JimC wrote:


Let me repeat because you seem to have a reading problem:
Nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably.


Jeff, what, exactly, are the weight distribution "problems", and exactly
what deleterious effects do those "weight distribution problems" have on
the boat? What effects (such as pitching, wandering, etc.) result from
the "weight distribution" problem? - In your own words.

You're the one who seems obsessed about this problem, Jim. Clearly
you must be hiding something. Why else would you resort to such
blatant lying about your boat?

This entire discussion was not about how badly the Mac pitched, it was
about its weight distribution. You wanted to look like an idiot, and
you succeeded in that admirably! Congrats!

Also, my experience is that it's difficult to see objects immediately
forward of the hull when the boat is plaining.


Are you actually telling us that you would drive the boat at high
speed when you weren't able to see the water in front of you??? Do
you go home at night wondering how many swimmers you hit? Jim, you
really have to think about what you say before you post!


As with any boat on a plane, the raised bow has the effect of limiting
visibility of the water immediately forward of the boat, along it's
course. But as you have repeatedly discussed, the Mac normally doesn't
plane above 15 - 18 knots, which is rather slow relative to many power
boats.

The attitude of the bow is not directly related to the speed. Lots of
planing boats raise the bow at moderate planing speeds, and then lower
it at higher speeds.

Also, the boat doesn't rise substantially above the water as do
high-powered speed boats. So, the effects on visibility are less than
that for a skipper of a power boat planing at high speeds and/or with a
greater inclination. So, which is it, Jeff? Does the Mac really plane
at "high speeds." Or is it's speed rather limited?

The answer is that you have no understanding of how boats work, or you
are a liar. Which is it, Jim?


Obviously, in any
boat on a plane, the skipper has the responsibility not to take the boat
into waters he hasn't carefully observed. And certainly, he shouldn't
run the boat at high speeds in areas that might have swimmers, divers,
small boats, etc.

Yes Jim. Claiming as a safety feature that you can run down unknown
objects with impunity was not the best strategy, councilor.

And are you actually claiming that a significant number of sailboats
sink in protected waters due to collisions that would be prevented by
the small amount of the "double liner" of the Mac? There must be a
terrible loss of life - what do you think? 100 a year? 200?

Odd, you never seem to respond to this question.

2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere.

If I had claimed or suggested that the Mac has a double hull that is
"double everywhere," then that statement might have relevance. But not
only is that not the case, but I have also explained, in several
previous notes, that the double hull results from the closed ballast
tank positioned in the lower portion of the boat. I have also stated,
in a number of previous notes (which you conveniently ignore), that the
double hull only extends in the area beneath the ballast tank. (Why do
you continue to ignore my prior discussions of this limitation, Jeff?)

Yes, we acknowledge that the doubled portion only exists where the
doubled portion is. The point is that this is a rather small portion
of the hull. It is only the middle third widthwise, it wraps around
the fixed ballast in the middle of the boat, it is only very limited
aft. The result is that probably 15% or less is actually covered.
Moreover, this area is in a part where most boats are quite strong and
protected by the keel so its not clear that even on this theoretical
lever there is any advantage over any other boat.



As explained above, the lower portion of the Mac (the centerline ridge
and adjacent portions extending under the ballast tank), is the the
portion that cuts through the water when planing. I therefore submit
tha it's likely, in at least some instances, to try to "cut through"
a floating object in the path of the boat.

Isn't this where the permanent ballast it?

The permanent ballast is considerably aft of the portion of the
centerline ridge that cuts through the water. But as previously,
stated, neither you nor I know how well the Mac 26M double hull (with
permanent ballast) would protect it in the event of a collision with a
floating object. Again, the difference between us is that I'm willing
to acknowledge this fact, but you can't seem to admit you don't really
know whether or not the double hull would be a significant safety factor.

Before you tout it as a safety feature, you have to establish that
there is a safety risk.




(Incidentally, how many cases of serious breech of a Mac 26M have you
seen?)


And how many Macs have ever had their "outer hull" punctured and they
were saved by the inner hull? This is your claim.

As I said, I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how much of a
safety factor the double hull is. - Are you?

