|
Bought a Reinel 26'
No. I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Yes, you're an idiot. In other words, you think it was perfectly reasonable for her to hold her cup of coffee between her legs while she applied her makeup? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
I'm sorry. Did I give you the impression that I wanted you to do
something. I'm just having some fun with you. I'm sure your Mac is just *perfect* for your abilities and needs. Please don't do something foolish, ahem, like enter it in the race. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Wow, that much math and physics... I mean wow! You also claimed to be a sailor. So far, all we've seen are a few fuzzy pictures of a piece of crap Mac. Actually, the pictures were rather sharp and clear. What do you want me to do, Johnathan? Do I have to enter my boat in the Galveston-Veracruz race to satisfy you? Post results from Sail magazine? I NEVER said that the boat was a racer or that it was suitable for blue water crossings. - So what, exactly, do you want me to do? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Now that is *not* nice.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: "katysails" wrote in message ... He said 20 hours - that means, to me, 20 hours If you were taking 20 hrs here it would mean you were taking 5 four hour classes or some combination of them 4 and 3, plus lab time...the average student carries 16 credit hrs per semester....plus labs and library time... -- Kate, Don't you think that someone who had 20 credit hours of physics and 18 of math would know immediately that 200 gallons is a volume much larger than a centerboard trunk? And after it was pointed out twice he claimed he didn't have time to do the calculation! No, not if he had something elst to do, Jeff. Or, if he had the sailing experience he claims, he would know that a 100 gallon water tank is rather large, roughly coffin sized, and is bigger than what is found on most smaller sailboats - 200 gallons is huge! Either Jim is a complete fake, or he's just too slow and lazy to figure out anything on his own. Shove it, Jeff. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Now that is *not* nice. I disagree. Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse. Peter Wiley has tried to tell us that his opinion should hold sway over Jim's because Peter, (and soon), his son have college degrees. This argument makes no sense at all. In fact, if someone has to invoke their "degree" as proof of their intelligence, then I would assume that they are a bit inadequate. Jeff has poured scorn on the 200 gallon claim, and yet Jeff has not had the courage to state what he thinks that the real figure is. Jim is absolutely correct to pour scorn on their insults. Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Who are you talking about? If you take the time to read my note, I never suggested that popularity of the Macs equals quality. The point of the above discussion was to point out that, if the ridiculous statements about Macs being under built were true, BECAUSE there are thousands of them out there, we would have hundreds of reports every year about Macs breaking up and owners and passengers being lost. This is just one more example of the total lack of intellectual honesty of some participants on this ng. You can't dig much dirt out of what I say, so you deliberately lie about it and twist the discussion around to what you would have like for me to have said, but didn't. So you're saying that if less than 10% of the boats break up and cause fatalities, that's an acceptable ratio for you? Jeff, I think that you are beginning to go off the deep end. You need to take a very deep breath ... and then reconsider your question. Do you really think that Jim said that a break-up rate of less than 10% was acceptable? This is just one more example of your flawed logic, and lack of intellectual honesty. "Flawed logic"? "10%"? Please .... Jeff. In fact, you have demonstrated your own lack of intellectual honesty in your snobby attempt to put down Jim. Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Donal is just being mean.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:01:00 +0100, "Donal" wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Now that is *not* nice. I disagree. Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse. Jim has openly requested and encouraged the abuse he has gotten. It appears that he thrives on taking an absurd position and then defendining it, regardless of how deep a hole he digs for himself. WE are doing him a favor by telling him what a jerk he is. He enjoys it. BB |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Yup. The 'old' Donal used to be funny.
Scotty "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Donal is just being mean. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:01:00 +0100, "Donal" wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Now that is *not* nice. I disagree. Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse. Jim has openly requested and encouraged the abuse he has gotten. It appears that he thrives on taking an absurd position and then defendining it, regardless of how deep a hole he digs for himself. WE are doing him a favor by telling him what a jerk he is. He enjoys it. BB |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Yup. The 'old' Donal used to be funny. Funny, but I'm even older now! Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Marc" wrote in message ... And the court found her 20% liable for her actions. Of course , dumbass, they found Mc D's liable for 80%. If she spilt the coffee, while driving a vehicle and trying to hold the cup between her legs, then she was 100% liable. Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal responsibility for their own actions. Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Well, we can see that you're quite a sailor. I'm sure you can find a couple of other excuses for not sailing. Jon, I used to have a powerboat. I once(maybe twice) went out while under the influence. I "showed off" to the guests by putting the helm hard over at 35 kts. It was great fun, but we were lucky that I didn't sink the boat. If I had capsized the boat, then it would have been *my* fault.... and my fault alone. I now sail "dry". Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Capt. Mooron wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote in message | I wasn't claiming the boat was | completely unsafe; I was pointing out that it isn't correct to tout the boat's | stability when its capable of rolling over at anchor in calm conditions. Bwahahahahahahahahaaa..... it's so-o-o-o-o TRUE! :-D CM Mooron, the incident Jeff is discussing involved a drunk skipper sailing No he wasn't sailing, he was at anchor! a MacGregor water ballas boat WITHOUT the water ballast, and with an overloaded boat, with a number of guests sitting on the deck (which MacGregor warns is highly dangerous if the water ballast tank isn't full.) That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling over if misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat. Rubbish, Jeff! Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact, I'm lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet. There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled correctly. If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then we would consign most high performance monohulls to history. Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal responsibility for their own actions. you just realize that now? Scotty |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message
... That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling over if misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat. Rubbish, Jeff! Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact, I'm lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet. There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled correctly. If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then we would consign most high performance monohulls to history. Rubbish, Donal??? Name me one 26 foot sailboat, other than a water ballast boat with an empty tank, that will easily roll over under power, with no wind or seas. Sure, its fairly easy to broach many boats under sail, etc, but that's not the situation we're talking about. Under power it usually takes a lack of ballast, and too much power, and that is an unusual property of the Mac. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Marc" wrote in message ... And the court found her 20% liable for her actions. Of course , dumbass, they found Mc D's liable for 80%. If she spilt the coffee, while driving a vehicle and trying to hold the cup between her legs, then she was 100% liable. zmaybe if that had been the situation. However, she wasn't at the wheel, she wasn't driving, and contrary to Jim's repeated calims, she wasn't putting on makeup. They were stopped just past the pickup window, and the woman was simply trying to take off the cover to add milk and sugar. Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal responsibility for their own actions. It certainly helps your little fantasy if you make up "facts," especially after the truth of the case had been posted. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Now that is *not* nice. I disagree. Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse. Peter Wiley has tried to tell us that his opinion should hold sway over Jim's because Peter, (and soon), his son have college degrees. This argument makes no sense at all. In fact, if someone has to invoke their "degree" as proof of their intelligence, then I would assume that they are a bit inadequate. Jeff has poured scorn on the 200 gallon claim, and yet Jeff has not had the courage to state what he thinks that the real figure is. What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal. Almost 48 hours before your post I responded to Jim: " What is your estimate, Jeff? "Gee that's a tough one Jim. How about 6 inches wide by 6 feet long by one foot draft? That gives a pretty conservative 3 cubic feet. I suspect it may be half of that, or less. And the amount of drag created by the trunk is reall not that large." Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or more. Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as Jim claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three seconds. Jim is either a liar, or he's too lazy to think for a few seconds. Only he knows the truth, but he was simply trying to deflect my criticism with his nasty comment. Think about it Donal, Jim was claiming the centerboard trunk on a 26 foot sailboat is 10 times larger than your fuel tank! Does that make sense to you? What would your guess have been? Frankly, I didn't think the "200 gallon" number was particularly significant, except the Jim has had this pattern of quoting bogus numbers and then denying he ever did it. He has even asked several time that we point out examples of outrageous claims: "Really? And could you be just a little more specific? Like, if I posted all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could you cite a few of them? (And please quote my own words. - No paraphrases or caricatures.)" I just figured I was helping Jim as he wished. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or more. Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as Jim claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three seconds. jeez, I barley squeeked through the 8th grade and *I* knew it wasn't even close to 200 gallons. -- Scott Vernon Plowville PA __/)__/)__ |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Who are you talking about? If you take the time to read my note, I never suggested that popularity of the Macs equals quality. The point of the above discussion was to point out that, if the ridiculous statements about Macs being under built were true, BECAUSE there are thousands of them out there, we would have hundreds of reports every year about Macs breaking up and owners and passengers being lost. This is just one more example of the total lack of intellectual honesty of some participants on this ng. You can't dig much dirt out of what I say, so you deliberately lie about it and twist the discussion around to what you would have like for me to have said, but didn't. So you're saying that if less than 10% of the boats break up and cause fatalities, that's an acceptable ratio for you? Jeff, I think that you are beginning to go off the deep end. You need to take a very deep breath ... and then reconsider your question. Do you really think that Jim said that a break-up rate of less than 10% was acceptable? Actually, that's pretty much what Jim is saying. He's claimed several times (in fact is quoted above) that if the boat were truely dangerous there would be "hundreds of reports every year about Macs breaking up and owners and passengers being lost" implying that if the accident rate were any less than that, it would be acceptable. Jim is claiming precisely what you say he can't possibly be claiming. This is just one more example of your flawed logic, and lack of intellectual honesty. "Flawed logic"? "10%"? Please .... Jeff. In fact, you have demonstrated your own lack of intellectual honesty in your snobby attempt to put down Jim. Read Jim's comments again. He is claiming that unless I can show "hundreds of reports" the boat must be safe. In fact, all I have claimed is that there are a small number of incidents (one in particular) that demonstrate that the warnings issued by the builder are quite serious. You will remember that these are the warnings that Jim claimed need not be taken literally, because they were written by lawyers. These are the warnings that must be disregarded to achieve the speeds that Jim has claimed as a primary reason for buying the boat. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Now that is *not* nice. I disagree. Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse. Peter Wiley has tried to tell us that his opinion should hold sway over Jim's because Peter, (and soon), his son have college degrees. This argument makes no sense at all. In fact, if someone has to invoke their "degree" as proof of their intelligence, then I would assume that they are a bit inadequate. Jeff has poured scorn on the 200 gallon claim, and yet Jeff has not had the courage to state what he thinks that the real figure is. What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal. I think that you worry too much about being proved wrong. Read on, and I bet that it won't feel too awful when you see how misinformed your posts have been. BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the month? Almost 48 hours before your post I responded to Jim: " What is your estimate, Jeff? "Gee that's a tough one Jim. How about 6 inches wide by 6 feet long by one foot draft? That gives a pretty conservative 3 cubic feet. I suspect it may be half of that, or less. And the amount of drag created by the trunk is reall not that large." I owe you an apology, Jeff. I really didn't think that you were making a serious guess. I thought that you were making a wild uninformed assumption in an effort to wind Jim up. Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or more. I don't think so. Perhaps you would care to look at the specifications? http://www.russellsmarine.com/mac/update.htm Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as Jim claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three seconds. Jim is either a liar, or he's too lazy to think for a few seconds. Only he knows the truth, but he was simply trying to deflect my criticism with his nasty comment. Think about it Donal, Jim was claiming the centerboard trunk on a 26 foot sailboat is 10 times larger than your fuel tank! Does that make sense to you? What would your guess have been? Well, I'd guess about 110 gallons, which would mean that you were more than 4 times more inaccurate than Jim. My guess is based on my interpretation of the boat's specification sheet, which claims 1300 lbs of ballast. 300lbs are fixed, and 1000 lbs is water. I assume that the figures refer to salt water, and that sal****er is a bit heavier than fresh water, so that leads me to conclude that there is about 110 US gallons of water involved. Frankly, I didn't think the "200 gallon" number was particularly significant, except the Jim has had this pattern of quoting bogus numbers and then denying he ever did it. He has even asked several time that we point out examples of outrageous claims: "Really? And could you be just a little more specific? Like, if I posted all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could you cite a few of them? (And please quote my own words. - No paraphrases or caricatures.)" I just figured I was helping Jim as he wished. I figure that your accusation that he was out by a factor of "10, maybe 20 or more" was based on pure prejudice. It is most unedifying to witness a catamaran owner looking down his nose at a Mac owner.... especially when he is incapable of checking his facts before spouting off. Regards Donal -- PS I feel a really good ad hominem coming my way - instead of the apology that I am owed! |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal responsibility for their own actions. you just realize that now? Nah.... We've been importing it for the last 10 years. We can't do anything without doing a "risk assessment" and a "method statement". Our company is currently waiting for the go ahead to start a job. The job should have started 2 weeks ago. We are being delayed because the client's Heath & Safety Officer hasn't read our risk assessment yet. He's too busy. The delay is costing us $1800 a day. In 13 years we have only had *one* accident that had to be entered into the (legally required) accident book. That was a paper cut!!! Now we have to train all new staff how to handle sheets of paper so that they don't cut themselves when they are reading a letter. We also have to document the training, and produce a certificate to show that the employee has *successfully* attended a course in the handling of paper. Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling over if misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat. Rubbish, Jeff! Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact, I'm lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet. There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled correctly. If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then we would consign most high performance monohulls to history. Rubbish, Donal??? Name me one 26 foot sailboat, other than a water ballast boat with an empty tank, that will easily roll over under power, with no wind or seas. Sure, its fairly easy to broach many boats under sail, etc, That's what I was thinking of. but that's not the situation we're talking about. Under power it usually takes a lack of ballast, and too much power, and that is an unusual property of the Mac. Not if you follow the instructions. You learn about your boat's handling characteristics through experience. All boats are different. It is up to the owner to know what his boat is capable of. If we take your point of view to its logical conclusion, then it would become illegal to manufacture any of the high performance sailing boats. Most of them will capsize if they are not handled correctly. The end result of your approach is that we would only be able to sail long keeled boats that had positive floatation. Can't you see that the world would be a miserable place if boats were regulated to such an extent? Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message "Donal" wrote in message "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Now that is *not* nice. I disagree. Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse. Peter Wiley has tried to tell us that his opinion should hold sway over Jim's because Peter, (and soon), his son have college degrees. This argument makes no sense at all. In fact, if someone has to invoke their "degree" as proof of their intelligence, then I would assume that they are a bit inadequate. Jeff has poured scorn on the 200 gallon claim, and yet Jeff has not had the courage to state what he thinks that the real figure is. What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal. I think that you worry too much about being proved wrong. Read on, and I bet that it won't feel too awful when you see how misinformed your posts have been. OK, we'll see. BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the month? Or maybe you'll get it for being the biggest jackass. Let's see how you do: Almost 48 hours before your post I responded to Jim: " What is your estimate, Jeff? "Gee that's a tough one Jim. How about 6 inches wide by 6 feet long by one foot draft? That gives a pretty conservative 3 cubic feet. I suspect it may be half of that, or less. And the amount of drag created by the trunk is reall not that large." I owe you an apology, Jeff. I really didn't think that you were making a serious guess. I thought that you were making a wild uninformed assumption in an effort to wind Jim up. No, this was a quite serious exercise. I was showing that in about 3 seconds you can find a reasonable upper limit for the volume of a centerboard trunk that's about a tenth the size that Jim quoted. That's the way someone trained in physics and math would do it; that's what I would have expected Jim to do, especially after the obvious blunder had been pointed out to him. BTW, on July 19th, two weeks ago, I said that 200 gallons is over 26 cubic feet. I shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 26 cubic feet on a 26 foot boot that only draws one foot, implies a trunk running the entire length a foot wide. Does that make sense to you? Jim read that post, because he responded to it, but he chose to keep repeating the absurd claim. Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or more. I don't think so. Perhaps you would care to look at the specifications? http://www.russellsmarine.com/mac/update.htm What spec is it that you're talking about? Is it where they say "The conventional centerboard trunk carried about 100 lbs of water; the new trunk carries virtually none." So how much is 100 pounds of water? At 8 pounds to the US Gallon, that's just about 12.5 gallons, which is about 1.67 cubic feet. So Jim was off by a factor of 16, I said "at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or more". I'd say I was bang on, given that I was using a guess as to the width of the trunk. Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as Jim claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three seconds. Jim is either a liar, or he's too lazy to think for a few seconds. Only he knows the truth, but he was simply trying to deflect my criticism with his nasty comment. Think about it Donal, Jim was claiming the centerboard trunk on a 26 foot sailboat is 10 times larger than your fuel tank! Does that make sense to you? What would your guess have been? Well, I'd guess about 110 gallons, which would mean that you were more than 4 times more inaccurate than Jim. I was bang on with my educated guess, you're almost as ludicrous as Jim! 110 Gallons is just a bit larger than 12.5 gallons, don't you think, Donal? My guess is based on my interpretation of the boat's specification sheet, which claims 1300 lbs of ballast. 300lbs are fixed, and 1000 lbs is water. I assume that the figures refer to salt water, and that sal****er is a bit heavier than fresh water, so that leads me to conclude that there is about 110 US gallons of water involved. What are you talking about Donal? This is water in the centerboard trunk we're talking about, not the water ballast! Two completely different things. No wonder you're so confused here. It's beginning to look like you will get that Jackass of the Year Award. OK, its not as bad as confusing the Constitution for the Constellation! Perhaps I should have strung you along a bit more. Frankly, I didn't think the "200 gallon" number was particularly significant, except the Jim has had this pattern of quoting bogus numbers and then denying he ever did it. He has even asked several time that we point out examples of outrageous claims: "Really? And could you be just a little more specific? Like, if I posted all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could you cite a few of them? (And please quote my own words. - No paraphrases or caricatures.)" I just figured I was helping Jim as he wished. I figure that your accusation that he was out by a factor of "10, maybe 20 or more" was based on pure prejudice. You can "figure" however you want, but we've just seen that my "accusation" was actually quite correct. There was no prejudice at all on my part. Actually, the simple calculation I did could have been done by almost anyone here, except, apparently, you and Jim. On the other hand, you've shown that you're so blinded by prejudice against me that you forgot the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank. It is most unedifying to witness a catamaran owner looking down his nose at a Mac owner.... especially when he is incapable of checking his facts before spouting off. I've said a number of times that this may be the proper boat for Jim. My only objection has been his misrepresentations of the facts. This has simply been another case of that. And once again, Donal, you were completely wrong, it was you who was incapable of checking the facts, not I. I think an apology is in order here ... Regards Donal -- PS I feel a really good ad hominem coming my way - instead of the apology that I am owed! Why would you say that? I'm the one who has been maligned here. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling over if misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat. Rubbish, Jeff! Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact, I'm lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet. There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled correctly. If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then we would consign most high performance monohulls to history. Rubbish, Donal??? Name me one 26 foot sailboat, other than a water ballast boat with an empty tank, that will easily roll over under power, with no wind or seas. Sure, its fairly easy to broach many boats under sail, etc, That's what I was thinking of. But that's not what we're talking about. but that's not the situation we're talking about. Under power it usually takes a lack of ballast, and too much power, and that is an unusual property of the Mac. Not if you follow the instructions. Jim told us that the warnings needn't be taken literally. You learn about your boat's handling characteristics through experience. This boat has qualities outside of the experience of most boaters, which was part of the problem. You still haven't told us about another 26 foot cruising sailboat that will roll over under power because there were 8 adults aboard. I didn't even say that was inherently bad, only that it was unique. All boats are different. It is up to the owner to know what his boat is capable of. True, but it wasn't the owner. And remember, this boat is marketed to novices. If we take your point of view to its logical conclusion, then it would become illegal to manufacture any of the high performance sailing boats. Most of them will capsize if they are not handled correctly. I was only making the point that the warnings should not be ignored. The problem I have is that on the one hand they say its dangerous to run without ballast in many situations, but on the other hand the high speed, which can only be achieved without ballast, figures prominently in the literature and sales pitches. This is what the discussion has really been about. The end result of your approach is that we would only be able to sail long keeled boats that had positive floatation. Can't you see that the world would be a miserable place if boats were regulated to such an extent? But that's not what I've been talking about at all, Donal. You've just been rather slow to figure this out, haven't you? |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jeff Morris wrote: You're outdoing yourself Jim. Everything I've claimed about the Mac has come directly from the MacGregor sites, the dealer sites, and in a few cases, the bulletin boards of mac owners. As I've said a number of times, I haven't been dumping on the mac, its your misrepresentation of their own published data that I've objected to. Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair, balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by 10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one of the Macs, much less the current 26M model Upon getting attacked by the sarcastic anti-Mac "experts," most of these poor souls become intimidated and quickly move on, never stopping to ask what, exactly, is the source of information relied on by all the "experts" who have just jumped down their throat. Jeff, I have nothing against you personally. You just happen to be the latest in a series of "experts" who have tried to put me down and ridicule many, many aspects of the Macs. What's obviously troubling you is that you haven't succeeded in putting me in my place. - I keep popping back up. As I have previously explained, I have professional responsibilities that keep me from following this ng on a daily basis, like you and others. Still, I'm still here. I think that what's bothering you is that most on this ng think that putting down a Mac enthusiast is supposed to be a simple, easy task, sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet it just doesn't seem to be working in this case, right Jeff? And if you're honest, you would stop trying to maintain that my remarks are completely vacuous and without merit. - Instead, Jeff, you would be far more convincing if you were willing to acknowledge (as have I with respect to some of your comments) that at least some of my points are well taken. "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... ... You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings were something that could be ignored. When did I say that the warnings could be ignored? The fact that, in my opinion, the warnings evidence a concern on the part of their lawyers doesn't at all suggest that one should ignore them. You admit down below that you regularly ignore such warnings. Wrong again Jeff. I admit "down below" that I ignore warnings on Nautilus exercise machines that I might fall out of such machines onto a carpeted floor one foot down and hurt myself. Now you're admitted they are deadly serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of **** Nope. It isn't backpedalling at all. It's telling the truth, in response to your "gotcha notes." The problem, Jeff, is that you thought that after all the notes you had written and all the traps you had set, you thought you had a real "gotcha". I set no traps. You created them yourself. When I pointed out the long list of warnings you implied they weren't that serious. Now that you have the boat, you know they are serious. But as usual, your hopes have been dashed, and all you did was reveal once more what your true motives are. - (To get Cate, no matter what it takes, how many distortions you have to use.) Fundamentally, Jeff, the problem is that you are becoming increasingly frustrated that you can't even put down a new Mac owner. - It's supposed to be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but you can't seem to get the hang of it, right Jeff? You've already embarrassed yourself beyond all belief! Do you think you have an iota of credibility here? from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch, your client was sent to the chair! You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings. SO are Nope. you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means. Nope. I don't wear a seatbelt when working out. - Do you? What?? Are you saying you ignore the safety warnings? You're loosing it here, Jim. Really, Jeff? And WHICH PART OF THE WARNING should I pay the closest attention to? The part that tells me never to sail or motor the boat without the water ballast? That would be a good start. What would be a good start? That I follow the first sentence or the second sentence? But since you keep quoting the speed numbers assuming there's no risk to running without ballast, you still haven't got the point. Where did I KEEP QUOTING THE SPEED NUMBERS? You said a number of times you were getting a boat capable of 18 knots, sometimes you used 18 mph. Here's a few examples "Am I going to be stranded off-shore in unexpected weather conditions? - (Actually, since the boat can motor back at 18 mph, it has a better chance of getting back to shore faster than a displacement boat." "I'm getting a boat that's capable of motoring in 1.5 feet of water and sailing offshore, motoring at 18 knots to a desired