macgregor 26 advertising claims and abilities.

[aya16]

I go with Chip and a 90 for me would be ideal, e-tech 90 only weighs about 60 pounds more than a 50 big foot and the diff. in power is major.
My 50 suzuki planes my heavy loaded up boat at full power with out ballast
A 90 would do it with out breaking a sweat. 60 extra pounds on the back of the boat is nothing, Like hanging a 5 hp kicker.

I have seen the boat perform with a 90 and its very much what I think the boat should do anyway. Its not as loud, it doesnt burn any more gas and it
will plane the boat with a full water tank. and it doesnt look like the sailing
gets slowed down either.

and for the times that I want to puttt it will go slow too

yep a 90 is in my future

[RandyMoon]

I didn't read all the posts..... but....

I sail on a lake with a couple of hundred other sailboats.

I have been left in the "dirt" by Catalina 25s in low wind.

A Mac super sailor I know can leave half the Catalina sailors in the "dirt."

It gets down to skill, which I hope to acquire someday. If I could pay $1000 and become a super sailor, I would. Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

I still love my Mac. It is a pretty lady and turns heads on the lake.

[aya16]

Randy
One trick you might want to try is cut a deeper angle than the other guy.
Im sure they are doing it to you if they blow right past you. In other words
stay on the inside cut a sharper angle away from the boat that is next to you, He will have to do the same to keep up soon you will be the distance you had a aside the boat ahead of him. This works unless you and the other guy are going after the same spot ahead like a bouy. Not very often in informal racing.


Mail the check toooooooo

[Rolf]

If I had the time I would love to be able to sail everywhere. My whole point is that the Mac is not an "overpowered with a big engine sailboat" with a 90(many say that about the 50, too). My EXPERIENCE having had both is that the 90 is a perfect fit for those who want to take full advantage of this boat(at least the x's and I'm sure the m's) capabilities.

I would argue the boat sails better with the 90. I noticed right away that the extra 100 pounds DOWN LOW ON THE TRANSOM seems to stabilize the boat much more than just 100 pounds of extra gear/gas higher up in the cockpit. I think it helps the Mac sail flatter--slightly less heel. My top sailing speeds are definitely the same or better (about 7and a half knots) with this motor.

Pointing seems the same-- not the greatest but not any worse. Noise and gas consumption are easily comparable to the 50, even tho its direct injection not 4 stroke.

This is the wrong boat for a sailing purist--that's not whom the boat was built for. No sign whatsoever of extra stress or wear from the higher torque, weight either after 2 years. Of course if my engine breaks off tomorrow and insurance refuses to pay, I would whistle a different tune.

Rolf

[They Theirs]

Edit

[waternwaves]

not to throw more mud in this soup.......


The following is not legal advice... but..

torts and liability..........

1) as far as liability, do something stupid as an action.........most states will find you liable

upgrade a device with hardware, reinforcments, training, safety equipment etc.... (more than the manufacturer had on the boat) and you will find in civil law in the 9th circuit court will hold you in better stead than the manufacturer.......What are they doing not selling this boat with an emergency radio etc....



2) as far as torts...The issue is pretty much decided also, everything can be improved. From toasters to nuclear power plants. No other american manufacturer provides a vessel with these features.... and more can be added.

Please do not automatically assume that your boat is not insured because of motor changeout. CG/BIA regulations are very specific what they cover. And the manufacturers printed warranty and trade literature have multiple interpretations.

(is anyone going bring suit because their X never did 24 mph???, do you bring suit against ford for not matching Road and tracks test speeds on your mustang??)

Claiming a particular mod voids insurance is best left to those who have better investigated case law..and those truly interested in the outcome should have subscriptions to WestLaw.

Everyone of my other power boats can be swamped or dumped by violent manuevers, with the mac, you eventually come back upright..... try that in my marlin or aluminum crestliner......

Read your own policy to see if it contains provisions for powering, and what the exact wording is. 90hp on a reinforced 26 ft boat is going to be a tough sell as inherently dangerous.

JMHO

[Catigale]

The majority of 'sailing performance threads' tend to be poorly researched, executed, and/or documented imho....for that matter even motoring threads can get carried away

(A notable recent counterexample being when James put me in my place with his gas mileage report from his Smartcraft monitor...


"I put the widget xxxx in position yyyy and immediately saw a pointing increase of 0.5 degree...."

Ok, whatever...

Arguing over the effects of 100 extra pounds on the transom seems sort of pointless when we all have different gear and gear locations on our boats, reflecting our different needs/desires from what we want from our boats. For example, when I hit the cape, I load up two 5 gallon water bottles and place them up front where they fit...presto - I just added 80 pounds to the front of the boat....if I start thinking about how the boat is sailing during that trip, I had better keep track of how that water is consumed, if the kids have moved it back into the galley or head, etc...

[LOUIS B HOLUB]

When my Insurance Agent (Farm Bureau) asked me the length of my sailboat, Horsepower and seemed uninterested in in any other details, I'm thinking that I better not "mess" with either of these features. So far the boat is the same length, and horsepower remains at 50 HP,-- the factory recommended length and HP. I've liked both features quite well so far.

[They Theirs]

I surmise Catigale, adding water for such a trip would be an essential, and quibbling over gas mileage between models with undetermined utility and loads is not. I was trying to somewhat follow the theme of this thread.MacGregor 26 advertising claims and abilities. As the boasting and modifications reach their extreme i.e. the ever increasing engine size, and consummate motor man rings the chime of sailing purist dont belong, all the while boasting of never feeling the need to bend his sails. I find sharing the opposite view reasonable for those who enjoy the Mac for its ability to sail, and motor almost as enjoyable, all the while I envy those such as Lewis Hollub, with lightweight 2-stroke 50s, sailing and trailering with their transom extreme some 200+ pounds lighter than the Big Boys.

[Frank C]

... Arguing over the effects of 100 extra pounds on the transom seems sort of pointless when we all have different gear and gear locations on our boats, reflecting our different needs/desires from what we want from our boats. For example, when I hit the cape, I load up two 5 gallon water bottles and place them up front where they fit...presto - I just added 80 pounds to the front of the boat... if I start thinking about how the boat is sailing during that trip, I had better keep track of how that water is consumed, if the kids have moved it back into the galley or head, etc...

Very well put, Stephen. The 26X's minimum ballasted weight, ready to sail, is 4,000 pounds. Add a variable load of fuel, ice, provisions and equipment (between 10 and 15%), plus a 3 person crew (another 10%), for a full displacement ~5,000 pounds, ready for cruising. A debate over "recommended" horsepower and transom weight lends engineering credence far beyond any real effort that dictated such guidance. It's not rational to delineate a definitive guideline as simply as "50 horsepower."
Anyone thusly deluded must have slept through the 8th grade discussion of "significant digits."

Any debate over this boat's sail-racing prowess leaves a motivated (or deluded) Skipper about 1,000 pounds of flexiblility for adapting to an extra 100 lbs. on the transom - should he wish to test with an "oversized" motor. Further, any motivated Skipper who wishes to race this particular boat will need every bit of that flexibility. (Haven't read that the PNW fleets are being trounced by a black Mac ... anyone else?) To all motivated sail-racers of the Mac 26 ... Fair winds, following seas, godspeed (and good luck)!

"On her lines" on SF Bay
(despite Suzuki plus fuel, ~500 lbs.)



FWIW - on those special, rare days (WNW steady at 18-20, not gusting) on this identical northbound track and general location, with this sail plan but reefed main ... this is where the same boat has managed a steady half-hour upwind tack at 8 knots (consistent 8+ mph, touching 9 mph). I truly believe that with a smaller, lighter outboard, this boat would be slower ... both motoring AND under sail. Agreeing with Rolf's opinion of his 26X, when Roger adjusted the ballast tanks the boat may just gain speed with an additional 100 pounds to balance the transom.

P.S. This photo provides good perspective on the Garhauer rigid vang, and it's rather "long" mounting geometry. I believe that vang sheeting was a necessary control in helping to flatten the main, controlling heel, and permitting the boat to hold her tack without rounding up.

PPS. TT is correct. Probably good perspectives, here and below, on water ballast vs. no water ballast, in very similar conditions. Also reveals (I think) that the X's jib tracks are sheeting a bit too far inboard. I agree with others who think that longer cabintop tracks, outboard to the stanchions, might be a good mod on the 26X.

[They Theirs]

You are good Frank, I was ready to post that great set of sail;ABOVE "Looking Good on the Frisco Bay"

Interesting...one boat is sailing without water ballast and the cut of the BWY Composite Sails are sweeping the deck. Note the Running Back and forestay, how straight with little twist in the main and jib. BWY Boat may be footing and powered up with some extra heel while building boat speed. Note how bow and transom are balancedboat is not plowing its waterline level. Also note the small single reef point on the BWY mainsail, no deep reefing. Careful inspection reveals both boats sailing with their engines tilted up.

[Frank C]

TT,
Ohmigosh! I'm stern high and plowing my bow?
I knew that Suzuki 60 was a bit too small ... maybe I need to upsize to Billy's Suzuki-140 !~?

That's settle my stern another little bit (and I favor the 4th mode {aka, stroke} )!

[They Theirs]

I'm thinking it may just be more to do with a full tank of water than the light trim gal sitting on the high side. 7.5 pushing 8 knots is more than respectable, "That's Sailing". The fact that the BWY boat is carrying more sail while sporting a taller mast without ballast certainly goes a long way explaining the extra heel and high waterline.

[Morimaro]

I've had my 26X since 99 (CE plated bought in UK), when it was new I did just over 20kts WOT on 50hp in Solent with no extra weight aboard, now with all the extra weight from real use I still get around 17kts.

Inclement weather - I run for shelter at anything above or near a force 6, its not the boat that won't take the weather its the crew (me included). Though I do know of 26X's crossing the Channel and Irish Sea in force 8's no problem except for the above remark.

Originally I towed with a Freelander and it was OK but I wouldn't recommend anything as light as that. My next tow vehicle was a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel which was fine except extremely unreliable (nothing to do with the towing) Most of the UKMOA people I know, tow with big 4x4s, they are easier on the road (weight wise) and much better for launching and recovery on wet steep slipways.

Cheers

Morris Rooms
99 26X hullaballoo U.K.

[James V]

Frank C - Just replace the bow roller, put an 18 pound Super Max Anchor on the Bow with 150 feet of 1/4 chain and 150 feet of rode.