I have shown (in another post today) that the number of deaths
resulting from the collision of all aux sailboats with floating object
is vanishingly small. And this is before considering if such
collisions cause leaks, and whether these leaks would not happen on a Mac.

In other words, any reasonable person can conclude that this is not a
safety feature.


I've seen a number of boats holed, but its never been on the center
line. So you claim this is a safety feature, how many boats of any
type have you seen holed that would have been saved by the Mac's
protection? How many lives would be saved? I'll give you a hint: it
begins with "Z" and ends with "row".

Are you talking about conventional sailboats Jeff? If so, they would be
far less susceptible to puncture while surfing over a sunken or
partially sunken object, wouldn't they?

So now you're back to claiming that this is a safety feature because
it allows you to go fast without a proper lookout.


Nope. But its another safety factor that would be nice to have in an
emergency. Might permit sailing or motoring the boat back to shore
at low speeds, for example.


You're just being silly Jim. This is what I've been talking about.
You fight tooth and nail on every little feature even after it been
shown that it really isn't significant.

Jeff, did you ever try to sail a monohull (or cat) that had sunk to the
top of its gunwales?

Actually, I've done it many times.

But I didn't say that I would continue powering "at speed" (your words)
did I Jeff? Obviously, the skipper would have to check out the extend of
the damage and monitor the effects of motoring or sailing the boat.

Why is that? If a boat is handled perfectly by an expert, most safety
features would not be needed. This goes to the heart of the issue,
Jim. You claim that the Mac is safe for experienced, sober, cautious.
sailors, who read an follow all of the instructions. I claim that
most sailors are inexperienced, drunk, foolhardy, and never knew there
were instructions. And the evidence seems to support me.



Mac has no trouble mentioning the flotation in the mast which implies
they're afraid of turning turtle. They have no trouble mentioning the
flotation which implies they're afraid they will get holed. So if the
tiny protection offered by the "double liner" was significant, why
wouldn't they mention it?

Actually, Jeff, discussing running into floating logs could very well
turn some people off of buying a sailboat capable of high-speeds under
power. Also, I don't think they have to mention it. - There are so many
other good features to discuss that they continue to be one of the best
selling sailboats on the market.

But they don't hesitate to cite the floating mast as a safety feature.
You keep thrashing on this one, but it doesn't get better.


This was the first of three. You obviously considered it important
enough that it would be one of three extra features that would
influence a decision. But why are you denying this?

I never denied that I mentioned it as a beneficial feature. I have NOT
emphasized it in later notes. I normally discuss it unless I'm
responding to someone else. The person who keeps on discussing it, over
and over and over and over again is: (guess who) - you.

No - I haven't mentioned it in a week. You keep bringing it back up.


3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics.

...

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.


How about sailboats 26 feet and under, Jeff?

The accident rate does not change dramatically at under 26 feet.
There are certainly changes as you get smaller, but 24 foot boats are
still pretty safe.

Because you seem to claim things as "safety features" when they aren't.



Other than the double hull issue, which "things" are you talking about
Jeff?

The mast flotation is only a feature if you expect to capsize. For
any normally ballasted boat, this is not an issue. You describe the
large engine as safety feature, because you say the boat doesn't
handle well in strong winds. So these are two safety features that
other boats don't need, but you claim are needed by the Mac.


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.


Jeff, when you come across that "raw data," let me know.

The data can be had if you really want it. What do you want to see?

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.

I know of one incident resulting in deaths, and that accident involved a
drunk skipper who hadn't sailed the boat before and who apparently
hadn't even been instructed re Mac-related safety features, and
passengers that were also drunk. Also, the boat in question was a 26X,
not the current model, which includes additional, permanent ballast. As
to whether the design of the boat is inherently unsafe, that issue was
specifically raised by the plaintiff, and the appeal court ruled that
the cause of the accident was the negligence of the drunk skipper, not
the MacGregor Company.


But on the other hand, we know of
at least three deaths

What deaths, other than those in the drunk skipper case, Jeff?

So you're claiming that the deaths didn't occur, because an appeal
court said so? A number of people in the Mac community believe that
several of design changes were made because of that incident.



