!!
 

JimC wrote:
Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the
conditions experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't
read of any instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in
heavy weather that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a
coastal cruiser, and I have never claimed that it was suitable for
extended crossings, live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

But, you keep saying that the big engine is an safety feature, but
then you claim it isn't needed because the Mac is safe without it.
Which is it? This is the fundamental problem - you make these claims,
I point out the paradox, you come back with the opposite claim. I
point out your hypocrisy, you then claim I'm ranting and raving.


At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back
to shore.

Would it? You keep saying that the windage on the hull makes the
engine a safety feature, and that it doesn't do well upwind. Are you
really saying you can make progress upwind against 40 knots?

Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off
the crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the
Mac, which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

What would I do? Perhaps you can show me an example of even a single
modern production cruising cat, 35 feet or bigger, that has capsized
within 100 miles of land. There have been a few cases of older
smaller cats capsizing, and some homemade boats. And there's no
trouble finding racing cats that have capsized, but that's different.
And there have been a few caught in hurricanes offshore, but
generally the crew survived. Do you really want to compare your boat
to a passage-maker?

But would your boat pop up? These people got a medal for rescuing Mac
sailers:
http://www.ussailing.org/Pressreleas...HIrishMist.htm

There have actually been a number of Macs that have capsized - one was
lost in the Bristol Channel in F6, for example. Most of the cases
seem to involve using the engine in unprotected waters.

BTW, Have you ever read the CG safety reports? Capsizing is much more
of a risk than sinking.


What confuses me, Jeff, is the fact that I post the same
comments, such as those above about the limitations
of the boat, over and over and over
again. - Yet to you, each day seems to be a brand new discussion, a
fresh clean slate.


What you keep missing Jim, is that I haven't been complaining about
the Mac, which I always thought was an interesting design, and a good
choice for some people. While I would never buy one, I actually have
nothing against water ballast or even the big engine. What I've been
complaining about is the way that you tout every aspect of it that you
perceive as a feature, especially when many of them are non-existent.
I also object to the fact that it is marketed as a beginner's boat
("learn to sail in an afternoon...") but to operate it safely requires
an understanding beyond most beginners. Dismissing capsizes as
operator error is not fair if the operators are novices.

And then when the obvious flaws in your logic are pointed out, you
fight tooth and nail, never giving up an inch, even when everyone can
see you're completely wrong. Your "double hull" is a great example,
you're still defending that as though it somehow makes the boat
superior. Claiming that an oversized outboard contributes nothing to
the moment of inertia is another case. In fact, you even denied that
the pitch moment of inertia is something that boaters are even
concerned with, claiming that my "theories are all wrong."

No Jim, the Mac is an OK boat, within its limitations. Its you that I
object to.

!!
 

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~


yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty

!!
 

"Scotty" wrote:

"Seahag" wrote:

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~


yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the
first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.


My boat is Taiwanese...It would eat your boat?

Seahag

!!
 

Seahag wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Martin Baxter wrote:

Seahag wrote:


But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and
she
has better aim...so it all works out well...


snort...catch up...snort


See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~


Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond.
Rats.

Marty

hehehe...more space to plunder...and don't ahve to chop
through the ice to get there!


I meant to ask...what was that wine? I want some for
Christmas Eve Fondu!

You really put on a great feast that day, Thank-you!

Seahag


It was a pino grigio, I think (can't remember which cellar)

!!
 

Seahag wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Martin Baxter wrote:

Seahag wrote:


But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and
she
has better aim...so it all works out well...


snort...catch up...snort


See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~


Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond.
Rats.

Marty

hehehe...more space to plunder...and don't ahve to chop
through the ice to get there!


I meant to ask...what was that wine? I want some for
Christmas Eve Fondu!

You really put on a great feast that day, Thank-you!

Seahag


You're welcome....anytime....

!!
 

Scotty wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~



yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty


No, it wouldn't...it would roll over and die laughing...

Scotty - Please respond
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hey Donal... where you been?


Busy with piano and telescope. See my answer to Doug.


Have you posted the photos?



Regards

Donal
--

I never did actually... I can do that if you like.

Sounds like fun...

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

!!
 

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
et...

Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the conditions
experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't read of any
instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in heavy weather
that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a coastal cruiser,
and I have never claimed that it was suitable for extended crossings,
live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.


Maybe they're smarter than we think?


At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back
to shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off
the crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the
Mac, which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.


I don't think you can know this for certain. I think it's a wishful
guess, since you would never get out in those conditions.



Guess I'll never know, Capt.

Jim


Well, good for you!


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

!!
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~



yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the
first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty


No, it wouldn't...it would roll over and die...

and then surrender?

!!
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"katy" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~



yeah, but it's French! Her boat would surrender at the
first
sight of my magnificent, manly pirate ship.

Scotty


No, it wouldn't...it would roll over and die...

and then surrender?

Well, it does fly white sails.

Max