I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

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.

And your evidence supporting that assertion
is................................................ .................?



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.

I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor,
O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years.




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.

And your proof supporting that particular assertion
is.........................?




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.

Wrong again.


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


And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?

Jim

I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"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.
And also to believe the recommendations of references such as the
Annapolis Book of Seamship Gantz? It's pretty clear that heaving to can
be dangerous in heavy, breaking seas.


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.

Wrong again Gantz. I'm not suggesting that the rigging and mast would be
gone, merely tied securely. But even if they were, with storm anchor
deployed, the boat wouldn't broach. As to your contention that it would
roll and roll and roll and roll with a sea anchor deployed, once again,
where is your evidence supporting that particular assertion? Apparently,
you have none at all. (Seems like we have gone through this discussin
several times before, yet you continue to post those preposterous
speculations as fact. - Is there an echo on this ng?




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?


Right. A response to Bruce. - Crawfishing on your earlier statements.


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.


Have a nice evening Gantz.

Jim

I decided
 

wrote:

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



Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and
sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of
flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush.
In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either
be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself

from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive.


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

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

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

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

Jim



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

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

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


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


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

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

Jim


I have.

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


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




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


Wrong again Ganz. You are judging the Mac's rigging by what's necessary
on a heavy keel boat. Because of it's small size and relative light
weight, the cleats and bow fittings used on the Macs are entirely
adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow
chucks, with extensions to the mid-deck cleats, and then tie the sea
anchor to the bridle.


Jim

I decided
 

Jon,

Just passing thru and an missed a lot BUT this I Know. A sailboat that
loses it Mast becomes more stable, immediately. This has been proven
many times. Even laying a-hull the stability is improved.

The problem is getting rid of the Damn Mast before it punches a hole in
the Hull

I decided
 

Vic Smith wrote:

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.

Your suggestions are well taken. From their literature, the Macs' cleats
on current models do have SS backing plates, but their capacity should
be verified. Also, see my suggestions for forming a towing bridle and
reinforcing it with extensions to the mid-deck cleats.


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 addition to its positive floatation. the Mac has zero thruhulls. --Nada.


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

Jim

I decided
 

JimC wrote:
adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow
chucks,

Wow! Since you have all this experience on "big" sailboats, perhaps you
could explain what a "bow chuck" is?

Cheers
Marty

I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

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

Yes.

I have.


So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.


I've been at sea in some rough conditions, and sailed and motored in
what we were told was a 80-90 mph storm. Also sailed offshore on several
boats in a variety of conditions. Also qualified as a crewmember on the
1877 bark Elissa, sailing several years from Galveston, which involved
climbing rope ladders 100 feet up the masts and furling and unfurling
sails in some exciting conditions aloft.


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

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


I haven't presented any evidence that the moon revolves around the Earth
either. Do I need to support my assertion that it does?


As far as I know, we're discussing characteristics of the Mac 26M, not
the moon. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that Ganz.


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

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

Did I say that? Don't think so.

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


My mistake. It *is* about your Mac!

Is it, Ganz? I thought you were also discussing the moon.


Jim

I decided
 

wrote:

JimC wrote:

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


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

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

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


Martin Baxter wrote:

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







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

DSK

Obviously, you have no knowledge of the design and construction of the
Mac 26M. In contrast to your assertion, it is made with multiple
fiberglas-resin layups, NOT CHOPPER GUNS. (As to its reentry
characteristics, an outer layer of a silicon zirconium based coating
would of course be recommended.) - You are also misrepresenting the
rationale of my statements regarding the survivability of the Mac 26M at
sea. What I pointed out was that the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most
popular series of sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both
in the US and in various foreign countries. And many Mac 26 owners (in
the US and in foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore. In view
of the thousands of Mac26s out there, if the Macs had a tendency to
break up and sink under stress of any kind, it would be impossible to
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.

Secondly, remember that I wasn't the one who posted statements to the
effect that the Macs would break up and sink in severe conditions. Those
statements were posted by Ganz, with gleeful but vacuous support from
several others. Since Ganz and his friends posted those assertions, Ganz
and his friends are the ones who should be providing evidence and proof
supporting their theories. - They haven't, of course, and they clearly
are unable to do so.

Jim

I decided
 

JimC wrote:
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.

Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"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.


I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz,
but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher.
And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be
seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems,
they can be a good ego booster.

Jim