[Rhodes22-list] Bill's reply on Mac 26 and Hunter Sailboats!

[Bill Effros]

Wally,

Thank you.  I completely agree.  My Mac had a PHRF of 225.  My Rhodes 
has a PHRF of 258.  The Mac is faster than the Rhodes.  If the guy in 
your marina knows what he's doing, teach him to race with one person on 
the ballast blow hole, manning the air pump.  That Mac should win every 
light air race.

Ed,

For the first time in recorded history, a Mac26X anchored in Greenwich 
Cove.  It anchored right next to my boat.  I hold you personally 
responsible.

Doubters:

You might be interested to note the alternative anchoring method 
employed by the captain of the Mac26x::

1.  Take a long halyard on the mast.

2.  Wind the line once around your bow rail.

3.  Clip on to a small anchor. (No chain required)

4.  Lower.

I don't think I would recommend this method, but it seems to work for them.

Bill Effros



Wally Buck wrote:

> Guys I think the safety issue with water ballast is a little over 
> blown. It is not like people are dropping like flies due to water 
> ballast sail boat accidents. Ed sites the infamous Mac26x disaster. 
> Keep in mind that when this boat turtled there was NO water ballast. I 
> am guessing if the boat had full water ballast the turtling would not 
> have happened.
>
> The way I see it the main problem (beside looks) with the Mac 26X is 
> the hull shape below the water line.The older Macs had water ballast 
> but they did not share the same type of planing hull as the new motor 
> Macs. The Mac 26x doesn't sail very well but the older Macs were 
> actually pretty fast and had decent sailing characteristics. There is 
> one in my marina and I can tell you first hand it sails just fine. If 
> I had to trailer my boat everytime I could see some advantages to 
> water ballst.  Many question Mac build quality but lets face it they 
> are cheap boats.
>
> Before anyone accuses me of being a Mac26x lover ......for the record 
> I would not own one. However the older Macs (26d & 26c) are quite a 
> bit different and are not motor sailors. Yes they were not built to 
> the same standards as our beloved R22s but for hundreds (thousands?) 
> of owners they do the job.
>
> I really do feel the R22 is one of the finest boats in its class. Many 
> budgets don't allow for the finest!
>
> Just another view point .....
>
> Wally
>
>
>> From: "ed kroposki" <ekroposki at charter.net>
>> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>> To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Bill's reply on  Mac 26 and Hunter Sailboats!
>> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:29:26 -0400
>>
>> Bill Said:
>>
>>     "Actually, I owned a Mac 26 water ballast ... is fun, although it is
>> true that failing to put any water into the tank gives the word 
>> "tender" a
>> whole new meaning...it's hairy.  A cheap thrill ...1/2 filling the 
>> ballast
>> tank is also very interesting."
>>
>> Bill:
>>     So if you liked water ballast so much, why don't you still have a
>> water ballast boat, like the Mac or Hunter?  Give the two guys 
>> looking at
>> the Hunter and the Mac your insights.
>>     Are there any safety or boat integrity issues specific to water
>> ballast?  You are the one who has had both type boats.  What are your
>> experienced insights?
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>> Addendum:   "This ... is like an Enron budget -- smoke the numbers, 
>> cook the
>> books, hide the truth and hope no one finds out."  Senator John Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>