I decided
JimC wrote:
wrote: I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for, i.e. "inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they designed for heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they survive? Sure, but one can always assume that there is a high likelihood that a boat will fail, often catastrophically, when used *well* outside of its designed operating range. A simple matter of engineering, not speculation. Keith Hughes As I said, they are not suited for extended crossings or blue water cruising. While they are a coastal cruiser, they are not comfortable in heavy weather. As to carrying 10K pounds of coffee, that would have to be cut back somewhat. As also discussed previously, the Macs aren't large enough to store provisions for extended cruising. Jim "Somewhat"? Capacity of 960lbs, including crew, would require a reduction of, oh, say 95%. Ok, then your entire point is rendered moot, true? If Redcloud had been a Mac, it couldn't have been carrying the payload, so it wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place. So it's a pointless argument to say "If Joe were in a Mac...", the Mac is wholly unsuited to what he was trying to due, irrespective of the weather component. BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have: "IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN." It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy seas, the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll. So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not? It's a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does what it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom the design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's also wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are most boats. Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design space, or you're at risk. Keith Hughes |
I decided
Martin Baxter wrote: 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] (Important deleted material returned) 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 How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion? As often as I am accused of saying things that I didn't say. You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would have been fine, Nope. 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. What I said was that no one had provided any evidence that a Mac 26M, with a storm anchor deployed, would roll over and over continuously, as was stated by Ganz. 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. Nope. I said that no one had provided any evidenc that it would fail, under the conditions discussed regarding Red Cloud. 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 stated at the outset that I wouldn't want to take the boat offshore as did Joe, and that I wouldn't recommend anyone else do so. This isn't a "mysterious" recent insertion, as you seem to suggest. Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is bashing the Mac, Really? That's news to me. 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. Once more, I never said that the Mac was a suitable vessel to take offshore in severe weather. (How many times do I have to repeat myself?) I said that if Joe had been in a Mac 26M, I thought his boat would have remained afloat. 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. Here's some evidence that should be convincing (certainly more evidence than has been posted by Ganz, Jeff, and their buddies). So far, no one on this ng has posted any accounts or evidence 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. 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." Now, you might be tempted to respond that this doesn't mean anything, it's just advertising. - But you would be wrong. - 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. Cheers Marty Cheers Marty Have a nice day Marty. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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? Seems to me we have been through this issue already, Ganz. - My point is that you have no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not a Mac 26M, with sea anchor deployed, would have rolled, much less roll over and over and over like a washing machine. Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
JimC wrote:
wrote: JimC wrote: BTW, from the Macgregor site, we also have: "IF THE CABIN OF THE BOAT IS ENTIRELY FILLED WITH WATER, AND THE BOAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE FOAM FLOTATION TO KEEP IT AFLOAT, IT WILL BE VERY UNSTABLE, AND MAY TURN UPSIDE DOWN." Where in the world did you get that verbage, Keith? Apparently you are deliberately misquoting the Mac site.- The actual statements regarding the floatation system a Here it is, so if you can't find it now, that's your deficiency, not mine. The verbiage is cut and pasted verbatim. Hence the quotation marks (and yes, it's in CAPS on the website): http://www.macgregor26.com/safety/safety.htm "The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the event of damage. It won’t sail well when fully flooded, and it will be unstable, 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!" -Nothing about the boat becoming "very unstable" or that it "may turn upside down." - Keith, don't try that BS with me again. Look, I've been trying to be polite, but if you're too lazy or dumb to actually read the manufacturer's site, that's not my BS, that's *your* malfunction. Accusing people of dishonesty, without checking your references first, is the province of fools. As is attempting intimidation over Usenet. It's quite evident from this statement that when flooded, in heavy seas, the Mac can be expected to turn turtle, or roll. Nope. That's your statement, not MacGregor's. ********. *READ* the pertinent disclaimers on the website, not *just* the marketing crap that you think supports your position. So why the desperate need to defend the Mac as something it's not? I'm not defending it as something it's not. I have stated over and over again that it isn't suibable for extended crossings or blue water cruisings. I have also listed a number of advantages of conventional boats over the Macs. What I'm doing is providing a degree of balance in this discussion (typical of many other discussions on this ng) in which the Macs are totally bashed, usually by guys who have never even sailed one of the current models (the 26M). They have never sailed one, yet they feel no hesitation in telling everyone else what they are like and what they will and will not do. I've been on a 