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



What do I see? Among other things, I see the following:

1) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the
immediate area. - The Mac26M can be quickly and easily transported by
the owner (with a pickup or SUV) in one weekend to waters hundreds of
miles from it's berth or storage area, thereby making available hundreds
of sailing areas that wouldn't be conveniently available with a larger,
keeled vessel. (Without having it hauled out of the water and hiring a
truck to transport the boat to a distant sailing area.) - Practically
speaking, most large, conventional keeled boats are limited to sailing
within a day or so of their marinas unless the owners are retired or
want to spend several weeks of vacation. (Of course, you can always
point to exceptions, but they ARE the exceptions, not the usual practice
for most owners, most of the time.)

2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Thus, the storage
fees are substantially less than most marina fees, and ongoing lease and
maintenance fees can be substantially reduced. Or, if desired, I can
(and do) choose to keep it in a Marina, at a relatively modest fee
because of its size and limited draft.

3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters,
including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for
extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. The
boat has plenty of ballast and plenty of righting forces. Also, it's
suitable for sailing and/or motoring in shallow or restricted waters
that aren't available to large, fixed keel vessels.

4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including
positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised. The boat is also designed to accommodate a large outboard
which gives the skipper more options in the event of heavy weather,
e.g., for returning to port quickly.

5) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial
cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth.

6) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and
docking by one person.

7) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger
boats (comparing new prices with new prices and used prices with used
prices, of course). This permits getting a fully equipped vessel (with
accessories such as autopilot, chart reader, roller reefing, 50-hp
motor, lines led aft, radio, stereo, etc., etc.), still within an
affordable total cost.

8) A boat that can be sailed or motored with or without the ballast, and
that can be trailord without the ballast, making it a substantially
lighter load when trailoring.

9) A boat that can have a 5.5 feet draft for sailing (with dagger-board
down) but that can be converted to one with only 1.5-ft draft in
shallow waters or waters with variable depth, or for anchoring in
shallow waters, or for bringing it up a ramp for trailoring, or for
simply bringing the boat ashore on a beach for a picnic or the like.
Or, the dagger board can be only partially retracted for increased speed
on a reach or a run, or completely retracted for motoring on a plane.

10) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this
ng, isn't limited to hull speed. With the (typical) 50-hp to 60-hp
outboard, the Mac 26M can be motored on a plane at two or three times
hull speed. While some on this ng have ridiculed this feature, it
offers a number of rather important advantages. - For example, the
skipper can get the boat out to a preferred sailing area substantially
sooner, PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME in the desired area. Similarly, at
the end of the day, he can get the boat back more quickly, regardless of
wind direction, again PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME (since he can stay
out later and still get the family home in time for dinner or other
activities). Practically speaking, it's also an advantage of the wife or
kids or guests are getting tired of sailing and want to get back ASAP.
This capability is also a safety factor, as mentioned above, in the
event the skipper wants to bring the boat in quickly to avoid heavy
weather, or move down the coast to avoid a squall, etc.

11) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. -
Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. - (I also like the looks of some
of the large conventional boats, particularly if they are long enough.)
But if we are comparing apples to apples, consider the looks of other
boats of 26-foot length. - For example, the smaller Island Packets look
something like a tug boat to me. All I know is that it looks good to me
and my guests. - Every time I see him, the owner of the boat in the next
slip compliments me on what a good-looking boat it is. Again, I
ALREADY STATED THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL TASTE, DIDN'T I? So
there's really no need to tell me that you don't like the Mac, and
prefer something else. - More power to you.

12) Finally, I see a boat that is FUN TO SAIL! On my Mac 26M, when I get
to the sailing area, raise the sails, turn off the motor, and sense the
boat moving under sail, it's an amazing, almost magical experience. In
contrast to some of the heavier, conventional boats that I have sailed,
the Mac is sufficiently light that it gives you a 'kick in the pants' as
it accelerates under sail. Although larger boats are steadier, and more
comfortable in choppy waters (sort of like a large, heavy Lincoln Town
Car or equivalent) the Macs are responsive enough to give you more of a
feel of the changing conditions (sort of like the feel of a sports car,
such as a Porsche (a car that is fun to drive but not quite as smooth or
comfortable on long trips as the Lincoln). Also, in moderate conditions,
I sometimes like to set the boat on autopilot and sit on the deck
watching the boat gliding silently through the water. - Again, it's an
ethereal, almost magical experience.

- - - Does that answer your question Ganz? - Or do you want a few more?

Jim

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:12:19 -0600, 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. - 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. 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. My point is that, so far, we don't see any
reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink.



...Or leave the dock in anything but mild weather.


Again, despite the thousands of Mac 26's out there sailed in US and
foreign waters, we have NO reports of Mac 26M's breaking up and sinking
in ANY conditions. NONE!

