"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic

foot

of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that
its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200
gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

What is your estimate, Jeff?

Gee that's a tough one Jim. How about 6 inches wide by 6 feet long by one foot
draft? That gives a pretty conservative 3 cubic feet. I suspect it may be half
of that, or less. And the amount of drag created by the trunk is reall not that
large.

Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out,

(While I took time off to watch the Democratic Convention.)

No, I meant a full week ago, or more.

....

However, the size in
cubic feet isn't the real issue. (If you thin it is, check it out.) -
The issue from the above discussion related to whether or not the Mac
26M and 26X had the same hull, from the same female mold.


No Jim, that's not the issue. That may be the issue you had with others,
but my
point is that you made an absurd claim, and then repeated it several times
after
the absurdity was pointed out. You even denied that you ever made absurd
claims.

And during all that discussion about whether the two boats were actually
the same, you never admitted I was right regarding the fact that the
hull of the Mac 26M is different from that of the 26X, did you Jeff?

Now your complaining that I didn't come to your defense on this issue of the
"two molds or one"? Give me a break! I would have assumed there was would be
a new mold even if the hull stayed the same. Hell, they probably have a number
of molds, given that they make 4 a day!

Check the record, Jim, I never really debated whether they were different boats
or different versions of the same basic design. I claimed that the similarities
between them were far greater than the differences. I claimed that most of the
comments made about the 26X applied to the 26M, while you claimed that no
negative comment about the 26X (or the history of the company) could be applied
to the 26M because it was a completely new boat.

Because to do so would have cost you some brownie points with your buddies.

Which buddies are those? I'm an equal opportunity nit picker, Jim. I wouldn't
let anyone here get away with the nonsense you've been spouting.



The real issue, Jeff, is that there is an extended open trunk cavity in
the Mac 25X that's not present in the Mac 25M. - My comments regarding
the cavity were submitted when I was challenged as to whether the hull
of the Mac 26M was the same as that for the Mac 25X. It's obviously not,
and to this day, you refuse to admit that I was right and others
attacking me were dead wrong regarding that issue.

I never debated whether there was on open trunk, though I seriously doubt it has
a major affect on performance. And this by itself doesn't make it a new boat -
as I've said before, my boat is offered with fixed keels or daggerboards. I
merely pointed out that 200 gallons is an absurd claim. And you even challenged
us to point out when you made an absurd claim!




Frankly, I think it the drag of the open trunk is nowhere near as high as
you
claim, especially at the low speeds you sail, but that's a different issue.
Claiming its 27 cubic feet is just plain stupid.


Again, in the context of the discussion in which my note was posted,
time, the issue wasn't the degree of drag, but rather that it had been
claimed that the hull of the 26M was the same as that for the 26X. It
had been stated that they probably came off the same female mold.

Well, as I said I expect it was a new mold. But I've spent a bit of time
watching boats being built, including mine. Lots of molds are modified by
adding a little here, taking off something there. I'm sure the three versions
of my boat are actually popped out of the same molds. The boat has gone though
15 years of changes with the original mold. They even built their prototype
powercat with a modified sailboat mold.

The
fact that the 26M doesn't have the open trunk and the 25X does is simply
one more example of the differences between the two hulls. - Yet you
still refuse to acknowlege that I was right and the others participating
in the discussion were wrong. - Shame, shame on you, Jeff.

I never said you were "wrong," only that the question was not relevent. Shame
on you Jim, for presuming my position here.

You put up a
diversionary smoke screen (telling everyone that I didn't figure the
volume in cubic feet) while ignoring the fact that I was fundamentally
right relative to the underlying context of the discussion.

My issue has been your tactic of misuse of the information, and this is just
another case of it.







Actually, of
course, the 26X differs in that it has a five-foot open trunk or cavity
extending along the chine of the hull and inducing substantial drag when
the rudder is down, out of the trunk. The hull of the 26M is obviously
different from that of the 26X, and the fact that it doesn't have the
five foot long open trunk extending along the chine of the hull is one
of the several obvious differences.


Sorry Jim, its not called a chine.


That's what the dictionary definition is, Jeff.

What dictionary is that? Every dictionary I have says its the intersection
between the side and bottom.



But once more, you
ignore the substantive context of the discussion, and ignore the fact
that I was right concerning the fact that the hulls of the 26M and the
26X are different, by jumping down my throat about silly technical
issues such as this. If you were honest, Jeff, you would FIRST
acknowledge that I was basically right, and others were wrong, regarding
the original discussion relative to similarities and differences
between the two boats, and then comment regarding your latest "gotcha"
re such terminology

Hey Jim, I admitted weeks (months?) ago that it made little difference to me if
you wanted to called them different boats. The real issue is whether they are
close enough that observations about one apply to the other. You been claiming
that nothing negative about the 26X can be applied to the 26M. I've claimed
that the differences are not that great.


But, of course, intellectual honesty isn't on your list of top
priorities, is it Jeff?

Actually, that's exactly what I've been insisting on Jim. You're the one who
prides himself in maintaining the highest level of bull****, aren't you? How
many examples of your blatant bull**** do you want me to list Jim? You're
claims about speed you deny you've made? Your claim that warnings can be
ignored? This "200 gallon" issue was just one small place where I tried to
point out that you made a mistake, but with your nonsense you've just made a
fool of yourself another time.