"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
JimC wrote:

Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng,
I know of none
who have actually sailed the 26M.

There was a 26X at my old marina for several years - I
even got a bit
friendly with them and had hopes of getting a ride, but in
two years I
only saw them out of the slip once. (Curiously, it was
when we were
dashing in to beat a major thunderstorm, and they were
headed out. I
hoped they were actually headed to the local ramp to haul
out.)

I thought my luck would change at my new marina when I
realized there
were two Macs within a few slips. In this case I never
saw the
owners, and to my knowledge, each one only went out once
last summer.


A dock neighbor once commented that he almost always sees my
boat in the slip. He was a weekend warrior, and I usually
go out during the week.

Scotty

JimC wrote:
(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive answers, just avoid
answering the questions. - Post some more propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the fastest
sailboat"? Or maybe your references to how the water ballast
"begins to work after being lifted above the waterline"?

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

DSK

JimC wrote:
Interesting. Because of all the Mac-Bashers on this ng, I know of
none who have actually sailed the 26M.


I guess having seen several of them sailing many times
doesn't count? BTW did you ever substantiate *any* of your
claims abot the differences between the 26X and 26M other
than the hull color & the (cough) rotating mast?

FWIW I have sailed the 26X a couple of times as well as
sailing in company with them amny times over most of a decade.

Jeff wrote:
There was a 26X at my old marina for several years - I even got a bit
friendly with them and had hopes of getting a ride, but in two years I
only saw them out of the slip once.

Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat
that makes so many compromises to be trailerable, then
keeping it in a slip.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat
that makes so many compromises to be trailerable, then
keeping it in a slip.


Uh oh, where's Scout?

Scotty

DSK wrote:

Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat that makes so
many compromises to be trailerable, then keeping it in a slip.

Not all the compromises are geared soley toward trailerability. For
instance:

o The near-rectangular cross-section gives roominess below.

o The ability to drain the ballast tank, unstep the mast and
turn it into a powerboat.

o The ease of stepping and unstepping the mast if you sail where
there are low bridges.

o Swing up centerboard for getting into (and out of) shallow areas.


All of the above compromises give a certain result that may be desirable
to some. All inhibit sailing performance, but performance isn't the
last word in picking a boat.

And for someone like me who wants to keep their boat right on the water
for easy access, but who takes half a dozen trailering excursions a
season, trailerability & renting a slip aren't necessarily incompatible.

Of course, I'd never own a Mac 26X or 26M.
It has a *motor*. Yeech.

//Walt

For the record, let me say that I have seen Scout's boat,
and it sure ain't no Mac26X!



Frankly I don't understand the "logic" of picking a boat that makes so
many compromises to be trailerable, then keeping it in a slip.


Walt wrote:
Not all the compromises are geared soley toward trailerability. For
instance:


Agreed.

o The near-rectangular cross-section gives roominess below.


Umm, yes... but hey it really doesn't pound in big waves!
Really!!

And that is somewhat of a compromise oriented towards
trailering, it makes it very easy & cheap to make a trailer
that fits the hull


o The ability to drain the ballast tank, unstep the mast and
turn it into a powerboat.


Agreed.

o The ease of stepping and unstepping the mast if you sail where
there are low bridges.


Agreed... although if you couldn't unstep & lower the mast,
trailering would be MUCH more difficult.


o Swing up centerboard for getting into (and out of) shallow areas.


Agreed again, but also (again) lack of this would make
trailering much more difficult.

Some of the features of the Mc26X (and/or M) are synergistic
with trailerability & some other function... but those are
all features shared by MANY other trailerable boats.

That is why I say it's a cult. They acknowledge no other
possibility and declare that their faith trumps facts which
are obvious to other people.



And for someone like me who wants to keep their boat right on the water
for easy access, but who takes half a dozen trailering excursions a
season, trailerability & renting a slip aren't necessarily incompatible.


Yes they are, dammit. Don't be a fence-straddler!


Of course, I'd never own a Mac 26X or 26M.
It has a *motor*. Yeech.


The first boat I ever owned with a motor was after 25 years
of sail-only (and a few row-only or paddle-only) boats, and
one of the first things we did was take the motor out.

Of course, another decade or so went by, and I realized that
motors were not inherently evil...

DSK

But he won't do more sailing than any other trailerable sailboat,
he'll just go slower and have a harder time steering. Why do people
have to act like the Mac26 is the *only* trailerable sailboat?


CJH wrote:
Sorry, just catching up. I couldn't find my thread.

I told you, those darn cultists are pernicious!

... No I haven't
joined the cult just yet. There are too many things to consider and
will have analysis paralysis for a while. So what are the
recommendations for other trailerable sailboats suitable for a family of
four as described in my initial post. If I carry a dingey with motor my
kids would be satiated.

Get a hell-for-leather sport boat then your kids would
probably have fun blasting past the motorboats with
asymmetric spinnaker. A Henderson 33 or SR-33 or Melges 32?
They're a bit pricey though.


... Don't worry about tow weight too much, F-350 SD
Diesel can pull quite a bit. I don't want to break the bank on my first
boat. I have some experience but would like to cut my teeth for 2-3
years and then break the bank.


OK
Another question I have is, what are your tastes?
Traditional? How about this?
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1441758
or this one (no trailer included it looks like, but these
boats are made to be trailerable
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1468052

Or if your tastes are mor emodern, here's a boat that blow
the doors off a Mac26X (or -M) with their motor at full throttle
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1572063

Or one of these (these boats are actually changing hands in
the mid to upper teen$ so are not as expensive as you might
think)
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1479746

Here's a nice conventional sloop, good performance (popular
racing class, in fact) that should be roomy enough
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._boats=1593489

There are a LOT of options out there in the price range of
the Mac 26X, or much cheaper (look for a Mac 25 swing keel,
a good performing boat and the basis of two later model
MacGregors). It may take a bit of hunting but the more
leg-work you do, the better of a boat you'll find.

Hope all the BS that popped up in this thread didn't totally
turn you against sailing, or this ASA newsgroup. The Mac26X
is a controversial boat and attracts doo-flinging. Check out
the Sailing Anarchy forums on the subject and you'll see
some real artists (and cultists) at work.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:
(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive answers, just
avoid answering the questions. - Post some more propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the fastest sailboat"? Or
maybe your references to how the water ballast "begins to work after
being lifted above the waterline"?

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

I missed that comment the first time around. I'd like to see a
stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.

And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:
(Helpful hint: Since you won't have any substantive
answers, just
avoid answering the questions. - Post some more
propaganda.)


You mean like "the Mac 26 will arrive ahead of the
fastest sailboat"? Or
maybe your references to how the water ballast "begins
to work after
being lifted above the waterline"?

Cast that beam out of thy eye, Jim!

I missed that comment the first time around. I'd like to
see a
stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high
center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.

And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all
the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment
at all.

I think they're including the holding tank on that one.

I used to have a Mac 26D for 10 years and found it a great lake boat as it
only need 18" water and to tow was a dream as you don't need a truck (we
used a Van) because when the water is out, the tow weight is 2500 lbs. while
catalina and Hunters require 3 feet of water but then they are better built
and are heavyer to tow.

The reason I sold the Mac is I now have a Catalina 310.

"CJH" wrote in message
...

Thanks Jim. Interesting comments.