"JimC" wrote in message
et...
What kind of telescope is that, Donald? And what aperture? - I have a
16-inch Dob, great for visual, but not for photography. I recently
completed logging in all the Messier Objects.

I have a TAL200K (an 8" Klevstov). It's a bit like an SCT. I also have an
ED80 which I am using as an autoguiding scope. Occasionaly, they change
functions. They are mounted on an EQ6.



Interestingly, I'm also practicing piano, on a Yamaha P90 keyboard.


It seems that many astronomers are also interested in music. I don't see
the connection, but there seems to be one.



Regards


Donal
--

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
Hi Donut. Do you take a pic of Uranus?


You want to be beamed up, Scotty?



Regards

Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
Hi Donut. Do you take a pic of Uranus?


You want to be beamed up, Scotty?

Again? So soon?


S

Jeff wrote:

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.

The big engine is a safety feature. But also, the Mac would make it
back to shore safely under sail without the engine, IMO. So, although
the 50 hp engine isn't "needed," in that the Mac is seaworthy under
sail, the large engine is, nevertheless, a safety factor. As I stated
previously, I think an outboard of 20hp or above could keep the boat on
course.



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?

It wouldn't make much progress going directly into the wind, Jeff. But
IMO, it would do all right on a a close reach. Actually, neither you
nor I have sailed one in a 40 know wind, so neither of us actually knows
how the boat would handle under such conditions. - Again, the difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge that fact.



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?

Of course, I wasn't comparing my boat to anything. - I was talking about
your boat. - Which would flip over and turtle if caught in the crest of
a wave, under severe conditions. - But I suspect that most cat sailors
have enough sense to get the hell out of there if heavy weather is
approaching. - One flip on a cresting wave, and you're turtled. My
understanding is that most cat sailors, other than pros and racing
crews, recognize that fact and tend not to take their boats out in
severe weather or on long crossings. - Perhaps that's why most of them
don't flip over.


But would your boat pop up?

Yes, mine would. - Would yours?

These people got a medal for rescuing Mac
sailers:
http://www.ussailing.org/Pressreleas...HIrishMist.htm

2000. - Is that the most recent incident that you could come up with
Jeff? - Six years ago? Of course, that was a Mac 26X (not the 26M, and
it certainly sounds like they were trying to sail or motor in severe
weather without the water ballast.

By the way, when are you going to come up with evidence or statistics to
support your anecdotes and "everyone knows...." assertions?



There have actually been a number of Macs that have capsized


Really, Jeff? And what is that number? And do you have some evidence or
statistics to support that particular assertion? More significantly,
what percentage of the thousands of Macs on the water have capsized?
(Ballpark figures, supported by evidence, not anecdotes.)


- 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.


In any case, Jeff, I would feel safer on my Mac in heavy winds and waves
than on a cat. - One flip, and that's all she rote.




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.

And which "aspect" discussed above is "non-existent"? (Hint:
"non-existent" means that it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that it
isn't all-important or universally operative, or that the Mac is
superior to other boats in every respect.)

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.

When you have provided evidence regarding the frequency of such Mac
capsizes, as a percentage of Macs in use, then you could rationally
discuss whether the boat qualifies as a good "beginner's boat." Until
you do, all we have are your opinions and your anecdotes, unsupported by
evidence or statistics.


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.

As much as it bothers you, the boat does indeed have a "double hull" in
the area of the hull beneath the ballast tank. And, whether you like it
or not or are willing to acknowledge it or not, it is a safety factor.
Neither you nor I have stats on the effectiveness of the double hull as
a safety factor. Until one of us does have such stats or evidence, it
would probably be helpful for us to acknowledge that fact in the event
we choose to discuss the subject again.


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."

Again, Jeff, you stoop to posting outright lies about what I said. - I
never claimed that the motor contributes "nothing" to the moment of
inertia. But I did demonstrated to you mathematically that the motor is
less of a factor than the skipper and a normal (two person)crew sitting
in the cockpit. - Regarding your own guesstimate as to how many, and
where, the crew and skipper would be positioned relative to the COB or
COG, if you work out the figures, you will again find that the motor is
less of a factor than the crew and skipper, even using your figures. (My
point isn't that the motor isn't a factor, but that, by way of
perspective, it is less of a factor than that of the crew and skipper.)

But that still isn't the significant issue. The real issue is whether
the motor introduces a substantial effect on inertia that makes the boat
unstable, or makes it pitch excessively, or whatever. Since you keep
talking about the motor as it relates to the pitch moment of inertia,
what, EXACTLY, is the effect you claim the motor has on the boat? What
problems does the boat have that are caused by the motor, in your
opinion? (Since you seem to have a fetish with the motor, tell us about
how it's effect on the boat?)



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

Well, have a nice day anyway, Jeff. Happy sailing.

Jim

Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about the

lies you

posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think it's

OK to lie

when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?



You talking to me?


Scotty, you posted a note with six quotes bashing the Mac. I asked you
how many of those quoted were speaking about the Mac 26M IN PARTICULAR,

Your answer: 100%.

I also asked how many of the (six) writers had actually sailed the Mac
26M.

Your answer: five.

The facts are that you backed yourself into a corner Scotty (you were
apparently thinking that it really didn't matter anyway, since you were
just responding to a Mac owner in the first place). I called you on it,
and you couldn't back up what you said.

Why in the world would you claim that five out or the six quoted writers
had sailed the 26M? Where's your evidence or stats? And why would you
claim that ALL of them were speaking of the 26M, in particular, rather
than the 26X?

Jim

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
...

But no, you preferred
to look like a fool arguing that an oversized outboard hanging on the
stern doesn't affect the moment at all.



Jeff, when you have sailed one of the 26Ms several times, come back
and tell us all about the problems you think are caused by weight
distribution or "over symmetrical" design in the Mac 26M. Until then,
you are guestimating about the sailing characteristics of a rather
small boat with a number of unusual design characteristics.


Let me repeat because you seem to have a reading problem:
Nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably.


Jeff, what, exactly, are the weight distribution "problems", and exactly
what deleterious effects do those "weight distribution problems" have on
the boat? What effects (such as pitching, wandering, etc.) result from
the "weight distribution" problem? - In your own words.


This entire discussion was not about how badly the Mac pitched, it was
about its weight distribution. You wanted to look like an idiot, and
you succeeded in that admirably! Congrats!



2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant
safety factor are just that. - Theories....



I have little doubt that the double layer in certain parts of the
hull could, in some circumstances, prevent a hull breech. I'm not
sure what you mean by "from my experience" unless you're saying you
frequently hit things and while they penetrate the outer layer, you
have never holed the inner layer.



My experience with the boat has indicated that in it's typical
orientatin when plaining, the lower portion of the hull (where the
ballast tank is) is the portion cutting throught the surface of the
water below which where partially submerged objects float.


Actually, when the boat is up on a plane, the striking point would
likely be where the permanent ballast is.

Also, my experience is that it's difficult to see objects immediately
forward of the hull when the boat is plaining.


Are you actually telling us that you would drive the boat at high speed
when you weren't able to see the water in front of you??? Do you go
home at night wondering how many swimmers you hit? Jim, you really have
to think about what you say before you post!


As with any boat on a plane, the raised bow has the effect of limiting
visibility of the water immediately forward of the boat, along it's
course. But as you have repeatedly discussed, the Mac normally doesn't
plane above 15 - 18 knots, which is rather slow relative to many power
boats. Also, the boat doesn't rise substantially above the water as do
high-powered speed boats. So, the effects on visibility are less than
that for a skipper of a power boat planing at high speeds and/or with a
greater inclination. So, which is it, Jeff? Does the Mac really plane
at "high speeds." Or is it's speed rather limited? Obviously, in any
boat on a plane, the skipper has the responsibility not to take the boat
into waters he hasn't carefully observed. And certainly, he shouldn't
run the boat at high speeds in areas that might have swimmers, divers,
small boats, etc.




The issues are whether this represents a significant safety feature,
or whether this can be considered a "double hull."


Clarification. - I never said that it was a "significant" safety
feature. (That was your intepretation.)


When asked for recommendations you touted the Mac and listed three
safety features in particular and explained that these were advantages
over other boats. The first one you mentioned was the "double liner."
The second was the foam in the mast, which of course should be
meaningless if the Mac never capsizes.

It is, however, a safety factor not available on most sailing vessels.


What most boats have as an alternative is a strong hull. Really, the
part of the Mac you're saying is protected by the double liner is that
part of a normal boat that has the thickest hull, followed by the keel.

And are you actually claiming that a significant number of sailboats
sink in protected waters due to collisions that would be prevented by
the small amount of the "double liner" of the Mac? There must be a
terrible loss of life - what do you think? 100 a year? 200?



1. First and foremost, the manufacturer makes absolutely no claims
about this on the web site or in any literature. One would think
that if this is a significant feature, it would be mentioned.


(See comments below.)


right. You say they don't want to be alarmist.


2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere.

If I had claimed or suggested that the Mac has a double hull that is
"double everywhere," then that statement might have relevance. But not
only is that not the case, but I have also explained, in several
previous notes, that the double hull results from the closed ballast
tank positioned in the lower portion of the boat. I have also stated,
in a number of previous notes (which you conveniently ignore), that the
double hull only extends in the area beneath the ballast tank. (Why do
you continue to ignore my prior discussions of this limitation, Jeff?)


The doubled portion of the Mac's hull is less than half,
perhaps less than a quarter. While this might offer some benefit, it
really isn't much different from any other hull where certain areas
have extra reinforcement, or an integral water or fuel tank. My
boat, BTW, has collision bulkheads in the forward part of each bow
such that I could totally crunch one or even both bows and not take
in a drop of water. This is a true safety feature, worth mentioning.


of course, you choose to ignore the fact the your terminology is
misleading.

Had I merely posted the initial note and posted no further discussions
of the area of the double hull, Jeff, your remarks MIGHT have some
semblance of rationality. But, as you well know, I have repeatedly
explained that the double hull does not extend throughout the hull. And
you have consistently ignored those posts in which I specifically
addressed the issue, haven't you?





3. For any boat with a traditional hull form and keel, the risk of a
breech in the areas so protected in the Mac are pretty low. For
instance, hitting a rock on the centerline would be much more likely
to strike the keel, or the heavily protected stem. Almost every case
of a serious breech that I've seen has actually been on the side,
which is unprotected on the Mac. (This is from collisions, or a
glancing blow to a rock.)


As explained above, the lower portion of the Mac (the centerline ridge
and adjacent portions extending under the ballast tank), is the the
portion that cuts through the water when planing. I therefore submit
tha it's likely, in at least some instances, to try to "cut through" a
floating object in the path of the boat.


Isn't this where the permanent ballast it?


The permanent ballast is considerably aft of the portion of the
centerline ridge that cuts through the water. But as previously,
stated, neither you nor I know how well the Mac 26M double hull (with
permanent ballast) would protect it in the event of a collision with a
floating object. Again, the difference between us is that I'm willing
to acknowledge this fact, but you can't seem to admit you don't really
know whether or not the double hull would be a significant safety
factor.


(Incidentally, how many cases of serious breech of a Mac 26M have you
seen?)


And how many Macs have ever had their "outer hull" punctured and they
were saved by the inner hull? This is your claim.

As I said, I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how much of a
safety factor the double hull is. - Are you?




I've seen a number of boats holed, but its never been on the center
line. So you claim this is a safety feature, how many boats of any type
have you seen holed that would have been saved by the Mac's protection?
How many lives would be saved? I'll give you a hint: it begins with "Z"
and ends with "row".

Are you talking about conventional sailboats Jeff? If so, they would be
far less susceptible to puncture while surfing over a sunken or
partially sunken object, wouldn't they?

4. This is actually a pretty small risk for most sailboats - the
number of sinkings is extremely small. In spite of the fact that
you've mentioned many times that all other sailboats would "sink to
the bottom" there are very, very few deaths occur from this in
protected waters.


By "protected waters," are you implying that most skippers of
conventional sailboats don't venture out beyond protected bays or
waterways, Jeff?


Actually, I didn't think it was fair to include boats that sink in the
middle of the ocean, and I was thinking specifically the area where a
mac would be. If you want, I would include the near coastal waters, in
fact all the waters that are included in the CG safety reports.

Also, "most sailboats" aren't capable of planing, as is
the 26M. I would suspect that there is some increased potential for
accidents as speed increases, though I don't know that. As mentioned
in my note, NEITHER YOU NOR I know how much of a safety factor the
double hull provided by the 26M is. - (It might help clarify the
matter if you would admit that particular fact.)


It might help to clarify things if you stated why you think that a boat
that already has positive flotation also needs a small

(large)

portion of its
hull protected by a little extra fiberglass. I'm quite happy to give
you the flotation as a feature, in fact I've been curious as to why some
(but not all) of the competition doesn't have it. But it would seem
that flotation greatly reduces to value of a "double liner" as a safety
feature.



5. You have mentioned many times that the boat has flotation and is

unsinkable. Thus, this is not a feature that would prevent sinking.




Nope. But its another safety factor that would be nice to have in an
emergency. Might permit sailing or motoring the boat back to shore at
low speeds, for example.


You're just being silly Jim. This is what I've been talking about. You
fight tooth and nail on every little feature even after it been shown
that it really isn't significant.

Jeff, did you ever try to sail a monohull (or cat) that had sunk to the
top of its gunwales?




6. If the outer layer of the tank were breeched and you continued on
at speed, you would actually have a dangerous situation of a
partially full tank which could induce a capsize. This is actually a
bigger risk than sinking.


Maybe. Maybe not. And in all probability a responsible skipper would
sense a collision with a floating object large enough to breech the
outer hull, and stop the boat.


but you just said you would try to power in. You're like that
comedienne that screams out "IT COULD HAPPEN!" Face it Jim, you're just
flailing here!


But I didn't say that I would continue powering "at speed" (your words)
did I Jeff? Obviously, the skipper would have to check out the extend of
the damage and monitor the effects of motoring or sailing the boat.



7. Did I mention that even the manufacturer doesn't seem to consider
this a safety feature?


Yes, you did Jeff. But you never explained why you mentioned it. -
Plausible reasons could include the fact that the manufacturer doesn't
want to discuss such unpleasant, negative possibilities in sales
literature intended to promote the pleasures of sailing.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're cracking me up, Jim!

Mac has no trouble mentioning the flotation in the mast which implies
they're afraid of turning turtle. They have no trouble mentioning the
flotation which implies they're afraid they will get holed. So if the
tiny protection offered by the "double liner" was significant, why
wouldn't they mention it?

Actually, Jeff, discussing running into floating logs could very well
turn some people off of buying a sailboat capable of high-speeds under
power. Also, I don't think they have to mention it. - There are so many
other good features to discuss that they continue to be one of the best
selling sailboats on the market.



I could probably find a few more items to add, but this is enough.

My objection to your numerous references to the double hull or liner
is that you have often described this as an important feature


where did I say it was an "important factor"? The note you reference
lists it as only one of a number of features.
that makes
the Mac superior to other boats.


This was the first of three. You obviously considered it important
enough that it would be one of three extra features that would influence
a decision. But why are you denying this?

I never denied that I mentioned it as a beneficial feature. I have NOT
emphasized it in later notes. I normally discuss it unless I'm
responding to someone else. The person who keeps on discussing it, over
and over and over and over again is: (guess who) - you.

Are you just so much of an
asshole lawyer that you do this out of force of habit?


Watch your language, Jeff. Remember that your words can be read on the
www by people around the world, including young people who may aspire to
become skippers of their own boats some day. - What kind of an example
are you setting for all those young, aspiring sailors, Jeff?




Where did I say that the Mac was superior to other boats? - Although I
have said that it includes a number of advantages, I haven't said it
was "superior to other boats." In fact, I have said that my personal
preference would be the Valiant 40. - I have consistently stated that
the Mac entails both advantages and limitations.


You've certainly implied that it is superior to any other of its size.


Your interpretation, again.



For example, on 9/15/04 you responded

to a request for recommendations by extolling the virtues of the
Mac. You listed as "advantages over other boats" in this order: a
"double double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is
penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter
the cabin," flotation in the mast, and foam flotation. You made no
mention of the fact that the "double hull" only gives very limited
protection. Also, you never mentioned that the mast flotation, while
handy in dinghies, shouldn't be needed in boats unless they are prone
to capsizing. Even the Mac shouldn't ever capsize, assuming the
ballast tank is full.


Again, I only mentioned the double liner as one of a number of
advantageous features.


It was listed as the first of three, the second being foam in the mast
which is only useful if you assume the boat can capsize.

And in many others of my notes citing advantageous features of the
Mac, I haven't even mentioned the double hull factor.


What does that mean? Sometimes you don't mention it? Is that like
saying you didn't murder anyone last Thursday?


Jeff, the Macs and Mac owners have been bashed over and over again on
this ng in recent months. I have responded to some of these Mac bashers
from time to time, posting comments which I had hoped would tend to
provide a somewhat more balanced discussion. In some of my notes I have
mentioned the double hull as a safety factor. Are you saying that I
emphasize the double hull aspect more frequently than other factors? Or,
are you saying that, when I have mentioned it, I usually list it first,
before discussing other features? I certainly don't think that's the
case, but if you want to review my notes over the past two years and
provide some sort of chart on the subject, have at it. I doubt if you
would even want to begin such a survey, however, because you know you
would loose.


3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics.

...

You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there
would be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few
accidents at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over.


How about sailboats 26 feet and under, Jeff?



If that's true, why is the title of this particular subject string
"Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy"?


no one saw fit to change it.

And why do many other notes on
this ng (from you and others) speak of safety issues of the Mac? -
Why waste our time talking about safety issues if they aren't a major
factor?


Because you seem to claim things as "safety features" when they aren't.



Other than the double hull issue, which "things" are you talking about Jeff?



You've frequently

claimed the Mac is safer than other boats because of certain
features, but if these other boats are so unsafe, why aren't there
hundreds of fatalities with them?

The truth is, while there are over 50,000 aux sailboats 26-40 feet
there are only a couple of fatalities per year in this class of
boats. I don't have access to the raw data so its hard to break
things out, but the numbers would seem to indicate a risk on the
order of 1 per 20,000 per year.


Jeff, when you come across that "raw data," let me know.


Again, why have multiple contributors to discussions on asa posted
notes wailing about poor construction and related safety hazards on
the Mac? That pattern is pretty obvious, Jeff. Again, why waste our
time if it's not of concern?


Are you really asking me to explain why other people don't like the Mac?



There are two implications of this. One is that any claim that the
Mac is safer than other boats suffers from a lack of evidence the
other boats are in any way unsafe.

I know of one incident resulting in deaths, and that accident involved a
drunk skipper who hadn't sailed the boat before and who apparently
hadn't even been instructed re Mac-related safety features, and
passengers that were also drunk. Also, the boat in question was a 26X,
not the current model, which includes additional, permanent ballast. As
to whether the design of the boat is inherently unsafe, that issue was
specifically raised by the plaintiff, and the appeal court ruled that
the cause of the accident was the negligence of the drunk skipper, not
the MacGregor Company.


But on the other hand, we know of
at least three deaths

What deaths, other than those in the drunk skipper case, Jeff?

related specifically to the unique properties
of the Mac 26X. If we assume 5000 were built, this represent more
than what one might expect.


One of 5000 represens more than what one would expect, Jeff?? Where
did you get that particular assertion? - Also, the production of Macs
of this class is much more than 5,000.


The Coast Guard Annual Boating Statistics are out there for everyone.
The bottom line is that there are actually very few fatalities in Aux
sailboats 26+ feet. Statistically if you have a boat and a car, you're
roughly five times more likely to die in a car accident. There are only
perhaps 2 or 3 fatalities a year. When an incident is in the news (such
as the man who fell off the racing boat, or the boat the got crunched by
a large boat, etc.) that will generally be the only incident, or perhaps
one of two for the year. IIRC, the kids in the capsized Mac in 2002
were the only fatalities that year from a 26+ foot sailboat.

Actually, the Mac is a 26- foot sailboat, being a few inches shorter
than 26 ft. The point, however, is that it's relatively small compared
with most coastal cruising sailboats, and obviously smaller than those
of most posting on this ng.



In other words, from this single incident the 26X has had

more than its share of fatalities since its launch and for some years
into the future.


Nope. That's another example of one of theories you have thrown out
for which you have no evidence whatsoever.


Hey, the data is out there. Feel free to read:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2005.pdf

The problem with this data is that they don't break it out at a fine
enough level. So while we can find the number of fatalities in aux
sailers, we can't tell how many of those were in smaller boats, or from
different causes such as sinking, or falling overboard, etc. However, by
deduction, you can at least guess that the number of incidents in
smaller sailboat versus larger should parallel the stats for other
boats. However, we do have upper limits, which are themselves pretty
low. For most years, the are only a total of 6-7 deaths in sailboats,
and large boats are less than half.

The odd thing in the stats is while there are clear trends that some
classes of boats are somewhat safer than others, and in particular there
are certain types of accidents that some boats are more prone to, there
is no overwhelming difference, like you can't show the powerboats are 10
times more dangerous than sailboats. This is because so many of the
incidents really are human error, often not related to the vessel at
all. There are also reporting issues, like a large number of deaths are
from boats that aren't registered.




What was more troubling about these deaths is that they were caused
specifically by the unusual properties of the Mac. On any other 26
foot sailboat, 8 adults would not be "seriously overloaded." On any
other 26 foot sailboat, goosing the throttle when stopped would not
result in an roll over in a flat calm, windless evening.


See my comments above. - In this particular case, those very questions,
i.e., whether the accident was attributable to the drunk skipper or due
to the design of the boat itself, were discussed IN DETAIL by the
attorneys for the drunk skipper. - The decision of the appellate court
was that it was the fault of the drunk skipper, not MacGregor.
(MacGregor won, and the drunk skipper lost and was imprisoned.)


Of course, you actually don't know don't know whether a drunk skipper
"goosing" the throttle and making a sharp turn in another small
sailboat overloaded with drunk adults sitting close to the bow could
result in a roll over.


The two biggest factors were the empty ballast tank and the big engine.
If you "goose the throttle" on most sailboats not much happens at all.
And eight adults is not overloading for most ballasted sailboats.

But I will give you this: for any 26 foot sailboat that has only water
ballast but the tank is empty, if it has a 50 hp engine and you goose it
and turn sharply, it will quite possibly capsize.


Yes, the company avoided a

disastrous lawsuit because helmsman was inebriated, but so are half
the boaters out there, especially on the 4th of July when this took
place. Had those children been in any other 26 foot sailboat, they
would still be alive.


Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, the attorneys for the drunk skipper tried
their best to put forth the arguments you are trying to make. - But they
lost.


That's enother of your unsubstantiated theories, of course. But even
if true, the fact that this is the ONLY example you can come up with
strongly suggests that the boat is not inherently unsafe.


I never heard the final verdict, but I do know that the expert witness
from US Sailing (Jim Teeters) testified that the design of the boat was
partially at fault.


The final verdict was that MacGregor won, and the drunk skipper lost and
was put in prison for criminal negligence.

Also, you conveniently forget that the boat in question was not the
current model (which, after all, is the boat I have been discussing
all along) which includes permanent ballast in addition to the water
ballast, and foam flotation built into the mast. - (The permanent
ballast on the 26M works even when the skipper is drunk.) Again, I'm
not saying that I know a 26M wouldn't have capsized under the
circumstances. - I'm merely saying that neither you or I know what
would have happened if the boat had been a 26M, or if it had been a
small boat from another manufacturer. And please don't tell me you
KNOW what would have happened under the circumstances on another boat.
- You don't.


I can't say about a lot of boats but I can pretty confidently say that
any normally ballasted sailboat with a normal sized engine would not
have capsized. I've sailed an awful lot of small keel boats over they
years and I don't know of any that could come close to this behavior.
Perhaps you know of one?


