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.

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
----------------------
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.

I haven't claimed that the Mac would NEVER sink under ANY conditions. I
stated that I thought Joe's boat wouldn't have sunk in the conditions he
described. But of course no one knows, and I never said that it was a
slam dunk.

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.

I suppose I would rather stick with a boat that is partially submerged
but still floating than a boat with a heavy keel that was dragging the
boat to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.


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

Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a
completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having
permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast.


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

Clarification: The victims were infants, left below deck while the drunk
adults partied on deck.

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.


Maybe. Maybe not.


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.

Again, I would rather be on a boat that was low in the water but
remaining afloat rather than one that was sinking.


Remember, I've
already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac.

Clarification: You showed how two infants left in the cockpit on a
water-ballasted Mac 26X could drown. You didn't show how two adult crew
members on a hybrid ballast Mac 26M would drown.


And hundreds
of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.



Yep. There are some careless, stupid people out there.

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.

Sorry.

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.

This, of course, is your opinion and is not supported. Whether it would
apply to the Mac 26M, particularly with an experienced crew as was the
case with Red Cloud, is another matter.

However,
all it would really take is a lost hatch,

The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised.

or a hull fracture to fully
flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below
to support life.

Not a good situation to be in, but, again, I personally would rather be
in a partially flooded boat that stayed afloat than one that was sinking
to the bottom.

Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably
will continue to roll over in a large sea.

Maybe. Maybe not.


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.


Maybe. Maybe not.

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 discussed, I think the best action in that situation would
have been to set a sea anchor and remained onboard. I believe that would
have prevented the boat from yawing, or rolling.


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.

At least he would still have a boat, and possibly some of the coffee.



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.

Maybe. But probably not.



- 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.


When you and your buddies provide evidence to support your amazing
assertions, I'll consider getting more to support mine. Meanwhile, I'm
not going to look for evidence supporting statements I haven't made.


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.

Nope. That's not what I said.


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 Jeff.


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.

From five years of sailing a Mac, participating in various Mac
discussion groups, watching other Mac owners take their boats out, etc.,
your contentions is simply absurd.



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?


Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable for
ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean that
they aren't taken offshore.


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 see them leaving the docks all the time.

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.

Once more, attack me for what I said, not what you think I said.


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.



Wrong again. I have been able to post such links. I haven't posted such
links, because, as stated above over and over again, I have, and will,
provide evidence for my assertions, not for yours, or in response to
your questions. The assertion for which I will gladly provide evidence
is as follows:

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.

Do I have to explain this to you again Jeff?

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 . 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!

Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of yourself
with that one.






- 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.


Both of you are wrong.

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.

That's certainly on my to-do list for this Summer. I'm hoping to do some
fishing out there also.

Jim

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:


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.

I haven't claimed that the Mac would NEVER sink under ANY conditions. I
stated that I thought Joe's boat wouldn't have sunk in the conditions he
described. But of course no one knows, and I never said that it was a
slam dunk.

Yes, if it were possible to put foam in a heavy steel boat it might have
helped. And I'm happy that my boat has a lot of foam plus 6 sealed
flotation chambers, and no heavy keel. But I also know it would be at
risk of sinking if certain types of calamities occurred.

But again, my point is not the the Mac would be smashed to little pieces
and never found; its that even while it floats it would not provide a
livable platform for the crew.



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.

I suppose I would rather stick with a boat that is partially submerged
but still floating than a boat with a heavy keel that was dragging the
boat to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

Earth to Jim!!! Redcloud was still floating and in fact under sail when
it was abandoned. Joe believed it could still survive the storm and
went out looking for her. There's a good chance they would have come
through the storm had they stayed on board, but we'll probably never
know, unless it turns up as a fishing boat in Central America.

Now, on the other hand, what would happen to a Mac with a few days of 35
knots followed by a day of 60 knots and 30-35 foot breaking seas? Would
there be anything left? Would there be enough to support life?

Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still
take that over being in those conditions in a Mac.


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

Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a
completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having
permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast.

So you're claiming that 300 pounds of ballast under the floor is
sufficient to keep the boat upright in 60 kts, with 35 foot breakers?

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

Clarification: The victims were infants, left below deck while the drunk
adults partied on deck.

