"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Yes, a majority do sail them safely. Actually, a majority of the Macs I've
seen
hardly leave the dock, but that can be said of many boats. Of course, a 50%
average is not what one should hope for. I wasn't claiming the boat was
completely unsafe; I was pointing out that it isn't correct to tout the
boat's
stability when its capable of rolling over at anchor in calm conditions.
The Mac 26 is a water ballast boat, and MacGregor specifically warns
against permitting passengers on deck without the water ballast. In the
case with the drunk skipper, the boat was severely overloaded, even for
"full ballast" conditions. This doesn't mean that the boat is faulty; it
means that the skipper shouldn't be driving drunk and ignoring the most
basic characteristics of the boat.
When I pointed out all those warning you just claimed it was silly lawyer talk.
Now you're admitting that perhaps they were deadly serious.
You keep claiming the boat was "severly overloaded" but there were only eight
adults on deck. So are you claiming the boat is safe for six adults but
dangerous for eight? This seems like a rather slim margin of error here.
Bottom line Jim, the best indicator of a boat's resale value is the previous
offerings of the company, especially when the boats are so similar. A fully
loaded 26X was over $30K 4 or 5 years ago. The 26X depreciated roughly 50%
in
the last 5 years - that's pretty abysmal! All your talk about values of the
previous after the introduction of new models is just plain salesmen's
gibberish.
Since I just paid about $30K for a 2004 26M that was equipped with
autosteering, GPS chartplotter and sounder, VHF, bimini, roller reefing,
three sails, stereo, two batteries, solar panel, three reefing points,
lines led to cockpit, trailer, TTW knot meter, compass, additional depth
finder, 50 Hp motor, etc., etc.,
And you had it deleived in under 5 weeks. Yet you also claimed they were in
high demand and people were waiting a long time for them. Its it look more like
your dealer was trying to dump this boat on you.
I doubt seriously that most purchasers
of the 26X were paying $30K five years ago.
OK, here's a link to a 2001 26X that says "Original Cost over $33,000," 3 years
later he's asking $22K, would probably accept $19K:
http://www.macgregor-boats.com/4sale/4sale.html
Further down on the page is another 2002 26X for $22K.
A while back a link was posted to an add for a 2000 model that showed the
orignal invoice at around $32K.
The point I was making is
that 30% depreciation on a $30K boat isn't as much as 15% depreciation
on a $150K boat. In other words, even if my boat depreciated 50%, I
wouldn't be losing all that much compared with owners of many keel boats
bought new who also pay higher slip fees, maintenance, and other costs
that go with keeping up a larger, in-the-water boat.
Yes, its true that big boats cost more to own than small boats. You can
rationalize this all you want, but its still isn't right to claim that Macs hold
their value well when the evidence is just the opposite.
See comments above. - When viewed in light of the selling prices at the
time of original purchase, the Mac 26X prices you list are remarkably high.
Wrong Jim, those boats probably sold for about $30K, maybe even higher.
Nope.
You can hold you breath til you turn blue, but I keep posting links that prove
you wrong!
....
Jeff, your "logic" is something else. - It's interesting that you jump
from a reference to speed numbers achievable only without the ballast to
the "drunken skipper" incident, in which you admit up front that the
boat was SITTING AT ANCHOR with multiple passengers (a circumstance in
which there was no possible excuse or reason for the ballast to be empty).
So you're saying the boat can be dangerous both moving fast and standing
still?
So when exectly is the boat safe?
The boat is safe when sailed or motored or anchored except when grossly
overloaded.
The boat rolled with 8 adults on deck. You're syaing the 6 is OK but 8 is
grossly overloaded? And you're also claiming the that boat is "extremely
stable"?
In particular, the boat is unsafe without the water ballast
except in certain specifically designated conditions (motoring with
moderate load in moderate weather conditions.)
They also warn again having anyone on deck, or even in the forward bunk. Or
even too much weight on one side of the cockpit. Right Jim, this is a real
stable boat.
