"JimC" wrote in message
...


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


Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that
should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would
run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen
it.

Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you.

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