Motor Sailer - Macgregor 26X

Peppermint · 30 Apr 2004

Re: Satisfaction

The joy of sailing one of these hybrid boats is not going to set your heart a dancing. The accomodation is alright but it's not special.

One of these great 4 stroke outboards is going to be pretty expensive to run compared to many diesels and you can't always get the fuel near the water. So it could be hernia time. They were designed for USA use where this isn't a problem.

From boat show observation these things are not exactly over built.

From Solent observation they appear to go sideways a lot.

I doubt if many sailors buy them.

<hr width=100% size=1>

boatless · 30 Apr 2004

Please understand that I am not knocking the Mac26x, as has been said, it is a very different boat, and more or less unique in what it offers.

This particular Mac owner, however...

Frank "Mullett" Mighetto and his astonishing MacGregor 26x. He is barking mad.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm>http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.

Miquel_Culzean · 30 Apr 2004

I bought a MacGregor 26X last year January; this is the second year we use it.

In my past, I had sailed in various sailboats, ranging from 23' to 42'. At home there has always been a motor boat.

We are a family of 6 (2 girls of 13 and 2 boys of 8, my wife and myself). We keep it in the water in The Netherlands from April to October, with the exception of 15 days in July, when we go on holidays with the boat to the Mediterranean, and some long weekend where we like to do some sightseing in channels.

Up to now, we are all very happy of the choicee we made. Even if it is really crowded with the 6, (I would not do it with 6 adults), it is only when sleeping that you feel it. The children are just dreaming of next summer, and for me that says a lot.

It is not the best sail boat I have been in, but we use it mainly for sailing. It's a compromise, and for me, in order to have the family sailing also and willing to spend the holidays in the boat, it had to be roamy, and be trailorable, so that we can change every summer of location. When looking for the boat to buy(second hand), I simplily didn't find any other that could have all this requirements together (including a good price).

I hope that helps. Fair winds,

Miquel
Culzean

<hr width=100% size=1>

TrailerSailer · 30 Apr 2004

Hi,

If you are not after speed under power then could I suggest the Sportina 760. Appreciate that it is way above you're budget, but possibly not too far adrift from the Mac or Odin once they've had their specs upgraded. Inboard diesel and it sails well. Heavy needing a Discovery or similar to tow, but accommodation is good quality and (at a pinch) capable of squeezing a family of 6 in for a long weekend. As a single person it would offer good space for days on end. The smaller Sportinas are probably best classed as day sailers, but could be OK and are within the price range.

Peter

<hr width=100% size=1>

mighetto · 27 Sep 2004

Hello boatless. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. The material on http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm has been extensively reviewed by probably 1000 readers and commentators at http://www.sailinganarchy.com and http://www.sailnet.net. I am not the authority on the vessel but there are only a dozen or so with more time on the water, than I, in this controversial vessel. There will be updates to my web site based on research over the summer and perhaps folks here can assist with those updates.

Let me start what I hope will be more than a monolog by saying that if you take a US Sailing trained keel boat sailor and put them in one of these X boats, they will hate them. The most common error is optimum heel. So I do not falt testors at PBO for inacuracies in reporting. I do falt them for not indicating that the read the owners manual, however. Beginers do better than the keel boat trained in Mac26x cruisers because they read the operating manual before setting sail. The keel boat trained have a lot of unlearning to do before they can be considered competent testers.

The manufacturer claims really are worthy of being considered truth.

Let me next state that many if not most experienced Mac26x sailors now recognize that it was the objections of US Sailing's director of Research, a man named Jim Teeters, that caused the halt of production of the Mac26x.

The new Mac26m model is a contemporary but not modern design. The Mac26x is a movable ballasted design more closely aligned with mini-transats in the modern sailing style advanced.

Jim Teeters has been discredited not only on his notions of the Mac26x but also of his notions on sailboat design in general. There likely was nothing personal in Jim Teeters rejection of the Mac26x. He objects to all movable ballasted designs, including the canters and has used his influence in a wide variety of ways to halt progress in sailboat design.

