|
I decided
On Apr 13, 8:39*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: 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? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. *Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out there. But, feel free and send us a report! It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. *Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. *That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... -- "j" ganz - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge. Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water. Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe. |
I decided
"sailor164" wrote in message
... On Apr 13, 8:39 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: 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? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out there. But, feel free and send us a report! It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... -- "j" ganz - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - +Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge. + +Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water. +Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe. A Sadler does not a Mac make. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:41:41 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: /snip/ There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of inertia) /snip/ Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously doubt. /snip/ Bruce-in-Bangkok This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it. The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass. Easy to look up though..... Brian W |
I decided
On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, Brian Whatcott wrote:
The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass. Hmmm. I think mass moment of inertia is what you're after (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia). Second moment of inertia is form stiffness (eg. the "I"'s in a mast section description). -- Tom. |
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:14:49 -0700, Gordon wrote:
And they require two berths in the marina. Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) One of their major advantages. After all, one doesn't want to be jammed in with the trailer trash does one? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:35:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down. Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is better offshore. :-) Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel to sail. Think about it for a moment. 1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position 2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out. 3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the portion exposed to the waves. 4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head stay. 5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes. 6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights. 7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick your wounds. 8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking. No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Hard for me to disagree... probably the only major negatives are stowage and cost, the former of which you have to watch or it'll get out of control and really slow down the boat. Crew fatigue is a *big* factor for long-distance. I saw a cat that had screens up around the cockpit, so screw the mosquitos. When we charter in various locations, we always rent a catamaran... makes for a much pleasant vacation. Disclaimer: I own a mono. :-) Well, one simply advises the Captain that the crew will be limited to a single "tee" shirt and pair of shorts. Keeps the weight down and also restricts the use of fresh water, don;t you know? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:38:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Gordon" wrote in message ... And they require two berths in the marina. Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Ah... yes, the other negative. This relates to expense. As I previously posted, one of the great advantages. Keeps the riff-raff out. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:10:11 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:41:41 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: /snip/ There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of inertia) /snip/ Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously doubt. /snip/ Bruce-in-Bangkok This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it. The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass. Easy to look up though..... Brian W Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major effect on a boat rolling over. Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs 500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders about half way up the mast. I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2 sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast head. The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date. It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major effect on a boat rolling over. Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs 500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders about half way up the mast. I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2 sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast head. The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date. It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacenter |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), --- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No? it would be dismasted for sure. Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No? 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. Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No? 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. LOL. 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. That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a novel? Either way, you wouldn't survive. Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support it. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), --- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No? it would be dismasted for sure. Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No? 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. Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No? 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. LOL. 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. That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a novel? Either way, you wouldn't survive. Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support it. Jim Ganz is a closed-minded fool. You can't expect his like to act rationally. His mind is made up so don't confuse him with the facts. Macgregor 26s are great little boats. Thousands of people get a whole lot of enjoyment out of them and I've not heard about one single solitary foundering to date. And with thousands of Macs out there on the water a sinking would be a daily event if Jon Boy was right. -- Gregory Hall |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message t... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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 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, 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'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. If the boat is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point... QED. You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post. I'm not man..... LOL Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out Neal's original post. Jim |
I decided
On Apr 17, 6:12 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds a boat up? Lots of tiny levitation daemons? Maybe if you get them really riled they'll hoist the boat clean into the air and you can save on haul out fees. I take it that you aren't buying the argument from the clean gent from Syracuse either. So, what are you saying? -- Tom. |
I decided
"Roger Long" wrote in message
