Gregory Hall wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


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

Jim



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

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


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


it would be dismasted for sure.

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


Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an option), your only chance
for survival would be below decks, while the boat rolled over and over
and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time to time.

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


It would be like being in

a washing machine with heavy and sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a
non-habitable environment of flying hazards including yourself that would
break your bones into mush.

LOL.

In desperation to escape, you would vacate the

premises, and then either be thrown off the boat by the wave action or
you would remove yourself from the boat deliberately.


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

Either way, you wouldn't

survive.


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

Jim


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

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

--
Gregory Hall


Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
world and in all types of conditions.

I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats
have certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of
larger boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas,
Ericksons, Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I
bought the Mac.) The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their
own, provided you aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from
Belize to Galveston.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
news
As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case.
Yes, I know so.

Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.

Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as
Joe's boat.

From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
about boats.

It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles
of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize
it, much less admit it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some
evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and
your contentions.


A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Once again, did I say that? Don't think so.


You don't know much about boats...


And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that
fact, much less admit it.
clearly, and I do think so.


Clearly, you're trying to change the subject.


Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally

Yes, this we know.

to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or
shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe

And, you thought wrong.

described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as
yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not
supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay,
speculation, and personal bias.

Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
conditions, none of which include offshore.

I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
friend's older Mac26.


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

"JimC" wrote in message
...
If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to
heave to, rather than lying ahull.

Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of
survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the
Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep
breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an
exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods
may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. -
For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about
families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many
participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn
the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste
even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different
tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of
boats."

Feel free to believe what you want. Heaving-to is one of the best methods to
survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the"
best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm
sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line.

Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better
with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or
under a reefed sail plan.

Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it would
be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be gone, it
would be unsailable.



Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.

In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...

Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your Mac?


Seems to me it
would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at
least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.

Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one
direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting
against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted
by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently
resist a knock-down or complete roll.

Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for a
while.


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

Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is,
the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the
particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not
recommended.

You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring,
supporting a piece of junk.


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

In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

Uh oh. Don't get me started on Metacenters. As the name implies they
aren't real and nothing makes stability harder to understand from what is
generally written. I've given many lectures on stability and I usually have
to spend the first third of the lecture getting the students to forget all
the stuff they read the night before.

Metacenters and metacentric height are very useful calculation shortcuts for
naval architects but a very poor way to understand the forces involved.

Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds
a boat up?


Air pressure?

--
Molesworth

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
world and in all types of conditions.

I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats have
certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of larger
boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas, Ericksons,
Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I bought the Mac.)
The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their own, provided you
aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from Belize to Galveston.

Jim


You must be desperate. Now you're replying to a known liar and stalker.

Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim they're
more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it includes offshore.
Yes, it's a rhetorial question.

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

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:55 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC
wrote:

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


You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.

Good point. Let's take it past Mac-bashing.
Here's some advice for those who take such things seriously.
Whether it's a Mac or more substantial boat, don't assume your
cleats have backing plates and will take much strain.
I've read of one "well respected" brand sailboat having no backing
plates and breaking up on the rocks when the cleats pulled out during
a blow, losing the mooring.
Another boat that the "real sailors" fawn over is now undergoing some
refurbishing by a real sailor friend of mine.
He found a faultily bedded thruhull that only luck kept from coming
free and perhaps sinking the boat.
In both cases the boats were built with the weaknesses/defects.
Know your boat well, and know what you can expect of it when you ask
it to save your bacon.
BTW, I recall at least one Mac owner detailing his procedure for
installing a substantial backing plate for a critical cleat.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:55 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC
wrote:

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


You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.

Good point. Let's take it past Mac-bashing.
Here's some advice for those who take such things seriously.
Whether it's a Mac or more substantial boat, don't assume your
cleats have backing plates and will take much strain.
I've read of one "well respected" brand sailboat having no backing
plates and breaking up on the rocks when the cleats pulled out during
a blow, losing the mooring.
Another boat that the "real sailors" fawn over is now undergoing some
refurbishing by a real sailor friend of mine.
He found a faultily bedded thruhull that only luck kept from coming
free and perhaps sinking the boat.
In both cases the boats were built with the weaknesses/defects.
Know your boat well, and know what you can expect of it when you ask
it to save your bacon.
BTW, I recall at least one Mac owner detailing his procedure for
installing a substantial backing plate for a critical cleat.

--Vic


There's no point in bashing them. They can't take it! (sorry)

As to backing plates and thru-hull/stopcocks, you definitely need to check.
Interestingly, for the latter, I noticed one of mine was very slightly
weeping. Here's what they look like via the drawing:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW....16306491370466

They're bronze and very tough. Basically, I manipulated it many times, every
chance I got, and the weeping seems to have stopped. Now, I check at every
opportunity.

I don't have a line drawing of the big cleat on the foredeck, but here's a
drawing of the stanchion assembly:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW....16276426599298


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

JimC wrote:

Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
world and in all types of conditions.


Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real offshore
passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most of the
comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open ocean and it
does quite well, especially since I can power in before it get too
rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing." The fact that
Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing to Catalina (or
Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas) does not mean they
have been "offshore."

I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages, but
every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe 8-10 foot
seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these conditions should
be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent skipper. But when you say
"offshore" you're implying the possibility of much worse conditions, 50+
knots, large breaking seas, and storms lasting several days. I'm just a
bit skeptical that Macs have endured such conditions on many occasions.

jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:

Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether
anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas.
(Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had
heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out
there, all over the world and in all types of conditions.


Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real offshore
passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most of the
comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open ocean and it
does quite well, especially since I can power in before it get too
rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing." The fact that
Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing to Catalina (or
Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas) does not mean they
have been "offshore."

I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages, but
every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe 8-10 foot
seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these conditions should
be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent skipper. But when you say
"offshore" you're implying the possibility of much worse conditions, 50+
knots, large breaking seas, and storms lasting several days. I'm just a
bit skeptical that Macs have endured such conditions on many occasions.

Puhleeze....

Mac 26X/M are unsafe in the presence of air. A long passage for a Mac
should be from one end of the marina lot to the other.

No competent skipper would consider taking a Mac 26X/M on a long passage.

JimC wrote:

Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
world and in all types of conditions.


Well Jim, to use your tack, please provide reliable evidence of a Mac26
surviving an open ocean passage that involves a significant storm,
duration greater that 48hrs, oh hell I'd settle for 24.

Can't do it can you?


I wonder why not? Well not really

Cheers
Marty