The Coast Guard Annual Boating Statistics are out there for everyone.
The bottom line is that there are actually very few fatalities in Aux
sailboats 26+ feet. Statistically if you have a boat and a car,
you're roughly five times more likely to die in a car accident. There
are only perhaps 2 or 3 fatalities a year. When an incident is in the
news (such as the man who fell off the racing boat, or the boat the
got crunched by a large boat, etc.) that will generally be the only
incident, or perhaps one of two for the year. IIRC, the kids in the
capsized Mac in 2002 were the only fatalities that year from a 26+
foot sailboat.

Actually, the Mac is a 26- foot sailboat, being a few inches shorter
than 26 ft. The point, however, is that it's relatively small compared
with most coastal cruising sailboats, and obviously smaller than those
of most posting on this ng.

It doesn't change the conclusions. Actually, the majority of
accidents happen because of operator error or general stupidity, not
the size or type of boat.

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.


See my comments above. - In this particular case, those very questions,
i.e., whether the accident was attributable to the drunk skipper or due
to the design of the boat itself, were discussed IN DETAIL by the
attorneys for the drunk skipper. - The decision of the appellate court
was that it was the fault of the drunk skipper, not MacGregor.
(MacGregor won, and the drunk skipper lost and was imprisoned.)

I've never seen a reference to this, perhaps you could provide one -
but its irrelevant to my point. Yes the guy was drunk and perhaps
should be in jail. It doesn't change that fact that in any other boat
the kids would probably still be alive.

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.


Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, the attorneys for the drunk skipper tried
their best to put forth the arguments you are trying to make. - But they
lost.

Did their loss really exonerate the boat or did it just mean that a
drunk went to jail?

That's enother of your unsubstantiated theories, of course. But even
if true, the fact that this is the ONLY example you can come up with
strongly suggests that the boat is not inherently unsafe.


I never heard the final verdict, but I do know that the expert witness
from US Sailing (Jim Teeters) testified that the design of the boat
was partially at fault.


The final verdict was that MacGregor won,

Did they really win, or did they just avoid a legal disaster. Two
different things in the minds of most people. Not for lawyers, though.

and the drunk skipper lost and
was put in prison for criminal negligence.

good.

I can't say about a lot of boats but I can pretty confidently say that
any normally ballasted sailboat with a normal sized engine would not
have capsized. I've sailed an awful lot of small keel boats over they
years and I don't know of any that could come close to this behavior.
Perhaps you know of one?


Of course, most small keel boats don't have a 50 hp engine, do they
Jeff? Your statement is like saying you can confidently say that
because small, low powered sedans, such as a Toyota Corolla or the like,
can't be driven very fast and are therefore not subject to being driven
over 100 mph, they are designed better than high-speed sports cars which
can.

Bad analogy. There's only one 26 foot sailboat I know of that can
capsize within a few seconds of leaving its mooring in calm weather.

- In reading the Mac discussion groups, I haven't seen any notes
from or about any Mac owner who doesn't understand that the Macs have
certain design considerations that must be observed when sailing or
motoring, including the fact that the ballast must be filled except
under specific conditions. In fact, as we have previously discussed,
the Mac warning is clearly posted on the boat itself. (As previously
stated, I personally have never sailed or motored without the ballast.)

Those that post in the discussion groups are not a representative
sample, are they?



Ah, I'm not sure what else they could add - the crew size is limited
and you have to stay huddled in the cockpit. The seas must be flat
and the water warm. All of the rigging (sails, rudders, board) must
be in a particular position. And I forgot one, no sharp turns. Is
there any discretionary freedom they have??? You're not allowed to go
to the head. You're not even allowed to stand or lean over the side
so that you might see something floating ahead!

Although I don't sail or motor without ballast, lots of Mac sailors do
it routinely. Many prefer it when motoring out to Catalina or other
offshore destinations. They state that the boat is stable and
maneuverable for trips of several hours, under various weather
conditions. I rather think that they do go forward to use the head, and
look over or around the mast to watch the water, though I haven't
specifically asked about that. In other words, the boats are more
stable and more versatile than your purposefully dire description might
suggest.

