"Jim Cate" wrote


Can you sail into an anchorage without being laughed at?

SV

I haven't been laughed at yet. Give me time.


Yes you have, you just didn't hear it.

"Jim Cate" wrote

CM


Ha-ha-ha! Another of your brilliant, erudite essays, Mooron. - How
stupid can you get.


Stupid enough to buy a Mac26m ?

nah, not even a Moron would be that stupid.

Sv

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...



s

If the Macs are that dangerous, and that poorly built, there must be
hundreds of Mac owners who are killed or injured every year. How many
people have been killed or injured this year, Jeff? It must be something
like the casualty reports from Iraq. - Three Mac owners killed to day
when their Mac fell apart in 20-knot winds. - Mac skipper and three
guests drowned today when their Mac hit an obstruction and sank; Four
childred killed today in their Mac 26., etc., etc. (Gee, I must be
missing something, because I haven't been getting these casualty
reports.)


I've posted a few reports; you seem to ignore them.

You don't get it, do you Jeff? The point is that, with some 25,000-plus
Macs out there, if they were as poorly constructed as you claim, and if
they are susceptible to major failures when stressed, we would be seeing
news reports about hundreds of casualties every year, month after month.
- Yet the only thing you and the other Mac-Bashers can come up with are
a few anecdotes about isolated incidents such as the "drunken skipper"
trial and Mooron's story about rescuing a family on a stranded 26X. In
other words, we have a very large population of Mac owners, and a very
small percentage of them report any catastrophic failures of the boats
under stress. You obviously don't understand the most basic principles
of logic and statistics. - The bottom line is that the great majority
of Mac owners like their boats and sail them safely year after year.




Regarding resale, Mac 26Ms equiped and with motor advertised
on yachtworld.com are selling for around $30K.


Looking for the highest price asked is what a fool does. Soundings has a number
of Macs: 4 to 5 year 26M are asking about 18-20K, presumably they can be had for
less.

Real interesting, Jeff. - You found several Mac 26M's 4 to 5 years old.
- (It's especially interesting in view of the fact that the Mac 26M's
weren't in production 4-5 years ago.)

Here's just one example:
2002 MACGREGOR 26', SAILBOAT, 50HP, NISSAN OUTBOARD, NEW BOTTOM PAINT, SLEEPS 6,
GALLEY & HEAD, VERY LOW HRS, $22,500, 401-846-4946 (DT15TP)

another:
2001 MACGREGOR 26', , SAILBOAT, SUZUKI 50 HP ENGINE W/36 HOURS, TWO BATTERIES,
MAST RAISING SYSTEM, MAIN SAIL SLUGS, ROLLER FURLING, JIB, GENOA, BIMINI,
COCKPIT CUSIONS AND LOTS OF EXTRAS, $20,800

another:
1999 MACGREGOR 26X 26' WHITE WIND, 50HP HONDA FOUR STROKE, WHEEL, ROLLER
FURLING, TRAILER, EASY TO LAUNCH AND SET-UP; ENJOY BOTH MOTORING SPEED AND
SAILING PERFORMANCE $19,900

another:
1999 MACGREGOR 26X, 26' 0'' TOUCH-N-GO, 1999 MACGREGOR 26X,, TOUCH-N-GO
TOUCH-&-GO IS AN EXCELLENT, TRAILERABLE SAILBOAT THAT IS A DREAM TO LAUNCH AND
TO SAIL. SHE IS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION AND HAS BEEN COVERED EVERY WINTER FOR
STORAGE. SHE ALSO COMES WITH LOADS OF EXTRAS (SEE LIST BELOW). $18,2000

the list goes on ...


In other words, the list of 26Xs goes on, but with no 26Ms included,
right Jeff? As noted above, it's normal for previous model runs (there
are usually around seven years between models) to be offered at lower
prices than the current model (the 26M). A further point is that the
selling prices of those older boats were significantly lower, so the
prices you quote actually don't represent a significant amount of
depreciation from what the owners paid for them at the time. In fact,
they look pretty good.



Regarding depreciation,
the meaningful figure is not the percentage depreciation, but rather,
the total dollars lost. In other words, what you paid for the boat and
equipment, plus what you paid for dock fees, repairs, enhancements,
insurance, maintenance, bottom treatment, interst, etc., etc., minus the
net price received.


