Perfect Boat Length

[Mark Prouty]

That said, I wish I could figure-out how to cast my vote for a 28-30 footer w/a full head & shower. That would seal the deal for my wife. Is there some onscreen button to push which I'm missing?

If you register you can cast a vote in polls. The system won't allow guests to vote. Please register. I like your style and hope you stick around.

[Jesse Days Pacific Star 2]

So, who is this gent with the attitude? If he doesn't like Macgregors, don't buy one. As for us, we are extremely pleased with our 2002X. Versital, sea-worthy(for Puget Sound), doesn't cost an arm/leg to own and operate, tons of room for a 26 footer, and most bang for your buck! Is it perfect, most llikely not, but this is my fourth boat and none of them were perfect. This is a great boat for those of us that aren't 'rolling in millions of dollars.' After two years with our new Mac, I would still recommend it to folks as a great boat!!!

My two cents worth,
Jesse

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Ah, now your showing your sailboat boat builder attitude looking down your nose at this boat that runs circles around your product while towing a water skier. So your going to build a one off that is a perfect powerboat and a perfect sailboat, sell for less than a Mac, and be willing to not make a profit on your unique product.

You miss the whole point. My Mac sails well enough to be enjoyable to sail. My Mac powers well enough to get me anywhere I want to go including places I never could with a pure sailboat. My Mac tows innertubes with the mast up, what a travesty. Is it a compromise? Absolutely, and one I'm glad to make for versatility no other boat on the market can match at it's price.

Gee, I have to operate the boat properly to not break things? Of course, when you have a boat that is dual purpose you have to know how to use it. What's so hard about that. The Mac's ability to raise and lower rudders and the centerboard for different operating modes is one of it's best features. Let's see you dump your water ballast under way in a Hunter so you can become a fast powerboat to get through that 10 knot current pass. I guess you're in favor of a boat with limited capabilities so you don't break any of your name brand parts.

[Chip Hindes]

The problem with powersailers is that they are a compromise.

Golly gee whiz. Thanks so much for pointing that out. If the rest of us weren't so stupid, we probably could have figured this out for ourselves.

[Mark Prouty]

"The man who goes farthest is generally the one who is willing to do and dare. The sure-thing boat never gets far from shore." - Dale Carnegie 1888 to 1955

I'll go with 30' and make 'er a little more ocean worthy. Set 'er up with the goodies some of you guys have!

Way to duke it out with the disgruntled guest!

[mike]

Instead of killing the messenger, just admit the boat has strengths and weaknesses.

I don't think there's a Mac owner here who is not perfectly willing to acknowledge this.

You've got issues. Where did all this hatred and bitterness come from?

--Mike

[Mark Prouty]

"I'll go with 30' and make 'er a little more ocean worthy. Set 'er up with the goodies some of you guys have!

Way to duke it out with the disgruntled guest!"

This is hilarious! A little on the hypocrticial side isn't it? Thanks for making my point, Mark.

Guest, I apologize. I can see how you could feel I was having fun at your expense. I'd like to read your perspective but in a less argumentative tone. Like email, since there is a lack of face to face discussion or body language, it is easy to misinterpret a writers intent causing an otherwise interesting thread to sour.

[Chip Hindes]

Robert T. Pierce started with the issues he had with the boat and was immediately trashed for his views.

Oh, so now I see. Again, pardon me for being so stupid. If we agree with those who trash our boats, that's OK, we're just expressing our views. If we disagree, we're accused of personally trashing those who expressed those original views.

Sorry I misundertstood the rules. Thanks for explaining them to me.

I believe it's time to ratchet this down a notch or two:

Robert T. Pierce: You expressed your original views in a respectful and non-confrontational fashion. While conceding that the Mac is not perfect and could be improved in many ways, I disagree with your overall characterization for the reasons I expressed. I expressed my disagreement in a fashion I felt was appropriate. I may have come on a little strong, but I have read and reread that response and I don't believe there was anything in it which could be interpreted as trashing you personally. However, I understand that perception of these things is 100% dependent on whether you're at the giving or the receiving end. Accordingly, if you believe that original response "trashed" you personally in any way, please understand that was not my intent, I sincerely apologize, and I'll try to do better next time.

So Duane, we're in general agreement on something for at least the second time in three months. I don't know about you, but I feel senility creeping in.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Wow, go away for a afternoon and I miss ton's of posts.

