I decided
 

"JimC" wrote in message
...
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.

And, you haven't come up with any reference to any instance of any Mac
surviving a major storm. Jeff, on the other hand, came up with a reference
to people dying in protected waters.

Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any
circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation.

So, it might sink?? Oh my gosh!

Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. The current

For you maybe....

Well Ganz, NOW IT'S YOUR TURN.. - When are you going to provide proof for
your own ridiculous assertions. - Including the following amazing account:

Asked and answered...

"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."




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

I decided
 

jeff wrote:

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.

Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I would rather stick with a boat that was still
floating than a damaged boat with heavy keel and no floatation (Joe's
boat, not yours) that was going to sink to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico.




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.


- - "Won't support life?" - Any evidence supporting that strange
assertion Jeff?


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.

Yes, Red Cloud was floating when Joe left, but he was sufficiently
concerned that he called the CC and abandoned it. He obviously didn't
know whether the boat would sink or not, but had he been on a boat with
positive floatation, he might have been more confident about sticking
with the boat instead of calling the CC. But, of course, I never stated
that Joe would have elected to remain on the boat if he were in a
Mac26M, now did I? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. - It's
easier for you to respond that way, of course.


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?

Of course, neither of us knows. And it was also my understanding that
the seas didn't remain at that intensity for much longer. But I think
the Mac would have remained afloat and in one piece. (And you don't know
otherwise.)


Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still
take that over being in those conditions in a Mac.


Your call Jeff. I suppose Joe was fortunate (or prudent) to get off the
boat with his crew before it began to founder.


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


The Mac 26X (not necessarily the Mac 26M) can rollover if captained by a
drunk skipper who ignores or is ignorant of every safety warning given
with respect to the boat. And if the owner is so negligent that he
doesn't even check out the boat before lending it to his buddy.


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?


400 pounds.

I'm saying that Joe's situation (and that of any semi-responsible
skipper planning to take any boat offshore) was night and day different
from that of the drunk skipper on the 26X, who didn't know the first
thing about the boat, and with an irresponsible owner who didn't even
take time to check it out.
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.


One was 4, and the other was 9.

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.

Jeff, the important thing to remember about the Martin lawsuit was that
Martin lost and MacGregor won. Martin's lawyer tried to convince the
judge that the MacGregor 26X was inherently unsafe, and that
insufficient warnings had been given. The judge didn't buy it. - He said
the accident was a result of the drunk skipper (.217 alcohol). In other
words, if you have a skipper and crew drunk enough, and an owner who
doesn't even check the boat when lending it to his brother in law, XXXXX
can happen. Like, you wouldn't put a drunk, inexperienced driver into an
18-wheeler and expect him to drive down the freeway safely, or put a
drunk individual with no flying certificate into the cockpit of a 737
and expect him to land the plane. And in either case, you wouldn't blame
the manufacturers of the semi or the airplane for accidents caused by
the ignorant and drunk driver/pilot.

Again, Martin lost the case; MacGregor won the case.

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.

Correction. You showed how a 4-year old and 9-year old left in the cabin
of a 26X (not a 26M) could drown if the skipper was drunk and didn't
know enough to check the water ballast, the boat was overloaded (per
MacGregor's instructions), and the owner didn't even check out the boat
or the skipper.

Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points.


Nope. Not meaningless at all. One of the principle arguments of Martin's
attorney was that the boat was inherently unsafe. The judge ruled
against the plaintiff. (Martin lost, MacGregor won.)


And again, you have the facts wrong: they weren't infants, and they
weren't in the cockpit. (The child in the cockpit survived.)

Well, I would consider a 4-year old boy an infant. In any case, they
were apparently left in the cabin (not cockpit) while their
parents/cartakers got drunk on deck.


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."


Guess this is a matter of personal preference, Jeff. I would rather be
in a boat that was floating than one that had no floatation system and
that was subject to being pulled quickly to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico. Of course, if you would prefer to stay on the boat that would
sink to the bottom, that's your choice.


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.


Clarification: Your opinion, of course. Not mine.


or a hull fracture to fully

flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room
below to support life.


Examples? Incidents? Proof?


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.

Clarification: Your opinion, not mine.

Again, Redcloud was providing a quite livable environment throughout the
storm, and may well have survived, had they stayed on board.


Maybe. Maybe not.


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."

Doesn't mean it would roll over, or "continue" to roll over.


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.


Clarification: Your opinion, not mine.


Maybe. But probably not.


You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim?

You obviously don't know much about the most basic principles of logic
and evidence, Jeff. Also, apparently I know a lot more about the Mac
26M than you do.


- 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.



I have provided evidence supporting the assertions I made. (Read my notes.)

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.

Here's a few things to consider relative to such matters, Jeff:

For one thing, despite citing several accidents, 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. Thus, 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."

Jeff, 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 all inferences fairly derived therefrom), they would be
taking a hell of a chance releasing such statements about their
floatation system to the public. (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.


You also suggested that 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."

Nope.

Second, although you admitted

acknowledged, not "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.


Wrong again Jeff.


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.


See above discussion regarding this issue.



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,

Whatever.

AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN
THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called
"reality."


Actually, you live in a world void of any understanding whatsover of the
most basic principles of logic and evidence.

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.

Absolutely incredible, Jeff. Still trying to equate "flying pigs" to
MacGregor 26Ms! Still trying to suggest that, although there are
thousands of Mac owners all over the world, I have to "prove" that they
actually take their boats out, and that they all don't just keep them
safely tied up in their marinas in any and all severe weather
conditions. Again, totally absurd!


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.

Have a nice day. Hope you can find some time to take your boat out for a
change.

Jim

I decided
 

JimC wrote:


wrote:

I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for,
i.e. "inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they
designed for heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they
survive? Sure, but one can always assume that there is a high
likelihood that a boat will fail, often catastrophically, when used
*well* outside of its designed operating range. A simple matter of
engineering, not speculation.

Keith Hughes


As I said, they are not suited for extended crossings or blue water
cruising. While they are a coastal cruiser, they are not comfortable in
heavy weather. As to carrying 10K pounds of coffee, that would have to
be cut back somewhat. As also discussed previously, the Macs aren't
large enough to store provisions for extended cruising.

Jim

"Somewhat"? Capacity of 960lbs, including crew, would require a
reduction of, oh, say 95%. Ok, then your entire point is rendered moot,
true? If Redcloud had been a Mac, it couldn't have been carrying the
payload, so it wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place.
So it's a pointless argument to say "If Joe were in a Mac...", the Mac
is wholly unsuited to what he was trying to due, irrespective of the
weather component.

BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have:

"IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN."

It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy seas,
the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll.

So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not? It's
a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big
compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does what
it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom the
design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's also
wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are most boats.

Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I
wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a
coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design
parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and
simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design
space, or you're at risk.

Keith Hughes

I decided
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
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]

(Important deleted material returned)


Jeff, 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 caracature of Mac
owners WOULD have said, rather than what I did say. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Jim



How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?

As often as I am accused of saying things that I didn't say.



You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine,

Nope.

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.

What I said was that no one had provided any evidence that a Mac 26M,
with a storm anchor deployed, would roll over and over continuously, as
was stated by Ganz.

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.

Nope. I said that no one had provided any evidenc that it would fail,
under the conditions discussed regarding Red Cloud.

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 stated at the outset that I wouldn't want to take the boat offshore as
did Joe, and that I wouldn't recommend anyone else do so. This isn't a
"mysterious" recent insertion, as you seem to suggest.


Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is
bashing the Mac,

Really? That's news to me.


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.

Once more, I never said that the Mac was a suitable vessel to take
offshore in severe weather. (How many times do I have to repeat myself?)
I said that if Joe had been in a Mac 26M, I thought his boat would have
remained afloat.


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.


Here's some evidence that should be convincing (certainly more evidence
than has been posted by Ganz, Jeff, and their buddies).


So far, no one on this ng has posted any accounts or evidence 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.

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."

Now, you might be tempted to respond that this doesn't mean anything,
it's just advertising. - But you would be wrong. - 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.





Cheers
Marty

Cheers
Marty

Have a nice day Marty.

Jim

I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"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?


Seems to me we have been through this issue already, Ganz. - My point is
that you have no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not a Mac 26M,
with sea anchor deployed, would have rolled, much less roll over and
over and over like a washing machine.


Jim

I decided
 

wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:01:03 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote:


"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.


The Mac would be far more prone to this than a real sailboat with a real keel,

Clarification: Your opinion, not mine. Your opinion unsupported by any
evidence.

yet even those boats with all that counterweight opposing it, do this. The only
difference is that they have a greater likelyhood of self righting before you
drown. The mac would be slow to right itself, if it could even do so.

Again, your opinion. - Actually, the Mac26M becomes increasingly stiff
as it begins to heel. And in the unlikely event the it did begin to
roll, floatation built into the mast would supplement the two ballast
systems. (Oh, I forgot. According to Ganz, the boat would have been
dismasted by this time.) Again, your opinion, unsupported by anything.


Remember
that there is more than one wave out there. The forst one rolled you, and the
next 50 of them want to keep you from coming back up.


Thanks for that helpful bit of information Salty.

Jim

I decided
 

wrote:

JimC wrote:



wrote:

I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for,
i.e. "inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they
designed for heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they
survive? Sure, but one can always assume that there is a high
likelihood that a boat will fail, often catastrophically, when used
*well* outside of its designed operating range. A simple matter of
engineering, not speculation.

Keith Hughes



As I said, they are not suited for extended crossings or blue water
cruising. While they are a coastal cruiser, they are not comfortable
in heavy weather. As to carrying 10K pounds of coffee, that would have
to be cut back somewhat. As also discussed previously, the Macs
aren't large enough to store provisions for extended cruising.

Jim


"Somewhat"? Capacity of 960lbs, including crew, would require a
reduction of, oh, say 95%. Ok, then your entire point is rendered moot,
true? If Redcloud had been a Mac, it couldn't have been carrying the
payload, so it wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place.
So it's a pointless argument to say "If Joe were in a Mac...", the Mac
is wholly unsuited to what he was trying to due, irrespective of the
weather component.

Actually, the point being made was that the MacGregor had certain safety
features that Joe's boat didn't have. Yes, it's true that he couldn't
have carried 10,000 pounds of coffee in a Mac. On the other hand, he
didn't do a very good job of delivering 10,000 lbs. of coffee in Red
Cloud either.



BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have:

"IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN."


Where in the world did you get that verbage, Keith? Apparently you are
deliberately misquoting the Mac site.- The actual statements regarding
the floatation system a

"The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won’t sail well when fully flooded, and it will be
unstable, 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!"


-Nothing about the boat becoming "very unstable" or that it "may turn
upside down." - Keith, don't try that BS with me again.



It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy seas,
the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll.

Nope. That's your statement, not MacGregor's.


So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not?

I'm not defending it as something it's not. I have stated over and over
again that it isn't suibable for extended crossings or blue water
cruisings. I have also listed a number of advantages of conventional
boats over the Macs. What I'm doing is providing a degree of balance in
this discussion (typical of many other discussions on this ng) in which
the Macs are totally bashed, usually by guys who have never even sailed
one of the current models (the 26M). They have never sailed one, yet
they feel no hesitation in telling everyone else what they are like and
what they will and will not do.



It's
a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big
compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does what
it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom the
design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's also
wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are most boats.

Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I
wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a
coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design
parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and
simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design
space, or you're at risk.


Well, that's your assesment. And I don't know whether you have sailed a
26M or not. Can I safely assume that you have not?. (I have sailed the
Mac26M, in addition to a number of other boats in the 30 to 40 foot
range.)

Here's my assesment:


1) 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 for 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.

2) 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.)

3) 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.

4) 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.

5} 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.

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

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

8) 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.

9) 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.

10) 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.

11) 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.

12) 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.

On the downside, I've previously noted that the Macs aren't as
comfortable in chop or heavy weather, that they don't have sufficient
storage for a long voyage, that they don't point as well as larger
boats, and that they have a shorter waterline, that limits their hull
speed under sail.


Jim

I decided
 

JimC wrote:


wrote:
....
BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have:

"IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT
IS DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN."