In other words, you have to pay as though you had a real boat, but you only got
a Mac. This argument is exactly why you should get the most for your money, not
the least.


Nope. You get a real boat that provides lots of enjoyment and has lots
of advantageous features, but you don't even have to pay a premium to
get one.- In fact, it's just the opposite. - You pay a lot less.


Further, purchasing a Mac near the introduction of

a new model line, about every seven years (e.g., the 26C, the 26X, the
26M) doesn't involve the same depreciation as one purchased near the end
of such a model line.


Maybe for a year or so there is a demand, but after that the early examples of a
version depreciate faster. If you keep the boat for 4 years you'll likely lose
half your money.


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.



(Remembering that in my case, we
sail in the Galveston Bay area in which there are hundreds of square
miles of waters of limited depth.) My boat is fast, comfortable, and
stable in severe conditions.


Tell that to the parents of the children who died because they were trapped
below when their boat rolled in calm conditions.


See my comments above about the "drunken skipper lawsuit" and the fact
that you don't understand even the most basic principles of logic,
statistics, and probability.



As you probably know, that case involved a drunken skipper, grossly
overloaded, who permitted multiple many passengers to sit on the front
deck of a small 26-foot boat, and who either didn't know or ignored or
was too drunk to understand the most basic safety issues of such a boat
(the requirement that the ballast tank be filled with water.). What
should be done in that case is put that skipper, and the owner (who was
also responsible) in prison.


The article I read did not emphasis alcohol, but it doesn't surprise me. The
bottom line, however, is that the boat was sitting at anchor, in calm water, no
wind when it rolled. Further, your beloved flotation did not held the children
below. Its true the ballast was empty, but you yourself have often quoted speed
numbers that can only be achieved by running without ballast.

See my comments above. - Regarding running without the ballast, the boat
comes with clear warnings that this should not be done except in certain
very limited circumstances, certainly without excess passengers or
passengers on deck.

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).



Also, it incorporates a number of controls
and lines that can be adjusted for tuning the boat to achieve
substantial speed.


Total nonsense. It's stuff like this that marks you as a novice that

believedall the hype. They added a traveler and you think its a performance

machine.

Really? And what's your source of information, Jeff?


If the boat could acheive "substantial speed" someone would be racing one and it
would have a rating. Although it is probably the best selling sailboat over 25
feet, it is remarkable that it is almost impossible to find a PHRF rating for
it. I know its raced in a few obscure places, but I've spent a lot of time
looking and haven't found a mention of it in any of the major organisations, and
most guesses as to its rating are in the high 250 to 320.


Jeff, I have made it plain that I consider the boat to be a family
cruiser, not a racer. Thus, it's not likely that it would be a popular
racing boat, is it now? Since the boat was introduced only last year,
it's also improbable that it would have been competitively raced and
given a PHRF rating. Your guess is around 25- to 320? I predict that it
will be lower than that.


Of course, there was the April Fool's hoax of a low rating that you bought, hook
line and sinker!!! Maybe that's why your credibility is so low!

Actually, of course, I posted the note with a question as to whether
anyone else had seen the report or knew anything about it.



In addition to the
traveler, the daggerboard can be positioned completely up, partially up,
partially down, etc., at any depth desired as best suited for particular
conditions and points of sail. The boat can be sailed with one, or two,
rudders down, as desired, or motored with two, or one rudder, or none,
and with the daggerboard partially down, for maneuverability at slower
speeds, or raised, during planing. The blocks through which the sheets
are run can be positioned forward or aft in their tracks, in the desired
position. The rigging can be tuned, as desired, and the mast can be
"bent" forward or rearward, as desired. In my boat, the main has three
reefing points from which to choose, the jib is roller-furled. The
mast is axially rotatable, in response to the apparent wind direction.
As is typical on most new Macs, my boat also has the ability to plane
under power, trim controls are provided, and the motor can be raised out
of the water to reduce drag when under sail, etc. Because of the dual
rudders linked to the motor, it is well-controlled when maneuvering in
reverse at low speeds. In my boat the lines are led aft to the cockput,
although one may go forward to adjust them individually if desired. A
further choice provided in the Mac is that, under some conditions, the
water ballast can be let out for better performance under power or, in
some conditions, under sail. (Although it's not recommended except in
some circumstances, it is an option.)


The fact that you feel the need to mention all this just shows your ignorance.
The issue is not whether they have lots of adjustments; the issue is whether any
of the make it go faster. A real racer would point out the the opposite is
true: misuse of these settings will make the boat go slower!

