Jeff, this note included your misleading comments on a number of
subjects, and I have tried to address most of them. Because of your
lengthy comments, the response is also lengthy. - Perhaps it would be
more helpful if you would limit each response (if you choose to respond)
to one or two subjects per note.

Jim



Jeff wrote:

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?"

By "cherry-picking", I refer to the fact that you keep repeating the
statement quoted below, but you totally ignore the other statements I
made during that discussion in which I said that the warnings,
particularly those relating to sailing the boat without ballast, should
be observed. - You also ignore the instructions IN THE MAC OWNERS'
MANUAL about motoring without the ballast. - Cherry-picking at it's
best, Jeff.

- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:

"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.) - What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

On the other hand, IF you are suggesting that the warnings should be
strictly followed under all circumstances, then you should tell us which
portion of the warnings you want us to follow. - Are you talking about
the part that advises us never to use the boat without the water
ballast, or, conversely, are you talking about the sections that tell us
about using the boat without the water ballast? - You can't have it both
ways, Jeff. "


Here's some more detailed discussion of the same matter (again, posted
over a year ago, and conveniently ignored by you):


"- But if
you insist, ONCE AGAIN, the fact that the warnings obviously had legal
overtones, and the fact that they are contradictory, doesn't mean that
they should be ignored or dismissed out of hand. The fact that I suspect
that they have at least a partially CYA purpose also doesn't mean that I
would ignore the warnings, when taken IN CONTEXT with the rest of the
owners manual. For example, at page 1 of the owners manual for the 26M
it states IN BOLD, UNDERLINED PRINT, that THE BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE
FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING. This warning clearly states that
the tank should be full under all circumstances.

But on the same page, the manual also states that: "THERE MAY BE TIMES
WHEN YOU WISH TO OPERATE THE BOAT WITH AN EMPTY BALLAST TANK For
example, when puling a water skier, when trying to conserve fuel, when a
faster ride is desired, ..." Obviously, when read in context, the first
statement is meant as a general warning, with apparent legal
overtones, which is expected to be read in light of the second section
dealing with operation of the boat WITHOUT the water ballast, under
certain conditions. - Once again, Jeff, the fact that the initial
warning may have been inserted at least in part with legal
considerations in mind, and the fact that I suspect it was, DOES NOT
mean that it should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it's clear
from the SECOND statement that, in fact, it is recognized [by MacGregor]
that the boat can be operated without the ballast under certain
conditions. Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?



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.


(In other words, I didn't say they could be innored, and you can't find
any such statement.)
...

Jeff, I asked you whether you thought MacGregors' attorneys were not
involved with the inclusion of those warnings. - You never answered me.
- Why?



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.

Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the crew/guests/skipper,
not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed solo). The motor is
slightly farther aft, but not much. (The captains seat is about a foot
forward of the motor.)



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.

The first and second "station" are substantially the same. Additionally,
the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned 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.


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.


Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches 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.


In the Mac, the "last few feet" comprise a substantialy proportion of
the distance from the mast to the bow.


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."

You quote from an ongoing discussion on this ng as if every time I post,
they each of my notes should be scrutinized and foot-noted, as if I were
drafting a legal brief to be sent to the Supreme Court. In the
discussion to which you refer, I made the point that the Mac has what is
in essence a double hull. - WHICH IS TRUE. Then, during the ongoing
discussion, I explained that the ballast tank served to provide the same
function as a double hull, in that if the outer hull below the tank was
compromised, water would not be let into the hull. Jeff, don't you think
that you ought to refer to my comments during the entire discussion,
conducted months ago, rather than leap gleefully on one introductory
comment of mine? From an ethical standpoint, wouldn't that be the thing
to do?



In fact, now you're claiming that its only a small portion
that is protected.

Nope. It's rather a large portion. - (In fact, you claimed the ballast
extended along the entire length of the boat.)



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.

If the bow is lifted out of the water, the Mac "double hull" can provide
protection if the boat runs into or over a floating object. - My
experience is that some of them are hard to see, even at slow speeds.


And now you're claiming there is little
protection aft.

Most impact would occur forward of amidships, Jeff. - Unless you were
sailing backwards.

And the second point is that MacGregor itself never
touts this as a feature - it one that you made made up!


I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire boat
has a double hull.

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


The ethics problems are your own, Jeff, not mine. - See below.


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.

See earlier discussion. You cherry-picked one introductory statement
and ignored a numberof later ones.


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.

Here's the original note:



"Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a
lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted boat having a 1-foot (you read
right) minimal draft with its dagger board up, and a 5-foot draft with
the board down. It's termed a power-sailor, in that it can be powered at
15 - 20 mph with a 50 hp outboard quickly delivering you to a desired
sailing area. It can then be sailed in the desired sailing area, then
beached for picnics, etc., and then brought back to shore and stored on
its trailer out the water (minimizing maintenance and marina fees). With
a new 50 hp motor, the new models won't be available for $5,000, however.

Despite the derogatory remarks you will see on this board regarding the
Macs, more of them are sold each year than almost any other sailboat of
comparable size. In addition to its versatility, the Macs can be pretty
exciting to sail. As mentioned above, under power, in certain
conditions, they can be brought to a plane, even with a full water
ballast tank. It has sufficient bunk space to sleep 6, plus another two
in the cockpit, although you probably wouldn't want to sail for an
extended trip with more than two to four. It isn't a racer, and it
doesn't have the room and stability of a 40-foot cruiser, so I don't
think you should try to sail to England, or South America on such a
boat. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, you probably won't get 6' 4"
headroom on a small boat, although with the top pushed forward on the
Mac, you will.

As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper
who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the
boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank. Additionally, the
mast is partially foam-filled, thereby resisting a complete "hurtling"
of the boat under a broach. Additionally, the boat includes sufficient
built-in foam floatation to keep the boat afloat even if its hull is
severely compromised during a collision, etc. In other words, whereas
most of the boats mentioned on this ng will quickly sink to the bottom
if their hulls are compromised due to their heavily weighted keels, the
MacGregor will stay afloat.

One thing you should be aware of relative to the Macs. - Despite (or
maybe because of) their popularity around the world, some of the old
salts on this ng will ridicule your choice of a Mac from now till the
cows come home. Its one of the few amusements that seems always to
interest them, - Keep in mind, however, that most of them have never
sailed the Mac 26M model. In fact, to be honest about it, most of the
Mac-bashers on this ng really don't know their ass from a hole in the
ground. It's always interesting to see their reaction when they are
asked for some evidence to back up their wild statements about the Macs.
(Such as their being light, under built, etc.) - Usually, they have no
evidence whatsoever, and resort to wild and irrelevant anecdotes. (Fyi,
the Macs are a light boat, so, of course, they use relatively light and
simple standing rigging, etc.)

More importantly, the Mac 26M is roomy, comfortable, and fun and
exciting to sail.

Jim"

It's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by 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???

Nope.


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?
---

---snip----

Jim

JimC wrote:
But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)


If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be on
the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side. Regarding
my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and licensing
attorney, not a trial lawyer.

So what part of my (admittedly unfounded) claim that the forces of
wrong can afford more lawyers? You're just proving my point that
many lawyers will lie steal and cheat to win. It seems to be in their
blood.


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.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.


Totally irrelevant.

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
It's built to sail and motor as efficiently as possible with the
compromises inherent for it's intended use. In general, it's well
balanced,it doesn't "pitch" excessively, and it is fun to sail.

And once again, you prove my point that you will blatantly lie in
order to claim that, as you say, you "seldom loose." The issue has
nothing to to with "balance," it has to do with distribution.

I told you to learn about "moment of inertia" and you even posted the
fundamentals. Its clear, however, that you didn't bother to read it.


Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,
or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.

Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?

Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that your
standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail, even when you know
you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying
because I'm having fun."