No, they weren't infants, they were (I think) about 8 and 9, wearing
life jackets. The fact that both were unable to survive even a few
minutes shows that surviving a day in near hurricane condition unlikely.


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.


Maybe. Maybe not.


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.

Again, I would rather be on a boat that was low in the water but
remaining afloat rather than one that was sinking.

Again, this is a nice concept on a calm lake. I doesn't quite work in
35 foot breakers. And remember, Redcloud was floating and under sail
at the time of the rescue.




Remember, I've
already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac.

Clarification: You showed how two infants left in the cockpit on a
water-ballasted Mac 26X could drown. You didn't show how two adult crew
members on a hybrid ballast Mac 26M would drown.

Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points.

And again, you have the facts wrong: they weren't infants, and they
weren't in the cockpit. (The child in the cockpit survived.)

You should look again at the picture on the Mac web site:

http://macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm

Note that the water is up to the gunnel, leaving perhaps 10-12 inches of
headroom in the cabin. Now add in 35 foot breakers. Note the caption
under the first pictu "it will be unstable."


However,
all it would really take is a lost hatch,

The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised.

Again, useful in a wide variety of situations, but not enough for the
condition we're talking about.


or a hull fracture to fully
flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room
below to support life.

Not a good situation to be in, but, again, I personally would rather be
in a partially flooded boat that stayed afloat than one that was sinking
to the bottom.

I think that ten minutes into the storm you would change your mind.
Again, Redcloud was providing a quite livable environment throughout the
storm, and may well have survived, had they stayed on board.


Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably
will continue to roll over in a large sea.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Again, from the Mac "safety" page: "it will be unstable."


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 discussed, I think the best action in that situation would
have been to set a sea anchor and remained onboard. I believe that would
have prevented the boat from yawing, or rolling.

Maybe in a moderate storm. 60 knots with 30-35 foot waves is a different
story.


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.

Maybe. But probably not.

You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim?

- 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.


When you and your buddies provide evidence to support your amazing
assertions, I'll consider getting more to support mine. Meanwhile, I'm
not going to look for evidence supporting statements I haven't made.

But you have claimed that they have survived heavy weather (excuse me,
"Difficult conditions") many times.


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.

From five years of sailing a Mac, participating in various Mac
discussion groups, watching other Mac owners take their boats out, etc.,
your contentions is simply absurd.

Really? But you admit that in fact you've never done what you claimed
you would do. And you claim you've never heard mention of dismasting,
or rudder damage, meaning that you're obviously either lying or
suffering from "mad cow."

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?


Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable for
ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean that
they aren't taken offshore.

But you can't even offer a single reference to one such case were a Mac
returned.

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 see them leaving the docks all the time.

So you've been hanging around my marina?



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.

Once more, attack me for what I said, not what you think I said.

You have insisted that its "preposterous" to think the macs have not
done offshore passages, or that they haven't encountered conditions like
what Redcloud did. That's what I'm attacking.

And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.

Wrong again. I have been able to post such links. I haven't posted such
links, because, as stated above over and over again, I have, and will,
provide evidence for my assertions, not for yours, or in response to
your questions. The assertion for which I will gladly provide evidence
is as follows:

So you have faith, but are unable to prove. This is a religion for you.
OK, you're entitled.


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 Again: I DON'T CARE!!! I'M NOT GANZ, AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN
THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called
"reality."

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 . 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!

Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of yourself
with that one.

You're the one insisted there must be a flying pig out there. Its your
argument. Its the argument that lawyers use when they know their case
is hopeless. The insist that even though they have no facts, SURELY it
must have happened.

....

With all the time you've said this, its preposterous to think that you
wouldn't do it eventually.

That's certainly on my to-do list for this Summer.

Is this your "bucket list"?

I'm hoping to do some
fishing out there also.

I hope you do - I'm looking forward to your report.

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



jeff wrote:


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.


I haven't claimed that the Mac would NEVER sink under ANY conditions.
I stated that I thought Joe's boat wouldn't have sunk in the
conditions he described. But of course no one knows, and I never said
that it was a slam dunk.


