On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:10:56 +0200 (CEST), Ed Gordon
wrote:

Now, that's a pretty dumb statement!!! Maybe if you spent some time out of
"protected water" you might see some Macs in "unprotected" water.

I spend plenty of time out of protected water. How about you?

Frankly I haven't seen any Macs in the Gulf of Mexico, on the Atlantic
Coast, in the Gulf Stream, or even the Bahamas. They'd be OK in most
of the Bahamas once they got there, but as they say, first you've got
to get there.

Ed Gordon wrote in
8:

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:


"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

It would be dumb to sail back. What they'd be doing is more like a
delivery captain trip. Have two adverturesome young men sail down
each taking a Mac26M and sailing in company for safety. Deliver the
boats and make about 20 grand profit or more each. Then fly back to
California and do it again. What's an airline ticket cost from
Australia to California? Two grand? That's a eighteen grand profit
for about a month's work. You could do as many trips as you could
during the off season to not run into typhoons. I think you could do
six trips a year by flying back. According to sailing instructions
it's a downwind milk run from California to Australia. You'd have to
cross a bit of doldrums around Hawaii but then you're in the trades
and going like all getout right for Australia. Remember how Capt.
Bligh went from Tahiti all the way past Australia in an open row
boat? It would be a piece of cake in a Mac.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

FWIW, "World Cruising Routes" puts it at 3563 miles from San Diego to
Tahiti, non-stop. This alone is in excess of a month of sailing,
without landfall, in your Mac. A month's worth of food, water, fuel,
etc. This is assuming you make good time and have no delays crossing
the ITCZ. Forget about using the ballast tanks for storing drinking
water, as you are going to NEED that ballast. And since the vessel is
not equipped with light air sails, it would be best to allow at least
45 days for this passage alone, with the distinct possibility that it
could take longer.

Tahiti to New Zealand is another 2500 miles or so -- in reverse. But
you can't go that way. You'll go first to Tonga, then head south.
Make it 3000 -- another month. New Zealand to Australia is another
1200 or so, perhaps two weeks.

Still think it's doable? We're not even talking about the wear and
tear on the "brand new" Mac, or taking time for repairs along the
way. Or rest for the crew, or stopping for supplies...




It's longer than I thought. How about this? Buy the Macs on the US
east coast and then go to Australia via Cape Horn. That way it would
be westerly winds the whole way. Just stay on the edge of the roaring
40s so it wouldn't be too rough and it would be a milk run the whole
way. One could re-provision in South Africa. Going across the Equator
south of the Windwards would be the only light wind area.


I meant Cape of Good Hope. Sorry.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:


It's longer than I thought. How about this? Buy the Macs on the US east
coast and then go to Australia via Cape Horn. That way it would be
westerly winds the whole way. Just stay on the edge of the roaring 40s
so it wouldn't be too rough and it would be a milk run the whole way.
One could re-provision in South Africa. Going across the Equator south
of the Windwards would be the only light wind area.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

Wrong way around Cape Horn in a Mac? A month or more in the roaring 40's and
possibly some time in the Furious 50's? Again, going the wrong way? No
thanks. While I MIGHT consider rounding Cape Horn in a suitable vessel, I
would only want to do it going in the right direction -- west to east. And I
am far from convinced that the Mac26 is even close to being a "suitable
vessel" for such a crossing.

As a business concern, I am assuming you would want to put full coverage
insurance on the vessel to protect yourself against total loss. Know any
underwriters who will take that gamble on a Mac? Without at least 1 to 1
odds?

"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
...

I meant Cape of Good Hope. Sorry.

--
Cheerio,
Ed Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/egordon873/index.htm

Ah, well that's a bit different. North America to South Africa is only 7000
miles. Another 12,000 or so might put you in Australia, but it's hard to
say. There are no recognised cruising routes from Cape of Good Hope to
Australia -- perhaps you could write a book on it?

On Jun 11, 12:23 pm, Ed Gordon wrote:
...snip... Veridican means truth. Hah!

Well, let's be precise, something you seem to have a lot of trouble
with. "Veridican" is a made-up word. Now, there's nothing wrong with
made-up words in general. Pandemonium is a great one. Tintinnabulation
is too. Based on its apparent derivation (root) and structure,
veridican most closely approximates an adjectival form for "truth-
speaking," from the Latin veridicus, with your "veridican" being a
permutation of that. Veritas is truth.

It is also, unfortunately, awfully close to veridian/viridian, which
simply means "green." So if you were offshore in your Mac and ran into
some hellacious green water you could call it "veridican veridian" as
you prayed to your deity while rolling over and over and over...

* Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/11/2007 3:21 PM:
Sorry, boats "dance" because of their windage relative to the lateral
resistance. Boat with high freeboard (like a Mac) or a rig forward
(Nonsuch or Freedom) or forward coachroof (many cruising cats) dance.
Shallow draft is usually not the significant factor.


I disagree. Take an old deep keel and long keel boat like a Westerly 32.
It will barely move at all at anchor. The deep long keel keeps it
straight into the wind like a weather vane.Boat's that dance at anchor
say "shallow draft".

I don't know which Westerly you mean, they made several 32 footers.
But none that I know have either "deep" or "long" keels.

So if a Mac dances too much, why not just lower the center/daggerboard
to increase the draft? Its because the dancing is caused by the high
freeboard creating too much windage forward.




In another place he asserts a tacking angle of 64 degrees, even
though most Mac owners report the expected 95 degrees.
You gotta know how to sail them, man. 64 degrees is too low and 95
degrees is dreaming. Even the Americas cup boats can't do 95% unless
the wind is maybe blowing six or seven mph. I used to tack about 75
or 80 degrees with mind in moderate breezes. In heaver winds it might
be low around 60 because of the slippage because of the short keel
that doesn't bite that great.
As I said, I don't like foolish claims by ignorant novices.

I'm hardly a novice. I've owned and sailed a Mac 26X. I was always
worried about how sea worthy it was and one of the main reasons was
because it was shallow draft and seaworthy boats are usually deep draft.
But, not all of them.

If you're not a novice, how could you write such gibberish about the
tacking angle? Do you even understand what it is?




Macs can do 20. 12-15 is about half throttle, man. And the article
said there are lots of Macs in England and some of them were probily
saiked there.
Macs can do 20 with some engines in idealized conditions. Loaded with
cruising gear, fuel, ballast tank full, and fighting a minimal ocean
chop, 15 is a more realistic upper limit. In fact, while the Mac
boards have some people claiming extreme speeds, they also have a lot
of folks that admit they have never been above 12 knots.


Well they must have motors that aren't running right if they go that
slow. Or maybe they've got them way overloaded. A Mac is like your
catamaran you claim to have. If you overload them too much it makes them
slow.

No, the one I remember were real cruisers who went out for more than
one overnight. I assume they had the boats somewhat loaded and didn't
think it was prudent to go faster. Roger MacGregor himself says that
the top speed is reduced a knot for every hundred pounds, it really
doesn't take a lot of extra gear, food, water, and fuel to reduce the
top speed considerably.

On top of that, the fuel economy at full throttle isn't all that good.



Nope. But you're the one claiming that Macs sail more than "keel
boats" and the don't mind going out in the ocean. Since I've done
about 12000 miles cruising since the 26X came out, you would think I
might see one on occasion.

You're as bad as that other guy who said he always sees Macs in
protected waters. That means he's in protected waters himself. If he
wants to see Macs in unprotected waters he needs to go out in
unprotected waters himself.

I do the vast majority of my sailing outside of the harbor. However,
I'm generally on "standard routes" for cruisers, such as Boston to
Provincetown, or Gloucester, etc. And we spend a lot of time at the
common destinations. I see Hunters, Catalinas, Bene's, and all of
the other expected boats. But I don't see Macs. Its not as though
they're hard to spot - they don't exactly blend in.

Of course, part of this is that Mac's are not too popular here in New
England. Within Boston Harbor there's a number of places to sail, but
once you get "outside" you're in the open ocean and it gets a little
too bouncy for a lightweight boat. While we don't always have 3-4
foot seas, its often enough that you have to always be prepared for it.



First of all, I don't have a keel boat. And I can assure you that its
much faster than a Mac on all points of sail.

But, you shouldn't cop an attitude because maybe your boat is
slower and not as versatil but it might have at least one good point.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! What kinda boat do you have anyway?
Probably a cheap Hunter or something like that.
A PDQ 36 catamaran. More boat than you can even dream of.


Not even legal to trailer. You need a wide-load permit for that boat of
yours.

At 18 feet wide I don't think any of my sisterships have ever been on
a trailer!

I bet you have to pay extra for a wider slip too. Probably double
the cost of a Mac slip.

Nope - I've never had to pay double. While traveling, we virtually
never have had to pay a premium. Finding a "home slip" however is a
bit more difficult, and I often pay about a modest premium to be in a
special spot that's usually saved for larger boats, but on average I'm
way ahead on that score.

I prefer a boat you don't have to go to the poor
house to own and enjoy.

Each to his own - I like to live on the boat for the summer with my
family, and have guests join us for extended stays. That's not too
practical on a Mac.

"Ed Gordon" wrote in message
8...

snip

I disagree. Take an old deep keel and long keel boat like a Westerly 32.
It will barely move at all at anchor. The deep long keel keeps it
straight into the wind like a weather vane.

Not if there's any tide running they don't.

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:28:26 -0700, Frank wrote:

On Jun 11, 12:23 pm, Ed Gordon wrote:
...snip... Veridican means truth. Hah!

Well, let's be precise, something you seem to have a lot of trouble
with. "Veridican" is a made-up word. Now, there's nothing wrong with
made-up words in general. Pandemonium is a great one. Tintinnabulation
is too. Based on its apparent derivation (root) and structure,
veridican most closely approximates an adjectival form for "truth-
speaking," from the Latin veridicus, with your "veridican" being a
permutation of that. Veritas is truth.

It is also, unfortunately, awfully close to veridian/viridian, which
simply means "green." So if you were offshore in your Mac and ran into
some hellacious green water you could call it "veridican veridian" as
you prayed to your deity while rolling over and over and over...

Just for clarification, could you give some examples of words that are not
made
up?

CWM


Briskumoppolow


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

On Jun 11, 2:36 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:

Just for clarification, could you give some examples of words that are not made
up?

Anything in the O.E.D. or in common usage. Examples? How about:

Charlie
Morgan
Is
An
Asshole

Those good enough or ya want some more?

* Ed Gordon wrote, On 6/11/2007 2:41 PM:


You've got to get back to basics. The Mac26X or M are trailerable boats.
The ballast is water so it can be drained for trailering. That's all you
have to remember. Fill the ballast tank right after you launch and drain
it right after you pull. That's not so hard is it?

And yet, just yesterday, you bragged about how fast it would go with
an empty ballast tank with the Honda engine.



Once you got the basics down you just have to remember that even with
the ballast tank full it's still a trailer boat that can't be treated
like a heavy ballast keel boat. It's a compromise and a damned good one
but you gotta keep it in mind all the time. Get drunk and forget and you
might pay for your stupidity.

In other words, all other boats are for normal people, the Mac is only
for "special" people.


I like to look at it this way. Macs are for the more intelligent and
careful sailors. Heavy keel boats perform poorer but are harder to
capsize so you can get drunk and sloppy and get away with it more often.

So please explain to us which boats it sails faster than. You've said
many times that its a "fast sailer" but when I look at the ratings, I
have trouble finding a boat remotely comparable to a Mac that isn't
10% faster, or more. In fact, its real hard to find a boat that's
slower than a Mac. So please, give us an example of a boat that sails
slower than a Mac.


A Mac is like riding a thorobred. Hang on and enjoy the greater speed
and versatility but don't get complacent.

Yes, that's the perfect boat for a family cruiser. Even in perfect
weather, if you get complacent it will roll over and kill you.