Not necessarily. Most likely, people don't use them very much. That's
pretty typical among boat owners in general. In fact, you claimed this
sort of thing yourself in another thread.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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

I wouldn't ask you. Your answer wouldn't represent sailors, just lubbers.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

Except that some things are so obvious that they do not need to be
confirmed. For example, jumping off a cliff and landing on rocks is
pretty stupid. I don't have to try it to know.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

This from a fag boy who owns a piece of junk hunter.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
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!

Wow, that much math and physics... I mean wow! You also
claimed to be a sailor. So far, all we've seen are a few fuzzy
pictures of a piece of crap Mac.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

Not much of an attorney are you... possibly you should look at the
facts of the case before you comment on the woman and her coffee.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

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.

Obviously not, or you would have recognized immediately that "200 gallons" was a
completely bogus number. Do you really expect us to believe you took any
college physics or math when you claimed repeatedly that the centerboard trunk
was a 27 cubic foot cavity?


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.

No Jim, that's not the issue. That may be the issue you had with others, but my
point is that you made an absurd claim, and then repeated it several times after
the absurdity was pointed out. You even denied that you ever made absurd
claims.

Frankly, I think it the drag of the open trunk is nowhere near as high as you
claim, especially at the low speeds you sail, but that's a different issue.
Claiming its 27 cubic feet is just plain stupid.



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.

Sorry Jim, its not called a chine.

Jeff Morris wrote:

"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.


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.





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.


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., I doubt seriously that most purchasers
of the 26X were paying $30K five years ago. 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.





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.

Nope.


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.


Actually, the Practical Sailor article that reviewed the Mac 26X stated
that they had pretty good resale values.



(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?

The boat is safe when sailed or motored or anchored except when grossly
overloaded. In particular, the boat is unsafe without the water ballast
except in certain specifically designated conditions (motoring with
moderate load in moderate weather conditions.)


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.

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.


The directions given to me for bringing the boat into the launch ramp
recommend that the water ballast should be let out AFTER the passengers
are off the boat, after the boat reaches the ramp. The water is drained
out when the boat is heading up, on the ramp. (Takes about three minutes
to completely drain.) However, as a general rule, it's safe to drain the
water out on the way back to the dock if conditions are not severe and
if there aren't lots of passengers.





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.


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.





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.

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.



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.

From my personal experience, it's fast enough under sail to be fun,
exhilarating, and challenging. Further, the boat is faster under power
than 99% of the boats discussed on this ng.


When viewed in context, as a trailerable cruising sailboat, the boat
does achieve substantial speed.


Do you mean behond a car?


Nope.


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.

No, I'm not "foolish enough to beleive [sic] that multihulls capsize all
the time. - But when they do capsize, it's kind of hard to get them back
up if they're over 20 feet or so.


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. 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? 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'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.


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.


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.

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.

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. 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.


Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

No he wasn't sailing, he was at anchor!


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.)

That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling over if
misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat.

Further, this has probably happened a number of times, its only that because
this time two children died that we know about it.


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.

So why is it that when I first pointed out all the warnings you poo-poo'ed it as
just lawyer talk, something that all products have. The point is that the
warning were deadly serious.



Jim

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:57:05 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

This from a fag boy who owns a piece of junk hunter.


The girls at the strip club don't consider me a fag, dumbass. And my
sails are worth more than your boat. I've won quite a few trophies
for someone with a junk boat.

Meanwhile, you sail a POS that someone was throwing out.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!