Just for the record, none of my comments were directed at anything Mr Pierce wrote. They are entirely directed at Mr Guest.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

At $27k in 1980 dollars without a motor it didn't have a chance. You can buy an 'M' for that in 2004 dollars with a motor.

[Bill at BOATS 4 SAIL]

I wish Mr. Guest would stop beating around the bush and let us know how he really feels about a MacGregor.

[mighetto]

So, who is Mr. Guest? and seriously do get in touch with me mighetto@sailnet.net when this kind of thing happens.

Here are reasons one does not want over 26 foot. They are important. They are compelling. They are the reason over 26 footers do not sell well in the US.

1. You can not get resonably priced ocean crossing insurance in some states (like Washington state) if the vessel is over 26 foot. This has to do with insurance reserve requirements and nothing to do with risk, I am told. But there is the implied notion that insurance companies view larger boats as more risky for ocean work.

2. Under 26 foot (not exactly 26 foot - but under it) makes the vessel legal at dingy docks in the USA. I think this is also the cut off in Canada.

3. Being legal at dingy docks means a tender is optional. Not having a tender means more deck space or if stored below decks more interior room.

4. The longer the vessel the harder it is to get on plane. This means a larger engine is required for motor operation and larger sails are required for planing under sail.

5. Tougher to get on plane means the boat performs less well overall. Sucks more gas and wins fewer sailboat races.

6. If anything you want shorter, not longer. Roger instructs us to do this by moving crew aft which lifts the bow making the size the sea sees shorter, dropping the LWL to say 22 foot from 23. Making the vessel more Tripp 26 like.

Tripp 26 - LOA 26.6, LWL 22' 0, Beam 8.8, Draft up 1' 6", Draft down 6' 0", Displacement 2,900, Ballast 1,000, Sail Area 410 sq ft. Comparable to J/24, Soling and Etchells. The Tripp 26 is capable of some amazing speeds - up to 14 knots in 15-20 knots of wind.

Wait a minute. That sounds like an X. Someone run numbers. I am more amazed with the X every time I do this kind of thing. We really have vessels comparable to those selling new at $100,000. Roger was understating the value new at $40,000 when you look about. Why even think upgrading? These X boats are the best cure for 5 foot itis ever

[mighetto]

RE: Boat insurance premiums for smaller boats are determined primarily by two factors: replacement cost and intended use. A slightly larger, slightly more expensive version of the Mac will not be that more expensive to insure than the 26. This is assuming both boats are used for what they were designed for which is coastal and inland waters.

I Respond: Something is wrong with the above. I have been pondering it for a while. Doesn't fit with experience I suppose. First trailerable boats face more hazards than waterbound ones. The notion that a boat on a trailer can be stollen should all-other-things-being-the-same increase insurance costs. Second, I suppose, is that a boat is eather built for ocean use or protected waters. There really is no difference between coast ocean and open ocean as far as the boat goes. Most believe coastal ocean cruising is harder on the boat than open ocean cruising.

The French are the only ones to attempt to define a blue water boat and they have settled on the notion that a blue water boat is a boat with a blue water crew.

Third, I have boarded 32 foot Eriksons (Pacific Seacraft) with less room than an X. This is owing to the inboard engine. Lastly even the 42 footers I cruise on become cramped. There just is no getting around this quarters are cramped until you get to ship size (65 foot ).

I believe many of the BWY X boats got insured for all waters in the western hemisphere when new. These are Homeland Security Documentable Vessels after all. The folks with Home Owners Insurance through Farmers at least did. 26 foot appears to be critical today. See

http://www.foremost.com/PRODUCTS/family ... erages.htm

The Foremost Family Boaters policy was specially created for power boats, small sailboats and other vessels 26 feet and under. I think it is 350 per year for US and Canada up to 200 miles off either coast. Anyway post 911 and now that the Med is closed to boats that when swamped can sink (unless carrying a $10,000 life raft) a lot of folks might be thinking insurance fraud. The larger vessels are especially vulnerable to this and insurance carriers are not stupid. The number of ship wrecks went way up during the last technology shift (sail to motor) and there is a shift now going on (solid to movable water ballast and solid flotation).

The Mast 28 may be a great boat. I have not run the numbers but I think she suffers as an ocean sailboat from being overly beamy. The acid test for an ocean sailboat is the capsize risk ratio and it favors thin beam. Anyone work that ratio out?