Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Like many ppl who own "Real" sailboats, I have long considered the Mac
26 to be a toy sold to gullible first time buyers but may be changing
my mind. Currently I own a 28' S2 and all of my sailing is coastal
cruising. When I really analyse my sailing needs, the Mac 26 comes
close to filling them.

Consider:

1. I think that in Florida having extreme shoal draft capability is a
real safety issue because so much of the state is seriously shallow.
From Carabelle, Fl to Tarpon Springs, there are not many places where
one can get close (within a half mile)to shore with more than 5' of
water. When cruising, most of my dangerous incidents happened either
while anchored or trying to reach a safe anchorage. With extreme
shoal draft ability, the number of anchorages would easily quadruple.
When a 70 knot thunderstorm sweeps an anchorage, deep draft boats
anchored in deeper water tend to drag while a Mac 26 in shallow water
protected by shore or even beached would be safer.

2. Shoal draft ability greatly enhances ones ability to see
interesting places both in Florida and in the Bahamas. Most of the
places I want to see are in shallow water. The Mac 26 has less than
2' draft with board up.

3. Face it, sailboats are slugs, even under power. Because they
typically cannot outrun weather, they have to be overbuilt to "take
it". However, while the conventional sailboat is slugging his way
through unexpectedly rough weather, the Mac 26 owner has turned on his
motor and gone to port at 15 kts and is having coffee and watching
the lightning show.

4. Trailerability, do I need to say more? Not having to pay slip
fees, not having to rush to the coast just before a hurricane hits to
tie things down, not worrying about the cost of a bottom job, etc.
The ability to trailer to the Keys, to the Chesapeake, etc.

5. Safety at sea. Apparently they have a range of stability greater
than many more traditional boats. They are also intrinsically
righting unlike multihulls and some more traditional monohulls. They
have positive flotation unlike most monohulls.

6. Sailing ability. From what I hear, they sail better than some
more traditional boats, certainly better than a Morgan OI.

Perceived problems:

1. Quality. I suspect that the engineering of the Mac26 is better
than of a Pearson of 1970 considering advances in materials. Part of
this is due to lighter materials that causes the perceived low
quality. But you have to remember that the Mac 26 is made for
trailerability and it should not have to be caught out in really bad
weather.

2. Spartan interior. This is actually a plus for me. I am used to
tent camping so even a spartan interior seems luxurious and I hate
gadgets that break down and cause problems.

3. Any others?

So, would they be ok to sail across the stream to the Bahamas? Across
the Northern Gulf back and forth to N or S. Florida? Down island to
the Caribbean? What are the limits?

I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Parallax wrote:
Like many ppl who own "Real" sailboats, I have long considered the Mac
26 to be a toy sold to gullible first time buyers but may be changing
my mind. Currently I own a 28' S2 and all of my sailing is coastal
cruising. When I really analyse my sailing needs, the Mac 26 comes
close to filling them.

If that is really true, then the list should probably not be "sailing."

Consider this instead
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...39013024ncOIjH


Consider:

1. I think that in Florida having extreme shoal draft capability is a
real safety issue because so much of the state is seriously shallow.

Agreed. It a twofold improvement to have shallow draft... better
shelter, a wider range of options with regard to holding ground, and
more effective scope (you can even set the anchor by hand).


2. Shoal draft ability greatly enhances ones ability to see
interesting places both in Florida and in the Bahamas. Most of the
places I want to see are in shallow water. The Mac 26 has less than
2' draft with board up.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...39014035lhmlmJ


3. Face it, sailboats are slugs, even under power.

The boat in these pictures will sail rings around a Mac26X


4. Trailerability, do I need to say more? Not having to pay slip
fees, not having to rush to the coast just before a hurricane hits to
tie things down, not worrying about the cost of a bottom job, etc.
The ability to trailer to the Keys, to the Chesapeake, etc.

Agreed.

