Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get
to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive
research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's
about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them,
and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even
great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who
has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in
particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true
offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage
capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are
incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier,
larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming
that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons,
with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet,
without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded
with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that
because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you
are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially
smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are
equivalent, but they're obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs'
rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew,
I'll be interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim



I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions
that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb
enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly.