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! ;-)

CM


Sorry to intrude on your trip, Mooron, but can you be just a little more
specific? Do you dispute ANY of the differences noted below?

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into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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, ability to plane under
power, etc.

"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into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted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?

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



Jim Cate wrote:
Really? And could you be just a little more specific?

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

...

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.

And did I say that the Mac's are the ONLY boats to provide positive
flotation, Jef? I can't seem to find a statement to that effect in my
previous note. - What I DID say was that the Macs included that
particular advantage. And if you're honest, you will admit that only a
relatively small number of cruising sailboats incorporate positive
flotation. - If you don't believe me, try conducting a poll of this
newsgroup, asking them whether their boats would float if the hull were
compromised. Or whether their boat would quickly sink to the bottom
under such circumstances.


As I said, flotation is required on smaller boats, and is pretty standard on
trailer boats and water ballast boats. In fact, I would guess that most boats
26 feet and under that don't have significant ballast have positive flotation.

Although not common in larger boats, my boat is 36 feet and has positive
flotation. It would not sink if the hull was compromised.


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.


Once again, Jeff, did I say that I was talking about planing UNDER SAIL?
The facts are that very few of the boats owned by contributors to this
ng could plane REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE POWERED OR UNDER SAIL. -


Again, my boat will fly away from the "displacement-speed-barrier," and it will
do it under sail. A few days ago I averaged over 9 knots for about 15 miles
under main alone.



Unless, of course,they were caught in a storm and planing down a wave.
It's also true that the Mac CAN plane under sail, under certain
conditions.


That's not what most of the owners report. I've only heard of this when sailing
without ballast in strong winds, a practise considered rather dangerous for a
Mac.





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.

Really Jeff? Why don't you ask the contributors to this ng whether their
boats can be beached for picnics,


My boat can be beached.


float in one foot of water,


Mine takes almost 3 feet, but with the optional daggerboards its about 18
inches. Funny, though, they only called it a different version of the same
boat!


trailered


Mine is too big to be trailered, but others of its style can be.


down the coast to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles away, etc.
The point isn't that the Mac is the only boat to incorporate each and
every feature named above. Rather, the point is that it offers a package
of advantageous features not often available in a 26-foot cruising
sailboat.


Actually, almost all of the features can be had in other boats. There are only
two things that make it unique: First, the hull sacrifices considerable sailing
performance to give speed under power. However, the claims of speed are
exaggerated, since they are based on a totally stripped boat; in reality they
are only about 50% faster than many sailboats under power. Second, they are
built to a lower quality standard than many boaters consider prudent. This
allows them to be cheaper, and allows you to claim that this is a unique
combination that no other builder can match.



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.


And what are those shortcomings, Jeff?


Very poor performance under sail. Serious stability issues - the 26X has been
known to roll over in clam conditions. Poor resale - I've seen 5 year old 26X's
offered for about half price.

If the Macs are that dangerous, and that poorly built, there must be
hundreds of Mac owners who are killed or injured every year. How many
people have been killed or injured this year, Jeff? It must be something
like the casualty reports from Iraq. - Three Mac owners killed to day
when their Mac fell apart in 20-knot winds. - Mac skipper and three
guests drowned today when their Mac hit an obstruction and sank; Four
childred killed today in their Mac 26., etc., etc. (Gee, I must be
missing something, because I haven't been getting these casualty
reports.) Regarding resale, Mac 26Ms equiped and with motor advertised
on yachtworld.com are selling for around $30K. 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. 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.


(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.


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.



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 believed
all the hype. They added a traveler and you think its a performance machine.

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

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.)


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. This
price is somewhat higher, but the depreciation is probably less.


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


Jim

Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Really Jeff? Why don't you ask the contributors to this ng whether their
boats can be beached for picnics,


I have a dinghy for that.


float in one foot of water,


I need 3'.


trailered
down the coast to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles away, etc.


down, up, over to the left coast, anywhere I want.


Can you sail into an anchorage without being laughed at?

SV

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

Jim

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

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.


You really are addicted to Macgregor advertising, aren't you?


... 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.


Except that the Mac 26X was so poorly designed that it needed to have
lead ballast added.

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

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.


... Further advantages include positive flotation (the boats actually
float, even if the hull is compromised.


Imagine that... I've been sailing boats with positive flotation since
about 1968.

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. Other boats have them, but
few boats of this size have the overall package, and few offer them at
anywhere near the price.





... 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).


If that's true, then why is the Mac 26X and Mac 26M so slow under sail,
compared to other boats of similar size? You don't have to look ver far
at all to find 26' boats that will sail rings around it.


Although it isn't a racing sailboat, it is faster under power than 90%
of cruising sailboats, certainly faster than 90% of the boats discussed
on this ng. And it CAN escape the hull speed limits in which most boats
discussed on this ng are actually imprisoned. - Care to race under
power, Doug? Under sail, it isn't going to win the Americas cup, but
it's fast and responsive enough to be fun, exhilarating, and challenging.

