JimC wrote:
Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad nauseum, the
following is still true:





1. Your theories relating to the effects of weight DISTRIBUTION on the
boat are wrong. - The boat does not pitch excessively, and it sails
steadily with little corrective helm. - When you have sailed a 26M on
several occasions, then you can come back and tell us about all the
terrible effects weight DISTRIBUTION on the 26M were causing. -
Meanwhile, despite all your yada, yada, yadas, and all your theories,
you have never sailed the 26M and you really don't know how it handles
or sails. And meanwhile, I'll continue enjoying sailing the boat.

My theories are wrong? Sorry, this isn't my theory at all. It's
common physics and will be mentioned in any text on yacht design.
Calculation of the pitch moment is a fundamental of design. Anyone
who has raced one designs understands this - having a few crew members
move to the bow and stern while sailing alongside a sister ship
provides an easy demonstration. Most sailors take this very seriously
- they will carefully consider the weight of any gear placed in the
bow or stern. Powerboats also - those big Hatteras' have their 1000
gallon fuel tanks placed precisely at the "pitch center" of the boat.

Further, nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably. I did mention once that I've seen them
"bob around" a lot more than other boats, but I've also said I've seen
so few of them actually sailing that I can't make a definitive statement.

The problem is that you've focused all of your energy denying that the
Mac has weight distributed more towards the extremities than
normally ballasted boats. This is an obvious, undeniably fact and yet
you wasted any shred of credibility you think you have on claiming
that it not so.

What you should have done is consider what other features of your boat
work to reduce any tendency to pitch. For example, boats that are
overly symmetrical tend to pitch more because the resistance doesn't
change as it pitches. Full bows and overhangs that provide reserve
buoyancy work in the opposite way and reduce the tendency to pitch, as
does moving the point of maximum beam well aft. But no, you preferred
to look like a fool arguing that an oversized outboard hanging on the
stern doesn't affect the moment at all.


2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant safety
factor are just that. - Theories. Neither you or I have stats on the
significance of the efficacy of the double hull section. The difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge it, whereas you want to
continue ranting and raving about it. But from my experience with the
boat, the double-hull section, positioned along the lowermost portion of
the hull from bow to aft of amidships, could be effective to prevent
incursion of sea water into the cabin if the boat were planing and ran
over a piece of wood or whatever floating at or just below the surface.
- A further factor is that visibility directly forward of the boat can
be partially obscured when planing.

I have little doubt that the double layer in certain parts of the hull
could, in some circumstances, prevent a hull breech. I'm not sure
what you mean by "from my experience" unless you're saying you
frequently hit things and while they penetrate the outer layer, you
have never holed the inner layer.

The issues are whether this represents a significant safety feature,
or whether this can be considered a "double hull."

1. First and foremost, the manufacturer makes absolutely no claims
about this on the web site or in any literature. One would think that
if this is a significant feature, it would be mentioned.

2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere. The doubled portion of the Mac's hull is less than half,
perhaps less than a quarter. While this might offer some benefit, it
really isn't much different from any other hull where certain areas
have extra reinforcement, or an integral water or fuel tank. My boat,
BTW, has collision bulkheads in the forward part of each bow such that
I could totally crunch one or even both bows and not take in a drop of
water. This is a true safety feature, worth mentioning.

3. For any boat with a traditional hull form and keel, the risk of a
breech in the areas so protected in the Mac are pretty low. For
instance, hitting a rock on the centerline would be much more likely
to strike the keel, or the heavily protected stem. Almost every case
of a serious breech that I've seen has actually been on the side,
which is unprotected on the Mac. (This is from collisions, or a
glancing blow to a rock.)

4. This is actually a pretty small risk for most sailboats - the
number of sinkings is extremely small. In spite of the fact that
you've mentioned many times that all other sailboats would "sink to
the bottom" there are very, very few deaths occur from this in
protected waters.

5. You have mentioned many times that the boat has flotation and is
unsinkable. Thus, this is not a feature that would prevent sinking.

6. If the outer layer of the tank were breeched and you continued on
at speed, you would actually have a dangerous situation of a partially
full tank which could induce a capsize. This is actually a bigger
risk than sinking.

7. Did I mention that even the manufacturer doesn't seem to consider
this a safety feature?

I could probably find a few more items to add, but this is enough.

My objection to your numerous references to the double hull or liner
is that you have often described this as an important feature that
makes the Mac superior to other boats. For example, on 9/15/04 you
responded to a request for recommendations by extolling the virtues of
the Mac. You listed as "advantages over other boats" in this order: a
"double double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is
penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter
the cabin," flotation in the mast, and foam flotation. You made no
mention of the fact that the "double hull" only gives very limited
protection. Also, you never mentioned that the mast flotation, while
handy in dinghies, shouldn't be needed in boats unless they are prone
to capsizing. Even the Mac shouldn't ever capsize, assuming the
ballast tank is full.



3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics. - In view of the thousands of Macs
sold and in use, if they were inherently unsafe, you should be able to
come up with hundreds of examples of crews being lost, boats sinking,
rigging coming to pieces, boat foundering and filling with water, etc.,
etc. - But all you have is an example in which the captain was drunk,
the boat severely overloaded, and in which the captain did not have any
understanding of the boat or its water ballast system. ANECDOTES, and
statements like: "everybody knows that....." don't cut it, Jeff. If the
boat is inherently dangerous, give us evidence or stats on the
percentages of Macs that have failed at sea, or on which crew or skipper
have been killed or critically injured. While its true that positive
flotation COULD be installed in conventional sailboats, it normally IS
NOT offered. And its a significant safety factor on the Mac.

