JimC wrote:


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







I was just joking around Jim. The thread has gone on way longer tha I
expected and broken up into so many different discussions...I was trying
to be silly.

"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.


This has gotta be a Capt. JG sock puppet. The real Capt. JG would never
say something that made so much sense......


Cheers,
Ellen

"JimC" wrote
| it gives Mac-bashers
| who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn their noses up
| at Mac owners.

Oh? I guess not wanting to be seen with stupid people with lame-o boats
isn't reason enough? :-)

Cheers,
Ellen

JimC wrote:


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

Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims
the lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is
249 with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There
really isn't a lot of difference in weight.

ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.

There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a
diesel could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes
little to the pitch moment.


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.)

Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think
that if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3
time the power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or
maintenance costs, etc., most would take it. The problem is that most
hulls are designed for sailing, not powering at high speed. The Mac
made a number of compromises - a flat "powerboat" hull, no external
ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing ability.

My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin
100's into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods,
created a best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well
for monohulls.



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

So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

Capt. JG wrote:
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.

Nothing to do with sailing? Sure it does, Capt. - If you can't get out
to the sailing area with time for sailing, and return in time to get
guests home in time to get to the opera or theater (or wherever), you
can't go sailing as often.


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.



Yes, the boat entails compromises, but it's still a lot of fun to sail.

Actually, if we are honest, all boats are compromises Capt. - For
example, the 40-ft Valiant I liked so much entailed a number of
"compromises." For example, it couldn't motor faster than 7-9 knots, if
that, so getting it out from the marina to where we sail, and getting it
back, took quite a long time. - You would have to consider carefully
whether you had the time to get it out and back and cleaned up before
deciding to go out on an afternoon. Also, the draft was so deep that,
at low tide, I couldn't make it through the channel leading to a
preferred anchorage in the Galveston area. Further, because of its
weight and size, it usually required at least one additional crewman
when maneuvering into and away from a dock. Additionally, the costs of
upkeep, bottom treatment, slip rental, etc., were substantial. - In
contrast, I don't suffer from those "compromises" with my Mac. -

I can get out to sailing areas at speeds of 13-14 knots, and similarly
return to the dock after sailing, even in rather breezy weather, so I'm
able to get out and sail even when I can only spare a few hours.
Regarding the "compromise" of not being able to navigate channels at low
tide, on the Mac I can easily raise the dagger board somewhat and motor
through waters of two - three feet. (A big advantage when the local
marina has no more transient slips available.) Moreover, the boat is
small enough for easy single-handed sailing and docking, in contrast
with the larger and heavier boat, which is "compromised" in that it
usually requires putting together a crew before going out. (In my case,
I can go out with or without a crew.) The Valiant was a great sailing
vessel and could reach nine knots in a good wind, but it took a rather
long time to get there. - In contrast, I feel the acceleration and the
effects of the wind more quickly and more directly in the Mac (making it
more like a sports car rather than a Lincoln Town Car or Suburban,
etc.). - Sort of a personal preference thing, of course.

As to the "compromise" of high expenses for maintenance, slip fees,
etc., I pay $70 per month to keep my boat in a lot. Launching involves
merely hooking up to the trailer and towing it 100 yards to the ramp. No
bottom treatments are necessary, no wear and tear in a slip, no
continued salt water exposure, and I don't have to run down to the boat
to move it or chain it down when we get storm warnings. Again, the
"compromises" experienced with a larger conventional vessel are largely
avoided.

Capt., I had my 26M out Saturday, sailing in 15-kt winds. Some of the
heavier, conventional boats (with twice the water line) were faster and
probably pointed higher, but I still had a great day of sailing. - Which
is what I bought the boat for in the first place.

Jim

Jim, you can rant all you want, but yours is the a very restrictive
application for a compromised vessel. It's not a great sailing vessel; it's
not a great power boat. In fact, it kinda sucks at both.

All your efforts at supporting your boat must take away from your sail time.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
om...


Capt. JG wrote:
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.

Nothing to do with sailing? Sure it does, Capt. - If you can't get out to
the sailing area with time for sailing, and return in time to get guests
home in time to get to the opera or theater (or wherever), you can't go
sailing as often.


rant removed

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.


I wouldn't mind having a 70hp engine in our 36 foot boat


JimC wrote:
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


In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far
forward, as Jeff was contending earlier.


Jeff wrote:
Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims the
lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is 249
with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There really
isn't a lot of difference in weight.


Big difference in efficiency, though.


ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.


There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a
diesel could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes
little to the pitch moment.


Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far
aft, it's hard to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing
performance.



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,

Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always
thought that had to do with the basic rig design... aspect
ratio, sheeting base, etc etc... keel foil configuration
plays into it somewhat I'm sure, but how does the wind know
(and why would it care) about the weight of the keel?

Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to
windward very well? We already know that's true of the M26X.

... I doubt seriously that the
weight of the motor is a major factor.

OTOH those of us who have been rigorously schooled to sail
*well* have been taught to keep weight out of the ends of
the boat. Any one design racer will have seen (if he's paid
the slightest attention) a boat with crew sitting spread
fore & aft getting passed by a boat with two guys sitting
close together.


... Rather, it's the compromises
relating to the internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of
weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)


Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have
never heard of "the metacentric effect."



Jeff wrote:
Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think
that if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3 time
the power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or
maintenance costs, etc., most would take it.

Sure. Why not? I'm not sure there's any way to seperate the
added horsepower from the added speed & fuel usage though.


... The problem is that most
hulls are designed for sailing, not powering at high speed. The Mac
made a number of compromises - a flat "powerboat" hull, no external
ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing ability.


Ever seen the hull of an 18-footer skiff? They are very wide
& flat aft. Of course, they are *also* designed to generate
significant amounts of horsepower from their rig, and can
plane readily. The Mac26-M is not and can not.


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin 100's
into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods, created a
best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well for monohulls.


I'm not so sure it can't... I am sure that it can't be done
both well and for cheap. A smallish motorsailer that had
very good sailing performance might be quite a nice boat,
but it would look more like a Melges 24 than a Mac26-M.



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


So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

Maybe he's too busy having fun?

Frankly, I have had a good time sailing two shipping pallets
skinned with roofing paper & a bedsheet sail. It was like
a really cheap little scow. So I can believe that Jim enjoys
sailing his Mac26-M. However I am not spending the rest of
my life boasting about what super-dooper hot performing
sailing machine that 1-hour scavenged scow was. JimC seems
to be trying to convince others (maybe himself?) of several
claims that contradict the obvious truth.

DSK

Neither would I. I just don't want one on a 26'er.

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

"DSK" 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.


I wouldn't mind having a 70hp engine in our 36 foot boat


JimC wrote:
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


In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far forward, as
Jeff was contending earlier.


Jeff wrote:
Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims the
lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is 249 with
transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There really isn't a
lot of difference in weight.


Big difference in efficiency, though.


ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.


There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a diesel
could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes little to
the pitch moment.


Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far aft, it's hard
to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing performance.



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,

Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always thought that
had to do with the basic rig design... aspect ratio, sheeting base, etc
etc... keel foil configuration plays into it somewhat I'm sure, but how
does the wind know (and why would it care) about the weight of the keel?

Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to windward very well?
We already know that's true of the M26X.

... I doubt seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.

OTOH those of us who have been rigorously schooled to sail *well* have
been taught to keep weight out of the ends of the boat. Any one design
racer will have seen (if he's paid the slightest attention) a boat with
crew sitting spread fore & aft getting passed by a boat with two guys
sitting close together.


... Rather, it's the compromises relating to the internal ballast,
trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)


Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have never heard of
"the metacentric effect."



Jeff wrote:
Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think that
if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3 time the
power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or maintenance
costs, etc., most would take it.

Sure. Why not? I'm not sure there's any way to seperate the added
horsepower from the added speed & fuel usage though.


... The problem is that most hulls are designed for sailing, not powering
at high speed. The Mac made a number of compromises - a flat
"powerboat" hull, no external ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing
ability.


Ever seen the hull of an 18-footer skiff? They are very wide & flat aft.
Of course, they are *also* designed to generate significant amounts of
horsepower from their rig, and can plane readily. The Mac26-M is not and
can not.


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin 100's
into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods, created a
best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well for
monohulls.


I'm not so sure it can't... I am sure that it can't be done both well and
for cheap. A smallish motorsailer that had very good sailing performance
might be quite a nice boat, but it would look more like a Melges 24 than a
Mac26-M.



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


So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

Maybe he's too busy having fun?

Frankly, I have had a good time sailing two shipping pallets skinned with
roofing paper & a bedsheet sail. It was like a really cheap little scow.
So I can believe that Jim enjoys sailing his Mac26-M. However I am not
spending the rest of my life boasting about what super-dooper hot
performing sailing machine that 1-hour scavenged scow was. JimC seems to
be trying to convince others (maybe himself?) of several claims that
contradict the obvious truth.

DSK

"Charlie Morgan" wrote
| Can you imagine someone posting in a group of bicycle enthusiasts
| raving about how great his moped is?


You are BRILLIANT!!! I've been thinking all along something like that. I just couldn't
put it in words. It didn't gel in my brain. Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

Cheers,
Ellen

Capt. JG wrote:
Yes, you could be wrong.


On the other hand, I could be right.

Jim