Of course, most small keel boats don't have a 50 hp engine, do they
Jeff? Your statement is like saying you can confidently say that
because small, low powered sedans, such as a Toyota Corolla or the like,
can't be driven very fast and are therefore not subject to being driven
over 100 mph, they are designed better than high-speed sports cars which
can. - In reading the Mac discussion groups, I haven't seen any notes
from or about any Mac owner who doesn't understand that the Macs have
certain design considerations that must be observed when sailing or
motoring, including the fact that the ballast must be filled except
under specific conditions. In fact, as we have previously discussed,
the Mac warning is clearly posted on the boat itself. (As previously
stated, I personally have never sailed or motored without the ballast.)


My point on the Mac is not that it is so unsafe that anyone foolish
enough to buy one will likely die. My point has been that some of
the features that are used as selling points have safety risks that
would not be an issue on any other sailboat. In particular, the high
speeds that can be achieved without ballast are only safe if the
operator follows a lengthy list of warnings. These include only four
people on the boat (2 if they are your weight), no one on deck, no
one forward below, sails removed, board and rudders up, chop under
one foot (and therefore presumably a light wind), water should be warm.


Not a particularly "long" list, IMO,


Ah, I'm not sure what else they could add - the crew size is limited and
you have to stay huddled in the cockpit. The seas must be flat and the
water warm. All of the rigging (sails, rudders, board) must be in a
particular position. And I forgot one, no sharp turns. Is there any
discretionary freedom they have??? You're not allowed to go to the
head. You're not even allowed to stand or lean over the side so that
you might see something floating ahead!

Although I don't sail or motor without ballast, lots of Mac sailors do
it routinely. Many prefer it when motoring out to Catalina or other
offshore destinations. They state that the boat is stable and
maneuverable for trips of several hours, under various weather
conditions. I rather think that they do go forward to use the head, and
look over or around the mast to watch the water, though I haven't
specifically asked about that. In other words, the boats are more
stable and more versatile than your purposefully dire description might
suggest.






and it's certainly understood clearly by Mac 26M skippers who post to
the Mac discussion groups. In my case, since I'm rather conservative
and often sail solo, I haven't sailed or motored without the
ballast. - That makes it rather simple.


My issue, as I've said a number of times, is that the Mac is marketed to
novices ("Learn to sail in an afternoon...") These are the people that
would not understand how dangerous it really is to ignore the warnings.

That's why the owner's manual and the notice on the bulkhead include
WARNINGS IN LARGE LETTERS about taking the boat out without completely
filling the ballast tank.


That is why when there is an incident with a Mac it is usually explained
off as operator error because the skipper was new, or borrowed the boat.


"Usually explained"? Where are the others, Jeff?


Frankly, if I had one, and lived on flat water, I'd probably be out
there trying to break speed records by running stripped down with no
ballast. But not with my kid in the boat.

None of these warnings would apply on a traditional boat. However,
the speed of the boat is its major feature, and the feature that
drives most of the design.

Well that's probably correct. That's why the WARNINGS about filling the
ballast tank are all in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.

Speed is one of it's attractions, and it's probably true that speed can
introduce some dangers that wouldn't be present with a conventional
boat. - Rather obvious to most people I would think, even without the
warnings in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.


It's plenty fast with the ballast tank filled. Removing the water
ballast adds only a few mph to top speed.


True, but they say every 100 pounds of crew or gear subtracts a knot
from the speed. This is why I kept saying that when you used it for
cruising your top speed would only be 12-13 knots. Since a number of
"normal" boats can power at close to 8 knots, your speed advantage
really isn't that great.


Mine does better than that, with normal loads and under most weather
conditions. I haven't tried it without the ballast, or on a really
smooth surface. Actually, I seldom motor at full throttle.


Further, the boat appeals mainly to novices. I find it

rather troubling that people unfamiliar with boats would have to
understand a list of warnings that would never come up in their
ordinary experience.


That's sort of like telling an inexperienced sports car enthusiast to
stick with a Honda or Toyota instead of buying a Vette or a Porsche,
because the Vette and Porsche has the potential of going over 140, or
whatever, and he COULD get into trouble. - What's the point?


Gee, that sounds like a good point to me! My brother had a Carrara and
I was staggered at how quickly it got up to 100 MPH without even
thinking; I was quite pleased when he gave it up.


I reserve the right to ignore anything I want. The Mac has enough
attributes that I dislike that I have no desire to belabor the few
that might be of interest.


In other words, you have all the time in the world to belabor what you
consider the limitations of the Mac, but very little time to consider
the advantages. - Well, we all know what a busy guy you are Jeff.


Sorry Jim. I never signed any agreement saying I would fairly review
any boat that was mentioned here. If you (or anyone one else) says
something blatantly stupid or wrong, I have the right to call you on
it. I have no obligation at all to say something nice about the boat to
balance it. And again, I've objected more to the way you represent the
boat, not its actually qualities.


Perhaps so. But think how that consisently one-sided approach must seem
to those young, aspiring sailors around the world who may read your
comments. - Are they thinking: "Gee. If experienced sailors are so
opinionated and one-sided that 90% of their comments about a particular
boat are bashing the boats and those who sail them, do I really want to
get involve with such a sicko group in the first place?"

(Incidentally, you do have the "right" to post anything you wish about
the Macs and about me. Similarly, I have the right to post responses.
And I shall continue to do so.)




However, one point I've made about Macs is that they seem to
depreciate faster than other boats.



There are a number of five year old Macs that

are asking roughly 60% of the original price. This does not speak
well of their quality or desirability. When you see an ad offering a
2002 at $12-14K under the purchase price and claiming "only used 8 or
9 times" you really have to wonder if this person was happy he bought
it.



Yes, you have made that claim, Jeff. - But you haven't backed it up with
any meaningful stats. Quickly glancing through the current listings of
Mac 26M's on Yachtworld.com, the asking prices are as follows:
$29,900, 25,000, 25,625, 32,500, 48,476, 19,900, 40,457, 29,900, 26,900,
23,900, 33,500.


The fact that some of them are pretty cheap is very telling. And none
of them are more than what, 4 years old? Why would a $30K boat be
asking only $20K after 4 years?

Maybe it doesn't have a motor that works??? Who knows what it has, or
what condition it's in.


Yachtworld isn't the best for raw numbers since many of the boat are in
Europe. If you look in Soundings you'll find a number of 4-6 y/o 26X's
for under 20K meaning they could eventually sell for half of the
original price.

In doing my little survey, the location of the boats were listed. Most
were in the United States.


My boat is 7 years old and has probably lost about 20%.


Going back another five years (which would relate to the older,26X
model) the average asking price is around $20,000. Obviously, these
figures don't tell us what the boats are actually selling for, or what
condition they're in, or how they're equipped or what motor they have,
if any. (Nor do your figures re the 2002 model.)


They all list engines - a 50 hp is common. The particular boat I
mentioned said 50hp Honda, I think. They said the PortaPotti was never
used.

Again, neither you nor I know the condition of any such boats. I doubt



6. And, it's lots of fun to sail.



When I was a kid I found an old cement mixing tub. I turned it into
my yacht and had a ball with it! So that can be your motto: "A Mac!
As much fun as a cement tub!"


And when you played with your cement mixing tub, Jeff, did you have
experience sailing various boats such as the Beneteau 39, the O'Day 39,
Valiant 40, and various Catalinas, Cals, Endeavors, Sabre, etc.?

That was my experience. - Not exactly an equivalent analogy, is it?


Why not? Now that I have lots of experience I still have a lot of fun
sailing a small dink or riding a kayak.

Would you still have a lot of fun sailing your cement mixing tub, Jeff?




My point was that when you sailed your cement mixing tub, you hadn't had
any previous sailing experience to compare it to. In my case, I had lots
of previous experience sailing a variety of larger, conventional boats
before I bought the Mac. So, when I say that the Mac 26M is fun to sail,
my statement includes knowledge of and experience on a number of other
boats, and it isn't coming from a novice sailor. If I hadn't sailed
before, as in the case of you with your cement mixing tub, then your
analogy might be appropriate.


Happy sailing.

Jim

yup, 100%.

Scotty


"JimC" wrote in message
...


Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about
the

lies you

posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think
it's

OK to lie

when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?



You talking to me?


Scotty, you posted a note with six quotes bashing the Mac.
I asked you
how many of those quoted were speaking about the Mac 26M
IN PARTICULAR,

Your answer: 100%.