You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there
would be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few
accidents at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over. You've
frequently claimed the Mac is safer than other boats because of
certain features, but if these other boats are so unsafe, why aren't
there hundreds of fatalities with them?

The truth is, while there are over 50,000 aux sailboats 26-40 feet
there are only a couple of fatalities per year in this class of boats.
I don't have access to the raw data so its hard to break things out,
but the numbers would seem to indicate a risk on the order of 1 per
20,000 per year.

There are two implications of this. One is that any claim that the
Mac is safer than other boats suffers from a lack of evidence the
other boats are in any way unsafe. But on the other hand, we know of
at least three deaths related specifically to the unique properties of
the Mac 26X. If we assume 5000 were built, this represent more than
what one might expect. In other words, from this single incident the
26X has had more than its share of fatalities since its launch and for
some years into the future.

What was more troubling about these deaths is that they were caused
specifically by the unusual properties of the Mac. On any other 26
foot sailboat, 8 adults would not be "seriously overloaded." On any
other 26 foot sailboat, goosing the throttle when stopped would not
result in an roll over in a flat calm, windless evening. Yes, the
company avoided a disastrous lawsuit because helmsman was inebriated,
but so are half the boaters out there, especially on the 4th of July
when this took place. Had those children been in any other 26 foot
sailboat, they would still be alive.

My point on the Mac is not that it is so unsafe that anyone foolish
enough to buy one will likely die. My point has been that some of the
features that are used as selling points have safety risks that would
not be an issue on any other sailboat. In particular, the high speeds
that can be achieved without ballast are only safe if the operator
follows a lengthy list of warnings. These include only four people on
the boat (2 if they are your weight), no one on deck, no one forward
below, sails removed, board and rudders up, chop under one foot (and
therefore presumably a light wind), water should be warm.

None of these warnings would apply on a traditional boat. However,
the speed of the boat is its major feature, and the feature that
drives most of the design. Further, the boat appeals mainly to
novices. I find it rather troubling that people unfamiliar with boats
would have to understand a list of warnings that would never come up
in their ordinary experience.

BTW, I'll remind you that although you mentioned the high speeds a
number of times before you bought the boat, since then you've admitted
that you actually power at the lower speed that I predicted you would.



4. You have consistently ignored or brushed aside the many advantages
of the Mac design. - You fail to acknowledge that the ability to carry a
larger outboard does indeed provide a number of advantages relating both
to the ability to get to desired sailing areas, the ability to maneuver
against adverse winds and weather, family recreational uses, etc. While
not denying the advantages of a diesel as far as cog, etc., the larger
engines does get the job done and does provide greater versatility and
other advantages. - Yes, a conventional sailboat doesn't need such an
engine, and may have a greater range, but that doesn't mean that the Mac
arrangement doesn't provide a number of other advantages. While the high
freeboard does entail disadvantages, it also provides a number of
advantages. - Very few small sailboats have anywhere near the room and
accommodations provided in the Mac.

I reserve the right to ignore anything I want. The Mac has enough
attributes that I dislike that I have no desire to belabor the few
that might be of interest.

However, I will admit that I appreciate boats that can power fast, and
I've admitted that a substantial amount of my cruising has been done
under power.

I've even said that for some people the Mac is a reasonable boat.
I've even said that given its design goals it might be the best
solution out there. There is certainly no doubt that it is popular.

However, the particular combination of features is meaningless unless
you actually need them. For instance, if you leave the boat in the
slip, the easy trailorability is of marginal value. While a few
people can argue a real need to power at speed to get to a reasonable
cruising ground, the vast majority of sailors seem to make do with
powering at a lower speed.

And given that the Mac is one of the worst sailers out there, its hard
to justify your claim elsewhere that it "serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time."
Certainly anyone who has as a high priority a boat that is a good
sailer would not choose a Mac.


6. As to costs, you and others seem to always compare the cost of
15-year old used boats to that of new Macs. If you are going to compare
costs, take the apples and apples approach. - If you you want to talk
about new boats, compare costs of both new conventional boats and new
Macs, with equivalent equipment. And then add in the costs of slip
fees, maintenance, bottom treatments, etc.

Actually I haven't made that big an issue of the costs. I do think
that there are much better ways to spend 30 kilobucks. I, for
instance, might buy a nice used overnighter plus a small powerboat.
But I might also look for a small cruiser, like a Nonsuch 26.

However, one point I've made about Macs is that they seem to
depreciate faster than other boats. There are a number of five year
old Macs that are asking roughly 60% of the original price. This does
not speak well of their quality or desirability. When you see an ad
offering a 2002 at $12-14K under the purchase price and claiming "only
used 8 or 9 times" you really have to wonder if this person was happy
he bought it.


6. And, it's lots of fun to sail.

When I was a kid I found an old cement mixing tub. I turned it into
my yacht and had a ball with it! So that can be your motto: "A Mac!
As much fun as a cement tub!"