MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What is bass-ass? Is that an ugly fish?

It's sort of like when you get your head stuck up your ass, Johnathan.
You don't seem to be able to find your way out.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Post the bill of sale. Consider how stupid you are currently
perceived by claiming your piece of crap is anything more
than that.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I think you're lying. Prove you aren't.

How would you suggest that I "prove" that I ordered the boat on March 25?

- Get a grip on yourself Jonathan. - Consider how stupid and irrational
you will be perceived from these childish remarks.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

You're a liar and a fraud as best as I can tell. You're an old fool
at best.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

No. You let it go. You're the newbie fool. You're the one
making an even bigger fool out of himself with each post.
I'll be here long after you're gone and your piece of junk is
in the trash heap.


Actually, I've been posting notes to this ng since 1997, and I've been
sailing for some 30 years. You ought to listen to us older, experienced
sailors, Johanthan.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

MacBoy,

What I'm saying is that "there aren't many owners of Macs
that would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule that
you've done. Even they are smarter than you, because they've
figured out Macs are crap and don't wish to embarrass themselves
any further in public.

So MacBoy.. when are you going to prove you didn't buy your
boat prior to posting about buying it?

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

There aren't many owners who would contemplate opening
themselves up to ridicule. Even they are smarter than you.

In other words, whether or not I'm telling the truth or devending
posting a valid thesis, most owners on this ng wouldn't want to risk
alientating the others by agreeing with me. Is this the logical
conclusion from your comments, Johathan? Most contributor to this ng
would prefer to "go along to get along"?

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Oh. Thanks for the explanation from an expert such as yourself
MacBoy. Do let us know when you finally unstick your head
from your ass.


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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What is bass-ass? Is that an ugly fish?

It's sort of like when you get your head stuck up your ass, Johnathan.
You don't seem to be able to find your way out.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Wally wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


What's a "depth-knot"?

It tells me when we have "40-not" winds.


Where does the depth bit fit into this? Faceitiousness aside, what sort of
handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind? How much reef would you
put in the main, and what size of jib would you use? How much heel would you
expect when going to windward?

Since I plan occasionally to go offshore in moderate conditions, I have
ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety, etc. -
These include three reefing points in the main, roller furling, all
lines let aft to the cockpit, depth and knot meters, gps chart readers
(plus paper charts and compass), and auto steering. The depth and knot
meters are desirable in the Galveston bay area in view of the fact that
much of our bay waters are relatively shallow, and some of the channels
are narrow and not kept in good condition.

When going offshore, I plan to reef early and severely, and to sail with
the water ballast filled. The exact preferences for reefing, keeling,
etc., for going to windward, or reaching or running will have to be
derived and fine tuned from actual sailing experience over several
months on the boat. However, I understand that the boat makes better
speed if you keep it relatively upright rather than heavily keeled.
Again, I'll have to do some experimentation to arrive at preferred
reefing points, heel angles, sail configurations, etc., for various
conditions.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Joe wrote:

"Wally" wrote in message ...

katysails wrote:


So, when do you all guess Jim confesses he's really Bobsprit and that
he "won"?

He's claimed (twice in the same post) that he thinks it's okay to go take
his beginner's boat out in hurricanes - that's just about sufficiently far
from realistic for it to be Boobsie, so I've made my move. (I wonder how
many ASA points Joe will give me...)




****, anyone brave enough to be on a mac even at the dock durin a
hurricane deserves at least 3 asa points. All that windage from the
high freeboard and vortexes created from wind rounding the square
corners will make mini tornados that will pull his shackles and
thimbles lose from the dock. Jim's a brave man and since he scored a
98 on his ASA test he is surley qualified to venture into the
navigable simi circle of any hurricane.



Of course, if the boat and I to down, you won't have to put up with my
comments on rsa any longer. If I suddently disapear sometime after May
1, you can check the web site of the Houston Chronicle (houstonchronicle
..com) for the details.

Jim

Sold any paintings yet Wally? What would you charge to paint my boat?
Id like a stary night theme after Van G in red and yellow.

Joe

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

MacBoy, you say you would want to be prepared, but you would plan on
motoring or sailing back from where? 500 miles off the coast? Actually,
the truth is that you would not survive either with or without your Mac,
since you're clearly not much of sailor, having bought a Mac. But, since
you made the statement you did about the Mac surviving such an experience,
it's again obvious that you know nothing of boats. However, feel free to
prove us all wrong. I suggest you leave immediately. Give us a full report
including pictures should you happen to return. I'm sure we'll all then
rush out and buy one.

I'm not planning on buying a Satori, since I already have a quite a nice
boat, which while off-shore capable, is not set up for it. Further, I have
no desire to do any extended off-shore trips, since where I sail is fun
and challenging, and I have local responsibilities.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're not dealing with reality here. Sure winds can be higher
than predicted. That has nothing to do with being prepared
for and expect conditions different from what is "predicted."
By definition, it's only a guess.

So what you're saying is that because light winds are predicted,
you don't bring foul weather gear and a sail change. You just
go with the prediction. Sounds stupid to me.

Nope. Not at all. I would want to be prepared for any potential
circumstance, but I would plan on motoring and/or sailing back to port
if conditions worsened unexpectantly. If that was not possible, I think
the Macgregor, with reefed or no sails, and storm anchor, could survive
with the best of them. Not comfortably, but it would survive.

By the way, Johathan, are you going to buy one of the heavy-weather
Satori's?



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


That's a stupid question. Unexpected winds??? What kind of
sailor would not expect conditions such as this? A stupid or
inexperienced one.

Is there anyone on this ng with extensive sailing experience who hasn't
run into winds higher than were predicted, and higher than he or she
expected? In our area, forecasts can suggest good sailing conditions
with only a slight chance of showers, but storms and severe winds can
form quite quickly.


Ummm... you just contradicted yourself. Sorry to have to point it out.


Get a grip on yourself Johnathan. - Any serious sailor should expect and
be prepared for the possibility that unexpected weather conditions may
occur.


If you were sailing a decent boat, it would survive just about
any high winds that come by. A perfect example is the Satori
from Perfect Storm fame (not the f*cking movie).



It was not an expensive boat compared to other ocean going
sailboats. The fact is that the Mac would not survive anything
approaching the kind of weather one should be prepared to
find on the ocean.


The Satori was a heavy boat specifically built to survive severe heavy
weather conditions miles offshore. It had an overbuilt hull, rigging,
keel, etc., etc. I doubt that most sailors on this ng would enjoy
sailing such a boat even if they could afford the substantial additional
costs.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

No. It doesn't make MacBoy sound like an idiot. He is an idiot.

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull
to
hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it
only
draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the
real
risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is
meaningless. Of
course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks -
that's
why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.

Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like
an
idiot.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
to you
that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
Frankly,
many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.

As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.


BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially
drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving
the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off
capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to
1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not
clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of
keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd.
the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim

MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40
 

Jim Cate wrote:


Jeff Morris wrote:

Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
to you that
the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
Frankly, many
boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the
surface
they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.


As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.

Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.

otn