"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)


Bruce, thanks for turning this into a "real" discussion vs. my rant
(according to Jim) against Macs. You're destroying people's expections about
the lack of quality of a.s.a.

Seriously though... sure, there are going to be times when, as Doug and
others have said, it's best to not be there... nothing is for sure.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote:
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.


Well, the limits of the boat are still beyond the limits of the
sailor, in most cases.

The MacGregor / Venture line was never high-end, not after the "blue-
water cruiser" market or the "America's Cup" market. But there are a
heck of a lot of them out there and many are still sailing after all
these years. The decks flex sure, but the only time I have known one
to suffer major structural failure was while trailering... hit by
another car...

A lot of the MacGregor boats sail quite well, probably the older swing-
keel Mac 25 was the best (before the water ballast craze).
Unfortunately the 26X/M nonsense has ruined what reputation the older
models had.

DSK

On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said:

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

As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough
to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a
mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable".

But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own.

I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once
the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up
in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of
cloth can create.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said:

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

As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to
prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up
can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable".

But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its
own.

I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the
boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a
timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can
create.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down.
Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is
better offshore. :-)


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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:59:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.


I had exactly this experience. Carrying a full main and 150% genoa
sailing along off a fairly long island in light air. We came to a cut,
or valley in the hills on the island and Wham the spreaders were in
the water.

As the boat heeled the rudder lost effectiveness and the boat rounded
up and nearly before I could realize what was happening we were
upright headed nearly into the wind.

Just to add insult to injury, after I got the boat moving (and the
pulse rate down) we proceeded along the coast still in light air.
Well, about 45 minutes later we came to another notch in the hills and
the same thing happened again.

So, in my limited experience, in a heavy displacement medium length
keel boat the ballast will pull the boat back upright with the mast
horizontal and at least some off the sails in the water.



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


You are correct - we take out life in out hands every time we go
sailing; ride in airplanes; drive a car. Hell! some people die
shoveling the snow off the driveway. Life is just a dangerous business
to be in.


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

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:59:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.


I had exactly this experience. Carrying a full main and 150% genoa
sailing along off a fairly long island in light air. We came to a cut,
or valley in the hills on the island and Wham the spreaders were in
the water.

As the boat heeled the rudder lost effectiveness and the boat rounded
up and nearly before I could realize what was happening we were
upright headed nearly into the wind.

Just to add insult to injury, after I got the boat moving (and the
pulse rate down) we proceeded along the coast still in light air.
Well, about 45 minutes later we came to another notch in the hills and
the same thing happened again.

So, in my limited experience, in a heavy displacement medium length
keel boat the ballast will pull the boat back upright with the mast
horizontal and at least some off the sails in the water.


I had an interesting experience with a Merit (25?) years ago. I was sailing
in the south bay, where there are occasional small tornado-like whirlwinds
coming from the marsh land. They're packing 40kts or so (total guess on my
part), but are very small. They are very unpredictable, as we found out. We
saw one quite a way off, and it was moving away from us. We were looking
elsewhere, when it basically knocked us down while we were close hauled. The
main touched the water before we could do anything, then the boat popped
right back and we continued sailing. Now that was a thrill ride.

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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said:

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

As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to
prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up
can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable".

But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its
own.

I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the
boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a
timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can
create.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down.
Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is
better offshore. :-)

Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is
broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to
forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel
to sail. Think about it for a moment.

1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position

2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't
make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out.

3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the
portion exposed to the waves.

4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head
stay.

5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your
significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes.

6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights.

7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha
with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick
your wounds.

8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the
summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also
allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to
live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating
in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking.

No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and
in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail.

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

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott
said:

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

As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to
prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up
can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable".

But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on
its
own.

I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once
the
boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a
timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth
can
create.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down.
Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is
better offshore. :-)

Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is
broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to
forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel
to sail. Think about it for a moment.

1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position

2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't
make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out.

3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the
portion exposed to the waves.

4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head
stay.

5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your
significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes.

6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights.

7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha
with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick
your wounds.

8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the
summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also
allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to
live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating
in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking.

No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and
in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail.

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


Hard for me to disagree... probably the only major negatives are stowage and
cost, the former of which you have to watch or it'll get out of control and
really slow down the boat. Crew fatigue is a *big* factor for long-distance.
I saw a cat that had screens up around the cockpit, so screw the mosquitos.

When we charter in various locations, we always rent a catamaran... makes
for a much pleasant vacation.

Disclaimer: I own a mono. :-)

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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can
create.

This is true of 38 foot planing hull daysailers [ A scows]. If you
want to call them dinghies. I have never sailed a dinghy, but I have
had the sails in the water many times, as much as twenty, or so, times
in one day [ Sunfish ]. Burying the mast in the mud will also make a
boat hard to right. The Iowa lake I sailed on as a kid is everywhere
20 feet deep, and mast groundings were common. Never was any damage.

Casady

On Apr 13, 8:39*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message

...







Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC
wrote:

You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. *Again,
where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this
assertion?

His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is
not designed or built for off-shore conditions. *Where is your
evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas?

I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and
sinking in heavy seas. - Have you?

Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out
there. But, feel free and send us a report!

It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. *Pick one
up 30
feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. *That will
give you a good idea where the weak spots are.

I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy
seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might
reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt.
have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not
impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in
the air and drop it into the water several times.

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....

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge.

Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water.
Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe.