| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Mac 26
Jim, that's knot 'Joe'. It's an asshole pretending to be 'Joe'.
He's not even a sailor and isn't worthy to lick the **** off of Joe's boots. SBV "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Joe, are you still docked at the marina on Clear Lake? Jim Commodore Joe Redcloud© wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:58:00 -0600, Jim Cate wrote: Those near LA sail and/or motor offshore to Catalina Island, etc. (They have the option of motoring out in two hours after work on a Friday, then spending two days of sailing and exploring the area, then returning by sail or motor Sunday afternoon or Monday morning.) - For example, according to one recent report, there were more than 10 Macs anchored at Catalina when the owner sailed there one weekend. Good thinking to bring plenty of spares! Commodore Joe Redcloud© |
Mac 26
See what I mean?
"Commode Joe Redcloud©" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:39:18 -0500, "Scotty" wrote: Jim, that's knot 'Joe'. The Joe you are looking for is an asshole from El Lago, Texas. He's not even a sailor and isn't worthy to lick the **** off of this Joe's boots. Scott B Vernon Born 1946 1982 CHESTNUT HILL RD MOHNTON, PA (640) 866-7128 "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Joe, are you still docked at the marina on Clear Lake? Jim TMI! Bwhahahahahahaha! Commode Joe Redcloud© |
Mac 26
Jim Cate wrote:
The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V I'm sure that's what they told you. Park the two side by side on their trailers and see if you can spot any differences. DSK |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: Try me. Thanks, but no thanks. Would you believe me if I told you that I know a major dealer of them in this area and even he thinks they're crap... doubt it. Shouldn't he consider some other kind of work? - There doesn't seem to be a great deal of profit running a Mac dealership. On the contrary. He makes tons of money from people like you! A true capitalist. Johnny, seems to me that, if the Macs are simply a pile of junk as you keep saying, we would see thousands of them breaking apart in any winds Well, it seems to you. Particularly since the Macs have been one of the most popular lines ever made, with over 40,000 of them sold, reports of failures should be all over the place. I spend a lot of time on the Mac discussion groups, and McDonalds makes billions of burgers, but I wouldn't want to eat them on a regular basis. Perhaps too much time... I read lots of reports and sailing mags, and I don't remember seeing accounts of any Macs that simply fell apart, or any on which the owners or passengers were drowned, etc., other than the one in which a drunk skipper rolled an overloaded Mac 26X with no ballast. As in any boat, You're really obsessed with Macs breaking up... So, it should be fairly easy for you to cite some statisticsbacking up your ridiculous assertions. Could you do that for us, Johnny? - If you aren't just blowing smoke, that is. Assertions of what? They're junky, they look like it, they sail like it. There are no statistics needed. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V, and uses a narrow dagger board instead of a pivotable keel. Because the keel doesn't pivot back into the hull, there is no six-foot recess or pocket in the hull for receiving the board, and no corresponding "hump" in the cabin floor. The mast is several feet higher, and the main has a more narrow profile. The hull has an additional layer of fiberglass. Additionally, the boat includes several hundred pounds of fixed ballast, in addition to the water ballast. There are a number of other changes to the cabin, cockpit, and exterior. Yep, and it's still a piece of junk. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
DSK wrote: Jim Cate wrote: The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V I'm sure that's what they told you. Park the two side by side on their trailers and see if you can spot any differences. DSK I have. - Our marina has a number of the 26Xs, and several of the 26Ms, and I have compared them. My note listed some eight differnces betweent the M and the X. - In addition, there are changes in the standing rigging, and the rotating mast. - In other words, at least ten differences. - You are apparently claiming that they are all bogus Mac propoganda. Exactly which of the ten do you claim wasn't changed? Which of the ten, DK? And on what do you base your assertion? - And, have YOU compared the two boats? Jim |
Mac 26
Jim Cate wrote:
My note listed some eight differnces betweent the M and the X. - In addition, there are changes in the standing rigging, and the rotating mast. - In other words, at least ten differences. - You are apparently claiming that they are all bogus Mac propoganda. Umm, no. Just that the hulls are the same shape, no "deeper V", the deck shape is the same, the rig is pretty much the same (why does the "longer mast" not stick up any higher?), and that they don't really sail very well compared to a "real" boat... but hey, they don't have to! You can motor! .... And on what do you base your assertion? - And, have YOU compared the two boats? Yep. And sailed them myself a few times. A couple of friends have owned them and were determined to prove what great boats they were, until the realization slowly crept over them that they were not. But they are a pretty cool water toy, if you don't mind the cost. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Mac 26
In article .com,
wrote: The elitists here who feel that only "traditional" designs belong on the water need to loosen their yachtie captains hats and get over the Mac26 and realize that it works very well enabling the less affluent among us to go sailing and to do far more sailing than those who mainly sail from yacht club bar stools. In spite of their apocryphal stories of Mac26 disasters they can never back up, I have read of many great Mac26 trips including the entire ICW, the inside passage to Alaska, Catalina, Bahamas. From what I can tell, the current Mac26 is built better than the original Hunters and some Beneteaus. As far as safety is concerned, it seems considerably safer than most power boats and a strong case can be made for it being safer than many other sail boats. I wouldn't know about elistists... and, while I like traditional designs, I have no problem with people who want to sail on Macs or any other boat. What I said was that they're fine for some conditions, but not for others. This is true of all boats, but Jimmy gets all in a lather when someone suggests that they're not great boats in general. Sure, the newer ones are better than the older ones. Sure, there are always people who do extraordinary things with equipment that isn't really designed to do it. They might even be better than the oringal Hunters, but that's not really saying to much is it? As to being safer than other boats, I guess it depends on the other boat. Care to give us some examples of other new boats that are less safe than Mac? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: Try me. Thanks, but no thanks. Would you believe me if I told you that I know a major dealer of them in this area and even he thinks they're crap... doubt it. Shouldn't he consider some other kind of work? - There doesn't seem to be a great deal of profit running a Mac dealership. On the contrary. He makes tons of money from people like you! A true capitalist. Then he must be selling other boats in addition to the Macs. (Right?) I don't see many Mac dealers making a big profit. - Most of them seem to be in because they like sailing and like the Macs. Johnny, seems to me that, if the Macs are simply a pile of junk as you keep saying, we would see thousands of them breaking apart in any winds Well, it seems to you. What are you saying, Johnnny? That they don't fall apart or break up? That even though you think the Macs are a pile of junk, they still just keep on sailing? - You're not making much sense. Particularly since the Macs have been one of the most popular lines ever made, with over 40,000 of them sold, reports of failures should be all over the place. I spend a lot of time on the Mac discussion groups, and McDonalds makes billions of burgers, but I wouldn't want to eat them on a regular basis. Perhaps too much time... You're missing the point again, Johnny. The fact that MacGregor sells lots of boats wasn't mentioned as evidence that their boats are of high quality (although they are). Instead, the point was that, with that many boats out there, and with thousands of owners, passengers, observers, reviewers, etc. aware of them, if they were inherently dangerous, or if they fell apart or capsized, etc., (if they were just a pile of junk, as you say), that fact would be well-known throughout the sailing community. - So far, however, you can't come up with any evidence or statistics to back up your ridiculous assertions. Kind of embarrassing John? I read lots of reports and sailing mags, and I don't remember seeing accounts of any Macs that simply fell apart, or any on which the owners or passengers were drowned, etc., other than the one in which a drunk skipper rolled an overloaded Mac 26X with no ballast. As in any boat, You're really obsessed with Macs breaking up... You're obsessed with calling them a pile of junk. Could you possibly come up with another term Johnny? So, it should be fairly easy for you to cite some statisticsbacking up your ridiculous assertions. Could you do that for us, Johnny? - If you aren't just blowing smoke, that is. Assertions of what? They're junky, they look like it, they sail like it. There are no statistics needed. If they were just a pile of junk, as you say, and if their rigging were not built appropriately for the loads, they would be failing, capsizing, and breaking up after a few months of use in moderate winds. - But they aren't, and that's why you are having trouble backing up your ridiculous statements. - Put up or shut up Johnny! Jim |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V, and uses a narrow dagger board instead of a pivotable keel. Because the keel doesn't pivot back into the hull, there is no six-foot recess or pocket in the hull for receiving the board, and no corresponding "hump" in the cabin floor. The mast is several feet higher, and the main has a more narrow profile. The hull has an additional layer of fiberglass. Additionally, the boat includes several hundred pounds of fixed ballast, in addition to the water ballast. There are a number of other changes to the cabin, cockpit, and exterior. Yep, and it's still a piece of junk. Have a nice day anyway Johnny. Jim |
Mac 26
DSK wrote: Jim Cate wrote: My note listed some eight differnces betweent the M and the X. - In addition, there are changes in the standing rigging, and the rotating mast. - In other words, at least ten differences. - You are apparently claiming that they are all bogus Mac propoganda. Umm, no. Just that the hulls are the same shape, no "deeper V", Wrong. The "V" configuration of the 26M, in the forward portion of the hull, is 15 degrees, compared with 8 degrees on the 26X. (I have personally examined both boats and seen the difference. - Check it out yourself with a level and protractor if you don't believe me. ) the deck shape is the same, the rig is pretty much the same Agreed that the deck shap is similar. The chainplates are modified. However, the rig is substantially different, being Y-shaped, in top plan view, and it does not include a backstay. This is to accommodate the rotatable mast, which also includes bearing upper and lower bearing structures. - Another substantive difference. (why does the "longer mast" not stick up any higher?), It does. and that they don't really sail very well compared to a "real" boat... but hey, they don't have to! You can motor! As previously discussed, I haven't claimed that the Macs sail better (sail faster or point higher) than some heavier displacement boats. .... And on what do you base your assertion? - And, have YOU compared the two boats? I'm not the one who introduced these issues. - Most of them were Johnathan's assertions, or yours. I'm still waiting for the two of you to back up your own assertions. Yep. And sailed them myself a few times. A couple of friends have owned them and were determined to prove what great boats they were, until the realization slowly crept over them that they were not. And which Mac models were they? But they are a pretty cool water toy, if you don't mind the cost. Fresh Breezes- Doug King As mentioned in my initial note on this topic, I don't claim that the Macs are "better" boats, or faster under sail, or well-suited for extended ocean crossings, etc. If your interest is in racing or in going faster than other boats, or in making ocean crossings, then the Mac is obviously not the right choice for you. What I did say was that the Macs are fun to sail, and that they offer a lot of advantages and capabilities that most boats don't offer. They are a good choice for the conditions and usage experienced by most sailboat owners. What I have tried to do in this discussion is to provide a degree of balance between the Mac-bashers, who would be embarrased if their buddies even saw them on a Mac, and the Mac lovers who think they are the greatest boats ever made. - I personally would rather have a Valiant 40. I love their handling, their speed, and their stability and balance as the wind picks up. However, I'm not sure I would have more fun on a Valiant than I do on the Mac, and I'm pretty sure that I'll be getting in more sailing on the Mac. Now, sailing one of the Mac 65's at 15 knots might be a different story. You approve of a balanced discussion, don't you DK? After all, a long series of repetitive notes telling everyone that the Macs are just a pile of junk gets kind of monotonous after a few months, don't you think? Jim |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: Then he must be selling other boats in addition to the Macs. (Right?) I don't see many Mac dealers making a big profit. - Most of them seem to be in