I also asked how many of the (six) writers had actually
sailed the Mac
26M.

Your answer: five.

The facts are that you backed yourself into a corner
Scotty (you were
apparently thinking that it really didn't matter anyway,
since you were
just responding to a Mac owner in the first place). I
called you on it,
and you couldn't back up what you said.

Why in the world would you claim that five out or the six
quoted writers
had sailed the 26M? Where's your evidence or stats? And
why would you
claim that ALL of them were speaking of the 26M, in
particular, rather
than the 26X?

Jim

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:
....
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?

It wouldn't make much progress going directly into the wind, Jeff. But
IMO, it would do all right on a a close reach. Actually, neither you
nor I have sailed one in a 40 know wind, so neither of us actually knows
how the boat would handle under such conditions. - Again, the difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge that fact.

I never made any claim at all as to how well the boat would perform
under sail alone in heavy air. You're the one who has suggested there
are shortcomings and have repeated them here.

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?

Of course, I wasn't comparing my boat to anything. - I was talking about
your boat. - Which would flip over and turtle if caught in the crest of
a wave, under severe conditions. - But I suspect that most cat sailors
have enough sense to get the hell out of there if heavy weather is
approaching. - One flip on a cresting wave, and you're turtled. My
understanding is that most cat sailors, other than pros and racing
crews, recognize that fact and tend not to take their boats out in
severe weather or on long crossings. - Perhaps that's why most of them
don't flip over.

Your understanding is incorrect. The "heavy weather" that would flip
a cruising cat such as mine or larger is a major hurricane, with very
large seas, that would put any monohull at great risk.

As to the claim that most cat owners refrain from long passages, that
can be said of any style, brand or model. However, almost every
charter cat in the Carribean arrived there on her own bottom, most
from France and South Africa. Clearly these are boat capable of
passagemaking.

As for my particular design, of the 99 built, most (including mine)
are used for coastal cruising with limited offshore ambition.
However, about 20-25% have gone to the Carribean by way of Bermuda,
which involves several passages of 600+ miles. In addition, another
dozen or so have made the Bermuda crossing. Clearly this is a style
of boat that is quite at home on long passages.





But would your boat pop up?

Yes, mine would. - Would yours?

These people got a medal for rescuing Mac
sailers:
http://www.ussailing.org/Pressreleas...HIrishMist.htm

2000. - Is that the most recent incident that you could come up with
Jeff? - Six years ago? Of course, that was a Mac 26X (not the 26M, and
it certainly sounds like they were trying to sail or motor in severe
weather without the water ballast.

Yes, "everyone knows" that if something goes wrong with a Mac they
were doing something against the warnings, and probably drunk. But
you claimed those warning were just "lawyer talk," didn't you?


By the way, when are you going to come up with evidence or statistics to
support your anecdotes and "everyone knows...." assertions?

Why? You keep saying "give me examples" but when I do you write them
off as anecdotal.





There have actually been a number of Macs that have capsized


Really, Jeff? And what is that number? And do you have some evidence or
statistics to support that particular assertion? More significantly,
what percentage of the thousands of Macs on the water have capsized?
(Ballpark figures, supported by evidence, not anecdotes.)

I've already given links to three such events, and I've found mention
of several more.

Sorry Jim, I'm not in the business of compiling stats on your boat.
You started by claiming this isn't a problem so I gave an example of
where it was. You claimed that was just one case, so I gave several
more.

The truth is that even Mac enthusiasts will readily admit that it is
possible and can be a problem, especially when powering without
ballast. Even the factory admits this is an issue, or they wouldn't
have added foam flotation to the masts, and advertised that as a
significant safety feature.


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


In any case, Jeff, I would feel safer on my Mac in heavy winds and waves
than on a cat. - One flip, and that's all she rote.

Then you are admitting to being completely ignorant of things
nautical. Your boat may be safer that a Hobie Cat in a blow, but in
conditions that would make you soil your pants in a Mac, cruising cats
are just getting up to speed.




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.

And which "aspect" discussed above is "non-existent"? (Hint:
"non-existent" means that it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that it
isn't all-important or universally operative, or that the Mac is
superior to other boats in every respect.)

Your "double liner" is a perfect case. You stumble around, trying to
claim that the "double protection" is magically placed at the key
point most likely to be penetrated. Even the factory never once
mentions this as a safety feature, it was made up entirely by you.
OK, maybe your salesman just figured you were gullible enough to
believe it.


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.

When you have provided evidence regarding the frequency of such Mac
capsizes, as a percentage of Macs in use, then you could rationally
discuss whether the boat qualifies as a good "beginner's boat." Until
you do, all we have are your opinions and your anecdotes, unsupported by
evidence or statistics.

And everyone seems to agree with me. Except a few beginners.




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.

As much as it bothers you, the boat does indeed have a "double hull" in
the area of the hull beneath the ballast tank. And, whether you like it
or not or are willing to acknowledge it or not, it is a safety factor.

In other words, what you say is true is true; what the rest of the
world believes is irrelevant. You're verging on the delusional, now
Jim. Perhaps it time for professional help.


Neither you nor I have stats on the effectiveness of the double hull as
a safety factor. Until one of us does have such stats or evidence, it
would probably be helpful for us to acknowledge that fact in the event
we choose to discuss the subject again.

So you're saying that "it must be a safety feature" because it seems
that way to you. And you must be right because I can't produce any
statistics to prove you wrong.

However, how about before you tout something as a safety feature, you
actually show there is a safety risk? I've spent a lot of time going
over the accident statistics and have offered my conclusions here from
time to time. For instance, of about 700 fatalities, 213 were falling
overboard, 199 were capsizing. In other words, more than half of the
deaths are related to stability issues. As for collision, the
majority are with other vessels, for which your double line offers no
protection. Fixed objects are next, and again, this would be unlikely
to be protected by your liner. In fact, floating objects were only 9%
of the collisions, which in turn were the cause of less than 20% of
the fatalities. In other words, collision with floating objects only
represents a small risk to all boats. Factor this with the small
number of aux sailboat fatalities, and you are left with the
possibility that perhaps 1 or 2 fatalities in the last decade have
been related to sailboats striking floating objects. And, this says
absolutely nothing about possible that the collision caused a leak, or
that the leak might have been prevented with your "double liner."

All you've cited as a risk is that floating objects might not be seen
when planing. In other words, your "double liner" offers some
hypothetical protection when the boat is handled recklessly.




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."

Again, Jeff, you stoop to posting outright lies about what I said. - I
never claimed that the motor contributes "nothing" to the moment of
inertia. But I did demonstrated to you mathematically that the motor is
less of a factor than the skipper and a normal (two person)crew sitting
in the cockpit. - Regarding your own guesstimate as to how many, and
where, the crew and skipper would be positioned relative to the COB or
COG, if you work out the figures, you will again find that the motor is
less of a factor than the crew and skipper, even using your figures. (My
point isn't that the motor isn't a factor, but that, by way of
perspective, it is less of a factor than that of the crew and skipper.)

Your mathematics was not just fatally flawed, it was a blatant
misrepresentation of your boat. It was clear from that demonstration
that you have no problem at all lying to "prove" your point. But I
predict you will just ignore this.



But that still isn't the significant issue. The real issue is whether
the motor introduces a substantial effect on inertia that makes the boat
unstable, or makes it pitch excessively, or whatever. Since you keep
talking about the motor as it relates to the pitch moment of inertia,
what, EXACTLY, is the effect you claim the motor has on the boat? What
problems does the boat have that are caused by the motor, in your
opinion? (Since you seem to have a fetish with the motor, tell us about
how it's effect on the boat?)

Actually, I said I have nothing against your motor. I just wondered
how much it, and the water ballast, might contribute to the pitch
moment of inertia. You're the one who has repeatedly lied to deny
there is any affect.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:
...
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?

It wouldn't make much progress going directly into the wind, Jeff. But
IMO, it would do all right on a a close reach. Actually, neither you nor
I have sailed one in a 40 know wind, so neither of us actually knows how
the boat would handle under such conditions. - Again, the difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge that fact.

