Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
!!
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Google Announces Plan To Destroy All Information It Can't Index | General | |||
Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists | General | |||
Google Picks only the best Pics of sailboats! | ASA |