So here you're saying that many Mac sailors regularly ignore the
posted warnings. But in other places you say that the various
incidents I've mentioned should be of no concern because the skippers
ignored the warnings.

I think you've just proved my point.


My issue, as I've said a number of times, is that the Mac is marketed
to novices ("Learn to sail in an afternoon...") These are the people
that would not understand how dangerous it really is to ignore the
warnings.

That's why the owner's manual and the notice on the bulkhead include
WARNINGS IN LARGE LETTERS about taking the boat out without completely
filling the ballast tank.

But you just said that many ignore the warnings.




That is why when there is an incident with a Mac it is usually
explained off as operator error because the skipper was new, or
borrowed the boat.


"Usually explained"? Where are the others, Jeff?

You're the only person who defends the Mac here. But in other sites
it is frequently pointed out that the capsizes are often related to
powering without ballast, a practice that you assure us is common.



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.

Well that's probably correct. That's why the WARNINGS about filling the
ballast tank are all in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.

Speed is one of it's attractions, and it's probably true that speed can
introduce some dangers that wouldn't be present with a conventional
boat. - Rather obvious to most people I would think, even without the
warnings in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.

So now you're admitting there are dangers that would not be found with
other boats. Thank you Jim, that's all I've been saying all along.


Sorry Jim. I never signed any agreement saying I would fairly review
any boat that was mentioned here. If you (or anyone one else) says
something blatantly stupid or wrong, I have the right to call you on
it. I have no obligation at all to say something nice about the boat
to balance it. And again, I've objected more to the way you represent
the boat, not its actually qualities.


Perhaps so. But think how that consisently one-sided approach must seem
to those young, aspiring sailors around the world who may read your
comments.

On a number of occasions the regulars on this board have been "rated"
and I have generally been listed as the one who most fairly judges
most issues.

The only reason that I've persisted in this discussion is because of
your one sided touting of the Mac. In particular I've objected to
your listing as a safety feature something the factory doesn't think
is a feature, and addresses a non-existent risk. I've also objected
to you claim that the safety warnings can be ignored as "lawyer talk"
followed by you embarrassing backpedaling when you realized your blunder.


- Are they thinking: "Gee. If experienced sailors are so
opinionated and one-sided that 90% of their comments about a particular
boat are bashing the boats and those who sail them, do I really want to
get involve with such a sicko group in the first place?"

I think the children can easily figure out who's been the wacko in
this discussion.


Going back another five years (which would relate to the older,26X
model) the average asking price is around $20,000. Obviously, these
figures don't tell us what the boats are actually selling for, or
what condition they're in, or how they're equipped or what motor they
have, if any. (Nor do your figures re the 2002 model.)


They all list engines - a 50 hp is common. The particular boat I
mentioned said 50hp Honda, I think. They said the PortaPotti was
never used.

Again, neither you nor I know the condition of any such boats. I doubt

So, you're saying that many of the Mac's are going cheap because after
5 years they are falling apart. Yes, I see that now. Thank you for
clarifying.


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!"

And when you played with your cement mixing tub, Jeff, did you have
experience sailing various boats such as the Beneteau 39, the O'Day 39,
Valiant 40, and various Catalinas, Cals, Endeavors, Sabre, etc.?

That was my experience. - Not exactly an equivalent analogy, is it?

Why not? Now that I have lots of experience I still have a lot of fun
sailing a small dink or riding a kayak.

Would you still have a lot of fun sailing your cement mixing tub, Jeff?

My point was that when you sailed your cement mixing tub, you hadn't had
any previous sailing experience to compare it to. In my case, I had lots
of previous experience sailing a variety of larger, conventional boats
before I bought the Mac. So, when I say that the Mac 26M is fun to sail,
my statement includes knowledge of and experience on a number of other
boats, and it isn't coming from a novice sailor. If I hadn't sailed
before, as in the case of you with your cement mixing tub, then your
analogy might be appropriate.


I still sail small dinghies - I own two sailing dinks 10 feet and
under plus a kayak. Fun can be had on all sized boats. That doesn't
mean that all boats live up to their hype.