In anycase, the combination of the implied objection of US Sailing through Jim Teeters, in combination with 911 has lead to a situation where it is likely that for business insurance premium reasons, the X production was stopped.

I represent MacGregor Yachts in the same way a dealer does, which is to say not at all. But there are reasons to hope for more Mac26x production either from Polish or South America yards or, now that Teeters has bee discredited, and the world is moving to movable ballast designs, at the US factory itself. Demand for the Mac26x never let up. Her production was halted at the half way point for a model of her success at MacGregor Yachts. Another 7 years of production was to be expected. For every year of production she was the best selling cruising sailboat world wide.

Let do chat more. Thanks for the post.

<hr width=100% size=1>

mighetto · 27 Sep 2004

It isn't kind to call a Mac26x a Motor Sailer. This is because that term has taken on
a negative connotation. It has come to mean a boat that neither motors nor sails
well. Plus the Mac26x doesn't carry enough fuel to really be considered a motor
sailer in a class like a Fisher 30 footer.

The captain of the Mac26x Escape out of Rio Rancho, should have competed a Van
Isle Queen Charlotte circumnavigation this summer. He had previously done a
similar trip in a motor sailer. The mac26x is a sailboat with a rational sized
outboard engine for ocean use. You will find all kinds of under 40 foot sailboats
with 40, 50 and even larger inboards. Are these also Motor Sailers?

Lets chat about the PBO test in the June 2003? of the Mac26x. I take it the tester
did not read the owners instructions. A copy is being sent to me. Chat more
tomorrow.

<hr width=100% size=1>

ShipsWoofy · 27 Sep 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

It isn't kind to call a Mac26x a Motor Sailer. This is because that term has taken on a negative connotation.

<hr></blockquote>

No they haven't, it is just a different kind of sailing, it suits some and not others. But watch any yachtsmen walking past a fisher 34 and there will be some admiration.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

It has come to mean a boat that neither motors nor sails well.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes that is what I had heard about them too.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

The mac26x is a sailboat with a rational sized outboard engine for ocean use. You will find all kinds of under 40 foot sailboats with 40, 50 and even larger inboards. Are these also Motor Sailers?

<hr></blockquote>

The Mac has a 50hp outboard, that is not a rational sized motor, I have around 18hp on my vessel, 26ft too, but a lot bigger really. I will cruise under a single motor though in zero wind conditions, that means 9hp. I don't know many 40ft boats with 50hp motors either, 30hp seems more likely, then 18 for a thirty four foot boat and so on.

50hp makes her a motor sailor. Most 26ft yachts will have around 6hp.

Your argument does not hold water, but the mac does, so it's even then.

(For my new book on holding the most lucid argument ever, contact me!)

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>

mighetto · 27 Sep 2004

Re: There are more of them in the US but....

How fun. I have met Brian Toss and doubt he shares your friends opinion of
the Mac26x. However, perhaps that is true. The X is a fine instrument, like a guitar
or violin and you do not get to be good at sailing her without knowing how to tune.

I have found Brians video useful. But, we X owners in the Pacific NorthWest (PNW)
get best performance when the shrouds are just below a note. That is different than
what Toss recommends and it is because the Mac26x uses hang glider rigging and
shroud adjusters rather than sailboat rigging and turnbuckles.

Toss can piss off many a sailboat owner because he really believes every wire
needs replacing after a few years. The Perry designs are particularly vulnerable to
attacks by Toss. Folks in the US ponder if it time to toss Toss. (thats humor)

In any case, the Mac26x was the best selling cruising sailboat world wide for every
year of production. Today she is one of the few vessels that is appreciating rather
than depreciating. MacGregor Yachts has long been disparaged by lesser designers
and builders. It isn't just the X. There is a long history of bad mouthing MacGregor
Yachts. Get 10 US sailors together and 3 or 4 will have owned a MacGregor Yacht
or the Venture brand. These folks know better.

