"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.



J'sus,how much nit could a nitpicker pick, if a nitpicker could pick nit.

--
jlrogers±³©