Again, Jeff, your ignorance of the most basic principles of logic (and
your apparent lack of intellectual honesty) is becoming even more
apparent. The list of adjustments (several of which are not found on
most cruising sailboats) was posted in response to your statement
suggesting that I was reading advertising copy regarding the traveler,
which you apparently concluded was the only significant issue to which I
could be referring. The list was in response to your stupid assertion
concerning the boat.


PLEASE NOTE THAT I DIDN'T SAY THAT ALL THESE VARIOUS FEATURES AND TUNING
CHOICES ARE UNIQUE TO THE MAC26M. However, I would suggest that the
above paragraph illustrates that the Mac provide a number of choices
relative to tuning, adjustments, etc., many of which aren't common on
most cruising sailboats. - There are obviously a number of possible
adjustments and tuning choices in addiiton to those provided by the new
traveler.

Incidentally, Jeff, when did I claim that the Mac 26M was a true
performance boat? (It's obviously a small cruising sailboat, not a
racer.) - Where, exactly, is my note claiming that it's a "true
performance boat"? - (Although I wouldn't characterize it as a racer, I
do find that it's fast and responsive enough to be fun.)


You've talked many times about "substantial speed," even implied it can plane
under sail. One of the fundamental complaints of the boat is that it is very
slow under sail. You keep talking about features like the traveler and
daggerboard, but keep ignoring the fact that its a slow boat.

When viewed in context, as a trailerable cruising sailboat, the boat
does achieve substantial speed. However, I have never stated that I
consider the boat to be a racer or a competitive sailing vessel. From
personal experience, it's fast enough to be fun and exciting.



If you want a boat with all the features you list, you could get one of

these:

http://www.geminicatamarans.com/Performance_Telstar.htm

It would sail and power circles around yours, is infinately safer, draws one
foot, can be trailered, has positive floatation, and has a nicer interior.

Thisprice is somewhat higher, but the depreciation is probably less.




It's a nice boat. So is the 26M, for a lot less.

What would it do if a wave hit it, Jeff? Is it self-righting, or would
it turtle and simply stay turtled?


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.

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.

Jim

DSK wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

So instead of parroting the marketing bull****, why don;t you sail the
boat and
tell us about your experiances?


Jeff, I hesitate to say it but it looks like MacGregor marketing BS is
the sum of Jim Cate's knowledge about sailing. Maybe he will meet up
with Joe and start getting some good experience.

Actually, as discussed ad nauseum in previous strings, I have some 30
years experience sailing on 30 to 40-foot boats, such as Valiants,
O'Days, Endeavors, Catalinas, Cals, etc. (Incidentally, I recently took
the ASA basic sailing course as a review (on-the-water and 130-question
written tests) and scored over 98 on a damn comprehensive test. (Boat
characeristics, rigging, tuning, points of sail MOB drills, rules of
road, navigation, lights, on-the-water tests under varying points of
sail, etc.) It doesn't make me a sailor, but it does suggest I know a
little more than MacGregor Marketing BS.)


BTW I have a folder of boat brochures here, largely due to people giving
them to me. The Mac 26M has a mast that is approximately 1.5' longer
than the 26X. That's a substantial redesign, doncha think?

When combined with the 20 or so other changes, yes there are some
substantial changes.


The mast has
none of the features of the rotating mast Jim claimed.

Interesting. Mine does. It is supported on two bearing structures and
is axially rotatable, each of the stays are adjustable, the mast can be
bent forward as desired, etc. Every other 26M I've seen is also rotatable.

Wide spreaders,
swept back lowers, etc. The lead ballast is 300# yet the boat is only
200# heavier, dry weight. That means they took out 100# of fiberglass
somewhere... hmmm...

Nope. It doesn't mean that they took out 100# of fiberglass. It means
that they reduced the size of the water ballast chamber to provide a
combination of water and permanent ballast, so that the boat has some
ballast whether or not the tank is filled. Actually, they ADDED another
fiberglass layer and another 100 pounds of resin to the hull. -

Incidentally, do facts mean anything in these discussions? Is basic
intellectual honesty of any relevance to you? Does anyone give a damn
whether what they are saying has any basis in fact whatsoever? It's
obvious that you and Jeff don't.

Jim

Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote


Can you sail into an anchorage without being laughed at?

SV


I haven't been laughed at yet. Give me time.



Yes you have, you just didn't hear it.

Actually, a number of people have admired the new boat and asked me
about it.

Jim

DSK wrote:


As for "put up or shut up" I am not the one making ridiculous & false
claims about my boat because I fervently believe the advertising.




Jim Cate wrote:

Really? And could you be just a little more specific?


I have been. Were you not paying attention? That's a poor quality in a
sailor.

... Like, if I posted all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could
you cite a few of them?


Sure. Like, the hull of the 26M is "completely new & different." It may
have a few different features, like the daggerboard, but it is the same
hull design. The shape is exactly the the same. I would bet a lot of
money that they are popped out of the same female mold.

Doug, you need to look at the bottom of the boat instead of simple
looking at the freeboard. If you did, you would see that the bow
incorporates a deep-V configuration (around 15 degrees) whereas the X is
a much flatter configuration (around 8 degrees). Additionally, the
transom is of a different, more rounded configutaion, and the 16-inch
deep trunk previously cut into the trunk (for receiveing the pivotable
keel used in the X) has been eliminated, since the M incorporates the
vertically movable daggerboard and doesn't require the 200-gallon trunk.
Whether you like these changes or not, it's pretty obvious that the new
hull isn't just "popped out of the same female mold."


Rotating mast... Like, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be
claiming that the Mac 26 M has a rotating mast like a catamaran or Tasar
or C-Scow. Like, the ones I have seen definitely do not have this
feature, nor would it be in any way helpful or appropriate for the type
of boat.

My boat, and all the other 26Ms I have seen, does indeed have an axially
rotating mast, as used on some catamarans. Whether or not it would be
advantageous or not, it's definitely there. - The mast rotates as the
sail boat is tacked, following the luff of the mainsail.



Anyway, I am glad that you like your boat and are happy with it's
performance and sailing characteristics. I don't know of very many other
sailors that would be. You are fortunate.


In other words, I'm so stupid and inexperienced that I'm happy in my
ignorance, right!

In any event, I think your comments would be more effective if you and
your buddies would get your facts straight before continuing your
Mac-bashing. - A hull with a 15-degree V and without a 200 gallon open
center trunk extending rearwardly down the center of the hull simply
isn't the same thing as an 8-degree hull with such a trunk. Actually,
your comments would carry more weight if they were consistent with the
facts.

Jim

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

Actually, the ballast was added because of the taller mast, and to
provide greater stability when powering without the water ballast.


I don't think so. The mast on the Mac 26Ms I have seen (five or six now)
look exactly the same as the older model. Can you give some figures?

The mast on the 26M is 30 feet; that on the 26X was a little more than
28 feet.


My wife & I owned a water ballasted Hunter 19 for 10

years and it sailed fine... in fact we outsailed Mac 26Xs many times
in it, and a Mac 26M a couple of times.



And when, exactly did you out sail the Mac 26M, Doug? There's very few
of them out their, and I seriously doubt that you sailed against an
experienced M owner, particularly since most of us haven't had our
boats more than a few months.


Well, you can make all the excuses you want. Either the boat sails well
or it doesn't.

Nope. Either the boat AND the skipper sail well or they don't.



I can't help it if it appeals to people who know nothing
about sailing. I've given details before, but you seem rather dense, so
here we go again:

I have sailed our Hunter 19 in company with a MacGregor 26M (you could
tell by the red hull) several times. There is one in our marina. There
are couple others that regularly come and launch at the nearby ramp. The
Hunter 19 easily could sail rings around the Mac 26M, in light air or
heavy, upwind or down. Actually, it's not so bad going downwind, but it
appears difficult to steer with any degree of chop. I mean, maybe it's
not really but the skippers sure are working the wheel back & forth.

Jeff, this again suggests that you need some basic education regarding
elementary principles of logic. - You seem to think that this anecdote
of yours proves that the Mac 26M is slower than the Hunter 19. It only
provides the experience of one sailor (you). What would be needed to
prove that the Mac 26M isn't as fast as the Hunter 19 is for experienced
sailors to sail several of each type of boat on several occasions under
various conditions. In other words, you have a very small sampling, and
you have no external controls, etc. - What's also interesting is how you
are getting all that experience sailing against Mac 26M's in view of the
fact that there the M's were only introduced last year, and there are
very few of them on the water, and further, that they never made a Mac
26M with a red hull. - Very strange, Jeff!





