Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get
to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive
research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's
about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them,
and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even
great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who
has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in
particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true
offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage
capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are
incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier,
larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming
that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons,
with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet,
without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded
with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that
because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you
are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially
smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are
equivalent, but they're obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs'
rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew,
I'll be interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim



I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions
that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb
enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly.

Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:



Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on
the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of
stress.



Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving
such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to
try it.

Cheers
Marty


Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere,
has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking
up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,



Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty

Marty, as I suspect you're sixth-grade teachers probably told you, you
need to read and understand the question before you write your answer. -

Clearly, I didn't say that "thousands of Mac26m's broke up." Instead, I
said that even though there are thousands of Mac 26s out there being
sailed in US and foreign waters,

"no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted ANY accounts of ANY of
the thousands of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions..."

Read your own post Marty.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message
...

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,


Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty



I did, apparently! LOL Maybe there's a meta message here from Jim....


Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or
15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do
that for us Ganz?

Jim

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:46:05 -0600, JimC wrote:



Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on
the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of
stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to
some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it
does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim


Jim, Do you have any direct experience that tells you what dog**** tastes like,
or do you possess general knowlege and experience along with JUDGEMENT that
tells you that eating it would be a bad idea.

- - Maybe somewhat "Salty"?

Seems like you are loosing it Salty. - Get a grip on yourself.


Jim

wrote:

JimC wrote:

Obviously, you have no knowledge of the design and construction of the
Mac 26M.


Obviously, you have no knowledge of what I know. Is the vigorous
assertion of other's ignorance your only evidence that you know
anything at all, much less about sailing?



.... In contrast to your assertion, it is made with multiple
fiberglas-resin layups, NOT CHOPPER GUNS.


WOW! "Multiple fiberglas-resin layups" ?!? Does that mean it has,
like, more than one layer of fiberglass? Amazing technological
breakthrough!

BTW if you look at the video of the Mac 26M being built, you will see
a guy with a bunny suit & a respirator with no cartridges using a
chopper gun. IIRC the announcer is talking about fiberglass lay-ups
while showing this, maybe that's where you get the idea.

Actually, using a chopper gun is not a bad way to add stiffness to a
fiberglass structure. Used *between* layers of cloth/roving, it
functions in much the same manner as a core material, but with better
cross-linking. And it adds a lot of weight.

The reason why chopper gun laminations have such a bad rap is mainly
years of boat advertisement saying how bad it is, of course we don't
use it.


You seem to be forgetting the note to which I was responding, in which
it was inferred that the Mac's were constructed of "un cored fiberglass,
with a high proportion of chopper gun." [sic]. This is misleading in
that the Macs are formed with fiberglass layers laid in place by hand,
not strands of fiber and resin sprayed by "chopper guns." To quote the
MacGregor description:


"The MacGregor 26 is built to outlast all of us. Each boat is built of
individual layers of fiberglass fabrics, laid in place by hand, in a
carefully controlled process. Hulls and decks are light, but strong,
with extra reinforcement at all high stress points.

Most of our competitors use "chopper guns" to build their boats. These
are devices for spraying a mixture of resin and very short strands of
fiberglass. We don't use them, even though they reduce cost. They do
not, in our opinion, give adequate impact strength or controllable hull
and deck thickness. They result in heavy laminates with low fiberglass
to resin ratios."

Now, if you think MacGregor is lying about this matter, and that you can
support your assertion with the video, then there might be grounds for
bringing legal action against MacGregor. - But I'm not holding my
breath on that.

As to whether or not one method is better than the other, I strongly
suspect that most on this ng would not prefer that the hulls of their
particular boats be constructed by the "chopper gun" method.


... And many Mac 26 owners (in
the US and in foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore.


Do tell.
How many have sailed their boats through 40+ knot winds and 10'+
breaking seas?
I bet.... none!



... Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.



Well, you of course will insist this can't possibly be true, but I
know of two Mac 26X/Ms having structural failure due to fairly normal
stress. No wait, three.
1- rested on an anchor at low tide, ripping a large hole in the hull.
This was only into the ballast tank, so the boat refloated just fine
when the tide came back in. However, the boat sailed even worse than
before.
2- hit an unknown floating object, tearing rudder off the transom. Due
to lack of backing plates, the holes where the bolts pulled thru were
small. Darn clever, those Mac engineers!
3- bumped repeatedly against dock in brief squall, cracking topsides
and opening seam along hull/deck joint.

None of these boats sank, it's true. But they all needed major repair
before "sailing" again. Two were sold immediately afterwards by the
owenrs... hey, maybe this explains why you don't hear about it on the
Mac-Crack-Cult-Gathering discussion forums.

DSK



If you can remember, DSK, the discussion began with reference to Joe's
tragic heavy weather situation, not with reference to impacts with a
dock, anchor, submerged object, or the like. Nevertheless, as you
helpfully note, in each of your examples (and, of course, we have little
direct information about the specific circumstances), the boats DID NOT
SINK, and NO CREW OR SKIPPERS were lost.

Thanks for proving my point.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does
get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do.
It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of
them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps
even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to
anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing
rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't
comparable to a true offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity
normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you
compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore
boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used
in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels)
should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel,
and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast,
etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used
on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter
rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is
deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're
obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging
failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be
interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim


Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that
should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would
run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen
it.

Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message
...

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on
the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of
stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving
such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try
it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,


Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty



I did, apparently! LOL Maybe there's a meta message here from Jim....


Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15
Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do that
for us Ganz?

Jim



Just 10 or 15?? Wow. That's all it would take... LOL


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

"JimC" wrote in message
...
"The MacGregor 26 is built to outlast all of us.

HAHAHAHAHA... now that's funny! Yeah, if you're on a resperator.


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

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:



Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on
the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of
stress.



Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving
such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to
try it.

Cheers
Marty


Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere,
has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking
up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,



Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty

Marty, as I suspect you're sixth-grade teachers probably told you, you
need to read and understand the question before you write your answer. -

Clearly, I didn't say that "thousands of Mac26m's broke up." Instead, I
said that even though there are thousands of Mac 26s out there being
sailed in US and foreign waters,

"no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted ANY accounts of ANY of
the thousands of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions..."

Read your own post Marty.

Jim



Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing
ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you.


Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,,

Get back to us on that one.

Cheers
marty

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim
they're more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it includes
offshore. Yes, it's a rhetorial question.


I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but
you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And
there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen.
Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can
be a good ego booster.

Jim



Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see?
(answer: none of the above) LOL



What do I see? Among other things, I see the following:

1) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the
immediate area. - The Mac26M can be quickly and easily transported by
the owner (with a pickup or SUV) in one weekend to waters hundreds of
miles from it's berth or storage area, thereby making available hundreds
of sailing areas that wouldn't be conveniently available with a larger,
keeled vessel. (Without having it hauled out of the water and hiring a
truck to transport the boat to a distant sailing area.) - Practically
speaking, most large, conventional keeled boats are limited to sailing
within a day or so of their marinas unless the owners are retired or
want to spend several weeks of vacation. (Of course, you can always
point to exceptions, but they ARE the exceptions, not the usual practice
for most owners, most of the time.)

2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Thus, the storage
fees are substantially less than most marina fees, and ongoing lease and
maintenance fees can be substantially reduced. Or, if desired, I can
(and do) choose to keep it in a Marina, at a relatively modest fee
because of its size and limited draft.

3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters,
including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for
extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. The
boat has plenty of ballast and plenty of righting forces. Also, it's
suitable for sailing and/or motoring in shallow or restricted waters
that aren't available to large, fixed keel vessels.

4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including
positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised. The boat is also designed to accommodate a large outboard
which gives the skipper more options in the event of heavy weather,
e.g., for returning to port quickly.

5) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial
cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth.

6) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and
docking by one person.

7) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger
boats (comparing new prices with new prices and used prices with used
prices, of course). This permits getting a fully equipped vessel (with
accessories such as autopilot, chart reader, roller reefing, 50-hp
motor, lines led aft, radio, stereo, etc., etc.), still within an
affordable total cost.

8) A boat that can be sailed or motored with or without the ballast, and
that can be trailord without the ballast, making it a substantially
lighter load when trailoring.

9) A boat that can have a 5.5 feet draft for sailing (with dagger-board
down) but that can be converted to one with only 1.5-ft draft in
shallow waters or waters with variable depth, or for anchoring in
shallow waters, or for bringing it up a ramp for trailoring, or for
simply bringing the boat ashore on a beach for a picnic or the like.
Or, the dagger board can be only partially retracted for increased speed
on a reach or a run, or completely retracted for motoring on a plane.

10) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this
ng, isn't limited to hull speed. With the (typical) 50-hp to 60-hp
outboard, the Mac 26M can be motored on a plane at two or three times
hull speed. While some on this ng have ridiculed this feature, it
offers a number of rather important advantages. - For example, the
skipper can get the boat out to a preferred sailing area substantially
sooner, PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME in the desired area. Similarly, at
the end of the day, he can get the boat back more quickly, regardless of
wind direction, again PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME (since he can stay
out later and still get the family home in time for dinner or other
activities). Practically speaking, it's also an advantage of the wife or
kids or guests are getting tired of sailing and want to get back ASAP.
This capability is also a safety factor, as mentioned above, in the
event the skipper wants to bring the boat in quickly to avoid heavy
weather, or move down the coast to avoid a squall, etc.

11) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. -
Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. - (I also like the looks of some
of the large conventional boats, particularly if they are long enough.)
But if we are comparing apples to apples, consider the looks of other
boats of 26-foot length. - For example, the smaller Island Packets look
something like a tug boat to me. All I know is that it looks good to me
and my guests. - Every time I see him, the owner of the boat in the next
slip compliments me on what a good-looking boat it is. Again, I
ALREADY STATED THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL TASTE, DIDN'T I? So
there's really no need to tell me that you don't like the Mac, and
prefer something else. - More power to you.

12) Finally, I see a boat that is FUN TO SAIL! On my Mac 26M, when I get
to the sailing area, raise the sails, turn off the motor, and sense the
boat moving under sail, it's an amazing, almost magical experience. In
contrast to some of the heavier, conventional boats that I have sailed,
the Mac is sufficiently light that it gives you a 'kick in the pants' as
it accelerates under sail. Although larger boats are steadier, and more
comfortable in choppy waters (sort of like a large, heavy Lincoln Town
Car or equivalent) the Macs are responsive enough to give you more of a
feel of the changing conditions (sort of like the feel of a sports car,
such as a Porsche (a car that is fun to drive but not quite as smooth or
comfortable on long trips as the Lincoln). Also, in moderate conditions,
I sometimes like to set the boat on autopilot and sit on the deck
watching the boat gliding silently through the water. - Again, it's an
ethereal, almost magical experience.

- - - Does that answer your question Ganz? - Or do you want a few more?

Jim