Hi Im Roger Macgregor (NOT)

[Tom Spohn]

Here is my partial list:

Current Boat
1. Keep the 26M hull. It is a great compromise in rough water, motoring and sailing. Don't make it longer as insurance rates climb after 26 ft.
2. Fix the steering. Current steering has too much "slop" in it.
3. Replace swing rudders with rudders in a slot that raise and lower vertically. It is really difficult to attach a swim step or dinghy davits with those big rudders in the way.
4. Reshape the top mold from the mast forward, so the top of the boat runs more horizontally from the mast to the anchor locker. This would allow more head room in the head.
5. Loose the sliding Galley. You can't put a Wallas stove in it cause it can't be vented properly. A stove is needed up here in the North. Although I like the '04 M design, I was OK with the X design except I hated the contortion I needed to go through to get into the aft berth.
6. Go for one color hull. Although I love my blue hull, and it is faster, money could be saved by the factory offering just one color. Besides the blue hull scuffs too easily.

New Boat


1. Why not just skip to 32 to 34 feet. Most of the cost of the boat is tooling and labor. Intermediate sizes don't push my "tradeup" button. I would give up trailorability to get more beam, but I know that others would not.
2. Keep the construction simple and as cheap as possible. Skip all the fancy woodwork.
3. Improve electrical system so a complete galley is possible. Microwave, oven, etc.
4. Separate staterooms that close off.
5. Head with sink and shower.
6. Keep outboard power to give more interior room in the boat. Slotted rudders to allow swim/boarding step to the dink.
7. Radar arch ala Hunter, to put radar, gps, radio, etc. on top and have a place to hang the dink when underway.
8. More storage.

I really agree with Chip Hindes on this. Whatever changes are made and whatever boats are offered they must be MacGregors. That is they must be simple, cheap, and easy to maintain while giving on some of the luxury points. Besides we Mac owners love to add those custom touches ourselves.

[Tom Root]

Here is another thought that might allow for a bigger platform for something like SCUBA - what if, instead of hanging on or being fully supported by the transom, the platform simply floated behind and was attached to the transom on each side of the motor with a hinge or universal joint?? Kind of like a miniature floating dock. You could build a folding topside that fit on top of an innertube, so the whole thing could be taken down and stored inside for travel, or left floating at your mooring, on the beach, whatever... Maybe a way to make double-duty out of the tube you use to pull the kids around on. I guess the real question is, how much bouyancy does one of those tubes really have - if you put a lightweight, rigid deck on top of the tube and stood on it, would it sink? If it would hold enough weight, then attaching it to the transom would steady it, without putting any big loads on the transom.

Where does one buy a big innertube to experiment on? Without paying for one of the fancy towables?

- AndyS

A good idea perhaps, but for simplicity we just use our inflatable in that matter. A problem that exists, is the two boats alternately boble up and down at different intervals, making it hairy in swells. I may end up just sticking to that method anyway! But it is still a thought nonetheless! A third use is a real dinghy dock if I do attach it to the transom...at or below waterline. Just thoughts anyway....whatever works, I suppose.

Alot of times we take the B.C.'s and lash them to a line off the transom, and get on the ladder. Again it can be treacherous if that ladder is up and down, and I have gotten a nasty goose egg on my BHG (Brain Housing Group) before. This is why a platform may be the solution, as you can time it, and mount it fast and be more stable.....perhaps?

We do find the stock ladder to be a bit of an annoyance, as it isn't down far enough to mount easily and then there is no easy way to pull yourself up. I use another line arond the motor for this, but still not perfect.

I could use the grating as a back porch as most have done already. Primarily to keep sand out of the boat and see the steering components at the same time?

[Richard O'Brien]

Here is my partial list:

Current Boat
3. Replace swing rudders with rudders in a slot that raise and lower vertically. It is really difficult to attach a swim step or dinghy davits with those big rudders in the way.

That's brilliant Tom. That would solve the doggy platform problem for me. I'd like to suggest additionally adding a spring or bungee to the slot in such a way that it was spring loaded for the last foot or more. A small notch would then catch it, and if the rudder struck something and was suddenly forced back it would automatically pop up enough to save the rudder.

One more idea: I would want a removable access panel to the ballast tank. This panel could be tapped as an option to add a collapsible fresh water tank , the volume of which could be replaced by opening the ballast tank as it was used.

[RandyMoon]

Does anyone have an inking whether or not MacGregor ever uses this forum for product feedback? I would think this would be a good source collecting ideas for future enhancements.

[Tony D-26X_SusieQ]

How about bringing back the 65? Passed one the other night on the Chesapeake Bay. She sure was pretty.

[Frank C]

Here is my partial list: Current Boat

1. Keep the 26M hull. It is a great compromise in rough water, motoring and sailing. Don't make it longer as insurance rates climb after 26 ft.
4. Reshape the top mold from the mast forward, ... (to) allow more head room in the head.
5. Loose the sliding Galley. ...
... hated the contortion ... to get into the aft berth (of 26X).

Tom,

This isn't a X v. M debate, it's a new design, eh? ... quick observations then from my perspective ... I understand that you prefer the M's hull shape. But rather than remolding the M-foredeck to improve the head, it's an easier design exercise to use a conventional layout and just improve aft berth access. I'd definitely prefer the swinging centerboard. But the 26-footer is truly an exercise for Roger ... few here would replace their boat with the improved 26.

Maximum headroom (for galley & head) is always at the deepest part of the hull (at the companionway), pretty much industry-std for smaller sailboats. The Catalina 27 and 28II, the Beneteaus, the Juneaus, and for this new design, the Hunter 27 with 10' beam ... they all have basic layouts like the 26X:



In fact, it seems to me the only reason for the M's alt-layout was to accomodate the daggerboard. (Someone quick - need poll on Dagger vs. Centerboards)!

So, I think any new boat will likely have that easier-to-design layout. Regarding the larger boat, I like that it would be a blank canvas, just like the current boats. Hold down costs and leave improvements (microwaves, etc.) to the owner. IMO, it MUST BE trailerable. Otherwise there are already two dozen competitive options. A trailerable 30-footer is more realistic for the max beam of 8.5', perhaps just big enough for private cabins (see Hunter 306). This Hunter weighs 4,500 (ex ballast w/11-foot beam) so Roger's trailerable version should weigh a little less.

[Tom Spohn]

Frank C.,
I didn't intend this to be an X vs M debate. I have owned both and liked them both. Compromises are different on both--nuff said.

Actually if the current 26M would go back to the X layout, but with a much better rear bunk access it would do it for me. Also V berth should be useable without adding cushions, etc. to make it larger.

I also believe I am in the minority of folks that started with an X and moved to an M. Many have expressed the idea that the M is not enough different to warrant the change. I would still be driving my X if the Admiral hadn't seen that blue hull with that quiet motor at a rendezvous! As a guy somewhat familiar with marketing I believe the large installed base of X and M owners should not be ignored by someone that can provide an upgrade in size and capability, but still be economical and all the things we love about our X's and M's. I think the dealers would love the prospect of holding on to those customers as well. I have a friend, for example, who is on his second Hunter--five feet longer than the first--same dealer.

[mike]

Regarding the larger boat, I like that it would be a blank canvas, just like the current boats. Hold down costs and leave improvements (microwaves, etc.) to the owner. IMO, it MUST BE trailerable. Otherwise there are already two dozen competitive options.

Are there truly? I mean, just for the sake of discussion (and at the risk of further irritating Chip!), let's suppose that a "MacGregorized" (meaning not overly fancy) 33-footer could be made, sans motor, for $35K (which, admittedly, is little more than a guess based on 26M price interpolated to a 33ft. boat plus a several extra thousand $$$). Make it water-ballasted, trailerable w/permit (I'm not sure if that meets your definition of trailerable... it would be trailerable, but just not EASILY trailerable), have private cabins fore and aft, a larger head w/shower, and a more practical galley. Engineer the transom to allow for a 225hp outboard (yeah, those aren't cheap). So, we're talking around $50 - $60K total (after user-added stuff).

Are my calculations unreasonable?

There are many of us who like the particular features of the 26X / 26M (shallow draft, fast motoring, trailerabilty, reasonable price, etc.), but are gravitating towards someday buying a larger boat. I hope someday soon Roger decides to capitalize on this, and takes our advice!

--Mike

[kmclemore]

New version of the proposed Mac has been sighted!!

[Mark Prouty]

New version of the proposed Mac has been sighted!!

Now that is clever. Interesting that cubans can keep those old cars running.

[aya16]

Tom I can think of a few Ideas (not all mine) that would fit into what you want.


First thing Mac would need a 28 foot boat with a little wider beam. That would cause interest in trading up even the diehard x guys.

Second would be the two axle galv. trailer rated for 6 thousand pounds.

Making the boat taller would not work for head room. The boat is tall now and sits pretty high out of the water. So the solution would be to make the boat deeper and add more water weight. But that would compromise the
stability with out ballast.

The boat needs to be rated for a 100+ hp engine that would need a beafed up transom.

[midget]

I've always "wanted" a pilothouse. How about a 27 footer with outside tiller and inside wheel steering with full galley and other 35' features and (sorry, three foot draft- but will sit flat when the tide goes out) and with a bigger diesel and a centerboard and I'd be sold-----http://www.selectyachts.co.uk/hunterhome.asp?ArtID=10#

[TampaMac]

Have Mac make a folding Triamaran (like the telstar 28) of about 30 feet, 18 foot beam when folded out.

Build it sturdy, but on the cheap to keep the price low.

Put a shower aboard, and space to put a portable generator/airconditioning system.

Or... put the M sail on the X hull, like I did.