But if you are seriously considering a Mac 26X (or the makeover 26M)
then why not just get a motorboat and skip the farce of trying to sail one?


5. Safety at sea. Apparently they have a range of stability greater
than many more traditional boats.

That is utterly false. These boats are topheavy and have less stabilty,
which is why you can find (if you look) several news articels about them
capsizing... in at least one case, with fatalities.

I'm sure that MacGregor advertising is very carefully worded to avoid
false claims while presenting a rosy picture of stability... sort of
like the way they make it appear the boats actually sail...


6. Sailing ability. From what I hear, they sail better than some
more traditional boats, certainly better than a Morgan OI.

Uh huh.


Perceived problems:

1. Quality. I suspect that the engineering of the Mac26 is better
than of a Pearson of 1970 considering advances in materials.

I suspect you'd be wrong.

2. Spartan interior.

Actually it's quite roomy.


3. Any others?

So, would they be ok to sail across the stream to the Bahamas?

Sure, if you pick the weather carefully enough. There used to be a race
for Sunfish across to Bimini, so this ain't saying much though.


I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

http://bbs.trailersailor.com/forums/macgregor/index.cgi

Actually, what you want is to hear from *former* MacGregor owners. I
know several. Most of them eventually move on after one or another
ongoing frustration with the boat. It's a great staging platform for
playing in/on the water, and a decent camper trailer. But it's not
really a sailboat IMHO (stunts such as racing one PHRF unballasted with
trapezes notwithstanding)

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

The folks I know in FL with a Mac 26 are very satisfied with them. I don't
know that any of them have gone to the Bahamas yet (they are on the west
coast), but why not? Most folks motor over anyway and the Mac 26 is much
faster than most so if you watch your weather window and maybe buddy boat it
should be OK.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

In article ,
(Parallax) wrote:

Like many ppl who own "Real" sailboats, I have long considered the Mac
26 to be a toy sold to gullible first time buyers but may be changing
my mind. Currently I own a 28' S2 and all of my sailing is coastal
cruising. When I really analyse my sailing needs, the Mac 26 comes
close to filling them.

Our previous boat was a Mac 21, which is quite similar to the 26, given
enough power. It drew 12" and floated in 6" if the bottom was mud. VERY
nice for getting in towards the shore, and it cranked along pretty well.

We also cruise an area where the water can be a bit skinny quite a
distance out.

I think you'll eventually find that the S2 is more what you want long
term -- or you should have gotten a powerboat in the first place.

The Mac 26 doesn't do either job well and it really is designed for
light duty. They can be kept going, but the stays will need replacing
fairly regularly. Not much of a problem as they're built with Nicro
press swages, but an annoyance. Other stress points will need rebuilding
or beefing up every decade or so.

Trailing a boat *does* open up the cruising range, and I wouldn't
hesitate to take a 26 to the Bahamas (after a thorough check-out and
replacement of weak items), but its performance will suffer if you carry
very much.

These days, almost every case where we'd have enjoyed getting in closer
to shore with the shoal draft, we get just about the same enjoyment by
taking the dink in. Being on the Chesapeake and dedicated gunkholers,
we've run both boats aground. The Mac "broke" a couple of times, the
rudder downhaul block ripping out. The Tanzer has been less bothered,
not yet requiring a repair, and we've bounced quite a bit harder than we
did with the Mac.

Once, the Mac was 'brushed' by a bigger boat while on a mooring. Took
out most of our port side -- pulpits and stanchions and two stays --
(didn't notice the backstay was damaged for a month). The real sailboat
was essentially undamaged other than cosmetics.

The Macs are good boats for what they are, but the S2 will carry more,
last longer, and be more comfortable.

--
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
 

So, would they be ok to sail across the stream to the Bahamas? Across
the Northern Gulf back and forth to N or S. Florida? Down island to
the Caribbean? What are the limits?


