"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


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


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


I shall. Thanks.

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


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

Jim


You're right. I biased

I biased Ganz?


when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for
40 years,


I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes.
so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats
of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of
Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your
obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine.



Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for
sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide
more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't.


Jim


Ah, falling back on typoism again. Well, ok. Good for you. You claimed the
mac won't sink because it has positive floatation. Please prove it.


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

"JimC" wrote in message
...

In your opinion, of course.

As opposed to??

Since it was you, and not me. who introduced that weird assertion about
the Mac rolling over and over again like a washing machine, I'll let you
provide the "evidence" to support your assertion, Ganz. It's your baby.
All I ask is that you tend to your baby appropriately.

That's what happens when a boat is dismasted and starts to roll in heavy
seas. It sometimes only rolls once, but is just as likely to roll over and
over. Are you disputing this?

If you hear me, then why don't you respond to my statement? Why do you
insist on running down all those tangents and rabbit trails?

Like the poor quality of the Mac rig?


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

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .

Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac.

They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat.


Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just
that it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do
sink.

What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient
floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a hole
drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and written
material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your attorney
regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort liability,
punitive damages, etc.)



who gunned the boat to make a turn...


Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other
sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or
not, "guns" the engine.

Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well with
six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest deck
portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn. In
this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most
fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the
ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited
conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the owner
of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this most basic
factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also substantially
exceeded.

But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is
inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue, and
ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.)

Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac
26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water
ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it isn't
known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had been one
of the current 26M models.



What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it
wouldn't have sunk.


With 10,000 lbs of lead in it's hold, since I don't think you can get 10K
of coffee in it? Right.


Don't think Joe would (or could) have loaded 10,000 lbs of coffee into the
Mac, do you Ganz? Along with his crew and their provisions?


I'll post my report this Fall. Ok?


If you're going offshore in a storm, get plenty of insurance!



I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it.

Jim


Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe
said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load
it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats.


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

"JimC" wrote in message
...


wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:29 GMT, JimC wrote:



cavelamb himself wrote:


JimC wrote:


Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made
in my notes, or are you just stupid?

Jim



Hold up, Jim.

You seem to be expecting rational behavior and fair treatment from the
creatures inhabiting this list.

They, on the other hand, are having fun making sport of you via your
boat.

Drop it and go on and enjoy sailing.

Maybe the first cartoon here will help...
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm


Richard


Richard, yours is one of the few rational responses posted so far in this
string.

As you may have noted, I don't spend a lot of time in discussions of the
Macs on alt.sailing.asa. However, I sometimes think that the MacBashers
have been getting something of a free ride. - Few Mac owners seem to be
willing to stick up for their boats on this ng, and it doesn't seem right
that a boat as popular, versatile, and fun to sail as the Mac26 shouldn't
be supported by at least some of their owners. Also, I sense that it's
something of a shock to some of the MacBashers when they get their asses
kicked.

If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't continue doing it.

Jim


Anybody participating in this thread feel that Jim kicked their ass, or
anybody
else's? Just curious...

You should have worded that question as: "Is anyone participating in this
thread honest enough to admit he got his ass kicked?"

Admittedly, you wouldn't get many honest responses.

Jim


I was being honest. My side hurts from laughing.

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

JimC wrote:


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:

[snipped obfuscation]


How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?


You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine, and remained afloat, you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done. You have
defended the strength of the rigging on a Mac and again by implication
suggested that it's perfectly adequate for surviving major storms offshore.

Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.

Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is
bashing the Mac, does not constitute a valid argument. Most of us are in
fact saying that the Mac is fine if you use it for what it was intended
to be used for. Too suggest that a Mac is a fine sailing vessel, with
the capability to survive severe weather off shore, is patently
ridiculous and simply indefensible.

Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.

To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for
the results of a test that has yet to be conducted.

Cheers
Marty

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:

[snipped obfuscation]


Martin Baxter wrote:
How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?

You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine, and remained afloat,

But ignoring the point without the ability to carry 5 tons of cargo,
there would have been zero point in taking a Mac26X~M on such a voyage
in the first place.


... you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done.

Got that right.
JimC isn't so much arguing the merits of the Mac26X~M as he is
delivering a sermon to us heathens. You gotta BELIEVE!!




Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.


I think church may be out, JimC seems to have left the pulpit.
"Suitable for coastal sailing" is a bit of an exaggeration, much less
offshore & ocean crossing. I've seen the things struggling... and
having pieces break off... in average coastal/sheltered conditions,
say 15 knot winds and 3 foot seas.

