Jeff, this note included your misleading comments on a number of
subjects, and I have tried to address most of them. Because of your
lengthy comments, the response is also lengthy. - Perhaps it would be
more helpful if you would limit each response (if you choose to respond)
to one or two subjects per note.

Jim



Jeff wrote:

Jeff wrote:

It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your need.
Is that what you learn in lawyer school?


Sure thing Jeff. - Of course, it's clear that you cherry-picked and


I love that expression "cherry-picked"! I think that would be a good
defense - "Your Honor, the prosecution is just cherry-picking. What
about the 6 billion people that my client didn't kill that night?"

By "cherry-picking", I refer to the fact that you keep repeating the
statement quoted below, but you totally ignore the other statements I
made during that discussion in which I said that the warnings,
particularly those relating to sailing the boat without ballast, should
be observed. - You also ignore the instructions IN THE MAC OWNERS'
MANUAL about motoring without the ballast. - Cherry-picking at it's
best, Jeff.

- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:

"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.) - What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

On the other hand, IF you are suggesting that the warnings should be
strictly followed under all circumstances, then you should tell us which
portion of the warnings you want us to follow. - Are you talking about
the part that advises us never to use the boat without the water
ballast, or, conversely, are you talking about the sections that tell us
about using the boat without the water ballast? - You can't have it both
ways, Jeff. "


Here's some more detailed discussion of the same matter (again, posted
over a year ago, and conveniently ignored by you):


"- But if
you insist, ONCE AGAIN, the fact that the warnings obviously had legal
overtones, and the fact that they are contradictory, doesn't mean that
they should be ignored or dismissed out of hand. The fact that I suspect
that they have at least a partially CYA purpose also doesn't mean that I
would ignore the warnings, when taken IN CONTEXT with the rest of the
owners manual. For example, at page 1 of the owners manual for the 26M
it states IN BOLD, UNDERLINED PRINT, that THE BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE
FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING. This warning clearly states that
the tank should be full under all circumstances.

But on the same page, the manual also states that: "THERE MAY BE TIMES
WHEN YOU WISH TO OPERATE THE BOAT WITH AN EMPTY BALLAST TANK For
example, when puling a water skier, when trying to conserve fuel, when a
faster ride is desired, ..." Obviously, when read in context, the first
statement is meant as a general warning, with apparent legal
overtones, which is expected to be read in light of the second section
dealing with operation of the boat WITHOUT the water ballast, under
certain conditions. - Once again, Jeff, the fact that the initial
warning may have been inserted at least in part with legal
considerations in mind, and the fact that I suspect it was, DOES NOT
mean that it should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it's clear
from the SECOND statement that, in fact, it is recognized [by MacGregor]
that the boat can be operated without the ballast under certain
conditions. Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?



substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it.


Your comment was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "


You've tried to "un-ring this bell" many times, but I think everyone
here understands what you meant.
...

Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?


Once more, Jim, no one is buying it.


(In other words, I didn't say they could be innored, and you can't find
any such statement.)
...

Jeff, I asked you whether you thought MacGregors' attorneys were not
involved with the inclusion of those warnings. - You never answered me.
- Why?



Here's the diagram again:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

...

OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast.
Of course, my point has really been that there's a lot forward of the
mast, so you just helped prove my point.


I think it's pretty clear by now that you lost on that point, Jeff.
The sections you thought were extensions of the ballast tank were
drainage tubes for permitting the tank to drain out the valve on the
stern when parked on the launch ramp.


Actually, they look a lot bigger than tubes - but since my argument is
that there is a significant mass in the extremities your point really
doesn't mean much.




More significantly, your original theory was that, because the ballast
extended "the entire length of the boat," you thought it would
contribute to pitching of the boat.


And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound engine
hanging off the transom.

Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the crew/guests/skipper,
not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed solo). The motor is
slightly farther aft, but not much. (The captains seat is about a foot
forward of the motor.)



As should now be understood, the volume and mass of the ballast is in
an area slightly forward of amidships, rather near the mast.


No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between the
mast and the bow.

The first and second "station" are substantially the same. Additionally,
the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned near the mast.

Moreover, the ballast tank is tapered at its forward and rear end
portions, further reducing the mass of ballast spaced furthest from
the central or largest portion, thereby lessening the moment of
inertia of the ballast when the boat pitches upon a wave, etc.


Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong, so why
do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the tank is in the
forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the centerline, there
is little tapering forward until you get very close to the bow.


Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches the bow.

As to the fact that the ballast tank extends forward to the bow, two
factors apply. First, the distance from the longitudinal center
(largest or widest portion) of the ballast tank to the bow is
substantially shorter then that to the stern, so it's appropriate that
the ballast tank extend to the bow


In simple English, you're saying that the water ballast is close to the
bow. Yes, that's my point exactly! Thank you!

(remembering also that the forward portion or the tank is tapered,
thereby reducing pitching inertia).


Actually, the tapering has little affect until the last few feet.


In the Mac, the "last few feet" comprise a substantialy proportion of
the distance from the mast to the bow.


Secondly, for balancing the boat in the water to compensate for the
weight of crew and motor at the stern, it would again be appropriate
to position the longitudinal center of mass of the ballast tank
somewhat forward along the length of the hull.


Yah think???




Jeff, you again misquote what I said to make your point. - I never
said that the "entire boat" was protected by a doubled hull. Only that
adjacent the ballast tank. - Do you have any ethics at all?


Once again, we have a case of you making a claim of and inner and outer
hull and than after you were called on that you started backpedaling and
trying to explain that its only the vulnerable part that is
"protected."

You quote from an ongoing discussion on this ng as if every time I post,
they each of my notes should be scrutinized and foot-noted, as if I were
drafting a legal brief to be sent to the Supreme Court. In the
discussion to which you refer, I made the point that the Mac has what is
in essence a double hull. - WHICH IS TRUE. Then, during the ongoing
discussion, I explained that the ballast tank served to provide the same
function as a double hull, in that if the outer hull below the tank was
compromised, water would not be let into the hull. Jeff, don't you think
that you ought to refer to my comments during the entire discussion,
conducted months ago, rather than leap gleefully on one introductory
comment of mine? From an ethical standpoint, wouldn't that be the thing
to do?



In fact, now you're claiming that its only a small portion
that is protected.

Nope. It's rather a large portion. - (In fact, you claimed the ballast
extended along the entire length of the boat.)



There are two basic facts he First, the water
ballast does not extend the full width, it is concentrated in the
middle, so that any blow off the centerline is not protected. And while
the bow area is protected, at high speed that is lifted out of the water
and thus needs no protection.

If the bow is lifted out of the water, the Mac "double hull" can provide
protection if the boat runs into or over a floating object. - My
experience is that some of them are hard to see, even at slow speeds.


And now you're claiming there is little
protection aft.

Most impact would occur forward of amidships, Jeff. - Unless you were
sailing backwards.

And the second point is that MacGregor itself never
touts this as a feature - it one that you made made up!


I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire boat
has a double hull.

You tried to sell this one and got caught, so don't complain to me about
"ethics."


The ethics problems are your own, Jeff, not mine. - See below.


You also again cherry picked the statement you relied on, since in
later portions of that discussion some months ago I made it quite
clear that the boat didn't have a doubled hull protecting the entire
boat. - But you knew that when you decided to misrepresent and cherry
pick my statement, didn't you Jeff? You shamelessly misquote and
cherry-pick when you think you can get by with it. - Do you have no
self-respect whatsoever, Jeff?


Sorry Jim, this is another bell that you can't un-ring! When you made
the comment originally you were quite happy to make it sound as if the
boat had all the protection of a double hull.

See earlier discussion. You cherry-picked one introductory statement
and ignored a numberof later ones.


It was only after it was
clear that the "protection" was very limited that you admitted that it
doesn't have what is commonly referred to as a double hull.

Here's the original note:



"Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a
lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted boat having a 1-foot (you read
right) minimal draft with its dagger board up, and a 5-foot draft with
the board down. It's termed a power-sailor, in that it can be powered at
15 - 20 mph with a 50 hp outboard quickly delivering you to a desired
sailing area. It can then be sailed in the desired sailing area, then
beached for picnics, etc., and then brought back to shore and stored on
its trailer out the water (minimizing maintenance and marina fees). With
a new 50 hp motor, the new models won't be available for $5,000, however.

Despite the derogatory remarks you will see on this board regarding the
Macs, more of them are sold each year than almost any other sailboat of
comparable size. In addition to its versatility, the Macs can be pretty
exciting to sail. As mentioned above, under power, in certain
conditions, they can be brought to a plane, even with a full water
ballast tank. It has sufficient bunk space to sleep 6, plus another two
in the cockpit, although you probably wouldn't want to sail for an
extended trip with more than two to four. It isn't a racer, and it
doesn't have the room and stability of a 40-foot cruiser, so I don't
think you should try to sail to England, or South America on such a
boat. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, you probably won't get 6' 4"
headroom on a small boat, although with the top pushed forward on the
Mac, you will.

As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper
who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the
boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank. Additionally, the
mast is partially foam-filled, thereby resisting a complete "hurtling"
of the boat under a broach. Additionally, the boat includes sufficient
built-in foam floatation to keep the boat afloat even if its hull is
severely compromised during a collision, etc. In other words, whereas
most of the boats mentioned on this ng will quickly sink to the bottom
if their hulls are compromised due to their heavily weighted keels, the
MacGregor will stay afloat.

One thing you should be aware of relative to the Macs. - Despite (or
maybe because of) their popularity around the world, some of the old
salts on this ng will ridicule your choice of a Mac from now till the
cows come home. Its one of the few amusements that seems always to
interest them, - Keep in mind, however, that most of them have never
sailed the Mac 26M model. In fact, to be honest about it, most of the
Mac-bashers on this ng really don't know their ass from a hole in the
ground. It's always interesting to see their reaction when they are
asked for some evidence to back up their wild statements about the Macs.
(Such as their being light, under built, etc.) - Usually, they have no
evidence whatsoever, and resort to wild and irrelevant anecdotes. (Fyi,
the Macs are a light boat, so, of course, they use relatively light and
simple standing rigging, etc.)

More importantly, the Mac 26M is roomy, comfortable, and fun and
exciting to sail.

Jim"

It's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a double
hull.





As noted above, the boat is designed to be balanced with an outboard
and with several persons in the cockpit. And it is.


Yes, the large mass in the stern (the engine) is nicely balanced by
the large mass of the water ballast in the bow. Now explain to us
the meaning and significance of "moment of inertia."


Moment of inertia in this context relates to rotational inertia, that
is, the tendency of the boat during pitching movement to keep
rotating, or pitching, in the same rotational direction. The moment of
intertia of a body with respect to any axis is the sum of the products
obtained by multiplying each elementary mass by the square of its
distance from the axis.


not bad so far.

Since it's proportional to the square of the distance from the axis of
pitching rotation, MacGregor's design (positioning most of the mass
near amidships rather than evenly distributed along the entire length
of the boat) was proper.


Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine" which is
about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern??? And what about
the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow of the
boat???

Nope.


Only a lawyer could say this with a straight face!


Incidentally, Jeff, there are other forms of inertia (e.g., resistance
to upward and downward movement, resistance to deceleration of the
boat during forward movement) that are in some respects disadvantages
to small, light boats such as the Mac. As I have consistently stated,
the Mac has good and bad features, and one of the disadvantages to any
light boat is that it doesn't sail as steadily, with as much forward
momentum, as does a large, heavy vessel. (You would have done better
to ignore the ballast issue altogether and concentrated instead on
some of the obvious disadvantages of small, light boats.)


So you're saying that in addition to having a large pitch moment it has
other problems? I was trying to deal with just one at a time.

I'd love to, but most of the Mac owners hardly ever go out.


Really? And do you have any evidence to back up that bit of propaganda?


As I've said, There have been a number at the marinas I've stayed in,
but I've hardly ever seen them go out. Also, I've almost never seen Mac
owners hanging out at the dock. At my new marina there are two in
nearby slips - I've never met the owners.

In any event, I was out sailing my Mac yesterday. - When was the last
time you took your boat out Jeff?
---

---snip----

Jim