26X vs 26M: which one is the best in your experience?

baldbaby2000 · Post by **baldbaby2000** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:33 pm

The M is better of course! .....Just kidding. I think the M is probably a better sailboat but I haven't sailed much on an X. One thing I like about the X is the swing keel. I tend to hit things and with my Mac 25 which had a swing keel it wasn't a big deal. With the M it might require some daggerboard repair work.

Daniel

tangentair · Post by **tangentair** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:23 pm

It simply appears to me that the more liberal

s tack from one alternative to another seeking a path through to clear air, while - in general - the more conservative

s hold to their course stronger and are more resistant to the winds of change.

s layouts are pretty well fixed around a core center (board) while the newer

s are open to more alternative lifestyles. Both like lots of push on their backsides and get squirrelly when forced to go slow and maneuver around conflicting points. And I have heard for all its purported swiftness to make its mark the Blue

has a very thin skin when it is rubbed the wrong way.

beene · Post by **beene** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:08 pm

Very Nice tangentair

G

John McDonough · Post by **John McDonough** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:01 pm

Sailing either boat depends on how well you have tuned your rig, which jib or Genoa you use makes a difference. My X tacks closer to windward using the small Jib, but once I put the Genoa on the roller furler its too much PITA to swithch back. I would like to go back to a classic fast sailboat, but once you get spoiled by a 50 hp there is no going back.

waternwaves · Post by **waternwaves** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:13 pm

Tan.....
yeoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

now that was entertaining......and damn funny

Moe, I guess us former long hair hippy types should have gotten rid of our X's at the outset...

I guess I dont fit either X or M mold very well.....but I sure enjoyed laughing at myself for that comparison..

Well done.......Even if I do disagree....

beene · Post by **beene** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:20 am

At the very least, I thought it was quite witty and made me smile.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:09 pm

I think the M is probably a better sailboat but I haven't sailed much on an X.

I think My truck is better than my neighbors Maybach

but Ive never driven one.

This board has been there done that is understating it.

Used.......X= inexpensive

New........M= all thats available

Used M........probably slightly better shape than an X

marsanden · Post by **marsanden** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:10 am

Used M........probably slightly better shape than an X

..............probably.........but not for everyone... ( by the way... i like X shape more than M, and im triin to understand why Roger stopped its X producion).

thats why i asked about sailing and boating experience on both .reading all the answers it looks like :
is better living on X than on M ( transom area, head...etc)
is better boating ( engine) on an X than on M( more speed )
sailing...its probably the same...or may be - thanks to the rotating mast - ( but not for everyone) may be a bit better on M.

so, if it was all true, well....why roger did start with M production?

They Theirs · Post by **They Theirs** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:54 am

Actually the new “M” model included many upgrades including structural and safety enhancements. There is greater standing headroom and a larger cabin volume from extending the cockpit aft. The transom entrance was narrowed and the cabin entrance was raised to prevent a following sea from entering. Permanent Solid ballast was added to improve stability, and the conversion to a Daggerboard, doubling the hull deadrise in combination with increased sail area and a taller, stronger rotating mast improved sailing and motoring. (Less Pounding of the Hull)

A complete redesign of the powersailor exterior and the interior benefited from removing the large centerboard hump dominating most of the cabin floor. Moving the cockpit aft increased the cabin volume some 15 sq. ft., and raising the cabin height & cabin entrance made the large aft berth, adult sized. The Early “M” large volume interior, with Lounge Seating provided more room for crew. The New “M” offered the first color choice over the Clorox bottle white, and the refrigerator white interior was replaced with the insulating and sound deadening benefit of carpeted hull interior in warm, natural colors. Exposed steering linkage of the previous model were strengthened, upgraded and moved inside the "M" hull.

baldbaby2000 · Post by **baldbaby2000** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:37 am

Actually the new “M” model included many upgrades including structural and safety enhancements...

They still need to make a stronger daggerboard. Doh!