Yes, if it were possible to put foam in a heavy steel boat it might have
helped. And I'm happy that my boat has a lot of foam plus 6 sealed
flotation chambers, and no heavy keel. But I also know it would be at
risk of sinking if certain types of calamities occurred.

But again, my point is not the the Mac would be smashed to little pieces
and never found; its that even while it floats it would not provide a
livable platform for the crew.

Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I would rather stick with a boat that was still
floating than a damaged boat with heavy keel and no floatation (Joe's
boat, not yours) that was going to sink to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico.




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.


- - "Won't support life?" - Any evidence supporting that strange
assertion Jeff?


I suppose I would rather stick with a boat that is partially submerged
but still floating than a boat with a heavy keel that was dragging the
boat to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.


Earth to Jim!!! Redcloud was still floating and in fact under sail when
it was abandoned. Joe believed it could still survive the storm and
went out looking for her. There's a good chance they would have come
through the storm had they stayed on board, but we'll probably never
know, unless it turns up as a fishing boat in Central America.

Yes, Red Cloud was floating when Joe left, but he was sufficiently
concerned that he called the CC and abandoned it. He obviously didn't
know whether the boat would sink or not, but had he been on a boat with
positive floatation, he might have been more confident about sticking
with the boat instead of calling the CC. But, of course, I never stated
that Joe would have elected to remain on the boat if he were in a
Mac26M, now did I? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. - It's
easier for you to respond that way, of course.


Now, on the other hand, what would happen to a Mac with a few days of 35
knots followed by a day of 60 knots and 30-35 foot breaking seas? Would
there be anything left? Would there be enough to support life?

Of course, neither of us knows. And it was also my understanding that
the seas didn't remain at that intensity for much longer. But I think
the Mac would have remained afloat and in one piece. (And you don't know
otherwise.)


Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still
take that over being in those conditions in a Mac.


Your call Jeff. I suppose Joe was fortunate (or prudent) to get off the
boat with his crew before it began to founder.


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


The Mac 26X (not necessarily the Mac 26M) can rollover if captained by a
drunk skipper who ignores or is ignorant of every safety warning given
with respect to the boat. And if the owner is so negligent that he
doesn't even check out the boat before lending it to his buddy.


Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a
completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having
permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast.


So you're claiming that 300 pounds of ballast under the floor is
sufficient to keep the boat upright in 60 kts, with 35 foot breakers?


400 pounds.

I'm saying that Joe's situation (and that of any semi-responsible
skipper planning to take any boat offshore) was night and day different
from that of the drunk skipper on the 26X, who didn't know the first
thing about the boat, and with an irresponsible owner who didn't even
take time to check it out.
given the right (or should we say wrong) circumstances, and if it
does, there is a risk of flooding severe enough to drown inhabitants.


Clarification: The victims were infants, left below deck while the
drunk adults partied on deck.


No, they weren't infants, they were (I think) about 8 and 9, wearing
life jackets. The fact that both were unable to survive even a few
minutes shows that surviving a day in near hurricane condition unlikely.


One was 4, and the other was 9.

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.


Maybe. Maybe not.

Jeff, the important thing to remember about the Martin lawsuit was that
Martin lost and MacGregor won. Martin's lawyer tried to convince the
judge that the MacGregor 26X was inherently unsafe, and that
insufficient warnings had been given. The judge didn't buy it. - He said
the accident was a result of the drunk skipper (.217 alcohol). In other
words, if you have a skipper and crew drunk enough, and an owner who
doesn't even check the boat when lending it to his brother in law, XXXXX
can happen. Like, you wouldn't put a drunk, inexperienced driver into an
18-wheeler and expect him to drive down the freeway safely, or put a
drunk individual with no flying certificate into the cockpit of a 737
and expect him to land the plane. And in either case, you wouldn't blame
the manufacturers of the semi or the airplane for accidents caused by
the ignorant and drunk driver/pilot.

Again, Martin lost the case; MacGregor won the case.

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.


Again, I would rather be on a boat that was low in the water but
remaining afloat rather than one that was sinking.


Again, this is a nice concept on a calm lake. I doesn't quite work in
35 foot breakers. And remember, Redcloud was floating and under sail
at the time of the rescue.




Remember, I've

already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac.


Clarification: You showed how two infants left in the cockpit on a
water-ballasted Mac 26X could drown. You didn't show how two adult
crew members on a hybrid ballast Mac 26M would drown.

Correction. You showed how a 4-year old and 9-year old left in the cabin
of a 26X (not a 26M) could drown if the skipper was drunk and didn't
know enough to check the water ballast, the boat was overloaded (per
MacGregor's instructions), and the owner didn't even check out the boat
or the skipper.

Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points.


Nope. Not meaningless at all. One of the principle arguments of Martin's
attorney was that the boat was inherently unsafe. The judge ruled
against the plaintiff. (Martin lost, MacGregor won.)


And again, you have the facts wrong: they weren't infants, and they
weren't in the cockpit. (The child in the cockpit survived.)

Well, I would consider a 4-year old boy an infant. In any case, they
were apparently left in the cabin (not cockpit) while their
parents/cartakers got drunk on deck.


You should look again at the picture on the Mac web site:

http://macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm

Note that the water is up to the gunnel, leaving perhaps 10-12 inches of
headroom in the cabin. Now add in 35 foot breakers. Note the caption
under the first pictu "it will be unstable."


Guess this is a matter of personal preference, Jeff. I would rather be
in a boat that was floating than one that had no floatation system and
that was subject to being pulled quickly to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico. Of course, if you would prefer to stay on the boat that would
sink to the bottom, that's your choice.


However,

all it would really take is a lost hatch,


The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised.


Again, useful in a wide variety of situations, but not enough for the
condition we're talking about.


Clarification: Your opinion, of course. Not mine.


or a hull fracture to fully

flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room
below to support life.


Examples? Incidents? Proof?


Not a good situation to be in, but, again, I personally would rather
be in a partially flooded boat that stayed afloat than one that was
sinking to the bottom.


I think that ten minutes into the storm you would change your mind.

Clarification: Your opinion, not mine.

Again, Redcloud was providing a quite livable environment throughout the
storm, and may well have survived, had they stayed on board.


Maybe. Maybe not.


Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably

will continue to roll over in a large sea.


Maybe. Maybe not.


Again, from the Mac "safety" page: "it will be unstable."

Doesn't mean it would roll over, or "continue" to roll over.


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 discussed, I think the best action in that situation
would have been to set a sea anchor and remained onboard. I believe
that would have prevented the boat from yawing, or rolling.


Maybe in a moderate storm. 60 knots with 30-35 foot waves is a different
story.


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.


Clarification: Your opinion, not mine.


Maybe. But probably not.


You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim?

You obviously don't know much about the most basic principles of logic
and evidence, Jeff. Also, apparently I know a lot more about the Mac
26M than you do.


- 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 have provided evidence supporting the assertions I made. (Read my notes.)

When you and your buddies provide evidence to support your amazing
assertions, I'll consider getting more to support mine. Meanwhile, I'm
not going to look for evidence supporting statements I haven't made.


But you have claimed that they have survived heavy weather (excuse me,
"Difficult conditions") many times.

Here's a few things to consider relative to such matters, Jeff:

For one thing, despite citing several accidents, no one on this ng has
been able to come up with ANY reference to ANY instance of ANY Mac 26 (X
or M models) sinking under ANY circumstances. That in itself is pretty
convincing evidence that the floatation is effective to keep the boat
afloat in a variety of difficult environments and situations - This was
the case even in the unfortunate instance involving the drunk skipper
on a Mac26X (not M), with drunk guests.

Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any
circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation.

Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. Thus, the
current MacGregor website makes the following statements about the Mac
26M: "The MacGregor 26 has built-in solid foam floatation to keep it
afloat in the event of damage. It won't sail fast when flooded like
this, but it beats swimming. Most competing boats do not offer this
essential safety protection, and their heavy keels can pull them
straight to the bottom. Don't get a boat without solid flotation!"
Additionally, it includes a photograph of a boat partially sunk but
still afloat and supporting five adult men standing on its cabin, with
the following comment: "We drilled a hole in the bottom of the boat and
let it fill. The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it
afloat in the event of damage."

