style",
although their basic Spartan layout bugs some people (me, I like the
idea of cleaning the entire cabin with half a bottle of Windex G).

You have to figure that Open 50s and 60s, etc. plane nicely, but make
****-poor cruisers for obvious reasons. They are also touchy and
difficult to sail. So rather than make a Shetland pony into a Triple
Crown winner, I would suggest you get a small powerboat and/or get the
most out of your S2, a perfectly good under 30 foot cruiser racer that
allow some scope for tweaking for performance. After all, if it's
speed you're after, take a plane G

R.