... Uh oh. Don't get me started on Metacenters. As the name implies they aren't real and nothing makes stability harder to understand from what is generally written. I've given many lectures on stability and I usually have to spend the first third of the lecture getting the students to forget all the stuff they read the night before. Metacenters and metacentric height are very useful calculation shortcuts for naval architects but a very poor way to understand the forces involved. Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds a boat up? -- Roger Long Bad weather and/or beautiful women. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:35:58 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down. Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is better offshore. :-) Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel to sail. Think about it for a moment. 1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position 2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out. 3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the portion exposed to the waves. 4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head stay. 5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes. 6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights. 7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick your wounds. 8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking. No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Hard for me to disagree... probably the only major negatives are stowage and cost, the former of which you have to watch or it'll get out of control and really slow down the boat. Crew fatigue is a *big* factor for long-distance. I saw a cat that had screens up around the cockpit, so screw the mosquitos. When we charter in various locations, we always rent a catamaran... makes for a much pleasant vacation. Disclaimer: I own a mono. :-) Well, one simply advises the Captain that the crew will be limited to a single "tee" shirt and pair of shorts. Keeps the weight down and also restricts the use of fresh water, don;t you know? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I have tried this several times, and the women just won't go for it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"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. 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? 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! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
wrote in message
... You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor. How about around his thick head? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Capt. JG" wrote in message news:WISdnRUtNokGEZrVnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@bayareasolut ions... I have tried this several times, and the women just won't go for it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Women don't want sex with girly-men! -- Gregory Hall |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), --- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No? Is there any proof that if I go after it with a sawsall it'll remain intact? No. it would be dismasted for sure. Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No? Like I said, you know next to nothing about boats. That is certainly my assertion, and the proof is what you bought and then claim it's going to do fine offshore in storm conditions. 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. Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No? See other thread parts. This is boring. 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. LOL. Not so funny if you happen to be there. 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. That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a novel? Read it as fact in a non-fiction book... actually several. Either way, you wouldn't survive. Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support it. Yeah, too bad. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:38:58 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Gordon" wrote in message ... And they require two berths in the marina. Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Ah... yes, the other negative. This relates to expense. As I previously posted, one of the great advantages. Keeps the riff-raff out. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I guess I'm going to have to continue to rent. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
cavelamb himself wrote:
Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major effect on a boat rolling over. Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs 500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders about half way up the mast. I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2 sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast head. The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date. It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacenter Just go study the wiki page. It's a pretty clear explanation. |
I decided
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? I have.- But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion. Nope. I also don't have evidence that cockroaches are smarter than elephants. So, back at you... do you seriously believe that a dismasted boat is stable in heavy seas? Because that's the real discussion whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. Actually, that's not the "real discussion." My initial comments related to my contention that, had Joe been in a Mac 26M, his boat would have remained afloat. Whether or not he would still want to call the CC, in view of his wife's condition, is another issue. In either case, he wouldn't have lost his boat. And had he elected to stay on the boat, he wouldn't have sunk when the boat sank. So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float means that it won't capsize over and over? Did I say that? Don't think so. You pretty much did in your previous comment. You should read what you write. It's a gas. Not nearly as interesting as the sensationalized fiction you have bee posting Capt. 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). 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. Your comments regarding the instability of dismasted boats apparently assumes that, with the mast, the crews would have been able to keep their boats stable by reducing, possibly heaving to. But in heavy seas such as those Joe described (the conditions observed several hours prior to the CC rescue), it seems likely that a boat would not stay on course when hoved to. For example, when the boat was below the waves, the winds would be erratic, and the boat would wander about unpredictably, ready to be broad sided by the next wave. As stated above, I personally think it would be wiser to deploy a sea anchor and forget about trying to heave to. But in any case, you don't have evidence or proof that one or both of these tactics would be for a boat in the situation Joe described. You also don't have evidence or proof that a Mac 26 would roll and roll and roll if a sea anchor were deployed, whether or not it was dismasted. In any case the boat has floatation that would keep it afloat, which would be preferable to being pulled to the bottom by a heavy keel in a boat with no floatation. Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such conditions? No? I didn't think so. As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes, I know so. Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation. From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize it, much less admit it. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Once again, did I say that? Don't think so. You don't know much about boats... And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that fact, much less admit it. clearly, and I do think so. If the boat is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point... QED. You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post. I'm not man..... LOL So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly had me fooled. Well, that's apparently pretty easy to do! Feel free to show us some empirical evidence that a Mac will not roll, capsize, and kill anyone stupid enough to be in the conditions previously described. Nope, didn't think you could. Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay, speculation, and personal bias. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" 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? I have.- Jim Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave to, rather than lying ahull. Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. - For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of boats." Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or under a reefed sail plan. Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position... Seems to me it would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around. Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently resist a knock-down or complete roll. If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way. Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is, the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not recommended. Jim |
I decided