Many have done it very successfully.
Your reasoning is sound, the only thing
missing in the Mac 26x is the ability to sail
a wide variety of conditions, weather needs to
fit more narrow parameters for good performance
and sailing pleasure.
But then it's a motorsailer NOT a sailboat.

Glenn

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

I suspect the real problem many ppl have with the mac26 is that it
does not support the self supporting long range cruising dream

Yes and that it is a boat that can sail
and power which is better than a boat that
can only sail (and has deep draft to boot).
The Mac is all compromise and many people
a problem getting their minds around something
like that.
BTW the boat will need upgrades in hardware
before going to the Bahamas and such.
It also sounds like you could be happy with a
pocket trawler but the Mac can still go in
much thinner water.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

This site may be of interest-
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Emighetto/murrelet.htm

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

In article ,
Quest0029 wrote:
This site may be of interest-
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Emighetto/murrelet.htm

Yeah, mullet's site. A standing joke on sailing anarchy. Read this
thread on the SA forums, "The future of yacht design"

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...showtopic=2833

-steve

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

(Steven Fisher) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Quest0029 wrote:
This site may be of interest-
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Emighetto/murrelet.htm

Yeah, mullet's site. A standing joke on sailing anarchy. Read this
thread on the SA forums, "The future of yacht design"

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...showtopic=2833

-steve

Well, I dont really expect to be invited to your "Yacht Club" cuz with
my ratty Tasmanian Devil flip flops, paint stained t-shirt and ragged
shorts I wouldnt fit in. All y'all REAL sailors can adjust your
captains hats and ascots and go back to the yacht club bar muttering
about how the common riff-raff just dont know their places.
Meanwhile, I'll be sailin one way r nuther.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

(Steven Fisher) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Quest0029 wrote:
This site may be of interest-
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Emighetto/murrelet.htm

Yeah, mullet's site. A standing joke on sailing anarchy. Read this
thread on the SA forums, "The future of yacht design"

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...showtopic=2833

-steve


For many yrs, purists refused to recognize multihulls as legit
sailboats and many still do not although many multis have made extreme
voyages. I suspect the same thing is happening with the mac26 genre.
I have heard of few accidents involving the Mac26 but that may be from
not paying attention although I do hear of accidents involving REAL
sailboats fairly often. When Mike Plant was killed in his REAL
sailboat from the keel falling off there was not an outcry about REAL
sailbaots being unsafe.
When i first saw Hunters years ago, i was apalled at the poor quality
compared to my older S2 but when I look at newer ones, it is evident
that good engineering and material advances have probably made them
more than equal to my S2 in quality. I believe the same is true of
the Mac26. Its newer types of materials and construction is probably
better than the older materials and construction methods that went
into high quality boats of yore. By analogy, my fibreglas middle of
the road S2 is a far better boat than a very high quality boat built
in the 1940s and a middle of the road boat built now is better than a
high quality boat built in the late 70s. A lower cost boat built
today may be equal to a middle of the road boat built in the 70s.
From what i can tell, most mac26 owners recognize the limits of their
vessels and many discuss upgrading the equipment. Should a Mac26 be
sailed out of sight of land? I dunno, but I have seen even an Island
Packet that I refused to sail on that was regularly sailed across the
Gulf of Mexico.
I wonder if the word Multihull causes the blood pressure of ppl here
to go up as does the name Mac26.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

I wonder if the word Multihull causes the blood pressure of ppl here
to go up as does the name Mac26.


Very probable.
Look at the statistics on boat ownership, people
are moving away from traditional keelboats in
droves. Where are they going? To multihulls,
powerboats and yes.... Mac 26 (and other similar
designs).

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

I wonder if the word Multihull causes the blood pressure of ppl here
to go up as does the name Mac26.


I should preface this comment by saying
I'm a coastal cruiser and not a passagemaker
these days.
I think it is just jealousy. We sail a nice
Sabre 28 but am looking with envy
as other's in power past in Mac 26's
and catamarans fly past and pull up
on the beach without any hassles.
Multi's and water ballasted motorsailers
are a fairly recent option for your average
sailor and the old guard is very defensive
about 'their' turf I think.