because they like sailing and like the Macs. No. He makes the money from the fools who buy the pieces of crap! Well, it seems to you. What are you saying, Johnnny? That they don't fall apart or break up? That even though you think the Macs are a pile of junk, they still just keep on sailing? - You're not making much sense. No. They mostly don't sail much of anywhere in the conditions that would cause them to break up and sink. McDonalds makes billions of burgers, but I wouldn't want to eat them on a regular basis. Perhaps too much time... You're missing the point again, Johnny. The fact that MacGregor sells lots of boats wasn't mentioned as evidence that their boats are of high quality (although they are). Instead, the point was that, with Gee, really? Seems like it to me, but feel free to try an justify your poor choice of boats. You're really obsessed with Macs breaking up... You're obsessed with calling them a pile of junk. Could you possibly come up with another term Johnny? At least I'm being accurate! Ok... they're composed of many pieces of junk! Assertions of what? They're junky, they look like it, they sail like it. There are no statistics needed. If they were just a pile of junk, as you say, and if their rigging were not built appropriately for the loads, they would be failing, capsizing, and breaking up after a few months of use in moderate winds. - But they aren't, and that's why you are having trouble backing up your ridiculous statements. - Put up or shut up Johnny! Their rigging is minimal at best. It's quite appropriate for protected waters found on some lakes. Any other place, and they won't last long. No problem backing up any of my statements, as they are my opinion based on observation.... Jimmmy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: Yep, and it's still a piece of junk. Have a nice day anyway Johnny. Jim I have every intention, don't you worry little buddy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: What I did say was that the Macs are fun to sail, and that they offer a lot of advantages and capabilities that most boats don't offer. They are a good choice for the conditions and usage experienced by most sailboat owners. Yeah, if you have no experience on real sailboats, sure, they're fun to sail. Most sailboat owners??? Bwahahahaha... I'm sure you've got some stats to buck that one up right? What I have tried to do in this discussion is to provide a degree of balance between the Mac-bashers, who would be embarrased if their buddies even saw them on a Mac, and the Mac lovers who think they are You're damn right I'd be embarrassed. They junk and look like it. the greatest boats ever made. - I personally would rather have a Valiant 40. I love their handling, their speed, and their stability and balance as the wind picks up. However, I'm not sure I would have more fun on a Valiant than I do on the Mac, and I'm pretty sure that I'll be getting in more sailing on the Mac. Now, sailing one of the Mac 65's at 15 knots might be a different story. Yeah, might be a different story. You approve of a balanced discussion, don't you DK? After all, a long series of repetitive notes telling everyone that the Macs are just a pile of junk gets kind of monotonous after a few months, don't you think? Then stop posting your bs. Fess up.. are you a Mac dealer? There's no embarrassment about that... well, actually there is. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
Just that the hulls are the same shape, no "deeper V",
Jim Cate wrote: Wrong. The "V" configuration of the 26M, in the forward portion of the hull, is 15 degrees, compared with 8 degrees on the 26X. (I have personally examined both boats and seen the difference. - Check it out yourself with a level and protractor if you don't believe me. ) That must explain why the trailer bunks for the two different models are exactly the same. ... This is to accommodate the rotatable mast, which also includes bearing upper and lower bearing structures. - Another substantive difference. "Upper bearing"?? What does the mast bear on at the upper end? BTW what benefit does a rotating mast give the boat? (why does the "longer mast" not stick up any higher?), It does. Hmm, when you park the two models side by side, the masts appear to be exactly the same height. If they're side by side on trailers, the masts stick out the same length front & back. Yep. And sailed them myself a few times. A couple of friends have owned them and were determined to prove what great boats they were, until the realization slowly crept over them that they were not. And which Mac models were they? Actually I've sailed a lot of MacGregors over the years, starting with the venerable Venture 21 and up thru the Mac25 swing keel, the Mac26 water ballast (both dagger & centerboard) which was the same hull stretched about 4", the Mac 19 PowRSailR, the 26X and the M. The ones I was referring to that my friends eventually gave up on were the X & M PowRSailR boats, the X's kept breaking their steering any time the wind blew more than twelve knots. The M's don't seem to have this problem but they're not much fun to sail IMHO compared to even a medium performance monohull. One friend has kept his Mac 26X although he's modified it (beefed up steering among other things)... he mostly uses it for fishing and towing a Hobie Cat out to where he can have fun sailing that. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: Then he must be selling other boats in addition to the Macs. (Right?) I don't see many Mac dealers making a big profit. - Most of them seem to be in because they like sailing and like the Macs. No. He makes the money from the fools who buy the pieces of crap! Well, it seems to you. What are you saying, Johnnny? That they don't fall apart or break up? That even though you think the Macs are a pile of junk, they still just keep on sailing? - You're not making much sense. No. They mostly don't sail much of anywhere in the conditions that would cause them to break up and sink. McDonalds makes billions of burgers, but I wouldn't want to eat them on a regular basis. Perhaps too much time... You're missing the point again, Johnny. The fact that MacGregor sells lots of boats wasn't mentioned as evidence that their boats are of high quality (although they are). Instead, the point was that, with Gee, really? Seems like it to me, but feel free to try an justify your poor choice of boats. You're really obsessed with Macs breaking up... You're obsessed with calling them a pile of junk. Could you possibly come up with another term Johnny? At least I'm being accurate! Ok... they're composed of many pieces of junk! Assertions of what? They're junky, they look like it, they sail like it. There are no statistics needed. If they were just a pile of junk, as you say, and if their rigging were not built appropriately for the loads, they would be failing, capsizing, and breaking up after a few months of use in moderate winds. - But they aren't, and that's why you are having trouble backing up your ridiculous statements. - Put up or shut up Johnny! Their rigging is minimal at best. It's quite appropriate for protected waters found on some lakes. Any other place, and they won't last long. If their rigging is inadequate, then obviously the boats would be falling apart whenever they are taken out in any significant weather. With 40,000 of them out there, hundreds of the the boats would be lost or torn apart every year, and Mac owners and guests would be drowned or stranded every year. Yet that doesn't happen except in very rare instances. Where's your evidence that the Mac rigging is failing or coming apart, Johnny? What statistics do you have on the number of Macson on which the rigging failed? No problem backing up any of my statements, as they are my opinion based on observation.... Jimmmy. No problem backing up your statements Johnny? Then why don't you get busy and start? So far all you have done is post more of your ridiculous biased assertions, with nothing backing them up. Think about how that makes you look to others monitoring this discussion, John!. No problem backing up your statements? - Then have at it. Jim .. |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: What I did say was that the Macs are fun to sail, and that they offer a lot of advantages and capabilities that most boats don't offer. They are a good choice for the conditions and usage experienced by most sailboat owners. Yeah, if you have no experience on real sailboats, sure, they're fun to sail. No experience on real sailboats? Well, I sailed a number of sailboats in the 30 - 40 ft range for some 25 years before I bought the Mac 26M. - They included several Catalinas, several Cals, an Endeavor 32, an O'Day 37, a Valiant 40, etc., etc. - Are any of those "real sailboats" John? Most sailboat owners??? Bwahahahaha... I'm sure you've got some stats to buck that one up right? Most sailboat owners in the Houston-Clear Lake - Kemah area leave their boats sitting in their slips 99.9% of the time. What I have tried to do in this discussion is to provide a degree of balance between the Mac-bashers, who would be embarrased if their buddies even saw them on a Mac, and the Mac lovers who think they are You're damn right I'd be embarrassed. They junk and look like it. What exactly are you talking about John.? - "They junk and look like it"! - What the Hell does that mean? the greatest boats ever made. - I personally would rather have a Valiant 40. I love their handling, their speed, and their stability and balance as the wind picks up. However, I'm not sure I would have more fun on a Valiant than I do on the Mac, and I'm pretty sure that I'll be getting in more sailing on the Mac. Now, sailing one of the Mac 65's at 15 knots might be a different story. Yeah, might be a different story. You approve of a balanced discussion, don't you DK? After all, a long series of repetitive notes telling everyone that the Macs are just a pile of junk gets kind of monotonous after a few months, don't you think? Then stop posting your bs. Fess up.. are you a Mac dealer? There's no embarrassment about that... well, actually there is. Nope. If I were a Mac dealer I woudn't waste my time with sickos like you. I would be afraid that if you bought one you would give the Macs a bad name. Jim |
Mac 26
DSK wrote: Just that the hulls are the same shape, no "deeper V", Jim Cate wrote: Wrong. The "V" configuration of the 26M, in the forward portion of the hull, is 15 degrees, compared with 8 degrees on the 26X. (I have personally examined both boats and seen the difference. - Check it out yourself with a level and protractor if you don't believe me. ) That must explain why the trailer bunks for the two different models are exactly the same. Check them out yourself Doug. - They are different. (Incidentally, we went through this same discussion on the asa ng ad nausium for several months last year. Someone finally checked out the hulls of the two boats and admitted that they were, in fact, substantially different.) ... This is to accommodate the rotatable mast, which also includes bearing upper and lower bearing structures. - Another substantive difference. "Upper bearing"?? What does the mast bear on at the upper end? As understood, it bears on the movable elements of the upper bearing structure, which are rotatably constrained within the fixed elements, which in turn are fastened to and constrained by the lateral stays and the jib stay. BTW what benefit does a rotating mast give the boat? They were developed on competetive cats and trimarans, because they improve the forward force vectors by eliminating turbulence behind the the luff of the sail caused by the mast, which projects into the airflow beyond the luff and tends to break up the airflow in the region behind the mast. In any event, owners of competetive multi-hull craft have been using them for several years. - Whether, or by how much, the system improves the Mac's response I really don't know. It does. (why does the "longer mast" not stick up any higher?), Hmm, when you park the two models side by side, the masts appear to be exactly the same height. If they're side by side on trailers, the masts stick out the same length front & back. Maybe there's a difference in the configuration of the deck or cabin that makes the bottom of the mast sit lower relative to the trailer. In any event, what do you want me to do about it? - Should I ask my neighbors to drop the masts on their 26Xs so I can measure them with a tape measure and compare them with the M? Yep. And sailed them myself a few times. A couple of friends have owned them and were determined to prove what great boats they were, until the realization slowly crept over them that they were not. And which Mac models were they? Actually I've sailed a lot of MacGregors over the years, starting with the venerable Venture 21 and up thru the Mac25 swing keel, the Mac26 water ballast (both dagger & centerboard) which was the same hull stretched about 4", the Mac 19 PowRSailR, the 26X and the M. The ones I was referring to that my friends eventually gave up on were the X & M PowRSailR boats, the X's kept breaking their steering any time the wind blew more than twelve knots. The M's don't seem to have this problem but they're not much fun to sail IMHO compared to even a medium performance monohull. One friend has kept his Mac 26X although he's modified it (beefed up steering among other things)... he mostly uses it for fishing and towing a Hobie Cat out to where he can have fun sailing that. Fresh Breezes- Doug King Lots of owners seem to like their 26Xs and the new 26Ms. - They don't want to part with them. - In any event, hope you get some good sailing weather this weekend. Jim |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: If their rigging is inadequate, then obviously the boats would be falling apart whenever they are taken out in any significant weather. With 40,000 of them out there, hundreds of the the boats would be lost or torn apart every year, and Mac owners and guests would be drowned or stranded every year. Yet that doesn't happen except in very rare