mac vs hunter edge ????

[jbpatents]

Macgregor had Mike Inmon as performance arm...

[sailboatmike]

Macgregor had Mike Inmon as performance arm...

I had a look at his web site and couldnt find any performance related options such as better rudders for the X, weighted centerboard or sail / rigging upgrades.

Lots of non performance related stuff like covers and the such, but nothing to improve the characteristics of the boat

[BOAT]

Mike invented the boom roller reefer so I assume he was also part of the simplified open furler design that was cheaper and easier to untangle and monitor but most importantly also got the headsail closer to the deck. The closer the headsail is to the deck (the lower the foot) the more cloth you can unfurl without heeling over. I’m sure he was part of the spinnaker evolution that finally ended up on the latest MAC M boat which is really quite an impressive downwind runner for a boat that is a hybrid. (Just ask beene).

When I asked Mike a bunch of questions it seemed he already had tried it all; Mike tried all kinds of different configurations, motors, improvements - you name it I asked him about it and he had already tried it. He even knew a lot about the boat I was previously sailing which was a competitor of MacGregor just down the street from the factory.

The rigging is as light as possible, the dagger board is as thin as can be without breaking, the sails are already as big and high as you would ever want them so a heavier rig to get more cloth higher in the air would make no use at all. There is really nothing left to do to a MAC in regards to PERFORMANCE.

The MAC M boat in production in 2012 through 2014 has had every last drop of performance squeezed out of it. Mike already said it in so many words:

The M boat IS the "AMG" version of the X boat.

Brand new out of the factory box the MAC M is gonna perform as good as it ever will.

In regards to exterior finish and interior style and comfort and the quality of rigging, well, that is where things can really use an ‘upgrade’, but really, what does any of that have to do with performance?

[Seapup]

I was offered a really nice one ,well equipped for around $27,500 ,had a new $7000 trailer ,3 states away though .doubt if I'm curious enough to go see it .something about the layout is funky to me .im 6' and I thought the hunter 260 had more head room than mac ,so I'm surprised edge would be less head room .

I think we spent a good hour on it and talking to the rep at the annapolis show around 2009. We really liked it. The cockpit feels much wider and spacious, no comparison to the X or M. We sat on the stern seats talking while there were regularly 6-10 other people on it at the show and it did not bounce around and feel crowded. The little bit of extra beam is quite noticeable both inside and in the cockpit. The rep made the comment that it was the "hang out" boat at the show that everybody seemed to congregate on. I am 6'3" and remembered it to have plenty of headroom. I guess about the same as the tatoo at last years show. The bathroom is aft like the X so the saloon is wide open and the rear berth has a lot more headroom than the X, fairly similar to the M. If I remember right the V berth was tiny and not really a bunk.

[Signaleer]

If you don't decide to go with the Edge - mind if I ask the state / location?

Ed

[mastreb]

The factory collaborated with BWY to build a one-off performance boat called "La Perla Noir" as well. It had one less layer of glass (4 layers minimum vice 5) and had a 430 lb. lead bulb at the bottom of the daggerboard which replaced the water ballast.

It did point better, heel less, and was less tender. However, it wasn't measurably faster excepting its ability to make a bit better VMG, which was surprising to everyone involved. In very light air, it was slightly slower than the stock M. While the 20% reduction in glass reduced weight, it also allowed cracking in the upper deck sides at the windows that had to be repaired.

These boats are actually very well engineered to purpose, and the sometimes frustratingly light-duty fittings work for their purpose and the load ratings they have.

I do think there's a big hole in the market left by the end of the Tattoo 26 production. I think the market will easily bear a 31' trailerable sailboat for $50K with a very standard fit-out.

None of the major _keelboat_ manufacturers are doing any boats between 22 feet and 31 feet currently, and I'm not sure why. It's a HUGE gap. I imagine they're looking at their fleet and seeing that the mid-sized boats aren't selling as well as the smaller or bigger, but they're not going for trailer ability which is huge.

The trick to making a bigger boat easily trailerable is to make a better trailer, a problem that's not particularly difficult to solve. Side bunks that will correctly position the boat in a wind or current and a system to latch and power-load, along with all-aluminum construction, would solve all of the trailering problems these boats have.

Mast raising is pretty easy already, but a carbon-fiber mast and dyneema stays would make it considerably easier.

A little bit of modern design could make these already great boats fantastic.

[sailboatmike]

In Australia the greater majority of Trailer Sailors are on tandem trailers and certainly anything 23 feet and over will be on a tandem, my other boat is 20 feet long and is on a tandem trailer, mind you it does have 730Lbs of lead in the keel.

The point is that going to a tandem will add a little extra cost but is your making 100's a year you can negotiate a reasonable price, the killer is once you go over 2000Kg (4,400lbs) GMV in Australia then you need electronically operated brakes that are controlled from inside the car instead of just overide brakes, there is significant cost to this so keeping the weight of a reasonably loaded boat with motor and trailer combination below the magic 2000Kg would be important in keeping the boat / trailer package to a reasonable cost.