My point has been throughout that the boat is only safe with the ballast.
You,
however, repeatedly claimed speed numbers only acheivable without ballast.
(Not only that, they were acheived without a mast, crew or gear!). Now
you're
just backpedaling.
Nope. If I'm going to bring families with children aboard the boat, I'm
CERTAINLY NOT going to try to reach any speed records. How dense can you
be to suggest that, because the boat is capable of slightly higher
speeds with a light load without the water ballast, that I should be
held to those conditions (no water ballast) under all circumstances.
You're the one who kept touting the speed. All I've been saying is that in real
life, the high speed quoted are not just unrealistic, but absurd. Now you're
furiously backpedaling, claiming that you would never actually try that
yourself! A few months ago you were talking about how great it is that you can
scoot out to the ocean at 18 knots with your grandkids, and get back fast when
the weather turns bad. The reason why I even start this discussion was to point
out the most Mac owners said the 10-12 mph was the highest actually achieved.
You're the one who keeps claiming great performance. You've been listing
features that are common on many, many boats. Admittedly, your boat has a
unique combination, but that can be said of many boats. My point is that
having a common feature, like an adjustable jib track or a traveler does not
make a slow boat fast. All it really does is allow an incompetent skipper
to
screw up worse.
The point of my posting this list of adjustments was that you had
implied that the only thing I had in mind was the new traveler.
Obviously, that wasn't the case. Further, if you were honest, you would
admit that several of the above-listed features are not available on
many of the boats discussed on this ng. - If you were honest, that is.
Several of the features are unique - not too many cruising boats have twin,
foldup rudders. My boat has twin rudders, though, and it can be ordered with
daggerboards, lift-up outboards, and a rotating mast. Most have reefing, roller
jibs, adjustable track, cockpit controls, etc. Rigs can be tuned, fractional
rigs can be tuned more, etc.
But what's the point? Does it make the boat substanially faster? Only in the
marketing literature. And your imagination.
Ranting about these features over and over is meaningless. Sail the boat, give
us some real numbers.
You've talked many times about "substantial speed," even implied it can
plane
under sail.
The reports I see from Mac owners on several of the Mac discussion
groups are that the boats WILL plane under sail. Since I haven't done it
on my boat, I can't verify it, but that's what other Mac owners tell me.
I think you'd find that virtually all of these cases involved fairly strong
wind, flat seas, and no ballast. In those conditions its should be able to
plane, though not at extreme speeds. Add a spinnaker and a trapeze and you
might have something.
So instead of parroting the marketing bull****, why don;t you sail the boat
and
tell us about your experiances?
\
Actually, I have sailed the boat, and I have provided reports stating
that it's a fun boat to sail with lots of capabilities. For example, I
noticed a significant increase in speed, on a reach, with the reduced
drag obtained when one of the rudders was pulled up, motor out of the
water, and daggerboard partially up. I haven't had the knotmeter
installed yet, so I can't provide any specific figures.
A GPS would give you SOG.
Not mine.
What? Now you're claiming you bought a GPS that doesn't give SOG?
It's also connected to a paddle wheel in-the-water sensor
mounted on the transom, and should give knot readings from from either
the GPS or the sensor. (Although the installation isn't complete, and I
haven't seen it working yet.) Also, the SOG speed read from the GPS can
be averaged from runs in two directions.
Regarding your admonition for me to quit parroting the marketing
bull****, my suggestion to YOU is to quit repeating the usual
Mac-bashing stories and go back to school. - Take a basic course in
logic, Jeff. It might be helpful.
Sorry Jim, you misunderstand my intent. I have no desire to bash Macs,
there
are plenty of others who will do that. I've even said on occasion that macs
might be the best fit for some, and that I've been impressed that sometimes
I've
seen Macs used to advantage. My overall impression, after observing
Macgregor's
boat for 30 years, has been negative. But I've applauded his innovative
approach to certain issues.
My complaints have not been about the Mac itself, its been about your blind
misuse of the marketing claims. You've claimed speeds that can only be
achieved
by a stripped down boat.
By which you mean a boat with one or two passengers? What else to I have
to throw overboard to get a "stripped down boat" according to your
definition?
The speeds often quoted were without rig - that's leaving the mast behind,
without ballast - you've admitted that's unsafe at speed, and with one
underweight skipper. You can be sure they also left the ice chest and the
anchor at the dock.
I never said that the boat sailed or motored at top rated
speeds with multiple passengers and a heavy load. AND YOU KNOW IT.
Neither does MacGregor, incidentally.
You kept claiming the high speeds even after I pointed out that they were
without the rig and without ballast., I posted links to owners that report 12
mph as a practical top speed, but you ignored those.
You've claimed sailing performance that can only be
achieved by violating the safely warnings.
Nope. I've said that the boat can plane under certain conditions. Which
I believe to be true, and which other Mac owners also claim. I don't
intend to violate any "safely" warnings.
OK, tell us when you do 8 knots under sail with full ballast. Then I'll be
impressed.
You've claimed that the stability
warnings are just lawyer talk,
Jeff, the wording of the warning on the new boat and on the front page
of the owners manual are as follows:
THE WATER BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING.
(Capitalized, underlined.) A few lines down we have the statement: "If
you choose to operate the boat with an empty tank, see the section on
operating the boat without the water ballast."
Tell me, Jeff, do you really think there were no attorney inputs to the
wording of that warning? Don't get me wrong, I personally don't intend
to operate the boat without the ballast under either power or sail until
I am thoroughly experienced, and then only in very moderate conditions,
following the instructions precisely.
Holy Backpedal, Batman!!!!
when its clear they were deadly serious. You've
claimed low depreciation when the evidence is just the opposite.
We have gone through this about five times, Jeff. What I've claimed is
that the overall costs, including depreciation, slip fees (none),
maintenance, insurance ($200 per year), interest, bottom jobs (none),
costs of new sails, etc., etc., are moderate compared with other boats.
They should be the same as any other 26 foot trailer boat. The costs are more
than a smaller boat, less than a bigger boat.
What's your point? You've claimed they have low depreciation. I've showed a
significant number of cases where the depreciation is rather high. Now you're
just shifted your argument to saying there are no slip fees, or that because the
value is low, the insurance is low. You're right, its a cheap boat. Cheap to
operate, cheap to insure. Even with high depreciation its still cheap. I don't
think you'll find an disagreement that its cheap.
You've touted
all sorts of "unique features," most of which have been available on lots of
boats for many years. And you repeat the claims long after the fallacies
have
been pointed out.
And you continue to ignore the words of my notes and the context in
which such lists of features were listed, Jeff. I never said that the
Mac 26M was the ONLY boat to have those features. What I said was that
the 26M provides a PACKAGE or COMBINATION of features that is rather
extensive, with lots of choices for tuning the boat, and that, moreover,
some of the features are not generally available on most sailboats
discussed on this ng.
Actually, most of them are available on most of the boats. No real sailor would
waste any time claiming that his boat had reef points, or an adjustable jib
track. In fact, you can read all of the posts ever made to this board in the
last decade, and you won't find anyone who touted trivial features of their boat
as much as you have.
You keep trying to justify your nonsense by saying that your combination is
unique, but the bottom line is that the unique feature is that they sacrifised
sailing performance and stability for performance under power. That's it, in a
nutshell. If that's what you really want, fine, you bought the right boat.
No Jim, I haven't been "Mac Bashing," I've been "Jim Bashing."
Don't look now, but you're not doing a very good job of bashing either
me or the Macs.
Actually Jim, you've done a better job than I ever could!
Your problem is that if you read my notes and answered
them as they are written, you wouldn't have much to say. Regarding most
of the issues discussed above, you simply don't get it, Jeff.
Don't worry - I think everyone gets it.