"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "DSK" wrote
|
| Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
| Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
| painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.
|
| That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

The Hell You Say!... I have it on good advise that yearly models can be
completely different in quuality, style and performance! ;-)


Nah. only Hunter pulls that crap.

SV

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

| Nah. only Hunter pulls that crap.

No Kiddin'....??!!

Isn't Hunter like the American version of Benneteau?

CM

"Capt. Mooron" wrote

Isn't Hunter like the American version of Benneteau?



No, Hunter is below Bendytoes, but above MacGregor (barely).

Scotty

how old is she?

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
My daughter likes the looks of the Mac 26'X, but she also likes the looks
of
the Toyota Echo.....

name calling? How juvenile.

SV

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Be nice Scott Venom

"FamilySailor" girlishly giggled....

hehehehe ; )

Jeff Morris wrote:
You keep claiming these are "different" boats. Whether the changes are
sufficient to call them different is academic. The bottom line, however, is
that the company has a long history of building cheap boats and making
exaggerated marketing claims targeting inexperienced sailors. Nothing seems
different in this regard.


I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats have
incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available in most
displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition forward
as did the earlier models. The Macs were one of the first cruising
sailboats to popularize the use of water ballast, the advantages of
which are so obvious that their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are
now offering it also. Further advantages include positive flotation (the
boats actually float, even if the hull is compromised. - Imagine that. -
A boat that actually floats!). Further advantages that are unique with
respect to most of their competition is the ability to "fly away" from
the "displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in
their place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).
Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc. A
still further advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to
be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles
from their usual port.

All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed over
the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition forward to
a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.

Jim

Jim


BTW, I'm not claiming that this boat is not appropriate for you, or any other
potential boater; I'm only saying that the changes are not as significant as you
(or the marketers) are claiming. Most of the problems and complaints associated
with the 26X still apply to the 26M.

comments interspersed ...

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

Doug, I don't know where you were at the time, but this was discussed
over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago. One of the strings
exceeded 600 notes. The truth is that the 26M has a completely new
hull. Differences include the fact that:

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.


200 Gallons??? That's about 27 cubic feet! I can see why they wanted to
correct that!


B. The 26M incorporating a vertically retractable dagger-board instead
of a swing keel.


Certainly this is a difference, but the drag of the slot isn't that high. The
change was really to save money.


C. The hull of the 26M has a deep-V forward configuration for minimizing
pitch, particularly when motoring. Thus, the 26X had a much "flatter"
bow configuration.


A small difference - it may help performance in a chop, but reduces speed under
power flat seas. Actually, when you look at the boats side by side its a rather
small change.

A number of powerboats offer two different hulls, but are considered the same
boat.



D. The ballast of the 26X was exclusively water ballast, the water being
let into the ballast chamber prior to sailing the boat. The 26M has
a combination of water ballast and permanent ballast built into the hull.


This was probably done because an unballasted 26X had a tendency to roll over if
several adults sat on one side. Changes like the daggerboard and V hull reduced
the stability even further.



E. The hull of the 26M has an additional layer of fiberglass, and over
100 additional pounds of resin; chain plates have been added, the
hull-to-deck joint has been modified, and the deck structure has been
modified for greater rigidity.



In other words, the 26X was too flexible?


F. In the M, a traveler has been added for providing greater control
of the mainsheet.


Useful, but not a major change.


G. The M has an axially rotatable mast, mounted on two sets of
bearings, permitting it to rotate with the luff of the mainsail.


Useful, but not a major change. One more thing to break.


H. Flotation has been added to upper sections of the mast to provide
further resistance to "turtleing." (This is in addition to the
righting forces provided by the water ballast and the permanent ballast.)


Probably required by the lawyers because of fatalities caused from the 26X
turtleing at anchor. Serious - this actually happened.



Both models incorporate the usual Mac features such as positive
flotation, trailerability, ability to move over very shallow water,
ability to be brought to the shore and beached, etc.


PLEASE NOTE: THE POINT OF THIS POST IS TO CLARIFY AGAIN THE FACT THAT
THE 26M AND 26X ARE NOT THE SAME BOAT, AND THAT THE 26M WAS NOT A MERE
COSMETIC MODEL CHANGE RELATIVE TO THE 26X. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PREFER THE
26X OR THE 26M, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD PREFER EACH OF THE ABOVE
MODIFICATIONS, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD EVER BE WILLING TO SAIL ON
ANY OF THE MACGREGORS, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE TWO BOATS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

Jim

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

Doug, I don't know where you were at the time


I do.

, but this was discussed

over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago.


Yep. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. The "completely
different hull design" is a bit of advertising fluff from MacGregor.
There are a few differences in the deck & cabin molding.

A change from a hull with a substantially flat forward contour to one
with a deep-V configuration is merely "advertising fluff", and not a
substantive, change? - It's just the same hull with new color choices?
Or, a change from pivotable keel with a hull having a corresponding
12-inch deep cavity for receiving the keel, the cavity extending five
feet along the length of the hull and containing some 200 gallons of
water is also just more "advertising fluff", and not a real physical
change? The addition of permanent ballast is also just "advertising
fluff", and not a "real" change? The incorporation of dual bearing
mounts for the mast that permit it to rotate on its major axis with the
mainsail is just "advertising fluff", and not a "real" change?

Get real Doug. You may get some "atta-boy" points from Mooron and others
with comments like those, but you have lost all semblance of credibility
and logic. (But then again, maybe what you wanted in the first place was
merely some brownie points from Moron et. al.)

Jim

Scott Vernon wrote:

"DSK" wrote

Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.


That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

SV

If they're using the same molds, how do they manage to produce a deep-V
hull with a contour substantially different from that of the 26X? And if
they're using the same molds, how do they get rid of the five-foot
cavity in which the dagger board nested in the 26X? (Maybe they use some
dry-wall compound to fill in the cavity, and then paint to match the
rest fo the hull?) And if they're using the same mold, how do they
manage to fit the dagger board housing into the hull while adding the
permanent ballast?

Jim

Capt. Mooron wrote:

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "DSK" wrote
|
| Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday I happened to walk by a
| Mac 26X and a Mac 26M parked on their trailers. Except that one was
| painted blue, there was not an iota of difference in the hull design.
|
| That's understandable as they're using the same molds for the hull.

The Hell You Say!... I have it on good advise that yearly models can be
completely different in quuality, style and performance! ;-)

Moron, has anyone ever suggested that you ought to think about spouting
off a little less, and listening to what others are saying, or reading
their notes, a little more carefully? Has anyone told you that you are
getting so full of yourself that you're actually loosing touch with reality?

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:
You keep claiming these are "different" boats. Whether the changes are
sufficient to call them different is academic. The bottom line, however, is
that the company has a long history of building cheap boats and making
exaggerated marketing claims targeting inexperienced sailors. Nothing seems
different in this regard.


I suppose that you are right in one respect. - The MacGregor boats have
incorporated a long list of advantageous features not available in most
displacement boats, and the new Mac 26M carries that tradition forward
as did the earlier models. The Macs were one of the first cruising
sailboats to popularize the use of water ballast, the advantages of
which are so obvious that their competitors (e.g., Hunter, Catalina) are
now offering it also. Further advantages include positive flotation (the
boats actually float, even if the hull is compromised. - Imagine that. -
A boat that actually floats!)

Flotation is nothing new - I sailed for a dozen years before using a boat
without positive flotation. It has long been required by law for boats a bit
smaller than yours.

. Further advantages that are unique with
respect to most of their competition is the ability to "fly away" from
the "displacement-speed-barrier" that keeps most sailboats locked in
their place (unless they are surfing down a wave during a storm).

Your boat can't do that under sail unless it is used recklessly - without
ballast in a strong wind. THis is exactly the type of exaggeration I'm talking
about. They make it sound like it performs better than any other boat, even
under sail, when in fact its a dog.


Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc. A
still further advantage is that they are trailerable, permitting them to
be conveniently relocated to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles
from their usual port.

Most of what you're talking about are standard features, long available on a
large number of boats. You can claim the 26X has a unique combination of these
features, but the question the prospective buyer must answer is whether this is
enough to overcome the obvious shortcomings.



All in all, Jeff, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Mac 26M
incorporates many of the same features and characeristics developed over
the years in earlier models. It merely carries the tradition forward to
a higher level. - Very perceptive comment on your part.

And a damning one.