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

Anyone who takes a Mac offshore should be committed (and I don't mean
devoted).

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I would certainly hope that anyone taking a Mac,

Come on. Don't be so hard on yourself!

As stated in my note, I personally would never attempt a crossing in a
Mac.

It's a joke. Pretend means you know better. You are just too funny!

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.