Jeff wrote:

Welcome back to the sailing corner of usenet.

I'd really like to hear about your real experiences with your new
boat. Its fun to consider the hypothetical virtues of a boat, but
what really counts is how they are used.


Jim Cate wrote:

..

As to whether the Mac is "unsinkable," probably not, but it's pretty
darned hard to sink one. - The skipper of the one reported in the
news that capsized was drunk, and the boat was overloaded and didn't
have the water ballast. (Note that his attorney didn't succeed in his
lawsuit against MacGregor. )


You can argue that it was not handled well in this case, but the fact
that it could happen at all, regardless of the circumstances, does not
bode well for a trans-Atlantic.


Agreed. I would certainly hope that anyone taking a Mac, or any other
boat, offshore would have a full understanding of the boats
characteristics and safety requirements. - If he doesn't, he
shouldn't leave the dock. Again, I don't think the Mac is suited for
any extended ocean crossing.


On the other hand, if the hull is compromised on a conventional keel
boat, or if it experiences a severe knockdown, the keel can pull it
to the bottom fairly quickly.


Actually, its fairly easy to add flotation to a small boat. But
here's the question: if you were in a Mac 26 in a North Atlantic Gale,
and the boat got rolled (as it almost certainly would) and lost its
rig, which was now pounding into the hull, and the hull started to
leak, would you be trusting your life to a few blocks of foam, or
would you be headed to the liferaft?


As stated in my note, I personally would never attempt a crossing in a
Mac. On the other hand, I disagree with the statement that the Mac is a
"pretend" sailboat. I'm not suggesting that the Mac has all the
qualities of a large blue water boat. - I'm just suggesting that there
should be a little more balance in the discussion, and a little less
dogmatism and rancor. As I also stated, I don't claim that the Mac is
as fast under sail as a conventional keel boat with longer waterline.
Still, they are a lot of fun to sail, and they entail advantages not
found in conventional boats.

.


In any event, regarding safety, it's obviously true that the weighted
keel on a conventional boat can pull it to the bottom in a few
minutes if the hull is compromised or the boat is rolled.


Lots of boats have been rolled without sinking. In fact, this is one
of the basic scenarios that must be considered by any long distance
cruiser. Just assuming the boat will go down in a few minutes is not
the solution most cruisers have. Even a serious hole can often be
dealt with, especially if a boat is designed and built with this in
mind.


Nevertheless, if the hull of a conventional boat is compromised, the
keel can quickly pull the boat to the bottom. Accounts of such incidents
tell of skipper and crew not even having time to collect their gear or
send an SOS. - It's highly unlikely that that would be the case on a Mac.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in
message ...


Jim Carter wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net...


I forgot to say that the MacGregor is a sailboat :-)

It may not perform well crossing an ocean and may take twice
as long as a good sailboat but since it cannot sink or capsize
you won't have to worry about getting eaten by sharks.



No, the MacGregor is a "pretend" sailboat. It is a compromise between a
power boat and a sail boat and it does neither of the two very well. There
is no way it should be considered to be a blue water boat.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



I'm not sure whether Popeye is a troll or not, but I think the
truth is somewhere between his suggestion that the Mac could sail
the Atlantic and your characteristic of the Mac as a "pretend"
sailboat. I personally would never attempt an Atlantic crossing in
a MacGregor, partially because of the lack of space for
provisions, fuel, etc. On the other hand, MacGregor owners in
California, where the boats are built, often sail and/or motor
offshore to Catalina Island for a weekend. They may use the motor
to get there in a few hours so that they can spend the rest of the
weekend sailing around the island, and then sail or motor back,
permitting them to get in some enjoyable sailing at the island
even when limited to a weekend cruise. The difference between a
Mac and a larger, fixed keel boat is that the owner of the
conventional vessel doesn't have the choice. - He is limited to
motoring or sailing at hull speed both ways and doesn't get much
time to explore sailing around the island as does the Mac owner.
In other localities, the ability to motor out to a desired sailing
area quickly, at planing speed, and/or to return at similar
speeds, permits one to get where you want to go quickly and to
spend more time sailing, rather than motoring out and motoring in
at slow hull-limited speed. In other words, on a typical weekend
outing, the Mac provides more choices, more schedule flexibility,
and more time sailing or relaxing.

As to whether the Mac is "unsinkable," probably not, but it's
pretty darned hard to sink one. - The skipper of the one reported
in the news that capsized was drunk, and the boat was overloaded
and didn't have the water ballast. (Note that his attorney didn't
succeed in his lawsuit against MacGregor. ) On the other hand, if
the hull is compromised on a conventional keel boat, or if it
experiences a severe knockdown, the keel can pull it to the bottom
fairly quickly. Obviously, a keel boat with longer waterline may
have better sailing characteristics than a Mac, but that doesn't
mean that sailing a Mac isn't fun or that the Mac is a "pretend"
sailboat suited only for pond sailing. (It's interesting that few
of the Mac-bashers seem to have much actual experience sailing one
of the current models.) I have had experience on the Mac 26M, but
I have more experience on larger boats such as the O'Day 37,
Valiant 40, Endeavor, etc. - They are different, but they're all
fun to sail.

