Since the MacGregor doesn't capside and doesn't sink
(even when filled with water) would it be safer for
crossing the Atlantic than a 30' Bayliner ?

http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/safety.html

wrote in message
k.net...

Since the MacGregor doesn't capside and doesn't sink
(even when filled with water) would it be safer for
crossing the Atlantic than a 30' Bayliner ?

MacGregor 26 with it's poor sail performance, lack of proper ballast or top
heavy power performance is only good for gentle days on a pond! The
Binliner would be just as poor on a serious Atlantic crossing.

Capt Pete

Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and you
need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does 400
gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it? Safely. What
will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability? To mileage and
handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

"ed" wrote:
Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and
you need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does
400 gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it?
Safely. What will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability?
To mileage and handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause
a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

wrote in message
k.net...
I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

No, the MacGregor is a "pretend" sailboat. It is a compromise between a
power boat and a sail boat and it does neither of the two very well. There
is no way it should be considered to be a blue water boat.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

wrote:
"ed" wrote:
Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and
you need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does
400 gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it?
Safely. What will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability?
To mileage and handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause
a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

Why do you keep insisting it can't capsize?
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures in
this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear in
ways not covered by the procedures.

Jeff wrote:
wrote:
"ed" wrote:
Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and
you need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does
400 gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it?
Safely. What will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability?
To mileage and handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause
a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

Why do you keep insisting it can't capsize?
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.

So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

wrote:
Jeff wrote:
....

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.

So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

Just to be clear ... you're talking about safe for a trans-Atlantic?

I'm sure others will have something to say, but for starters, the
basic parameters of the boat are not favorable - what little speed it
has is dependent on staying light, but it looses this with the
gear/fuel/water etc. that would have to be carried. But this is not
insurmountable. A bigger problem is that the basic design is not very
seaworthy. It has extremely high freeboard and thus windage. A hull
shape that provides little stability. And then there's construction
issues - very light rigging which, with the deck stepped mast, pretty
much guarantees the rig will be lost in rollover, and probably in a
knockdown. And the rudder assembly is not noted for strength. And
then there's the issue of whether the hull itself is strong enough to
handle the severe pounding of a serious storm.

The Mac is very attractive to some as a fla****er sailing, and hence
is one of the most successful designs ever. But I think you can find
better choices for a trans-Atlantic.

wrote:

Jeff wrote:

wrote:

"ed" wrote:

Think about range. calculate 2000 miles distance by a 5 mpg and
you need how many gallons of fuel on board? How much space does
400 gallons of fuel require? How and where will you store it?
Safely. What will the added weight (about a ton) do to stability?
To mileage and handling? If you use bladders, will chafing cause
a catastrophic leak?

editor
http://www.marineenginedigest.com

I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.

Why do you keep insisting it can't capsize?
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Of course, you can claim that they did not follow proper procedures
in this case. However, the North Atlantic has a way of testing gear
in ways not covered by the procedures.


So I should have said that it cannot capsize if the ballast tank
is full and the boat is not overloaded and it doesn't have 300 lbs
of weight attached to the top of the mast, etc, etc.

I'm sure it can also sink if you put enough weight in it.

I'm not a big fan of MacGregor but I'm still waiting for somebody
to tell me why this boat wouldn't be as safe as larger sailboats
when proper procedures are followed.

It's not the size of boat that matters, its the seaworthiness. Since
it's not designed for heavy seas, heavy seas will create big problems.

For example, if you can't make headway in forty knot winds and if you
are not a boating expert with about five strategies for handling
emergency X, you'll find yourself being carried onto rocks and smashed
to bits, or in a weak-assed MacGregor maybe just broken up by the waves.
"Bluewater" boats are built stronger with heavy keels. They can take
anything the ocean can dish out, as long as the skipper knows what they
are doing.

For the open ocean, get a sailboat designed for the open ocean, learn
navigation, and read up on others' ocean travels. Ideally, you should
crew on ocean crossings with an experienced captain or two.

I have a Hunter 33', stronger than a MacGregor, but I would never
venture out into the ocean with it. On the other hand, I crewed numerous
times on a Blanchard 33' in very heavy seas and felt as safe as a bug in
a rug.

--
Stephen

-------

For any proposition there is always some sufficiently narrow
interpretation of its terms, such that it turns out true, and
some sufficiently wide interpretation such that it turns out
false...concept stretching will refute *any* statement, and will
leave no true statement whatsoever.
-- Imre Lakatos

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:46:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

I have a Hunter 33', stronger than a MacGregor, but I would never
venture out into the ocean with it. On the other hand, I crewed numerous
times on a Blanchard 33' in very heavy seas and felt as safe as a bug in
a rug.

There's a Hunter 33 down the dock from me, and while it looks roomy as
hell below, with all that windage and the high boom, it gets slapped
around on windy days on Lake Ontario.

These days not all boats are designed to be seaworthy, but rather
"daysail in 15 knots max."-worthy. There's no harm in that, if that's
what you want.

And most people do.

Ocean-going boats, for reasons of stability, safety and comfort, are
frequently narrow and occasionally dark below...the expectation is
that you'll be on deck most of the time, anyway. There's exceptions to
this, of course, but we can't all afford Moody and Swan models.

As for the original poster, I smell troll. A good way to get sailors
to pitch fits in type is to suggest first a Bayliner and then a
MacGregor 26 as ocean-crossing boats. What's next, a C&C Mega?

R.