|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. I shall. Thanks. I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim You're right. I biased I biased Ganz? when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for 40 years, I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes. so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine. Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't. Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message t... 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. Key phrase "I thought." You done thunked wrong. In your opinion, of course. 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. It's a vast Mac-bashing conspiracy! Alert the media. Please produce some evidence that it wouldn't roll over and over creating the effect of being in a washing machine if you were below decks. 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. 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. Please say it a bit louder. We can't HEAR YOU! If you hear me, then why don't you respond to my statement? Why do you insist on running down all those tangents and rabbit trails? Jim |
I decided
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). 2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Isn't this kinda the same as #1? 3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters, Isn't this kinda the same as #1, again? 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? 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. 4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including positive floatation Again, a common feature shared by many other boats. .... 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. DSK |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Anyone have a response to this note? Jim As for it being any type of "blue-water cruiser", here's what Roger MacGregor says about it in a Practical Sailor interview http://www.practical-sailor.com/samp...at_Review.html First, in case you didn't notice, that article isn't discussing the Mac 26M. It's talking about the old 26X. The new model includes a number of upgrades, a completely new hull design, and the addition of permanent ballast in addition to the water ballast. Secondly, Roger's discussion of the old 26X models isn't substantively different from my own statements concerning the 26M. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink. What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort liability, punitive damages, etc.) who gunned the boat to make a turn... Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or not, "guns" the engine. Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn. In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also substantially exceeded. But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue, and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.) Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac 26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had been one of the current 26M models. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. With 10,000 lbs of lead in it's hold, since I don't think you can get 10K of coffee in it? Right. Don't think Joe would (or could) have loaded 10,000 lbs of coffee into the Mac, do you Ganz? Along with his crew and their provisions? I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? If you're going offshore in a storm, get plenty of insurance! I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it. Jim |
I decided
jeff wrote: JimC wrote: jeff wrote: JimC wrote: ---------------------- Any Bermuda crossings? I believe so. What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove, or at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything. Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. And hundreds of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation. Yep. There are some careless, stupid people out there. One more time Marty. - I'll gladly back up the statements I actually made. But not those you are trying to put into my mouth. As previously noted: Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, 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 caricature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I actually did say. Its me Jim. Jeff, not Marty. Sorry. Regarding the positive floatation, as noted above, the Mac specs state that the boat, with full crew and motor, will continue to float even if the hull is compromised. Your assertion that this doesn't apply if the boat is in heavy weather conditions is illogical and is not supported by any evidence. (Think about what you are inferring. You seem to think that the boat will be broken into so many pieces that the foam floatation will all come loose, float out of the boat, leaving the boat and it's crew to sink. - SIMPLY RIDICULOUS! First of all, this is not ridiculous, it can and does happen. This, of course, is your opinion and is not supported. Whether it would apply to the Mac 26M, particularly with an experienced crew as was the case with Red Cloud, is another matter. However, all it would really take is a lost hatch, The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised. or a hull fracture to fully flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below to support life. 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. Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably will continue to roll over in a large sea. Maybe. Maybe not. Its a nice feature in a lake where boats sink because a cockpit drain fill with leaves, but its doesn't mean you can survive a major storm. Maybe. Maybe not. 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. 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. Maybe, if he were alive. And the Mac probably would be worth much even if most of it were there. At least he would still have a boat, and possibly some of the coffee. 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. Maybe. But probably not. - 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. 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. 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. OK, just so we're clear on this: you are standing by your assertion about a situation that has never happened. Further, you claim it doesn't matter if everyone drowns, as long as most of the boat is recovered. This certainly makes sense. Nope. That's not what I said. It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various waters around the world. That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because there are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the harbor. So is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make ludicrous claims claims and hope the jury is stupid? Think for a moment about what You are saying Jeff. Its Jeff, not Marty. 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. Second, although you 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. 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. 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. I have seen reports of owners sailing them off Australia, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore of California (often to Catalina Is.), etc. 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: 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. Do I have to explain this to you again Jeff? 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. - Remember that it was Ganz and others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy conditions. I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most multihulls have positive flotation, though a number have eventually sunk, fortunately long after the crew has been rescued. You're entitled to your own (unsupported) opinion, Marty, even if it's wrong. Marty might be wrong, but I'm Jeff. And I'm right. Both of you are wrong. But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. Actually you said he would be able to recover it, implying that he would be alive. There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up. And there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from "average nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover. Really, Marty? So far I haven't seen the reports of "plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from average nasty conditions." Where are those reports, Marty? Did I miss that particular post? Oh come on, Jim. Its pretty easy to find cases of dismastings and capsizes. And I've personally seen a broken rudder. Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller, lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch falls off and the boat floods. ... Pure speculation, Marty. Interesting writing, however. It would make a good fiction article. So now you're admitting you've not only never been in heavy weather, you've never read the the basic literature. As long as we all understand. I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me again this Fall. Sure thing. But you've said this every year. I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? 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. I'm hoping to do some fishing out there also. Jim |
I decided
