wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:40:43 -0600, JimC
wrote:



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



No, you WISH that was how I was judging. I am sayiong that a Mac26M is
a flimsy, poorly designed and poorly constructed unsafe piece of
trash. No more seaworthy than a floating patio pontoon boat, and less
seaworthy than even many of those.


Interesting rant, Salty. You are certainly entitled to your opinion,
(despite the fact that you have no evidence or experience or proof
whatsoever in support of it). Of course, I'm entitled to my opinion as
well, which is based on my experience sailing the boat for five years,
reading about and discussing the boat with hundreds of other Mac owners,
and researching various articles and reviews.

Clearly, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. The difference, of
course, is that mine is correct.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that
should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would
run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've
seen it.

Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for
you.

In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come
up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz?

Jim





The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and
want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job.

What "claims" are you talking about Ganz? Have I made any "claims" that
the Mac26M is a good boat for extended offshore cruising? Have I made
any "claims" that it is a good boat for ocean crossings? Have I made any
"claims" that I would want to take it offshore for extended blue water
cruising? (Helpful hint: Not. - Just the opposite. In fact, I have
stated in several posts that it wouldn't be good choice for extended
crossings or the like.)

Neal, I think it would be helpful if you took the time to actually read
my notes before you post any more of those indignant, sarcastic, snooty
replies.

Jim

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:


Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or
15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do
that for us Ganz?


Jim, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15
Macs actually venturing out in conditions that might cause other boats
to break up and sink. - Could you do that for us Jim?

Ok, we'll settle for 5.

How about just 2?


Jeff, like Ganz, you seem to love posting supercilious responses to what
you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what
your caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I did
say. As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for
extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just
the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.

Jim

Marty wrote:

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



Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses or
challenges to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to
have said, or what your caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather
than what I did say. As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac
is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In
fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited
for extended crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.

Have a nice day Marty.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...
The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and
want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job.

What "claims" are you talking about Ganz? Have I made any "claims" that
the Mac26M is a good boat for extended offshore cruising? Have I made any
"claims" that it is a good boat for ocean crossings? Have I made any
"claims" that I would want to take it offshore for extended blue water
cruising? (Helpful hint: Not. - Just the opposite. In fact, I have stated
in several posts that it wouldn't be good choice for extended crossings or
the like.)

Neal, I think it would be helpful if you took the time to actually read my
notes before you post any more of those indignant, sarcastic, snooty
replies.

Jim


Please don't refer to me as "Neal." That's truly insulting! I think you're
starting to get really frazzled.

You now claim that the Mac wouldn't be a good choice for crossings, so that
makes one wonder why, given what a "great" boat it's supposed be.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
t...
Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26,
with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed afloat,
permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the floor of
the Gulf of Mexico.

Key phrase "I thought." You done thunked wrong.


Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine) in
heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his Mac-baching
buddies.

It's a vast Mac-bashing conspiracy! Alert the media.

Please produce some evidence that it wouldn't roll over and over creating
the effect of being in a washing machine if you were below decks.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

Please say it a bit louder. We can't HEAR YOU!

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

wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:55:55 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
...

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

Step 1) Open eyes.


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.)

Are you claiming that my boat can't be sailing in areas other than where
she's berthed???

I prefer to actually sail to places not put my boat on truck.


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.

Ongoing lease? Wow...stunning news. A 26' boat is less expensive to berth
than a 30.



More and more Marinas are charging by slip size, rather than boat size
and a 26 foot boat would cost the same or more than a 30 foot boat.
More? Yes more. If the only available slips left are 40 footers, and
the 30 foot boat is in a 30 or 35 foot slip, the Mac will be paying
for a 40 foot slip.

I pay substantially less for my slip than the charges for other slips in
our Marina because of the fact that I get a "shallow draft" discount.
Also because of the relatively limited size.



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.

It might be a coastal cruiser a couple of months a year, but I assure you
it's not a coastal cruiser out here 95% of the time, unless you count
foundering on rocks as coastal cruising.


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.



The large outboard negates a lot of that flotation you are counting on
so heavily. What happens to this stern heavy boat when it gets pooped?
My guess is that it sinks ass-end first


The design of the boat and the placement of the floatation is made with
the understanding that the owner will have installed a 50-60 hp. motor
and that their will be a skipper and guests onboard. The weight of the
motor (mine is around 220 lbs.) is a minor factor relative to other
factors, despite the fact that it is, of course, near the stern of the boat.



I bet you have PFDs too! Yeah, a large outboard to get you out of trouble
when either the skipper fails or the boat is about to fail.


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

Stuff em in... I bet you can.


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

Compared to what? My Sabre is 30' and 8000 lbs. I have no problem sailing
and docking in fairly rigorous conditions. I've seen Mac sailors trying to
dock, and they did so quite nicely... coming in like freight and jamming it
in reverse at the last second. I've also seen them "sailing" on the bay in
20+ kts... sails a flappin, boat heeled, people looking very scared, and
finally, the skipper gets the engine going just to get it under control.


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.

Well, you got me there... cheap compared to used boats of higher quality.


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.


Expressly NOT SAFE according the manufacturer, who even recommends
removing the mast anfd keeping everybody low in the cockpit as well as
always having the ballast tank full when motoring at anything above
steerage speeds.


Of course, you're responding to something I didn't say. I stated that
the boat could be sailed or motored with or without the ballast. - I
didn't say it should be motored at high speeds without the ballast.
Although we are warned about sailing without ballast, in moderate
conditions it is done routinely by experienced Mac owners. Lastly, I
don't know of any instructions from McGregor that the mast has to be
removed of motoring at anything above steerage speeds, with ballast full.

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.net...



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



Please prove this. I see no evidence of this in your post.


We (those posting on alt.sailing.asa) have so far been unable to provide
ANY reports of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions. If
you think this statement is incorrect in any respect, please identify the
source you think contradicts it. Or, if you have other sources that would
contradict it, post those as well (or instead).

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.

Jim



I guess you didn't like Jeff's post.

Here's my response to Jeff:



Jeff, like Ganz, you seem to love posting responses to what you THINK I
said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what your
caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I did say. As
previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for
extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just
the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.

Jim

Marty wrote:

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


Cute, Marty. Of course, you are evading the points made in my previous
responses as to what I DID and DID NOT say. - See below:



Jeff, you seem to love posting responses to what you THINK I said, or
what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what your caracature of Mac
owners WOULD have said, rather than what I did say. As previously noted,
I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for extensive blue water
sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just the opposite, that
it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-baching buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.

Jim

Marty wrote:

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

Actually, JimC is responding to every rational (or even arguably
rational) note posted by any and all Mac-Bashers on the newsgroup. -
Come one, come all, and I'll provide a response. (Except for those in
bad taste, and obviously sicko remarks such as those recently posted by
Ganz. - He's obviously loosing it.)

What JimC is NOT going to do is post responses to Mac-Bashers asking him
to defend positions that he doesn't hold, or statements he didn't make.

Jim