Max

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

The Mac 26 certainly holds a valid niche in the overall boat market. Is
is one that suits my needs? Nope! Not at this time or the foreseeable
future (and I say that as a former Mac 25 owner who had a ball with the
boat). But, the fact that it would be a rotten boat for me, doesn't
mean that it wouldn't be a great boat for someone else.

Is it a boat that should be taken on the TransPac? In my opinion, only
as a stunt. But, the same could be said of a lot of other boats.

This boat obviously serves it's niche well as long as it's owners follow
the basic rules of responsible seamanship (this includes knowing the
capabilities and limitations of your vessal).

Quest0029 wrote:

I wonder if the word Multihull causes the blood pressure of ppl here
to go up as does the name Mac26.


Very probable.
Look at the statistics on boat ownership, people
are moving away from traditional keelboats in
droves. Where are they going? To multihulls,
powerboats and yes.... Mac 26 (and other similar
designs).



--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

if you 'worry' about the cost of a bottom job, then yeah, a mac26 sounds
about right for you.

SV

"Parallax" wrote...
4. , not worrying about the cost of a bottom job,

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Amen and Suits Me Just Fine...
I got aboard my first boat,(16ft Comet) in 1947
(Where were U in 1947??? no offense intended...)
Had LOTS of others since...
How did I get good judgement??? Bad judgement :-)
Check out my X-boat page below...

Also opinions/observations on how much performance has been
sacrificed by cruising gear added, notwithstanding
(ignoring)
the absolutely shameless hype on Roger Mac's video....

....and Have a NICE day!!!!

http://angelfire.com/biz/WritersWeb/update3.html

(Parallax) wrote in message om...
(Steven Fisher) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Quest0029 wrote:
This site may be of interest-
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Emighetto/murrelet.htm

Yeah, mullet's site. A standing joke on sailing anarchy. Read this
thread on the SA forums, "The future of yacht design"

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...showtopic=2833

-steve

Well, I dont really expect to be invited to your "Yacht Club" cuz with
my ratty Tasmanian Devil flip flops, paint stained t-shirt and ragged
shorts I wouldnt fit in. All y'all REAL sailors can adjust your
captains hats and ascots and go back to the yacht club bar muttering
about how the common riff-raff just dont know their places.
Meanwhile, I'll be sailin one way r nuther.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

I almost went the Mac26 route, and sometimes I wish I had.
They are a good boat for those who like to sail but also want to power
and trailer.
The thing that steered me away from it was watching 3 guys setting
one up one day. It took them a couple hours and they were young strong
guys. I don't think they really knew what they were doing, but
regardless, it seemed like a pretty big job setting one up and
breaking it down- more work than I want to be dealing with.

So, I bought a 24 foot Stingray 240CS and I'll be paying for gas this
summer at over 2 bucks a gallon....sigh...gawd knows what the marinas
will be getting per gallon this summer!
John C.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

I've never set up a Mac 26, but a number of years ago, we had a Mac 25
(a swing keel sail boat rather than the water ballasted hybrid the 26 is).

It took my wife and I awhile to get the routine figured out and at
first, some our antics while preparing to launch can only be described
as pathetic, but eventually, we got to the point where we would be
motoring away from the ramp about 15 minutes after pulling into the
marina parking lot. It took a little longer at the end of the day, but
just because of the time it took to do the fresh water flush of the
outboard.

Eventually, you figure out the quickest and easiest way to accomplish
everything and it's becomes like a well choreographed ballet.

jchaplain wrote:
I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.


I almost went the Mac26 route, and sometimes I wish I had.
They are a good boat for those who like to sail but also want to power
and trailer.
The thing that steered me away from it was watching 3 guys setting
one up one day. It took them a couple hours and they were young strong
guys. I don't think they really knew what they were doing, but
regardless, it seemed like a pretty big job setting one up and
breaking it down- more work than I want to be dealing with.