In any event, regarding safety, it's obviously true that the
weighted keel on a conventional boat can pull it to the bottom in
a few minutes if the hull is compromised or the boat is rolled.

Jim


Well, we know that you're a troll. Why don't you go into your
excessively long paragraphs about the virtues of the boat again. It'll
give everyone a good laugh. Oh wait, you did that here.

--


Sounds like you don't appreciate my writing style, captain. - Here's a
suggestion that might resolve your problem. - You actually don't have to
waste your time reading my notes. - Simply mash the button on your
keyboard marked "enter," and you can skip right by them.

Jim

Jeff wrote:
...
Actually, its fairly easy to add flotation to a small boat.
...

Do you know of any larger sailboat (over 40') with built-in solid
floatation ? Doesn't it make even more sense to have this in larger
boats (costing hundreds of thousands of dollars) than in a $20,000
boat which doesn't carry much of our belongings ?

Even if we're careful and only sail in good weather, there's always
a possibility of a collision such as when somebody else doesn't have
their lights on.

wrote:
Jeff wrote:
...
Actually, its fairly easy to add flotation to a small boat.
...

Do you know of any larger sailboat (over 40') with built-in solid
floatation ?

Most catamarans have enough buoyancy to be considered unsinkable.
Mine has 6 "flotation chambers" scattered around the hull. Plus the
geometry means that only only hull is likely to be breached. There
are cases of cats sailed back to the dock with large holes in one hull
and the water is only up to the floorboards.

In addition, many large boats have collision bulkheads that mean that
a large hole in one part of the boat might not take it down.

Or, you could get an Etap:
http://www.etapyachting.com/index.cf...ng&Part=Yachts

Doesn't it make even more sense to have this in larger
boats (costing hundreds of thousands of dollars) than in a $20,000
boat which doesn't carry much of our belongings ?

Hmmm. I might think the lives of those in small boats are worth as
much as those in large boats.

Small boats need flotation more than large because they have so much
less reserve buoyancy. A leak that would take hours to sink a large
boat, and might even be controlled by large pumps, could sink a small
boat in minutes.


Even if we're careful and only sail in good weather, there's always
a possibility of a collision such as when somebody else doesn't have
their lights on.

There are lots of possibilities out there. But most sinkings happen
at the dock.

Jeff wrote:
Actually, its fairly easy to add flotation to a small boat.


wrote:
Do you know of any larger sailboat (over 40') with built-in solid
floatation ?

Yep.
Sadler & Etap all have full positive flotation.

Actually, I think it would be a good project to add positive flotation
to any cruising boat that ventures out into big water. Some care should
be taken with the volume distribution , so that stability is
mainatained, as well as ensuring sufficient volume. You could utilize
the interior angles & odd nooks so as to not lose too much stowage.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

wrote:

Do you know of any larger sailboat (over 40') with built-in solid
floatation ? Doesn't it make even more sense to have this in larger
boats (costing hundreds of thousands of dollars) than in a $20,000
boat which doesn't carry much of our belongings ?

Many sailboat hulls have been made from Airex, etc.. You will find that
Tom Fexus and others have designed several 60'+ trawlers offering full
flotation using such closed cell material.

--
Skipper

Jim Cate wrote:


Sounds like you don't appreciate my writing style, captain. - Here's
a suggestion that might resolve your problem. - You actually don't
have to waste your time reading my notes. - Simply mash the button on
your keyboard marked "enter," and you can skip right by them.

Jim


If you press the "down" button you can skip an entire string. - No need
to read any of them.

Jim

wrote:
Jeff wrote:

...
Actually, its fairly easy to add flotation to a small boat.
...


Do you know of any larger sailboat (over 40') with built-in solid
floatation ? Doesn't it make even more sense to have this in larger
boats (costing hundreds of thousands of dollars) than in a $20,000
boat which doesn't carry much of our belongings ?

Even if we're careful and only sail in good weather, there's always
a possibility of a collision such as when somebody else doesn't have
their lights on.
Larger boats have watertight compartments and collision bulkheads which
really do the same thing as foam.

Crossing the Atlantic in a MacGregor 26 is not impossible or improbable.
Somebody will do it someday. It is just gonna take a lot of skill and
luck. Some amazing journeys have been done in very small seemingly
uncapable boats but the element of luck is unpredictable.

How lucky are you?

Hey Jim... I found your 11-14-05 (1:55PM) post very interesting and
appreciated the over view of the MacGregor.

I have been seriously thinking about buying a small craft and for the
past year or so have been looking for something that would be com-
patible with my needs and limitations. At this point in time a *new*
MacGregor has definitely tweaked my interest!

Your input... and others that I may come accross on the internet is
and will be most helpfull.

Best regards

Bill

M/V Polynesia

I can??? Wow. You're not much of a PC/Mac user either! But, I do appreciate the short post this time.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message ...

Sounds like you don't appreciate my writing style, captain. - Here's a suggestion that might resolve your problem. - You actually don't have to waste your time reading my notes. - Simply mash the button on your keyboard marked "enter," and you can skip right by them.

Jim