In any case. The X model requires a different sailing style than a contemporary
keel boat. That style is the style advocated in Frank Bethwaite's High Performance
Sailing book. It is the modern post 1970 style. These are not your daddy's
sailboats. The book "Sailing for Dummy's" will not do, in learning to sail a mac26x.

They can do 17 MPH under sail you know.

<hr width=100% size=1>

boatless · 27 Sep 2004

Re: There are more of them in the US but....

Welcome Frank.

Haven't we met somewhere else?

You haven't mentioned the benefits of off-axis ballast yet?

<hr width=100% size=1>

mighetto · 27 Sep 2004

Wolfy,

This fellow who traided up to a Mac26x from a Fisher 30 might have agreed with
you except for the most glaring difference between a motor sailer and a power
sailer. That is in the amount of fuel storage. You have have less than 24 gals to
deal with on a Mac26x. This is about the amount that will be carried for a trans
pacific racer. The engine on the power sailers is very clearly the secondery power
source. Sails are primary. The engine is the primary safety feature on the boat however.

I suppose if you sail in areas without much current then a small kicker engine on a
26 footer may do. But in the Pacific Northwest you get 18 foot tides and some big
ripping currents. With larger boats, hull speed is fast enough to make passage
between two narrows. But with a 30 footer limited to hull speed you basically have
to wait until the tides are agreeable. That can mean up to a 30 day wait. It just is
not acceptable.

Your 26 footer may not be an ocean sailboat. Ocean sailboats that enter atolls also
deal with currents owing to tides. Many ship wrecks happen owing to under
powered engins and atolls. The wind just may not be correct for avoiding these
hazards.

I suspect that when weather reports were less reliable that a slow sailboat was
acceptable because even the fast sailboats could get caught. This meant that there
was nothing wrong with having an under 40 foot (or say under 37) foot
displacement hull sailboat. Today modern weather reporting means that fast boats
should not encounter storm conditions at sea in their life times. It takes a thrill
seaking crew to put a fast sailboat into storm conditions today. This greatly changes design requirements.

The pbo recent article on the Mac26x test, speculates that the motor will give
owners a false sence of security. That they will go out further and hence get in
trouble. That just is not the case because of the limited fuel carried. The reason for
a 50 hp is that in rough sea an under powered motor can not carry many boats to
hull speed.

This notion that kicker engines are OK on modern sailboats is just incorrect. Do
take a look at what the owners of under 30 sailboats reingine with. If the hull can
support it they go 40 and above.

<hr width=100% size=1>

ShipsWoofy · 28 Sep 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

But in the Pacific Northwest you get 18 foot tides and some big
ripping currents.

<hr></blockquote>

18ft, wow that is big. How on earth do you cope with navigation and passage planning. Ok, I accept, there is a place for such a boat, if we had anything like that then we would probably have many more larger engined planing yachts.

Thank you for correcting me on my points.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>

Twister_Ken · 28 Sep 2004

>This fellow who traided up to a Mac26x from a Fisher 30<

Traded down, surely?

>You have have less than 24 gals to deal with on a Mac26x<
That'll be highly flammable petrol (gasoline) then, not diesel?

>But in the Pacific Northwest you get 18 foot tides and some big ripping currents.<

Gosh, 18 foot. Let's see that'll be about 6 metres. Just like them folks down in Guernsey and Jersey see regularly. And ripping currents too. Ask some of our Scottish friends about those.

>But with a 30 footer limited to hull speed you basically have to wait until the tides are agreeable. That can mean up to a 30 day wait<

Must be funny tides in the PNW. Over here we Limeys get two tides a day, and neaps once every 14 days. I guess a 30 day wait means the tide only changes once a month. Makes me wonder how the PNW was ever discovered by sailors in sailing ships limited to displacement speed and unable to go to windward.

>Many ship wrecks happen owing to under powered engins and atolls.<

And many happen because of engine failure. But most happen because someone has done something silly.

