Wow... never realized how expensive they are... there a lots and lots of
better boats out there for that and less.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but
hey they're cheap &
readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for
Catalina or Hunter for
the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be
ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

Jeff, I have had other matters to take care of the past several days
(including cooking Thanksgiving dinner for family and guests, and also
taking the boat out), and I have been somewhat derelict in not
responding to some comments in your more recent notes. -

Jeff wrote:


I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored. Unless, of course, it can be used to
save the company when children die as the boat rolls over in calm
weather. It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your
need. Is that what you learn in lawyer school?

Sure thing Jeff. - Of course, it's clear that you cherry-picked and
substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it. In fact,
in the very discussion from which you quote, I made that point quite
clear. What I said was that, IMHO, attorneys were involved in the
wording and display of the warning, and that in later sections of the
owners' manual instructions are given for motoring WITHOUT the water
ballast! (Incidentally, Jeff, do you actually think that attorneys were
NOT involved in this matter?) As far as my own interpretation and
practice, I have never sailed or motored my Mac 26M without the ballast,
though I would not be adverse to motoring WOB in relatively calm
conditions. I note that many other Mac owners routinely motor the boat
without the ballast. Also, remember that the 26M includes substantial
permenant ballast that remains without the water ballast.

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?
Or were you confusing your own particular interpretation of supposed
implications with what I actually said? Also, why would you stoop to
cherry-pick that one statement, when you know full well that my further
statements during that particular discussion made it quite clear that I
certainly did not think the warnings should be ignored?


It starts at the bow, and it ends at the stern. The diagram clearly
shows the water ballast running the entire length of the boat. If
anything, it looks that the tanks is deepest in the forward area.
The cross-section at the forward station under the hatch appears to
be by far the largest, indicting that a large portion of the water
ballast is forward.

Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
please tell us if there's any other way to interpret this?


Yes, there is another way to interpret it. - The correct way. The Mac
26M has a a drainage opening and large gate valve positioned on the
lower portion of its transom, the purpose of which is to permit the
ballast water to drain out of the tank when desired. The narrow,
elongated, cross-hatched "bulges" shown at the bottom of the hull in
cross-sections 4 and 5 are actually channels that conduct ballast
water from the ballast tank to the drainage opening when the bow is
elevated. When the gate valve on the stern is opened with the boat
sitting on a launch ramp, for example, water from the ballast tank is
permitted to drain out through the drainage valve, a process that
takes about 4 minutes. - In other words, the cross-hatched portions
you interpreted as being part of the ballast tank are actually
conduits that communicate with the ballast tank for permitting the
ballast water to drain out, but they are not part of the tank itself.
And, because of their small volume, they have little effect on the
distribution of mass along the longitudinal axis of the boat.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast. Of
course, my point has really been that there's a lot forward of the mast,
so you just helped prove my point.

I think it's pretty clear by now that you lost on that point, Jeff. The
sections you thought were extensions of the ballast tank were drainage
tubes for permitting the tank to drain out the valve on the stern when
parked on the launch ramp.

More significantly, your original theory was that, because the ballast
extended "the entire length of the boat," you thought it would
contribute to pitching of the boat. As should now be understood, the
volume and mass of the ballast is in an area slightly forward of
amidships, rather near the mast. Moreover, the ballast tank is tapered
at its forward and rear end portions, further reducing the mass of
ballast spaced furthest from the central or largest portion, thereby
lessening the moment of inertia of the ballast when the boat pitches
upon a wave, etc. As to the fact that the ballast tank extends forward
to the bow, two factors apply. First, the distance from the longitudinal
center (largest or widest portion) of the ballast tank to the bow is
substantially shorter then that to the stern, so it's appropriate that
the ballast tank extend to the bow (remembering also that the forward
portion or the tank is tapered, thereby reducing pitching inertia).
Secondly, for balancing the boat in the water to compensate for the
weight of crew and motor at the stern, it would again be appropriate to
position the longitudinal center of mass of the ballast tank somewhat
forward along the length of the hull.


And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

And with a 250 pound engine hanging of the stern, that's a lot of
mass in the extremities.