... Still further advantages include the ability to float in waters as
shallow as one foot, and to be beached for picnics, camping, etc.


Comes in very handy, but it's hardly unique to MacGregors. There are
quite a few centerboarders that can be beached, including some 40+ footers.


And of course, I didn't say it was unique to the Macs, did I? But if you
were honest, Doug, you would admit that most cruising sailboats don't
have such capabilities.

... 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.


Comes in handy as long as you have a behemoth SUV to tow it. We used a
minivan with a V-6 for our trailerable... got about 25 MPG with it. It
is nice to be able to cruise far waters on a short vacation.

But again, this is hardly unique to the Mac 26X or Mac 26M. If you knew
more than what Macgregor told you, you'd find that out.

Actually, I don't have a "behemoth SUV" at all, Doug. And I do just fine
with our family sedan. With respect to trailerability, what is unique
with the Mac relative to most boats of this size is that its weight is
substantially reduced by removing the water ballast, and that it sits
very low on the trailer. Again, if you were honest, you would admit
that the combination of features provided in the Mac26M is unique
relative to MOST cruising sailboats of this size.


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 when are you going to actually look at a Mac 26X and compare hull
shapes, and realize it's the exact same as your boat? Not very
perceptive on your part.


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.

Jim

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


If you can point to errors in my notes, I'll accept that criticism.
Until then, however, you are just another of the "Moorons" who aren't
willing to put up or shut up.


Hey Jim... I have pointed out many of your errors and you seem very
hostile to new ideas...


You pointed to some errors, alright. But if you quote my notes as they
were written (instead of screwing them around) they weren't errors
posted by me.

Jim

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?


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. 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.


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'.


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.

DSK

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

...

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.

And did I say that the Mac's are the ONLY boats to provide positive
flotation, Jef? I can't seem to find a statement to that effect in my
previous note. - What I DID say was that the Macs included that
particular advantage. And if you're honest, you will admit that only a
relatively small number of cruising sailboats incorporate positive
flotation. - If you don't believe me, try conducting a poll of this
newsgroup, asking them whether their boats would float if the hull were
compromised. Or whether their boat would quickly sink to the bottom
under such circumstances.


As I said, flotation is required on smaller boats, and is pretty standard on
trailer boats and water ballast boats. In fact, I would guess that most
boats
26 feet and under that don't have significant ballast have positive
flotation.

Although not common in larger boats, my boat is 36 feet and has positive
flotation. It would not sink if the hull was compromised.


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.


Once again, Jeff, did I say that I was talking about planing UNDER SAIL?
The facts are that very few of the boats owned by contributors to this
ng could plane REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE POWERED OR UNDER SAIL. -


Again, my boat will fly away from the "displacement-speed-barrier," and it
will
do it under sail. A few days ago I averaged over 9 knots for about 15 miles
under main alone.



Unless, of course,they were caught in a storm and planing down a wave.
It's also true that the Mac CAN plane under sail, under certain
conditions.


That's not what most of the owners report. I've only heard of this when
sailing
without ballast in strong winds, a practise considered rather dangerous for
a
Mac.





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.

Really Jeff? Why don't you ask the contributors to this ng whether their
boats can be beached for picnics,


My boat can be beached.


float in one foot of water,


Mine takes almost 3 feet, but with the optional daggerboards its about 18
inches. Funny, though, they only called it a different version of the same
boat!


trailered


Mine is too big to be trailered, but others of its style can be.


down the coast to a desired sailing area hundreds of miles away, etc.
The point isn't that the Mac is the only boat to incorporate each and
every feature named above. Rather, the point is that it offers a package
of advantageous features not often available in a 26-foot cruising
sailboat.


Actually, almost all of the features can be had in other boats. There are
only
two things that make it unique: First, the hull sacrifices considerable
sailing
performance to give speed under power. However, the claims of speed are
exaggerated, since they are based on a totally stripped boat; in reality
they
are only about 50% faster than many sailboats under power. Second, they are
built to a lower quality standard than many boaters consider prudent. This
allows them to be cheaper, and allows you to claim that this is a unique
combination that no other builder can match.



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.




And what are those shortcomings, Jeff?


Very poor performance under sail. Serious stability issues - the 26X has
been
known to roll over in clam conditions. Poor resale - I've seen 5 year old
26X's
offered for about half price.

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

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.



(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.


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.






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
believed
all 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.

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!


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!



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.





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.
This
price is somewhat higher, but the depreciation is probably less.


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

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

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

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

BTW I have a folder of boat brochures here, largely due to people giving
them to me. The Mac 26M has a mast that is approximately 1.5' longer
than the 26X. That's a substantial redesign, doncha think? The mast has
none of the features of the rotating mast Jim claimed. Wide spreaders,
swept back lowers, etc. The lead ballast is 300# yet the boat is only
200# heavier, dry weight. That means they took out 100# of fiberglass
somewhere... hmmm...

DSK