So, I bought a 24 foot Stingray 240CS and I'll be paying for gas this
summer at over 2 bucks a gallon....sigh...gawd knows what the marinas
will be getting per gallon this summer!
John C.

--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

I did drag this whole thread, but I though I would write this back to
the top level.

First, I have now known of several Mac 26x owners that have actually
become sailors. For that I commend both the owners and the builder.
The fact that they are not as fast as my 13' Whaler and carry less sail
than my Rebel is not part of the issue here.

The advantages that people site are speed under power (often as a safety
item), the shoal draft and the trailerability. All are good thoughts.

If speed is a primary issue, then get an airplane. A boat is always the
worst choice to get somewhere fast.

There are lots of choices for shoal draft and most are better sailors
that 26* (my S2-7.9 is just one of many).

Trailer launch and recovery is aided by the water ballast, but towing a
5000# boat is not much more problem than towing 3000# boat.

If you enjoy the peace and quite of sailing, then you do. IF you enjoy
a boat that is responsive, then you have to choose what you want.

We have made long treks when I sailed the boat the entire way, but we
have also gone off for a days reach with the autohelm steering on wind
or waypoint and one or both of us watching and reading.

I am a naval architect and a marine enginer. The Mac 26* has not better
theoretical stability than most conventional monohulls. Did you know
that there is a MORC test that requires that a new or seriously modified
boat demonstrate static stability by tieing both head and main sails
(bagged to the top of the mast and then heaving the boat with all keels
and foils retracted down to until the mast is horizontal. The boat must
not flood. I do not like things that get less stable with incline (more
heel angle). Multihulls start loosing righting moment as soon as a hull
comes out of the water. They might be faster than most monohulls, but
they have some bad habits.

Matt Colie
Lifelong Waterman, Licensed Mariner and Perpetual Sailor



Parallax wrote:

Like many ppl who own "Real" sailboats, I have long considered the Mac
26 to be a toy sold to gullible first time buyers but may be changing
my mind. Currently I own a 28' S2 and all of my sailing is coastal
cruising. When I really analyse my sailing needs, the Mac 26 comes
close to filling them.

Consider:

1. I think that in Florida having extreme shoal draft capability is a
real safety issue because so much of the state is seriously shallow.
From Carabelle, Fl to Tarpon Springs, there are not many places where
one can get close (within a half mile)to shore with more than 5' of
water. When cruising, most of my dangerous incidents happened either
while anchored or trying to reach a safe anchorage. With extreme
shoal draft ability, the number of anchorages would easily quadruple.
When a 70 knot thunderstorm sweeps an anchorage, deep draft boats
anchored in deeper water tend to drag while a Mac 26 in shallow water
protected by shore or even beached would be safer.

2. Shoal draft ability greatly enhances ones ability to see
interesting places both in Florida and in the Bahamas. Most of the
places I want to see are in shallow water. The Mac 26 has less than
2' draft with board up.

3. Face it, sailboats are slugs, even under power. Because they
typically cannot outrun weather, they have to be overbuilt to "take
it". However, while the conventional sailboat is slugging his way
through unexpectedly rough weather, the Mac 26 owner has turned on his
motor and gone to port at 15 kts and is having coffee and watching
the lightning show.

4. Trailerability, do I need to say more? Not having to pay slip
fees, not having to rush to the coast just before a hurricane hits to
tie things down, not worrying about the cost of a bottom job, etc.
The ability to trailer to the Keys, to the Chesapeake, etc.

5. Safety at sea. Apparently they have a range of stability greater
than many more traditional boats. They are also intrinsically
righting unlike multihulls and some more traditional monohulls. They
have positive flotation unlike most monohulls.

6. Sailing ability. From what I hear, they sail better than some
more traditional boats, certainly better than a Morgan OI.