Nope. The boat is designed to be balanced fore and aft with an
outboard and several persons in the cockpit.


Jeff, you again misquote what I said to make your point. - I never said
that the "entire boat" was protected by a doubled hull. Only that
adjacent the ballast tank. - Do you have any ethics at all?

You also again cherry picked the statement you relied on, since in later
portions of that discussion some months ago I made it quite clear that
the boat didn't have a doubled hull protecting the entire boat. - But
you knew that when you decided to misrepresent and cherry pick my
statement, didn't you Jeff? You shamelessly misquote and cherry-pick
when you think you can get by with it. - Do you have no self-respect
whatsoever, Jeff?


In other words, you are totally ignorant of the concept of "moment of
inertia." Perhaps you should take some time off now and review basic
physics. This is the central issue of the discussion, and now you're
confessing that you have no idea what its about. Good one, Jim.

...

Additionally, the heavier, permanent ballast is positioned
amidships, below the mast.



Just where ballast should be. Good for them.


As noted above, the boat is designed to be balanced with an outboard
and with several persons in the cockpit. And it is.


Yes, the large mass in the stern (the engine) is nicely balanced by the
large mass of the water ballast in the bow. Now explain to us the
meaning and significance of "moment of inertia."


Moment of inertia in this context relates to rotational inertia, that
is, the tendency of the boat during pitching movement to keep rotating,
or pitching, in the same rotational direction. The moment of intertia of
a body with respect to any axis is the sum of the products obtained by
multiplying each elementary mass by the square of its distance from the
axis. Since it's proportional to the square of the distance from the
axis of pitching rotation, MacGregor's design (positioning most of the
mass near amidships rather than evenly distributed along the entire
length of the boat) was proper.

Incidentally, Jeff, there are other forms of inertia (e.g., resistance
to upward and downward movement, resistance to deceleration of the boat
during forward movement) that are in some respects disadvantages to
small, light boats such as the Mac. As I have consistently stated, the
Mac has good and bad features, and one of the disadvantages to any light
boat is that it doesn't sail as steadily, with as much forward momentum,
as does a large, heavy vessel. (You would have done better to ignore the
ballast issue altogether and concentrated instead on some of the
obvious disadvantages of small, light boats.)


Jeff, I've sailed many boats. The Mac 26M doesn't pitch excessively
and doesn't pitch more than most others. (Have you sailed the 26M? -
No?)


I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out.

Really? And do you have any evidence to back up that bit of propaganda?
In any event, I was out sailing my Mac yesterday. - When was the last
time you took your boat out Jeff?



I have
sailed by them a number of times and they do seem to bob around more
than heavier boats.

Actually, it's probably true that the Macs, weighing only around 4,000
pounds with ballast and crew, "bob" around more than a 20,000 lb vessel.
Then again, its also true that a Ferrari or Porsche weighs less than and
has a stiffer ride than a Lincoln Town Car. It sort of relates to
personal taste, and what you're going to do with the vehicle or vessel.
For example, I motored back to the marina at around 13 knots, despite
rather choppy water conditions, which gave me more time out on the Bay
for sailing.



And, when did you last have your eyes examined, Jeff?


Funny thing, as I've grown older my vision has improved. Now I spend
most of the time without wearing the glasses I've worn since I was ten.
I guess that means I've just gotten smarter.


Interesting. I also stopped wearing glasses several years ago. - Does
that mean I'm getting smarter too?

Jim

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:48:01 -0500, DSK wrote:


Positive flotation probably wouldn't be offered by manufacturers
voluntarily.




It already is, by several. Sadler & Etap spring to mind.




http://www.mikelucasyachting.co.uk/story.htm


The point I was trying to make is that, although it's possible in a
larger boat, there are costs to pay in terms of lost space for
provisioning, costs of additional structural detailing, etc., that have
until now discouraged most manufacturers of larger boats from including
it. As mentioned above, buyers don't seem to want to pay these costs or
accept the compromises involved.

Jim

Scotty wrote:

I think my boat, even on the bottom of the ocean, would
still sail better than a Mac 26 XM.


Scotty


In a downward direction?

