BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

JimC

wrote:

On Thu, 01 May 2008 04:01:17 GMT, JimC wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac.

They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that
it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink.

What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient
floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a
hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and
written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your
attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort
liability, punitive damages, etc.)

who gunned the boat to make a turn...

Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other
sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or
not, "guns" the engine.

Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well
with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest
deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn.

I'll be happy to guarantee that my 27 foot boat can do that without even raising
a fuss.

In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most
fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the
ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited
conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the
owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this
most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also
substantially exceeded.

But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is
inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue,
and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.)

Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac
26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water
ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it
isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had
been one of the current 26M models.

Sounds like the original design was so bad they got kinda nervous about future
lawsuits.

Maybe, maybe not. The mast for the new boat is 2' taller, so they state
that additional ballast is needed. - But with idiots like the drunk
skipper, and hack lawyers willing to take cases like that, why shouldn't
they cover their ass?

I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it.

Jim

Insurance does not protect you from catastrophe. It just pays bills for
survivors, if there are any.

You are the one who brought up the subject of insurance. I wss simply
responding to your statement. With an attempt at a little humor, which
you don't seem to appreciate.

Jim