BoatBanter.com - I decided

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - I decided (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/93637-i-decided.html)

"sailor164" wrote in message
...
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.

A Sadler does not a Mac make.

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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:41:41 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
/snip/
There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is
the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of
inertia) /snip/

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.
/snip/
Bruce-in-Bangkok

This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an
engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it.
The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass.

Easy to look up though.....

Brian W

On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, Brian Whatcott wrote:
The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass.

Hmmm. I think mass moment of inertia is what you're after (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia). Second moment of inertia is
form stiffness (eg. the "I"'s in a mast section description).

-- Tom.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:35:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"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. :-)

Well, one simply advises the Captain that the crew will be limited to
a single "tee" shirt and pair of shorts. Keeps the weight down and
also restricts the use of fresh water, don;t you know?

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

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:10:11 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:41:41 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
/snip/
There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is
the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of
inertia) /snip/

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.
/snip/
Bruce-in-Bangkok

This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an
engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it.
The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass.

Easy to look up though.....

Brian W

Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how
a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on
stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major
effect on a boat rolling over.

Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be
picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs
500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders
about half way up the mast.

I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2
sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at
the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less
then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast
head.

The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the
Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date.

It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life
dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over.

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

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how
a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on
stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major
effect on a boat rolling over.

Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be
picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs
500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders
about half way up the mast.

I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2
sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at
the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less
then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast
head.

The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the
Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date.

It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life
dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacenter

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom
by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting
childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a
decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter,
so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry.

Jim

Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding
it would endure, it would likely break up),

--- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No?

it would be dismasted for sure.

Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No?

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.

Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No?

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.

LOL.

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.

That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing
a novel?

Either way, you wouldn't
survive.

Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to
support it.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom
by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting
childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a
decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter,
so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry.

Jim

Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up),

--- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No?

it would be dismasted for sure.

Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No?

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.

Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No?

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.

LOL.

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.

That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a
novel?

Either way, you wouldn't
survive.

Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to
support it.

Jim

Ganz is a closed-minded fool. You can't expect his like to act rationally.
His mind is made up so don't confuse him with the facts.

Macgregor 26s are great little boats. Thousands of people get a whole lot of
enjoyment out of them and I've not heard about one single solitary
foundering to date. And with thousands of Macs out there on the water a
sinking would be a daily event if Jon Boy was right.

--
Gregory Hall

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the
bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time
posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't
make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for
that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending
sophistry.

Jim

Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, 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.

Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200
miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say
was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all,
he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative,
critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps
even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case.
But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to
support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs
that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming
that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do
you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your
assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over
and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll?
If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the
evidence and statistics supporting your theories. 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?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim

Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it
over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that
the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to
be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac
out in those

conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL

It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than
what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the
boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the
boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if
the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the
boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being
on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay
keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart,
there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim

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?

Yes.

I have.

So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats.
They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the
crews abandoned them (to their peril).

Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
support your assertions.

You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable.
That's a pretty weak assumption.

From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about
boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Did I say that? Don't think so.

If the boat
is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat
won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I
love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at
it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point...
QED.

You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post.
I'm not man..... LOL

Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
Neal's original post.

Jim

On Apr 17, 6:12 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds
a boat up?

Lots of tiny levitation daemons? Maybe if you get them really riled
they'll hoist the boat clean into the air and you can save on haul out
fees. I take it that you aren't buying the argument from the clean
gent from Syracuse either. So, what are you saying?

-- Tom.