I never made any claim at all as to how well the boat would perform under
sail alone in heavy air. You're the one who has suggested there are
shortcomings and have repeated them here.

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?

Of course, I wasn't comparing my boat to anything. - I was talking about
your boat. - Which would flip over and turtle if caught in the crest of a
wave, under severe conditions. - But I suspect that most cat sailors have
enough sense to get the hell out of there if heavy weather is
approaching. - One flip on a cresting wave, and you're turtled. My
understanding is that most cat sailors, other than pros and racing crews,
recognize that fact and tend not to take their boats out in severe
weather or on long crossings. - Perhaps that's why most of them don't
flip over.

Your understanding is incorrect. The "heavy weather" that would flip a
cruising cat such as mine or larger is a major hurricane, with very large
seas, that would put any monohull at great risk.

As to the claim that most cat owners refrain from long passages, that can
be said of any style, brand or model. However, almost every charter cat
in the Carribean arrived there on her own bottom, most from France and
South Africa. Clearly these are boat capable of passagemaking.

As for my particular design, of the 99 built, most (including mine) are
used for coastal cruising with limited offshore ambition. However, about
20-25% have gone to the Carribean by way of Bermuda, which involves
several passages of 600+ miles. In addition, another dozen or so have
made the Bermuda crossing. Clearly this is a style of boat that is quite
at home on long passages.





But would your boat pop up?

Yes, mine would. - Would yours?

These people got a medal for rescuing Mac
sailers:
http://www.ussailing.org/Pressreleas...HIrishMist.htm

2000. - Is that the most recent incident that you could come up with
Jeff? - Six years ago? Of course, that was a Mac 26X (not the 26M, and it
certainly sounds like they were trying to sail or motor in severe weather
without the water ballast.

Yes, "everyone knows" that if something goes wrong with a Mac they were
doing something against the warnings, and probably drunk. But you claimed
those warning were just "lawyer talk," didn't you?


By the way, when are you going to come up with evidence or statistics to
support your anecdotes and "everyone knows...." assertions?

Why? You keep saying "give me examples" but when I do you write them off
as anecdotal.





There have actually been a number of Macs that have capsized


Really, Jeff? And what is that number? And do you have some evidence or
statistics to support that particular assertion? More significantly, what
percentage of the thousands of Macs on the water have capsized? (Ballpark
figures, supported by evidence, not anecdotes.)

I've already given links to three such events, and I've found mention of
several more.

Sorry Jim, I'm not in the business of compiling stats on your boat. You
started by claiming this isn't a problem so I gave an example of where it
was. You claimed that was just one case, so I gave several more.

The truth is that even Mac enthusiasts will readily admit that it is
possible and can be a problem, especially when powering without ballast.
Even the factory admits this is an issue, or they wouldn't have added foam
flotation to the masts, and advertised that as a significant safety
feature.


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


In any case, Jeff, I would feel safer on my Mac in heavy winds and waves
than on a cat. - One flip, and that's all she rote.

Then you are admitting to being completely ignorant of things nautical.
Your boat may be safer that a Hobie Cat in a blow, but in conditions that
would make you soil your pants in a Mac, cruising cats are just getting up
to speed.




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.

And which "aspect" discussed above is "non-existent"? (Hint:
"non-existent" means that it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that it
isn't all-important or universally operative, or that the Mac is superior
to other boats in every respect.)

Your "double liner" is a perfect case. You stumble around, trying to
claim that the "double protection" is magically placed at the key point
most likely to be penetrated. Even the factory never once mentions this
as a safety feature, it was made up entirely by you. OK, maybe your
salesman just figured you were gullible enough to believe it.


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.

When you have provided evidence regarding the frequency of such Mac
capsizes, as a percentage of Macs in use, then you could rationally
discuss whether the boat qualifies as a good "beginner's boat." Until you
do, all we have are your opinions and your anecdotes, unsupported by
evidence or statistics.

And everyone seems to agree with me. Except a few beginners.




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.

As much as it bothers you, the boat does indeed have a "double hull" in
the area of the hull beneath the ballast tank. And, whether you like it
or not or are willing to acknowledge it or not, it is a safety factor.

In other words, what you say is true is true; what the rest of the world
believes is irrelevant. You're verging on the delusional, now Jim.
Perhaps it time for professional help.


Neither you nor I have stats on the effectiveness of the double hull as a
safety factor. Until one of us does have such stats or evidence, it would
probably be helpful for us to acknowledge that fact in the event we
choose to discuss the subject again.

So you're saying that "it must be a safety feature" because it seems that
way to you. And you must be right because I can't produce any statistics
to prove you wrong.

However, how about before you tout something as a safety feature, you
actually show there is a safety risk? I've spent a lot of time going over
the accident statistics and have offered my conclusions here from time to
time. For instance, of about 700 fatalities, 213 were falling overboard,
199 were capsizing. In other words, more than half of the deaths are
related to stability issues. As for collision, the majority are with
other vessels, for which your double line offers no protection. Fixed
objects are next, and again, this would be unlikely to be protected by
your liner. In fact, floating objects were only 9% of the collisions,
which in turn were the cause of less than 20% of the fatalities. In other
words, collision with floating objects only represents a small risk to all
boats. Factor this with the small number of aux sailboat fatalities, and
you are left with the possibility that perhaps 1 or 2 fatalities in the
last decade have been related to sailboats striking floating objects.
And, this says absolutely nothing about possible that the collision caused
a leak, or that the leak might have been prevented with your "double
liner."

All you've cited as a risk is that floating objects might not be seen when
planing. In other words, your "double liner" offers some hypothetical
protection when the boat is handled recklessly.




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."

Again, Jeff, you stoop to posting outright lies about what I said. - I
never claimed that the motor contributes "nothing" to the moment of
inertia. But I did demonstrated to you mathematically that the motor is
less of a factor than the skipper and a normal (two person)crew sitting
in the cockpit. - Regarding your own guesstimate as to how many, and
where, the crew and skipper would be positioned relative to the COB or
COG, if you work out the figures, you will again find that the motor is
less of a factor than the crew and skipper, even using your figures. (My
point isn't that the motor isn't a factor, but that, by way of
perspective, it is less of a factor than that of the crew and skipper.)

Your mathematics was not just fatally flawed, it was a blatant
misrepresentation of your boat. It was clear from that demonstration that
you have no problem at all lying to "prove" your point. But I predict you
will just ignore this.



But that still isn't the significant issue. The real issue is whether the
motor introduces a substantial effect on inertia that makes the boat
unstable, or makes it pitch excessively, or whatever. Since you keep
talking about the motor as it relates to the pitch moment of inertia,
what, EXACTLY, is the effect you claim the motor has on the boat? What
problems does the boat have that are caused by the motor, in your
opinion? (Since you seem to have a fetish with the motor, tell us about
how it's effect on the boat?)

Actually, I said I have nothing against your motor. I just wondered how
much it, and the water ballast, might contribute to the pitch moment of
inertia. You're the one who has repeatedly lied to deny there is any
affect.



J'sus,how much nit could a nitpicker pick, if a nitpicker could pick nit.

--
jlrogers±³©

JimC wrote:


Let me repeat because you seem to have a reading problem:
Nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably.


Jeff, what, exactly, are the weight distribution "problems", and exactly
what deleterious effects do those "weight distribution problems" have on
the boat? What effects (such as pitching, wandering, etc.) result from
the "weight distribution" problem? - In your own words.

You're the one who seems obsessed about this problem, Jim. Clearly
you must be hiding something. Why else would you resort to such
blatant lying about your boat?

This entire discussion was not about how badly the Mac pitched, it was
about its weight distribution. You wanted to look like an idiot, and
you succeeded in that admirably! Congrats!

Also, my experience is that it's difficult to see objects immediately
forward of the hull when the boat is plaining.


Are you actually telling us that you would drive the boat at high
speed when you weren't able to see the water in front of you??? Do
you go home at night wondering how many swimmers you hit? Jim, you
really have to think about what you say before you post!


As with any boat on a plane, the raised bow has the effect of limiting
visibility of the water immediately forward of the boat, along it's
course. But as you have repeatedly discussed, the Mac normally doesn't
plane above 15 - 18 knots, which is rather slow relative to many power
boats.

