MacGregorSailors.com

For certain, this is an interesting boat.

I am reading this on my phone, so I need to reread this post on my laptop (larger screen) because I don’t see anything in the small print about a motor.

This sentence did catch my attention:
“The objective is clear: to offer a yacht capable of tackling long voyages with minimal comfort, while remaining trailerable and maneuverable in coastal or shallow waters.” *

Is that a misprint, minimal comfort

Building it yourself is not for everyone.

The article mentions epoxy plywood; since I have no familiarity with the product, I wonder what the maintenance is for epoxy plywood?

* I highlighted minimal comfort.

Ok, it's shorter than an S/D/X/M Mac

Possibly broader?

kurz wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 1:53 am https://www.boatnews.com/story/50116/di ... xploration

I’m with Ray on the two sticking points… “Built in epoxy plywood…” and seemingly no mention (or room!) for a motor.

Marine ply is easy to build with, but I would NEVER own a wooden boat… the maintenance is an annual or bi-annnual nightmare, and the propensity for development of mildew and interior dampness is legendary. Not to mention the ‘creaking’ sounds it will generate in even the mildest seas. Nope, nope, nope.

As to propulsion, I can’t see anywhere to fit a decent sized motor, and even if you did, this hull design isn’t remotely close to being a planing hull, so at best you’re going to see maybe 8 knots with a pretty big one.

Admittedly, it’s a cute design and quite roomy, but a non-starter in my opinion. Definitely not even a Mac contender, much less is it “better than a Mac”.

The boat is about 5” wider than a Mac, and about 3” less headroom.

As they say, "horses for courses."

This boat is basically a mini transat with lifting keels. So if your goal is to travel under sail as fast as possible in a monohull that you can trailer, this boat looks most excellent and definitely faster than a Macgregor and 98%+ other sail boats less than 28 ft LOA.

On the other hand, if you're using it for any other purpose than maximizing speed, it seems to me a MacGregor 26x or 26m would be "better."

1. Less complex and legal to trailer
2. Massively better for modifying with creature comforts.
3. Don't forget those outboard motors.

Also, you have to build this boat. Meanwhile, you can purchase a turnkey 26x or 26M for 20-30% of what it would cost to build this boat even DIY.

And personally, if I was actually going to go to the trouble to build a small cruising boat, I would be more inspired by incorporating ideas from an Ovni 28 or a British Hunter Pilot 27. Alternatively, if I wanted to go fast in a trailerable boat that I could camp on for up to a few days, I would get Corsair trimaran.

Hi Kurz

It’s an interesting boat design.

I’m not an expert on vessel design but it appears to me that the ambitions of the marketing is greater than that of the basic design capability.

From what I can see:

- The hull design may have some advantages albeit it is not as long and is wider and is having a shorter interior than a Mac26X or Mac26M.
- The layout has a couple of nice features but the down side of a fwd head is the functional use issues of lift/drop/roll while in transit.
- The Mac26X (in my opinion) has a better head placement overall and I find it preferable over that of the Mac26M which would prefer over that of this design plan.
- The design would appear to have some very limited space for an electric motor of unspecified capability but battery space/placement is going to be a challenge. There does not appear to be an option for an outboard but a kicker motor could foreseeably be swing-up mounted on the stern and probably preferable in my perspective over that of an in-hull and through shaft arrangement. It would appear doubtful that anything more than the kicker would require a good bit of re-engineering to accomplish.
- Vessel stability is generally indicated by proportionality and this design is short & wide which doesn’t bode well for handling in any sea state with waves in excess of 2 ft. The broad bow is gonna hit the waves pretty stiffly with a slam then lift/drop action that will get old quickly. I don’t see this functionally as any type of an open sea or water type of vessel. It’s just my opinion but it would be getting into trouble if the wave height started to exceed 3 feet… so I really can’t see this as a valid offshore expedition type vessel. Protected waters and near coastal under benign conditions would be a better operational venue for this design.

-/+ I don’t see how the mast lowering and raising would be accomplished as yet but it is probably similar to many top deck mount systems like a Mac26
-/+ The weight seem more than a bit optimistic … but that might just be bare assembly weight

+ The pilot house is a nice touch. I like that! There appear to be two boom arrangements…one for the pilot house version and one for the version without the pilot house.
+ The aft cockpit seems roomier than that of the Mac26X or Mac26M.
+ The aft section seems to have a wide mini deck area which could make egress an easier proposition compared to the side foot space on a Mac26X or Mac26M
+ The interior cabin layout, aside from the head placement, is really quite similar to the Mac26X but with the wider beam making it more comfortable.

It’s not a bad design and given it’s to be DIY plans built it could be customized during the build process.
The challenge is that as plans built boat one is gonna need at least a 20 x 40 foot space for material/fabrication/assembly… that and ready access to a second set of hands to help on a regular basis. ‘Time on project’ is always a concern with something bigger than one can physically pick up and throw….