The reason I
bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race it.) Also, I
believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for sailing, and
smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as efficient) as the
older model.

That's like saying that a piece of **** can be good when judged
against another piece of ****. I think I see your point there, Jim.

If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)


So, what's your point. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size range wouldn't be as comfortable
or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. Plus, it's lots of fun to sail.

Half the time you claim your boat is fast, the rest of the time you
claim your boat is slow but you don't care. This discussion was
specifically about how the distribution of mass affects stability and
performance, and all you shown is that you have no concept of these
matters, nor do you care.




However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with generator,
fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the same as a
modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this
is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits
and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel
generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a
huge weight advantage on that front.


That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.

Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull supporting
its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers lie, aren't
you?

You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard, and
that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do with the
possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the distribution.

And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be
a single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your
outboard.




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.

Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:


No, that wasn't the specific quote, but it was one of several.
Actually, I objected to the claim that the high speeds could be used
when returning in bad weather. Given all of the warnings about
running at high speed or without ballast in chop over one foot, this
appears unrealistic, if not impossible.


Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without the
ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.

There is no doubt that it can be fast in flat water and unloaded. Of
course, put that engine on a proper powerboat and you'd do about 40
knots, so what's your point?

I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the Bay,
and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I didn't have
the throttle wide open.)

yada yada yada

bragging that you can power faster than sailboats. impressive.

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)



If there are lawyers representing both sides, how can more lawyers be
on the "wrong" side? - Some of them must be on the "right" side.
Regarding my particular specialty, I was an intellectual property and
licensing attorney, not a trial lawyer.


So what part of my (admittedly unfounded) claim that the forces of wrong
can afford more lawyers? You're just proving my point that many
lawyers will lie steal and cheat to win. It seems to be in their blood.

Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng. - I hardly have
time to discuss the Mac. But I do remember that the usual quote from
Shakespeare - "The first thing we'll do, let's kill all the lawyers"
was from the thieves and robbers who didn't want lawyers interfering
with their "businesses".


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.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.



Totally irrelevant.


Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


And once again, you prove my point that you will blatantly lie in order
to claim that, as you say, you "seldom loose." The issue has nothing to
to with "balance," it has to do with distribution.

I told you to learn about "moment of inertia" and you even posted the
fundamentals. Its clear, however, that you didn't bother to read it.


Either you're too stupid to follow the discussion,

or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously the
boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.


And just how would you redistribute the mass, Jeff? - Where would you
move the outboard, and where would you move the ballast?

The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do. If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time. It's
relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the costs of new
boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not compare the
costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly
equipped. And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?


Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that your
standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail, even when you know
you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying because
I'm having fun."


Jeff, we may have differing opinions, and you seem to have confused your
own opinions as facts, but would you please name the more egregious
instances of my lying? Perhaps you could list the top ten instances?

The reason I bought the boat is to have fun sailing it, not to race
it.) Also, I believe that the new 26M hull is more efficient for
sailing, and smoother when plaining(though perhaps not quite as
efficient) as the older model.


That's like saying that a piece of **** can be good when judged against
another piece of ****. I think I see your point there, Jim.

If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being
more uncomfortable.)



So, what's your point, Jeff. The 26M was built as a family cruiser, not a
racer. Most racing boats in this size and price range wouldn't be as
comfortable or as roomy or as versatile as the Mac. (Plus, it's lots of
fun to sail.)


Half the time you claim your boat is fast, the rest of the time you
claim your boat is slow but you don't care. This discussion was
specifically about how the distribution of mass affects stability and
performance, and all you shown is that you have no concept of these
matters, nor do you care.


The boat is fast enough to be fun to sail, Jeff. It's not as fast as
some other boats, but it's still fun to sail. - Isn't that the important
factor.? (Actually, I wasn't having too much problem keeping up with
some, though not all, of the larger boats on my last cruise.)





However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about
the same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?



