Ummm... I think you're getting befuddled. Doug wrote this... as much as I
would have liked to. :-)

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


DSK wrote:
JimC wrote:

And you have sailed the 26M how many times?


The same number of times you have, judging by how well you've observed
the boat's characteristics.

However, I have not ridden in one with the big white flappy things up.

DSK



Real cute Ganz. When you have sailed one, let me know.

Jim

Once again... Doug not I....

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

"JimC" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:

JimC wrote:

Jeff, I don't have time to defend lawyers on this ng.


Nobody has *that* much time


JimC wrote:

.... The boat is built to be balanced, under sail or power, with the
motor and a typical crew in the cockpit.


By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


But not as much fun as a boat that sails better.

And you have sailed the 26M how many times, Ganz?

What is pitching "excessively"? Enough to notice? Enough to cause
ridicule by other sailors?

Actually, I have sailed a number of different boats. I am familiar with
the sailing characteristics of the Beneteaux 39, the O'Day 39, the Valiant
40, the Cal 32, and a number of others. I can assure you Ganz that
"pitching" is not a problem on the Mac 26M.


If the boat's moment of inertia is too high, then the boat sails slowly
and pitches more than it would if the weights were closer to the hull's
center of volume.

In other words, the hull, motor, and ballast, are inherently flawed in
design to enable the big heavy motor.


Yes, but they aren't flawed. And, once more, how many times have you
sailed the 26M?



JimC wrote:

The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do.


It also doesn't do a few basic things that most sailboats do; and of
things that most sailboats do well, it does poorly.

And how many times have you sailed the 26M? How many hours?


.... If serves the needs of most sailors, under the conditions
experienced 90% of the time.


Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would probably be more popular.


If popularity is a factor, then you lose. The Mac is one of the most
popular boats ever built.


.... It's relatively inexpensive, if you are willing to compare the
costs of new boats to new boats, or used boats to used boats, and not
compare the costs of 15 year old boats with that of a new Mac 26M
similarly equipped.


It's cheap compared to motorboats of similar cabin size. *That* is the
key selling point, plus the bonus that trailerable motorboats of similar
cabin room require a much heavier & more expensive towing vehicle.

In this case, I tow and launch the boat with a conventional Mercury
sedan. - No pickup needed. But I don't think that is the "key selling
point." The key selling points include the fact that it's fun to sail,
it's versatile, it's safe (including sufficient flotation to keep it
afloat even if the hull is compromised, it can be used as a coastal sailor
or power boat, it has five berths, it can float in one foot of water, it
can motor out to a desired sailing area quickly, and motor back quickly,
to permit more sailing time, it's dagger board, motor, and rudders can be
adjusted as desired for particular sailing conditions, the ballast can be
removed to reduce the weight of the boat for tailoring, it can be launched
in very little water (in contrast to many "trailerable" boats), it rides
low on the trailer, providing safer trailering, it includes a rotatable
mast, permanent ballast plus removable water ballast, roomy cabin with
standing headroom, etc., etc. Also, it's fun to sail.

Jim










And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


If you're not picky.

DSK

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the
location. A 250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute
far more to the pitch moment than an inboard close to the center
of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is
built to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the
cockpit. And it is.




Totally irrelevant.



Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be
balanced, under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in
the cockpit.

By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under a
variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


Nice backpedal. It clearly isn't what you meant the first few times
around, but if you think it saves some face for you, so be it.

Jeff, I have not wanted to get into the issue of weight distribution in
detail, since you pretty well had your assed kicked all over the ng on
that one. - Don't forget that you initially claimed that the ballast
extends the full length of the boat, and that was a bad distribution of
mass (and would tend to increase pitching movement). After carefully
explaining to you what the Mac drawings were showing, and responding to
numerous notes, you were finally forced to back off your original
claims, and admit that, well, there wasn't a lot of ballast in the aft
portions of the boat. You then claimed that the ballast extended all
the way to the bow, so that was a problem also. - I then patiently
explained that the ballast tank was pointed toward the bow and tapered
BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY as it approached the bow (as shown in
the side sectional view and the cross-sections in the drawings you
posted). Not making much headway on either of these points, you then
started to become hyper and jump up and down about the fact that the
ballast tank was near the forward end of the bow, and the motor was at
the stern. - I then explained that the center of mass of the ballast
tank (tapered forwardly and rearwardly) was actually just slightly
forward of amidships, and the motor, while positioned at the stern,
actually comprises only a relatively small portion of the weight near
the stern. - The greatest weight factor being the skipper and crew
and/or guests in the cockpit. Thus, although the motor is in the aft end
of the boat, the crew/guests/skipper comprise a much greater mass factor
at the aft end of the boat.

Jeff, I've gone over this with you and patiently explained it to you a
number of times, yet you refuse to acknowledge that you just didn't get
it. I'm concluding that you thought you had a good "gotcha" to throw at
me, but it turned out you didn't, and you just can't admit it to
yourself or the ng.

or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously
the boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and
an engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass
would lead to a boat that sails better.


Yet you HAVE NO SUGGESTIONS WHATSOEVER as to how to improve the
distribution of mass. - If a bad distribution of mass is a key problem
(actually, it isn't, since the boat sails and motors steadily and
exhibits no excessive pitching movement) then, at a minimum, you should
be able to tell us where you would move the outboard and/or the ballast.
- But you don't want to get into that one, do you Jeff?




And just how would you redistribute the mass, Jeff? - Where would you
move the outboard, and where would you move the ballast?


I would not have designed this boat at all, so don't asked me have I
might change it. All I wanted to do when I started this topic of
discussion was to rationally consider how the different weight
distribution affects stability and balance. But you wanted to turn this
into something quite different.