Where in the world did you get that verbage, Keith? Apparently you are
deliberately misquoting the Mac site.- The actual statements regarding
the floatation system a

"The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won’t sail well when fully flooded, and it will be
unstable, 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!"


-Nothing about the boat becoming "very unstable" or that it "may turn
upside down." - Keith, don't try that BS with me again.

BWAHAHAHAHAAA! What a Jackass you are Jim. The comment appears twice
on the very same page, once for the 26M and again for the 26X. Its
exactly what I, and others, have been claiming.





It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy
seas, the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll.

Nope. That's your statement, not MacGregor's.

Nope, its MacGregor's!

I decided
 

wrote:

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).

And the Macs are by far the most popular of boats (trailerable or
untrailerable) of this size. And they have been so for many years. -
Wonder why this is, Doug? Misleading marketing?

2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina.


Isn't this kinda the same as #1?

Nope. The ability to conveniently and quickly transport the boat to
sailing areas located substantial distances from your home dock, and the
ability to store the boat out of the water if desired, are distinctly
different advantages. One has to do with the choice of sailing
environments, and the other relates to the option of storing the boat
in the water or out of it.


3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters,


Isn't this kinda the same as #1, again?


Not really. Some boats of this size have fixed keels and are not
suitable for trailering, or for shallow or irregular bottom waters.
Most trailerable boats are of limited size and capacity, and aren't
really suitable for anything but lake sailing.

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?

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and I don't want to get into
it again. However, as stated by Roger: "There are thousands of these
boats out there, and many have been caught in, and survived, some really
extreme weather conditions, on both lakes and oceans. Like most small
cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high winds and nasty seas, but
risk and discomfort levels increase dramatically in severe weather."
Note that he was speaking about the old 26X, not the current 26M. -
Though not a blue water boat, the Mac is definitely a coastal cruiser

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.


It's true that some Mac skippers are new and inexperienced. My boat has
roller furling and three reefing points on the main, and I haven't
experienced the troubles you're talking about. And, of course, there are
many Mac sailors with more experience than me.


4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including
positive floatation


Again, a common feature shared by many other boats.

Corrections. - Shared by many small boats but relatively few larger
boats. For example, relatively few of the boats discussed on this ng.
have it.


.... 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.


It's two or three times faster under power than most of the boats
discussed on this ng. And despite your "ha ha ha"s, having the OPTION to
motor in a plane is a valuable capability, useful in many circumstances.


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.


Again, you seem to think that if you throw in enough sarcasm and "ha ha
ha"s, are proving your point. - NOT.


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.

Again, a feature shared by some, but relatively few of the boats
discussed on this ng. A feature not shared by many boats of its size.
AND DON'T TELL ME THAT THERE AREN'T OTHER BOATS THAT HAVE THIS FEATURE,
because I didn't say that there weren't. I'm simply pointing out that
the combination of features provided in the Mac26M is quite extensive.


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?

It's worth repeating.


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.


Actually, my sails don't "flop around", and I don't "lurch aimlessly
across the water.


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.

What you haven't acknowledged, of course, is that although other boats
have some of the same features, the COMBINATION of capabilities and
features available on the Mac 26m is rather unique and is one reason
that the 26s have, over the years, been one of the most popular
sailboat series. Obviously, some boats are more responsive than the Mac
and can plane under sail, but most of them don't have anywhere near the
accommodations, comfort, and cabin size available with a Mac 26M. Also,
there are obviously many larger, heavier, more comfortable boats. -
However, most of them (not all) don't have the various advantages
(responsiveness, ability to sail or motor in shallow waters, ability to
motor at two to three times hull speed, trailerability. etc., available
on the Mac. Of course, the current Mac models benefit from experience
gained over many years of development, and feedback from thousands of
owners.

Please keep in mind that I have been sailing for over 40 years, with
experience on a number of large and smaller boats with a variety of
designs and characteristics. More recently, I also have some five years
of experience sailing the Mac 26M. Not saying that I'm an old salt, or
that I have sailed in competition on an Albacore or Laser. (I'm not
really interested in racing, more into cruising.) On the other hand, I
do have experience with and knowledge of a number of boats, most of
which were larger than the Mac. By contrast, I don't think you have a
lot of experience, if any, sailing the (current) Mac 26M. - Which is,
after all, the subject of this particular discussion. - I find that the
Mac 26M is a sweet compromise between larger, heavier boats and lighter
boats, with some of the advantages of each.