destination, " "Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots" "Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18 knots under power." This is your typical bull****, Jim. First you make the comments, then you deny it. Haven't you figured out yet that its all on record? The above statements are all true, Jeff. Had I instead posted notes claiming that, under any conditions, and regardless of the load or weather, one can always motor back at 15-18 knots, you might have a point. And when did I quote them in error, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL ON-THE-WATER TESTS you have conducted? In other words, don't attack the speed numbers I have provided unless you have some documented test results to back you up. What? All I did was repeat what the MacGregor sites have admited. The max speeds were obtained with no mast, no ballast, minimal gear, flat water, one small skipper. They explained that adding ballast slows it 3 knots, then you should subtract 1 knot for each 100 pounds. In addition I provided a number of quotes from owners saying the max speeds acheive in practice is 10 to 12 mph. I haven't been bashing the Mac, Jim. I've just been insisting that you listen to what the factory, the vendors, and the owners say about the boat. I assume that in fact, you will almost always run with ballast, and will come to realize that you cannot really go 18 knots, especially in less then ideal situations. I think you're reallizing that already, given how fast you're backpedaling now. Maybe. Maybe not. There's a real admission. Or the part that refers me to the instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast? So what's your point? Is it that even though this boat is marketed to novices, even an experienced boater must read the manual carefully because its inherently dangerous? The point was that my note was a response to your note questioning my conclusion that the notice was written with input from MacGregor's' attorneys. The issue was never whether it was written by lawyers, actually I think it was Roger (or some other real sailor) who wrote them. The issue is whether they a very serious warnings, or just "lawyer talk" to avoid frivolous lawsuits. First you claim they don't have to be taken literally, now you realize perhaps they're deadly serious. So you think you have a great "gotcha" here, right Jeff? Sorry, no cigar this time. - Your "gotcha" doesn't hold water. My discussion of the notice was to the effect that I thought it revealed an intention to minimize potential liability relating to the water ballast arrangement. If one takes the notice literally, it would mean that owners of the Mac 26M should NEVER motor or sail their boats without the water ballast, because the first sentence of the warning says that the water ballast tank should be full when EITHER powering or sailing. THEN, in the next sentence, the notice refers the reader to instructions for operating the boat without the water ballast. As I read the notice, the most reasonable interpretation they want to provide a clear warning about the potential danger of operating the boat without the water ballast. But they then indicate that, particularly when motoring, many owners will operate the boat without the ballast, when under moderate conditions. Reading comments on the Mac discussion groups also, it seems that many if not most of the Mac owners have operated their boats without the water ballast. The fact that the notice appears to indicate that MacGregor is concerned about possible liability, and the fact that I suspect that it entails some legal implications, DOES NOT MEAN that the underlying message should not be taken seriously. As I have said several times, I take their warnings quite seriously, even though, at the same time, I also recognize that they entail what I suspect are some legal considerations. I also think that they evidence a genuine concern for the safety of Mac owners generally. Jeff, it's not a simple "either" question, as you seem to suggest, but rather a "both-and" issue. You should also remember that in the new Mac 26M an additional 300 lbs of permanent ballast has been added, along with additional floatation in the mast, so that even if you motor without a full ballast tank, the boat still has a significant amount of (permanent) ballast. However, motoring or sailing with the tank only partially filled, rather than completely full or empty, is not recommended. Once again, Jeff, the fact that the warnings entail legal overtones and the fact that they are somewhat contradictory doesn't at all mean that the underlying concerns evidenced by the notice shouldn't be taken seriously. In other words, sometimes a little common sense is in order. (But of course, your interest in the matter isn't in arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the notice, is it Jeff? No, your interest in the matter is that you thought you had great "gotcha" trap going. - Right Jeff? Once again, you need to go back to school and take that "Logic 101" course, because you sure aren't evidencing any. On the other hand, maybe you know that you're stretching the facts, and don't' want to admit it. Maybe the problem is that you simply have a problem with basic intellectual honesty. ... Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still at anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of turning too quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children below, that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers" their total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance. Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8 adults on deck? Jeff, my wife and I sailed on a new 25-foot Catalina (shoal draft, wing keel) a few months ago. Judging by the very alarming heel experienced when only ONE adult stepped onto the boat or moved around on it, it would have been easy for the Cat to roll over with a load of eight adults on top of the deck, particularly if the skipper was drunk, gunning the motor in a turn, with the passengers also drinking. If they were drinking and tried to hold onto the mast to keep from falling out in a turn it would have been a slam "dunk" that the boat would roll over. Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below, even though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even though Actually, Jeff, it was a great vindication of the validity of the MacGregor design. Two children drowning is a vindication??? You're one sick puppy, Jim. Nope, the vindication derives from the fact that eight passengers plus the drunk skipper survived, despite the boat being operated and used in a grossly negligent manner. Even thought the skipper, and probably many of the guests, were drunk, and even though the skipper ignored all safety warnings most skippers know, and even though he ignored all the warnings posted by MacGregor, and even thought the boat was grossly overloaded, and even though the skipper had pushed the throttle forward and was trying to maneuver the boat around a turn with eight adult passengers on the dec., nevertheless, the boat stayed afloat, and the eight passengers above-deck survived. - The boat didn't capsize and sink to the bottom as would be the case with many displacement boats, drowning all the passengers. - That's good, isn't it Jeff? How often do you hear of keel boats capsizing because they turned too quickly under power? On any other boat this would never have happened. ... Jeff, how often do you hear of MacGregors capsizing because they turned too quickly under power? Maybe 300 a year? Or is it more like 200 a year? Or perhaps 100 a year? No? How about 50 a year? - Surely, if the Macs are as unstable and defective as you suggest, you could EASILY easily find 50 reports of the boats capsizing each year because they were turned too quickly, Jeff. They didn't say they were all on the foredeck - 4 to 6 could have been in the cockpit. The news report said they were on the deck. Do you think their lawyer might have obfuscated the facts along about there? If on deck meant out of the cockpit, who was driving? Who was driving? A very drunk skipper. Yes it would be a bit of a crowd, "bit of a crowd" - You obviously haven't done much sailing on the Mac 26, have you Jeff? There is actually relatively little room on the foredeck or on top of the cabin. Four would be a crowd. but its not clear it would appear grossly overloaded. You are, of course, ignoring the fact that the Mac instructions are to avoid such a load, and in particular, not to permit any passengers on board without the water ballast.) But you already told us you don't wear that seatbelt, didn't you? As discussed above, what I said was that I don't wear a seat belt when working out on the Nautilus machines, Jeff. Do you think I ought to? That's what the instructions say. I do, however, wear a seat belt when driving my car. (For some reason, I'm really not too concerned about falling out of the Nautilus machines to the carpeted floor a foot below the seat.) Isn't this just one of those warnings that shouldn't be taken literally? I really don't see how you can seriously argue both sides of this in one post. Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer. You don't care who is right, as long as you get paid. Nope. I'm just saying that some warnings (like the warning that I might fall out of an exercise machine and hurt myself on a cushioned, carpeted floor) should be taken with a grain of salt. ... You're describing the behaviour of a 15 foot centerboard boat, not a 26 foot cruiser. I guess that is the essence of my whole point: the Mac has to be considered as stable as small centerboard boat. If it is operated in accordance with the owners manual, it is stable, and it can be sailed in blue water. But in April you were talking about how you can get back at 18 mph if the weather turns bad? Now you're admitting you can't do that, because it wouldn't be in accordance with the manual. Nope. The boat will motor at 18 mph under some conditions. I never said that it would motor at 18 mph under ANY conditions or circumstances, or even most of them, which is how you want to interpret my words. There are major flaws in your logic here, Jim: First, a large number of 30,000 actually have a significant amount of hard ballast. You have finally made an at least partially relevant point, Jeff. The early Macs did indeed have a weighted keel. But they have been followed by long production runs of several models of water ballast boats. In fact, some of his boats have a fairly conservative design, considering where he's coming from. In fact, the number of Max 26X's and M's is more like 5000. Nope. The water ballast boats include both the 26X, the 26M, and the previous model, known as the 26C. The total far greater than 5,000. Back this up with numbers. And who care? According to the Mac discussion groups, around 6,000 of just the 26X's were made. Similarly, a large number of 26Cs were made. Previously, MacGregor sold thousands of mostly smaller boats of various types. The bottom line, Jeff, is that