Gregory Hall wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), --- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No? it would be dismasted for sure. Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No? 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. Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No? 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. LOL. 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. That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a novel? Either way, you wouldn't survive. Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support it. Jim Ganz is a closed-minded fool. You can't expect his like to act rationally. His mind is made up so don't confuse him with the facts. Macgregor 26s are great little boats. Thousands of people get a whole lot of enjoyment out of them and I've not heard about one single solitary foundering to date. And with thousands of Macs out there on the water a sinking would be a daily event if Jon Boy was right. -- Gregory Hall 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. I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats have certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of larger boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas, Ericksons, Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I bought the Mac.) The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their own, provided you aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from Belize to Galveston. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes, I know so. Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation. Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as Joe's boat. From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize it, much less admit it. Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and your contentions. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Once again, did I say that? Don't think so. You don't know much about boats... And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that fact, much less admit it. clearly, and I do think so. Clearly, you're trying to change the subject. Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally Yes, this we know. to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe And, you thought wrong. described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay, speculation, and personal bias. Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific conditions, none of which include offshore. I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a friend's older Mac26. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave to, rather than lying ahull. Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. - For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of boats." Feel free to believe what you want. Heaving-to is one of the best methods to survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the" best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line. Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or under a reefed sail plan. 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. Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position... Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your Mac? Seems to me it would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around. Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently resist a knock-down or complete roll. Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for a while. If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way. Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is, the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not recommended. You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring, supporting a piece of junk. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote: Uh oh. Don't get me started on Metacenters. As the name implies they aren't real and nothing makes stability harder to understand from what is generally written. I've given many lectures on stability and I usually have to spend the first third of the lecture getting the students to forget all the stuff they read the night before. Metacenters and metacentric height are very useful calculation shortcuts for naval architects but a very poor way to understand the forces involved. Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds a boat up? Air pressure? -- Molesworth |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... 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. I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats have certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of larger boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas, Ericksons, Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I bought the Mac.) The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their own, provided you aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from Belize to Galveston. Jim You must be desperate. Now you're replying to a known liar and stalker. 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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
|
I decided
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 decided
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. Puhleeze.... Mac 26X/M are unsafe in the presence of air. A long passage for a Mac should be from one end of the marina lot to the other. No competent skipper would consider taking a Mac 26X/M on a long passage. |
I decided
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. Can't do it can you? I wonder why not? Well not really Cheers Marty |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes, I know so. Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation. Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as Joe's boat. And your evidence supporting that assertion is................................................ .................? From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize it, much less admit it. Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and your contentions. I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor, O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Once again, did I say that? Don't think so. You don't know much about boats... And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that fact, much less admit it. clearly, and I do think so. Clearly, you're trying to change the subject. Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally Yes, this we know. to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe And, you thought wrong. And your proof supporting that particular assertion is.........................? described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay, speculation, and personal bias. Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific conditions, none of which include offshore. Wrong again. I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a friend's older Mac26. And how old was that Mac26 Gantz? Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave to, rather than lying ahull. Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. - For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of boats." 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. Heaving-to is one of the best methods to survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the" best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line. Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or under a reefed sail plan. 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? Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position... Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your Mac? Right. A response to Bruce. - Crawfishing on your earlier statements. Seems to me it would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around. Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently resist a knock-down or complete roll. Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for a while. If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way. Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is, the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not recommended. You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring, supporting a piece of junk. Have a nice evening Gantz. Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:55 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC wrote: 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. Good point. Let's take it past Mac-bashing. Here's some advice for those who take such things seriously. Whether it's a Mac or more substantial boat, don't assume your cleats have backing plates and will take much strain. I've read of one "well respected" brand sailboat having no backing plates and breaking up on the rocks when the cleats pulled out during a blow, losing the mooring. Your suggestions are well taken. From their literature, the Macs' cleats on current models do have SS backing plates, but their capacity should be verified. Also, see my suggestions for forming a towing bridle and reinforcing it with extensions to the mid-deck cleats. Another boat that the "real sailors" fawn over is now undergoing some refurbishing by a real sailor friend of mine. He found a faultily bedded thruhull that only luck kept from coming free and perhaps sinking the boat. In addition to its positive floatation. the Mac has zero thruhulls. --Nada. In both cases the boats were built with the weaknesses/defects. Know your boat well, and know what you can expect of it when you ask it to save your bacon. BTW, I recall at least one Mac owner detailing his procedure for installing a substantial backing plate for a critical cleat. --Vic Jim |
I decided
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 |
I decided
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 |
I decided
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com