>Today modern weather reporting means that fast boats should not encounter storm conditions at sea in their life times.<

This is an oft used excuse for inadequate design and construction. It is utter bollocks. Weather forecasting is still an inexact science, and once any distance (500 miles or so) from shore, forecasting is so large-scale that many smaller scale weather features aren't foreseen. Your statement also assumes that the vessel is capable of receiving forecasts, which, owing to the conjunction of saltwater and electricity, may not always be the case.

>This notion that kicker engines are OK on modern sailboats is just incorrect.<

Strange then, that builders are still putting true auxiliaries (if that's what you mean by a kicker engine) in new boats.

>Do take a look at what the owners of under 30 sailboats reingine with. If the hull can support it they go 40 and above. <

This is SportsUte mentality. Many boats are re-engined like-for-like. If there is an upgrade, it is generally a small one.

I understand your devotion to the macgregor brand, but to try and pretend that Macgregor is right and everyone who criticises them is wrong is taking blind faith rather too far. As an in-shore, sheltered waters weekender, I think the MacG concept is valid (though ugly). But a signpost to the future of sailboat design it is not. Rather, it's a back road that leads nowhere very interesting.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

Keen_Ed · 28 Sep 2004

Oh, you're going straight to hell for that one.... Why did you have to post that URL? It has brought him straight over here....

This man Mighetto has been infesting the forum on Sailing Anarchy for a while. The regulars can do nothing to get rid of him - he is a complete fruitcake, with ideas that are the dangerous side of insane. He spawned the longest thread ever over there; at it's peak, it was up to about 100 pages. People eventually realised that he is immune to sensible debate, so they have all deleted their posts in an attempt to get him to shut up and go away. Sadly, it isn't working.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2833&st=0

And Frank - anything you post here will get no response from me. Don't bother to try.

<hr width=100% size=1>

mighetto · 28 Sep 2004

Not really a correction. Mac26x owners get hit with the big engine bad thing all the
time.

One of my first outings had a fellow telling my wife that her husband didn't
understand sailboats because no under 30 foot sailboat can make use of that large
an engine. Well he was correct, I didn't understand sailboats, but incorrect
because 50 hp outboards are the future of ocean sailing yacht design.

Of course on an under 30 foot boat the hull must be a planing hull.

In my country (USA) we are losing 100,000 sailors per year. These go to power
boating or golf. It is a real problem that somewhat explains our worst showing in
sailing in the Olympics in 60 years and inability to even challenge in the Americas
cup. All the US based training is orriented to keel boats and worse than that long
thin fixed fin keel boats. You will rarely see a twin keel for example and the
centerboarders are required to keep the board fully extended while racing. Then
the buoy courses are all set up for just windward leeward work. Hence skills
necesary for cruising or sailing olympic style courses are not developed. It is so
bad that the Kahns have started a new sailing program to educate US born in
modern sailing technique. The Kahns with EU training are kicking butt. US trained
claim it is crew but when a 14 year old can win the Melges worlds first time out it is
more than that. It is training in the modern sailing style. I think of the Max26x
boats as trainer boats for that modern style.

In your PBO publication there was the story of a Mac26x who lost her centerboard
while piloting through the French Canals. The boards are designed to break away
in a grounding. Her owners discovered that the centerboard was not needed for
sailing, even up wind. I have concluded that there is a twin keel nature to the
design of this X boat that gives US trained keel boaters and PBO testers the fits.
The optimum heel is 15 to 20 degrees. You sail the boat so much flatter than a
contemporary design. Off optimum and you will sail poorly.

Another way to look at the engine is as ballast. When engines were made lighter,
MacGregor Yachts was obliged to rebalance the cruiser with additional water
ballast. I confirmed with the factory that this was the only reason for extending the
water ballast tank capacity in the post 1998 models.

So when someone says the mac26x might sail as well or better with a small kicker
they really are incorrect unless you add 100 lbs of solid or so to the stern or make
other modifications to compensate for the weight that the design expects to carry
in the stern. I am not certain of the mac26m. This I think might do better with a
kicker engine.

We require all boats in Performance Handicap Racing Fleets (PHRF) to have a
secondary power source. That could be oars and paddles. Anyway, a melges crew
wanted to remove their engine. They patitioned for that removal but gave up the
battle - likely after discovering that the boat sailed poorly without the weight.

In a good design, well in the Mac26x design anyway, ever little change impacts
something else.

I just see motor sailors as having large fuel capacity. The Mac26x just doesn't
carry enough fuel to be a motor sailor. The idea is that you use the motor to drop
ballast and sail without ballast in light (under 7 MPH) wind or you use the motor
with ballast to get over forced mode and into planing mode. Then you retract the
engine and sail at double digit speeds. Its a neat trick that works in normal wind.
But you can also sail in planing mode and normal wind with a bit of crew
movement forward at the appropriate time.

The other advantage of motoring at 20 MPH is that you can get to a patch of wind
for practice that is unavailable to crews in other under 40 foot boats. This means
the average Mac26x crew becomes sharper quicker than other crews just owing
to more sailing practice time than would be afforded in a displacement hull only
vessel of similar size. It is an advantage the larger boats have had all the time.
Hence the notion of the Mac26x as a modern race boat trainer.

<hr width=100% size=1>

ShipsWoofy · 28 Sep 2004

I am sorry, but you cannot hang ballast out over the transom. Tell me one other yacht that is not desperately trying to balance the boat by having the heaviest items midships.

The idea of the keel (counterbalance) out at the transom is ludicrous, hence it is directly under the mast, the engine as much as possible not far away from this position either.

I carry 10 gallons or diesel, during normal cruising. Used carefully will give me a range of around 160 miles. 40 hours at 4 kts Does that make me a motor sailor. I don't think my range is that much to talk about. I have calculated at 1.1 ltr per hour at 2800rpm. This might actually be slightly higher fuel use than reality.

A motor sailor has nothing to do with capacity, it has to do with how the boat handles. A Fisher for example is based on a trawler hull, damn sea worthy but can sail like a pig, meaning when the going gets tough they may revert to motoring with a staysail.

On my vessel, when the wind gets up I would much rather be sailing, the boat gets down in a rut and we scrunch down in the cockpit to keep warm. By your own admission, as the wind rises you run for home at 20kts. How you can then say the Mac is not a motor sailor is a trifle confusing. I would actually suggest she is a powerboat with a sail, but that is personal opinion.

My tidal comment was tongue in cheek, I learnt sailing in an area with 10.5m tides, 34.4 feet. We used to sail 20 foot heavy wood dauntless with 9.5 hp motors. It took a little more skill of navigation to get places when we were on spring tides. I learnt to sail offshore in 18ft Opera's with no engines, with this kind of tidal range you had to do some homework or go backwards.

Your 'trainer' as you put it is not helping anyone serious about sailing as you just attempt to punch the tide rather than sail with it.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

I didn't understand sailboats, but incorrect because 50 hp outboards are the future of ocean sailing yacht design

<hr></blockquote>

Are you sure about this? The only sailing boat I have ever seen with a 50hp outboard is a Mac and they sure as hell are not the future of Ocean sailing. I am not mocking nor just pulling them down, they have their place, but it is not and never will be in the middle of the ocean. I would rather cross in a 24ft cornish crabber.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>

mighetto · 28 Sep 2004

Twister,

Good post. Be amassed at the responses and lets party

>This fellow who traded up to a Mac26x from a Fisher 30<

Traded down, surely ?

>He seriously considers it a trade up. One of the great things
>about sailboat designs today is that the cost is not related
>to the quality. However, you can easily double the cost of
>the basic boat with electronics then there is the tractor. For
>a serious rig that you can trailer you are certainly over
>60,000. Georg of the Mac26x escape will sail the X in
>any waters. That was not true of the Fisher 30. Not fast
>enough or stable enough or hell I will ask him.

>You have less than 24 gals to deal with on a Mac26x

That'll be highly flammable petrol (gasoline) then, not diesel?

>correct. However no less flammable than the propane most cruisers use
>for heating and cooking. Likely less dangerous. And more environmentally
>correct than diesel.

