|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. I shall. Thanks. I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim You're right. I biased I biased Ganz? when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for 40 years, I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes. so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine. Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't. Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message t... Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. Key phrase "I thought." You done thunked wrong. In your opinion, of course. Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine) in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his Mac-baching buddies. It's a vast Mac-bashing conspiracy! Alert the media. Please produce some evidence that it wouldn't roll over and over creating the effect of being in a washing machine if you were below decks. Since it was you, and not me. who introduced that weird assertion about the Mac rolling over and over again like a washing machine, I'll let you provide the "evidence" to support your assertion, Ganz. It's your baby. All I ask is that you tend to your baby appropriately. MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES, HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS. Please say it a bit louder. We can't HEAR YOU! If you hear me, then why don't you respond to my statement? Why do you insist on running down all those tangents and rabbit trails? Jim |
I decided
JimC wrote:
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. So can many many many other small ~ medium sized sailboats. My sailboat data base has about 1600 trailerable boats (and this is probably less than half of all the different types that have been produced in the U.S. & Canada). 2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Isn't this kinda the same as #1? 3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters, Isn't this kinda the same as #1, again? including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. Ha ha ha... you mean, if you bring lots of duct tape you might return with most of what you started with? Frankly, having seen Mac 26Xs & Ms sailing in relatively sheltered waters in 15 knot winds & 2 ~ 3 feet of chop... and having trouble coping with these conditions when not actually suffering breakdowns... I can't imagine sailing one "offshore in heavy weather" for more than about 15 minutes. 4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including positive floatation Again, a common feature shared by many other boats. .... 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. Again, ha ha ha. For one thing, the speed of the Mac26X~M is very much exaggerated. It certainly won't outrun any storms at 15 knots or less; and the hull shape & stability is such that it will be very problematic to handle it at any speed in really rough weather. 7) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger boats Or conventional boats of similar accomodation... and there you have it in a nutshell. The Mac26X~M is a portable cheap hotel room. Not that there's anything wrong with that. 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 Again, a feature shared by many many many other boats. 10) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this ng, isn't limited to hull speed. Isn't this a repeat of something from #4 above? 12) Finally, I see a boat that is FUN TO SAIL! A matter of taste. If the "magic of sail" to you means having big white pieces of cloth flopping around from a pole while you lurch aimlessly across the water, yeah that'll do it. Try sailing a Laser or an Albacore or a 505 or an Etchells or a Nacra or a Melges 24 or any of hundreds of actual high performance sailing craft... you don't even have to get stressed out and try one of the double-trap skiffs... boats that will equal or exceed the wind velocity and plane readily UNDER SAIL. Frankly, for anybody with any experience on sailing craft of any real performance level, the "magic" of sailing a Mac26X~M is a big yawn. But it's all a matter of taste. You clearly like your boat, what's funny is the level of delusion you have to maintain. DSK |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Anyone have a response to this note? Jim As for it being any type of "blue-water cruiser", here's what Roger MacGregor says about it in a Practical Sailor interview http://www.practical-sailor.com/samp...at_Review.html First, in case you didn't notice, that article isn't discussing the Mac 26M. It's talking about the old 26X. The new model includes a number of upgrades, a completely new hull design, and the addition of permanent ballast in addition to the water ballast. Secondly, Roger's discussion of the old 26X models isn't substantively different from my own statements concerning the 26M. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink. What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort liability, punitive damages, etc.) who gunned the boat to make a turn... Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or not, "guns" the engine. Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn. In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also substantially exceeded. But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue, and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.) Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac 26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had been one of the current 26M models. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. With 10,000 lbs of lead in it's hold, since I don't think you can get 10K of coffee in it? Right. Don't think Joe would (or could) have loaded 10,000 lbs of coffee into the Mac, do you Ganz? Along with his crew and their provisions? I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? If you're going offshore in a storm, get plenty of insurance! I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it. Jim |
I decided
jeff wrote: JimC wrote: jeff wrote: JimC wrote: ---------------------- Any Bermuda crossings? I believe so. What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove, or at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything. Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. - My evidence for this is that I can see the floatation throughout the boat, and the fact that MacGregor's specs state the same. ... I have never claimed it didn't have flotation. There is the question of whether the hull and/or deck would break under severe pounding, and at what point this would happen. I'm inclined to think that the conditions that did in Redcloud could break a Mac, rendering it meaningless whether a portion of the boat did sink. I haven't claimed that the Mac would NEVER sink under ANY conditions. I stated that I thought Joe's boat wouldn't have sunk in the conditions he described. But of course no one knows, and I never said that it was a slam dunk. Further proof is the fact that incident you cite below, the boat didn't sink, and didn't fall apart. (I made no assertion that people couldn't be harmed on a Mac26 Yes, I know you've denied this aspect. However, claiming that a boat won't sink is meaningless if it flooded and won't support life. I suppose I would rather stick with a boat that is partially submerged but still floating than a boat with a heavy keel that was dragging the boat to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. with a drunk skipper, who wasn't familiar with the boat, who ignored the most fundamental safety warnings given by MacGregor relative to using the water ballast except in particular, limited circumstances) maximum loads, positioning of passengers, whose drunk crew members were standing on deck holding onto the mast, and who gunned the boat to make a turn, etc., etc.) All this is meaningless. The bottom line is that a Mac CAN rollover Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast. given the right (or should we say wrong) circumstances, and if it does, there is a risk of flooding severe enough to drown inhabitants. Clarification: The victims were infants, left below deck while the drunk adults partied on deck. That much is clearly proven. I think any boater would admit the the forces generated in a major offshore storm are greater than what a drunk skipper can do in a few seconds. Maybe. Maybe not. You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to the point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has some foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected. Again, I would rather be on a boat that was low in the water but remaining afloat rather than one that was sinking. Remember, I've already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. Clarification: You showed how two infants left in the cockpit on a water-ballasted Mac 26X could drown. You didn't show how two adult crew members on a hybrid ballast Mac 26M would drown. And hundreds of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation. Yep. There are some careless, stupid people out there. One more time Marty. - I'll gladly back up the statements I actually made. But not those you are trying to put into my mouth. As previously noted: Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what your caricature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I actually did say. Its me Jim. Jeff, not Marty. Sorry. Regarding the positive floatation, as noted above, the Mac specs state that the boat, with full crew and motor, will continue to float even if the hull is compromised. Your assertion that this doesn't apply if the boat is in heavy weather conditions is illogical and is not supported by any evidence. (Think about what you are inferring. You seem to think that the boat will be broken into so many pieces that the foam floatation will all come loose, float out of the boat, leaving the boat and it's crew to sink. - SIMPLY RIDICULOUS! First of all, this is not ridiculous, it can and does happen. This, of course, is your opinion and is not supported. Whether it would apply to the Mac 26M, particularly with an experienced crew as was the case with Red Cloud, is another matter. However, all it would really take is a lost hatch, The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised. or a hull fracture to fully flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below to support life. Not a good situation to be in, but, again, I personally would rather be in a partially flooded boat that stayed afloat than one that was sinking to the bottom. Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably will continue to roll over in a large sea. Maybe. Maybe not. Its a nice feature in a lake where boats sink because a cockpit drain fill with leaves, but its doesn't mean you can survive a major storm. Maybe. Maybe not. Going back to your original claim, if a Mac had been in the same condition as Redcloud, would anyone still be alive when the helicopter arrived? As previously discussed, I think the best action in that situation would have been to set a sea anchor and remained onboard. I believe that would have prevented the boat from yawing, or rolling. As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended crossings. Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. Maybe, if he were alive. And the Mac probably would be worth much even if most of it were there. At least he would still have a boat, and possibly some of the coffee. Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine) in heavy weather conditions. I think there is little doubt amongst sailors that the Mac would be like a washing machine. This is how every small boat sailor describes major storms. Maybe. But probably not. - It was Ganz, and a few of his Mac-bashing buddies. MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES, HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS. AND I DON'T MUCH CARE. YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT A MAC HAS EVER SURVIVED HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS. When you and your buddies provide evidence to support your amazing assertions, I'll consider getting more to support mine. Meanwhile, I'm not going to look for evidence supporting statements I haven't made. I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had made, or thought I had made, but didn't. OK, just so we're clear on this: you are standing by your assertion about a situation that has never happened. Further, you claim it doesn't matter if everyone drowns, as long as most of the boat is recovered. This certainly makes sense. Nope. That's not what I said. It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various waters around the world. That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because there are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the harbor. So is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make ludicrous claims claims and hope the jury is stupid? Think for a moment about what You are saying Jeff. Its Jeff, not Marty. The thousands of Mac 26s owners simply buy their boats and never take them out? Never get them out of the harbor? And I should have to provide proof that they actually do take them out? - Again, UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS. Why preposterous? First of all, Macs are notorious as "first boat, not used, sold in a few years, never sail again" boats. From five years of sailing a Mac, participating in various Mac discussion groups, watching other Mac owners take their boats out, etc., your contentions is simply absurd. Second, although you admitted over and over again that Macs are not offshore boats, you're claiming here that it preposterous to think that they aren't taken offshore? Which way is it? Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable for ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean that they aren't taken offshore. I've sailed the New England coast every summer since Macs were Ventures, and I've taken several years to go up and down the East Coast. But in all of this, I've never seen Mac offshore, out in even 25 knot coastal conditions. There have been Macs at the marinas I've used for the last 8 years, but I can count on the fingers of one hand (without using the thumb) the number of times I've seen one leave the dock. I see them leaving the docks all the time. I'm not the only one with this experience - its been repeated by a number of cruisers in this forum. I'm not denying that a few Macs have gone to the Bahamas, Catalina, and other slightly out of the way places. But this is not the same as being several hundred miles offshore in a major storm. Once more, attack me for what I said, not what you think I said. I have seen reports of owners sailing them off Australia, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore of California (often to Catalina Is.), etc. And yet, you've never been able to post a link here. Wrong again. I have been able to post such links. I haven't posted such links, because, as stated above over and over again, I have, and will, provide evidence for my assertions, not for yours, or in response to your questions. The assertion for which I will gladly provide evidence is as follows: MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES, HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS. Do I have to explain this to you again Jeff? If I did, would you be satisfied? Or would you dig through all the reports trying to discredit them any way you could? I'm not basing my statements on any listing of specific sailings; rather, I'm saying that it is simply preposterous for you or your buddies to say that, with multiple thousands of Macs out there, there weren't incidents of skippers getting into severe, difficult situations. (And again, in any waters, not necessarily extended, blue-water voyages.) Difficult conditions? Yes, but I'm sure that what a Mac considers "difficult" is much different fron what other consider "difficult." Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is buying this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at least one must be real. Have you been probed lately? Wrong again . Because there are thousands of Macs out there, it would be incredible to believe that they haven't been subject to severe or difficult conditions of various kinds. Again, a silly argument. With all the pigs out there, there must be one that flies! Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of yourself with that one. - Remember that it was Ganz and others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy conditions. I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most multihulls have positive flotation, though a number have eventually sunk, fortunately long after the crew has been rescued. You're entitled to your own (unsupported) opinion, Marty, even if it's wrong. Marty might be wrong, but I'm Jeff. And I'm right. Both of you are wrong. But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. Actually you said he would be able to recover it, implying that he would be alive. There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up. And there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from "average nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover. Really, Marty? So far I haven't seen the reports of "plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from average nasty conditions." Where are those reports, Marty? Did I miss that particular post? Oh come on, Jim. Its pretty easy to find cases of dismastings and capsizes. And I've personally seen a broken rudder. Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller, lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch falls off and the boat floods. ... Pure speculation, Marty. Interesting writing, however. It would make a good fiction article. So now you're admitting you've not only never been in heavy weather, you've never read the the basic literature. As long as we all understand. I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me again this Fall. Sure thing. But you've said this every year. I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? With all the time you've said this, its preposterous to think that you wouldn't do it eventually. That's certainly on my to-do list for this Summer. I'm hoping to do some fishing out there also. Jim |
I decided
wrote: On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:29 GMT, JimC wrote: cavelamb himself wrote: JimC wrote: Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in my notes, or are you just stupid? Jim Hold up, Jim. You seem to be expecting rational behavior and fair treatment from the creatures inhabiting this list. They, on the other hand, are having fun making sport of you via your boat. Drop it and go on and enjoy sailing. Maybe the first cartoon here will help... http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm Richard Richard, yours is one of the few rational responses posted so far in this string. As you may have noted, I don't spend a lot of time in discussions of the Macs on alt.sailing.asa. However, I sometimes think that the MacBashers have been getting something of a free ride. - Few Mac owners seem to be willing to stick up for their boats on this ng, and it doesn't seem right that a boat as popular, versatile, and fun to sail as the Mac26 shouldn't be supported by at least some of their owners. Also, I sense that it's something of a shock to some of the MacBashers when they get their asses kicked. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't continue doing it. Jim Anybody participating in this thread feel that Jim kicked their ass, or anybody else's? Just curious... You should have worded that question as: "Is anyone participating in this thread honest enough to admit he got his ass kicked?" Admittedly, you wouldn't get many honest responses. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. I shall. Thanks. I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim You're right. I biased I biased Ganz? when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for 40 years, I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes. so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine. Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't. Jim Ah, falling back on typoism again. Well, ok. Good for you. You claimed the mac won't sink because it has positive floatation. Please prove it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com