The point of my note was not that all the listed features are unique
to the Mac, but that the Mac offers a package of features not usually
provided in a cruising sailboat of this size.


Not really. You just have to know where to look

This is what I mean when I say that you know nothing except what
MacGregor advertising tells you. There are several boat builders who
produce centerboard or lift-keel boats with poitive flotation, you just
don't know about them. Do a web search for Etap or Sadler, they build
some particularly nice ones up to about 40'.


Once more, I never said that the Mac is the only boat to provide these
features. I said that not many boats, including those discussed
frequently on this board, include such a combination of features. I said
that "the Mac offers a package of features not usually provided in a
cruising sailboat of this size."


And when are YOU going to actually compare them, Doug? - If you did,
you would see that the hull shape of the M is substantially different
from that of the X.


I have. It isn't. How many times will I repeat this? I don't know, it's
getting to be pretty dull. You obviously have a head like a cement
block. Go and look for yourself... although you should prepare yourself
emotionally for a big let-down when you realize that MacGregor
advertising is not Gospel truth.

What you need to do is to get some old newspapers or a tarp, take it to
an area in which both a Mac 26M and a Mac 26X are parked, put the
newspaper or tarp UNDER the boats, one a a time, and look up at the
hulls of the two boats (instead of just looking at them from the side).
You would then see that the hulls of the two boats are distinctly and
significantly different and could not come off the same female mold.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
...

A. The swing keel and the (200 gallon) longitudinal open cavity built
into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted
upwardly into the slot) has been eliminated in the 26M, eliminating the
drag produced by the large open cavity.



You asked us to point out one of your "ridiculous and false" claims. How about
your claim of a "200 gallon cavity" which I already showed was absurd. Why
don't you do the calculation of how many cubic feet 200 gallons is?

I have other things to do, Jeff. - If you want to know how many cubic
feet it is, have at it.

Jim

And, that's how Jimbo came to pick a Mac... a result of all his
"experience."

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

So instead of parroting the marketing bull****, why don;t you sail the
boat and
tell us about your experiances?


Jeff, I hesitate to say it but it looks like MacGregor marketing BS is
the sum of Jim Cate's knowledge about sailing. Maybe he will meet up
with Joe and start getting some good experience.

Actually, as discussed ad nauseum in previous strings, I have some 30
years experience sailing on 30 to 40-foot boats, such as Valiants,
O'Days, Endeavors, Catalinas, Cals, etc. (Incidentally, I recently took
the ASA basic sailing course as a review (on-the-water and 130-question
written tests) and scored over 98 on a damn comprehensive test. (Boat
characeristics, rigging, tuning, points of sail MOB drills, rules of
road, navigation, lights, on-the-water tests under varying points of
sail, etc.) It doesn't make me a sailor, but it does suggest I know a
little more than MacGregor Marketing BS.)


BTW I have a folder of boat brochures here, largely due to people giving
them to me. The Mac 26M has a mast that is approximately 1.5' longer
than the 26X. That's a substantial redesign, doncha think?

When combined with the 20 or so other changes, yes there are some
substantial changes.


The mast has
none of the features of the rotating mast Jim claimed.

Interesting. Mine does. It is supported on two bearing structures and
is axially rotatable, each of the stays are adjustable, the mast can be
bent forward as desired, etc. Every other 26M I've seen is also
rotatable.

Wide spreaders,
swept back lowers, etc. The lead ballast is 300# yet the boat is only
200# heavier, dry weight. That means they took out 100# of fiberglass
somewhere... hmmm...

Nope. It doesn't mean that they took out 100# of fiberglass. It means
that they reduced the size of the water ballast chamber to provide a
combination of water and permanent ballast, so that the boat has some
ballast whether or not the tank is filled. Actually, they ADDED another
fiberglass layer and another 100 pounds of resin to the hull. -

Incidentally, do facts mean anything in these discussions? Is basic
intellectual honesty of any relevance to you? Does anyone give a damn
whether what they are saying has any basis in fact whatsoever? It's
obvious that you and Jeff don't.

Jim

I can imagine. Lubbers all for sure.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote


Can you sail into an anchorage without being laughed at?

SV


I haven't been laughed at yet. Give me time.



Yes you have, you just didn't hear it.

Actually, a number of people have admired the new boat and asked me
about it.

Jim