Granted the Mac26 is not an offshore boat, but what can she do? One
poster said he would not take one out of sight of land so lets
consider this.
First, most boat accidents happen within sight of land because thats
where the boats hit stuff, like land.
So, out of sight of land, aside from an occasional collision, weather
is the major hazard so let's examine the possible hazards.

Hurricanes: Any Mac owner who finds himself in a hurricane is the
victim of his own stupidity. I cannot envision any possible excuse to
find oneself in such a situation.

Unexpected storm, like the Storm of the Century: Actually, most
mariners should have expected it. I was due to leave that day for a
sailing trip but two days before had noticed an odd low in the Western
Gulf. CG posted small craft warnings. I put off my trip. Within 24
hours there were local gale warnings. I know of no small craft
operator on any reasonable (for a Mac26) passage of say 48 hours that
got caught in this and injured who can honestly say they had no
warning.

NorEaster: I have no experience with them.

Pacific storms: No experience

Thunderstorms and line squalls: These are legit hazards because they
are fairly unpredictable and isolated. Winds can go from 0 to 70 kts
to 0 in an hour and be dead calm 5 miles away. All Florida sailors
will eventually find themselves in one and probably several.
On my S2, my technique is: First recognize them by hearing thunder
(duh), then look to see if I can go around it. This is sometimes
possible because they are local but since a sailboat moves slow and
sometimes its (the storm) direction of movement is uncertain, this
only works about 30% of the time. make sure anchor is ready for
possible deployment if near shallow water. Look for the slight
coolness of the wind that signals it is near and approaching. TAKE
DOWN SAILS NOW if you feel it. Evaluate searoom and try to get into
deeper water with engine. As wind gets strong, try to power into it
to keep bow pointed toward it. It I cannot keep bow pointed toward
the wind, execute a very fast turn and run with wind on the stern
quarter. Try to stay out of shallow water. If necessary, deploy
anchor.
A Mac26 can do all of this and better since it has more power and
speed. If the storms direction can be ascertained, it can easily
power around it. Since most such storms occur near the ocean/land
interface, safe harbor is probably close for powering too at 17 kts.
I have noticed that such isolated storms do not greatly enhance the
wave height because they are so local and short lived. Storms
imbedded in a front can be associated with big waves but these are
obvious on a weather map and avoided. This means that a Mac26 can
power away from such a storm at speeds greatly in excess of the speed
of a REAL sailboat.

Another point about going out of sight of land: Why go out there if
you can avoid it? After a few minutes, all the waves look the same
(ok, so theres an occasional crazy one). The interesting stuff is
near land. All teh times I have gone out of sight of land was because
it was the fastest way to get somewhere or the only way for my 4'
draft. With the Mac26 very shallow draft, it is not limited in this
way so should spend far less time on such unnecessary passages.

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.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:07:53 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

"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.

I just find large openings and flat surfaces on small vessels of any
type inappropriate from a windage viewpoint and POTENTIALLY from a
structural viewpoint. I don't like large companionways and tons of
fixed ports in the coachhouse for the same reason. It's not
particularly scientific, but there's a reason submarines and
shuttlecraft don't have screen doors, either. G


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

Perfect? Stats, please. Plenty of catamarans have gone missing in the
ocean...we had one kill two sailors in Lake Erie three years ago near
here in a line squall when it flipped and flooded. If a catamaran went
down in the ocean, it would be hard to figure WHAT killed it, but a
large glass door in the cockpit can reasonably be assumed will let in
more following seas IF it fails. And engineering tells us everything
fails, eventually. Me, I would rather it was a couple of dropboards
YMMV. Some cats are more conservatively designed in this respect;
others go for the "sunroom effect".

Actually, I consider the door to be a major safety feature since you don't have
to climb down a ladder to "go below."

Different strokes, I guess. I have plenty of handholds so I
essentially "drop" the four feet or so into the cabin. Racing cats, of
course, look like '50s fighter jets, with "blister" windscreens and a
minimum of deck clutter.

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.

Well, as I've said, while my experience with them is limited, I've
seen a few that seemed a bit more alert, so to speak, to the possibly
of tons of green water landing in an inconvenient spot.


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.

So I understand. Perhaps I should start with a tri...there are a few
F28s locally that are supposed to do 20 kts.

R.

Nobody blames PortaBote owners for getting the sailing rig option

I own a Porta-Bote and am happy with it. I do not own the sailing rig for it,
have never met anyone who did or does own the sailing rig for it, and have
heard stories of stories or stories that there exists no satisfied owner of the
sailing rig for the bote.