Again, when the wind hit the sails, it's magic!

Jim

I decided
 

JimC wrote:


wrote:

JimC wrote:

BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have:

"IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT
IS DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN."


Where in the world did you get that verbage, Keith? Apparently you are
deliberately misquoting the Mac site.- The actual statements regarding
the floatation system a

Here it is, so if you can't find it now, that's your deficiency, not
mine. The verbiage is cut and pasted verbatim. Hence the quotation
marks (and yes, it's in CAPS on the website):

http://www.macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm


"The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won’t sail well when fully flooded, and it will be
unstable, 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!"


-Nothing about the boat becoming "very unstable" or that it "may turn
upside down." - Keith, don't try that BS with me again.

Look, I've been trying to be polite, but if you're too lazy or dumb to
actually read the manufacturer's site, that's not my BS, that's *your*
malfunction. Accusing people of dishonesty, without checking your
references first, is the province of fools. As is attempting
intimidation over Usenet.



It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy
seas, the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll.

Nope. That's your statement, not MacGregor's.

********. *READ* the pertinent disclaimers on the website, not *just*
the marketing crap that you think supports your position.



So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not?

I'm not defending it as something it's not. I have stated over and over
again that it isn't suibable for extended crossings or blue water
cruisings. I have also listed a number of advantages of conventional
boats over the Macs. What I'm doing is providing a degree of balance in
this discussion (typical of many other discussions on this ng) in which
the Macs are totally bashed, usually by guys who have never even sailed
one of the current models (the 26M). They have never sailed one, yet
they feel no hesitation in telling everyone else what they are like and
what they will and will not do.

I've been on a 26X, and I sail around 26M's, so I have an idea of their
performance. There are several in my marina. And if you think that
"Macs are fine for their intended use" is Mac bashing, your English
comprehension is clearly suspect.


It's
a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big
compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does
what it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom
the design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's
also wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are
most boats.

Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I
wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a
coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design
parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and
simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design
space, or you're at risk.


Well, that's your assesment. And I don't know whether you have sailed a
26M or not. Can I safely assume that you have not?. (I have sailed the
Mac26M, in addition to a number of other boats in the 30 to 40 foot range.)

No, that's everyones assessment - everyone knowledgeable that is.
You're now arguing that operating boats outside their design envelopes
*doesn't* make them more prone to failure? I assume you must be, since
that's all my preceding two paragraphs say (except that obvious, that
trailerability and low cost require design compromises).


Here's my assesment:


1) A boat that is FUN TO SAIL!

And I disputed this *when* exactly?


2) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the
immediate area.

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

3) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina.

And I disputed this *when* exactly? I sailed a San Juan 26 for ten
years. It was a shoal draft keel/centerboarder, and was trailerable.
The San Juan, like the Mac26, and all other trailerable boats, share
this feature. So...


4) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters,

For which is designed and constructed. Blue water isn't it, per the
designer.


5} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including
positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised.

Not with any serious payload. Another of the compromises.

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

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

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

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

8) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger
boats

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

9) 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.

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

10) 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

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

11) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this
ng, isn't limited to hull speed.

And I disputed this *when* exactly?

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

Well, actually I think they are quite ugly. But yes that's clearly a
matter of personal preference. C30's are not particularly lovely either,
but mine is clean-lined enough to suit me.

On the downside, I've previously noted that the Macs aren't as
comfortable in chop or heavy weather, that they don't have sufficient
storage for a long voyage, that they don't point as well as larger
boats, and that they have a shorter waterline, that limits their hull
speed under sail.

A result of the many compromises necessary to create a light,
inexpensive, trailerable boat.

For someone who has whined incessantly, in this thread, about people
misreading your posts, and misquoting or misrepresenting *you*, you
clearly have no compunction about doing the same to others.

Keith Hughes