I decided
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the
ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that
shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side
in
ocean conditions? I have.-


Jim

Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
place.

It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
the deck line.

I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)


If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave
to, rather than lying ahull. This implies some sail up. Thus, some ability
to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the storm,
you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could do
it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to.

Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. Seems to me it
would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least
dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.

If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political
pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll
be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making
some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way.

All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve
stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just fold
up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who wants
to go offshore. LOL

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

I decided
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:14 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the
ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that
shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side
in
ocean conditions? I have.-


Jim

Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
place.

It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
the deck line.

I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)


If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave
to, rather than lying ahull. This implies some sail up. Thus, some ability
to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the storm,
you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could do
it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to.

I apparently misunderstood the situation you were describing.

However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a
highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be
overwhelmed.

Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high
enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other
hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough
that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in
the trough of the wave and pitch pole.

Even in the Fastnet race there were vastly different experiences with
some boats overcome and others merely having a "spot of heavy weather"
as the British put it.

But all things considered I suspect that the hatchway and ports of a
lightly built boat wold be the weak points and the boat would probably
have serious problems not being swamped.


Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. Seems to me it
would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least
dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.

If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political
pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll
be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making
some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way.

All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve
stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just fold
up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who wants
to go offshore. LOL

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

I decided
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
place.

It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
the deck line.

I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is
the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of
iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas.
The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the
water line.

Brian W

I decided
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:01:19 GMT, wrote:

Try going out in a storm. Water isn't so soft as you think, and when your
nice little Mac goes flying off the top of 30 foot wave, then gets pounded
by another one, and another, and another, you'll know the answer.

I don't think I've ever seen one under sail, always motoring along
with the skipper perched up in the air on that funny little helm seat.
Given the big outboards they are typically powered with and the
limited fuel range that implies, it seems doubtful they could make it
very far offshore. Somewhere on the internet is a video of a Hobie 33
surviving a 30 ft drop test into the water. Perhaps our friend would
be willing to volunteer his Mac for similar testing.

I decided
 

JimC wrote:


To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other
than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments
regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted.

If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the
ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital
vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly.

Cheers
Marty

I decided
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:20:21 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
place.

It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
the deck line.

I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is
the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of
iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas.
The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the
water line.

Brian W

Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure
but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously
doubt. I have had the spreaders in the water (not on purpose, I might
say) and the boat popped right back up. I don't believe that a
properly designed sail boat will roll over except when it is overcome
with a breaking wave and the boat effectively falls down the face of
the wave.

This assumes some mediocre level of seamanship, i.e., not full sails
in a typhoon....

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

I decided
 

JimC wrote:
To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other
than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments
regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted.

You're just like the little old lady who has 47 cats... anybody who
thinks it's not great just plain HATES KITTYS, and must therefor be a
barbarian.

I've had cats, and still prefer dogs. I've sailed a Mac 26X, sailed in
company with the 26M (which despite all ad copy, and your
protestation, is pretty much the same boat)... and they don't sail
very well, period.

BTW I've also sailed the older Mac 26 which was a much better sailing
boat, and a number of the yet-older Ventures.


Martin Baxter wrote:
If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the
ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital
vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly.


Obviously you have no knowledge or experience with the heat-shielding
properties of un cored fiberglass, with a high proportion of chopper
gun. The Mac 26X (or the MUCH BETTER 26M) would be far better as a
reentry vehicle than most conventional sailboats.

DSK

I decided
 

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a
highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be
overwhelmed.


And don't overlook or underestimate the knockdown. I've seen this
happen on small & medium sized
keelboats: the a heavy gust blows the boat over far enough to put the
boom in the water, at which point the keel has lost effectiveness as a
foil & the boat is being shoved sideways... putting increasing
pressure from water flow on the mainsail & boom, dragging the rig
under... boat inverts and may have a pretty strong tendency to stay
that way. No wave action necessary.


Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high
enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other
hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough
that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in
the trough of the wave and pitch pole.


And if the drogue *does* slow you sufficiently, then you are being
pulled through a breaking crest and being hammered by truckloads of
water at 60+. There is no bulletproof "right answer."

Furthermore, the sea can be destructive beyond belief. I've seen one
of those V-shaped depression gales generate sea conditions that ripped
welded steel fittings off a US Navy vessel. IMHO there is *no*
cruising sailboat... or racer either, for that matter... which could
have survived those local conditions, no matter what her equipment or
tactics. The only answer is to be elsewhere when it gets that bad.

DSK

I decided
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:51:14 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...
That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a
10-story apartment building it might "break up"?

Careful how you answer....


OK.- Being very, very careful .... I suspect that if the Mac were
dropped
off a 10-story building, it might suffer severe structural damage. Once
again, however, I don't know how I would manage the logistics of such an
experiment.

Try going out in a storm. Water isn't so soft as you think, and when your
nice little Mac goes flying off the top of 30 foot wave, then gets pounded
by another one, and another, and another, you'll know the answer.


To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other
than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
sarcasm,
there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding
the
Mac26M. - As I initially noted.

You're right. It just takes common sense. The Mac is a great boat for
protected waters and light winds with small waves. Any place else, and you
can't blame the boat for the consequences.

Yeah, blame the sales brochure!




I was blaming the salesman with the slicked back hair.


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

I decided
 

wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that,
other
than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments
regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted.

You're just like the little old lady who has 47 cats... anybody who
thinks it's not great just plain HATES KITTYS, and must therefor be a
barbarian.

I've had cats, and still prefer dogs. I've sailed a Mac 26X, sailed in
company with the 26M (which despite all ad copy, and your
protestation, is pretty much the same boat)... and they don't sail
very well, period.

BTW I've also sailed the older Mac 26 which was a much better sailing
boat, and a number of the yet-older Ventures.


Martin Baxter wrote:
If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the
ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital
vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly.


Obviously you have no knowledge or experience with the heat-shielding
properties of un cored fiberglass, with a high proportion of chopper
gun. The Mac 26X (or the MUCH BETTER 26M) would be far better as a
reentry vehicle than most conventional sailboats.

DSK



Not after I hack it up with a chainsaw... LOL

I have a friend who has one of the older Macs. He reinforced a lot of stuff
and sails in the bay. Does fine... knowing the limitations of his boat.


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