It's a piece of junk.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message

| 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.

They're all too scared ****less to go sailing in anything over 5 knots and
use their engines more than their sails. No wonder they are advertised as
"safe".... 5 minutes into the sail trip and all you can think about is how
great it wiil be to get back to a safe dock.

The one good thing about them is they don't require much inside lighting...
since you can almost see through the hull... as it flexes and oil cans with
each wave.... at the dock... which it never leaves..... because the owners
know they own a POS and are to scared to take it out.

Suck It Up Jim-Bo.... you got a bogus boat.

CM

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:19:17 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

It's a piece of junk.


It's ten times the boat your 20' Cal is.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

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.

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.






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.)

Sorry - I get confused because they're virtually identical boats.



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.

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.





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.


Right Jim. Loosing half your investment in 5 years is a really good deal.



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.

Wrong Jim, those boats probably sold for about $30K, maybe even higher. The
first is only 2 years old and they're asking $8K less than they paid.

Frankly, if you want to spend the premium for a new boat, that doesn't bother
me. I bought my last boat new, so I understand the pyschology. But don't
delude yourself the Mac's hold their value when the evidence is just the
opposite.





(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.

Jim, my point wan't that you're likely to kill your grandchidren the same way.
I understand that statistically the mac is probably safer than the true death
traps, canoes and kayaks.

My point was that you claimed the boat is very stabile. This anecdote prooves
just the opposite - the boat is inherently unstabile. Early on in this long
discussion I pointed out all the warnings about overloading, and driving too
fast, etc. You claimed that this was just lawyer talk that you see with any
product. The point is that it is NOT just lawyer talk, they are serious
warnings that 8 or 10 adults on deck can flip it if they're not careful.






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.

You've also been quick to claim the speed that can only be achieved with the
tanks empty.



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?

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.

BTW, there is a reason for the tanks to be empty: as I understnad it, you have
to power at 6 knots to empty the tanks. After you do that, while you're waiting
for the launch ramp, you're at risk. I think this was the issue in capsize
incident - they were planning to haul after watching fireworks.








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?

There are PHRF ratings for many, many boats that you would think are cruising
only, including older MacGregors. It is truely bizarre that none of the major
fleets rated the 26X, given the huge number that were sold. All it takes is for
one sailor to say they would like to race and a handicap would be give - just
one person asking! Out of 25000, you would think that one person would try.

Since the boat was introduced only last year,
it's also improbable that it would have been competitively raced and
given a PHRF rating.

People race cardboard boxes. I only found one case where a 26X entered a race,
and it was a DNF.

Your guess is around 25- to 320? I predict that it
will be lower than that.

That wasn't my guess - that was the number I found on the web. Actually, I've
only seen 320 as an official number, but there were some guessed that if raced
well it might be lower.




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.

Good one, Jim!!! At least you have a sense of humour!





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.

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.






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.

Do you mean behond a car?


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.

Then you'll be happy with it.




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?

Why should it flip over? Or are you foolish enough to beleive the myth that
multihulls capsize all the time.

Actually, I've researched this a bit. The Corsair style tris do capsize on
occasion while racing, but that is in the nature of racing these boats. While
cruising, there have been few incidents, though their record is still worse than
the heavier, more stable cats. It remains to be seen what the safety record of
the Telstar will be, but since it is a more conservative design than the
Corsairs, it should be pretty good.






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.


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. You've claimed sailing performance that can only be
achieved by violating the safely warnings. You've claimed that the stability
warnings are just lawyer talk, when its clear they were deadly serious. You've
claimed low depreciation when the evidence is just the opposite. 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.

No Jim, I haven't been "Mac Bashing," I've been "Jim Bashing."

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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!


Hey Jim! That's Doug, I'm Jeff. I've also passed Mac 26X's a number of
times, but I've never noticed them moving through the water without the help of
their engine. Of course, I usually see them in choppy harbor water - not the
best place for such a light boat.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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.


Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic foot
of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200 gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out, and
now you're trying to sidestep it. This is one of your "ridiculous and false"
claims, and of course you fighting tooth and nail to avoid confronting it.

BTW, the size of the cavity is more likely a few cubic feet - 6 inches wide by 6
feet long by 1 foot draft would yield 3 cubic feet.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
| 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.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa..... it's so-o-o-o-o TRUE! :-D

CM

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:19:17 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
| wrote this crap:
|
| It's a piece of junk.
|
|
| It's ten times the boat your 20' Cal is.

Cripes Horkmeat... you own a friggin Hunter!!!!
How lame is that!!!!????.....

CM

Jeff, now to be fair, I've seen them moving through
the water under sail alone on the SF bay. It's quite
a sight to see, and I'm always impressed when I
see one moving in that fashion. Same thing with
the venerable Hunter models. I find it incredible
that anyone would risk life and limb to do that.

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

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


Hey Jim! That's Doug, I'm Jeff. I've also passed Mac 26X's a number of
times, but I've never noticed them moving through the water without the
help of
their engine. Of course, I usually see them in choppy harbor water - not
the
best place for such a light boat.

I've never said it can't happen, I've just never seen it. There is one at my
dock and I've seen them out in the harbor a few times, but never making any
headway.

One of the images from 25 years ago that I'll never forget is watching a boat
trying to come into Boston past Deer Island Light against a 2+ knot ebb. It
tacked back and forth across the channel, but never made any headway. This went
on for several hours, during which time I came in from a mile or so behind, and
having a little local knowledge, hugged close to the light, caught a reverse
eddy and scooted by. As I headed into Winthrop I watched the other boat, going
back and forth, not getting anywhere. It was a Venture 22, one of Macgregor's
early offerings.




"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Jeff, now to be fair, I've seen them moving through
the water under sail alone on the SF bay. It's quite
a sight to see, and I'm always impressed when I
see one moving in that fashion. Same thing with
the venerable Hunter models. I find it incredible
that anyone would risk life and limb to do that.

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

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


Hey Jim! That's Doug, I'm Jeff. I've also passed Mac 26X's a number of
times, but I've never noticed them moving through the water without the
help of
their engine. Of course, I usually see them in choppy harbor water - not
the
best place for such a light boat.