wrote in message

Oops, Maxprop drops another one. His ranting just goes to show that he
doesn't really know much about it, although he certainly is quick to
accuse me of ignorance. If he had so much as looked over the Mac race
fleet, which happens in his own back yard, he'd see scores of old
warhorse racing yachts that were the hottest stuff in their day and
still going thru the paces. And yet they are supposed to be "throw-
aways"..... then he turns around and gets indignant because I
misattributrd calling them "flimsy" to him also.

First, you apparently have no concept of the Chicago-Mac race. It's
generally a light air event, seldom bringing forth rough weather. My own
boat, Clover, a 1982 Sea Sprite 34, won second in her class a decade ago, in
a year that actually amounted to some good sailing with a consistent 15 kts.
throughout most of the race. That's light air by anyone's standard, but
significantly more than most Macs see. The trial of the Mac, however, is
finding experienced crew--most won't do a second one after drifting north
for a week. Second, I never indicated that Mac boats are throw-aways. I
applied that only to the Hobart maxis. You love to twist my words to fit
your particular brand of anti-social rhetoric. But that's okay--I expect as
much from you.


Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him

Your lack of civility is seldom seen while addressing issues with others.
You seem to reserve that for Bobsprit and myself, diverse in opinion as he
and I may be. I tend to believe you simply can't get past being termed a
liberal. Revenge is a petty motive in any discussion.

You have a false impression of the structural integrity from these
manufacturers.
They are actually very strong yachts, what lets them down at sea is
things like cupboard latches which just aren't tough enough for a
pounding.
Easily fixed if you want to cruise or even race.


In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

Do I detect an implication of "flimsy?" Glad I didn't say that. g

Max

"Maxprop" wrote:
First, you apparently have no concept of the Chicago-Mac race.

No, "apparently" I don't. I've just sailed it more times than you.



..... It's
generally a light air event, seldom bringing forth rough weather.

"Generally" is a nice elusive word.

I think the Chi-Mac race (have to be specific since there are now at
least three other Mac races) has wind & conditions generally
reflective of summer sailing on the Great Lakes. People tend to
remember the blows, though. Just like your mistaken impression that
the Sydney-Hobart race is always a struggle for survival.

My own
boat, Clover, a 1982 Sea Sprite 34, won second in her class a decade ago, in
a year that actually amounted to some good sailing with a consistent 15 kts.
throughout most of the race. That's light air by anyone's standard, but
significantly more than most Macs see.

15 kts is "light air"?


..... The trial of the Mac, however, is
finding experienced crew--most won't do a second one after drifting north
for a week.

Not even close, at least not among the Mac sailors I know.

.... Second, I never indicated that Mac boats are throw-aways. I
applied that only to the Hobart maxis.

I see. So it's not the racing boats in *your* neighborhood that are
throw-aways, it's always the other guys.

.... You love to twist my words to fit
your particular brand of anti-social rhetoric.

All I do is point out your falsehoods & illogic.



Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him

Your lack of civility is seldom seen while addressing issues with others.

My "lack of civility" is in the eye of the beholder, mainly.


In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

Do I detect an implication of "flimsy?" Glad I didn't say that. g


Generally, one does not refer to wiring & plumbing & mechanical issues
as "flimsy." Generally, that refers to structure of hull & strength of
rig. A "flimsy" boat is one that distorts visibly when the backstay is
cranked on, or lets you know it's time to change down by popping it's
tabbing, etc etc.

DSK

On Jun 16, 8:16 am, wrote:
OzOne wrote:
Biggest problem with foam cores is that they will break down and
granulate.
Seen this on many Syd-Hobart racers after the really big races
pounding to windward.

Heck, anything will break if you pound it hard enough, long enough.

Sounds to me like the problem might be a difference between the
fiberglass fatigue properties and the foam fatigue. Even if the bond
doesn't break down, tiny bits within the foam get excessive fatigue
and break up. Maybe?? Or is it from small areas of skin bond failure?

Would denser foam hold up better?

I have a couple of ideas how foam cored structures could be build to
accept higher load cycles, but am occupied with other things at the
moment

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

I understand foam breaks down in carbon fiber dinghies
even faster!

On Jun 17, 2:16 pm, wrote:

Hey Bart, if you're still reading this, I would recommend building in
some uncored stringers under your deck rather than replacing core.
Kind of like the C-beams I put under the super-dinghy's thwarts, if
you remember that pic.

DSK

I am not sure if that is class legal. Anyway, I want to
make the decks pretty, so I'm working from the top.

On Jun 19, 9:34 am, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:17:45 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None of them
are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.

Actually, 'average' Hobart is just a coastal jaunt....I'm going this
year....Sometimes it's as tough as they get.

Bennies and Jennies do the race every year and survive even the bad
ones.

Oz1...of the 3 twins.


You've done the trip before haven't you?
What sort of boat will you be on this time?

Bart

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Maxprop" wrote:
First, you apparently have no concept of the Chicago-Mac race.

No, "apparently" I don't. I've just sailed it more times than you.

Well, that wouldn't be hard to do. I've never raced the Mac. But I
question your veracity in this. It's like claiming to have been at
Woodstock--about a million more people than were there claim to have gone.
But I can check on your veracity--give me some boat names, skippers, and
years. It's all in the archives, and easily obtainable.

..... It's
generally a light air event, seldom bringing forth rough weather.

"Generally" is a nice elusive word.

It's appropriate. There have been some heavy weather races, but in general
it's light air. I see the boats go by every year, and have been doing so
since the mid-80s. I believe that qualifies me to make an accurate
observation, not to mention that it gets a ton of press around here,
including a day-to-day weather and conditions report.


I think the Chi-Mac race (have to be specific since there are now at
least three other Mac races) has wind & conditions generally

A "nice elusive word," eh?

reflective of summer sailing on the Great Lakes. People tend to
remember the blows, though. Just like your mistaken impression that
the Sydney-Hobart race is always a struggle for survival.

I never claimed it was. And once again you've attributed words to me that I
never said. You're quite adept at that--it's called lying. *Generally* the
Hobart is several force factors above anything normally seen in the Mac.
Few Hobarts escape without at least a day or so of heavy weather.
(Incidentally, "Mac" is the term used around here for the Chicago-Mac. The
Port Huron is abbreviated exactly as that.)


My own
boat, Clover, a 1982 Sea Sprite 34, won second in her class a decade ago,
in
a year that actually amounted to some good sailing with a consistent 15
kts.
throughout most of the race. That's light air by anyone's standard, but
significantly more than most Macs see.

15 kts is "light air"?

Absolutely. Do you believe it to be *heavy?*

..... The trial of the Mac, however, is
finding experienced crew--most won't do a second one after drifting north
for a week.

Not even close, at least not among the Mac sailors I know.

Living here, I'm confident I know many more than you, Tarheel. Some have
raced the Mac more years than I've been sailing, and they despise the
drifters. They are the dedicated Mac afficiandos. Most crew aren't that
dedicated, rather more like casual racers looking for some kicks and the
right to claim a participation in the Mac. They experience a drifter
(typical) and decide that around-the-buoys racing is more their speed. I've
personally spoken with dozens of the latter types. Three of them are 1D35
skippers in our fleet.


.... Second, I never indicated that Mac boats are throw-aways. I
applied that only to the Hobart maxis.

I see. So it's not the racing boats in *your* neighborhood that are
throw-aways, it's always the other guys.

What hogwash that comment is. Not worth responding to, beyond pointing out
that its just more Doug-style bull****.


.... You love to twist my words to fit
your particular brand of anti-social rhetoric.

All I do is point out your falsehoods & illogic.

No. You lie and you spin. You've lied and spun consistently since the
inception of our debates (arguments, more correctly). You are incapable of
carrying on a logical, dispassionate debate with me for some reason. To the
contrary, you find it necessary to denigrate me, rather than dispute my
argument. That is the hallmark of one who's own argument is already lost.


Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him

Your lack of civility is seldom seen while addressing issues with others.

My "lack of civility" is in the eye of the beholder, mainly.

Perhaps, but ad hominem attacks, of which you seem incapable of avoiding
when debating me, are hardly civil. If you hadn't noticed, I've begun to
respond in kind--no point not to at this stage of our relationship. You and
I will never be friends, nor will we ever have anything resembling respect
for each other. Let the cannonballs fly, so to speak . . .



In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

Do I detect an implication of "flimsy?" Glad I didn't say that. g


Generally,

My, how nicely elusive . . .

one does not refer to wiring & plumbing & mechanical issues
as "flimsy." Generally, that refers to structure of hull & strength of
rig. A "flimsy" boat is one that distorts visibly when the backstay is
cranked on, or lets you know it's time to change down by popping it's
tabbing, etc etc.

'Definitions according to Doug King.' That's another thing I find so
predictable about you--you have all the answers, evey time, on every
subject, without fail. Nice to know such confidence exists, even if it's
delusional.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote:
'Definitions according to Doug King.' That's another thing I find so
predictable about you--you have all the answers, evey time, on every
subject, without fail.

??
I have never claimed to have "all the answers" or anything of the
kind.

Nice to know such confidence exists, even if it's
delusional.


So, by your own estimate, I have more Mac experience than you... a
race in your backyard.... you have no experience whatever in mine...
what exactly is "delusional" about this?

I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and stop spitting your
Maypo all over the table when you read my posts.

DSK

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Maxprop" wrote:
'Definitions according to Doug King.' That's another thing I find so
predictable about you--you have all the answers, evey time, on every
subject, without fail.

??
I have never claimed to have "all the answers" or anything of the
kind.

Nice to know such confidence exists, even if it's
delusional.


So, by your own estimate, I have more Mac experience than you... a
race in your backyard.... you have no experience whatever in mine...
what exactly is "delusional" about this?

I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and stop spitting your
Maypo all over the table when you read my posts.

I laugh when I read your posts. You are such a cod, and it's easier to hook
you than Bubbles or just about anyone else.

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote:
I laugh when I read your posts. You are such a cod

??
Better than being a flounder, anyway

.... and it's easier to hook
you than Bubbles or just about anyone else.


Got it.... whenever you are caught being an ignorant ass, you claim to
be trolling...

Are you "working on a script" too?

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?


No.

DSK

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:11:52 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?

Dunno if Doug had the correct spelling, but he was referring to a cereal
dish for small children. Its key line for a series of ads in the '60s was
"I
want my Maypo."

Don't recall ever hearing of it, but I'll take your word for it. Perhaps
Doug eats it for breakfast.

Max