26X, and I sail around 26M's, so I have an idea of their performance. There are several in my marina. And if you think that "Macs are fine for their intended use" is Mac bashing, your English comprehension is clearly suspect. It's a trailerable boat (big compromise #1), at a low price point (big compromise #2), with a targeted audience and type of use. It does what it's designed to do, and works great for a lot of people for whom the design compromises are unimportant, or considered acceptable. It's also wholly unsuitable to uses for which it is not designed, as are most boats. Many folks have sailed Catalina 30's on blue water passages, but I wouldn't do that in mine. It's designed, built, and rigged to be a coastal cruiser, and just like the Mac, operated outside of its design parameters, is *much* more prone to catastrophic failure. Plain and simple - you operate within the confines of the engineering design space, or you're at risk. Well, that's your assesment. And I don't know whether you have sailed a 26M or not. Can I safely assume that you have not?. (I have sailed the Mac26M, in addition to a number of other boats in the 30 to 40 foot range.) No, that's everyones assessment - everyone knowledgeable that is. You're now arguing that operating boats outside their design envelopes *doesn't* make them more prone to failure? I assume you must be, since that's all my preceding two paragraphs say (except that obvious, that trailerability and low cost require design compromises). Here's my assesment: 1) A boat that is FUN TO SAIL! And I disputed this *when* exactly? 2) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the immediate area. And I disputed this *when* exactly? 3) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. And I disputed this *when* exactly? I sailed a San Juan 26 for ten years. It was a shoal draft keel/centerboarder, and was trailerable. The San Juan, like the Mac26, and all other trailerable boats, share this feature. So... 4) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters, For which is designed and constructed. Blue water isn't it, per the designer. 5} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. Not with any serious payload. Another of the compromises. 6) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth. And I disputed this *when* exactly? 7) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and docking by one person. And I disputed this *when* exactly? 8) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger boats And I disputed this *when* exactly? 9) 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. And I disputed this *when* exactly? 10) A boat that can have a 5.5 feet draft for sailing (with dagger-board down) but that can be converted to one with only 1.5-ft draft in shallow And I disputed this *when* exactly? 11) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this ng, isn't limited to hull speed. And I disputed this *when* exactly? 12) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. - Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. - Well, actually I think they are quite ugly. But yes that's clearly a matter of personal preference. C30's are not particularly lovely either, but mine is clean-lined enough to suit me. On the downside, I've previously noted that the Macs aren't as comfortable in chop or heavy weather, that they don't have sufficient storage for a long voyage, that they don't point as well as larger boats, and that they have a shorter waterline, that limits their hull speed under sail. A result of the many compromises necessary to create a light, inexpensive, trailerable boat. For someone who has whined incessantly, in this thread, about people misreading your posts, and misquoting or misrepresenting *you*, you clearly have no compunction about doing the same to others. Keith Hughes |
I decided
|
I decided
JimC wrote:
[snipped more unfounded repitition] Once more, I never said that the Mac was a suitable vessel to take offshore in severe weather. (How many times do I have to repeat myself?) I said that if Joe had been in a Mac 26M, I thought his boat would have remained afloat Yes and most of us, who have a little experience, agree that while some part of your Mac may have remained afloat, it would have been entirely uninhabitable, and probably fatal for those involved. Why you must persist in suggesting that this rather flimsy vessel would somehow be suitable for such a venture is absolutely mind boggling. Cheers Marty |
I decided
JimC wrote:
And the Macs are by far the most popular of boats (trailerable or untrailerable) of this size. Says who? Why MacGregor of course. And does popularity really prove anything with a product that is so mendaciously advertised? This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and I don't want to get into it again. Why, because you know that I have actually seen the failures of the boat I've described to you, and it's painful to acknowledge? It's two or three times faster under power than most of the boats discussed on this ng. Most sailors aren't interested in bragging about how fast their boats go under power. And the Mac's claims of of speed are grossly exaggerated, they lose speed dramaticaly when carrying any weight beyond the stripped-bare minimum. And there are actually quite a few boats that can sail faster than the Mac26X~M can motor. AND DON'T TELL ME THAT THERE AREN'T OTHER BOATS THAT HAVE THIS FEATURE, Why, does it bother you? What you haven't acknowledged, of course, is that although other boats have some of the same features, the COMBINATION of capabilities and features available on the Mac 26m is rather unique Only if you haven't looked beyond the Mac advertising brochures .... Obviously, some boats are more responsive than the Mac and can plane under sail, but most of them don't have anywhere near the accommodations, comfort, and cabin size available with a Mac 26M. Also, But many of them do. Please keep in mind that I have been sailing for over 40 years, with experience on a number of large and smaller boats And yet, you haven't noticed that the Mac26X~M actually has rather poor sailing & handling characteristics, which is obvious to many experienced sailors just by watching the thing. .... I'm not really interested in racing, more into cruising. Well, good performance is good performance. If you want to experience the "magic of sail" then it doesn't matter if you're interested in racing. Again, when the wind hit the sails, it's magic! Not really. It's technology. ;) DSK |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com