JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



jeff wrote:

...

- Regarding accounts of ocean voyages, I have read of a number of
them on various Mac discussion groups, although not many are true
extended ocean crossings.



Were any of them more than a day trip?


Yes.

Out of sight of land?

Yes.
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.

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.

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
given the right (or should we say wrong) circumstances, and if it does,
there is a risk of flooding severe enough to drown inhabitants. 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.

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. Remember, I've
already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. And hundreds
of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.


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.

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. However,
all it would really take is a lost hatch, or a hull fracture to fully
flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below
to support life. Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably
will continue to roll over in a large sea. 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.

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 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.


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.

- 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 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.


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 Marty.

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.

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?

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'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.


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.

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 Marty. 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!



- 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.

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.