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