Jeff wrote:
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

I love that expression "cherry-picked"! I think that would be a good
defense - "Your Honor, the prosecution is just cherry-picking. What
about the 6 billion people that my client didn't kill that night?"

substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it.

Your comment was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "


You've tried to "un-ring this bell" many times, but I think everyone
here understands what you meant.
....

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?

Once more, Jim, no one is buying it.
....


Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
....

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.

Actually, they look a lot bigger than tubes - but since my argument is
that there is a significant mass in the extremities your point really
doesn't mean much.




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.

And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound
engine hanging off the transom.


As should now be understood, the
volume and mass of the ballast is in an area slightly forward of
amidships, rather near the mast.

No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between
the mast and the bow.

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.

Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong, so
why do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the tank is
in the forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the
centerline, there is little tapering forward until you get very close
to the bow.


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

In simple English, you're saying that the water ballast is close to
the bow. Yes, that's my point exactly! Thank you!

(remembering also that the forward
portion or the tank is tapered, thereby reducing pitching inertia).

Actually, the tapering has little affect until the last few feet.

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.

Yah think???




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?

Once again, we have a case of you making a claim of and inner and
outer hull and than after you were called on that you started
backpedaling and trying to explain that its only the vulnerable part
that is "protected." In fact, now you're claiming that its only a
small portion that is protected. There are two basic facts he
First, the water ballast does not extend the full width, it is
concentrated in the middle, so that any blow off the centerline is not
protected. And while the bow area is protected, at high speed that is
lifted out of the water and thus needs no protection. And now you're
claiming there is little protection aft. And the second point is that
MacGregor itself never touts this as a feature - it one that you made
made up!

You tried to sell this one and got caught, so don't complain to me
about "ethics."


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?

Sorry Jim, this is another bell that you can't un-ring! When you made
the comment originally you were quite happy to make it sound as if the
boat had all the protection of a double hull. It was only after it
was clear that the "protection" was very limited that you admitted
that it doesn't have what is commonly referred to as a double hull.



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.

not bad so far.

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.

Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine" which
is about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern??? And what
about the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow of
the boat???

Only a lawyer could say this with a straight face!


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.)

So you're saying that in addition to having a large pitch moment it
has other problems? I was trying to deal with just one at a time.

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?

As I've said, There have been a number at the marinas I've stayed in,
but I've hardly ever seen them go out. Also, I've almost never seen
Mac owners hanging out at the dock. At my new marina there are two
in nearby slips - I've never met the owners.

In any event, I was out sailing my Mac yesterday. - When was the last
time you took your boat out Jeff?

Being in Boston, we had to haul our boat a few weeks ago. For the
last 5 years we've averaged 50-60 nights on the boat - never at the
slip, usually 50 to 200 miles away. Before that we were out for a
full year.


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.

Actually, the question at hand is whether the Mac bobs around more
than other 4000 pound boats. That's the issue of having a large
moment of inertia.

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.

I've never argued the virtues of fast powering, that by itself is a
reasonable feature. The question is, what are the other properties of
the boat, and is this a worthwhile compromise. The only way the Mac
makes sense to me is if it is trailered to different locations.
Keeping it in a slip makes no sense to me.

Doubtful... you bought a Mac.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. com...


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


On the other hand, I could be right.

Jim

JG, in my previous note I forgot to mention the safety factors entailed
with having a fairly powerful motor on the Mac. - For example, when I
had the boat out Saturday, we had a rather substantial incoming tide and
headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the way out to the
sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes. The Mac is
lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had had a 10 -
15 hp motor as is usual for boats of this size, I don't think I could
have kept it on track within the channel all the way out. Also, I would
not have been able to keep up with the other traffic going out, which
causes further problems. The reserve power is also a safety factor in
the event of inclement weather, tides, etc., out in the Bay or beyond.

As to "ranting all I want," I'm afraid you will have to get use to my
providing a little balance to these discussions from time to time. Get
over it Capt. - If you don't like my notes, you don't have to respond
to them or even read them. Better than going hyper as you seem to be
doing. Incidentally, Capt., as I recall, you have never sailed a 26M. -
Is that right? That figures.