>Diesel leaks are big clean up costs. Gas not so. Again, if you are
>racing across and ocean, and I see no reason to cross an ocean except in
>a race, you will not be carrying more that 24 gals of diesel or gas. Weight
>is the enemy. You may be carrying propane. If so it might as well be gas.
>diesel is often hard to find. Fishing fleets with clean a community of it
>faster than you can say save me 24 gals.

>But in the Pacific Northwest you get 18 foot tides and some big ripping currents.<

Gosh, 18 foot. Let's see that'll be about 6 metres. Just like them folks down i
n Guernsey and Jersey see regularly. And ripping currents too. Ask some of our
Scottish friends about those.

>Of course. This is why we love PBO in the PNW. Lots of Scotts own these X
>vessels. My wife is Davidson Clan.

>But with a 30 footer limited to hull speed you basically have to wait until the
tides are agreeable. That can mean up to a 30 day wait<

Must be funny tides in the PNW. Over here we Limeys get two tides a day, and
neaps once every 14 days. I guess a 30 day wait means the tide only changes
once a month. Makes me wonder how the PNW was ever discovered by sailors in
sailing ships limited to displacement speed and unable to go to windward.

>lets clarify. Two narrows which can be traveled by a 40 footer in the same day,
>because same two tide per day as you have. However a less than 40 foot
>displacement hull can not make it to the second slack tide in time. The sailing
>ships of old were longer that 40 foot. You knew that didn't you.

>Many ship wrecks happen owing to under powered engines and atolls.<

And many happen because of engine failure. But most happen because someone
has done something silly.

>Something silly like get convinced that a long thin fixed foil sailboat is better than
>a centerboarder you mean? Oh you think that under powered engines are OK.
>They are not. They are not because of modern weather reporting. It really is silly
>to sail gale, storm, or hurricane when with modern reporting and a shoal draft
>vessel you can be in an all weather harbor and with a fast boat you can sail to
>the side of harms way.

>Today modern weather reporting means that fast boats should not encounter storm
conditions at sea in their life times.<

This is an oft used excuse for inadequate design and construction. It is utter
bollocks. Weather forecasting is still an inexact science, and once any distance
(500 miles or so) from shore, forecasting is so large-scale that many smaller scale
weather features aren't foreseen. Your statement also assumes that the vessel is
capable of receiving forecasts, which, owing to the conjunction of saltwater and electricity, may not always be the case.

>You are correct. This isn't an either or thing. Boats can be built like the life boats
>one enters when a larger boat founders. That is how the Mac26x is built. What I
>am saying is that the captain that does not have modern weather reporting
>aboard and operational and checks those reports has failed the boat and the crew.

>There are is also on
>board weather forecasting equipment. Plus few cross oceans without a fleet. Fleet
>vessels can be of assistance. You really have to contrive a situation for a
>thrill seeker to get to the kind of logic necessary to justify the tanks we in the
>US call TP 52s. Do your really disagree?

>This notion that kicker engines are OK on modern sailboats is just incorrect.<

Strange then, that builders are still putting true auxiliaries (if that's what
you mean by a kicker engine) in new boats.

>Yes strange, wrong and not selling. The Schock 40 is just a great example. When
>you spend 180,000 to 240,000 you expect to get more than a 15 hp engine
>housed in a well so the owner can pretend it is an inboard. True auxiliaries?
>What does that mean. Is an outboard not a true auxiliary? Lets get to these
>TP 52s. They require an inboard under some kind of logic. I think it is that
>outboards use to get swamped by following seas. That problem was solved
>years ago. Today inboards are more likely to conk out owing to poor ventilation
>than outboards. Do you want to talk cavitation? Cavitation is only a problem for
>a slow boat of improper size. 30 to 40 feet monohull is my thinking. Could be
> 37 feet. I don't really know.

>Do take a look at what the owners of under 30 sailboats engine with. If the hull
>can support it they go 40 and above.

This is SportsUte mentality. Many boats are re-engined like-for-like. If there is an upgrade, it is generally a small one.