Nope. I responded to each of your points about weight distribution (see
the above note), and then went on to further, related issues. The bottom
line is that, if your theories were correct, the boat would pitch
uncontrollably and bounce around in heavy weather. - But it doesn't.



The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do. If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time.


That's nonsense!!!

Really? And you have sailed the 26m how many times??????


It's relatively inexpensive,


debatable

if you are willing to compare the costs of new boats to new boats, or
used boats to used boats, and not compare the costs of 15 year old
boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly equipped.


So why do they seem to depreciate twice as fast as other boats?


Where are your stats on that one, Jeff????



And, (I almost forgot) it's a lot of fun to sail.


only for those with low standards.

And you have sailed the 26M how many times????




Maybe it would. But it's still a lot of fun to sail as it is. (I'm
repeating myself, but isn't that the point, after all?



Is it? Little children think picking their nose is fun, is that
your standard? You fight every detail tooth and nail,

As one of the few on this ng willing to defend the Macs, I'll continue
to do my part to ensure that Mac discussions have at least a semblance
of balance and accuracy. If I'm right, I'll try provide a good, but
balanced and fair defense of the Mac.

even when you
know you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm lying
because I'm having fun."

You may disagree with my conclusions, Jeff, but tell me where I have
lied to you or anyone else? (Paying attention to what I actually said
in several notes, for a change, and ignoring for a moment WHAT YOU
INTERPRETED as the meaning of portions of some of my comments.) Jeff,
which are the top ten most egregious lies I have posted on the ng? Or,
failing that, the top five? --- Two, maybe?




Jeff, we may have differing opinions, and you seem to have confused
your own opinions as facts, but would you please name the more
egregious instances of my lying? Perhaps you could list the top ten
instances?


Being a clever lawyer, you word things so that they will be taken one
way, but you can claim you said something different. Your comment above
about balance was one such example.

See comments above. The bottom line is that you simply misunderstood
the Mac drawings.

The "double liner" discussion is
another.

See prior comments. - I NEVER said that the ballast tank protected the
entire boat. - That was another of your own, rather convenient "gotcha"
interpretations.


Your claim that the outboard is much lighter than a diesel is
another.

I'm claiming that the outboard is lighter than a diesel with sufficient
power for the Mac when all the associated components, including the
drive shaft and supporting structures are included. Also, I seriously
doubt that a small (e.g., 10-15 hp motor would be sufficient to drive
the Mac through heavy chop and adverse winds.


Your claim that the ballast is very close to the center is yet
another.

It is. - Your problem is that you didn't understand the drawings.


They question is, Jim, when have you been completely truthful?

Although I don't claim omniscience, I have certainly endeavored to be
truthful and to present a balanced response and evaluation of the Mac.
For example, I have noted a number of limitations inherent with the
boat. - I have acknowledged that it normally doesn't sail as fast or
point as high as most conventional boats with weighted keels. I have
acknowledged that it isn't suitable for extended blue water crossings,
etc. I have acknowledged that it is lightly built. - - - Why haven't you
complemented me for being upfront concerning THESE issues, Jeff?


The boat is fast enough to be fun to sail, Jeff. It's not as fast as
some other boats, but it's still fun to sail. - Isn't that the
important factor.? (Actually, I wasn't having too much problem keeping
up with some, though not all, of the larger boats on my last cruise.)


All boats are fun to sail. That's not the point.

It is to me.


You make lots of
claims, and then try to write them off by saying, "but its fun to
sail." What's your point?


Because that's the key factor, from my perspective.




However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about
the same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water
filter, and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but
all of this is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a
few extra bits and pieces not included in its base weight. Also,
since the diesel generates almost twice the power from a pound of
fuel, one can claim a huge weight advantage on that front.

You're omitting some items, such as the drive shaft, shaft bushing
assembly, supporting framework in the boat, etc. You're also comparing a
15 hp motor with a 50 hp motor, and you're not addressing the fact that
the Mac requires lots of power to keep in on course in heavy weather,
chop, winds, etc.


That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.



Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull
supporting its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers
lie, aren't you?


It has enough.


You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard,
and that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do
with the possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the
distribution.


Re weight distribution, see my comments above. - I can understand why
you would be embarrassed about that one and prefer that we not discuss
it again.

As to the relative weight, it seems that you want us to accept your
personal opinions about how much the typical diesel engine for a small
sailboat weighs from your


I was quoting from the Yanmar specs, using the most frequently spec'd
diesel for small sailboats. Originally I mentioned to two cylinder
version, because you had asked what someone had in their boat. But for
one as light as the Mac, a one cylinder could do.

Having powered the Mac 26M in somewhat heavy weather, I don't think a
small engine will do the job Jeff. It's a large, light weight boat with
high freeboard and no weighted keel, and it needs lots of power to keep
it one course. Of course, most Mac skippers appreciate the fact that a
50+ hp motor provides a lot of conveniences and enhances the versatility
of the boat. (Incidentally, most Mac buyers seem initially to think that
they don't want a larger engine, but they eventually come to appreciate
the advantages available with the larger engine.)


single example, which omitted the necessary weight of the drive shaft,
the mounting, etc..


I mentioned to driver shaft. However, the weight on that could vary a
lot, and its so low it could be considered ballast.

From your note, it seems that you are saying that I should just shut
up and accept your propaganda based on that (one) example. - Perhaps it
would clarify things if you provided some stats about the weight of
several typical diesel installations on smaller boats. (Including ALL
associated components, including drive shaft, cooling system,
through-hull components, fuel and water filters, pumps, mounting
structures, controls, fuel tanks, etc.)


More lies! I mentioned that the weight for a diesel doesn't include
several items, including the drive shaft. It does include most of the
others you've mentioned - fuel filter, cooling system, pumps,
alternators etc. Some of what you claim are needed for your
installation. Are you trying to claim there is no mounting hardware or
reinforcement, no controls, no fuel tanks? How about the fact that the
gas engine needs twice the fuel?

First, although the transom is sufficiently strong to support the motor,
I don't see any additional support structures for the motor. The
"mounting hardware" consists of some bolts, washers, and the like.
Secondly, there are controls, consisting largely of a tubular connecting
bar and cables extending to the steering mechanism. - Again, nothing
that would add any substantial mass, unless you consider the small
steering wheel to be "massive." The fuel tank is a 10-gal. plastic tank.
- Again, only a few pounds of "mass." Next, regarding the cost of all
that fuel, we get around 3 - 5 miles per gallon at plaining speeds, and
I have probably spent about $25 on gas during the past six months. Of
course, as an attorney, I have lots of money to spend on all that gas,
so it really isn't a major factor. (That's a joke, Jeff. Of course.)
Actually, I spend most of the time sailing, not motoring. Also, because
of work assignments last Summer and Fall I was limited in how much I was
able to take the boat out. Still, gas costs haven't been a major factor.


And of course, the primary issue here is that the weight of the diesel
is well forward, while the outboard is as far aft as possible.




And BTW, the diesel appropriate for a boat as light as yours would be
a single cylinder, which would weigh just about the same as your
outboard.


Care to provide specs on a few examples, Jeff, along with their gross
weight?


The Yanmar 1GM is 179 pounds with transmission.


And, as mentioned above, remember that the Mac, with its high

freeboard and light weight, needs substantial power to get through
chop and adverse wind conditions, to stay on course in extreme
weather, and to dock efficiently. - A small diesel isn't going to cut
it. Also, a
small diesel isn't going to get the boat on a plane either. - No more
quick runs back to the marina, no quick passages to desired skiing
areas, no water tubing for the kids, etc.)


Hey, you're the one who brought this up. You claimed your engine was
much lighter than the diesel on most similarly sized sailboats. I
pointed out you're wrong.

Jeff, in reviewing my note and your responses, I now think I was wrong
in saying the weight of my 50 hp outboard was "much lighter" than a
typical diesel on most sailboats in the 27 - 29 ft range. I think it is
somewhat lighter when all factors are considered, and it's more
powerful, but my statement as written was apparently incorrect. - I had
come to a (mistaken) judgment from working with larger diesels on larger
boats.

Still, my statement about the safety factors entailed in having a fairly
powerful motor on the Mac is accurate, IMO. - For example, when I had
the boat out last, as mentioned earlier, we had a rather substantial
incoming tide and headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the
way out to the sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes.
The Mac is lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had
had a 10 - 15 hp motor as is often the case for boats of this size, I
don't think I could have kept it on track within the channel all the way
out. Also, I would not have been able to keep up with the other traffic
going out, which causes further problems. The reserve power is also a
safety factor in the event of inclement weather, tides, etc., out in the
Bay or beyond. Obviously, a 40 - 50 hp diesel would weigh substantially
more. And I also agree that your boat is more efficient using the
smaller diesel, and that the positioning of the diesel is better for
achieving a low cog. - It does take up more interior space than my outboard.

Once again, Jeff, as to the weights of the 50 hp outboard and your 15 hp
diesel, you're right, and I was wrong. My purpose in these Mac
discussions is not to distort the facts or win arguments, but rather to
do my part from time to time in contributing to a more balanced discussion.

Jim

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

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, not a single one of my claims is misleading. Yours, on the other
hand, speak volumes about your ethics.


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,


Looks like you erased all my additional remarks POSTED IN THAT
DISCUSSION stating that the warnings should NOT be ignored. ... Why
would you do a pitiful, sneaky thing like that Jeff?? You talk about
layers' ethics. - What about your own???





Sorry, I really don't understand your point. You claimed that some of
the warnings made can be ignored, by saying there were analogous to
warnings to wear the seatbelt on an exercise machine.

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.


I'm not cherry picking, you're the one who says that some warnings can
be ignored.

You are certainly cherry picking. - You quote my initial statement about
lawyers being involved, but you erase and ignore my subsequent
statements explaing in detail what I thought about the Mac warnings.
(And as far as my own practices, I have never sailed or motored without
the ballast.) You are apparently doing your best to look for comments of
mine you can isolate and use for "gotchas", and you apparently have no
ethical qualms whatsoever about deliberately cutting out my subsequent
statements posted during that discussion.

Shame, Shame, Shame. - Pitiful!



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

What was next, Jeff? - - -Is this another "clip" of material you don't
want included in the current note, Jeff?

Shame, shame shame.




"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.)


Gee, how many times do I have to repost your comments? I post them, you
delete them. Over and over.

- 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.


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

Everyone, except perhaps a lying lawyer, would understand that to mean
that the warnings can be ignored. Are you telling me that you assume
everyone wears a seatbelt on the exercise machine? Are you saying that
everyone who reads that should be thinking "Yes, I always wear the
seatbelt on the exercise machine so these must be real serious warnings"???

Do you really expect anyone to buy that Jim?

snip lawyer talk that everyone knows can be ignored


Interesting "snip" Jeff. You obviously don't want to remind anyone that
I posted several notes during that discussion explaining in detail my
interpretation of the MacGregor manual (which included BOTH the warning
against powering or sailing without ballast, AND ALSO an explanation of
how to motor without ballast). So you censor those statements.

Shame, shame shame! Sad, Jeff. Pitiful.




Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?


blah blah blah. You're arguing this as a lawyer. This is why lawyers
are considered by many to be the Scum of the Earth. Is that what you
are, Jim?

Everyone reading this knows you're digging this hole deeper and deeper
with everything you say. And yet you continue. Did they teach you
that if you lie often enough someone will believe you?

I made the point that the Mac comes with a long list of warnings not
found on other boats, and possibly not well understood by novice
boaters. You've been going around in circles now for years claiming
that first that these warnings can be ignored because they're just
lawyer talk, then saying they can't be ignored, then saying that they're
only there to protect from law suits.


Nope, I never said they could be ignored merely because they included
legal cya aspects. - See my own further comments about the subject
posted a year ago in the same discussion, partially repeated in my note
above (which you so conveniently continue to ignore.)



The bottom line is that what I said in the beginning still holds.


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.
...

In other words, I didn't say what you said I did. And I didn't make the
statement you wish I had said. And you know it.


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.)


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

Gee, this is easy. You're really a masochist. Or do you think ...
well, I don't know what you think. Any reasonable person would say,
"Ooops, I made a mistake, better not go there any more."

Anyone who reads this knows what you said, why one Earth would you deny
it???


In other words, I didn't make the statement you wish I had said. Is that
about the size of it Jeff?


...


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


What's the point? How is it relevant? Are you claiming that the
warnings can be ignored because a lawyer wrote them? Are you claiming
lawyers are liars?

Jeff, here's some of the statements you so carefully omitted from your
quotes of my previous comments:


"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?

Once more, the above statement was posted a year ago. - Why are you
still ignoring it, other than the fact that you are desperately looking
for a "gotcha". You obviously aren't willing to consider all my comments
on the subject in context.

Shame, Shame Shame!!






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.)


What a crock of ****. Do you actually read the stuff you write? Since
the moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the distance from
the center of mass, the mass of the engine is actually equivalent to a
mass 4 time larger but half the distance to the center of mass.

And you did take math, and geometry in high school? Consider a typical
crew of two people (assume total weight of 350 lbs) and a skipper of 230
lbs. (about my weight). Assuming that the skipper is sitting on the
captain's chair, about 1.5 ft forward of the center of the motor, and
about 16 feet aft of the center of mass. Assuming that the two crew
members are sitting two and three feet forward of the captain,
respectively, their total mass will be the equivalent of 350 pounds
positioned about 14.5 feet from the center of mass about which the boat
has a tendency to pitch. The motor, at about 220 pounds is about 17.5
feet from the center of mass. Squaring the distances, the relative
values of the rotational momentum of the skipper and crew are more than
twice that of the motor, despite the fact that they are closer to the
center of mass. Once again, Jeff, your theories are simply wrong. (If
you wish, I'll provide the calculations and "foot pounds" or whatever,
in greater detail.)


In
other words, the engine on the stern contributes roughly the same to the
moment as crew that would equal the safe limit of the boat.


Nope. Not if you do the math.


You can't take a very light boat, and then claim that the heaviest
feasible motor hung as far aft as possible only has negligible affect.
Unless of course, you don't care if everyone thinks you're an idiot!


Of course, I didn't say the motor has a negligible affect [sic].



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.

Nope. You're ignoring the permanent ballast and also the fact that the
large section extends rearwardly aft of the mast.

The first and second "station" are substantially the same.


You're ****ting me, right? I mean you have looked at the diagram?

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Actually, the first, second, and third station are essentially the same.
- The black area in the third section represents the permanent ballast,
which is heavier than water.

Or are you just assuming that someone out there hasn't looked and might
believe you? The diagram pretty clearly shows a much larger cross
section at the first station, perhaps almost double that of the second.


Additionally, the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned near the
mast.


We're not talking about the 300 pounds of permanent ballast. We're
talking about the amount that is forward. You've got 1150 pounds to
distribute. The diagram clearly shows the largest cross section of the
tank at the first station, halfway to the bow. You're claiming there's
very little aft. That would seem to imply 300 or so pounds in the far
forward area. You can babble all you want, but it doesn't change that
fact.

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm


Once again, Jeff, the ballast in the first, second, and third sectional
views are essentially the same. With the exception that the permanent
ballast has a higher density, and higher mass per unit of volume.
Additionally, the ballast tank extends somewhat aft of the third
section. The first section is actually somewhat smaller than the
second, although through something of an optical illusion it appears as
large.



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.

Wrong again, Jeff. You are apparently considering only the taper
occurring across the width of the tank. - There is also a substantial
taper in the vertical direction, when the tank is viewed from the side.
As previously discussed, the ballast tank is (already) tapering
upwardly at Section No. 1, and it continues to taper up sharply from
that point forwardly, as can be seen most clearly in the longitudinal
sectional view. I know it's a little hard for you to understand, Jeff,
but give it another try.



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.


The largest cross section is already way forward.

Nope. You're clearly wrong.


QED. End of story.
The best that you can claim is that there isn't much in the last few
inches.

Last five or six feet.


This is hundreds of pounds of ballast where a normally
ballasted boat has no extra mass.


Neither does the Mac.

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.


yada yada yada. We're talking distance from center of mass which is the
center of flotation. If there is nothing submerged, that implies that
the center of mass is further aft. You loose.


Nope. The issue is whether the water AND permanent ballast extends
substantially along the length of the boat (as you first thought) such
that it contributes substantially to the momentum of the boat during
pitching movement. - It doesn't, and the boat doesn't pitch excessively.




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."


Once again, you come to your own interpretation of what I said, and you
try to claim that that's what I must have meant. It isn't




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?


why? It doesn't change anything. You tried to claim:

"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."

You were quite happy to leave the reader with the impression that this
is a double hull, which has a very specific meaning in marine
terminology. This is 6 months after I, and others, had already called
you on this, so if this does not make you a blatant liar, I don't know
what does.


Actually, my statement was quite accurate. The ballast does provide
protection if the lower hull is penetrated. It doesn't provide
protection if the sides or chines of the boat are penetrated, and I
never said that it did.



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.)


Yes I did, and you corrected me on that.

Your welcome.

BTW, what the area is, it doesn't include the majority of the outside
waterline, since the ballast runs down the center. Every case I've ever
seen of a major hull breech has been on the side where there is no
protection.

In that case, you still wouldn't be out of luck on the Mac as you would
be in your own boat, Jeff, since the flotation provided in the Mac would
keep you afloat. In contrast, if you were on your own boat, the keel
would quickly pull the boat to the bottom.




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.


Actually, no. Although the bow will rise out of the water, most of the
mid portions of the boat remain at or below the surface.


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.


If this is such a strong feature, why is it never mentioned in the Mac
literature. Could it be that its a bogus safety feature?

Actually, I didn't say it was "such a strong feature." I merely said
that it was another advantageous feature on the Mac. Obviously, it isn't
as effective as a conventional double hull, but again, most boats with
double hulls don't include flotation.




And now you're claiming there is little

protection aft.


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


This is clearly not true for a boat that is planing.


Maybe, maybe not. - The Macs don't plane high out of the water like a
high-speed power boat. - They are, after all, a sailboat.





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 were quite happy to word it in such a way as to leave that
impression, while still maintaining denyability.

Nope. That, again, was your own invention. And once more, you
conveniently ignore my previous remarks discussing the limitations of
the "double-hull" effect.

Shame, shame shame, Jeff. You censor out anything you think might
introduce a better understanding of my original discussion, and quote an
excerpt from my original note ONLY, ignoring my subsequent discussion of
the entire matter. Jeff, you apparently have no scruples whatsoever if
you think you can pretend to have found a "gotcha."







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.


Yes, we know you have no problem with ethics.




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.

Nope. you're the one with a rung bell.


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


So? I ignored your comments after it was pointed out that you initial
comments were bogus. Your backpedaling is not a fun target. However, 6
months later you came back again with our "double liner" comment.


Because there is a double hull, over the lowermost, central portions of
the hull.



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:

...

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.

...





Jeff, that's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a
double
hull. And you know it.


First of all, that was 6 months after we had a lengthy discussion on the
topic, so you're lying when you say that was the original note.

Secondly, you obviously have no trouble wording that so that one might
assume the "double liner" actually covers the hull, not a small portion
of it.

You could have easily said that there is "partial protection"
but you preferred to use terminology easily confused with "double hull"
which you know has a very specific meaning in the nautical world.

Actually, I don't. - I don't have a captains license. But, once more,
the lower portions of the hull are protected. I swear to you that I DID
NOT intend to imply the the entire boat was protected. The context of
the statement was that it was a part of a rather quick and dirty listing
of some of the Mac features, rapidly written. (This is, after all, a
newsgroup on which we can express opinions and views for mutual
entertainment, as far as I knew. I didn't consider the fact that people
like you would parse and cut apart and interpret the intended, hidden
meaning of every statement I made.)

But then, I can see how these little problems would not concern you.


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 distributing it 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???

The engine is closer to 5% of the weight of the boat with water ballast
and crew. But that's only an error of about 50%, Jeff. - That's rather
typical of your guestimates. Also, check out the math. - The momentum
relating to the motor is less than half that of a typical skipper and
crew, as explained above.


And what
about the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow
of the boat???

Read my notes above on that subject, Jeff.

Again, reality has no place in your logic, does it?

In contrast with your cherry-picking, your censoring out or ignoring my
statements dealing with these same issues with greater specificity, your
twisting of my original meanings, and your devious "interpretations" of
what I "must have intended" (never giving me the benefit of a doubt),
you are the one who has a problem, Jeff, not me. After twisting my
statements, censoring out anything you don't like, and reaching back to
discussions posted more than a year ago, you end up concluding
dogmatically that your own particular interpretation of what I actually
was trying to say is the only acceptable interpretation.

You are clearly the one with ethical problems, Jeff. Sad, difficult to
understand or believe, but obviously true.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message t...


Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
snipped the remainder of an all-too-extensive exercise in self-flagellation


I should like to proffer an impartial observation. I've slogged through this thread, examined the
evidence and concluded the following: Jeff = Johnny Cochran; JimC = Marsha Clark.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

JimC wrote:


Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

Nope. It's actually quite relevant. The boat is built to be
balanced, under sail or power, with the motor and a typical crew in
the cockpit.

By "balance" I meant that the hull, motor, ballast, and sails work
togther to
cause the boat to to sail and motor as efficiently as possible under
a variety
of applications. In general, it sails and powers well, it doesn't
"pitch" excessively,
and it is fun to sail.


Nice backpedal. It clearly isn't what you meant the first few times
around, but if you think it saves some face for you, so be it.

Jeff, I have not wanted to get into the issue of weight distribution in
detail, since you pretty well had your assed kicked all over the ng on
that one. -

How so? Only a total idiot could claim that a 250 pound engine
hanging on the stern plus 300+ pounds of water up in the bow could
have negligible affect on the pitch moment of a boat that only weighs
3600 pounds! Do you really think there's a single reader here that
believes you???

Don't forget that you initially claimed that the ballast
extends the full length of the boat,

And it does. If you claim otherwise, you're a boldface liar. The
most that you can claim is that the tank is rather small aft (its
still much bigger than simply a drainage tube) but all this mean is
that there's more weight up forward. You loose either way.

and that was a bad distribution of
mass (and would tend to increase pitching movement).

So are you claiming that all naval architects are wrong when they try
to minimize weight in the extremities? You can certainly claim the
pitching isn't too bad (though few here would believe you) but you
certainly can't claim that the mass distribution has no affect.


After carefully
explaining to you what the Mac drawings were showing, and responding to
numerous notes, you were finally forced to back off your original
claims, and admit that, well, there wasn't a lot of ballast in the aft
portions of the boat.

As I said only a liar would claim the tank doesn't extend the entire
distance. I only admitted there wasn't much water ballast aft.

You then claimed that the ballast extended all
the way to the bow, so that was a problem also. - I then patiently

though incorrectly

explained that the ballast tank was pointed toward the bow and tapered
BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY as it approached the bow

The tapering is clearly only in the last few inches. With the
majority of the water ballast well forward of the mast, this is the
equivalent of having a hundred gallon water tank under the vee of a
slightly larger boat. Not a good thing.


(as shown in
the side sectional view and the cross-sections in the drawings you
posted).

I POSTED???? Those are on the MacGregor site!!! I posted no drawing,
I merely posted a link to the factory site! My God, you really are a
boldface liar!

Not making much headway on either of these points,

Find one reader of this that believes you.

you then
started to become hyper and jump up and down about the fact that the
ballast tank was near the forward end of the bow, and the motor was at
the stern. -

As clearly shown in the factory diagram.

I then explained that the center of mass of the ballast
tank (tapered forwardly and rearwardly) was actually just slightly
forward of amidships,

Are you saying the diagram from the factory lies??? It clearly shows
the largest cross-section to be halfway between the mast and the bow.

and the motor, while positioned at the stern,
actually comprises only a relatively small portion of the weight near
the stern.

Nonsense. Even a 5th grader can do the math that shows that the
contribution to the moment of inertia of the engine is roughly equal
to that of the crew.

- The greatest weight factor being the skipper and crew

But the moment is proportional to the distance SQUARED from the center
of mass. So the moment of the engine will clearly be larger than that
of the skipper and one or two crew, and possibly be equal to a full
crew. Its math Jim, hard to argue with.

and/or guests in the cockpit. Thus, although the motor is in the aft end
of the boat, the crew/guests/skipper comprise a much greater mass factor
at the aft end of the boat.

Its the moment, not the mass.


Jeff, I've gone over this with you and patiently

though stupidly, because you seem to ignore the moment, and focus on
the fact that the large mass hanging off the stern is balanced by the
large mass towards the bow.

explained it to you a
number of times, yet you refuse to acknowledge that you just didn't get
it.

Get what? That you can't do simple sums? That you can read a simple
drawing?

I'm concluding that you thought you had a good "gotcha" to throw at
me, but it turned out you didn't, and you just can't admit it to
yourself or the ng.

Sure thing. SHow me someone that believes you on that, Jim.



or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are. Obviously
the boat was designed to float on its lines with full ballast and
an engine. The issue is whether a different distribution of mass
would lead to a boat that sails better.


Yet you HAVE NO SUGGESTIONS WHATSOEVER as to how to improve the
distribution of mass. - If a bad distribution of mass is a key problem
(actually, it isn't, since the boat sails and motors steadily and
exhibits no excessive pitching movement) then, at a minimum, you should
be able to tell us where you would move the outboard and/or the ballast.
- But you don't want to get into that one, do you Jeff?

I don't see your point. If you stay with a variety of the design
parameters, such as light weigh on the trailer, a large engine, etc,
it becomes hard to distribute the weight otherwise. It may even be
that this is a reasonable solution, perhaps even the best, given the
constraints.

But for most sailers, the constraints that led to this design are not
important, and the required compromises are not desirable. You're
asking me to make one change that would reduce the pitch moment, and
the answer is that's hard given that you want a 250 pound engine
hanging off the stern.





And just how would you redistribute the mass, Jeff? - Where would you
move the outboard, and where would you move the ballast?


I would not have designed this boat at all, so don't asked me have I
might change it. All I wanted to do when I started this topic of
discussion was to rationally consider how the different weight
distribution affects stability and balance. But you wanted to turn
this into something quite different.


Nope. I responded to each of your points about weight distribution (see
the above note),

No - you denied the obvious truths.

and then went on to further, related issues. The bottom
line is that, if your theories were correct, the boat would pitch
uncontrollably and bounce around in heavy weather. - But it doesn't.

Why would you say that? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer.

I never made any claim that it "pitches uncontrollably" but since you
bring it up, maybe it does.





The 26M is the result of years of development, feedback, and mods. It
does a lot of things most sailboats can't do. If serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time.


That's nonsense!!!

Really? And you have sailed the 26m how many times??????

What is the significance of that?



It's relatively inexpensive,


debatable

if you are willing to compare the costs of new boats to new boats, or
used boats to used boats, and not compare the costs of 15 year old
boats with that of a new Mac 26M similarly equipped.


So why do they seem to depreciate twice as fast as other boats?


Where are your stats on that one, Jeff????

Just look at the asking prices. We've been through this before.




As one of the few on this ng willing to defend the Macs, I'll continue
to do my part to ensure that Mac discussions have at least a semblance
of balance and accuracy. If I'm right, I'll try provide a good, but
balanced and fair defense of the Mac.

That's a laugh.


even when you
know you're wrong, and then you say "it doesn't matter that I'm
lying because I'm having fun."

You may disagree with my conclusions, Jeff, but tell me where I have
lied to you or anyone else?

Its hard to find a place where you told the truth. You keep saying
"show me where I lied" but you ignore it when I do.

(Paying attention to what I actually said
in several notes, for a change, and ignoring for a moment WHAT YOU
INTERPRETED as the meaning of portions of some of my comments.) Jeff,
which are the top ten most egregious lies I have posted on the ng? Or,
failing that, the top five? --- Two, maybe?

I did that in my last post. So that's one lie right there.






Jeff, we may have differing opinions, and you seem to have confused
your own opinions as facts, but would you please name the more
egregious instances of my lying? Perhaps you could list the top ten
instances?


Being a clever lawyer, you word things so that they will be taken one
way, but you can claim you said something different. Your comment
above about balance was one such example.

See comments above. The bottom line is that you simply misunderstood
the Mac drawings.

Are you denying that the largest cross-section of the ballast tank is
at station one, well forward of the mast? Are you?



The "double liner" discussion is
another.

See prior comments. - I NEVER said that the ballast tank protected the
entire boat. - That was another of your own, rather convenient "gotcha"
interpretations.

By going into detail on the "double liner" you implied such
protection. Especially after you were informed the the term "double
hull" specifically implies such complete protection. You're being
disingenuous here, Jim.



Your claim that the outboard is much lighter than a diesel is
another.

I'm claiming that the outboard is lighter than a diesel with sufficient
power for the Mac when all the associated components, including the
drive shaft and supporting structures are included. Also, I seriously
doubt that a small (e.g., 10-15 hp motor would be sufficient to drive
the Mac through heavy chop and adverse winds.

That's not what you claimed originally Jim, and you you know it.
That's another lie! You specifically claimed that the diesel in
similar sized boats was much heavier than the outboard on a Mac. Now
you claiming that because of the poor design of the hull it needs the
huge engine that no other 26 footer requires.




Your claim that the ballast is very close to the center is yet
another.

It is. - Your problem is that you didn't understand the drawings.

Again - are you claiming that the cross-section of the tank is not
substantially large at station one than at any other? Are you trying
to say blue is red over and over and hoping someone will buy it?



They question is, Jim, when have you been completely truthful?

Although I don't claim omniscience, I have certainly endeavored to be
truthful and to present a balanced response and evaluation of the Mac.
For example, I have noted a number of limitations inherent with the
boat. - I have acknowledged that it normally doesn't sail as fast or
point as high as most conventional boats with weighted keels. I have
acknowledged that it isn't suitable for extended blue water crossings,
etc. I have acknowledged that it is lightly built. - - - Why haven't you
complemented me for being upfront concerning THESE issues, Jeff?

They do seem to be self evident.



You make lots of
claims, and then try to write them off by saying, "but its fun to
sail." What's your point?


Because that's the key factor, from my perspective.

Then why don't you just leave it at that? Remember, I've said a
number of times that it a reasonable boat for certainly situations -
I've haven't been claiming its inherently evil. Actually, all I've
done is try try to keep you honest on some of the more outlandish claims.






However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh
about the same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar,
including everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft
and prop is 249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or
water filter, and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are
plastic) but all of this is only a few pounds, and then your
outboard also has a few extra bits and pieces not included in its
base weight. Also, since the diesel generates almost twice the
power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a huge weight advantage
on that front.

You're omitting some items, such as the drive shaft, shaft bushing
assembly,

I certainly didn't ignore the shaft, I mentioned right up there.
Another lie.

supporting framework in the boat,

Are you seriously claiming there is no "supporting framework" on the
Mac. I already pointed that out to you, so that's yet another lie on
your part. How can you really claim you never lie?

etc. You're also comparing a
15 hp motor with a 50 hp motor, and you're not addressing the fact that
the Mac requires lots of power to keep in on course in heavy weather,
chop, winds, etc.

Why does the Mac "require" it, when no other 26 foot sailboat does?
Wouldn't that seem like a design flaw?




That's more than my 50 hp weighs. Also, add the weight of the drive
shaft, the drive shaft bushings, the mounting hardware, the
reinforcements to the hull supporting the motor, etc.



Yes, we know that the mac has no reinforcements to the hull
supporting its motor. You really are intent on showing how lawyers
lie, aren't you?


It has enough.


You made the claim that a diesel is much heavier than an outboard,
and that simply isn't true. Further, the issue has nothing to do
with the possible difference of 20 pounds, it has to do with the
distribution.


Re weight distribution, see my comments above. - I can understand why
you would be embarrassed about that one and prefer that we not discuss
it again.

So are your really claiming that weight distribution has no affect?



As to the relative weight, it seems that you want us to accept your
personal opinions about how much the typical diesel engine for a
small sailboat weighs from your


I was quoting from the Yanmar specs, using the most frequently spec'd
diesel for small sailboats. Originally I mentioned to two cylinder
version, because you had asked what someone had in their boat. But
for one as light as the Mac, a one cylinder could do.

Having powered the Mac 26M in somewhat heavy weather, I don't think a
small engine will do the job Jeff. It's a large, light weight boat with
high freeboard and no weighted keel, and it needs lots of power to keep
it one course.

That would seem to be a flaw. My boat has no weighted keel and high
freeboard, and a couple of small engines handle it very nicely. In
fact the original design (and most of my sisterships) only have twin
9.9 HP outboards.

More lies! I mentioned that the weight for a diesel doesn't include
several items, including the drive shaft. It does include most of the
others you've mentioned - fuel filter, cooling system, pumps,
alternators etc. Some of what you claim are needed for your
installation. Are you trying to claim there is no mounting hardware
or reinforcement, no controls, no fuel tanks? How about the fact that
the gas engine needs twice the fuel?

First, although the transom is sufficiently strong to support the motor,

Only because its reinforced, you jackass!


I don't see any additional support structures for the motor.

Yah right. Give me a friggin break, Jimbo.

The
"mounting hardware" consists of some bolts, washers, and the like.
Secondly, there are controls, consisting largely of a tubular connecting
bar and cables extending to the steering mechanism. - Again, nothing
that would add any substantial mass, unless you consider the small
steering wheel to be "massive." The fuel tank is a 10-gal. plastic tank.
- Again, only a few pounds of "mass." Next, regarding the cost of all
that fuel, we get around 3 - 5 miles per gallon at plaining speeds, and
I have probably spent about $25 on gas during the past six months. Of
course, as an attorney, I have lots of money to spend on all that gas,
so it really isn't a major factor. (That's a joke, Jeff. Of course.)

It isn't the cost, you bozo! Its the range! You say you get 30 miles
from that tank. A small diesel pushing a normal sailboat your size
would be 3-4 time more efficient. If you wanted to go any distance
you'd need a second tank while the diesel wouldn't. That's about 70
pounds of fuel.


Actually, I spend most of the time sailing, not motoring. Also, because
of work assignments last Summer and Fall I was limited in how much I was
able to take the boat out. Still, gas costs haven't been a major factor.

again, its range, not cost.



Hey, you're the one who brought this up. You claimed your engine was
much lighter than the diesel on most similarly sized sailboats. I
pointed out you're wrong.

Jeff, in reviewing my note and your responses, I now think I was wrong
in saying the weight of my 50 hp outboard was "much lighter" than a
typical diesel on most sailboats in the 27 - 29 ft range. I think it is
somewhat lighter when all factors are considered, and it's more
powerful, but my statement as written was apparently incorrect. - I had
come to a (mistaken) judgment from working with larger diesels on larger
boats.

Still, my statement about the safety factors entailed in having a fairly
powerful motor on the Mac is accurate, IMO. - For example, when I had
the boat out last, as mentioned earlier, we had a rather substantial
incoming tide and headwind, the waves were breaking against us all the
way out to the sailing area, and there was a lot of traffic, with wakes.
The Mac is lightweight and has a fairly large sideboard area. - If I had
had a 10 - 15 hp motor as is often the case for boats of this size, I
don't think I could have kept it on track within the channel all the way
out.

I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as powerful
as all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
I don't get it. Why does the Mac "need" an engine 3 times as powerful as
all of its competition. And why is that a safety feature?

Because the "sailor" driving it is either insecure about himself or not
experienced enough to deal with the conditions, including "getting to the
sailing area" under sail. The engine should be a last resort.

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

JimC wrote:


And you did take math, and geometry in high school? Consider a typical
crew of two people (assume total weight of 350 lbs) and a skipper of 230
lbs. (about my weight). Assuming that the skipper is sitting on the
captain's chair, about 1.5 ft forward of the center of the motor, and
about 16 feet aft of the center of mass. Assuming that the two crew
members are sitting two and three feet forward of the captain,
respectively, their total mass will be the equivalent of 350 pounds
positioned about 14.5 feet from the center of mass about which the boat
has a tendency to pitch. The motor, at about 220 pounds is about 17.5
feet from the center of mass. Squaring the distances, the relative
values of the rotational momentum of the skipper and crew are more than
twice that of the motor, despite the fact that they are closer to the
center of mass. Once again, Jeff, your theories are simply wrong. (If
you wish, I'll provide the calculations and "foot pounds" or whatever,
in greater detail.)

Jim:

I thought I'd run your numbers through my calculator, just for fun:

(14.5ft)^2*350lbs=7.36E4ft^2-lbs , that's 73,600 for the exponent
challenged.

(17.5ft)^2*220lbs=6.74E4ft^2-lbs , 67,400 ....

Maybe you think that 73,600 is more than TWICE 67,400, but I beg to
differ. To a physicist, they're essentially the same thing.

Point to Jeff.

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

Paladin wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message t...


Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
snipped the remainder of an all-too-extensive exercise in self-flagellation

I should like to proffer an impartial observation. I've slogged through this thread, examined the
evidence and concluded the following: Jeff = Johnny Cochran; JimC = Marsha Clark.


If the glove fits? Or in this case doesn't.

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
JimC wrote:

And you did take math, and geometry in high school? Consider a typical
crew of two people (assume total weight of 350 lbs) and a skipper of 230
lbs. (about my weight). Assuming that the skipper is sitting on the
captain's chair, about 1.5 ft forward of the center of the motor, and
about 16 feet aft of the center of mass. Assuming that the two crew
members are sitting two and three feet forward of the captain,
respectively, their total mass will be the equivalent of 350 pounds
positioned about 14.5 feet from the center of mass about which the boat
has a tendency to pitch. The motor, at about 220 pounds is about 17.5
feet from the center of mass. Squaring the distances, the relative
values of the rotational momentum of the skipper and crew are more than
twice that of the motor, despite the fact that they are closer to the
center of mass. Once again, Jeff, your theories are simply wrong. (If
you wish, I'll provide the calculations and "foot pounds" or whatever,
in greater detail.)

Jim:

I thought I'd run your numbers through my calculator, just for fun:

(14.5ft)^2*350lbs=7.36E4ft^2-lbs , that's 73,600 for the exponent
challenged.

(17.5ft)^2*220lbs=6.74E4ft^2-lbs , 67,400 ....

Maybe you think that 73,600 is more than TWICE 67,400, but I beg to
differ. To a physicist, they're essentially the same thing.

Point to Jeff.

Gawd, I don't believe other people are still reading this!

Thanks for doing the math, but the are a few problems here. Jim uses
his weight (230 lbs) when clearly this should be done with a
"standard" weight (160 lbs). Secondly, Jim invents the figure of 16
feet forward of the helm seat for the center of mass, which puts it
only 8.5 feet aft of the bow! Clearly, it has to be more like 11-12
feet forward of the stern. This has a huge affect on the r^2 part of
the formula, especially for the crew forward of the helm.