I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of
this is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few
extra bits and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since
the diesel generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one
can claim a huge weight advantage on that front.



That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull supporting
its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers lie, aren't you?

It has enough.


You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard, and
that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do with the
possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the distribution.

As to the relative weight, it seems that you want us to accept your
personal opinions about how much the typical diesel engine for a small
sailboat weighs from your single example, which omitted the necessary
weight of the drive shaft, the mounting, etc.. From your note, it seems
that you are saying that I should just shut up and accept your
propaganda based on that example. - Perhaps it would clarify things if
you provided some stats about the weight of several typical diesel
installations on smaller boats. (Including ALL associated components,
including drive shaft, cooling system, through-hull components, fuel and
water filters, pumps, mounting structures, controls, fuel tanks, etc.)
Remember also that the Mac, with its light weight and high freeboard,
needs reserve power for control and to get through chop, adverse winds,
etc. (And to avoid going through the usual discussion of why the Mac
should have been designed differently to avoid such limitations in the
first place, I acknowledge that the high freeboard is a disadvantage,
but it's also an advantage in that the boat is roomy and comfortable and
includes an unusually large cabin. - The light weight and lack of
weighted keel are disadvantages, but they permit convenient tailoring,
motoring or sailing in shallow waters, and high-speed motoring, etc.)
As previously noted, my comments on this ng are intended to help provide
a balanced representation of the Mac (missing in other discussions), not
to claim it has no limitations.)


And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be a
single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your outboard.

Care to provide specs on a few examples, Jeff, along with their gross
weight? And, as mentioned above, remember that the Mac, with its high
freeboard and light weight, needs substantial power to get through chop
and adverse wind conditions, to stay on course in extreme weather, and
to dock efficiently. - A small diesel isn't going to cut it. Also, a
small diesel isn't going to get the boat on a plane either. - No more
quick runs back to the marina, no quick passages to desired skiing
areas, no water tubing for the kids, etc.)

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.


Here's the quote to which you apparently refer:


No, that wasn't the specific quote, but it was one of several. Actually,
I objected to the claim that the high speeds could be used when
returning in bad weather. Given all of the warnings about running at
high speed or without ballast in chop over one foot, this appears
unrealistic, if not impossible.


Incidentally, in notes on the MacGregor discussion groups, speeds of
over 20 knots are being reported when sailing without the ballast, and
with a larger motor. - I personally haven't wanted to motor without
the ballast so far, but I'll give it a try this Spring.


There is no doubt that it can be fast in flat water and unloaded.

I was referring to comments of Mac owners about powering from California
to Catalina and elsewhere with full loads at high speed, but without
ballast. Flat water, Jeff? All the way to Catalina?


Of course, put that engine on a proper powerboat and you'd do about 40
knots, so what's your point?

Most owners of 26-foot cabin cruiser power boats seem to use two or
three outboards substantially larger than mine, or large
inboard-outboards. Don't think your plan (one 50 hp outboard) is going
to work Jeff.


I was still doing substantially more than any other sailboat on the
Bay, and there were plenty out there. (And as mentioned above, I
didn't have the throttle wide open.)


yada yada yada


And, despite the "yada yada yada", ..... doesn't that example indicate
that the Mac has obvious advantages relative to its capabilities under
power? I think most unbiased readers would acknowledge that fact.

bragging that you can power faster than sailboats. impressive.

You didn't quite get it, Jeff. I was responding to your remarks to the
effect that the Macs can't power efficiently under severe weather
conditions. (On this trip we had chop, white-caps, winds sufficient to
convince skippers of several larger boats to sail with only a main or
jib, and I was motoring under partial power.) You introduced the topic.
You then tried to put me down, referring to (selected portions of)
remarks of mine posted over a year ago, because I was "only" doing 13
knots. - I merely responded.


Jim

Still waiting for your answer Scotty.

Jim





JimC wrote:



JimC wrote:



Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Two questions Sotty:

(1) What percentage of those comments relate to the



current Macs (the 26M)?


100%



(2) How many of the quotes were from individuals who had



actually

sailed the Mac, and in particular, the 26M?




5




Scotty, to make sure I'm not misinterpeting your note, are you saying
that five of your six quotes were from individuals who had sailed a
MacGregor 26M?

Jim


It's a simple yes/no question Scotty. - Answering it will take only a
few moments of your time.

Jim

JimC wrote:
Jeff, this note included your misleading comments on a number of
subjects, and I have tried to address most of them. Because of your
lengthy comments, the response is also lengthy. - Perhaps it would be
more helpful if you would limit each response (if you choose to respond)
to one or two subjects per note.

Jim, not a single one of my claims is misleading. Yours, on the other
hand, speak volumes about your ethics.


Jeff wrote:

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?"

By "cherry-picking", I refer to the fact that you keep repeating the
statement quoted below, but you totally ignore the other statements I
made during that discussion in which I said that the warnings,

Sorry, I really don't understand your point. You claimed that some of
the warnings made can be ignored, by saying there were analogous to
warnings to wear the seatbelt on an exercise machine.

particularly those relating to sailing the boat without ballast, should
be observed. - You also ignore the instructions IN THE MAC OWNERS'
MANUAL about motoring without the ballast. - Cherry-picking at it's
best, Jeff.

I'm not cherry picking, you're the one who says that some warnings can
be ignored.


- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:

"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.)

Gee, how many times do I have to repost your comments? I post them,
you delete them. Over and over.

- What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

You said:
"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. "

Everyone, except perhaps a lying lawyer, would understand that to mean
that the warnings can be ignored. Are you telling me that you assume
everyone wears a seatbelt on the exercise machine? Are you saying
that everyone who reads that should be thinking "Yes, I always wear
the seatbelt on the exercise machine so these must be real serious
warnings"???

Do you really expect anyone to buy that Jim?

snip lawyer talk that everyone knows can be ignored


Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?


blah blah blah. You're arguing this as a lawyer. This is why lawyers
are considered by many to be the Scum of the Earth. Is that what you
are, Jim?

Everyone reading this knows you're digging this hole deeper and deeper
with everything you say. And yet you continue. Did they teach you
that if you lie often enough someone will believe you?

I made the point that the Mac comes with a long list of warnings not
found on other boats, and possibly not well understood by novice
boaters. You've been going around in circles now for years claiming
that first that these warnings can be ignored because they're just
lawyer talk, then saying they can't be ignored, then saying that
they're only there to protect from law suits.

The bottom line is that what I said in the beginning still holds.


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.


(In other words, I didn't say they could be innored, and you can't find
any such statement.)

You said:
"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. "

Gee, this is easy. You're really a masochist. Or do you think ...
well, I don't know what you think. Any reasonable person would say,
"Ooops, I made a mistake, better not go there any more."

Anyone who reads this knows what you said, why one Earth would you
deny it???

...

Jeff, I asked you whether you thought MacGregors' attorneys were not
involved with the inclusion of those warnings. - You never answered me.
- Why?

What's the point? How is it relevant? Are you claiming that the
warnings can be ignored because a lawyer wrote them? Are you claiming
lawyers are liars?


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

Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the crew/guests/skipper,
not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed solo). The motor is
slightly farther aft, but not much. (The captains seat is about a foot
forward of the motor.)

What a crock of ****. Do you actually read the stuff you write?
Since the moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the
distance from the center of mass, the mass of the engine is actually
equivalent to a mass 4 time larger but half the distance to the center
of mass. In other words, the engine on the stern contributes roughly
the same to the moment as crew that would equal the safe limit of the
boat.

You can't take a very light boat, and then claim that the heaviest
feasible motor hung as far aft as possible only has negligible affect.
Unless of course, you don't care if everyone thinks you're an idiot!


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.

The first and second "station" are substantially the same.

You're ****ting me, right? I mean you have looked at the diagram?

