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

Sure why not!! with those sturdy plastic cleats and 1/8 inch thick
fiberglass hull your good to go babe!!!!!!

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

Jim Carter wrote:

wrote in message
nk.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



I'm not sure whether Popeye is a troll or not, but I think the truth is
somewhere between his suggestion that the Mac could sail the Atlantic
and your characteristic of the Mac as a "pretend" sailboat. I personally
would never attempt an Atlantic crossing in a MacGregor, partially
because of the lack of space for provisions, fuel, etc. On the other
hand, MacGregor owners in California, where the boats are built, often
sail and/or motor offshore to Catalina Island for a weekend. They may
use the motor to get there in a few hours so that they can spend the
rest of the weekend sailing around the island, and then sail or motor
back, permitting them to get in some enjoyable sailing at the island
even when limited to a weekend cruise. The difference between a Mac
and a larger, fixed keel boat is that the owner of the conventional
vessel doesn't have the choice. - He is limited to motoring or sailing
at hull speed both ways and doesn't get much time to explore sailing
around the island as does the Mac owner. In other localities, the
ability to motor out to a desired sailing area quickly, at planing
speed, and/or to return at similar speeds, permits one to get where you
want to go quickly and to spend more time sailing, rather than motoring
out and motoring in at slow hull-limited speed. In other words, on a
typical weekend outing, the Mac provides more choices, more schedule
flexibility, and more time sailing or relaxing.

As to whether the Mac is "unsinkable," probably not, but it's pretty
darned hard to sink one. - The skipper of the one reported in the news
that capsized was drunk, and the boat was overloaded and didn't have the
water ballast. (Note that his attorney didn't succeed in his lawsuit
against MacGregor. ) On the other hand, if the hull is compromised on a
conventional keel boat, or if it experiences a severe knockdown, the
keel can pull it to the bottom fairly quickly. Obviously, a keel boat
with longer waterline may have better sailing characteristics than a
Mac, but that doesn't mean that sailing a Mac isn't fun or that the Mac
is a "pretend" sailboat suited only for pond sailing. (It's interesting
that few of the Mac-bashers seem to have much actual experience sailing
one of the current models.) I have had experience on the Mac 26M, but I
have more experience on larger boats such as the O'Day 37, Valiant 40,
Endeavor, etc. - They are different, but they're all fun to sail.

In any event, regarding safety, it's obviously true that the weighted
keel on a conventional boat can pull it to the bottom in a few minutes
if the hull is compromised or the boat is rolled.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message ...


Jim Carter wrote:

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

I'm not sure whether Popeye is a troll or not, but I think the truth is somewhere between his suggestion that the Mac could sail the Atlantic and your characteristic of the Mac as a "pretend" sailboat. I personally would never attempt an Atlantic crossing in a MacGregor, partially because of the lack of space for provisions, fuel, etc. On the other hand, MacGregor owners in California, where the boats are built, often sail and/or motor offshore to Catalina Island for a weekend. They may use the motor to get there in a few hours so that they can spend the rest of the weekend sailing around the island, and then sail or motor back, permitting them to get in some enjoyable sailing at the island even when limited to a weekend cruise. The difference between a Mac and a larger, fixed keel boat is that the owner of the conventional vessel doesn't have the choice. - He is limited to motoring or sailing at hull speed both ways and doesn't get much time to explore sailing around the island as does the Mac owner. In other localities, the ability to motor out to a desired sailing area quickly, at planing speed, and/or to return at similar speeds, permits one to get where you want to go quickly and to spend more time sailing, rather than motoring out and motoring in at slow hull-limited speed. In other words, on a typical weekend outing, the Mac provides more choices, more schedule flexibility, and more time sailing or relaxing.

As to whether the Mac is "unsinkable," probably not, but it's pretty darned hard to sink one. - The skipper of the one reported in the news that capsized was drunk, and the boat was overloaded and didn't have the water ballast. (Note that his attorney didn't succeed in his lawsuit against MacGregor. ) On the other hand, if the hull is compromised on a conventional keel boat, or if it experiences a severe knockdown, the keel can pull it to the bottom fairly quickly. Obviously, a keel boat with longer waterline may have better sailing characteristics than a Mac, but that doesn't mean that sailing a Mac isn't fun or that the Mac is a "pretend" sailboat suited only for pond sailing. (It's interesting that few of the Mac-bashers seem to have much actual experience sailing one of the current models.) I have had experience on the Mac 26M, but I have more experience on larger boats such as the O'Day 37, Valiant 40, Endeavor, etc. - They are different, but they're all fun to sail.

