I decided
 

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:


Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether
anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy
seas. (Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No
one had heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands
out there, all over the world and in all types of conditions.



Well Jim, to use your tack, please provide reliable evidence of a
Mac26 surviving an open ocean passage that involves a significant
storm, duration greater that 48hrs, oh hell I'd settle for 24.


Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any
note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean
passage of any kind?

You're being facetious right?

Cheers
Marty

I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..

Feel free to believe what you want.

And also to believe the recommendations of references such as the
Annapolis Book of Seamship Gantz? It's pretty clear that heaving to can be
dangerous in heavy, breaking seas.


As opposed to what? Sitting at home?

As opposed to other methods such as deploying a sea anchor.




Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it
would be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be
gone, it would be unsailable.

Wrong again Gantz. I'm not suggesting that the rigging and mast would be
gone, merely tied securely. But even if they were, with storm anchor
deployed, the boat wouldn't broach. As to your contention that it would
roll and roll and roll and roll with a sea anchor deployed, once again,
where is your evidence supporting that particular assertion? Apparently,
you have none at all. (Seems like we have gone through this discussin
several times before, yet you continue to post those preposterous
speculations as fact. - Is there an echo on this ng?


And, you base that on what experience JimE? Is there an echo in your head?
Deploying a sea anchor is certainly a good idea. Don't worry, you won't have
a chance if you take your Mac out in a storm.


My point is that you have posted a number of rather "colorful"
assertions that are unsupported by evidence or proof of any kind. And
you can't seem to stop. - You seem to be addicted to it.




Jim

I decided
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...

Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim
they're more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it includes
offshore. Yes, it's a rhetorial question.


I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but
you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And
there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen.
Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can
be a good ego booster.

Jim



Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see?
(answer: none of the above) LOL



There are two Macs (a 25D and 26D) in my local racing circle that have
been to the Bahamas several times.

Does that count?


Richard

I decided
 

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow
chucks,


Wow! Since you have all this experience on "big" sailboats, perhaps you
could explain what a "bow chuck" is? - Cheers
Marty

-- Bow cleats --

Wow, Marty. You sure are smart, and you must be an old salt for sure. You
sure did get me on that one, didn't you? Bet you're proud of yourself.

(Incidentally, Marty, try responding simultaneously to 15 obviously
frustrated Mac-bashers for a few days and see if you don't make a few
mistakes.)


Jim



I didn't think it was that obvious.


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

I decided
 

"JimC" wrote in message
...
You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel
free to claim I did.

Ganz, what you said was: There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.

Do you have evidence supporting that particular assertion?


Jim

No Jim, I didn't say it. Salty said it. Check the history. I wish I had said
it. I wish I knew if it was true, but I don't and I don't really care. It
sounds good.

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

I decided
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,


Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty


I did, apparently! LOL Maybe there's a meta message here from Jim....

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

I decided
 

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...

Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim
they're more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it
includes offshore. Yes, it's a rhetorial question.


I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz,
but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And
there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be
seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems,
they can be a good ego booster.

Jim



Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see?
(answer: none of the above) LOL



There are two Macs (a 25D and 26D) in my local racing circle that have
been to the Bahamas several times.

Does that count?


Richard


No idea. Jim... does that count?


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

I decided
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:


Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many
of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of
any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over
the world and in all types of conditions.



Well Jim, to use your tack, please provide reliable evidence of a Mac26
surviving an open ocean passage that involves a significant storm,
duration greater that 48hrs, oh hell I'd settle for 24.


Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any
note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean
passage of any kind?

You're being facetious right?

Cheers
Marty


Jim... this is another one of the rhetorical questions.. LOL


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

I decided
 

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two
bow chucks,


Wow! Since you have all this experience on "big" sailboats, perhaps
you could explain what a "bow chuck" is? -
Cheers
Marty

-- Bow cleats --

Wow, Marty. You sure are smart, and you must be an old salt for sure.
You sure did get me on that one, didn't you? Bet you're proud of yourself.

(Incidentally, Marty, try responding simultaneously to 15 obviously
frustrated Mac-bashers for a few days and see if you don't make a few
mistakes.)

Ah, now the ad hominems roll out. I thought you meant chock, changing
'cleat" to "chuck" seemed a bit of a stretch.

I, ala Roger Long am bailing out of this ludicrous thread.

Cheers
Marty

I decided
 

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:


Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether
anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy
seas. (Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No
one had heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands
out there, all over the world and in all types of conditions.


Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real
offshore passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most
of the comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open
ocean and it does quite well, especially since I can power in before
it get too rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing."
The fact that Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing
to Catalina (or Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas)
does not mean they have been "offshore."

I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages,
but every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe
8-10 foot seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these
conditions should be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent
skipper. But when you say "offshore" you're implying the possibility
of much worse conditions, 50+ knots, large breaking seas, and storms
lasting several days. I'm just a bit skeptical that Macs have endured
such conditions on many occasions.

I think the discussion has related largely to conditions such as those
Joe experienced in the Gulf of Mexico.

That was not quite an ocean passage, but it was about 900 miles
altogether, including the last 550 miles of open water. This was not a
little peek outside the harbor's mouth. While not the North Atlantic in
Winter, or hurricane season, it was a lot more than any Mac trip I've
heard of. And the discussion certainly seems to be about survival
weather, since you're talking about the relative merits of laying ahull
and laying off a sea anchor.

- 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? Out of sight of land? Any
Bermuda crossings? Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on
some proof, now its your turn to ante up.

I've spent time perusing the Mac boards and I've yet to find a mention
of really strong conditions. "Heavy Weather" in Mac terms seems to be
20-25 kts with a three foot chop, and most owners say they hope to never
see worse. And while I've seen no stories of total breakups, there are
a number of cases of dismastings and lots of rudder problems. And then
there's the break away dagger board issue (yes, they only cost $250)
that you claim is actually the shallow water alarm. And need I remind
you that people have drowned in a capsized Mac?

On the
other hand, with thousands of Macs out there, in US and foreign waters,
the probabilities of exposure to various problems under sail is
significant. In other words, with that many boats exposed to the
vagaries of weather, other severe conditions, collisions, inexperienced
or distracted skippers, etc., etc., problems can arise no matter where
the boats are being sailed.

Nope, claiming it must have happened because there are a lot of Macs out
there doesn't cut it. As I (and a number of others) have pointed out,
even though I've cruised the entire East Coast, and spend a few months
each summer cruising New England, I've never seen a Mac outside of
protected waters.

My point is that, so far, we don't see any
reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink.

True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually
survived true heavy weather. Laser's don't break up or sink, but that
doesn't mean they are a suitable "offshore" boat.

And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it
offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you
repost them?