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