In any event, regarding safety, it's obviously true that the weighted keel on a conventional boat can pull it to the bottom in a few minutes if the hull is compromised or the boat is rolled.

Jim

Well, we know that you're a troll. Why don't you go into your excessively long paragraphs about the virtues of the boat again. It'll give everyone a good laugh. Oh wait, you did that here.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

'm not sure whether Popeye is a troll or not, but I think the truth is somewhere between his suggestion that the Mac could sail the Atlantic and your characteristic of the Mac as a "pretend" sailboat. I personally would never attempt an Atlantic crossing in a MacGregor, partially because of the lack of space for provisions, fuel, etc. On the other hand, MacGregor owners in California, where the boats are built, often sail and/or motor offshore to Catalina Island for a weekend. They may use the motor to get there in a few hours so that they can spend the rest of the weekend sailing around the island, and then sail or motor back, permitting them to get in some enjoyable sailing at the island even when limited to a weekend cruise. The difference between a Mac and a larger, fixed keel boat is that the owner of the conventional vessel doesn't have the choice. - He is limited to motoring or sailing at hull speed both ways and doesn't get much time to explore sailing around the island as does the Mac owner. In other localities, the ability to motor out to a desired sailing area quickly, at planing speed, and/or to return at similar speeds, permits one to get where you want to go quickly and to spend more time sailing, rather than motoring out and motoring in at slow hull-limited speed. In other words, on a typical weekend outing, the Mac provides more choices, more schedule flexibility, and more time sailing or relaxing.

As to whether the Mac is "unsinkable," probably not, but it's pretty darned hard to sink one. - The skipper of the one reported in the news that capsized was drunk, and the boat was overloaded and didn't have the water ballast. (Note that his attorney didn't succeed in his lawsuit against MacGregor. ) On the other hand, if the hull is compromised on a conventional keel boat, or if it experiences a severe knockdown, the keel can pull it to the bottom fairly quickly. Obviously, a keel boat with longer waterline may have better sailing characteristics than a Mac, but that doesn't mean that sailing a Mac isn't fun or that the Mac is a "pretend" sailboat suited only for pond sailing. (It's interesting that few of the Mac-bashers seem to have much actual experience sailing one of the current models.) I have had experience on the Mac 26M, but I have more experience on larger boats such as the O'Day 37, Valiant 40, Endeavor, etc. - They are different, but they're all fun to sail.

In any event, regarding safety, it's obviously true that the weighted keel on a conventional boat can pull it to the bottom in a few minutes if the hull is compromised or the boat is rolled.

Jim


Its unsinkable-ness ( yay- I made a word) is not a help in this case. As I mentioned in another post have a look at this link http://www.macgregorsailboats.com/safety.html and tell me if those men would still be attached in 20ft waves. Extremely unlikely. The boat would suffer continual knockdowns and those men would become shark poo by the next day.

In reality, they would have to move into the liferaft to survive. On a nice day they may ok. but not if the wind is up.

DP

Welcome back to the sailing corner of usenet.

I'd really like to hear about your real experiences with your new
boat. Its fun to consider the hypothetical virtues of a boat, but
what really counts is how they are used.

Jim Cate wrote:
....

As to whether the Mac is "unsinkable," probably not, but it's pretty
darned hard to sink one. - The skipper of the one reported in the news
that capsized was drunk, and the boat was overloaded and didn't have the
water ballast. (Note that his attorney didn't succeed in his lawsuit
against MacGregor. )

You can argue that it was not handled well in this case, but the fact
that it could happen at all, regardless of the circumstances, does not
bode well for a trans-Atlantic.

On the other hand, if the hull is compromised on a
conventional keel boat, or if it experiences a severe knockdown, the
keel can pull it to the bottom fairly quickly.

Actually, its fairly easy to add flotation to a small boat. But
here's the question: if you were in a Mac 26 in a North Atlantic Gale,
and the boat got rolled (as it almost certainly would) and lost its
rig, which was now pounding into the hull, and the hull started to
leak, would you be trusting your life to a few blocks of foam, or
would you be headed to the liferaft?

....


In any event, regarding safety, it's obviously true that the weighted
keel on a conventional boat can pull it to the bottom in a few minutes
if the hull is compromised or the boat is rolled.

Lots of boats have been rolled without sinking. In fact, this is one
of the basic scenarios that must be considered by any long distance
cruiser. Just assuming the boat will go down in a few minutes is not
the solution most cruisers have. Even a serious hole can often be
dealt with, especially if a boat is designed and built with this in
mind.