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Or are you just assuming that someone out there hasn't looked and
might believe you? The diagram pretty clearly shows a much larger
cross section at the first station, perhaps almost double that of the
second.


Additionally,
the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned near the mast.

We're not talking about the 300 pounds of permanent ballast. We're
talking about the amount that is forward. You've got 1150 pounds to
distribute. The diagram clearly shows the largest cross section of
the tank at the first station, halfway to the bow. You're claiming
there's very little aft. That would seem to imply 300 or so pounds in
the far forward area. You can babble all you want, but it doesn't
change that fact.

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm


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.


Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches the bow.

The largest cross section is already way forward. QED. End of story.
The best that you can claim is that there isn't much in the last
few inches. This is hundreds of pounds of ballast where a normally
ballasted boat has no extra mass.

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


In the Mac, the "last few feet" comprise a substantialy proportion of
the distance from the mast to the bow.

yada yada yada. We're talking distance from center of mass which is
the center of flotation. If there is nothing submerged, that implies
that the center of mass is further aft. You loose.


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."

You quote from an ongoing discussion on this ng as if every time I post,
they each of my notes should be scrutinized and foot-noted, as if I were
drafting a legal brief to be sent to the Supreme Court. In the
discussion to which you refer, I made the point that the Mac has what is
in essence a double hull. - WHICH IS TRUE. Then, during the ongoing
discussion, I explained that the ballast tank served to provide the same
function as a double hull, in that if the outer hull below the tank was
compromised, water would not be let into the hull. Jeff, don't you think
that you ought to refer to my comments during the entire discussion,
conducted months ago, rather than leap gleefully on one introductory
comment of mine? From an ethical standpoint, wouldn't that be the thing
to do?

why? It doesn't change anything. You tried to claim:

"the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank."

You were quite happy to leave the reader with the impression that this
is a double hull, which has a very specific meaning in marine
terminology. This is 6 months after I, and others, had already called
you on this, so if this does not make you a blatant liar, I don't know
what does.




In fact, now you're claiming that its only a small portion
that is protected.

Nope. It's rather a large portion. - (In fact, you claimed the ballast
extended along the entire length of the boat.)

Yes I did, and you corrected me on that.

BTW, what the area is, it doesn't include the majority of the outside
waterline, since the ballast runs down the center. Every case I've
ever seen of a major hull breech has been on the side where there is
no protection.




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.

If the bow is lifted out of the water, the Mac "double hull" can provide
protection if the boat runs into or over a floating object. - My
experience is that some of them are hard to see, even at slow speeds.

If this is such a strong feature, why is it never mentioned in the Mac
literature. Could it be that its a bogus safety feature?



And now you're claiming there is little
protection aft.

Most impact would occur forward of amidships, Jeff. - Unless you were
sailing backwards.

This is clearly not true for a boat that is planing.



And the second point is that MacGregor itself never
touts this as a feature - it one that you made made up!


I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire boat
has a double hull.

You were quite happy to word it in such a way as to leave that
impression, while still maintaining denyability.




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


The ethics problems are your own, Jeff, not mine. - See below.

Yes, we know you have no problem with 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.

See earlier discussion. You cherry-picked one introductory statement
and ignored a numberof later ones.

So? I ignored your comments after it was pointed out that you initial
comments were bogus. Your backpedaling is not a fun target. However,
6 months later you came back again with our "double liner" comment.



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.

Here's the original note:
....

As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper
who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the
boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank.
....

It's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a double hull.

First of all, that was 6 months after we had a lengthy discussion on
the topic, so you're lying when you say that was the original note.

Secondly, you obviously have no trouble wording that so that one might
assume the "double liner" actually covers the hull, not a small
portion of it. You could have easily said that there is "partial
protection" but you preferred to use terminology easily confused with
"double hull" which you know has a very specific meaning in the
nautical world.

But then, I can see how these little problems would not concern you.


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???

Nope.

Again, reality has no place in your logic, does it?

JimC wrote:
Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng.

Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:
.... The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.