although you go on and on about the serious defects of the Macs, you still can't come up with any evidence to back up your incredible claims that there are serious safety defects in any of the boats. You are the one asserting that the Macs are defective and unsafe. - YOU should provide the evidence to support your malicious assertions. Secondly, I suspect that the vast majority of 26X sailors always keep the ballast tank full. I know the one down the dock from me fills in the spring and empties in the fall. Corollary to this, almost all Mac sailors will admit that in practice, the top speed is more like 10 to 12 mph, not the 18 knots you claimed on numerous occasions. That's not what I see on the Mac discussion groups, Jeff. And do you by any chance have some evidence (NOT ANECDOTES) supporting that particular assertion, Jeff? You can scan the mac boards and find these comments may times. I don't doubt that you can scan ANY board and find comments to support almost any conclusion that you want to reach. That doesn't prove anything, of course. Your the one who has owned one for months, why don't you give us some speed numbers? Claiming you GPS doesn't give SOG is pretty lame, Jim, even for you! Jeff, the truth is that delivery of the Garmin GPS unit was delayed for several months because it is a new model that wasn't available when I placed the order. Since then the installer got a new job and wasn't available to complete the installation, resulting in a further delay. More recently, I have had a series of deadlines at work relating to several cases for which I am responsible. - Currently, I really don't know whether the installer has finally got the system all working. - So tell me, Jeff, do you think I should simply ignore all those deadlines and assignments so that I can check out all the loose ends on the boat, and sail it under various conditions so that I can report back to you what figures I am seeing on the GPS? Is providing prompt responses to you (who are never, ever satisfied with anything I say on any subject) more important than taking care of my clients, Jeff? I don't think so. .. [snip all the bull**** where Jim asserts that 2 children drowning is a vindication of the design] Once again, Jeff, you got it bass-ass backwards. The vindication was derived from the fact that eight passengers and a drunk skipper survived despite their gross negligence. So Jim, you keep claiming that I've been "bashing" the Mac. Why don't you go back and really read my posts? You'll notice that I started by saying the 26M was a reasonable choice for some people, and that it had advantages in some environments. Almost every negative comment I've made has had to do with your claims of speed, which are clearly contradicted by the companies own claims, or your inflated comments on the resale value and availability, or the warnings concerning the stability without ballast, or some of your other odd claims, like the "double hull." I haven't "bashed" the mac, as a few others have, I've just insisted that you consider its attributes honestly. That's really considerate of you, Jeff. But as I have clearly demonstrated, in this and in previous notes, the problem with your interpretation of my comments is that you obviously interpret them in an extremely biased manner, carefully looking for the nits rather than than giving them a balanced, reasonable interpretation. You also love to "cherry-pick" among the hundreds of notes I have posted, sniffing out some that can be quoted out of context with the overall discussion rather than considering them in context. So you haven't been "bashing" the Mac 26M Jeff(even when you state or infer that it is marketed under false or misleading claims, and that is a seriously compromised, unsafe design). Well, in that vein, I think you should also acknowledge that I haven't been "puffing" the Mac 26M by claiming that it is "better than" other heavy displacement boats such as the Valiant 40 or various other boats. For example, I never stated that the Mac would out-sail the Valiant, with the Valiant's substantially longer waterline and heavy keel (except possibly under special conditions in which the Mac may be sailed on a plane), or that the Mac would point higher, or provide a more comfortable ride in heavy weather, etc. I also never stated that the Mac would be a suitable boat for extended blue-water crossings, as would the Valiant and other similar boats. I also never stated that it had enough storage room for an extended cruise, etc. Thus, with respect to all those criteria, many sailboats are "better" than the Mac. So, Jeff, how about recognizing for once that I also have tried to provide a balanced evaluation of the Macs, recognizing that the Macs aren't a great sailboat in all respects. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
They're not being biased... they're being honest. The Mac is an
inferior boat. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: You're outdoing yourself Jim. Everything I've claimed about the Mac has come directly from the MacGregor sites, the dealer sites, and in a few cases, the bulletin boards of mac owners. As I've said a number of times, I haven't been dumping on the mac, its your misrepresentation of their own published data that I've objected to. Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair, balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by 10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one long bs deleted |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor! "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: You're outdoing yourself Jim. Everything I've claimed about the Mac has come directly from the MacGregor sites, the dealer sites, and in a few cases, the bulletin boards of mac owners. As I've said a number of times, I haven't been dumping on the mac, its your misrepresentation of their own published data that I've objected to. Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair, balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by 10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one of the Macs, much less the current 26M model Upon getting attacked by the sarcastic anti-Mac "experts," most of these poor souls become intimidated and quickly move on, never stopping to ask what, exactly, is the source of information relied on by all the "experts" who have just jumped down their throat. You'll be hard pressed to find (much) of the bashing from me. I've even agreed on numerous occasions that the Mac is a reasonable choice for some, and that over the years I've appreciated Roger's innovative approach. Jeff, I have nothing against you personally. You just happen to be the latest in a series of "experts" who have tried to put me down and ridicule many, many aspects of the Macs. I haven't ridiculed the boats so much as the marketing literature and sales approach. Frankly, a 26 foot boat that can go 12 mph is impressive; why pile on bull**** be insisting it can do 18 knots? What's obviously troubling you is that you haven't succeeded in putting me in my place. - I keep popping back up. Actually, you've dug your hole deeper, that's why you're popping up less frequently! Frankly I enjoy your posts, they're much better than the political drivel that's taken over this board. As I have previously explained, I have professional responsibilities that keep me from following this ng on a daily basis, like you and others. Still, I'm still here. I think that what's bothering you is that most on this ng think that putting down a Mac enthusiast is supposed to be a simple, easy task, sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. You really think that, don't you? Actually, I think most readers ignore these threads, just like I ignore most of the political nonsense. Yet it just doesn't seem to be working in this case, right Jeff? And if you're honest, you would stop trying to maintain that my remarks are completely vacuous and without merit. - Instead, Jeff, you would be far more convincing if you were willing to acknowledge (as have I with respect to some of your comments) that at least some of my points are well taken. Actually, one problem I have is that many of your "points" are just plain boring. No one in the history of this board has bothered trying to claim that they have a traveler, or adjustable jib tracks. No real sailor talks about marketing hype and feature lists at all; the only thing that really matters is what you've actually done with the boat. Since you haven't done anything yet, all I can do is point out that your achievements aren't likely to live up to your claims. And your "double hull" thing was just plain silly. When did I say that the warnings could be ignored? The fact that, in my opinion, the warnings evidence a concern on the part of their lawyers doesn't at all suggest that one should ignore them. You admit down below that you regularly ignore such warnings. Wrong again Jeff. I admit "down below" that I ignore warnings on Nautilus exercise machines that I might fall out of such machines onto a carpeted floor one foot down and hurt myself. When I listed many of the warnings that come with the Mac you claimed they are not to be taken literally; they are like the seatbelt warnings on a Nautilus. And you've said you regularly ignore those warnings. How else can we reasonably interpret your intent here, other than meaning its OK to ignore the warnings about the Mac? .... Where did I KEEP QUOTING THE SPEED NUMBERS? You said a number of times you were getting a boat capable of 18 knots, sometimes you used 18 mph. Here's a few examples "Am I going to be stranded off-shore in unexpected weather conditions? - (Actually, since the boat can motor back at 18 mph, it has a better chance of getting back to shore faster than a displacement boat." "I'm getting a boat that's capable of motoring in 1.5 feet of water and sailing offshore, motoring at 18 knots to a desired destination, " "Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots" "Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18 knots under power." This is your typical bull****, Jim. First you make the comments, then you deny it. Haven't you figured out yet that its all on record? The above statements are all true, Jeff. They may be "true" but these speeds can only be achieved running without ballast, which is unsafe, and leaving behind key gear, such as the mast. Almost every boat made can, under certain situations, achieve speeds much higher than is normal, but the speed boaters normally quote is the speed that they can achieve with the gear the normally carry, etc. I've heard factory people claim they got my boat up to 17 knots, but when people ask me how fast it is, I tell them my experience. Even though I've seen 13.5 knots, I tell them its usually between 7 and 9, sometimes over 10 if conditions are perfect. You, on the other hand, have taken the exaggerated claims and insisted that they will apply in your daily use. But right from the start, we have to assume that you will actually carry