Have a nice day Salty.

Jim

jeff wrote:

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?

Yes.

Out of sight of land?

Yes.
Any
Bermuda crossings?

I believe so.

Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on
some proof, now its your turn to ante up.


Actually, Jeff, what I said originally was that I didn't consider the
Mac 26 to be suitable for extended ocean crossings and wouldn't want to
take mine out 200 miles. Since I already said that I don't consider the
Mac to be suitable for extended crossings, I really don't see the need
to defend it as a boat suitable for extended ocean crossings. I also
said that, in the event that Joe was on a Mac 26 rather than Red Cloud,
I thought that the boat would not break apart and sink, as did Red
Cloud, apparently, because the Macs are built with positive floatation
that will keep them afloat even if the hull is compromised, etc. - Once
more, I have already said that it isn't suitable for extended ocean
crossings. - What is it about that statement do you not understand?




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.

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. 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. But remember that they may
be subject to severe conditions no matter where they are sailed. My
point is that with this many boats out there, over many years, it is
obviously likely that some will have been subject to severe and
unexpected conditions of various kinds. - Remember that it was Ganz and
others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy
conditions. (By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for
extended Blue Water crossings.) Therefore, in view of the fact that it
was Ganz and his buddies that made the assertions that they would break
up in heavy weather, seems like it would be his responsibility to
support that particular assertions.

Here's what he actually posted:

"Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and
sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of
flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush.
In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either
be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself
from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't
survive."

Again, if he is going to disparage my boat, equating it to a washing
machine and asserting that no one on it would survive, then he should be
the one to provide the evidence supporting his assertions.


Laser's don't break up or sink, but that
doesn't mean they are a suitable "offshore" boat.

Once more, I never said it was a "suitable offshore boat." (How many
times do I have to repeat this?) I merely stated that I didn't think it
would have sunk, as did Joe's 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?


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.

Jim

Martin Baxter wrote:

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

Sorry to see you go Roger. Is there any chance you might reconsider your
decision?

Jim

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:42:55 -0600, JimC wrote:



wrote:


On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC
wrote:



Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and
sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of
flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush.
In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either
be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself

from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive.


Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200
miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say
was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all,
he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative,
critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps
even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case.
But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to
support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs
that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming
that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do
you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your
assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over
and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll?
If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the
evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the
Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your
evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim



Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it
over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that
the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to
be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac
out in those



conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL


It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than
what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the
boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the
boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if
the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the
boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being
on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay
keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart,
there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim

I have.


So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats.
They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the
crews abandoned them (to their peril).


Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
support your assertions.




You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.


Wrong again Ganz. You are judging the Mac's rigging by what's necessary
on a heavy keel boat. Because of it's small size and relative light
weight, the cleats and bow fittings used on the Macs are entirely
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, with extensions to the mid-deck cleats, and then tie the sea
anchor to the bridle.


Jim


First of all, I'm not Ganz. Second of all, there is absolutely no attachment
point on a Mac26M that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor in
heavy weather. Creating one would be a pretty extensive undertaking due to the
overall light construction.


I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of
the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The
requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See
also my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea
anchor.

Jim

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:59:49 -0600, JimC wrote:



Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on
the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present
that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from
side to side in ocean conditions?

Yes.

I have.


So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.


I've been at sea in some rough conditions, and sailed and motored in
what we were told was a 80-90 mph storm. Also sailed offshore on several
boats in a variety of conditions. Also qualified as a crewmember on the
1877 bark Elissa, sailing several years from Galveston, which involved
climbing rope ladders 100 feet up the masts and furling and unfurling
sails in some exciting conditions aloft.


So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read
Fastnet Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to
several boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the
point where the crews abandoned them (to their peril).

Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that a
Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You said
that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't support
your assertions.


I haven't presented any evidence that the moon revolves around the Earth
either. Do I need to support my assertion that it does?


As far as I know, we're discussing characteristics of the Mac 26M, not
the moon. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that Ganz.


You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally
unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption.


From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much

about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Did I say that? Don't think so.

Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
Neal's original post.


My mistake. It *is* about your Mac!

Is it, Ganz? I thought you were also discussing the moon.


Jim



No. You are confused about this as well. He was discussing Mac26M sailboats with
a MacMoonie.



Does this ridiculous childish banter really support either of your
positions? Or is sarcasm simply the best way to put down us Mac
supporters if all else fails?

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

As stated above, the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most popular series of
sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both in the US and in
various foreign countries.


The Big Mac is the most popular burger ever. Doesn't mean I'd try and order
one in an expensive restaurant.



On the other hand, if people were routinely dying the day after eating a
Big Mac, we WOULD have heard about it, woudln't we? Same principle with
a boat that is being sailed by thousands of owners around the world.

Jim

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:29:09 -0600, 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? Seems to me that what I stated was that I wouldn't
want to take mine 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the Mac's do have
positive floatation, and they don't have a heavy keel that would drag
the boat quickly to the bottom if the hull were compromised. Marty, so
far, no one has provided ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of one breaking apart and
sinking under ANY conditions, offshore, inshore, heavy weather, squalls,
drunk skipper, collisions. No one. Nada. Despite the thousands of Macs
out there.

As stated above, the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most popular series of
sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both in the US and in
various foreign countries. And many Mac 26 owners (in the US and in
foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore, though few are used in
open crossings. In view of the thousands of Mac26s out there, if the
Macs did have a tendency to break up and sink, under stress of any kind,
it would be impossible to keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no
one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has heard of ANY Mac26 breaking
up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms
of stress.



Maybe they are all owned by Scientologists!



If all else fails, resort to cynicism and ridicule. - Right?




Secondly, remember that I wasn't the one who posted statements to the
effect that the Macs would break up and sink in severe conditions. Those
statements were posted by Ganz, with vacuous support from several
others. Since Ganz and his friends posted those assertions, Ganz and his
friends are the ones who should be providing evidence and proof
supporting their theories. - They haven't, of course, and they clearly
are unable to do so.


Have a nice evening.

Jim

Edgar wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:26 -0400, jeff wrote:


JimC would like to write this off as just a drunk operator incident, but
frankly, it happened so quickly and was so unexpected, that it might
have happened even if he was sober. My issue is that 8 adults is not
normally gross overloading on a 26 foot boat, and goosing the throttle
on a typical sailboat does not instantly create a dangerous situation.
Given that Macs are often sold to novices, the description of this event
should be required reading by all Mac owners.

http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

=========================================

Tragic, too many people plus a design weakness. Bayliner had a
similar issue back in the 80s with some of their small flybridge
cruisers. With too much weight on the flybridge they would flop over
and capsize in a hard turn. Problem was solved with a warning
sticker.


Problem solved with a warning sticker!!! That is just the builder covering
his backside as best he can.
The builders of the capsized Mac said they put a sticker on when it was
built but the evidence indicated that it was not there at the time of the
accident.
Eight adults on the deck of what was in effect a large unballasted dinghy is
a recipe for disaster because it constitutes overloading anyway and the
weight of all on deck was so high up that if the boat heels even in a gentle
turn it is going right over if there is no ballast in the keel to restrain
it..
There is no mystery at all about the cause of the tragedy but it does
indicate that this is not a boat that anyone without training about the
water ballast and the max no of passengers can just drive away safely


The skipper was drunk, the boat was severely overloaded and top heavy,
the skipper had borrowed the boat from the owner and was apparently
unfamiliar with it, and the owner was apparently not there to check
things out. Most critically, the drunk skipper was motoring the boat
with the ballast tank empty. Therefore, once the boat started to roll
(apparently when he turned, under power, with the heavy load on deck),
the boat had little righting force and rolled over. ANYONE WHO HAS
SAILED OR MOTORED a water-ballasted boat should know that such boats
aren't self-righting without the water ballast and are dangerous,
particularly if you are going out with the boat overloaded and while you
and several of the guests are drunk. Also, the two casualties were small
infants who had been left in the cabin while the "adults" were drinking
up on deck. I also think the owner had a responsibility to check the
boat (and the skipper) before the boat went out.

In any event, the case was vigorously prosecuted, but the plaintiffs
lost. They tried to make the case that the boat was inherently unsafe,
but the judge didn't buy it. As to how this relates to our present
discussion, I really doubt than any even half-way rational skipper would
consider taking a Mac offshore under such conditions (with the boat
overloaded, with several adults standing on the deck, with the skipper
and half the guests drunk, and with the ballast tank empty). It's an
anomaly that doesn't really relate to the present discussion.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message
...

JimC wrote:


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.. .
snipping

Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL


The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities
beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon
this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with
respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange,
but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from
bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing
our Macs.

But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a
promise.

Getting a bit paranoid there Jim. Nobody was bashing Macs, just bashing
the idea that they were sufficiently seaworthy as to be taken off shore
and brave open ocean storms. Now go take a pill and relax, Macs have their
place, as do canoes and paddle boats.

Cheers
Marty

Jim



That's right Marty... in fact, as the chief Mac-basher (apparently) I said
near those exact words, but Jim doesn't want to hear...


Ganz, I think what you said was:

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and
sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of
flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush.
In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either
be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself
from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't
survive.

Of course, you had no evidence whatsoever to back up those ridiculous
assertions. Incidentally, I never thought of my Mac as a washing
machine, but maybe I should look into it.

Jim