By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


But not as much fun as a boat that sails better.

What is pitching "excessively"? Enough to notice? Enough to
cause ridicule by other sailors?

If the boat's moment of inertia is too high, then the boat
sails slowly and pitches more than it would if the weights
were closer to the hull's center of volume.

In other words, the hull, motor, and ballast, are inherently
flawed in design to enable the big heavy motor. A
compromise, not an efficient or effective design.


JimC wrote:
The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do.

It also doesn't do a few basic things that most sailboats
do; and of things that most sailboats do well, it does poorly.




.... If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time.

Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would probably be more
popular.


.... It's
relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the costs of new
boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not compare the
costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly
equipped.

It's cheap compared to motorboats of similar cabin size.
*That* is the key selling point, plus the bonus that
trailerable motorboats of similar cabin room require a much
heavier & more expensive towing vehicle.


And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


If you're not picky.

DSK

JimC wrote:
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.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.



Totally irrelevant.


Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be balanced,
under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.
By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.

Nice backpedal. It clearly isn't what you meant the first few times
around, but if you think it saves some face for you, so be it.

or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously
the boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and an
engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass would
lead to a boat that sails better.


And just how would you redistribute the mass, Jeff? - Where would you
move the outboard, and where would you move the ballast?

I would not have designed this boat at all, so don't asked me have I
might change it. All I wanted to do when I started this topic of
discussion was to rationally consider how the different weight
distribution affects stability and balance. But you wanted to turn
this into something quite different.


The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do. If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time.

That's nonsense!!!

It's relatively inexpensive,

debatable

if you are willing to compare the costs of new
boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not compare the
costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly
equipped.

So why do they seem to depreciate twice as fast as other boats?


And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.

only for those with low standards.


Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?


Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that your
standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail, even when you know
you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying
because I'm having fun."


Jeff, we may have differing opinions, and you seem to have confused your
own opinions as facts, but would you please name the more egregious
instances of my lying? Perhaps you could list the top ten instances?

Being a clever lawyer, you word things so that they will be taken one
way, but you can claim you said something different. Your comment
above about balance was one such example. The "double liner"
discussion is another. Your claim that the outboard is much lighter
than a diesel is another. Your claim that the ballast is very close
to the center is yet another.

They question is, Jim, when have you been completely truthful?


The boat is fast enough to be fun to sail, Jeff. It's not as fast as
some other boats, but it's still fun to sail. - Isn't that the important
factor.? (Actually, I wasn't having too much problem keeping up with
some, though not all, of the larger boats on my last cruise.)

All boats are fun to sail. That's not the point. You make lots of
claims, and then try to write them off by saying, "but its fun to
sail." What's your point?







However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about
the same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?



I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of
this is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few
extra bits and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since
the diesel generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel,
one can claim a huge weight advantage on that front.



That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.


Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull supporting
its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers lie, aren't
you?

It has enough.


You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard, and
that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do with the
possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the distribution.

As to the relative weight, it seems that you want us to accept your
personal opinions about how much the typical diesel engine for a small
sailboat weighs from your

I was quoting from the Yanmar specs, using the most frequently spec'd
diesel for small sailboats. Originally I mentioned to two cylinder
version, because you had asked what someone had in their boat. But
for one as light as the Mac, a one cylinder could do.

single example, which omitted the necessary
weight of the drive shaft, the mounting, etc..

I mentioned to driver shaft. However, the weight on that could vary a
lot, and its so low it could be considered ballast.

From your note, it seems
that you are saying that I should just shut up and accept your
propaganda based on that example. - Perhaps it would clarify things if
you provided some stats about the weight of several typical diesel
installations on smaller boats. (Including ALL associated components,
including drive shaft, cooling system, through-hull components, fuel and
water filters, pumps, mounting structures, controls, fuel tanks, etc.)