>This is what your mechanic will recommend. The higher horse power engines
>often do not come at the cost of extra weight. And under powered engines
>will not get the displacement hull vessel to hull speed in chop or to the fuel dock
>in a 12 Knot wind for that mater. Modern harbors do not have the sea room
>necessary for a 40 footer with a 30 hp motor in normal wind let alone
>high wind. Most of these prohibit operating under sail within the harbor. There
>just is no getting around the fact that larger engines are needed for modern
>operation.

I understand your devotion to the macgregor brand, but to try and pretend that
Macgregor is right and everyone who criticizes them is wrong is taking blind
faith rather too far. As an in-shore, sheltered waters weekender, I think the
MacG concept is valid (though ugly). But a signpost to the future of sailboat
design it is not. Rather, it's a back road that leads nowhere very interesting.

>You do not understand my devotion. I have been looking for an upgrade for
>two years. There is nothing in a monohull that is under 180,000 that I am
>remotely interested in. When you cruise with the big boats, because you are fast
>enough to do that, but have the feel of the sea and advantages of maneuverability
>beachability, trailorability, plus you have 5000 sister ships so on any week end
>you can race informally it opens your eyes.

>You are also very wrong on the sheltered waters weekender classification.
>That is the talk of dealers of lesser vessels. It has been know since the
>1950s that boats as small as 20 foot are perfectly capable of ocean crossing.
>More and more owners are recognizing the X for what she is, a strong fast
>motorized life boat capable of negotiating the Columbia River Bar and Bristol
>Channel. This is why so many have been sold. The future of yacht design is
>in movable ballasted sailboats. Do you not agree? For that the Mac26x is a
>model. Of course there will be better. I am just not finding any. The Oden and
>the Mac26m are not meant to be sailed unballasted. I am finding multihulls that
>are true upgrades but here capsize risk comes into play.The Schock 40 doesn't
>have an appropriate auxiliary. Over 40 there are other issues. Edited by mighetto on 28/09/2004 02:40 (server time).

mighetto · 28 Sep 2004

Re: There are more of them in the US but....

There was a boatless at the Sailing Anarchy site. Is that you? These
EU folks have long been pestering me to defend the Mac26x. The
Sailnet folks also are demanding more attention.

Recently a bloke sent me two PBO articles. You would think the
chatter would die out since the vessel is now but a "good old boat".

Out of Production in other words. There are two important aspects
to consider on the water ballast. The first is that unlike other water
ballasted production boats, the Mac26x has a large proportion of
her ballast off the centerline.

Part of that is flat hull related but most of that is related to critical
reviews of the Mac26c (as they are called in the EU) Practical Boat
owner in particular encouraged off centerline water ballast. The
problem with off centerline water ballast is that centerline ballast
of all kinds is faster.

This is kind of like
an ice skater who brings her arms to center line and spins faster. Of
course off center line ballast is more stable also just like the
ice skater. So the really neat thing to think about is how you can
start off stable then gain speed just but dumping ballast. Then proir to
rounding a mark suck in ballast to gain stablity. That kind of thing.

Boatless, there are several folks at Sailing Anarchy that I would just as
soon not polute this fine forum. So be cautious in who you invite here.
Thanks much.

<hr width=100% size=1>

boatless · 28 Sep 2004

Ed's absolutely right. Don't respond to anything he says. He will just carry on drivelling without trying to understand anything you say.

Ed, I'm not sure how my posting the url caught his attention, Surely it's more likely he was Googling Mac 26x to find another board to pontificate on?

<hr width=100% size=1>

tome · 28 Sep 2004

<50 hp outboards are the future of ocean sailing yacht design>

Oh dear oh dear! If you're going to post silly comments like this, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

<hr width=100% size=1>

boatless · 28 Sep 2004

What makes you say that?

With thanks to Thiery Martinez and Photoshop
<hr width=100% size=1>Edited by boatless on 28/09/2004 11:54 (server time).

Motor Sailer - Macgregor 26X

New member

New member

New member

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Share this page