instances. Yup. You got it. They fall apart in the SF bay. Even the dealer recommends people not sail them here without extensive work. Where's your evidence that the Mac rigging is failing or coming apart, Johnny? What statistics do you have on the number of Macson on which the rigging failed? See previous. And, I saw a Mac last year that could not sail in Raccoon Straight. We circled them and ask if they needed help, they said, no, and dropped the sail and started the engine. Made straight for Tiberon. Gee, and it was only blowing about 22 kts. No problem backing up your statements Johnny? Then why don't you get busy and start? So far all you have done is post more of your ridiculous biased assertions, with nothing backing them up. Think about how that makes you look to others monitoring this discussion, John!. Already did. No problem backing up your statements? - Then have at it. Done did it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: No experience on real sailboats? Well, I sailed a number of sailboats in the 30 - 40 ft range for some 25 years before I bought the Mac 26M. - They included several Catalinas, several Cals, an Endeavor 32, an O'Day 37, a Valiant 40, etc., etc. - Are any of those "real sailboats" John? And, you picked a Mac. That either says a lot about your judgement or you sail in very protected waters. We need to know our limitations Jimmy. Most sailboat owners in the Houston-Clear Lake - Kemah area leave their boats sitting in their slips 99.9% of the time. So, what's your point? From http://www.clearlakesailingclub.org/ "We had a good turn out for the belated start of our Fall series! We had five boats, sailing portsmouth. Three Lido-14s, a Coronado-15, and a Sunfish. We had some close racing with the "newer" sailors, it was fun to see and I think everyone had a good time. The weather was wonderful, sunny, not too hot and winds between 5-8 out of the ESE." Wow... 5-8!! That's what I call a lot of wind!!! You're damn right I'd be embarrassed. They junk and look like it. What exactly are you talking about John.? - "They junk and look like it"! - What the Hell does that mean? Macs look cheap and they are. They're junk. Not sure how much more clear I can be. Then stop posting your bs. Fess up.. are you a Mac dealer? There's no embarrassment about that... well, actually there is. Nope. If I were a Mac dealer I woudn't waste my time with sickos like you. I would be afraid that if you bought one you would give the Macs a bad name. Wooooooo - I'm a sicko! Call the police!! Don't worry, I wouldn't buy one. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: Check them out yourself Doug. - They are different. (Incidentally, we went through this same discussion on the asa ng ad nausium for several months last year. Someone finally checked out the hulls of the two boats and admitted that they were, in fact, substantially different.) Wow... they're different!! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
That must explain why the trailer bunks for the two different models
are exactly the same. Jim Cate wrote: Check them out yourself Doug. - They are different. Y'know, this is like arguing with a religious loony, only this guy is waving a Macgregor advertising brochure like it's Gospel. I have "checked them out" and that's why I say they're the same.... because they are. (Incidentally, we went through this same discussion on the asa ng ad nausium for several months last year. Someone finally checked out the hulls of the two boats and admitted that they were, in fact, substantially different.) Really? Who? "Upper bearing"?? What does the mast bear on at the upper end? As understood, it bears on the movable elements of the upper bearing structure, which are rotatably constrained within the fixed elements, which in turn are fastened to and constrained by the lateral stays and the jib stay. Interesting... most rotating masts just lead the shrouds & forestay to a common point, no bearing needed... BTW what benefit does a rotating mast give the boat? They were developed on competetive cats and trimarans, because they improve the forward force vectors by eliminating turbulence behind the the luff of the sail caused by the mast, which projects into the airflow beyond the luff and tends to break up the airflow in the region behind the mast. In any event, owners of competetive multi-hull craft have been using them for several years. - Whether, or by how much, the system improves the Mac's response I really don't know. So you repeat all this blah-blah because it impresses you? Rotating masts are great on boats that are light & fast enough to sail at high speeds. C-scows use them, Tasars use them, and many multihulls. They work better with a means of controlling the rotation, which the Mac26M doesn't have On slow boats like the Mac26M, it doesn't do anything except impress people who don't know better. Lots of owners seem to like their 26Xs and the new 26Ms. - They don't want to part with them. I'm sure that's true. And the Mac discussion lists are like a church meeting, everybody loves & praises their boat and calls sailors with other boats stupid for not realizing it. .... - In any event, hope you get some good sailing weather this weekend. Thanks, but unfortunately we're not going sailing this weekend, we're driving hundreds of miles to overeat & watch TV. Not my choice, but it's tradition. DSK |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: No experience on real sailboats? Well, I sailed a number of sailboats in the 30 - 40 ft range for some 25 years before I bought the Mac 26M. - They included several Catalinas, several Cals, an Endeavor 32, an O'Day 37, a Valiant 40, etc., etc. - Are any of those "real sailboats" John? And, you picked a Mac. That either says a lot about your judgement or you sail in very protected waters. We need to know our limitations Jimmy. Interesting how you quickly change the subject and dodge the issue when you see you got your ass kicked, Johnny. - My comments about sailing a number of larger boats was in response to your snide remark that: Yeah, if you have no experience on real sailboats, sure, they're fun to sail. You should have simply stepped up and admitted that you lost that one. Most sailboat owners in the Houston-Clear Lake - Kemah area leave their boats sitting in their slips 99.9% of the time. So, what's your point? The point is that most owners of the "real sailboats" you keep talking about don't often make use of their capability. I think it's better to have a boat that is sailed often rather than a boat that COULD be sailed to the Bahamas but is seldom taken out. I think that the Mac owners probably get in more time sailing their boats than most owners of ocean going vessels.. You're damn right I'd be embarrassed. They junk and look like it. What exactly are you talking about John.? - "They junk and look like it"! - What the Hell does that mean? Macs look cheap and they are. They're junk. Not sure how much more clear I can be. If you had said that, it would have been clear, but that's not what you said. - In any