Jeff, the related legal principles are as follows: In the event of death
or injury by a Mac owner or guest resulting from a failure of the
floatation system, MacGregor could be sued under several
legal principles (deceptive trade practices, negligence, torts, punitive
damages, criminal negligence, etc.) with the plaintiffs citing the above
sections of MacGregor's published literature.
In other words, if MacGregor didn't have good support for the above
statements (and all inferences fairly derived therefrom), they would be
taking a hell of a chance releasing such statements about their
floatation system to the public. (And since they have the advice of a
fairly good legal team, it's rather naive (incredulous, actually) to
suggest that they simply put that information out there on the web
without approval by counsel.


You also suggested that 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.


From five years of sailing a Mac, participating in various Mac
discussion groups, watching other Mac owners take their boats out,
etc., your contentions is simply absurd.


Really? But you admit that in fact you've never done what you claimed
you would do. And you claim you've never heard mention of dismasting,
or rudder damage, meaning that you're obviously either lying or
suffering from "mad cow."

Nope.

Second, although you admitted

acknowledged, not "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?


Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable
for ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean
that they aren't taken offshore.


But you can't even offer a single reference to one such case were a Mac
returned.


Wrong again Jeff.


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 see them leaving the docks all the time.


So you've been hanging around my marina?



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.

Once more, attack me for what I said, not what you think I said.


You have insisted that its "preposterous" to think the macs have not
done offshore passages, or that they haven't encountered conditions like
what Redcloud did. That's what I'm attacking.

And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.


Wrong again. I have been able to post such links. I haven't posted
such links, because, as stated above over and over again, I have, and
will, provide evidence for my assertions, not for yours, or in
response to your questions. The assertion for which I will gladly
provide evidence is as follows:


So you have faith, but are unable to prove. This is a religion for you.
OK, you're entitled.


See above discussion regarding this issue.



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 Again: I DON'T CARE!!! I'M NOT GANZ,

Whatever.

AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN
THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called
"reality."


Actually, you live in a world void of any understanding whatsover of the
most basic principles of logic and evidence.

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 . 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!

Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of yourself
with that one.


You're the one insisted there must be a flying pig out there. Its your
argument. Its the argument that lawyers use when they know their case
is hopeless. The insist that even though they have no facts, SURELY it
must have happened.

Absolutely incredible, Jeff. Still trying to equate "flying pigs" to
MacGregor 26Ms! Still trying to suggest that, although there are
thousands of Mac owners all over the world, I have to "prove" that they
actually take their boats out, and that they all don't just keep them
safely tied up in their marinas in any and all severe weather
conditions. Again, totally absurd!


With all the time you've said this, its preposterous to think that
you wouldn't do it eventually.


That's certainly on my to-do list for this Summer.


Is this your "bucket list"?

I'm hoping to do some fishing out there also.


I hope you do - I'm looking forward to your report.

Have a nice day. Hope you can find some time to take your boat out for a
change.

Jim

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



jeff wrote:



400 pounds.



Correction: 300 pounds.

Sorry.

Jim

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:


Yes, if it were possible to put foam in a heavy steel boat it might
have helped. And I'm happy that my boat has a lot of foam plus 6
sealed flotation chambers, and no heavy keel. But I also know it
would be at risk of sinking if certain types of calamities occurred.

But again, my point is not the the Mac would be smashed to little
pieces and never found; its that even while it floats it would not
provide a livable platform for the crew.

Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I would rather stick with a boat that was still
floating than a damaged boat with heavy keel and no floatation (Joe's
boat, not yours) that was going to sink to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico.

You would be begging for mercy in 30 seconds if you were down below in a
flooded Mac in 60+ knot winds with 30 foot breakers.


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.


- - "Won't support life?" - Any evidence supporting that strange
assertion Jeff?

Dead bodies, Jim. Hard to ignore.

Yes, Red Cloud was floating when Joe left, but he was sufficiently
concerned that he called the CC and abandoned it. He obviously didn't
know whether the boat would sink or not, but had he been on a boat with
positive floatation, he might have been more confident about sticking
with the boat instead of calling the CC.

Sure, foam would be handy in the case, though not very practical in
Joe's boat.

But, of course, I never stated
that Joe would have elected to remain on the boat if he were in a
Mac26M, now did I? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. - It's
easier for you to respond that way, of course.

Did I ever say that? You're the one putting words in my mouth.


Now, on the other hand, what would happen to a Mac with a few days of
35 knots followed by a day of 60 knots and 30-35 foot breaking seas?
Would there be anything left? Would there be enough to support life?

Of course, neither of us knows. And it was also my understanding that
the seas didn't remain at that intensity for much longer. But I think
the Mac would have remained afloat and in one piece. (And you don't know
otherwise.)

Now you're resorting to claiming this exact scenario has never happened
so we can't tell for sure. But, we do know the people have drowned
within minutes of a rollover in calm conditions. It is too much of a
stretch to imagine that 60 knots of wind and 30 foot breakers would make
it worse.


Frankly, even knowing how things turned out on Redcloud, I would still
take that over being in those conditions in a Mac.


Your call Jeff. I suppose Joe was fortunate (or prudent) to get off the
boat with his crew before it began to founder.

Yes, he probably made the right choice. But Redcloud did keep them
alive until that point.

All this is meaningless. The bottom line is that a Mac CAN rollover


The Mac 26X (not necessarily the Mac 26M) can rollover if captained by a
drunk skipper who ignores or is ignorant of every safety warning given
with respect to the boat. And if the owner is so negligent that he
doesn't even check out the boat before lending it to his buddy.

It doesn't matter how the Mac rolled, the fact that it can roll is the
point.

Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a
completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having
permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast.


So you're claiming that 300 pounds of ballast under the floor is
sufficient to keep the boat upright in 60 kts, with 35 foot breakers?


400 pounds.

Wrong, but do we assume by you silence on this point that you claim it
would keep the boat upright?

I'm saying that Joe's situation (and that of any semi-responsible
skipper planning to take any boat offshore) was night and day different
from that of the drunk skipper on the 26X, who didn't know the first
thing about the boat, and with an irresponsible owner who didn't even
take time to check it out.

Totally irrelevant. Drunk or sober, competent or not, nothing is going
to prevent the Mac from being seriously knocked around in those conditions.

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.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Jeff, the important thing to remember about the Martin lawsuit was that
Martin lost and MacGregor won.

This may be the important thing for a lawyer.

But for the rest of humanity, that fact that two people drowned is the
"important thing."

And I repeat, while the rollover may have been caused by a drunk, the
fact remains that the boat did roll over, and that two people died
within minutes because it filled with water.

snip irrelevant nonsense about the lawsuit


Correction. You showed how a 4-year old and 9-year old left in the cabin
of a 26X (not a 26M) could drown if the skipper was drunk

So, are you claiming that they would have lived if the boat had rolled
over when the skipper was sober???

Sorry. Meaningless argument as this is not a courtroom. -10 points.


Nope. Not meaningless at all. One of the principle arguments of Martin's
attorney was that the boat was inherently unsafe. The judge ruled
against the plaintiff. (Martin lost, MacGregor won.)

So thus you're claiming the boat is perfect safe in 60 knots and 30 foot
breakers.



You should look again at the picture on the Mac web site:

http://macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm

Note that the water is up to the gunnel, leaving perhaps 10-12 inches
of headroom in the cabin. Now add in 35 foot breakers. Note the
caption under the first pictu "it will be unstable."


Guess this is a matter of personal preference, Jeff. I would rather be
in a boat that was floating than one that had no floatation system and
that was subject to being pulled quickly to the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico. Of course, if you would prefer to stay on the boat that would
sink to the bottom, that's your choice.

I'd rather be on a boat that will float long enough to be rescued, than
one that only has a few cubic feet of air left and is rolling over and
over.

....

Again, from the Mac "safety" page: "it will be unstable."

Doesn't mean it would roll over, or "continue" to roll over.

You certainly lost that point, didn't you Jim?

....

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.


Clarification: Your opinion, not mine.


Clarification: the opinion of everyone who has experienced these conditions.


Maybe. But probably not.


You don't know much about sailing on the ocean, do you Jim?

You obviously don't know much about the most basic principles of logic
and evidence, Jeff. Also, apparently I know a lot more about the Mac
26M than you do.

And yet, you accused someone of fabricating warnings about this very
issue that appear clearly on the MacGregor site.

AND I DON'T MUCH CARE. YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT A MAC
HAS EVER SURVIVED HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS.



