I had a similar surreal experience watching a couple of people
try and dock a Mac at Angel Island. Of course, they were using
the engine. And, they really understood that if you have an engine
that size, you can really gun it. They were quite skilled at gunning
it in close quarters. We were in the slip next to where they decided
to gun it, and I can understand why they would gun it, given the
lousy sailing they possibly endured to the island (making a leap
in logic that they sailed, but we all have our limitations).

Well, anyway, they gunned it coming into the slip, and Capt. Ron
style, they slammed it in reverse at the last minute and somehow
stopped the boat before crossing the dock and hitting the boat
on the other side.

They sure did scare the crap out of some teenagers walking on the
dock. So, they stopped the boat with only a small bump and a small
dent in their bow, and then proceeded to leap off the Mac one by one.
Unfortunately, no one thought about actually tying it up. (Or, maybe
they did, and just decided not to). In any case, in a moment of
weakness, I grabbed the Mac as it was headed back out into
the marina, and asked them if they had possibly forgotten something.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have intervened.

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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.

That reminded me of when I was sailing my 16'er, on the bay, light wind,
beautiful day, laying on the cockpit seat, arm resting on the tiller,
tacking back and forth across the bay, after 1-1/2 hrs, I was still in the
same spot I started due to the tide. Still, it was an enjoyable sail.

Scotty


"Jeff Morris" wrote

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.

It's always fun to sail wing-on-wing backwards out the Gate. Easy to do if
the
current is right.

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
That reminded me of when I was sailing my 16'er, on the bay, light wind,
beautiful day, laying on the cockpit seat, arm resting on the tiller,
tacking back and forth across the bay, after 1-1/2 hrs, I was still in the
same spot I started due to the tide. Still, it was an enjoyable sail.

Scotty


"Jeff Morris" wrote

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.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:25:59 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

It's always fun to sail wing-on-wing backwards out the Gate. Easy to do if
the
current is right.


I suppose you gay guys like sailing stern first.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I can imagine. Lubbers all for sure.

Several coming back from extended crossings (on Swans, Pacific Seacraft,
Island Packets Valiants Hinkly, etc.) asked me if I would consider a
trade.
Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

It's a piece of junk.

You're welcome to your opinion Jonathan. - If everyone posting all this
BS about the Macs would simply say:

"in my opinion, it's a piece of junk, although I have to admit that
I haven't sailed one and haven't actually even talked with anyone who
has, so I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about..." -

We would be able to get to the bottom line a lot quicker.


Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

"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.

Sorry Jeff. As I understood him, Doug claimed to be talking about the
Mac 26M, not the 26X.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

"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, I'm a registered patent attorney, I have over 20 hours of college
physics, 18 hours of Math, etc. I assure you that I'm capable of
converting gallons to cubic feet, cubic inches, cubic meters, cubic
centimeters, pounds, or whatever the hell else. However, the size in
cubic feet isn't the real issue. (If you thin it is, check it out.) -
The issue from the above discussion related to whether or not the Mac
26M and 26X had the same hull, from the same female mold. Actually, of
course, the 26X differs in that it has a five-foot open trunk or cavity
extending along the chine of the hull and inducing substantial drag when
the rudder is down, out of the trunk. The hull of the 26M is obviously
different from that of the 26X, and the fact that it doesn't have the
five foot long open trunk extending along the chine of the hull is one
of the several obvious differences.


Jim

Mooron, if the Mac hull is underbuilt, and flexes with each wave, there
must be hundreds of Macs falling apart every year. And hundreds of Mac
skippers and passengers must be lost every year, since there are
thousands of Macs out there. So, in that case, there would be news
articles every week about more Macs sunk and more Mac passengers and
skippers drowned. And hundreds of lawsuits from their families. -- Where
are all those news reports and all those lawsuits, Mooron? I haven't
seen many of them.

The facts are that the rigging and hull of the Macs is adequate for the
boat, and does the job. The facts are that thousands of Mac owners are
satisfied with their boats and sail them year after year. - If you have
FACTS or STATISTICS (NOT ANECDOTES) contradicting this, let's see them.
- Put up or shut up, Mooron.

Jim


Capt. Mooron wrote:
"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

Capt. Mooron wrote:

"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


Mooron, the incident Jeff is discussing involved a drunk skipper sailing
a MacGregor water ballas boat WITHOUT the water ballast, and with an
overloaded boat, with a number of guests sitting on the deck (which
MacGregor warns is highly dangerous if the water ballast tank isn't full.)

The drunk skipper did everything wrong, caused the accident, and has now
hired a high-powered lawyer to sue MacGregor. - Sort of like the woman
who sued MacDonalds when she spilled MacDonald coffee in her crotch
while driving her car.

Jim