JimC wrote:

If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such
evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of
the kind.

Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. -
Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back.

Jim, you most certainly made such a statement, when you returned I
couldn't resist.

I am pleased to see you have no intention of trying to support such folly.

Cheers
Marty

JimC wrote:

I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there
somewhere, but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it.

Your move.
I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs
can fly.

Are really that dense?

Cheers
Marty

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

I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there somewhere,
but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it.

Your move.
I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs can
fly.

Are really that dense?

Cheers
Marty


Wait.. right there. You missed it!

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there somewhere,
but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it.

Your move.
I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs can
fly.

Are really that dense?

Cheers
Marty


Wait.. right there. You missed it!



Jon, there are four possibilities he

1) JimC is just playing devils advocate and is having fun being
deliberately obtuse.

2) JimC has a serious mental deficiency and actually believes a Mac26X
to be a fine sailing vessel suitable for competition in the TransPac.

3) JimC is in the employ of MacGregor, and or owns shares in the company.

4) Some combination of the above.

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there
somewhere, but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it.

Your move.
I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs
can fly.

Are really that dense?

Cheers
Marty


Wait.. right there. You missed it!



Jon, there are four possibilities he

1) JimC is just playing devils advocate and is having fun being
deliberately obtuse.

2) JimC has a serious mental deficiency and actually believes a Mac26X to
be a fine sailing vessel suitable for competition in the TransPac.

3) JimC is in the employ of MacGregor, and or owns shares in the company.

4) Some combination of the above.

Cheers
Marty


I think there's a #5... Macs are, in fact, the most seaworthy boats that are
designed for the rigorous conditions one could encounter anywhere in the
vast oceans. Not only be unsinkable, even by fools such as us, they are
fast, look great, and are only sold to sailors who are the most deserving of
them - highly skilled seafarers of which there are few. The reason that we
believe they don't participate in competitions, such as the TransPac, is
because of the evil media, who are in cahoots with the other manufacturers.

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

Capt. JG wrote:


I think there's a #5... Macs are, in fact, the most seaworthy boats that are
designed for the rigorous conditions one could encounter anywhere in the
vast oceans. Not only be unsinkable, even by fools such as us, they are
fast, look great, and are only sold to sailors who are the most deserving of
them - highly skilled seafarers of which there are few. The reason that we
believe they don't participate in competitions, such as the TransPac, is
because of the evil media, who are in cahoots with the other manufacturers.


Thanks Jon, I hadn't considered that possibility. Damn sporting of those
Mac owners not to put us mere mortals to shame by thrashing us in such
races.

Cheers
Marty

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


I think there's a #5... Macs are, in fact, the most seaworthy boats that
are designed for the rigorous conditions one could encounter anywhere in
the vast oceans. Not only be unsinkable, even by fools such as us, they
are fast, look great, and are only sold to sailors who are the most
deserving of them - highly skilled seafarers of which there are few. The
reason that we believe they don't participate in competitions, such as
the TransPac, is because of the evil media, who are in cahoots with the
other manufacturers.


Thanks Jon, I hadn't considered that possibility. Damn sporting of those
Mac owners not to put us mere mortals to shame by thrashing us in such
races.

Cheers
Marty


They have our best interest in mind at all times.. especially when zooming
back to port in case there's wind a'comin.


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

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:

....
- 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.


What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove, or
at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making
claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything.


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.

You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to the
point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has some
foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected. Remember, I've already
shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. And hundreds of people
drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.

....
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.

That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because there
are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the harbor. So
is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make ludicrous claims
claims and hope the jury is stupid?


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.

And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.

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.

Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is buying
this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at least one must
be real. Have you been probed lately?


- Remember that it was Ganz and
others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy
conditions.

I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an
unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have
to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most multihulls
have positive flotation, though a number have eventually sunk,
fortunately long after the crew has been rescued.

(By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for
extended Blue Water crossings.)

But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions.


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.


There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up. And
there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from "average
nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover.


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.

Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller,
lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew
anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only
question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch falls
off and the boat floods.

....

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.

Sure thing. But you've said this every year.

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
...



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



No. He's judging it on the basis of what's a decent rig.

A "decent rig" for a 69-foot Swan, or a 40-ft Valiant or a 39-ft O'Day, is
not the same thing as a "decent rig" for a 26-ft boat displacing 4,000
pounds.

Jim



I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for
anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of
about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what
would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal
cruising.


Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre.

As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for
coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post
the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual
tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more
of your obviously biased personal opinions.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...

I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate
for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement
of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than
what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real
coastal cruising.


Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre.

I shall. Thanks.

I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the
issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who
enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland
lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also.

As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for
coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post
the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual
tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of
your obviously biased personal opinions.

Jim

You're right. I biased when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for
40 years, so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats
of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs
surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased
personal assurances that everything will just be fine.


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