Actually, I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty certain
that something like 2/3 that enter US ports are not because
of the longevity of the tankers. If you have data to suggest
otherwise, I'd like to see it. I do believe the US registered
fleet is double-hulled, however.

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

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

All that will enter American waters are, mostly due to insurance.

Trouble is we have 100's that still have many years of service in
them.
As soon as we feel they are unsafe we will sell them to third world
companies that will use them another 20 years.

Capt. American


Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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

And, he's not moderately stupid either.

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

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jim Cate wrote:

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, ...

70 knots is not 'moderate'.


I
have ordered the boat with several accessories relating to safety,
etc. - These include three reefing points in the main, roller
furling,

Is that roller furling or roller reefing? If the former, how do you
propose
to bend on a small jib?


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,

How does a knot meter help in shallow water?


and some of the channels are narrow and not kept in good condition.

What do you mean?



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.

I asked:

1. What sort of handling do you expect from the 26M in a 40kt wind?
2. How much reef would you put in the main, and what size of jib would you
use?
3. How much heel would you expect when going to windward?

And your answer is, in effect, "I don't know". Yet, you're planning to go
out in 70kt winds. Your trolling skills are a joke - try to be less
obvious.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
carry does not fall under "oil" transport.

otn

Scott Vernon wrote:
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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

Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"



"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
They all are.... it's an IMO requirement. The phase out date for
single hull and DB hulled I believe has been moved up.
This does not mean that there still aren't some single hulls out there,
but they are slowly disappearing or moving into a trade, where what they
carry does not fall under "oil" transport.

otn

Scott Vernon wrote:
aren't some (most?) of the new super tankers double hulled?

Scotty

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...


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

"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"?


I don't feel the need to knock your choice of boat. I may not agree with
it, but I suspect that you will enjoy it.

Don't worry about how *most* contributers feel. They won't be sailing the
boat - You will.



Regards


Donal
--

Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
claimed it handled better than my SVX.

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

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"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"?


I don't feel the need to knock your choice of boat. I may not agree with
it, but I suspect that you will enjoy it.

Don't worry about how *most* contributers feel. They won't be sailing
the
boat - You will.



Regards


Donal
--

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
...

Obviously, it would be
foolhardy to permit multiple passengers to ride on top of the cabin and
foredeck in the Mac, or any small boat, under those conditions.


What? Are you saying its unsafe to sit forward in a normal power boat?

What

about all of those "bowriders" outs there?

The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments

include:

no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't

even

stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward

bunks

when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So

much

for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone

might

grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat,

nor

is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)


Total nonsense. First you extol all the "virtues," asserting everything claimed
by the factory must be true;

Actually, this is not true. What I cited from the "factory" (whatever
that is) are the objective specifications of the boat. - Dimensions,
design changes (dagger board vs. swing keel, deep V-hull vs rounded
hull, additional fiberglass in hull, use of permantent ballast in
addition to water ballast. I DID NOT cite unobjective marketing verbage
relating to the sailing or motoring characteristics of the boat.



now you're saying all their warnings and
disclaimers are meaningless because a lawyer told them add this in.

Nope. I merely suggested that you take them with a grain of salt.

Frankly,
I've never warnings like this from any other sailboat manufacturer. Why is it
that this one feels the need?

- - Because MacGregor cares about it's customers and their passengers,
and is willing to warn them about potential hazards even if it means
that such warinings might be interpreted as a criticism of the boat itself.

If you did look at the statistics, you'd realize that death from sinking in
medium size sailboats in coastal waters is rather uncommon. The vast majority
of deaths is from capsizing or falling off of unstable boats; followed closely
by hitting something at speed. All of these are much greater risks in a boat
like a mac. I'm not talking about 2 or 3 times more common - there's only a
handful of deaths from traditional cruising boats sinking, but hundreds from
falling overboard, or capsizing. Think about it, Jim. 99% of drownings
involved boats with foam floation.

And, with some 30,000 boats sold, how many people drowned last year from
falling off one of the the Mac 26? Was it around 1,000? Or, perhaps,
about 500?? Or, even around 100??? Or about 50????? No? How about
20????? (No? Then how many. Put up or shut the hell up.)



If you really care about safety you should do some real hard thinking here. Do
you really think your grandkids are safer on a lightly built, overpowered,
unstable hybrid design, or on a traditional, proven design? For the same
money you could have a 10 year old Catalina 30 - a vastly superior boat, far
safer in the long run. And 5 years from now you could probably get 90% of what
you paid for it. The Mac, on the other hand, will be down to 50%.

The catalina is a nice boat (I've saild on several 30s), and we did
consider several of them, but it's boring, boring, boring.


Jim

Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote...

if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you can probably call it
a duck.


right. And a Mac 26 M does NOT have a double hull.


Maybe. But if the Mac inner liner serves the same purpose, if the
central, lowermost portion of the hull is penetrated, then it's a case
of the Mac walking like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like
a duck. Seems to me that whether you call it a doublehull or not is
actually a non sequitor.




- Scotty, does your boat
stay afloat if the hull is penetrated? Or does the keel quickly pull the
boat to the bottom?????????


If my hull were 'penetrated' where my sink drain through hull is, the water
would be contained by the drain hose which is double hose clamped as a
safety precaution.

Scotty


And what if it were penetrated where the sink drain through hull wasn't?

Jim

Exactly. I know several people who drive junker cars. I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem if one of them
claimed it handled better than my SVX

Ah, the rich sailor. God I hate rich sailors. I mean the Mac is a piece of
****, I agree, but rich people suck worse than cable steering and a 50 hp power
motor strapped on the back of a milk carton boat.

The Veridican

The bad news: Yup ...... The good news: all the birds etc. would get
fat, licking themselves clean.
Thankfully, that is one cargo I never carried ..... it's a pain to heat.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:
Does that mean we could have another Great Molasses Disaster? As my daughter
would say, "Oh, the Huge Manatee!"