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

wrote in message
...
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



Not after I hack it up with a chainsaw... LOL

I have a friend who has one of the older Macs. He reinforced a lot of stuff
and sails in the bay. Does fine... knowing the limitations of his boat.


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

"Capt. JG" wrote:
I have a friend who has one of the older Macs. He reinforced a lot of stuff
and sails in the bay. Does fine... knowing the limitations of his boat.


Well, the limits of the boat are still beyond the limits of the
sailor, in most cases.

The MacGregor / Venture line was never high-end, not after the "blue-
water cruiser" market or the "America's Cup" market. But there are a
heck of a lot of them out there and many are still sailing after all
these years. The decks flex sure, but the only time I have known one
to suffer major structural failure was while trailering... hit by
another car...

A lot of the MacGregor boats sail quite well, probably the older swing-
keel Mac 25 was the best (before the water ballast craze).
Unfortunately the 26X/M nonsense has ruined what reputation the older
models had.

DSK

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

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

"Marty" wrote in message
...
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


Uh oh... I'm vacuous.. or at least the company I keep is...

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

Marty wrote:

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

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to
some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it
does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:

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

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get
to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive
research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim


Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's
about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them,
and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even
great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who
has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in
particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true
offshore-capable boat.

I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions
that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb
enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly.

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


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

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get
to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive
research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's
about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them,
and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even
great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who
has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in
particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true
offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage
capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are
incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier,
larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming
that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons,
with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet,
without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded
with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that
because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you
are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially
smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are
equivalent, but they're obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs'
rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew,
I'll be interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim



I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions
that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb
enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly.

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


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

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does
get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do.
It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of
them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps
even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to
anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing
rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't
comparable to a true offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity
normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you
compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore
boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used
in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels)
should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel,
and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast,
etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used
on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter
rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is
deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're
obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging
failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be
interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim


Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that
should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would
run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen
it.

Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you.

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