JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:


They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. - My
evidence for this is that I can see the floatation throughout the
boat, and the fact that MacGregor's specs state the same. ...


I have never claimed it didn't have flotation. There is the question
of whether the hull and/or deck would break under severe pounding, and
at what point this would happen. I'm inclined to think that the
conditions that did in Redcloud could break a Mac, rendering it
meaningless whether a portion of the boat did sink.

I haven't claimed that the Mac would NEVER sink under ANY conditions. I
stated that I thought Joe's boat wouldn't have sunk in the conditions he
described. But of course no one knows, and I never said that it was a
slam dunk.

Yes, if it were possible to put foam in a heavy steel boat it might have
helped. And I'm happy that my boat has a lot of foam plus 6 sealed
flotation chambers, and no heavy keel. But I also know it would be at
risk of sinking if certain types of calamities occurred.

But again, my point is not the the Mac would be smashed to little pieces
and never found; its that even while it floats it would not provide a
livable platform for the crew.



Further proof is the fact that incident you cite below, the boat
didn't sink, and didn't fall apart. (I made no assertion that people
couldn't be harmed on a Mac26


Yes, I know you've denied this aspect. However, claiming that a boat
won't sink is meaningless if it flooded and won't support life.

I suppose I would rather stick with a boat that is partially submerged
but still floating than a boat with a heavy keel that was dragging the
boat to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

Earth to Jim!!! Redcloud was still floating and in fact under sail when
it was abandoned. Joe believed it could still survive the storm and
went out looking for her. There's a good chance they would have come
through the storm had they stayed on board, but we'll probably never
know, unless it turns up as a fishing boat in Central America.

Now, on the other hand, what would happen to a Mac with a few days of 35
knots followed by a day of 60 knots and 30-35 foot breaking seas? Would
there be anything left? Would there be enough to support life?

Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still
take that over being in those conditions in a Mac.


with a drunk skipper, who wasn't familiar with the boat, who ignored
the most fundamental safety warnings given by MacGregor relative to
using the water ballast except in particular, limited circumstances)
maximum loads, positioning of passengers, whose drunk crew members
were standing on deck holding onto the mast, and who gunned the boat
to make a turn, etc., etc.)


All this is meaningless. The bottom line is that a Mac CAN rollover

Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a
completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having
permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast.

So you're claiming that 300 pounds of ballast under the floor is
sufficient to keep the boat upright in 60 kts, with 35 foot breakers?

given the right (or should we say wrong) circumstances, and if it
does, there is a risk of flooding severe enough to drown inhabitants.

Clarification: The victims were infants, left below deck while the drunk
adults partied on deck.

No, they weren't infants, they were (I think) about 8 and 9, wearing
life jackets. The fact that both were unable to survive even a few
minutes shows that surviving a day in near hurricane condition unlikely.


That
much is clearly proven. I think any boater would admit the the forces
generated in a major offshore storm are greater than what a drunk
skipper can do in a few seconds.


Maybe. Maybe not.


You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to
the point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has
some foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected.

Again, I would rather be on a boat that was low in the water but
remaining afloat rather than one that was sinking.

Again, this is a nice concept on a calm lake. I doesn't quite work in
35 foot breakers. And remember, Redcloud was floating and under sail
at the time of the rescue.




Remember, I've
already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac.

Clarification: You showed how two infants left in the cockpit on a
water-ballasted Mac 26X could drown. You didn't show how two adult crew
members on a hybrid ballast Mac 26M would drown.

Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points.

And again, you have the facts wrong: they weren't infants, and they
weren't in the cockpit. (The child in the cockpit survived.)

You should look again at the picture on the Mac web site:

http://macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm

Note that the water is up to the gunnel, leaving perhaps 10-12 inches of
headroom in the cabin. Now add in 35 foot breakers. Note the caption
under the first pictu "it will be unstable."


However,
all it would really take is a lost hatch,

The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised.

Again, useful in a wide variety of situations, but not enough for the
condition we're talking about.


or a hull fracture to fully
flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room
below to support life.

Not a good situation to be in, but, again, I personally would rather be
in a partially flooded boat that stayed afloat than one that was sinking
to the bottom.

I think that ten minutes into the storm you would change your mind.
Again, Redcloud was providing a quite livable environment throughout the
storm, and may well have survived, had they stayed on board.


Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably
will continue to roll over in a large sea.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Again, from the Mac "safety" page: "it will be unstable."


