On 18 May 2004 10:26:59 -0700, (Parallax)
wrote:

Granted the Mac26 is not an offshore boat, but what can she do?

All good points, P., and points which reflect, I would guess, 90% of
the coastal sailing in North America. Racers and dedicated cruisers go
offshore...the rest of us stay in VHF range. Sometimes I think, like
you, that coastal sailing is the more dangerous pastime.

I have seen Mac 26Xs at boat shows and personally don't have the
animus against them that a lot of people seem to have...it's like
blaming a Mini for not being a minivan. If it does what its buyers
want it to do, which seems to be powerboating with the option to do
fair-weather, light air sailing on a whim, then no harm, no foul.
Nobody blames PortaBote owners for getting the sailing rig option, so
I find the criticisms of the Mac26X *as a sailing vessel* a little
pointless, just as criticising the sailing qualities of a steel
motorsailer is pointless, as it's a trawler with options when the
diesel runs out.

Is the Macgregor 26X a badly built boat? Separate issue entirely. Is
it the ******* offspring of a powerboat and a dinghy? Oh, probably,
but so what? Many people like that sort of thing, and as long as they
understand COLREGs, it's irrelevant to my sailing experience.

R.

rhys wrote:
...Nobody blames PortaBote owners for getting the sailing rig option, so
I find the criticisms of the Mac26X *as a sailing vessel* a little
pointless,

AFAIK nobody has *criticised* the sailing performance of the Mac 26X,
only pointed out that it is not at all what it is often claimed to be.

If you saw Porta-Bote advertising that their sailing rig option will
beat Tornado Cats and is by far the most aerodynamically advanced vessel
yet produced by Western civilization, you might shake your head a bit.


Is the Macgregor 26X a badly built boat? Separate issue entirely. Is
it the ******* offspring of a powerboat and a dinghy? Oh, probably,
but so what? Many people like that sort of thing, and as long as they
understand COLREGs, it's irrelevant to my sailing experience.

Agreed. But would you let your brother buy one?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:02:41 -0400, DSK wrote:

AFAIK nobody has *criticised* the sailing performance of the Mac 26X,
only pointed out that it is not at all what it is often claimed to be.

Well, even looking at grainy pictures of it I can tell it will point
like a barge. "Can sail" and "can sail well" are relative.

If you saw Porta-Bote advertising that their sailing rig option will
beat Tornado Cats and is by far the most aerodynamically advanced vessel
yet produced by Western civilization, you might shake your head a bit.

Like a junkie with Parkinson's, yes.

Is the Macgregor 26X a badly built boat? Separate issue entirely. Is
it the ******* offspring of a powerboat and a dinghy? Oh, probably,
but so what? Many people like that sort of thing, and as long as they
understand COLREGs, it's irrelevant to my sailing experience.

Agreed. But would you let your brother buy one?

Sure, if he was picking it over a powerboat...but I'd take the thing
under tow if the wind picked up. G

Seriously, they look like nothing I'd enjoy, but one more sailboat,
even a Macgregor, instead of one more jetski, has *got* to be the
lesser of two evils, wouldn't you agree?

I try not to sneer at trimarans and cats, either, because they provide
a *different*, but equally valid and perfectly enjoyable alternative
to my preferred monohull. Where I tend to get snotty is on the issue
of seaworthiness: if you accept that a cat with a big flat sliding
glass door on its bridge is going to have issues in a following sea,
then you understand my objections are not to catamarans, but to
catamarans that want to be patio sunrooms. South Africa builds some
apparently incredibly tough blue-water cats (they'd have to, given the
conditions there), and while I'd personally have to learn to sail 'em,
I'd let the brother buy one.

Over a Macgregor, even.

R.

rhys wrote:
..... one more sailboat,
even a Macgregor, instead of one more jetski, has *got* to be the
lesser of two evils, wouldn't you agree?

Oh yes, most definitely.


I try not to sneer at trimarans and cats, either, because they provide
a *different*, but equally valid and perfectly enjoyable alternative
to my preferred monohull. Where I tend to get snotty is on the issue
of seaworthiness: if you accept that a cat with a big flat sliding
glass door on its bridge is going to have issues in a following sea,
then you understand my objections are not to catamarans, but to
catamarans that want to be patio sunrooms. South Africa builds some
apparently incredibly tough blue-water cats (they'd have to, given the
conditions there), and while I'd personally have to learn to sail 'em,
I'd let the brother buy one.