I have provided evidence supporting the assertions I made. (Read my notes.)

Your "evidence" is your claim that "it must have happened."


But you have claimed that they have survived heavy weather (excuse me,
"Difficult conditions") many times.

Here's a few things to consider relative to such matters, Jeff:

For one thing, despite citing several accidents, no one on this ng has
been able to come up with ANY reference to ANY instance of ANY Mac 26 (X
or M models) sinking under ANY circumstances. That in itself is pretty
convincing evidence that the floatation is effective to keep the boat
afloat in a variety of difficult environments and situations - This was
the case even in the unfortunate instance involving the drunk skipper
on a Mac26X (not M), with drunk guests.

You keep resorting to the one claim that is not particularly
significant. I guess that's all you have.


Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any
circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation.

And again, I never claimed it would sink, though I wouldn't be surprised
if it suffered major structural damage.


Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved.

....

snip claim the MacGregor couldn't lie about the foam flotation because
that would be a liability

Hey Jim, I'm not claiming the foam doesn't exist. I not even claiming
it wouldn't save lives in ordinary conditions. In fact it is Federal
Law that small boats have flotation, and I applaud MacGregor's decision
to include it even though the 26 is big enough to be exempt. They are
simply recognizing that without the foam it is as dangerous as a smaller
boat.

But that doesn't mean it would keep you alive in 60 knot winds and 30
foot breakers.


Really? But you admit that in fact you've never done what you claimed
you would do. And you claim you've never heard mention of dismasting,
or rudder damage, meaning that you're obviously either lying or
suffering from "mad cow."

Nope.

That's a convincing argument.

Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable
for ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean
that they aren't taken offshore.


But you can't even offer a single reference to one such case were a
Mac returned.


Wrong again Jeff.

So do you claim you can but you won't? Is that what you tell the judge?


AND FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN
THINK I'M A MAC-BASHER. But I do live in the world commonly called
"reality."


Actually, you live in a world void of any understanding whatsover of the
most basic principles of logic and evidence.

That really hurts, coming as it does from someone whose arguments could
be summarized as:

"with so many Macs out there, SURELY some of them MUST have experienced
these conditions"

and

"I can provide evidence, but I won't"

and

"The fact that a Mac rolled over and two people drowned does not prove
that a Mac can roll over and people might drown. What's important is
the MacGregor was not held liable."

and lets not forget your claims of fabriction of MacGregor's own
warnings about the possibility of rolling over:

IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY
UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN.

to which you replied:
"Apparently you are deliberately misquoting the Mac site"


Wrong again . 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!

Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of
yourself with that one.


You're the one insisted there must be a flying pig out there. Its
your argument. Its the argument that lawyers use when they know their
case is hopeless. The insist that even though they have no facts,
SURELY it must have happened.

Absolutely incredible, Jeff. Still trying to equate "flying pigs" to
MacGregor 26Ms! Still trying to suggest that, although there are
thousands of Mac owners all over the world, I have to "prove" that they
actually take their boats out, and that they all don't just keep them
safely tied up in their marinas in any and all severe weather
conditions. Again, totally absurd!

I won't deny that Macs have survived 20 knots, maybe even 25 or 30. And
its likely that in local squalls they have survived quite strong winds
for brief periods. Nor would I deny that Macs have survived, as you
say, "difficult conditions," though I wonder what you mean by that.

However, this is quite different from 60 knots and 35 foot breaking seas
for a day or so, following a day of 35 knots. These conditions simply
do not happen without warning in areas where any sane Mac owner would
sail. So while its possible that they might encounter 40 knots and 10
foot seas for an hour or so before getting it, this says absolutely
nothing about how it would stand up to a true offshore storm.

Claiming that "it simply must have happened" is a stupid statement. It
would only be made by a lawyer who has completely lost his case and
would say anything to save face.

I'm hoping to do some fishing out there also.


I hope you do - I'm looking forward to your report.

Have a nice day. Hope you can find some time to take your boat out for a
change.

I'll be out there for two months again this summer. I've been cleaning
and buffing and changing oil this week, probably in the water in two weeks.

Enjoy.

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..

stuff snipped

Here's absolute proof that Macs will roll... and this was in calm
conditions!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlhU...eature=related

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