Andy26M · Post by **Andy26M** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:38 pm

In the event of a grounding, you want the daggerboard to break rather than damaging the hull or trunk, hence strengthening the daggerboard may not be a good idea.

- Andy

Frank C · Post by **Frank C** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:34 pm

They Theirs wrote: . . . A complete redesign of the powersailor exterior and the interior benefited from removing the large centerboard hump dominating most of the cabin floor ...
. . . The New “M” offered the first color choice over the Clorox bottle white, and
. . . the refrigerator white interior was replaced with the insulating and sound deadening benefit of carpeted hull interior in warm, natural colors.

Everything TT writes is true, if read through a slightly skeptical marketing filter (the only kind).

In fact, the more things change, the more they remain the same. The 26X was a "standing headroom" powersailing hull, applied over the earlier, water-ballasted 26S cabin layout. The reason for such design recycling? ... there's ONLY ONE practical cabin arrangement that allows for a swing centerboard, given a hull length of just 26 feet.

The 26M was a "standing headroom" powersailing hull, applied over the earlier, water-ballasted 26D cabin layout. The reason for such design recycling? ... there's ONLY ONE practical cabin arrangement that allows for a daggerboard trunk beneath the mast, smack-dab in the middle of the hull, given a hull length of just 26 feet. Roger's M-design also recycled the deck & windows from the Mac 19 ... to each his own.

I believe Roger changed his design for much more pragmatic reasons than TT has highlighted:

the 26X molds were dying anyway - either clone them or start over.
The 26X was now over 7 years' market-worn. A design change could spark new market interest, even if somewhat recycled.
Roger prolly grew weary of constantly hearing how his powersailors were sailing turkeys;
The DB design is faster than the CB design. ... DUH!
Roger's second-calling, as tinkerer, incited a marketing-stab at an easily trailered rotating mast;
New England's fatal capsize & subsequent lawsuit demonstrated some design elements that might bear improving, such as some permanent ballast;
New molds offered a chance to improve the aft berth & companionway designs.
The ownership trend to larger motors meant he might re-balance the hull to accomodate larger outboards;
Even if the design accomodates larger outboards, Roger will NEVER authorize more than 50 hp. Why should he expand his potential product liability when there's no competitive pressure by any similar powersailor?

I prefer the performance flexibility offered by the centerboard. The CB trunk isn't at all intrusive, laid down the center of the cabin, since the aisle runs alongside, and the dinette sits atop it. I also prefer having the galley/head facilities in the "standing room". Elsewhere in the cabin, I'm just migrating to a conversation seat, anyhow ... to each his own.

As regards the "insulating and sound deadening benefit of carpeted hull" ... carpeting the hull is simply quicker and easier for design and assembly while sorting out the issues of a new design. The "refrigerator interior" will return (in market-speak) as a premium 'full hull liner' to deter the mold, mildew and allergies of cheaper carpeted designs~!!

baldbaby2000 · Post by **baldbaby2000** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:35 pm

In the event of a grounding, you want the daggerboard to break rather than damaging the hull or trunk, hence strengthening the daggerboard may not be a good idea.

Andy,

That's true but from my experience the daggerboard trailing edge gets damaged way too easy. I suspect the trunk is plenty strong to handle a heftier daggerboard. I've examined my trunk after damaging my daggerboard, which had actually been made stronger from previous damage, and see no trunk damage. I'm referring to the lower part of the trunk where the fixed ballast is. I'm not as convinced if the board is halfway up and you hit something how well the daggerboard well would hold up.

Daniel

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:49 pm

speaking of grounding that is one thing Im glad I dont have an M for. 10 year old boat probably grounded 1 or 2 hundred times and still on the original swing keel.

beene · Post by **beene** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:30 pm

OK

Scott

Hands off my

MacGregorSailors.com

MacGregorSailors.com

26X vs 26M: which one is the best in your experience?

nice turn of a few phrases.....

strength