Going back to your original claim, if a Mac had been in the same
condition as Redcloud, would anyone still be alive when the helicopter
arrived?


As previously discussed, I think the best action in that situation would
have been to set a sea anchor and remained onboard. I believe that would
have prevented the boat from yawing, or rolling.

Maybe in a moderate storm. 60 knots with 30-35 foot waves is a different
story.


Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the
Mac would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing
machine) in heavy weather conditions.


I think there is little doubt amongst sailors that the Mac would be
like a washing machine. This is how every small boat sailor describes
major storms.

Maybe. But probably not.

You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim?

- It was Ganz, and a few of his Mac-bashing buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING
BUDDIES, HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND
SINK IN HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS.


AND I DON'T MUCH CARE. YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT A MAC
HAS EVER SURVIVED HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS.


When you and your buddies provide evidence to support your amazing
assertions, I'll consider getting more to support mine. Meanwhile, I'm
not going to look for evidence supporting statements I haven't made.

But you have claimed that they have survived heavy weather (excuse me,
"Difficult conditions") many times.


The thousands of Mac 26s owners simply buy their boats and never take
them out? Never get them out of the harbor? And I should have to
provide proof that they actually do take them out? - Again, UTTERLY
PREPOSTEROUS.


Why preposterous? First of all, Macs are notorious as "first boat, not
used, sold in a few years, never sail again" boats.

From five years of sailing a Mac, participating in various Mac
discussion groups, watching other Mac owners take their boats out, etc.,
your contentions is simply absurd.

Really? But you admit that in fact you've never done what you claimed
you would do. And you claim you've never heard mention of dismasting,
or rudder damage, meaning that you're obviously either lying or
suffering from "mad cow."

Second, although you admitted over and over again that Macs are not
offshore boats, you're claiming here that it preposterous to think
that they aren't taken offshore? Which way is it?


Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable for
ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean that
they aren't taken offshore.

But you can't even offer a single reference to one such case were a Mac
returned.

I've sailed the New England coast every summer since Macs were
Ventures, and I've taken several years to go up and down the East
Coast. But in all of this, I've never seen Mac offshore, out in even
25 knot coastal conditions. There have been Macs at the marinas I've
used for the last 8 years, but I can count on the fingers of one hand
(without using the thumb) the number of times I've seen one leave the
dock.


I see them leaving the docks all the time.

So you've been hanging around my marina?



I'm not the only one with this experience - its been repeated by a
number of cruisers in this forum.

I'm not denying that a few Macs have gone to the Bahamas, Catalina,
and other slightly out of the way places. But this is not the same as
being several hundred miles offshore in a major storm.

Once more, attack me for what I said, not what you think I said.

You have insisted that its "preposterous" to think the macs have not
done offshore passages, or that they haven't encountered conditions like
what Redcloud did. That's what I'm attacking.

And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.

Wrong again. I have been able to post such links. I haven't posted such
links, because, as stated above over and over again, I have, and will,
provide evidence for my assertions, not for yours, or in response to
your questions. The assertion for which I will gladly provide evidence
is as follows:

So you have faith, but are unable to prove. This is a religion for you.
OK, you're entitled.


MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN
HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS.

And Again: I DON'T CARE!!! I'M NOT GANZ, AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN
THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called
"reality."

If I did, would you be satisfied? Or would you dig through all the
reports trying to discredit them any way you could? I'm not basing my
statements on any listing of specific sailings; rather, I'm saying
that it is simply preposterous for you or your buddies to say that,
with multiple thousands of Macs out there, there weren't incidents of
skippers getting into severe, difficult situations. (And again, in
any waters, not necessarily extended, blue-water voyages.)


Difficult conditions? Yes, but I'm sure that what a Mac considers
"difficult" is much different fron what other consider "difficult."

Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is
buying this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at
least one must be real. Have you been probed lately?

Wrong again . Because there are thousands of Macs out there, it
would be incredible to believe that they haven't been subject to
severe or difficult conditions of various kinds.


Again, a silly argument. With all the pigs out there, there must be
one that flies!

Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of yourself
with that one.

You're the one insisted there must be a flying pig out there. Its your
argument. Its the argument that lawyers use when they know their case
is hopeless. The insist that even though they have no facts, SURELY it
must have happened.

....

With all the time you've said this, its preposterous to think that you
wouldn't do it eventually.

That's certainly on my to-do list for this Summer.

Is this your "bucket list"?

I'm hoping to do some
fishing out there also.

I hope you do - I'm looking forward to your report.