BoatBanter.com - I decided

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - I decided (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/93637-i-decided.html)

JimC wrote:

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, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15
Macs actually venturing out in conditions that might cause other boats
to break up and sink. - Could you do that for us Jim?

Ok, we'll settle for 5.

How about just 2?

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
JimC wrote:

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, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15
Macs actually venturing out in conditions that might cause other boats to
break up and sink. - Could you do that for us Jim?

Ok, we'll settle for 5.

How about just 2?

Jeff, please don't Mac bash....

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of
the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The
requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See also
my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea
anchor.

Jim

No. He's judging it on the basis of what's a decent rig.

A "decent rig" for a 69-foot Swan, or a 40-ft Valiant or a 39-ft O'Day,
is not the same thing as a "decent rig" for a 26-ft boat displacing
4,000 pounds.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"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.

In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come
up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz?

Jim

Marty wrote:

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

If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such
evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of
the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. -
Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

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

Step 1) Open eyes.

Open yours.

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.)

Are you claiming that my boat can't be sailing in areas other than where
she's berthed???

Read my note Ganz. What I said was that the Mac can be quickly and
easily transported by the owner with a pickup or SUV in one weekend to
waters hundreds of miles away. (Making the Mac more versatile and giving
the owner more choices.) Your boat obviously can be sailed in areas
other than where it's berthed, but it can't be easily transported by the
owner with a pickup or SUV in one weekend to waters hundreds of miles
away. (Which is what I posted in the first place, in case you didn't
take the time to read my note.)

I prefer to actually sail to places not put my boat on truck.

Can you sail 1500 miles in one weekend Ganz? I would sure like to see
that. - Let me know when you are about to move out.

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.

Ongoing lease? Wow...stunning news. A 26' boat is less expensive to berth
than a 30.

Storage and maintenance fees can be substantially less, Ganz, because
you don't have to keep the boat in a slip. Regarding slip fees, I get a
reduced rate because, with the Mac's shallow draft, I can leave the
boat in a shallow slip that wouldn't be suitable for a conventional boat
with deep keel.

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.

It might be a coastal cruiser a couple of months a year, but I assure you
it's not a coastal cruiser out here 95% of the time, unless you count
foundering on rocks as coastal cruising.

Don't know where "out here" is Ganz.- Maybe you could be a little more
specific. But in any event, the Mac is maneuverable and can be motored
or sailed around rocks and in shallow waters most fixed-keel boats
couldn't manage.

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.

I bet you have PFDs too! Yeah, a large outboard to get you out of trouble
when either the skipper fails or the boat is about to fail.

What's your point Ganz? That the boat SHOULDN'T have such safety
measures?- How long would YOUR boat stay afloat if it's hull were
substantially compromised? With a 6-inch puncture, for example?

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

Stuff em in... I bet you can.

Again, your point is:.......?

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

Compared to what? My Sabre is 30' and 8000 lbs. I have no problem sailing
and docking in fairly rigorous conditions. I've seen Mac sailors trying to
dock, and they did so quite nicely... coming in like freight and jamming it
in reverse at the last second. I've also seen them "sailing" on the bay in
20+ kts... sails a flappin, boat heeled, people looking very scared, and
finally, the skipper gets the engine going just to get it under control.

Mine has three reefing points on the main, and a roller furling jib. I
seldom have problems keeping the boat under control.

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.

Well, you got me there... cheap compared to used boats of higher quality.

Not necessarily "cheap," but a good value when compared with some
larger, conventional boats. Also, If buying a new boat, you may loose
multiple $$$$ in depreciation the first few years. Macs keep their value
relatively well, but even more importantly, you haven't sunk as much
money into it in the first place. (To make this perfectly clear, I'm not
saying that the Macs don't depreciate. What I'm saying is that the total
depreciation, in dollars, is substantially less than would experienced
if buying a new Tartan, Sabre, Benateux, Catalina, or the like.)

Jim

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.

Get a bigger fricken car.

Could I tow your Sabre with my Mercury Marquis Ganz? How about a Ford
pickup?

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.

You sure think trailering is the end all and be all of sailing. Got news for
you...

Ganz, where do you get an emphasis on trailoring from the above
paragraph? I mentioned the following:

a) sailing, with dagger-board down
b} conversion to 1.5 ft draft for shallow waters, or
c) adapatable for use in waters of variable depth
d) capable of being anchored in shallow waters
e) ease of bringing up a ramp for trailoring
f) ability to beach the boat for a picnic or the like
g) ability to partially retract the dagger boatd for increased speed ona
reach or run
h) capability of being retracted for increased speed when motoring on a
plane

In other words, of the eight advantages or functions listed above, only
one relates to trailoring. - Yet you interpret the entire list as
indicating I think "trailering is the end all and be all of sailing."
Sorry Ganz, but you aren't making any sense whatsoever. In fact, you're
making an ass of yourself. As to sailing the Mac, check out the other
sections below this one, and in particular, paragraph 12.

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.
bs removed 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.

Yeah, and you're responsible for your wake. Whoooo... heavy weather. Scary!
When they announce a small craft advisory (just about every day in the
Summer), we head out not in.

Actually, I do watch the wake and watch to see that I don't interfere
with other boats. Obviously, the speed and, when under sail, the set of
the sails have to be appropriate for the conditions.

11) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. -
Admittedly, this is a matter of taste.

Admittedly, bad taste in my opinion.

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

Say it isn't so! You turn off the engine?? That's mightly brave of you!

bs removed

Important deleted material replaced:

.. 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?

Sure does!!

Have a nice evening Ganz. - Next time try to read and respond to what
what I am actually posting instead of responding to your own distortions
of my notes and to the "Mac owner caracatures" you love to sneak into
the discussion.

I hesitate to bring this up, Ganz, but you seem to be getting further
and further afield, wandering about as if you don't know where you are.
You can't even understand what's being posted, much less come up with
a rational response. - You're loosing it Ganz!

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

Again, despite the thousands of Mac 26's out there sailed in US and
foreign waters, we have NO reports of Mac 26M's breaking up and sinking in
ANY conditions. NONE!

Have a nice day Salty.

Jim

Please prove this. I see no evidence of this in your post.

We (those posting on alt.sailing.asa) have so far been unable to provide
ANY reports of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions.
If you think this statement is incorrect in any respect, please identify
the source you think contradicts it. Or, if you have other sources that
would contradict it, post those as well (or instead).

I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there
somewhere, but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it.

Your move.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .

As stated above, the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most popular series of
sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both in the US and in
various foreign countries.

The Big Mac is the most popular burger ever. Doesn't mean I'd try and
order one in an expensive restaurant.

On the other hand, if people were routinely dying the day after eating a
Big Mac, we WOULD have heard about it, woudln't we? Same principle with a
boat that is being sailed by thousands of owners around the world.

Jim

Yeah, they just get really, really sick, and it takes about 20 years to die
from eating them.

Once again, Ganz, you are simply evading the point that was made. Which
is that, with so many Mac 26's out there, if there were a problem with
them breaking up and sinking in severe conditions (of any kind) we would
have heard of it. The boats are sailed by thousands of skippers around
the world, of different skill levels and different interests, and if
they had a tendency or susceptibility to break up and sink in severe
conditions (severe conditions of any kind, off-shore, near shore, in the
bays, in large lakes, etc., etc.) it would be impossible to keep it a
secret. And the Mac-bashers on this ng would certainly take pleasure in
learning about such a deficiency.)

But they haven't, and they can't.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...
I really doubt than any even half-way rational skipper would

consider taking a Mac offshore under such conditions (with the boat
overloaded, with several adults standing on the deck, with the skipper and
half the guests drunk, and with the ballast tank empty). It's an anomaly
that doesn't really relate to the present discussion.

Such conditions? Calm waters?

You are again evading the substance of my post, Ganz. "Calm waters" was
only one factor out of a number of more critical ones, including: drunk
skipper, negligent owner, drunk guests, ignorant skipper who wasn't
familiar with the boat, empty ballast tank (apparently not checked by
either the skipper or the owner), motoring at night under varying
lighting (fireworks) boat overloaded, boat top heavy with several drunk
adults standing on the deck, some apparently holding on to the mast, and
infants left in the cabin. Regarding the "calm waters" issue,
apparently the skipper was trying to maneuver around other boats also in
the area to watch the fireworks. In any event, he turned the boat at
excessive speed under the conditions.

Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in
my notes, or are you just stupid?

Jim