The attitude of the bow is not directly related to the speed. Lots of
planing boats raise the bow at moderate planing speeds, and then lower
it at higher speeds.

Also, the boat doesn't rise substantially above the water as do
high-powered speed boats. So, the effects on visibility are less than
that for a skipper of a power boat planing at high speeds and/or with a
greater inclination. So, which is it, Jeff? Does the Mac really plane
at "high speeds." Or is it's speed rather limited?

The answer is that you have no understanding of how boats work, or you
are a liar. Which is it, Jim?


Obviously, in any
boat on a plane, the skipper has the responsibility not to take the boat
into waters he hasn't carefully observed. And certainly, he shouldn't
run the boat at high speeds in areas that might have swimmers, divers,
small boats, etc.

Yes Jim. Claiming as a safety feature that you can run down unknown
objects with impunity was not the best strategy, councilor.

And are you actually claiming that a significant number of sailboats
sink in protected waters due to collisions that would be prevented by
the small amount of the "double liner" of the Mac? There must be a
terrible loss of life - what do you think? 100 a year? 200?

Odd, you never seem to respond to this question.

2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere.

If I had claimed or suggested that the Mac has a double hull that is
"double everywhere," then that statement might have relevance. But not
only is that not the case, but I have also explained, in several
previous notes, that the double hull results from the closed ballast
tank positioned in the lower portion of the boat. I have also stated,
in a number of previous notes (which you conveniently ignore), that the
double hull only extends in the area beneath the ballast tank. (Why do
you continue to ignore my prior discussions of this limitation, Jeff?)

Yes, we acknowledge that the doubled portion only exists where the
doubled portion is. The point is that this is a rather small portion
of the hull. It is only the middle third widthwise, it wraps around
the fixed ballast in the middle of the boat, it is only very limited
aft. The result is that probably 15% or less is actually covered.
Moreover, this area is in a part where most boats are quite strong and
protected by the keel so its not clear that even on this theoretical
lever there is any advantage over any other boat.



As explained above, the lower portion of the Mac (the centerline ridge
and adjacent portions extending under the ballast tank), is the the
portion that cuts through the water when planing. I therefore submit
tha it's likely, in at least some instances, to try to "cut through"
a floating object in the path of the boat.

Isn't this where the permanent ballast it?

The permanent ballast is considerably aft of the portion of the
centerline ridge that cuts through the water. But as previously,
stated, neither you nor I know how well the Mac 26M double hull (with
permanent ballast) would protect it in the event of a collision with a
floating object. Again, the difference between us is that I'm willing
to acknowledge this fact, but you can't seem to admit you don't really
know whether or not the double hull would be a significant safety factor.

Before you tout it as a safety feature, you have to establish that
there is a safety risk.




(Incidentally, how many cases of serious breech of a Mac 26M have you
seen?)


And how many Macs have ever had their "outer hull" punctured and they
were saved by the inner hull? This is your claim.

As I said, I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how much of a
safety factor the double hull is. - Are you?

I have shown (in another post today) that the number of deaths
resulting from the collision of all aux sailboats with floating object
is vanishingly small. And this is before considering if such
collisions cause leaks, and whether these leaks would not happen on a Mac.

In other words, any reasonable person can conclude that this is not a
safety feature.


I've seen a number of boats holed, but its never been on the center
line. So you claim this is a safety feature, how many boats of any
type have you seen holed that would have been saved by the Mac's
protection? How many lives would be saved? I'll give you a hint: it
begins with "Z" and ends with "row".

Are you talking about conventional sailboats Jeff? If so, they would be
far less susceptible to puncture while surfing over a sunken or
partially sunken object, wouldn't they?

So now you're back to claiming that this is a safety feature because
it allows you to go fast without a proper lookout.


Nope. But its another safety factor that would be nice to have in an
emergency. Might permit sailing or motoring the boat back to shore
at low speeds, for example.


You're just being silly Jim. This is what I've been talking about.
You fight tooth and nail on every little feature even after it been
shown that it really isn't significant.

Jeff, did you ever try to sail a monohull (or cat) that had sunk to the
top of its gunwales?

Actually, I've done it many times.

But I didn't say that I would continue powering "at speed" (your words)
did I Jeff? Obviously, the skipper would have to check out the extend of
the damage and monitor the effects of motoring or sailing the boat.

Why is that? If a boat is handled perfectly by an expert, most safety
features would not be needed. This goes to the heart of the issue,
Jim. You claim that the Mac is safe for experienced, sober, cautious.
sailors, who read an follow all of the instructions. I claim that
most sailors are inexperienced, drunk, foolhardy, and never knew there
were instructions. And the evidence seems to support me.



Mac has no trouble mentioning the flotation in the mast which implies
they're afraid of turning turtle. They have no trouble mentioning the
flotation which implies they're afraid they will get holed. So if the
tiny protection offered by the "double liner" was significant, why
wouldn't they mention it?

Actually, Jeff, discussing running into floating logs could very well
turn some people off of buying a sailboat capable of high-speeds under
power. Also, I don't think they have to mention it. - There are so many
other good features to discuss that they continue to be one of the best
selling sailboats on the market.

But they don't hesitate to cite the floating mast as a safety feature.
You keep thrashing on this one, but it doesn't get better.


This was the first of three. You obviously considered it important
enough that it would be one of three extra features that would
influence a decision. But why are you denying this?

I never denied that I mentioned it as a beneficial feature. I have NOT
emphasized it in later notes. I normally discuss it unless I'm
responding to someone else. The person who keeps on discussing it, over
and over and over and over again is: (guess who) - you.

No - I haven't mentioned it in a week. You keep bringing it back up.


3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics.

...

You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there
would be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few
accidents at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over.


How about sailboats 26 feet and under, Jeff?

The accident rate does not change dramatically at under 26 feet.
There are certainly changes as you get smaller, but 24 foot boats are
still pretty safe.

Because you seem to claim things as "safety features" when they aren't.



Other than the double hull issue, which "things" are you talking about
Jeff?

The mast flotation is only a feature if you expect to capsize. For
any normally ballasted boat, this is not an issue. You describe the
large engine as safety feature, because you say the boat doesn't
handle well in strong winds. So these are two safety features that
other boats don't need, but you claim are needed by the Mac.


The truth is, while there are over 50,000 aux sailboats 26-40 feet
there are only a couple of fatalities per year in this class of
boats. I don't have access to the raw data so its hard to break
things out, but the numbers would seem to indicate a risk on the
order of 1 per 20,000 per year.


Jeff, when you come across that "raw data," let me know.

The data can be had if you really want it. What do you want to see?

There are two implications of this. One is that any claim that the
Mac is safer than other boats suffers from a lack of evidence the
other boats are in any way unsafe.

I know of one incident resulting in deaths, and that accident involved a
drunk skipper who hadn't sailed the boat before and who apparently
hadn't even been instructed re Mac-related safety features, and
passengers that were also drunk. Also, the boat in question was a 26X,
not the current model, which includes additional, permanent ballast. As
to whether the design of the boat is inherently unsafe, that issue was
specifically raised by the plaintiff, and the appeal court ruled that
the cause of the accident was the negligence of the drunk skipper, not
the MacGregor Company.


But on the other hand, we know of
at least three deaths

What deaths, other than those in the drunk skipper case, Jeff?

So you're claiming that the deaths didn't occur, because an appeal
court said so? A number of people in the Mac community believe that
several of design changes were made because of that incident.



The Coast Guard Annual Boating Statistics are out there for everyone.
The bottom line is that there are actually very few fatalities in Aux
sailboats 26+ feet. Statistically if you have a boat and a car,
you're roughly five times more likely to die in a car accident. There
are only perhaps 2 or 3 fatalities a year. When an incident is in the
news (such as the man who fell off the racing boat, or the boat the
got crunched by a large boat, etc.) that will generally be the only
incident, or perhaps one of two for the year. IIRC, the kids in the
capsized Mac in 2002 were the only fatalities that year from a 26+
foot sailboat.

Actually, the Mac is a 26- foot sailboat, being a few inches shorter
than 26 ft. The point, however, is that it's relatively small compared
with most coastal cruising sailboats, and obviously smaller than those
of most posting on this ng.