the mast on board, that you'll have a few passengers, plus the appropriate gear. You'll probably fill your fuel and water tanks. And while you may have flat water sometimes, if you're heading out the Houston Ship Channel, you have to assume the chop will preclude running without ballast. And powering offshore at 18 knots, especially in deteriorating weather, is probably completely impossible. Had I instead posted notes claiming that, under any conditions, and regardless of the load or weather, one can always motor back at 15-18 knots, you might have a point. By repeatedly insisting that your claims are "true" you have been implying that they apply to your normal use. You keep approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor, Jim. My entire point has been that the various claims you've made will not be achievable in normal use. Even though you admitted at times that I'm correct, you keep claiming I'm bashing the Mac. What's wrong with admitting that in practice, your speed will be 10-12 mph, its still twice as fast as most 26 footers? .... The issue was never whether it was written by lawyers, actually I think it was Roger (or some other real sailor) who wrote them. The issue is whether they a very serious warnings, or just "lawyer talk" to avoid frivolous lawsuits. First you claim they don't have to be taken literally, now you realize perhaps they're deadly serious. So you think you have a great "gotcha" here, right Jeff? Sorry, no cigar this time. - Your "gotcha" doesn't hold water. My discussion of the notice was to the effect that I thought it revealed an intention to minimize potential liability relating to the water ballast arrangement. If one takes the notice literally, it would mean that owners of the Mac 26M should NEVER motor or sail their boats without the water ballast, because the first sentence of the warning says that the water ballast tank should be full when EITHER powering or sailing. THEN, in the next sentence, the notice refers the reader to instructions for operating the boat without the water ballast. As I read the notice, the most reasonable interpretation they want to provide a clear warning about the potential danger of operating the boat without the water ballast. But they then indicate that, particularly when motoring, many owners will operate the boat without the ballast, when under moderate conditions. Reading comments on the Mac discussion groups also, it seems that many if not most of the Mac owners have operated their boats without the water ballast. You're going in circles here. You're saying that the owners can pick and choose which warnings can be ignored, and which must be taken seriously. Yet when two children die you say it was because negligence because the warnings were ignored. So tell us Jim, how fast have you gone without ballast? The fact that the notice appears to indicate that MacGregor is concerned about possible liability, and the fact that I suspect that it entails some legal implications, DOES NOT MEAN that the underlying message should not be taken seriously. As I have said several times, I take their warnings quite seriously, even though, at the same time, I also recognize that they entail what I suspect are some legal considerations. I also think that they evidence a genuine concern for the safety of Mac owners generally. Jeff, it's not a simple "either" question, as you seem to suggest, but rather a "both-and" issue. I don't doubt that some experienced skippers, in fairly protected situations, push the limits by ignoring the warnings. This is true for all sorts of products, and generally its a good thing. However, I don't see how this applies to the majority of buyers, since the boat is marketed as a family cruiser. Most people, in most situations, should heed the warnings and expect performance consistent with following the warnings. You should also remember that in the new Mac 26M an additional 300 lbs of permanent ballast has been added, along with additional floatation in the mast, so that even if you motor without a full ballast tank, the boat still has a significant amount of (permanent) ballast. However, motoring or sailing with the tank only partially filled, rather than completely full or empty, is not recommended. Once again, Jeff, the fact that the warnings entail legal overtones and the fact that they are somewhat contradictory doesn't at all mean that the underlying concerns evidenced by the notice shouldn't be taken seriously. In other words, sometimes a little common sense is in order. (But of course, your interest in the matter isn't in arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the notice, is it Jeff? On the contrary, you're the one who made claims that ignore both the warnings and common sense. For instance, you claimed that you could get offshore, with the boat loaded with guests and supplies, and get back ahead of bad weather, all at 18 knots (or sometimes 18 mph). The bottom line is that the high speeds can only be achieved with no ballast and completely unloaded; this is not consistent with taking your grandchildren out the Houston Ship Channel to sail "offshore." No, your interest in the matter is that you thought you had great "gotcha" trap going. - Right Jeff? Once again, you need to go back to school and take that "Logic 101" course, because you sure aren't evidencing any. On the other hand, maybe you know that you're stretching the facts, and don't' want to admit it. Maybe the problem is that you simply have a problem with basic intellectual honesty. Right Jim, you keep making this claim. But you haven't explained the logic behind insisting that speeds achieved without the mast apply to your experience. Come on Jim, your whole point is been that claims that make no practical sense are still somehow "correct," but what's the point? Is that what you mean by intellectual honesty? Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8 adults on deck? Jeff, my wife and I sailed on a new 25-foot Catalina (shoal draft, wing keel) a few months ago. Judging by the very alarming heel experienced when only ONE adult stepped onto the boat or moved around on it, it would have been easy for the Cat to roll over with a load of eight adults on top of the deck, particularly if the skipper was drunk, gunning the motor in a turn, with the passengers also drinking. If they were drinking and tried to hold onto the mast to keep from falling out in a turn it would have been a slam "dunk" that the boat would roll over. Perhaps, but its also very likely that the boat would have popped back up after dumping the passengers that were on deck. The Mac 26X turned turtle and stayed there while the children trapped below drowned. If you think a small boat with a 1000 pound keel will roll over the same way a Mac 26x with an empty tank will, you know very little about boats. Actually, Jeff, it was a great vindication of the validity of the MacGregor design. Two children drowning is a vindication??? You're one sick puppy, Jim. Nope, the vindication derives from the fact that eight passengers plus the drunk skipper survived, despite the boat being operated and used in a grossly negligent manner. There were a number of other boat nearby, they would have survived in any case. Besides, virtually all water ballast boats, and even many smaller keel boats, have positive flotation. Had MacGregor not included this feature, it would have been gross negligence on their part. Even thought the skipper, and probably many of the guests, were drunk, and even though the skipper ignored all safety warnings most skippers know, and even though he ignored all the warnings posted by MacGregor, and even thought the boat was grossly overloaded, and even though the skipper had pushed the throttle forward and was trying to maneuver the boat around a turn with eight adult passengers on the dec., nevertheless, the boat stayed afloat, and the eight passengers above-deck survived. - The boat didn't capsize and sink to the bottom as would be the case with many displacement boats, drowning all the passengers. - That's good, isn't it Jeff? How often do you hear of keel boats capsizing because they turned too quickly under power? On any other boat this would never have happened. ... Jeff, how often do you hear of MacGregors capsizing because they turned too quickly under power? Maybe 300 a year? Or is it more like 200 a year? Or perhaps 100 a year? No? How about 50 a year? - Surely, if the Macs are as unstable and defective as you suggest, you could EASILY easily find 50 reports of the boats capsizing each year because they were turned too quickly, Jeff. All you're saying is that virtually all Mac owners follow the warnings. All I've been saying is that the warnings are deadly serious. Frankly you keep missing the fundamental point here. You're the one who kept claiming the warnings need not be taken literally, now you're saying that sometimes they must be. Frankly, the real problem here was not the overloading or the drunk skipper - these are things we see every weekend. The problem was have three children down below. I'm sure the parents assumed they were relatively safe because normally, 26 foot sailboats don't roll over. .... But you already told us you don't wear that seatbelt, didn't you? As discussed above, what I said was that I don't wear a seat belt when working out on the Nautilus machines, Jeff. Do you think I ought to? That's what the instructions say. I do, however, wear a seat belt when driving my car. (For some reason, I'm really not too concerned about falling out of the Nautilus machines to the carpeted floor a foot below the seat.) So there you go - you're admitting that the warning need not always be followed. So when do you draw the line? How about when your grandchildren are aboard, or when you're in a major ship channel, or when you're in the ocean, outside of protection? In other words, many of the times you claimed you could go at 18 knots? .... But in April you were talking about how you can get back at 18 mph if the weather turns bad? Now you're admitting you can't do that, because it wouldn't be in accordance with the manual. Nope. The boat will motor at 18 mph under some conditions. I never said that it would motor at 18 mph under ANY conditions or circumstances, or even most of them, which is how you want to interpret my words. No Jim, you kept repeating your claims after it was pointed out that its highly unlikely you would ever achieve these speeds with your intended use. You can't have it both ways, unless of course, if you're lawyer who doesn't actually care about reality. .... According to the Mac discussion groups, around 6,000 of just the 26X's were made. Similarly, a large number of 26Cs were made. Previously, MacGregor sold thousands of mostly smaller boats of various types. The bottom line, Jeff, is that although you go on and on about the serious defects of the Macs, you still can't come up with any evidence to back up your incredible claims that there are serious safety defects in any of the boats. I've never characterized the stability issue as a "defect." I've only pointed out that the warnings are deadly serious, not to be ignored, especially when you have your grandchildren aboard. I have pointed out that this is an unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat. I can't count the number of times I've told someone, "Don't worry, it can't really tip over." I'm guessing that's what the kids who drowned were told. You are the one asserting that the Macs are defective and unsafe. - YOU should provide the evidence to support your malicious assertions. I think that two dead children are all the proof needed to show that the warnings should be heeded. Secondly, I suspect that the vast majority of 26X sailors always keep the ballast tank full. I know the one down the dock from me fills in the spring and empties in the fall. Corollary to this, almost all Mac sailors will admit that in practice, the top speed is more like 10 to 12 mph, not the 18 knots you claimed on numerous occasions. That's not what I see on the Mac discussion groups, Jeff. I easily found a thread with a title like "how fast do you really go?" One or two posts claimed high speeds, but the majority of the responses were quite conservative. I posted a number of them back in April but you chose to ignore them. For instance, several people said it was hard to stay on plane if there was a moderate chop. .... So Jim, you keep claiming that I've been "bashing" the Mac. Why don't you go back and really read my posts? You'll notice that I started by saying the 26M was a reasonable choice for some people, and that it had advantages in some environments. Almost every negative comment I've made has had to do with your claims of speed, which are clearly contradicted by the companies own claims, or your inflated comments on the resale value and availability, or the warnings concerning the stability without ballast, or some of your other odd claims, like the "double hull." I haven't "bashed" the mac, as a few others have, I've just insisted that you consider its attributes honestly. That's really considerate of you, Jeff. But as I have clearly demonstrated, in this and in previous notes, the problem with your interpretation of my comments is that you obviously interpret them in an extremely biased manner, carefully looking for the nits rather than than giving them a balanced, reasonable interpretation. You also love to "cherry-pick" among the hundreds of notes I have posted, sniffing out some that can be quoted out of context with the overall discussion rather than considering them in context. I've only insisted that you use common sense when you quote expected performance. I don't think its biased at all to point out that speeds achieved without the mast on board probably aren't too significant. So you haven't been "bashing" the Mac 26M Jeff(even when you state or infer that it is marketed under false or misleading claims, and that is a seriously compromised, unsafe design). I never said it was unsafe; I said that it would be unsafe if you ignored the warning that you claimed did not have to be taken literally. Well, in that vein, I think you should also acknowledge that I haven't been "puffing" the Mac 26M by claiming that it is "better than" other heavy displacement boats such as the Valiant 40 or various other boats. For example, I never stated that the Mac would out-sail the Valiant, with the Valiant's substantially longer waterline and heavy keel (except possibly under special conditions in which the Mac may be sailed on a plane), or that the Mac would point higher, or provide a more comfortable ride in heavy weather, etc. I also never stated that the Mac would be a suitable boat for extended blue-water crossings, as would the Valiant and other similar boats. I also never stated that it had enough storage room for an extended cruise, etc. So, do you want credit for not being a total loony tune? OK, you do seem to have some sanity, unlike a few of the Mac posters. Frankly, I think you've made great progress just since you've bought to boat. You've started to back off from your worst claims. Thus, with respect to all those criteria, many sailboats are "better" than the Mac. So, Jeff, how about recognizing for once that I also have tried to provide a balanced evaluation of the Macs, recognizing that the Macs aren't a great sailboat in all respects. OK, but I'd rather see some real trip reports from you. You've had it over 3 months and you've only been out 3 times? Good grief, man! I thought the point of a boat like that is that its easy to go out for a quick trip! |
Bought a Reinel 26'
And not a very good lawyer at that...
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor! |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
And not a very good lawyer at that... And I guess your a Judge & Jury now huh Jon? And you dont have any room to cut down anyones boat. Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor! |
Bought a Reinel 26'
At least I'm not the pretend lawyer.
I have lots of room. I actually sail my boat. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message om... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... And not a very good lawyer at that... And I guess your a Judge & Jury now huh Jon? And you dont have any room to cut down anyones boat. Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor! |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal. I think that you worry too much about being proved wrong. Read on, and I bet that it won't feel too awful when you see how misinformed your posts have been. OK, we'll see. BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the month? Or maybe you'll get it for being the biggest jackass. Let's see how you do: Your attempt to outdo yourself has failed! "Biggest Jackass" is not as good as "cowardly piece of sh*t". BTW, on July 19th, two weeks ago, I said that 200 gallons is over 26 cubic feet. I shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 26 cubic feet on a 26 foot boot that only draws one foot, implies a trunk running the entire length a foot wide. Does that make sense to you? No. The width of the trunk is also relevant. You are suggesting that only the depth and length are important. I was bang on with my educated guess, you're almost as ludicrous as Jim! 110 Gallons is just a bit larger than 12.5 gallons, don't you think, Donal? My guess is based on my interpretation of the boat's specification sheet, which claims 1300 lbs of ballast. 300lbs are fixed, and 1000 lbs is water. I assume that the figures refer to salt water, and that sal****er is a bit heavier than fresh water, so that leads me to conclude that there is about 110 US gallons of water involved. What are you talking about Donal? This is water in the centerboard trunk we're talking about, not the water ballast! Two completely different things. No wonder you're so confused here. It's beginning to look like you will get that Jackass of the Year Award. You're not very good at the "ad hominems", are you? You can "figure" however you want, but we've just seen that my "accusation" was actually quite correct. There was no prejudice at all on my part. Actually, the simple calculation I did could have been done by almost anyone here, except, apparently, you and Jim. Actually, your simple calculation proved nothing more than the fact that you have a strong desire to feel superior. On the other hand, you've shown that you're so blinded by prejudice against me that you forgot the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank. Good comment! I've come to the conclusion that you are lacking a sense of humour. Is this prejudice? It is most unedifying to witness a catamaran owner looking down his nose at a Mac owner.... especially when he is incapable of checking his facts before spouting off. I've said a number of times that this may be the proper boat for Jim. My only objection has been his misrepresentations of the facts. This has simply been another case of that. And once again, Donal, you were completely wrong, it was you who was incapable of checking the facts, not I. I think an apology is in order here ... I've already apoligised to you in this thread. How many apologies are needed to bolster your inadequate ego? Really Jeff, are you a man, .. or a mouse? Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup the
difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're embarrassing yourself. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal. I think that you worry too much about being proved wrong. Read on, and I bet that it won't feel too awful when you see how misinformed your posts have been. OK, we'll see. BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the month? Or maybe you'll get it for being the biggest jackass. Let's see how you do: Your attempt to outdo yourself has failed! "Biggest Jackass" is not as good as "cowardly piece of sh*t". BTW, on July 19th, two weeks ago, I said that 200 gallons is over 26 cubic feet. I shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 26 cubic feet on a 26 foot boot that only draws one foot, implies a trunk running the entire length a foot wide. Does that make sense to you? No. The width of the trunk is also relevant. You are suggesting that only the depth and length are important. I was bang on with my educated guess, you're almost as ludicrous as Jim! 110 Gallons is just a bit larger than 12.5 gallons, don't you think, Donal? My guess is based on my interpretation of the boat's specification sheet, which claims 1300 lbs of ballast. 300lbs are fixed, and 1000 lbs is water. I assume that the figures refer to salt water, and that sal****er is a bit heavier than fresh water, so that leads me to conclude that there is about 110 US gallons of water involved. What are you talking about Donal? This is water in the centerboard trunk we're talking about, not the water ballast! Two completely different things. No wonder you're so confused here. It's beginning to look like you will get that Jackass of the Year Award. You're not very good at the "ad hominems", are you? You can "figure" however you want, but we've just seen that my "accusation" was actually quite correct. There was no prejudice at all on my part. Actually, the simple calculation I did could have been done by almost anyone here, except, apparently, you and Jim. Actually, your simple calculation proved nothing more than the fact that you have a strong desire to feel superior. On the other hand, you've shown that you're so blinded by prejudice against me that you forgot the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank. Good comment! I've come to the conclusion that you are lacking a sense of humour. Is this prejudice? It is most unedifying to witness a catamaran owner looking down his nose at a Mac owner.... especially when he is incapable of checking his facts before spouting off. I've said a number of times that this may be the proper boat for Jim. My only objection has been his misrepresentations of the facts. This has simply been another case of that. And once again, Donal, you were completely wrong, it was you who was incapable of checking the facts, not I. I think an apology is in order here ... I've already apoligised to you in this thread. How many apologies are needed to bolster your inadequate ego? Really Jeff, are you a man, .. or a mouse? Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're embarrassing yourself. How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why? BTW, I really think that Jim will actally enjoy his boat!!! Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're embarrassing yourself. How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why? Figure out what? That you're generally drunk when you post? I think we've all known that for a long time. Or that you rant on about topics about which you know nothing at all? That's also been pretty clear for a while. BTW, I really think that Jim will actally enjoy his boat!!! So do I. Assuming, of course, that he ever finds the time to use it. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're embarrassing yourself. How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why? Figure out what? That you're generally drunk when you post? I think we've all known that for a long time. Or that you rant on about topics about which you know nothing at all? That's also been pretty clear for a while. So... I've reduced you to launching Ad Hominem attacks on a drunkard. However, I seem to have failed in my efforts to stop you launching ad hominem attacks on people who sail a boat that you don't approve of. BTW, I really think that Jim will actually enjoy his boat!!! So do I. Assuming, of course, that he ever finds the time to use it. I hope that he does. Regards Donal -- |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're embarrassing yourself. How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why? Figure out what? That you're generally drunk when you post? I think we've all known that for a long time. Or that you rant on about topics about which you know nothing at all? That's also been pretty clear for a while. So... I've reduced you to launching Ad Hominem attacks on a drunkard. How would you know? You're too drunk to tell reality from fantasy! However, I seem to have failed in my efforts to stop you launching ad hominem attacks on people who sail a boat that you don't approve of. When did I launch "ad hominem attacks" on anyone because of their boat? And when did I "disapprove" of Jim's boat? I only objected to his claims about performance which often went beyond the marketing claims. Or his claims that there was a long waiting list, when he got his in 5 weeks. Or his claims that the past performance of the company, or the properties 26X were irrelevant, because the 26M was a completely new boat. Or that it had a double hull, which it doesn't. Or that the 26X had a 200 gallon centerboard trunk. The fact that I objected to on these grounds does not mean that I don't approve of the boat. In fact, I can understand why the Mac might be the best choice for some boaters. (Though I wonder why anyone would get one in the Northeast, where the draft is not an issue, and the chop usually prevents them from sailing well, or achieving speed under power. A used Catalina 30 would seem to be a lot more boat unless you really wanted a trailer boat.) |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jeff... you realize you are arguing your point with a self confused
alcoholic! That alone reduces the validity of your argument! CM "Jeff Morris" wrote in message | When did I launch "ad hominem attacks" on anyone because of their boat? And | when did I "disapprove" of Jim's boat? I only objected to his claims about | performance which often went beyond the marketing claims. Or his claims that | there was a long waiting list, when he got his in 5 weeks. Or his claims that | the past performance of the company, or the properties 26X were irrelevant, | because the 26M was a completely new boat. Or that it had a double hull, which | it doesn't. Or that the 26X had a 200 gallon centerboard trunk. | | The fact that I objected to on these grounds does not mean that I don't approve | of the boat. In fact, I can understand why the Mac might be the best choice for | some boaters. (Though I wonder why anyone would get one in the Northeast, where | the draft is not an issue, and the chop usually prevents them from sailing well, | or achieving speed under power. A used Catalina 30 would seem to be a lot more | boat unless you really wanted a trailer boat.) | | | |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jeff Morris wrote: "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff, do you actually believe that the warnings regarding the Mac weren't reviewed by legal counsel? If so, I have several bridges you might have an interst in. I never said lawyers weren't invovlved. I only said they were serious warnings. You were claiming they should not be taken literally, implying that you can't trust anything a lawyer says. (Note, This DOES NOT mean that the warnings about sailing without the water ballast shouldn't be taken seriously.) What??? How can you be so disingenuous? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer. Remember, you said: 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. Jim - you're the one who claimed the warnings were just lawyer talk! You can't take it back, you said this. Perhaps it was because you hadn't sailed the boat yet. Now that you have, you're admitting that these are serious warnings. Well, I guess that's about as close a lawyer can get to admitting they were full of **** to begin with. Jeff, which part of the warning should I interpret literally? The part that tells me that the tank should be full when either powering or sailing, or the part that tells me how to operate the boat without the water ballast? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Marc wrote: Your'e no effing lawyer. First hit on google http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm the facts were that she wasn't driving and Mc D's ignored 100's of burning complaints and continued insisting that its franchises hold their coffee at 185 degrees, a temp sufficient to cause full thickness burns. How many complaints did they get in the same period about the coffee being too cold? 100,000? 200,000? The facts are that most people expect hot coffee to be hot, and they recognize that they have to use a little common sense in handling the coffee, and not holding between their legs while in a car. (Iced coffee is the kind that's cold.) Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Alan Gomes wrote: And *my* point was simply to question whether one could conclude from a *lack* of capsize reports the number of actual capsizes. (Though a large number of reported capsizes would suggest a problem, it would not necessarily follow that a lack of such reports suggests an infrequent number of capsizes.) --AG And *my* response is that you can always postulate about why those reports aren't turning up (It's POSSIBLE, of course, that there is a conspiracy among Mac owners and the MacGregor company under which any owner who capsizes is immediately paid a large sum of hush money to prevent him or her from reporting it.) As can be easily seen from the discussions of the Mac 26 on this ng, there is a fairly extensive group of boat owners on this ng who take pleasure in discussing perceived deficiencies of the Macs. If they could possibly find information suggesting that the Mac design was causing excessive numbers of capsizes or other failures, they would hop on those reports with great pleasure. Also, if the Macs were inherently unsafe or prone to capsize, don't you think that there would be some report of such a major problem in at least one of the news media, sailing journals, internet sites, etc.? The fact remains that no one on this board has yet provided any evidence that the Macs suffer a disproportionate number of capsizes or structural failures, despite my repeated suggestions that if they have such evidence, they should put it on the table. The reports seen on this ng are, for the most part, mere anecdotes and opinions from posters who, for the most part, have never sailed the boats they are talking about. Jim "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Alan Gomes wrote: snip (Jeff, if the Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of such reports every year.) I'm curious about something here. The implication of this statement seems to be that a capsize typically will result in a fatality and hence would be reported. Is that a fair assumption to make? Could it not be that these boats *do* capsize with some regularity, that no fatality or other significant harm results, and that the capsize remains unreported? I'm not saying that is actually the case. I'm just questioning the force of the argument from silence that is being used here to prove the contrary (i.e., few *reported* capsizes = few capsizes). --Alan Gomes Unless someone has the transcript of the trial, we don't have all the facts. My point was that I don't see lots of reports about macs capsizing,or lots of reports of drownings as a result of a supposed faulty Mac design. My note was intended as a response to those on this newsgroup who seem to think that posting one or two anectdotes about problems with the Macs (or any other boat, for that matter) is "proof" of a faulty design, etc. It isn't of course, and in the case of the Macs, we have a much larger group of owners that must be taken into account. Jim Jim |
Joys of sailing
Jeff Morris wrote: Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor! Jeff, most of my comments were in response to your own. - Am I supposed to just let you post unfounded or twisted comments about me or comments denigrating the Mac 26M with no response? As I stated, I'm participating in these discussions because, in the past, many of the Mac supporters have simply left after getting a few sarcastic remarks from those on this ng. I intend to do my best to see that any further discussions of the Macs don't end up as a one-sided mob attack, as they have in the past. Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over most of the issues discussed above. What we haven't discussed, and what you apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail. Despite its limitations, it is responsive and balanced and a lot of fun to sail. One of the most exciting aspects of sailing the Mac 26M, as with some of the other boats I have sailed, is the experience, after the sails have been raised, of turning off the motor and sensing that the boat has begun to move forward and accelerate under sail. To me, the whole experience is somewhat mysterious. It's as though the boat has suddenly come to life, empowered by some silent, invisible, yet powerful force. Sailors have been experiencing it for thousands of years, but it's still an exciting, evergreen experience for me. Jim |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com