As I have mentioned before, I had over 30 years sailing experience
before getting the Mac, having sailed on a number of medium sized and
smaller boats, including a Beneateux 39, O'Day 38/9, Valiant 40, and
various Endeavors, Cals, Catalinas, and others in the 30-34-ft range. My
point is not that I'm a great sailor, but rather, that I have enough
experience on a variety of boats to recognize the limitations of the Mac
26M. I also have enough experience on the Mac 26M to understand its
limitations, but also, to understand that sailing it is a lot of fun. -
Actually, I thought that was why most of us like to sail in the first
place.

Jim


Capt. JG wrote:

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.

Ellen MacArthur wrote:

"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

Neal, Ellen, or whoever, when did you have your bicycle (I meant boat,
of course)out last?

Jim

Oh come on... safety with a 70hp vs. a 30 or a 20? My 13hp diesel powering
my 30' sailboat is more than adequate to work against the currents and winds
found in one of the most challenging sailing areas in the US. If you had a
decent sailboat, you wouldn't have to be concerned as much with needing a
huge engine for a small job.

You're not providing balance with your rants. You're demonstrating the
lengths you need to go to to justify a severely compromised boat.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
m...
JG, in my previous note I forgot to mention the safety factors entailed
with having a fairly powerful motor on the Mac. - For example, when I had
the boat out Saturday, we had a rather substantial incoming tide and
headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the way out to the
sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes. The Mac is
lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had had a 10 -
15 hp motor as is usual for boats of this size, I don't think I could have
kept it on track within the channel all the way out. Also, I would not
have been able to keep up with the other traffic going out, which causes
further problems. The reserve power is also a safety factor in the event
of inclement weather, tides, etc., out in the Bay or beyond.

As to "ranting all I want," I'm afraid you will have to get use to my
providing a little balance to these discussions from time to time. Get
over it Capt. - If you don't like my notes, you don't have to respond to
them or even read them. Better than going hyper as you seem to be doing.
Incidentally, Capt., as I recall, you have never sailed a 26M. - Is that
right? That figures.

As I have mentioned before, I had over 30 years sailing experience before
getting the Mac, having sailed on a number of medium sized and smaller
boats, including a Beneateux 39, O'Day 38/9, Valiant 40, and various
Endeavors, Cals, Catalinas, and others in the 30-34-ft range. My point is
not that I'm a great sailor, but rather, that I have enough experience on
a variety of boats to recognize the limitations of the Mac 26M. I also
have enough experience on the Mac 26M to understand its limitations, but
also, to understand that sailing it is a lot of fun. - Actually, I thought
that was why most of us like to sail in the first place.

Jim


Capt. JG wrote:

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.

Jeff wrote:

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.

Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you stated:
that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the stern
there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it Jeff? - A
"huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of difference
in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter your arguments
about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of the boat during
pitching movement?


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.

As I said, 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.)


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.

As I have agreed all along, the Mac hull is something of a compromise. -
It doesn't sail nearly as well, or point as high, as the Valiant 40 (my
favorite). Nevertheless, it's a heck of a lot of fun to sail. (Also,
the current model, the 26M, has a substantially different hull than that
of the 26X, including a substantially deeper V configuration from the
stern to amidships.)


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 understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?



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?

What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main, and
the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise. ... Now, where is your last trip
report?

Cheers,
Jim

Capt. JG wrote:
Oh come on... safety with a 70hp vs. a 30 or a 20?

On my boat, it's safety with a 50hp as opposed to a 10 or 15 hp
outboard. Those with 70hp or above are using their larger motors to get
across open water quickly with heavy loads, e.g., to Catalina Island,
or for water sports, etc.


My 13hp diesel powering
my 30' sailboat is more than adequate to work against the currents and winds
found in one of the most challenging sailing areas in the US. If you had a
decent sailboat, you wouldn't have to be concerned as much with needing a
huge engine for a small job.