It doesn't change the conclusions. Actually, the majority of
accidents happen because of operator error or general stupidity, not
the size or type of boat.

What was more troubling about these deaths is that they were caused
specifically by the unusual properties of the Mac. On any other 26
foot sailboat, 8 adults would not be "seriously overloaded." On any
other 26 foot sailboat, goosing the throttle when stopped would not
result in an roll over in a flat calm, windless evening.


See my comments above. - In this particular case, those very questions,
i.e., whether the accident was attributable to the drunk skipper or due
to the design of the boat itself, were discussed IN DETAIL by the
attorneys for the drunk skipper. - The decision of the appellate court
was that it was the fault of the drunk skipper, not MacGregor.
(MacGregor won, and the drunk skipper lost and was imprisoned.)

I've never seen a reference to this, perhaps you could provide one -
but its irrelevant to my point. Yes the guy was drunk and perhaps
should be in jail. It doesn't change that fact that in any other boat
the kids would probably still be alive.

Yes, the company avoided a

disastrous lawsuit because helmsman was inebriated, but so are half
the boaters out there, especially on the 4th of July when this took
place. Had those children been in any other 26 foot sailboat, they
would still be alive.


Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, the attorneys for the drunk skipper tried
their best to put forth the arguments you are trying to make. - But they
lost.

Did their loss really exonerate the boat or did it just mean that a
drunk went to jail?

That's enother of your unsubstantiated theories, of course. But even
if true, the fact that this is the ONLY example you can come up with
strongly suggests that the boat is not inherently unsafe.


I never heard the final verdict, but I do know that the expert witness
from US Sailing (Jim Teeters) testified that the design of the boat
was partially at fault.


The final verdict was that MacGregor won,

Did they really win, or did they just avoid a legal disaster. Two
different things in the minds of most people. Not for lawyers, though.

and the drunk skipper lost and
was put in prison for criminal negligence.

good.

I can't say about a lot of boats but I can pretty confidently say that
any normally ballasted sailboat with a normal sized engine would not
have capsized. I've sailed an awful lot of small keel boats over they
years and I don't know of any that could come close to this behavior.
Perhaps you know of one?


Of course, most small keel boats don't have a 50 hp engine, do they
Jeff? Your statement is like saying you can confidently say that
because small, low powered sedans, such as a Toyota Corolla or the like,
can't be driven very fast and are therefore not subject to being driven
over 100 mph, they are designed better than high-speed sports cars which
can.

Bad analogy. There's only one 26 foot sailboat I know of that can
capsize within a few seconds of leaving its mooring in calm weather.

- In reading the Mac discussion groups, I haven't seen any notes
from or about any Mac owner who doesn't understand that the Macs have
certain design considerations that must be observed when sailing or
motoring, including the fact that the ballast must be filled except
under specific conditions. In fact, as we have previously discussed,
the Mac warning is clearly posted on the boat itself. (As previously
stated, I personally have never sailed or motored without the ballast.)

Those that post in the discussion groups are not a representative
sample, are they?



Ah, I'm not sure what else they could add - the crew size is limited
and you have to stay huddled in the cockpit. The seas must be flat
and the water warm. All of the rigging (sails, rudders, board) must
be in a particular position. And I forgot one, no sharp turns. Is
there any discretionary freedom they have??? You're not allowed to go
to the head. You're not even allowed to stand or lean over the side
so that you might see something floating ahead!

Although I don't sail or motor without ballast, lots of Mac sailors do
it routinely. Many prefer it when motoring out to Catalina or other
offshore destinations. They state that the boat is stable and
maneuverable for trips of several hours, under various weather
conditions. I rather think that they do go forward to use the head, and
look over or around the mast to watch the water, though I haven't
specifically asked about that. In other words, the boats are more
stable and more versatile than your purposefully dire description might
suggest.

So here you're saying that many Mac sailors regularly ignore the
posted warnings. But in other places you say that the various
incidents I've mentioned should be of no concern because the skippers
ignored the warnings.

I think you've just proved my point.


My issue, as I've said a number of times, is that the Mac is marketed
to novices ("Learn to sail in an afternoon...") These are the people
that would not understand how dangerous it really is to ignore the
warnings.

That's why the owner's manual and the notice on the bulkhead include
WARNINGS IN LARGE LETTERS about taking the boat out without completely
filling the ballast tank.

But you just said that many ignore the warnings.




That is why when there is an incident with a Mac it is usually
explained off as operator error because the skipper was new, or
borrowed the boat.


"Usually explained"? Where are the others, Jeff?

You're the only person who defends the Mac here. But in other sites
it is frequently pointed out that the capsizes are often related to
powering without ballast, a practice that you assure us is common.



None of these warnings would apply on a traditional boat. However,
the speed of the boat is its major feature, and the feature that
drives most of the design.

Well that's probably correct. That's why the WARNINGS about filling the
ballast tank are all in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.

Speed is one of it's attractions, and it's probably true that speed can
introduce some dangers that wouldn't be present with a conventional
boat. - Rather obvious to most people I would think, even without the
warnings in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.

So now you're admitting there are dangers that would not be found with
other boats. Thank you Jim, that's all I've been saying all along.


Sorry Jim. I never signed any agreement saying I would fairly review
any boat that was mentioned here. If you (or anyone one else) says
something blatantly stupid or wrong, I have the right to call you on
it. I have no obligation at all to say something nice about the boat
to balance it. And again, I've objected more to the way you represent
the boat, not its actually qualities.


Perhaps so. But think how that consisently one-sided approach must seem
to those young, aspiring sailors around the world who may read your
comments.

On a number of occasions the regulars on this board have been "rated"
and I have generally been listed as the one who most fairly judges
most issues.

The only reason that I've persisted in this discussion is because of
your one sided touting of the Mac. In particular I've objected to
your listing as a safety feature something the factory doesn't think
is a feature, and addresses a non-existent risk. I've also objected
to you claim that the safety warnings can be ignored as "lawyer talk"
followed by you embarrassing backpedaling when you realized your blunder.


- Are they thinking: "Gee. If experienced sailors are so
opinionated and one-sided that 90% of their comments about a particular
boat are bashing the boats and those who sail them, do I really want to
get involve with such a sicko group in the first place?"

I think the children can easily figure out who's been the wacko in
this discussion.


Going back another five years (which would relate to the older,26X
model) the average asking price is around $20,000. Obviously, these
figures don't tell us what the boats are actually selling for, or
what condition they're in, or how they're equipped or what motor they
have, if any. (Nor do your figures re the 2002 model.)


They all list engines - a 50 hp is common. The particular boat I
mentioned said 50hp Honda, I think. They said the PortaPotti was
never used.

Again, neither you nor I know the condition of any such boats. I doubt

So, you're saying that many of the Mac's are going cheap because after
5 years they are falling apart. Yes, I see that now. Thank you for
clarifying.


6. And, it's lots of fun to sail.

When I was a kid I found an old cement mixing tub. I turned it into
my yacht and had a ball with it! So that can be your motto: "A Mac!
As much fun as a cement tub!"

And when you played with your cement mixing tub, Jeff, did you have
experience sailing various boats such as the Beneteau 39, the O'Day 39,
Valiant 40, and various Catalinas, Cals, Endeavors, Sabre, etc.?

That was my experience. - Not exactly an equivalent analogy, is it?

Why not? Now that I have lots of experience I still have a lot of fun
sailing a small dink or riding a kayak.

Would you still have a lot of fun sailing your cement mixing tub, Jeff?

My point was that when you sailed your cement mixing tub, you hadn't had
any previous sailing experience to compare it to. In my case, I had lots
of previous experience sailing a variety of larger, conventional boats
before I bought the Mac. So, when I say that the Mac 26M is fun to sail,
my statement includes knowledge of and experience on a number of other
boats, and it isn't coming from a novice sailor. If I hadn't sailed
before, as in the case of you with your cement mixing tub, then your
analogy might be appropriate.


I still sail small dinghies - I own two sailing dinks 10 feet and
under plus a kayak. Fun can be had on all sized boats. That doesn't
mean that all boats live up to their hype.