One reason why MacGregor Co. upgraded the original Mac26X to the "new
improved" 26M is that they suffered almost universal steering failure,
the helm was the cheapest & smallest motorboat unit available and no
part of the steering was built to handle normal sailing loads.



Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.


Just because they bought a Mac26 doesn't mean they are stupid... just
that they are easily conned... and as JimC shows, the true faithful
would rather preach endlessly to us unwashed sinners than actually go
out sailing in real wind.

To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for
the results of a test that has yet to be conducted.


Well, one can ask all one wants ... it's what one genuinely expects to
receive that determines whether or not one is an imbecile

DSK

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe
said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load
it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats.

Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot
occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term
called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is
much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even
float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation
materal. There is lots of air space between the beans.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe
said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load
it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats.

Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot
occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term
called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is
much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even
float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation
materal. There is lots of air space between the beans.

Casady


Great idea! We could make a Mac out of coffee!!

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.. .



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


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


I shall. Thanks.

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



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

Jim


You're right. I biased

I biased Ganz?


when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for

40 years,


I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes.
so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats

of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of
Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your
obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine.



Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable for
sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to provide
more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't.


Jim



Ah, falling back on typoism again. Well, ok. Good for you. You claimed the
mac won't sink because it has positive floatation. Please prove it.

Ganz, for one thing, no one on this ng has been able to come up with ANY
reference to ANY instance of ANY Mac 26 (X or M models) sinking under
ANY circumstances. That in itself is pretty convincing evidence that the
floatation is effective to keep the boat afloat in a variety of
difficult environments and situations - This was the case even in the
unfortunate instance involving the drunk skipper on a Mac26X (not M),
with drunk guests.

Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any
circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation.

Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. The current
MacGregor website makes the following statements about the Mac 26M: "The
MacGregor 26 has built-in solid foam floatation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won't sail fast when flooded like this, but it beats
swimming. Most competing boats do not offer this essential safety
protection, and their heavy keels can pull them straight to the bottom.
Don't get a boat without solid flotation!" Additionally, it includes a
photograph of a boat partially sunk but still afloat and supporting five
adult men standing on its cabin, with the following comment: "We drilled
a hole in the bottom of the boat and let it fill. The boat has built-in
solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the event of damage."

The related legal principles are as follows: In the event of death or
injury by a Mac owner or guest resulting from a failure of the
floatation system, MacGregor could be sued under several legal
principles (deceptive trade practices, negligence, torts, punitive
damages, criminal negligence, etc.) with the plaintiffs citing the above
sections of MacGregor's published literature. In other words, if
MacGregor didn't have good support for the above statements (and
inferences fairly derived therefrom), they would be taking a hell of a
chance releasing such public statements about their floatation system.
(And since they have the advice of a fairly good legal team, it's rather
naive (incredulous, actually) to suggest that they simply put that
information out there on the web without approval by counsel.


Well Ganz, NOW IT'S YOUR TURN.. - When are you going to provide proof
for your own ridiculous assertions. - Including the following amazing
account:

"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."

Great fiction Ganz. Have a nice day.

Jim

wrote:

On Thu, 01 May 2008 04:01:17 GMT, JimC wrote:



Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac.

They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat.


Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that
it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink.


What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient
floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a
hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and
written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your
attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort
liability, punitive damages, etc.)



who gunned the boat to make a turn...


Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other
sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or
not, "guns" the engine.

Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well
with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest
deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn.


I'll be happy to guarantee that my 27 foot boat can do that without even raising
a fuss.


In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most
fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the
ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited
conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the
owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this
most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also
substantially exceeded.

But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is
inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue,
and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.)

Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac
26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water
ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it
isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had
been one of the current 26M models.



Sounds like the original design was so bad they got kinda nervous about future
lawsuits.

Maybe, maybe not. The mast for the new boat is 2' taller, so they state
that additional ballast is needed. - But with idiots like the drunk
skipper, and hack lawyers willing to take cases like that, why shouldn't
they cover their ass?




I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it.

Jim


Insurance does not protect you from catastrophe. It just pays bills for
survivors, if there are any.

You are the one who brought up the subject of insurance. I wss simply
responding to your statement. With an attempt at a little humor, which
you don't seem to appreciate.


Jim