I decided
|
I decided
JimC wrote:
[snipped more unfounded repitition] 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 Yes and most of us, who have a little experience, agree that while some part of your Mac may have remained afloat, it would have been entirely uninhabitable, and probably fatal for those involved. Why you must persist in suggesting that this rather flimsy vessel would somehow be suitable for such a venture is absolutely mind boggling. Cheers Marty |
I decided
JimC wrote:
And the Macs are by far the most popular of boats (trailerable or untrailerable) of this size. Says who? Why MacGregor of course. And does popularity really prove anything with a product that is so mendaciously advertised? This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and I don't want to get into it again. Why, because you know that I have actually seen the failures of the boat I've described to you, and it's painful to acknowledge? It's two or three times faster under power than most of the boats discussed on this ng. Most sailors aren't interested in bragging about how fast their boats go under power. And the Mac's claims of of speed are grossly exaggerated, they lose speed dramaticaly when carrying any weight beyond the stripped-bare minimum. And there are actually quite a few boats that can sail faster than the Mac26X~M can motor. AND DON'T TELL ME THAT THERE AREN'T OTHER BOATS THAT HAVE THIS FEATURE, Why, does it bother you? 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 Only if you haven't looked beyond the Mac advertising brochures .... 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, But many of them do. Please keep in mind that I have been sailing for over 40 years, with experience on a number of large and smaller boats And yet, you haven't noticed that the Mac26X~M actually has rather poor sailing & handling characteristics, which is obvious to many experienced sailors just by watching the thing. .... I'm not really interested in racing, more into cruising. Well, good performance is good performance. If you want to experience the "magic of sail" then it doesn't matter if you're interested in racing. Again, when the wind hit the sails, it's magic! Not really. It's technology. ;) DSK |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... 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 have plenty of evidence, but you don't want to hear it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"jeff" wrote in message
. .. 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! Thanks for snipping his bs. He's a motor mouth besides. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... JimC wrote: [snipped more unfounded repitition] 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 Yes and most of us, who have a little experience, agree that while some part of your Mac may have remained afloat, it would have been entirely uninhabitable, and probably fatal for those involved. Why you must persist in suggesting that this rather flimsy vessel would somehow be suitable for such a venture is absolutely mind boggling. Cheers Marty Because Jim needs desperately to justify his purchase. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
JimC wrote: jeff wrote: JimC wrote: jeff wrote: 400 pounds. Correction: 300 pounds. Sorry. Jim |
I decided
JimC wrote:
jeff wrote: 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. You would be begging for mercy in 30 seconds if you were down below in a flooded Mac in 60+ knot winds with 30 foot breakers. 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? Dead bodies, Jim. Hard to ignore. 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. Sure, foam would be handy in the case, though not very practical in Joe's boat. 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. Did I ever say that? You're the one putting words in my mouth. 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.) Now you're resorting to claiming this exact scenario has never happened so we can't tell for sure. But, we do know the people have drowned within minutes of a rollover in calm conditions. It is too much of a stretch to imagine that 60 knots of wind and 30 foot breakers would make it worse. 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. Yes, he probably made the right choice. But Redcloud did keep them alive until that point. 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. It doesn't matter how the Mac rolled, the fact that it can roll is the point. 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. Wrong, but do we assume by you silence on this point that you claim it would keep the boat upright? 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. Totally irrelevant. Drunk or sober, competent or not, nothing is going to prevent the Mac from being seriously knocked around in those conditions. 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. This may be the important thing for a lawyer. But for the rest of humanity, that fact that two people drowned is the "important thing." And I repeat, while the rollover may have been caused by a drunk, the fact remains that the boat did roll over, and that two people died within minutes because it filled with water. snip irrelevant nonsense about the lawsuit 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 So, are you claiming that they would have lived if the boat had rolled over when the skipper was sober??? 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.) So thus you're claiming the boat is perfect safe in 60 knots and 30 foot breakers. 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. I'd rather be on a boat that will float long enough to be rescued, than one that only has a few cubic feet of air left and is rolling over and over. .... Again, from the Mac "safety" page: "it will be unstable." Doesn't mean it would roll over, or "continue" to roll over. You certainly lost that point, didn't you Jim? .... 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. Clarification: the opinion of everyone who has experienced these conditions. 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. And yet, you accused someone of fabricating warnings about this very issue that appear clearly on the MacGregor site. 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.) Your "evidence" is your claim that "it must have happened." 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. You keep resorting to the one claim that is not particularly significant. I guess that's all you have. Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation. And again, I never claimed it would sink, though I wouldn't be surprised if it suffered major structural damage. Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. .... snip claim the MacGregor couldn't lie about the foam flotation because that would be a liability Hey Jim, I'm not claiming the foam doesn't exist. I not even claiming it wouldn't save lives in ordinary conditions. In fact it is Federal Law that small boats have flotation, and I applaud MacGregor's decision to include it even though the 26 is big enough to be exempt. They are simply recognizing that without the foam it is as dangerous as a smaller boat. But that doesn't mean it would keep you alive in 60 knot winds and 30 foot breakers. 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. That's a convincing argument. 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. So do you claim you can but you won't? Is that what you tell the judge? 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. That really hurts, coming as it does from someone whose arguments could be summarized as: "with so many Macs out there, SURELY some of them MUST have experienced these conditions" and "I can provide evidence, but I won't" and "The fact that a Mac rolled over and two people drowned does not prove that a Mac can roll over and people might drown. What's important is the MacGregor was not held liable." and lets not forget your claims of fabriction of MacGregor's own warnings about the possibility of rolling over: 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. to which you replied: "Apparently you are deliberately misquoting the Mac site" 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! I won't deny that Macs have survived 20 knots, maybe even 25 or 30. And its likely that in local squalls they have survived quite strong winds for brief periods. Nor would I deny that Macs have survived, as you say, "difficult conditions," though I wonder what you mean by that. However, this is quite different from 60 knots and 35 foot breaking seas for a day or so, following a day of 35 knots. These conditions simply do not happen without warning in areas where any sane Mac owner would sail. So while its possible that they might encounter 40 knots and 10 foot seas for an hour or so before getting it, this says absolutely nothing about how it would stand up to a true offshore storm. Claiming that "it simply must have happened" is a stupid statement. It would only be made by a lawyer who has completely lost his case and would say anything to save face. 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. I'll be out there for two months again this summer. I've been cleaning and buffing and changing oil this week, probably in the water in two weeks. Enjoy. |
I decided
"jeff" wrote in message
. .. stuff snipped Here's absolute proof that Macs will roll... and this was in calm conditions! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlhU...eature=related -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com