wrote: On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:29 GMT, JimC wrote: cavelamb himself wrote: JimC wrote: Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in my notes, or are you just stupid? Jim Hold up, Jim. You seem to be expecting rational behavior and fair treatment from the creatures inhabiting this list. They, on the other hand, are having fun making sport of you via your boat. Drop it and go on and enjoy sailing. Maybe the first cartoon here will help... http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm Richard Richard, yours is one of the few rational responses posted so far in this string. As you may have noted, I don't spend a lot of time in discussions of the Macs on alt.sailing.asa. However, I sometimes think that the MacBashers have been getting something of a free ride. - Few Mac owners seem to be willing to stick up for their boats on this ng, and it doesn't seem right that a boat as popular, versatile, and fun to sail as the Mac26 shouldn't be supported by at least some of their owners. Also, I sense that it's something of a shock to some of the MacBashers when they get their asses kicked. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't continue doing it. Jim Anybody participating in this thread feel that Jim kicked their ass, or anybody else's? Just curious... You should have worded that question as: "Is anyone participating in this thread honest enough to admit he got his ass kicked?" Admittedly, you wouldn't get many honest responses. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. I shall. Thanks. I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim You're right. I biased I biased Ganz? when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for 40 years, I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes. so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine. Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't. Jim Ah, falling back on typoism again. Well, ok. Good for you. You claimed the mac won't sink because it has positive floatation. Please prove it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"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? If you hear me, then why don't you respond to my statement? Why do you insist on running down all those tangents and rabbit trails? Like the poor quality of the Mac rig? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink. What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort liability, punitive damages, etc.) who gunned the boat to make a turn... Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or not, "guns" the engine. Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn. In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also substantially exceeded. But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue, and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.) Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac 26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had been one of the current 26M models. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. With 10,000 lbs of lead in it's hold, since I don't think you can get 10K of coffee in it? Right. Don't think Joe would (or could) have loaded 10,000 lbs of coffee into the Mac, do you Ganz? Along with his crew and their provisions? I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? If you're going offshore in a storm, get plenty of insurance! I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it. Jim Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... wrote: On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:29 GMT, JimC wrote: cavelamb himself wrote: JimC wrote: Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in my notes, or are you just stupid? Jim Hold up, Jim. You seem to be expecting rational behavior and fair treatment from the creatures inhabiting this list. They, on the other hand, are having fun making sport of you via your boat. Drop it and go on and enjoy sailing. Maybe the first cartoon here will help... http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm Richard Richard, yours is one of the few rational responses posted so far in this string. As you may have noted, I don't spend a lot of time in discussions of the Macs on alt.sailing.asa. However, I sometimes think that the MacBashers have been getting something of a free ride. - Few Mac owners seem to be willing to stick up for their boats on this ng, and it doesn't seem right that a boat as popular, versatile, and fun to sail as the Mac26 shouldn't be supported by at least some of their owners. Also, I sense that it's something of a shock to some of the MacBashers when they get their asses kicked. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't continue doing it. Jim Anybody participating in this thread feel that Jim kicked their ass, or anybody else's? Just curious... You should have worded that question as: "Is anyone participating in this thread honest enough to admit he got his ass kicked?" Admittedly, you wouldn't get many honest responses. Jim I was being honest. My side hurts from laughing. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
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. 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. 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. 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? Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still take that over being in those conditions in a Mac. 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 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? 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. 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. 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. Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points. And again, you have the facts wrong: they weren't infants, and they weren't in the cockpit. (The child in the cockpit survived.) 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." 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. or a hull fracture to fully flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below to support life. 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. Again, Redcloud was providing a quite livable environment throughout the storm, and may well have survived, had they stayed on board. 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." 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. Maybe. But probably not. You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim? - 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. 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. 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." Second, although you 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. 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. 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, AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called "reality." 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. .... 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. |
I decided
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] How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion? You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would have been fine, 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. 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. 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. Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is bashing the Mac, 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. 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. To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for the results of a test that has yet to be conducted. Cheers Marty Cheers Marty |
I decided
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] Martin Baxter wrote: How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion? You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would have been fine, and remained afloat, But ignoring the point without the ability to carry 5 tons of cargo, there would have been zero point in taking a Mac26X~M on such a voyage in the first place. ... 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. Got that right. JimC isn't so much arguing the merits of the Mac26X~M as he is delivering a sermon to us heathens. You gotta BELIEVE!! 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 think church may be out, JimC seems to have left the pulpit. "Suitable for coastal sailing" is a bit of an exaggeration, much less offshore & ocean crossing. I've seen the things struggling... and having pieces break off... in average coastal/sheltered conditions, say 15 knot winds and 3 foot seas. One reason why MacGregor Co. upgraded the original Mac26X to the "new improved" 26M is that they suffered almost universal steering failure, the helm was the cheapest & smallest motorboat unit available and no part of the steering was built to handle normal sailing loads. 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. Just because they bought a Mac26 doesn't mean they are stupid... just that they are easily conned... and as JimC shows, the true faithful would rather preach endlessly to us unwashed sinners than actually go out sailing in real wind. To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for the results of a test that has yet to be conducted. Well, one can ask all one wants ... it's what one genuinely expects to receive that determines whether or not one is an imbecile ;) DSK |
I decided
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats. Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation materal. There is lots of air space between the beans. Casady |
I decided
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats. Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation materal. There is lots of air space between the beans. Casady Great idea! We could make a Mac out of coffee!! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. I shall. Thanks. I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim You're right. I biased I biased Ganz? when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for 40 years, I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes. so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine. Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't. Jim Ah, falling back on typoism again. Well, ok. Good for you. You claimed the mac won't sink because it has positive floatation. Please prove it. 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. 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." 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. Well Ganz, NOW IT'S YOUR TURN.. - When are you going to provide proof for your own ridiculous assertions. - Including the following amazing account: "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." Great fiction Ganz. Have a nice day. Jim |
I decided
|
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
|
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
|
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 |
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 05:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com