event, you seem to be running out of things to say about the Macs, Johnny. But your statement: "They junk and look like it." is jibberish, and it's actually rather typical of your comments John. Then stop posting your bs. Fess up.. are you a Mac dealer? There's no embarrassment about that... well, actually there is. Nope. If I were a Mac dealer I woudn't waste my time with sickos like you. I would be afraid that if you bought one you would give the Macs a bad name. Wooooooo - I'm a sicko! Call the police!! Don't worry, I wouldn't buy one. Again, I'm not a Mac dealer, and I don't have any financial interest in the company. Like most Mac owners, I enjoy sailling the boat. - What I am trying to do is to provide some degree of balance to the discussion. - Thus, I don't claim the Macs are suited for extended blue water sailing, crossings, or the like, and I don't claim they are great for racing, etc. On the other hand, they are great boats, and they seem to be the subject of some ridiculous criticism and highly misleading criticism on this ng. Jim |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: If their rigging is inadequate, then obviously the boats would be falling apart whenever they are taken out in any significant weather. With 40,000 of them out there, hundreds of the the boats would be lost or torn apart every year, and Mac owners and guests would be drowned or stranded every year. Yet that doesn't happen except in very rare instances. Yup. You got it. They fall apart in the SF bay. Even the dealer recommends people not sail them here without extensive work. Really John? How many of them have "fallen apart" in the SF bay? 200? 100? And what, exactly is the "extensive work" the dealer recommends? Once again, you spout off those generalities with only a single ancedote to back it up. On the Mac discussion groups, there are many reports of Macs being sailed on the SF Bay and up and down the California coast. Where's your evidence that the Mac rigging is failing or coming apart, Johnny? What statistics do you have on the number of Macson on which the rigging failed? See previous. - I did. And, I saw a Mac last year that could not sail in Raccoon Straight. We circled them and ask if they needed help, they said, no, and dropped the sail and started the engine. Made straight for Tiberon. Gee, and it was only blowing about 22 kts. Johnny, this is a good example of your lack of any understanding of even the most basic principles of logic and statistics. - You seem to think that (your version of) a single instance proves that the Macs aren't safe for coastal cruising, etc. You also don't know the particular circumstances of that little episode. - At a minimum, you need a basic course in logic. No problem backing up your statements Johnny? Then why don't you get busy and start? So far all you have done is post more of your ridiculous biased assertions, with nothing backing them up. Think about how that makes you look to others monitoring this discussion, John!. Already did. Sure you did. - By citing one example. No problem backing up your statements? - Then have at it. Done did it. Nope. All you did was to provide further examples of your own ignorance. Jim |
Mac 26
"Jim Cate" wrote in message ... In article , Jim Cate wrote: If their rigging is inadequate, then obviously the boats would be falling apart whenever they are taken out in any significant weather. With 40,000 of them out there, hundreds of the the boats would be lost or torn apart every year, and Mac owners and guests would be drowned or stranded every year. Yet that doesn't happen except in very rare instances. Yup. You got it. They fall apart in the SF bay. Even the dealer recommends people not sail them here without extensive work. Really John? How many of them have "fallen apart" in the SF bay? 200? 100? And what, exactly is the "extensive work" the dealer recommends? Once again, you spout off those generalities with only a single ancedote to back it up. On the Mac discussion groups, there are many reports of Macs being sailed on the SF Bay and up and down the California coast. Where's your evidence that the Mac rigging is failing or coming apart, Johnny? What statistics do you have on the number of Macson on which the rigging failed? Really Jim. Thousands, hundreds, a dozen, a few, one? Who cares? You!! You own one. I've seen the rigging fail on the bay. Sorry... I know that's bad news. I've seen them up close. The rigging is inadequate for the conditions on the bay. I think you need to find whatever stats you think you like. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. See previous. - I did. Look again. And, I saw a Mac last year that could not sail in Raccoon Straight. We circled them and ask if they needed help, they said, no, and dropped the sail and started the engine. Made straight for Tiberon. Gee, and it was only blowing about 22 kts. Johnny, this is a good example of your lack of any understanding of even the most basic principles of logic and statistics. - You seem to think that (your version of) a single instance proves that the Macs aren't safe for coastal cruising, etc. You also don't know the particular circumstances of that little episode. - At a minimum, you need a basic course in logic. Well, I guess when you see an inadequate rig on a boat, with people on it who look like they might need help, who have a huge engine and rely on it instead of their sails, and can't handle the normal wind conditions, I guess that's just one little episode that I don't understand. I've never seen a Mac off the California coast.. thank GOD. I would probably call the CG immediately if I did see one, as they would be in danger for sure. Already did. Sure you did. - By citing one example. Well, how many do you think is required... 100?? Name a number, then do your own research. Please get back to us asap!! No problem backing up your statements? - Then have at it. Done did it. Nope. All you did was to provide further examples of your own ignorance. Well, you must be right. You own an off-shore capable yacht built to the highest standards. A vessel capable of any conditions thown at it! You sure don't need to spend any time defending her or you. You have all your wants and needs taken care of, and regularly cruise where others fear to tread! Bwahahahahaaaaaaabahahahaahaaaaaa |
Mac 26
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
... Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: No experience on real sailboats? Well, I sailed a number of sailboats in the 30 - 40 ft range for some 25 years before I bought the Mac 26M. - They included several Catalinas, several Cals, an Endeavor 32, an O'Day 37, a Valiant 40, etc., etc. - Are any of those "real sailboats" John? And, you picked a Mac. That either says a lot about your judgement or you sail in very protected waters. We need to know our limitations Jimmy. Interesting how you quickly change the subject and dodge the issue when you see you got your ass kicked, Johnny. - My comments about sailing a number of larger boats was in response to your snide remark that: Yeah, if you have no experience on real sailboats, sure, they're fun to sail. You should have simply stepped up and admitted that you lost that one. You picked the Mac, not I. I think that pretty much says it all, regardless of whether or not you *think* (and I use that word advisedly) you kicked my ass. Too funny. Most sailboat owners in the Houston-Clear Lake - Kemah area leave their boats sitting in their slips 99.9% of the time. So, what's your point? The point is that most owners of the "real sailboats" you keep talking about don't often make use of their capability. I think it's better to have a boat that is sailed often rather than a boat that COULD be sailed to the Bahamas but is seldom taken out. I think that the Mac owners probably get in more time sailing their boats than most owners of ocean going vessels.. You think??? Please back that up with some statistics... or am I the only one who has to do that? You're damn right I'd be embarrassed. They junk and look like it. What exactly are you talking about John.? - "They junk and look like it"! - What the Hell does that mean? Macs look cheap and they are. They're junk. Not sure how much more clear I can be. If you had said that, it would have been clear, but that's not what you said. - In any event, you seem to be running out of things to say about the Macs, Johnny. Well, you haven't contradicted me... I'm still waiting..... But your statement: "They're junk and look like it." is jibberish, and it's actually rather typical of your comments John. What's not clear about it? How old are you, 14? Then stop posting your bs. Fess up.. are you a Mac dealer? There's no embarrassment about that... well, actually there is. Nope. If I were a Mac dealer I woudn't waste my time with sickos like you. I would be afraid that if you bought one you would give the Macs a bad name. Wooooooo - I'm a sicko! Call the police!! Don't worry, I wouldn't buy one. Again, I'm not a Mac dealer, and I don't have any financial interest in the company. Like most Mac owners, I enjoy sailling the boat. - What I am trying to do is to provide some degree of balance to the discussion. - Thus, I don't claim the Macs are suited for extended blue water sailing, crossings, or the like, and I don't claim they are great for racing, etc. On the other hand, they are great boats, and they seem to be the subject of some ridiculous criticism and highly misleading criticism on this ng. You have fun! Well, good for you. They're good boats to have fun on! Attention everyone!! Jim has fun on his boat. That's certainly THE definition of sailing. "I don't claim the Macs are suited for extended blue water sailing, crossings, or the like, and I don't claim they are great for racing, etc. On the other hand, they are great boats...." They're great for having fun on!!! I was going to ask what kind of fun, but honestly, I really don't want to know! Of course, I'm a sicko, and I know people who have fun in trailers. |
Mac 26
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:40:42 -0600, Jim Cate wrote:
The point is that most owners of the "real sailboats" you keep talking about don't often make use of their capability. I think it's better to have a boat that is sailed often rather than a boat that COULD be sailed to the Bahamas but is seldom taken out. I think that the Mac owners probably get in more time sailing their boats than most owners of ocean going vessels.. And jetski owners appear to go out every day. They must have the best "boats" of all, then. R. |
Mac 26
Jim Cate wrote:
.... The point is that most owners of the "real sailboats" you keep talking about don't often make use of their capability. I think it's better to have a boat that is sailed often rather than a boat that COULD be sailed to the Bahamas but is seldom taken out. I think that the Mac owners probably get in more time sailing their boats than most owners of ocean going vessels.. I certainly agree that its better to have a boat that's used than one that's not used. And for some people, the Mac should provide that usability. On the other hand, I see almost no Mac's where I sail in New England. Giving the numbers, one might expect to see as many Mac's as Hunters and Catalinas. However, I spend most of the summer on the water and hardly ever see a Mac out there. In fact, I've traveled the East Coast from Maine to Florida several times over the last 30 years, and have only seen a handful of Mac's actually being used. There's been one in my marina for the last few years, and I've never seen them more the a half mile from the dock. In fact, to my knowledge, they've only been out 3 times in two years. Some years ago, there was a 26X that I would see powering out, but they seem to have left the scene. I know this is anecdotal, but if Macs were actually used on sal****er on the East Coast, I would be seeing them more then once a year. Most of the contributors here are also based in sal****er - I wonder if there's anyone whose experience is much different from mine. My hunch is that most Mac's spend most of their time on trailers behind the garage, waiting for that one week vacation at the lake. Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
Mac 26
Out here we occasionally see a Mac on the bay. 50% of the time, she's
struggling. We do one or more of the following... 1) stay heck away 2) circle and ask if they need help 3) show the crew how to use a cleat hitch if they make it to the dock 4) try to get my students to keep their voices down when they comment on the low-rent rigging -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff" wrote in message ... Jim Cate wrote: ... The point is that most owners of the "real sailboats" you keep talking about don't often make use of their capability. I think it's better to have a boat that is sailed often rather than a boat that COULD be sailed to the Bahamas but is seldom taken out. I think that the Mac owners probably get in more time sailing their boats than most owners of ocean going vessels.. I certainly agree that its better to have a boat that's used than one that's not used. And for some people, the Mac should provide that usability. On the other hand, I see almost no Mac's where I sail in New England. Giving the numbers, one might expect to see as many Mac's as Hunters and Catalinas. However, I spend most of the summer on the water and hardly ever see a Mac out there. In fact, I've traveled the East Coast from Maine to Florida several times over the last 30 years, and have only seen a handful of Mac's actually being used. There's been one in my marina for the last few years, and I've never seen them more the a half mile from the dock. In fact, to my knowledge, they've only been out 3 times in two years. Some years ago, there was a 26X that I would see powering out, but they seem to have left the scene. I know this is anecdotal, but if Macs were actually used on sal****er on the East Coast, I would be seeing them more then once a year. Most of the contributors here are also based in sal****er - I wonder if there's anyone whose experience is much different from mine. My hunch is that most Mac's spend most of their time on trailers behind the garage, waiting for that one week vacation at the lake. Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