Over a Macgregor, even.

Oh c'mon, we all know in our heart of hearts that *no* multihull can
ever be really seaworthy, right

Anyway, there are more than one or two monohulls better suited to be
dockside tiki bars than sailing vessels, so it doesn't bother me that
some multihulls have the same issues. The basic point, as I see it, is
to understand the capabilities of your vessel and to know how to make
her perform. A Mac26X owner who is convinced that his boat is as stable
as a deep keel boat, and has the same windward performance as a J-24,
can plane under sail, and 'round Cape Horn with ease, falls short of
this IMHO. BTW my friends who have owned these boats did not generally
fall into this category.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:56:31 -0400, DSK wrote:



Anyway, there are more than one or two monohulls better suited to be
dockside tiki bars than sailing vessels, so it doesn't bother me that
some multihulls have the same issues.

Many of which have a lot of vowels in their names, IMHO. G


The basic point, as I see it, is
to understand the capabilities of your vessel and to know how to make
her perform. A Mac26X owner who is convinced that his boat is as stable
as a deep keel boat, and has the same windward performance as a J-24,
can plane under sail, and 'round Cape Horn with ease, falls short of
this IMHO. BTW my friends who have owned these boats did not generally
fall into this category.

Exactly.

R.

"rhys" wrote in message
...

I try not to sneer at trimarans and cats, either, because they provide
a *different*, but equally valid and perfectly enjoyable alternative
to my preferred monohull. Where I tend to get snotty is on the issue
of seaworthiness: if you accept that a cat with a big flat sliding
glass door on its bridge is going to have issues in a following sea,
then you understand my objections are not to catamarans, but to
catamarans that want to be patio sunrooms.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with "flat sliding doors" since I've never
heard of a failure of one. Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something
that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a
perfect safety record?

Actually, I consider the door to be a major safety feature since you don't have
to climb down a ladder to "go below." Modern cruising cats don't have a problem
with seas breaking in the cockpit because the sterns are quite bouyant and lift
easily. In many cats the door is almost amidships, so its rather unlikely to be
tested even in the worst conditions. And the cockpit drains are usually 3 inch
scuppers that drain directly below.

I know that traditionally, large comfortable cockpits are not considered the
safest for long passages, but they really aren't that bad on a cat.


South Africa builds some
apparently incredibly tough blue-water cats (they'd have to, given the
conditions there), and while I'd personally have to learn to sail 'em,
I'd let the brother buy one.


You'd figure it out real quick.

Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something
that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a
perfect safety record?

jeff, catamarans do not hardly have "a perfect safety record". They in fact
sink all over the place. *some* catamarans do not sink, but most certainly
catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something
that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a
perfect safety record?

jeff, catamarans do not hardly have "a perfect safety record". They in fact
sink all over the place. *some* catamarans do not sink, but most certainly
catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's.

Modern cruising catamarans, over 35 feet and used for cruising, have a near
perfect safety record, especially with regard to sinking. You'd be hard pressed
to find more than a handful of incidents in the last 10 years. To compare their
record to monohulls is laughable. Get real, jaxie, this is just another one of
you blatant lies! Why don't you show us a statistic, or are you going to spin
some yarn about how an "expert" told you so in a bar?

Modern cruising catamarans, over 35 feet and used for cruising, have a near
perfect safety record, especially with regard to sinking. You'd be hard
pressed
to find more than a handful of incidents in the last 10 years. To compare
their
record to monohulls is laughable.

compare the Iroquois owner's list to see just how many Iroquiois catamarans
sank of the total number made. The % is not unusual in the context of
catamarans taken "out there".

On Thursday 20 May 2004 1:05 am in rec.boats.cruising JAXAshby wrote:

Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something
that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with
a perfect safety record?

jeff, catamarans do not hardly have "a perfect safety record". They in
fact
sink all over the place. *some* catamarans do not sink, but most
certainly catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's.

BULL****.
Yet another idiot claim from our resident clown.

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