Perceived problems:

1. Quality. I suspect that the engineering of the Mac26 is better
than of a Pearson of 1970 considering advances in materials. Part of
this is due to lighter materials that causes the perceived low
quality. But you have to remember that the Mac 26 is made for
trailerability and it should not have to be caught out in really bad
weather.

2. Spartan interior. This is actually a plus for me. I am used to
tent camping so even a spartan interior seems luxurious and I hate
gadgets that break down and cause problems.

3. Any others?

So, would they be ok to sail across the stream to the Bahamas? Across
the Northern Gulf back and forth to N or S. Florida? Down island to
the Caribbean? What are the limits?

I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Over $3 now at some marinas!
Gordon


"jchaplain" wrote in message
...

I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

I almost went the Mac26 route, and sometimes I wish I had.
They are a good boat for those who like to sail but also want to power
and trailer.
The thing that steered me away from it was watching 3 guys setting
one up one day. It took them a couple hours and they were young strong
guys. I don't think they really knew what they were doing, but
regardless, it seemed like a pretty big job setting one up and
breaking it down- more work than I want to be dealing with.

So, I bought a 24 foot Stingray 240CS and I'll be paying for gas this
summer at over 2 bucks a gallon....sigh...gawd knows what the marinas
will be getting per gallon this summer!
John C.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

On Sunday 16 May 2004 3:15 pm in rec.boats.cruising Matt Colie wrote:


I am a naval architect and a marine enginer. The Mac 26* has not better
theoretical stability than most conventional monohulls. Did you know
that there is a MORC test that requires that a new or seriously modified
boat demonstrate static stability by tieing both head and main sails
(bagged to the top of the mast and then heaving the boat with all keels
and foils retracted down to until the mast is horizontal. The boat must
not flood. I do not like things that get less stable with incline (more
heel angle). Multihulls start loosing righting moment as soon as a hull
comes out of the water. They might be faster than most monohulls, but
they have some bad habits.

Whilst it is true that many multihulls can be badly behaved, it is
both possible and practical to build a multihull which is unconditionally
stable. James Wharram has written extensively on this point, you need
to keep the centre of effort low and limit the sail area. The clever
part of his designs is that when the going gets tough, such as the
hurricane that blows up suddenly out of nowhere, the sails are designed
to shred before the blow-down force is reached. Such incidents are rare,
but one should naturally carry spare sails B-).

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

First, I have now known of several Mac 26x owners that have actually
become sailors.

As if becoming a 'sailor' is somehow more
virtuous than being a motorsailor.

If speed is a primary issue, then get an airplane. A boat is always the
worst choice to get somewhere fast.

Irrelevant. The kind of speed refered to in this case
is real and significant to boating. Safety and pleasure can both directly be
enhanced by it.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

"Matt Colie" wrote

Trailer launch and recovery is aided by the water ballast, but towing a
5000# boat is not much more problem than towing 3000# boat.

Unless the car you own is rated for 3500# towing.

SV

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message . ..
"Matt Colie" wrote

Trailer launch and recovery is aided by the water ballast, but towing a
5000# boat is not much more problem than towing 3000# boat.

Unless the car you own is rated for 3500# towing.

SV

I have no intention of buying a vehicle capable of towing a 5000 lb
boat as this would be a waste of money. Instead, a more practical
vehicle that can tow a 3500 lb boat without wasting gas all the time
seems reasonable.
Yes, I am cheap, and proud of the fact.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Quality has more to do with how something is designed and put together
than with the materials per se. It tries to ensure the weak link results
by design and not from the construction process. Superlative material
can be sabotaged through inappropriate usage or cheap/careless work, so
while the Mac26 may be a fine appropriate vessel for some, saying it is
made from wunderstuff doesn't say much - design talent and criteria and
production practice count for much more.

