"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
....

You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the
warnings
were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of
****
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
you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.

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. But since you keep quoting the speed numbers
assuming there's no risk to running without ballast, you still haven't got the
point.

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.


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?


....


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? 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
the
boat had a double hull and foam flotation.


I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some
occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor
trying to make a turn or get back to port.

Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck
is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults.

They didn't say they were all on the foredeck - 4 to 6 could have been in the
cockpit. Yes it would be a bit of a crowd, but its not clear it would appear
grossly overloaded. I've sailed many times with 6 in the cockpit of a 19
footer and never felt overcrowded or at risk.


(And
since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would
have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible
skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since
the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to
get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY
small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME
conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or
if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc.

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. But you keep billing it as a
blue water cruiser.

(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.)

There are major flaws in your logic here, Jim: First, a large number of 30,000
actually have a significant amount of hard ballast. 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. 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.

You keep trying to make this about Macs, but its really about your
interpretation of the marketing hype. If you had said, "I probably will keep
the tanks full therefore will probably only see 12 mph under power and 6 under
sail, but that's good enough for me" I would have said, "fine, you understand
the tradeoffs and made your decision."




Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the
engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding
the most basic safety principles.

Any normal 26 foot sailboat would not have had a problem. I'll admit the
skipper was negligent, but if this was virtually any other sailboat, nothing
would have happened and two children would still be alive.

Regarding the boat itself, I note
that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such
severe and overloaded conditions.

For any other 26 foot sailboat, this would not be a "severe and overloaded
condition."

Had it not been for the particular
design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted
keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the
eight adults sitting on the deck.

Had it not been for the particular design of the boat, there never would have
been a problem and two children would still be alive today.

Think of the headlines, Jeff,
"sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel
(negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers."

Now you're claiming that a keel boat would have rolled over like that??? You
really don't know much about boats, do you Jim?



I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the
potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which
incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull
and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat
than the 26X.

Perhaps it was Roger's conscience speaking. Actually, I think it was driven by
the v-bottom and the taller mast. And maybe the lawyers.