Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the
conditions experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't
read of any instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in
heavy weather that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a
coastal cruiser, and I have never claimed that it was suitable for
extended crossings, live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.


But, you keep saying that the big engine is an safety feature, but then
you claim it isn't needed because the Mac is safe without it. Which is
it? This is the fundamental problem - you make these claims, I point
out the paradox, you come back with the opposite claim. I point out
your hypocrisy, you then claim I'm ranting and raving.

The big engine is a safety feature. But also, the Mac would make it
back to shore safely under sail without the engine, IMO. So, although
the 50 hp engine isn't "needed," in that the Mac is seaworthy under
sail, the large engine is, nevertheless, a safety factor. As I stated
previously, I think an outboard of 20hp or above could keep the boat on
course.



At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it
back to shore.


Would it? You keep saying that the windage on the hull makes the engine
a safety feature, and that it doesn't do well upwind. Are you really
saying you can make progress upwind against 40 knots?

It wouldn't make much progress going directly into the wind, Jeff. But
IMO, it would do all right on a a close reach. Actually, neither you
nor I have sailed one in a 40 know wind, so neither of us actually knows
how the boat would handle under such conditions. - Again, the difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge that fact.



Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off the crest
of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the Mac, which
would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.


What would I do? Perhaps you can show me an example of even a single
modern production cruising cat, 35 feet or bigger, that has capsized
within 100 miles of land. There have been a few cases of older smaller
cats capsizing, and some homemade boats. And there's no trouble finding
racing cats that have capsized, but that's different. And there have
been a few caught in hurricanes offshore, but generally the crew
survived. Do you really want to compare your boat to a passage-maker?

Of course, I wasn't comparing my boat to anything. - I was talking about
your boat. - Which would flip over and turtle if caught in the crest of
a wave, under severe conditions. - But I suspect that most cat sailors
have enough sense to get the hell out of there if heavy weather is
approaching. - One flip on a cresting wave, and you're turtled. My
understanding is that most cat sailors, other than pros and racing
crews, recognize that fact and tend not to take their boats out in
severe weather or on long crossings. - Perhaps that's why most of them
don't flip over.


But would your boat pop up?

Yes, mine would. - Would yours?

These people got a medal for rescuing Mac
sailers:
http://www.ussailing.org/Pressreleas...HIrishMist.htm

2000. - Is that the most recent incident that you could come up with
Jeff? - Six years ago? Of course, that was a Mac 26X (not the 26M, and
it certainly sounds like they were trying to sail or motor in severe
weather without the water ballast.

By the way, when are you going to come up with evidence or statistics to
support your anecdotes and "everyone knows...." assertions?



There have actually been a number of Macs that have capsized


Really, Jeff? And what is that number? And do you have some evidence or
statistics to support that particular assertion? More significantly,
what percentage of the thousands of Macs on the water have capsized?
(Ballpark figures, supported by evidence, not anecdotes.)


- one was
lost in the Bristol Channel in F6, for example. Most of the cases seem
to involve using the engine in unprotected waters.

BTW, Have you ever read the CG safety reports? Capsizing is much more
of a risk than sinking.


In any case, Jeff, I would feel safer on my Mac in heavy winds and waves
than on a cat. - One flip, and that's all she rote.




What confuses me, Jeff, is the fact that I post the same
comments, such as those above about the limitations
of the boat, over and over and over
again. - Yet to you, each day seems to be a brand new discussion, a
fresh clean slate.


What you keep missing Jim, is that I haven't been complaining about the
Mac, which I always thought was an interesting design, and a good choice
for some people. While I would never buy one, I actually have nothing
against water ballast or even the big engine. What I've been
complaining about is the way that you tout every aspect of it that you
perceive as a feature, especially when many of them are non-existent.

And which "aspect" discussed above is "non-existent"? (Hint:
"non-existent" means that it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that it
isn't all-important or universally operative, or that the Mac is
superior to other boats in every respect.)

I
also object to the fact that it is marketed as a beginner's boat ("learn
to sail in an afternoon...") but to operate it safely requires an
understanding beyond most beginners. Dismissing capsizes as operator
error is not fair if the operators are novices.

When you have provided evidence regarding the frequency of such Mac
capsizes, as a percentage of Macs in use, then you could rationally
discuss whether the boat qualifies as a good "beginner's boat." Until
you do, all we have are your opinions and your anecdotes, unsupported by
evidence or statistics.


And then when the obvious flaws in your logic are pointed out, you fight
tooth and nail, never giving up an inch, even when everyone can see
you're completely wrong. Your "double hull" is a great example, you're
still defending that as though it somehow makes the boat superior.

As much as it bothers you, the boat does indeed have a "double hull" in
the area of the hull beneath the ballast tank. And, whether you like it
or not or are willing to acknowledge it or not, it is a safety factor.
Neither you nor I have stats on the effectiveness of the double hull as
a safety factor. Until one of us does have such stats or evidence, it
would probably be helpful for us to acknowledge that fact in the event
we choose to discuss the subject again.


Claiming that an oversized outboard contributes nothing to the moment of
inertia is another case. In fact, you even denied that the pitch moment
of inertia is something that boaters are even concerned with, claiming
that my "theories are all wrong."

Again, Jeff, you stoop to posting outright lies about what I said. - I
never claimed that the motor contributes "nothing" to the moment of
inertia. But I did demonstrated to you mathematically that the motor is
less of a factor than the skipper and a normal (two person)crew sitting
in the cockpit. - Regarding your own guesstimate as to how many, and
where, the crew and skipper would be positioned relative to the COB or
COG, if you work out the figures, you will again find that the motor is
less of a factor than the crew and skipper, even using your figures. (My
point isn't that the motor isn't a factor, but that, by way of
perspective, it is less of a factor than that of the crew and skipper.)

But that still isn't the significant issue. The real issue is whether
the motor introduces a substantial effect on inertia that makes the boat
unstable, or makes it pitch excessively, or whatever. Since you keep
talking about the motor as it relates to the pitch moment of inertia,
what, EXACTLY, is the effect you claim the motor has on the boat? What
problems does the boat have that are caused by the motor, in your
opinion? (Since you seem to have a fetish with the motor, tell us about
how it's effect on the boat?)



No Jim, the Mac is an OK boat, within its limitations. Its you that I
object to.

Well, have a nice day anyway, Jeff. Happy sailing.

Jim