Since one of the Mac26 features is price, I would expect that it's
carefully designed to be slightly more than adequet to the long weekend
picnic crowd. This is really the most demanding _significant_ part of
its market; half of the boats sold never get much past the gas docks and
so a large bath tub would be seaworthy enough for them while the
"performance" crowd (like the guy that swamped himself pulling a water
skier) don't buy enough for Mac to design or build for them. Even
wunderstuff gets pricey real fast and we all know about labor costs, so
"good" design in this case balances warrantee and liability costs
against the savings of a cheaper process and the favor of the chosen
market. Mr MacGregor was first and last a business man.

There are likely a dozen or so points of common failure that should be
addressed before cruising the boat hard in water where you might not get
rescued in a timely fashion. The usual suspect come to mind: Hull/deck
join, cockpit drainage, deck fitting stength, port light strength,
steering gear stength etc. But that is true of most "cheap" boats
including Catalinas, Columbias, Contessas, etc.

I didn't read all of "Mullet's" site, but it looked like he had some
good sensible things to say, along with all his hand waving and smoke
and mirrors. He's a believer and he's doing good by his chosen faith and
it's probably doing good by him. He's the kind that gets others
involved, and with a little luck everyone survives the experience. g

Rufus

.....
When i first saw Hunters years ago, i was apalled at the poor quality
compared to my older S2 but when I look at newer ones, it is evident
that good engineering and material advances have probably made them
more than equal to my S2 in quality. I believe the same is true of
the Mac26. Its newer types of materials and construction is probably
better than the older materials and construction methods that went
into high quality boats of yore. By analogy, my fibreglas middle of
the road S2 is a far better boat than a very high quality boat built
in the 1940s and a middle of the road boat built now is better than a
high quality boat built in the late 70s. A lower cost boat built
today may be equal to a middle of the road boat built in the 70s.
From what i can tell, most mac26 owners recognize the limits of their
vessels and many discuss upgrading the equipment. Should a Mac26 be
sailed out of sight of land? I dunno, but I have seen even an Island
Packet that I refused to sail on that was regularly sailed across the
Gulf of Mexico.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

is true of most "cheap" boats
including Catalinas, Columbias, Contessas, etc.

Contessa?

btw, comparing a Mac as a sailing vessel positively to a Catalina -- or even a
Columbia -- to lying to yourself about what a Mac is.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

Dan Best wrote:
This boat obviously serves it's niche well as long as it's owners follow
the basic rules of responsible seamanship (this includes knowing the
capabilities and limitations of your vessal).

And that has to include realizing that claims of "17mph" under sail are
utter balderdash, as are claims of "higher stability than a normal
sailboat" etc etc.

The Mac26X and 26M are nice boats for some purposes... they are
certainly very roomy, and the trailerability is a plus. But having
sailed in company with them many times, it looks to me like anybody who
placed any value at all on sailing performance would not be interested
in one.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

The Mac26X and 26M are nice boats for some purposes... they are
certainly very roomy, and the trailerability is a plus. But having
sailed in company with them many times, it looks to me like anybody who
placed any value at all on sailing performance would not be interested
in one.

This is really the bottom line, it's apples & oranges when comparing Mac26 to
'real' sailboats.
The Mac does not sail well. It does have 9" draft,
motor at 17mph, is trailerable etc etc.
This is a group for cruisers and a motorsailer such as this can be a very
effective cruiser, even a superior
cruiser depending on where you cruise.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

jchaplain wrote in message . ..

I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

I almost went the Mac26 route, and sometimes I wish I had.
They are a good boat for those who like to sail but also want to power
and trailer.
The thing that steered me away from it was watching 3 guys setting
one up one day. It took them a couple hours and they were young strong
guys. I don't think they really knew what they were doing, but
regardless, it seemed like a pretty big job setting one up and
breaking it down- more work than I want to be dealing with.

So, I bought a 24 foot Stingray 240CS and I'll be paying for gas this
summer at over 2 bucks a gallon....sigh...gawd knows what the marinas
will be getting per gallon this summer!
John C.

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.

Rethinking the Mac 26
 

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
 

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.