Mac 26
Capt. JG wrote:
Out here we occasionally see a Mac on the bay. 50% of the time, she's struggling. We do one or more of the following... 1) stay heck away 2) circle and ask if they need help 3) show the crew how to use a cleat hitch if they make it to the dock 4) try to get my students to keep their voices down when they comment on the low-rent rigging There are lots up here, quite popular. They can roar across the opn stretches and sail in the islands. First to the anchorages etc. Best of both worlds for a guy still working and cruising inside the island. They have much longer legs than a regular weekender. |
Mac 26
Perhaps... different type of cruising down here.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Gary" wrote in message news:XvLhf.622237$tl2.478324@pd7tw3no... Capt. JG wrote: Out here we occasionally see a Mac on the bay. 50% of the time, she's struggling. We do one or more of the following... 1) stay heck away 2) circle and ask if they need help 3) show the crew how to use a cleat hitch if they make it to the dock 4) try to get my students to keep their voices down when they comment on the low-rent rigging There are lots up here, quite popular. They can roar across the opn stretches and sail in the islands. First to the anchorages etc. Best of both worlds for a guy still working and cruising inside the island. They have much longer legs than a regular weekender. |
Mac 26
Jeff wrote: Jim Cate wrote: ... The point is that most owners of the "real sailboats" you keep talking about don't often make use of their capability. I think it's better to have a boat that is sailed often rather than a boat that COULD be sailed to the Bahamas but is seldom taken out. I think that the Mac owners probably get in more time sailing their boats than most owners of ocean going vessels.. I certainly agree that its better to have a boat that's used than one that's not used. And for some people, the Mac should provide that usability. On the other hand, I see almost no Mac's where I sail in New England. Giving the numbers, one might expect to see as many Mac's as Hunters and Catalinas. However, I spend most of the summer on the water and hardly ever see a Mac out there. In fact, I've traveled the East Coast from Maine to Florida several times over the last 30 years, and have only seen a handful of Mac's actually being used. There's been one in my marina for the last few years, and I've never seen them more the a half mile from the dock. In fact, to my knowledge, they've only been out 3 times in two years. Some years ago, there was a 26X that I would see powering out, but they seem to have left the scene. Since the Macs are manufactured in California, it's probably to be expected that there are more of them on the west coast and fewer of them in New England. I do see reports on the Mac discussion groups of Macs sailing the Keys, Pensacola, etc. Jim |
Mac 26
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
... Well, we are about to get out in the blue water off Galveston and cruise offshore (initial heading approximately 110 degrees). I'll try to post an update to the ng next week. In any event, I'll be off the net for a week or so but hope to make it back safely and report in sometime next month. Happy sailing to all. Jim I hope you make it back too!!! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Jim Cate wrote: Yep, and it's still a piece of junk. Have a nice day anyway Johnny. Jim I have every intention, don't you worry little buddy. "Little buddy"? Well, I'm 200lbs, over six feet, an ex-marine, etc. Where did you get the little buddy? Jim |
Mac 26
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article .com, wrote: The elitists here who feel that only "traditional" designs belong on the water need to loosen their yachtie captains hats and get over the Mac26 and realize that it works very well enabling the less affluent among us to go sailing and to do far more sailing than those who mainly sail from yacht club bar stools. In spite of their apocryphal stories of Mac26 disasters they can never back up, I have read of many great Mac26 trips including the entire ICW, the inside passage to Alaska, Catalina, Bahamas. From what I can tell, the current Mac26 is built better than the original Hunters and some Beneteaus. As far as safety is concerned, it seems considerably safer than most power boats and a strong case can be made for it being safer than many other sail boats. I wouldn't know about elistists... and, while I like traditional designs, I have no problem with people who want to sail on Macs or any other boat. What I said was: that they're fine for some conditions, but not for others. This is true of all boats, but Jimmy gets all in a lather when someone suggests that they're not great boats in general. Actually, John, that evaluation ("fine for some conditions, but not for others," and "I have no problems with peoplewho want to sail on Macs") is directly contrary to the tenor of your earlier comments throughout this discussion. - Instead, your comments about the Macs (such as "garbage boats", "piece of junk", "crap", etc.), are what I consider excessive. - As previously stated, I am not presuming to claim the Macs are great boats for all conditions. I'm only attempting to ensure that the discussion maintains a modicum of balance. I will also draw attention to obviously misleading or inconsistent statements (like yours above) from time to time. Jim |
Mac 26
Jim Cate wrote:
Well, we are about to get out in the blue water off Galveston and cruise offshore (initial heading approximately 110 degrees). I'll try to post an update to the ng next week. In any event, I'll be off the net for a week or so but hope to make it back safely and report in sometime next month. Hey Jim, where's that report on your blue water cruise? |
Mac 26
In article , Jeff wrote:
Jim Cate wrote: Well, we are about to get out in the blue water off Galveston and cruise offshore (initial heading approximately 110 degrees). I'll try to post an update to the ng next week. In any event, I'll be off the net for a week or so but hope to make it back safely and report in sometime next month. Hey Jim, where's that report on your blue water cruise? Jeff, be nice! Jim knows his limitations and took a Carnival Cruise. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Mac 26
We had a great time on the cruise Jeff. - Anything in particular you
wanted to know? Jim Jeff wrote: Jim Cate wrote: Well, we are about to get out in the blue water off Galveston and cruise offshore (initial heading approximately 110 degrees). I'll try to post an update to the ng next week. In any event, I'll be off the net for a week or so but hope to make it back safely and report in sometime next month. Hey Jim, where's that report on your blue water cruise? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com