Jim

Scotty wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but

hey they're cheap &

readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for

Catalina or Hunter for

the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be

ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

Of course, the 26X's were replaced by the current 26M's several years
ago, so you would have a difficult time getting a new 26X. Used 26X and
26M's are, of course, available for less. In my case, the cost new
(which was less than $30K) included Garmin GPS chartreader, additional
depth and knot-meter, autopilot, radio, stereo, roller furling, all
lines aft, reefing system, three sails, five berths, safety equipment,
trailer, and new 50 hp outboard.

Costs more than other boats? Compare apples to apples. - Compare the
costs of a new, well equipped Mac with new 50-70 hp motor to that of
other new boats of similar size and equipment, and with comparable
accommodations.

Jim

I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a 70hp
engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Scotty wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

Why hate MacGregors... or Ventures?
They're the Wal-Mart of boats. Not all that good, but

hey they're cheap &

readily available.

One can generally obtain an aging, but well-cared for

Catalina or Hunter for

the same money. Better value, and you don't have to be

ashamed to sail one.


a new 26 x is around $30k, there are lots of used, but nicer
*real* boats for that kind of cash.

SBV

Of course, the 26X's were replaced by the current 26M's several years ago,
so you would have a difficult time getting a new 26X. Used 26X and 26M's
are, of course, available for less. In my case, the cost new (which was
less than $30K) included Garmin GPS chartreader, additional depth and
knot-meter, autopilot, radio, stereo, roller furling, all lines aft,
reefing system, three sails, five berths, safety equipment, trailer, and
new 50 hp outboard.

Costs more than other boats? Compare apples to apples. - Compare the costs
of a new, well equipped Mac with new 50-70 hp motor to that of other new
boats of similar size and equipment, and with comparable accommodations.

Jim

CJH wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.


I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.

Macgregors are the BEST sailing ships ever constructed. !!


Actually, CJH, such Mac discussions have been going on for over 10 years
on this ng. - You merely gave everyone an excuse to jump in (jump on,
actually) once again.

No, in my opinion the Macs aren't the best sailing ships ever
constructed (personally, I prefer a cutter-rigged Valiant 40), but they
are a lot of fun to sail. Although I could be wrong, I think Mac owners
sail their boats more often, on average, than owners of many others. -
I had mine out yesterday in some fairly decent winds, for example,
having a great time.

Jim

Yes, you could be wrong.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


CJH wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Scotty wrote:

"Jeff" wrote

Everyone reading this knows I'm right and that just
makes you look like an asshole in addition to being an

idiot.


We knew that before, but thanks for reinforcing it.


I nominate Scotty as an impartial mediator in this dispute.


Note to self: NEVER, upon pain of death, ask another question about a
Macgregor! Such controversial subjects cause neurological damage and an
utter lack of civility.

Macgregors are the BEST sailing ships ever constructed. !!


Actually, CJH, such Mac discussions have been going on for over 10 years
on this ng. - You merely gave everyone an excuse to jump in (jump on,
actually) once again.

No, in my opinion the Macs aren't the best sailing ships ever constructed
(personally, I prefer a cutter-rigged Valiant 40), but they are a lot of
fun to sail. Although I could be wrong, I think Mac owners sail their
boats more often, on average, than owners of many others. - I had mine out
yesterday in some fairly decent winds, for example, having a great time.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a 70hp
engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend
to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight of
the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a 27-29
ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.

The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives Mac-bashers
who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up
at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as conventional
boats with weighted keels, I doubt seriously that the weight of the
motor is a major factor. Rather, it's the compromises relating to the
internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The
metactric effect.)

The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.

Jim

Sorry, but a 26' sailboat has no business owning a 70 hp engine. Sure, you
can get home or get to your destination in a hurry, but it has nothing to do
with sailing. The whole boat is a compromise that anyone with any sense of
what sailing is all about would only accept in a very, very narrow set of
circumstances.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a
70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend to
"lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight of the
outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a 27-29 ft
boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better positioned.

The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives Mac-bashers
who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up at
Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as conventional boats
with weighted keels, I doubt seriously that the weight of the motor is a
major factor. Rather, it's the compromises relating to the internal
ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The metactric
effect.)

The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.

Jim