JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:
....
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.

I never made any claim at all as to how well the boat would perform
under sail alone in heavy air. You're the one who has suggested there
are shortcomings and have repeated them here.

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.

Your understanding is incorrect. The "heavy weather" that would flip
a cruising cat such as mine or larger is a major hurricane, with very
large seas, that would put any monohull at great risk.

As to the claim that most cat owners refrain from long passages, that
can be said of any style, brand or model. However, almost every
charter cat in the Carribean arrived there on her own bottom, most
from France and South Africa. Clearly these are boat capable of
passagemaking.

As for my particular design, of the 99 built, most (including mine)
are used for coastal cruising with limited offshore ambition.
However, about 20-25% have gone to the Carribean by way of Bermuda,
which involves several passages of 600+ miles. In addition, another
dozen or so have made the Bermuda crossing. Clearly this is a style
of boat that is quite at home on long passages.





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.

Yes, "everyone knows" that if something goes wrong with a Mac they
were doing something against the warnings, and probably drunk. But
you claimed those warning were just "lawyer talk," didn't you?


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

Why? You keep saying "give me examples" but when I do you write them
off as anecdotal.





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.)

I've already given links to three such events, and I've found mention
of several more.

Sorry Jim, I'm not in the business of compiling stats on your boat.
You started by claiming this isn't a problem so I gave an example of
where it was. You claimed that was just one case, so I gave several
more.

The truth is that even Mac enthusiasts will readily admit that it is
possible and can be a problem, especially when powering without
ballast. Even the factory admits this is an issue, or they wouldn't
have added foam flotation to the masts, and advertised that as a
significant safety feature.


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.

Then you are admitting to being completely ignorant of things
nautical. Your boat may be safer that a Hobie Cat in a blow, but in
conditions that would make you soil your pants in a Mac, cruising cats
are just getting up to speed.




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.)

Your "double liner" is a perfect case. You stumble around, trying to
claim that the "double protection" is magically placed at the key
point most likely to be penetrated. Even the factory never once
mentions this as a safety feature, it was made up entirely by you.
OK, maybe your salesman just figured you were gullible enough to
believe it.


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 everyone seems to agree with me. Except a few beginners.




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.

In other words, what you say is true is true; what the rest of the
world believes is irrelevant. You're verging on the delusional, now
Jim. Perhaps it time for professional help.


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.

So you're saying that "it must be a safety feature" because it seems
that way to you. And you must be right because I can't produce any
statistics to prove you wrong.

However, how about before you tout something as a safety feature, you
actually show there is a safety risk? I've spent a lot of time going
over the accident statistics and have offered my conclusions here from
time to time. For instance, of about 700 fatalities, 213 were falling
overboard, 199 were capsizing. In other words, more than half of the
deaths are related to stability issues. As for collision, the
majority are with other vessels, for which your double line offers no
protection. Fixed objects are next, and again, this would be unlikely
to be protected by your liner. In fact, floating objects were only 9%
of the collisions, which in turn were the cause of less than 20% of
the fatalities. In other words, collision with floating objects only
represents a small risk to all boats. Factor this with the small
number of aux sailboat fatalities, and you are left with the
possibility that perhaps 1 or 2 fatalities in the last decade have
been related to sailboats striking floating objects. And, this says
absolutely nothing about possible that the collision caused a leak, or
that the leak might have been prevented with your "double liner."

All you've cited as a risk is that floating objects might not be seen
when planing. In other words, your "double liner" offers some
hypothetical protection when the boat is handled recklessly.




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.)

Your mathematics was not just fatally flawed, it was a blatant
misrepresentation of your boat. It was clear from that demonstration
that you have no problem at all lying to "prove" your point. But I
predict you will just ignore this.



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?)

Actually, I said I have nothing against your motor. I just wondered
how much it, and the water ballast, might contribute to the pitch
moment of inertia. You're the one who has repeatedly lied to deny
there is any affect.