BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Capt. JG

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC
wrote:

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while
the boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling
from time to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with
heavy and sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable
environment of flying hazards including yourself that would break
your bones into mush. In desperation to escape, you would vacate the
premises, and then either be thrown off the boat by the wave action
or you would remove yourself

from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive.

Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac
200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I
DID say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would
have stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of
the Gulf by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his
no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of
posting negative, critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over,
perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your
opinion, and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe
this to be the case. But, other than your own personal biases, what
evidence to you have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual
negative bias against the Macs that you think you can safely rely on?
Is it the fact that you don't think anyone on this ng would want to
question any negative bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs?
Or, alternatively (and assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and
didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank, and that he had enough
sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually have some valid
evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including your
assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over
again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if
you have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics
supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply
"break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than
anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR
EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the
fact remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet
(not the only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim

Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull
it over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying
that the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not
going to be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself
quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a
Mac out in those

conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL

It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather
than what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would
take the boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want
to take the boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to
float even if the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange
circumstance, the boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would
be better than being on a conventional boat while it was being pulled
to the bottom by its heay keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the
hull is completely torn apart, there is sufficient floatation to keep
the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim

I have.

So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read
Fastnet Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to
several boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the
point where the crews abandoned them (to their peril).

Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
support your assertions.

You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.

Wrong again Ganz. You are judging the Mac's rigging by what's necessary on
a heavy keel boat. Because of it's small size and relative light weight,
the cleats and bow fittings used on the Macs are entirely adequate. What I
would do in the case of approaching severe weather conditions would be to
form a towing bridle connected around the two bow chucks, with extensions
to the mid-deck cleats, and then tie the sea anchor to the bridle.

Jim

You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel free
to claim I did.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com