"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? I have.-

But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy
seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion.

Nope. I also don't have evidence that cockroaches are smarter than
elephants. So, back at you... do you seriously believe that a dismasted boat
is stable in heavy seas? Because that's the real discussion whether or not
you choose to acknowledge it.


So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over?

Did I say that? Don't think so.

You pretty much did in your previous comment. You should read what you
write. It's a gas.

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).

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.

Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or
speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such
conditions? No? I didn't think so.

As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes,
I know so.


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.

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

You don't know much about boats... clearly, and I do think so.

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

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


So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly
had me fooled.

Well, that's apparently pretty easy to do!

Feel free to show us some empirical evidence that a Mac will not roll,
capsize, and kill anyone stupid enough to be in the conditions previously
described. Nope, didn't think you could.

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

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? I have.-

But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy
seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion.


Nope. I also don't have evidence that cockroaches are smarter than
elephants. So, back at you... do you seriously believe that a dismasted boat
is stable in heavy seas? Because that's the real discussion whether or not
you choose to acknowledge it.

Actually, that's not the "real discussion." My initial comments related
to my contention that, had Joe been in a Mac 26M, his boat would have
remained afloat. Whether or not he would still want to call the CC, in
view of his wife's condition, is another issue. In either case, he
wouldn't have lost his boat. And had he elected to stay on the boat, he
wouldn't have sunk when the boat sank.





So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over?

Did I say that? Don't think so.


You pretty much did in your previous comment. You should read what you
write. It's a gas.

Not nearly as interesting as the sensationalized fiction you have bee
posting Capt.



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).

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.

Your comments regarding the instability of dismasted boats apparently
assumes that, with the mast, the crews would have been able to keep
their boats stable by reducing, possibly heaving to. But in heavy seas
such as those Joe described (the conditions observed several hours prior
to the CC rescue), it seems likely that a boat would not stay on course
when hoved to. For example, when the boat was below the waves, the winds
would be erratic, and the boat would wander about unpredictably, ready
to be broad sided by the next wave. As stated above, I personally think
it would be wiser to deploy a sea anchor and forget about trying to
heave to. But in any case, you don't have evidence or proof that one or
both of these tactics would be for a boat in the situation Joe
described. You also don't have evidence or proof that a Mac 26 would
roll and roll and roll if a sea anchor were deployed, whether or not it
was dismasted. In any case the boat has floatation that would keep it
afloat, which would be preferable to being pulled to the bottom by a
heavy keel in a boat with no floatation.


Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or
speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such
conditions? No? I didn't think so.


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.




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.


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.





If the boat

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

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


So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly
had me fooled.


Well, that's apparently pretty easy to do!

Feel free to show us some empirical evidence that a Mac will not roll,
capsize, and kill anyone stupid enough to be in the conditions previously
described. Nope, didn't think you could.



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
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
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.

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"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.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just
as Joe's boat.

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

Ummm... it was abandoned?

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

Did you learn anything?

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

Key phrase: one of the few.

And, you thought wrong.

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

Common knowledge and experience. And, your counter supporting proof is....?

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

Wrong again.

And, that's why it's chosen as an offshore passagemaker the world over. Got
it.


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?

Older that yours, better reenforced for the demanding conditions where he
sails it.

Last name is Ganz, btw.


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

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

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
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



You need to revise your knowledge. It's not true. See the other threads.

Hope all is well...

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