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so there are bound to be individuals who will be very happy building and sailing this design.
And very RIGHTLY so!

Personally it doesn’t have all that much to offer to be worth the build/cost/time effort it would involve for me.
This is just my personal perspective.
I have no doubt that the designer put in a lot of thought, knowledge, experience and effort into this design.
I have no doubt that it would be very interesting to meet and talk with the designer. I know I’d learn a lot from that opportunity.
This designer probably has other designs that might be more suitable for the Expedition venue.

It just my perspective but I don’t see this particular design as being as capable, functional or comfortable as our current Mac26X.

Best Regards
Over Easy

ehhhh. a few thoughts. and believe me, the thought of a boat which is wicked shallow but can still get out of its own way under sail is appealing.

shes fast. look at the wake. much faster than a mac. shes got the flatter bottom which is initially more stable, and even more stable at speed off the wind, due to hydrodynamic forces.

lets tally up the cost of that speed.
low wetted surface design intended to be light. lets all say that last word again. liiiiight. that means no extra stuff, and even maybe no important-ish things. racers do crazy stuff to save weight and the boats based on a race boat. so, low weight carrying. ka-ching!

minimal comfort. no small boat is comfortable at sea. but that one will pound, with all that flat panel action. and be horribly wet, just like a race boat. racers dont care about that. im not a racer. ka-ching!

build. they are calling this an amateur build. but to keep the boat light, and strong, will require advanced skill. theres no way around that. and, it wont be cheap either because you can only have two. ka-ching!

maintenance and longevity. wood/epoxy is fine, and i like the method, as long as i can use enough of each to allow the boat to be resistant to knocks and bumps, mess-ups and mishaps, and stresses from sailing. the forward parts of the hull are probably what, half inch plywood with a few layers of medium weight glass? use any more and it starts getting heavy. how long is that going to endure, before the glued joints start to fatigue? this is not a five knot, round bilged strip plank hull. btw just the plywood alone, bunzeel marine ply, will probably be 10,000 dollars. Ka-ching!

now, lets take the boat sailing. but not in the ocean. i dont want to go out there, else i wouldnt have gotten a macgregor. lets go sailing in really shallow water. and we actually dont want to go fast because its shallow and there may be stuff we can hit. which we dont want to hit even going slow and we certainly dont want to hit it going fast!
so how well will the boat sail at not-racing-speed? with no rotating mast, and tiny rudders? im guessing not that well. even the mac has a hard time at speeds below 3 knots. la-ching!

motoring. forget it. the design wont want to carry the big engine, and the 18 gallons of fuel to run it. most builders will probably opt for a 6Hp tohatsu or similar. ka-ching!

lll pass for now. shes cute, and i love new designs, but ill let someone else handle this one.


ix

Its going to be a no:

-at 3,000lbs, its at the top of my towing capacity (empty and not even including the trailer)
-not a fan of lifting keels. I don't like moving parts for keels. Water ballast is already giving me heart trouble.
-wood boats are a work of love... not something for me. Keep it white and plastic!
-It think its cool looking, but then again pretty darn ugly. All the M26's are better looking. Maybe its like a pug.... so ugly its cute?

But then again, Im in a lake. If this is indeed an ocean crossing design (which lifting keels and twin keels are not, in my opinion), its definitely on a whole different level than how I will use / plan to use my 26s.

A baby of this boat and a M26 c & x might be a good though:

• scow bow for space and a great looking hard doger/pilot house of the Divinité 7m
• mixed w the length, center/daggerboard, fiberglass construction, and waterballast of the M26
• the speed of the M26C
• and the headroom/layout of the M26X

That sounds like a good experiment. Then again, there is no way to mix in the price of a 30 year old M26C, so its an exercise in futility on my part. But dreaming is always fun. Why can't I make what I do now at the cost of things 50 years ago???

1. If I were to build something, it would be a tiny one person monohull or a tiny 2 person trimaran (because thats all I could possibly hope to build and because there are so many good production boats already made). It would be an project of fun to build something.
2. For something 3,000lbs or even 4,000lbs+ for the lake and the fam that is as roomy as the M26, I havent seen anything. Maybe the Oday 26 or 28 would be a good contender but thats 5,000lbs / 7,500lbs!!! Way over my tow weight.
3. For ocean crossing kind of exploring, insert any super old and salty sailboat with a full keel (or modified full) with good capsize screening and comfort ration numbers, with a total length less than 30ft. Think Alegra, Bristol, Person, Alberg, Islander. But this would be a solo or duo adventure. I wouldnt subject my fam to something like this. Pipe dream? Yes!

But all in all, I keep coming back to the M26... seems like the best of all compromises for me and my fam. Its hard to beat in price, space, and trailerability for my setup.