You've got a heavier, conventional boat with weighted keel, and you
don't need as much power to get through chop, etc. By contrast, I have a
lightweight (4,000 lb) boat with high freeboard that needs the power to
get through currents, tides, and/or unfavorable winds. I'm also able to
cruise to a desired sailing area or back to the marina at 14 knots if
desired.


You're not providing balance with your rants. You're demonstrating the
lengths you need to go to to justify a severely compromised boat.


Well, once again, if you don't like my notes, you don't have to read or
respond to them at all, Ganz. - There are lots of other discussions in
progress on the ng that might be of interest to you.

Jim

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:

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.

Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you stated:
that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the stern
there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it Jeff? - A
"huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of difference
in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter your arguments
about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of the boat during
pitching movement?

I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need to
fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?

And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


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 understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?

7.5 to 9 knots in most conditions, though in a breeze its seen 13+ knots.

The powercat with twin 100's cruises at 16-18 knots, using only 4
gal/hour. They originally offered smaller engines, but found the big
ones actually had better efficiency, so there was little point.

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

What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main, and
the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise.

Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

... Now, where is your last trip
report?

No reports this summer, my spare time (and a chunk of the cruising
time) got preempted by family issues. However, here's the most recent
set of pictures:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Summer_06/summer_06.html

In years gone by I've posted a few reports each summer, such as this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...994c6e8d4fd9bf
or this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4bf089a2629977


If you want to see a long trip report, here's two.
First, a delivery from Toronto to New Bedford:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Delivery/delivery.html

And then a long trip:
http://www.sv-loki.com/The_Trip/the_trip.html

Exactly my point... due to bad compromises you're forced to use a huge
engine when on a sailboat that actually has the potential to sail well, a
smaller engine would do.

Why would anyone want to "get back at 14 knots" unless they have a powerboat
mentality?

It's Captain Ganz to you Jimbo.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Capt. JG wrote:
Oh come on... safety with a 70hp vs. a 30 or a 20?

On my boat, it's safety with a 50hp as opposed to a 10 or 15 hp outboard.
Those with 70hp or above are using their larger motors to get across open
water quickly with heavy loads, e.g., to Catalina Island, or for water
sports, etc.


My 13hp diesel powering
my 30' sailboat is more than adequate to work against the currents and
winds found in one of the most challenging sailing areas in the US. If
you had a decent sailboat, you wouldn't have to be concerned as much with
needing a huge engine for a small job.


You've got a heavier, conventional boat with weighted keel, and you don't
need as much power to get through chop, etc. By contrast, I have a
lightweight (4,000 lb) boat with high freeboard that needs the power to
get through currents, tides, and/or unfavorable winds. I'm also able to
cruise to a desired sailing area or back to the marina at 14 knots if
desired.


You're not providing balance with your rants. You're demonstrating the
lengths you need to go to to justify a severely compromised boat.


Well, once again, if you don't like my notes, you don't have to read or
respond to them at all, Ganz. - There are lots of other discussions in
progress on the ng that might be of interest to you.

Jim

"JimC" wrote
| Neal, Ellen, or whoever, when did you have your bicycle (I meant boat,
| of course)out last?

It's Ellen! Ellen MacFitness. Funny you should ask....
I just got back from a 36 mile bike ride. Me and a friend ride most every day. We usually
only go 25 miles but today I lost her. I turned around and looked after a fast sprint and she
wasn't anywhere to be seen. So I went back and forth about five miles looking for her. Thought
she might have flatted or had to stop to pee. But she was nowhere to be found. Turned out her
lungs were bothering her and she couldn't keep up so she turned around and went back without
hollering out or anything. She said it felt like the flu coming on or something. I was happy she
was OK.
Guess what my top speed was. No, higher. It was 36.3mph. I bet none of you big strong
men can do that. Guess how many calories I burned up. 2,376. Guess what my average speed
not counting the back and forth slow for looking was. 21.6mph. Now you know why my legs
and butt look so good. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen