|
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... In your opinion, of course. As opposed to?? 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. That's what happens when a boat is dismasted and starts to roll in heavy seas. It sometimes only rolls once, but is just as likely to roll over and over. Are you disputing this? 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? Like the poor quality of the Mac rig? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... 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 Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
JimC wrote:
jeff wrote: 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. Yes, if it were possible to put foam in a heavy steel boat it might have helped. And I'm happy that my boat has a lot of foam plus 6 sealed flotation chambers, and no heavy keel. But I also know it would be at risk of sinking if certain types of calamities occurred. But again, my point is not the the Mac would be smashed to little pieces and never found; its that even while it floats it would not provide a livable platform for the crew. 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. Earth to Jim!!! Redcloud was still floating and in fact under sail when it was abandoned. Joe believed it could still survive the storm and went out looking for her. There's a good chance they would have come through the storm had they stayed on board, but we'll probably never know, unless it turns up as a fishing boat in Central America. Now, on the other hand, what would happen to a Mac with a few days of 35 knots followed by a day of 60 knots and 30-35 foot breaking seas? Would there be anything left? Would there be enough to support life? Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still take that over being in those conditions in a Mac. 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. So you're claiming that 300 pounds of ballast under the floor is sufficient to keep the boat upright in 60 kts, with 35 foot breakers? 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. No, they weren't infants, they were (I think) about 8 and 9, wearing life jackets. The fact that both were unable to survive even a few minutes shows that surviving a day in near hurricane condition unlikely. 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. Again, this is a nice concept on a calm lake. I doesn't quite work in 35 foot breakers. And remember, Redcloud was floating and under sail at the time of the rescue. 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. Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points. And again, you have the facts wrong: they weren't infants, and they weren't in the cockpit. (The child in the cockpit survived.) You should look again at the picture on the Mac web site: http://macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm Note that the water is up to the gunnel, leaving perhaps 10-12 inches of headroom in the cabin. Now add in 35 foot breakers. Note the caption under the first pictu "it will be unstable." However, all it would really take is a lost hatch, The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised. Again, useful in a wide variety of situations, but not enough for the condition we're talking about. 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. I think that ten minutes into the storm you would change your mind. Again, Redcloud was providing a quite livable environment throughout the storm, and may well have survived, had they stayed on board. Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably will continue to roll over in a large sea. Maybe. Maybe not. Again, from the Mac "safety" page: "it will be unstable." 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. Maybe in a moderate storm. 60 knots with 30-35 foot waves is a different story. 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. You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim? - 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. But you have claimed that they have survived heavy weather (excuse me, "Difficult conditions") many times. 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. Really? But you admit that in fact you've never done what you claimed you would do. And you claim you've never heard mention of dismasting, or rudder damage, meaning that you're obviously either lying or suffering from "mad cow." 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. But you can't even offer a single reference to one such case were a Mac returned. 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. So you've been hanging around my marina? 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. You have insisted that its "preposterous" to think the macs have not done offshore passages, or that they haven't encountered conditions like what Redcloud did. That's what I'm attacking. 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: So you have faith, but are unable to prove. This is a religion for you. OK, you're entitled. 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 Again: I DON'T CARE!!! I'M NOT GANZ, AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called "reality." 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. You're the one insisted there must be a flying pig out there. Its your argument. Its the argument that lawyers use when they know their case is hopeless. The insist that even though they have no facts, SURELY it must have happened. .... 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. Is this your "bucket list"? I'm hoping to do some fishing out there also. I hope you do - I'm looking forward to your report. |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Marty wrote: JimC wrote: 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. I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs can fly. Are really that dense? Cheers Marty Cute, Marty. Of course, you are evading the points made in my previous responses as to what I DID and DID NOT say. - See below: [snipped obfuscation] How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion? You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would have been fine, and remained afloat, you then went on to imply that a Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done. You have defended the strength of the rigging on a Mac and again by implication suggested that it's perfectly adequate for surviving major storms offshore. Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended crossings", that's a good start. Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is bashing the Mac, does not constitute a valid argument. Most of us are in fact saying that the Mac is fine if you use it for what it was intended to be used for. Too suggest that a Mac is a fine sailing vessel, with the capability to survive severe weather off shore, is patently ridiculous and simply indefensible. Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners. To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for the results of a test that has yet to be conducted. Cheers Marty Cheers Marty |
I decided
Cute, Marty. Of course, you are evading the points made in my previous
responses as to what I DID and DID NOT say. - See below: [snipped obfuscation] Martin Baxter wrote: How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion? You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would have been fine, and remained afloat, But ignoring the point without the ability to carry 5 tons of cargo, there would have been zero point in taking a Mac26X~M on such a voyage in the first place. ... you then went on to imply that a Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done. Got that right. JimC isn't so much arguing the merits of the Mac26X~M as he is delivering a sermon to us heathens. You gotta BELIEVE!! Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended crossings", that's a good start. I think church may be out, JimC seems to have left the pulpit. "Suitable for coastal sailing" is a bit of an exaggeration, much less offshore & ocean crossing. I've seen the things struggling... and having pieces break off... in average coastal/sheltered conditions, say 15 knot winds and 3 foot seas. One reason why MacGregor Co. upgraded the original Mac26X to the "new improved" 26M is that they suffered almost universal steering failure, the helm was the cheapest & smallest motorboat unit available and no part of the steering was built to handle normal sailing loads. Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners. Just because they bought a Mac26 doesn't mean they are stupid... just that they are easily conned... and as JimC shows, the true faithful would rather preach endlessly to us unwashed sinners than actually go out sailing in real wind. To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for the results of a test that has yet to be conducted. Well, one can ask all one wants ... it's what one genuinely expects to receive that determines whether or not one is an imbecile ;) DSK |
I decided
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats. Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation materal. There is lots of air space between the beans. Casady |
I decided
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats. Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation materal. There is lots of air space between the beans. Casady Great idea! We could make a Mac out of coffee!! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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. Ganz, for one thing, no one on this ng has been able to come up with ANY reference to ANY instance of ANY Mac 26 (X or M models) sinking under ANY circumstances. That in itself is pretty convincing evidence that the floatation is effective to keep the boat afloat in a variety of difficult environments and situations - This was the case even in the unfortunate instance involving the drunk skipper on a Mac26X (not M), with drunk guests. Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation. Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. The current MacGregor website makes the following statements about the Mac 26M: "The MacGregor 26 has built-in solid foam floatation to keep it afloat in the event of damage. It won't sail fast when flooded like this, but it beats swimming. Most competing boats do not offer this essential safety protection, and their heavy keels can pull them straight to the bottom. Don't get a boat without solid flotation!" Additionally, it includes a photograph of a boat partially sunk but still afloat and supporting five adult men standing on its cabin, with the following comment: "We drilled a hole in the bottom of the boat and let it fill. The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the event of damage." The related legal principles are as follows: In the event of death or injury by a Mac owner or guest resulting from a failure of the floatation system, MacGregor could be sued under several legal principles (deceptive trade practices, negligence, torts, punitive damages, criminal negligence, etc.) with the plaintiffs citing the above sections of MacGregor's published literature. In other words, if MacGregor didn't have good support for the above statements (and inferences fairly derived therefrom), they would be taking a hell of a chance releasing such public statements about their floatation system. (And since they have the advice of a fairly good legal team, it's rather naive (incredulous, actually) to suggest that they simply put that information out there on the web without approval by counsel. Well Ganz, NOW IT'S YOUR TURN.. - When are you going to provide proof for your own ridiculous assertions. - Including the following amazing account: "it would likely break up), it would be dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush. In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive." Great fiction Ganz. Have a nice day. Jim |
I decided
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com