There is not much wrong with the current Tattoo / Macs, they will never be great sailboats because of their cross purpose design criteria, eg whats makes a good sailboat makes a bad power boat and visa versa, but Im sure there is tweeking at the edges that would improve things, like proper NACA profile centerboards and rudders, carbon fiber masts, maybe some sort of variable ballast system so you can fine tune the ballast for the conditions, (this could be easy by just putting 50Kg of lead in the bottom of the centerboard and strengthening the mounting area) so you could run no ballast, centerboard ballast only or a combination of water and centerboard, this would also reduce the amount of water ballast needed due to improved righting moment of the centerboard weight

I know that the M has some full time ballast in the ballast tanks, but if you are going to carry the weight anyway wouldnt it make more sense to have it at the bottom of the keel were it can give the greatest righting moment for the amount of weight.

Overall Roger got the whole thing pretty spot on, but he was building to a very low price, the X and the M are everyman boats, we are lucky that someone with such insight came along and made it happen

[bahama bound]

I guess its only human nature to second guess , my 26x is really close to being the perfect sail boat for us ! I wish it had another foot of beam ,alttle bigger head ,and little more head room .i like the lay out of the hunter 260 but it is not a planing hull .but the little extra beam makes it easy to move around .i guess now the edge has been out awhile you are starting to see them around .just like some Macs that people bought and did not use and neglect them .

[BOAT]

I know that the M has some full time ballast in the ballast tanks, but if you are going to carry the weight anyway wouldnt it make more sense to have it at the bottom of the keel were it can give the greatest righting moment for the amount of weight.

Right, of all the possible mods that can be done at the factory to improve performance this one makes the most sense, and it's the one I asked about even to this day.

As for the carbon fiber mast, its a good idea but VERY VERY expensive, and the extra thousand bucks might scare off some buyers but it would be a good option that any after market rigger could provide. If a rigger provided a CF mast for the MAC M I know I would be a customer, but back to the dagger board:

It's like you said, the 350 pound weight around the DB well is permenant anyways so why NOT move that weight to the bottom of a LONGER DB? It does make sense because in light winds you can pull up the DB a little and relaxe the righting moment and for heavy winds you could extend the DB further to get stiffer righting moment all without adding any weight at all to the trailerable boat! I would have preferred a daggerboard with 250 pounds in the end, verses 350 pounds around the well because that now empty space would just get filled with water and make up the extra 100 pounds anyways.

That's why the modified BWY black boat did not work too well: the only way to really make the weighted daggerboard improve performance significantly is to get rid of the other 300 pound permenant ballast around the DB well, so now we are stuck with it.

[bahama bound]

I have I good friend that actually cut his boat in half and took it from 27 to I think 35' ???? Been sailing for about 4 years with no issues ?but made all the difference in the world as far as room .

[BOAT]

I know that the M has some full time ballast in the ballast tanks, but if you are going to carry the weight anyway wouldnt it make more sense to have it at the bottom of the keel were it can give the greatest righting moment for the amount of weight.

so why NOT move that weight to the bottom of a LONGER DB?

Well, I just found an old PDF that the factory made that compares the Hunter to the MAC and that old sheet answered my question. Apparently Macgregor DID contemplate a weighted dagger board but according to thier own spec comparison with the EDGE they found weighted dagger boards and swing keels to be too dangerous in heavy seas. They were prone to operator error because they required a locking system to keep them from retracting right at the time you need them (in a capsize/turn turtle) and owners forget to lock them. I now remember this was a problem with the early swing keel trailer boats and WHY the Aquarius 23 was designed with a swing DAGGER BOARD instead of a weighted keel. McGregor abandoned the weighted swing keels about the same time but I guess bo on considered the weighted DAGGER BOARD because without locks i guess it poses the same issue as the keel.

MAC claims to be a safer boat because the ballast is PERMANENT and not on a hinged or moveable configuration that can fail, or fall off.

I guess that puts the DB option to rest and I will not ask anymore.

[frede]

Macgregor had Mike Inmon as performance arm...

I had a look at his web site and couldnt find any performance related options such as better rudders for the X, weighted centerboard or sail / rigging upgrades.

Lots of non performance related stuff like covers and the such, but nothing to improve the characteristics of the boat

That's Idasailor, now Rudder Craft. Anyone using their daggerboard?
http://www.ruddercraft.com/catalog/prod ... cts_id=507

[seahouse]

I think that the fixed ballast in the M that surrounds the lower daggerboard trunk also, at least in part, reinforces it (that area of the hull is very robust). Removing some of the reinforcing there to decrease the overall weight, especially when adding weight to the dagger, might be counterproductive. Of course, the daggerboard itself would need to be beefed up to take the extra weight.

[BOAT]

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I see why they did the M boat the way they did. It makes a stronger hull well that is also idiot proof - even in a storm your weighted ballast can't shift.

I guess in the long run the MAC is a better boat than the EDGE performance wise.

Oh well.

[seahouse]

I think the Edge was Hunter's first kick at the can. It was apparent that it was a more conventional sailboat that had been retrofitted with some features "cloned" from the Mac (which involved a lot of compromises), and it takes an unusually astute team of technical people working together to do that successfully on the first try. Although it's not unusual for a copy of a product to come along and outdo the original ("we may be in second place, but we try harder") the Mac has evolved over the years into what it is, was scratch-built from the ground up to be what it is, and is a tough act to follow, let alone compete with.

As I've said here before, no one has been able to build a boat that can do what a Mac does. At any price.

And they've tried !