More lies! I mentioned that the weight for a diesel doesn't include
several items, including the drive shaft. It does include most of the
others you've mentioned - fuel filter, cooling system, pumps,
alternators etc. Some of what you claim are needed for your
installation. Are you trying to claim there is no mounting hardware
or reinforcement, no controls, no fuel tanks? How about the fact that
the gas engine needs twice the fuel?

And of course, the primary issue here is that the weight of the diesel
is well forward, while the outboard is as far aft as possible.




And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be
a single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your
outboard.

Care to provide specs on a few examples, Jeff, along with their gross
weight?

The Yanmar 1GM is 179 pounds with transmission.


And, as mentioned above, remember that the Mac, with its high
freeboard and light weight, needs substantial power to get through chop
and adverse wind conditions, to stay on course in extreme weather, and
to dock efficiently. - A small diesel isn't going to cut it. Also, a
small diesel isn't going to get the boat on a plane either. - No more
quick runs back to the marina, no quick passages to desired skiing
areas, no water tubing for the kids, etc.)

Hey, you're the one who brought this up. You claimed your engine was
much lighter than the diesel on most similarly sized sailboats. I
pointed out you're wrong.

JimC wrote:
And you have sailed the 26M how many times?


The same number of times you have, judging by how well
you've observed the boat's characteristics.

However, I have not ridden in one with the big white flappy
things up.

DSK

DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:

And you have sailed the 26M how many times?


The same number of times you have, judging by how well you've observed
the boat's characteristics.

However, I have not ridden in one with the big white flappy things up.

DSK



Real cute Ganz. When you have sailed one, let me know.

Jim

DSK wrote:

JimC wrote:

Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng.


Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:

.... The boat is built to be balanced, under sail or power, with the
motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.


By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


But not as much fun as a boat that sails better.

And you have sailed the 26M how many times, Ganz?

What is pitching "excessively"? Enough to notice? Enough to cause
ridicule by other sailors?

Actually, I have sailed a number of different boats. I am familiar with
the sailing characteristics of the Beneteaux 39, the O'Day 39, the
Valiant 40, the Cal 32, and a number of others. I can assure you Ganz
that "pitching" is not a problem on the Mac 26M.


If the boat's moment of inertia is too high, then the boat sails slowly
and pitches more than it would if the weights were closer to the hull's
center of volume.

In other words, the hull, motor, and ballast, are inherently flawed in
design to enable the big heavy motor.


Yes, but they aren't flawed. And, once more, how many times have you
sailed the 26M?



JimC wrote:

The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do.


It also doesn't do a few basic things that most sailboats do; and of
things that most sailboats do well, it does poorly.

And how many times have you sailed the 26M? How many hours?


.... If serves the needs of most sailors, under the conditions
experienced 90% of the time.


Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would probably be more popular.


If popularity is a factor, then you lose. The Mac is one of the most
popular boats ever built.


.... It's relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the
costs of new boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not
compare the costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M
similarly equipped.


It's cheap compared to motorboats of similar cabin size. *That* is the
key selling point, plus the bonus that trailerable motorboats of similar
cabin room require a much heavier & more expensive towing vehicle.

In this case, I tow and launch the boat with a conventional Mercury
sedan. - No pickup needed. But I don't think that is the "key selling
point." The key selling points include the fact that it's fun to sail,
it's versatile, it's safe (including sufficient flotation to keep it
afloat even if the hull is compromised, it can be used as a coastal
sailor or power boat, it has five berths, it can float in one foot of
water, it can motor out to a desired sailing area quickly, and motor
back quickly, to permit more sailing time, it's dagger board, motor, and
rudders can be adjusted as desired for particular sailing conditions,
the ballast can be removed to reduce the weight of the boat for
tailoring, it can be launched in very little water (in contrast to many
"trailerable" boats), it rides low on the trailer, providing safer
trailering, it includes a rotatable mast, permanent ballast plus
removable water ballast, roomy cabin with standing headroom, etc., etc.
Also, it's fun to sail.

Jim










And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


If you're not picky.

DSK