|
I decided
JimC wrote:
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it. Cheers Marty |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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. I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines; and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can be a good ego booster. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
. .. Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as Joe's boat. And your evidence supporting that assertion is................................................ .................? Ummm... it was abandoned? I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor, O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years. Did you learn anything? 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 Key phrase: one of the few. And, you thought wrong. And your proof supporting that particular assertion is.........................? Common knowledge and experience. And, your counter supporting proof is....? Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific conditions, none of which include offshore. Wrong again. And, that's why it's chosen as an offshore passagemaker the world over. Got it. 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? Older that yours, better reenforced for the demanding conditions where he sails it. Last name is Ganz, btw. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
. .. 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. As opposed to what? Sitting at home? 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? And, you base that on what experience JimE? Is there an echo in your head? Deploying a sea anchor is certainly a good idea. Don't worry, you won't have a chance if you take your Mac out in a storm. 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. It was unless you'd care to deny it. Reality, despite your best try, does intrude from time to time. Have a nice evening Gantz. Always do JimE. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... 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 Gross! LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
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. I think the discussion has related largely to conditions such as those Joe experienced in the Gulf of Mexico. - Regarding accounts of ocean voyages, I have read of a number of them on various Mac discussion groups, although not many are true extended ocean crossings. On the other hand, with thousands of Macs out there, in US and foreign waters, the probabilities of exposure to various problems under sail is significant. In other words, with that many boats exposed to the vagaries of weather, other severe conditions, collisions, inexperienced or distracted skippers, etc., etc., problems can arise no matter where the boats are being sailed. My point is that, so far, we don't see any reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
. .. 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. Like I said, "wasn't on your Mac." 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. Too bad. The moon can sometimes be seen. 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. At least you got my name right. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... JimC wrote: keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it. Cheers Marty Uh oh... I'm vacuous.. or at least the company I keep is... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Chip Thomas wrote: 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. Have a nice evening Chip. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... 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. I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines; and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can be a good ego booster. Jim Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see? (answer: none of the above) LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Marty 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. 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. Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean passage of any kind? Seems to me that what I stated was that I wouldn't want to take mine 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the Mac's do have positive floatation, and they don't have a heavy keel that would drag the boat quickly to the bottom if the hull were compromised. Marty, so far, no one has provided ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of one breaking apart and sinking under ANY conditions, offshore, inshore, heavy weather, squalls, drunk skipper, collisions. No one. Nada. Despite the thousands of Macs out there. As stated above, the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most popular series of sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both in the US and in various foreign countries. And many Mac 26 owners (in the US and in foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore, though few are used in open crossings. In view of the thousands of Mac26s out there, if the Macs did have a tendency to break up and sink, under stress of any kind, it would be impossible to keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Secondly, remember that I wasn't the one who posted statements to the effect that the Macs would break up and sink in severe conditions. Those statements were posted by Ganz, with vacuous support from several others. Since Ganz and his friends posted those assertions, Ganz and his friends are the ones who should be providing evidence and proof supporting their theories. - They haven't, of course, and they clearly are unable to do so. Have a nice evening. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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. Don't believe I said that, Ganz. - Could you please point out the particular note in which I said it would "do fine offshore in storm conditions?" What I said was that you have provided no evidence that it would break up and sink. 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. In other words, you have no answer? 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. A non-fiction book about a Mac 26M Ganz? Either way, you wouldn't survive. Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support it. Yeah, too bad. Once more Ganz, you do seem to have a fertile imagination and an interesting, colorful style of fiction writing. I would encourage you to give it a try. Jim |
I decided
Marty wrote: JimC wrote: keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it. Cheers Marty Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive research. In any event, have a nice evening Marty. Jim |
I decided
Marty wrote: 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 -- Bow cleats -- Wow, Marty. You sure are smart, and you must be an old salt for sure. You sure did get me on that one, didn't you? Bet you're proud of yourself. (Incidentally, Marty, try responding simultaneously to 15 obviously frustrated Mac-bashers for a few days and see if you don't make a few mistakes.) Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Marty wrote: JimC wrote: keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it. Cheers Marty Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive research. In any event, have a nice evening Marty. Jim Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true offshore-capable boat. I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... As stated above, the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most popular series of sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both in the US and in various foreign countries. The Big Mac is the most popular burger ever. Doesn't mean I'd try and order one in an expensive restaurant. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC wrote: Wrong again Ganz. You are judging the Mac's rigging by what's necessary on a heavy keel boat. Because of it's small size and relative light weight, the cleats and bow fittings used on the Macs are entirely adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow chucks, with extensions to the mid-deck cleats, and then tie the sea anchor to the bridle. Jim You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel free to claim I did. Ganz, what you said was: There is no attachment point on a Mac26m that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor. Do you have evidence supporting that particular assertion? Jim |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Marty wrote: JimC wrote: keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it. Cheers Marty Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up? Cheers Marty |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Marty 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. 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. Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean passage of any kind? You're being facetious right? Cheers Marty |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message . .. 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. As opposed to what? Sitting at home? As opposed to other methods such as deploying a sea anchor. 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? And, you base that on what experience JimE? Is there an echo in your head? Deploying a sea anchor is certainly a good idea. Don't worry, you won't have a chance if you take your Mac out in a storm. My point is that you have posted a number of rather "colorful" assertions that are unsupported by evidence or proof of any kind. And you can't seem to stop. - You seem to be addicted to it. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message ... 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. I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines; and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can be a good ego booster. Jim Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see? (answer: none of the above) LOL There are two Macs (a 25D and 26D) in my local racing circle that have been to the Bahamas several times. Does that count? Richard |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Marty wrote: 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 -- Bow cleats -- Wow, Marty. You sure are smart, and you must be an old salt for sure. You sure did get me on that one, didn't you? Bet you're proud of yourself. (Incidentally, Marty, try responding simultaneously to 15 obviously frustrated Mac-bashers for a few days and see if you don't make a few mistakes.) Jim I didn't think it was that obvious. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel free to claim I did. Ganz, what you said was: There is no attachment point on a Mac26m that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor. Do you have evidence supporting that particular assertion? Jim No Jim, I didn't say it. Salty said it. Check the history. I wish I had said it. I wish I knew if it was true, but I don't and I don't really care. It sounds good. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... JimC wrote: Marty wrote: JimC wrote: keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it. Cheers Marty Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up? Cheers Marty I did, apparently! LOL Maybe there's a meta message here from Jim.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... 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. I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines; and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can be a good ego booster. Jim Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see? (answer: none of the above) LOL There are two Macs (a 25D and 26D) in my local racing circle that have been to the Bahamas several times. Does that count? Richard No idea. Jim... does that count? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... JimC wrote: Marty 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. 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. Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean passage of any kind? You're being facetious right? Cheers Marty Jim... this is another one of the rhetorical questions.. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Marty wrote: 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 -- Bow cleats -- Wow, Marty. You sure are smart, and you must be an old salt for sure. You sure did get me on that one, didn't you? Bet you're proud of yourself. (Incidentally, Marty, try responding simultaneously to 15 obviously frustrated Mac-bashers for a few days and see if you don't make a few mistakes.) Ah, now the ad hominems roll out. I thought you meant chock, changing 'cleat" to "chuck" seemed a bit of a stretch. I, ala Roger Long am bailing out of this ludicrous thread. Cheers Marty |
I decided
JimC wrote:
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. I think the discussion has related largely to conditions such as those Joe experienced in the Gulf of Mexico. That was not quite an ocean passage, but it was about 900 miles altogether, including the last 550 miles of open water. This was not a little peek outside the harbor's mouth. While not the North Atlantic in Winter, or hurricane season, it was a lot more than any Mac trip I've heard of. And the discussion certainly seems to be about survival weather, since you're talking about the relative merits of laying ahull and laying off a sea anchor. - Regarding accounts of ocean voyages, I have read of a number of them on various Mac discussion groups, although not many are true extended ocean crossings. Were any of them more than a day trip? Out of sight of land? Any Bermuda crossings? Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on some proof, now its your turn to ante up. I've spent time perusing the Mac boards and I've yet to find a mention of really strong conditions. "Heavy Weather" in Mac terms seems to be 20-25 kts with a three foot chop, and most owners say they hope to never see worse. And while I've seen no stories of total breakups, there are a number of cases of dismastings and lots of rudder problems. And then there's the break away dagger board issue (yes, they only cost $250) that you claim is actually the shallow water alarm. And need I remind you that people have drowned in a capsized Mac? On the other hand, with thousands of Macs out there, in US and foreign waters, the probabilities of exposure to various problems under sail is significant. In other words, with that many boats exposed to the vagaries of weather, other severe conditions, collisions, inexperienced or distracted skippers, etc., etc., problems can arise no matter where the boats are being sailed. Nope, claiming it must have happened because there are a lot of Macs out there doesn't cut it. As I (and a number of others) have pointed out, even though I've cruised the entire East Coast, and spend a few months each summer cruising New England, I've never seen a Mac outside of protected waters. My point is that, so far, we don't see any reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink. True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually survived true heavy weather. Laser's don't break up or sink, but that doesn't mean they are a suitable "offshore" boat. And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you repost them? |
I decided
JimC wrote:
.... Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean passage of any kind? Seems to me that what I stated was that I wouldn't want to take mine 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the Mac's do have positive floatation, and they don't have a heavy keel that would drag the boat quickly to the bottom if the hull were compromised. Marty, so far, no one has provided ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of one breaking apart and sinking under ANY conditions, offshore, inshore, heavy weather, squalls, drunk skipper, collisions. No one. Nada. Despite the thousands of Macs out there. ... Perhaps true, but we do have evidence of drowning on a Mac that rolled over. Does the fact the the boat didn't sink make you feel better? |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Obviously, you have no knowledge of the design and construction of the Mac 26M. Obviously, you have no knowledge of what I know. Is the vigorous assertion of other's ignorance your only evidence that you know anything at all, much less about sailing? .... In contrast to your assertion, it is made with multiple fiberglas-resin layups, NOT CHOPPER GUNS. WOW! "Multiple fiberglas-resin layups" ?!? Does that mean it has, like, more than one layer of fiberglass? Amazing technological breakthrough! BTW if you look at the video of the Mac 26M being built, you will see a guy with a bunny suit & a respirator with no cartridges using a chopper gun. IIRC the announcer is talking about fiberglass lay-ups while showing this, maybe that's where you get the idea. Actually, using a chopper gun is not a bad way to add stiffness to a fiberglass structure. Used *between* layers of cloth/roving, it functions in much the same manner as a core material, but with better cross-linking. And it adds a lot of weight. The reason why chopper gun laminations have such a bad rap is mainly years of boat advertisement saying how bad it is, of course we don't use it. ... And many Mac 26 owners (in the US and in foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore. Do tell. How many have sailed their boats through 40+ knot winds and 10'+ breaking seas? I bet.... none! ... Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress. Well, you of course will insist this can't possibly be true, but I know of two Mac 26X/Ms having structural failure due to fairly normal stress. No wait, three. 1- rested on an anchor at low tide, ripping a large hole in the hull. This was only into the ballast tank, so the boat refloated just fine when the tide came back in. However, the boat sailed even worse than before. 2- hit an unknown floating object, tearing rudder off the transom. Due to lack of backing plates, the holes where the bolts pulled thru were small. Darn clever, those Mac engineers! 3- bumped repeatedly against dock in brief squall, cracking topsides and opening seam along hull/deck joint. None of these boats sank, it's true. But they all needed major repair before "sailing" again. Two were sold immediately afterwards by the owenrs... hey, maybe this explains why you don't hear about it on the Mac-Crack-Cult-Gathering discussion forums. DSK |
I decided
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:06:33 -0400, jeff wrote:
Perhaps true, but we do have evidence of drowning on a Mac that rolled over. Does the fact the the boat didn't sink make you feel better? Was it dismasted in the rollover? Why did the rollover occur ? |
I decided
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:06:33 -0400, jeff wrote: Perhaps true, but we do have evidence of drowning on a Mac that rolled over. Does the fact the the boat didn't sink make you feel better? Was it dismasted in the rollover? Why did the rollover occur ? It was on July 4th, about 6 years ago. Calm night, a large crowd watching fireworks. The Mac had been borrowed by a brother-in-law, who had only used it a few times. There were 8 adults on deck, some standing forward, and three small kids below. The cause of the rollover is unclear, but I assume after weighing anchor the skipper goosed the throttle with the helm over, and the boat lurched. It was probably pulled over by someone hanging onto the shrouds. Two of the kids below drowned. There was a big trial, experts for both sides. I think USSailing actually sent witnesses against Mac. In the end Mac avoided paying damages because the skipper was drunk. Of course, everyone else out there (and half the boaters across the country) was drunk that night, but only these two kids died. I always thought that incident was the reason why Mac added some ballast in the new design. JimC would like to write this off as just a drunk operator incident, but frankly, it happened so quickly and was so unexpected, that it might have happened even if he was sober. My issue is that 8 adults is not normally gross overloading on a 26 foot boat, and goosing the throttle on a typical sailboat does not instantly create a dangerous situation. Given that Macs are often sold to novices, the description of this event should be required reading by all Mac owners. http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html |
I decided
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:26 -0400, jeff wrote:
JimC would like to write this off as just a drunk operator incident, but frankly, it happened so quickly and was so unexpected, that it might have happened even if he was sober. My issue is that 8 adults is not normally gross overloading on a 26 foot boat, and goosing the throttle on a typical sailboat does not instantly create a dangerous situation. Given that Macs are often sold to novices, the description of this event should be required reading by all Mac owners. http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html ========================================= Tragic, too many people plus a design weakness. Bayliner had a similar issue back in the 80s with some of their small flybridge cruisers. With too much weight on the flybridge they would flop over and capsize in a hard turn. Problem was solved with a warning sticker. |
I decided
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:09:26 -0400, jeff wrote: JimC would like to write this off as just a drunk operator incident, but frankly, it happened so quickly and was so unexpected, that it might have happened even if he was sober. My issue is that 8 adults is not normally gross overloading on a 26 foot boat, and goosing the throttle on a typical sailboat does not instantly create a dangerous situation. Given that Macs are often sold to novices, the description of this event should be required reading by all Mac owners. http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html ========================================= Tragic, too many people plus a design weakness. Bayliner had a similar issue back in the 80s with some of their small flybridge cruisers. With too much weight on the flybridge they would flop over and capsize in a hard turn. Problem was solved with a warning sticker. Problem solved with a warning sticker!!! That is just the builder covering his backside as best he can. The builders of the capsized Mac said they put a sticker on when it was built but the evidence indicated that it was not there at the time of the accident. Eight adults on the deck of what was in effect a large unballasted dinghy is a recipe for disaster because it constitutes overloading anyway and the weight of all on deck was so high up that if the boat heels even in a gentle turn it is going right over if there is no ballast in the keel to restrain it.. There is no mystery at all about the cause of the tragedy but it does indicate that this is not a boat that anyone without training about the water ballast and the max no of passengers can just drive away safely |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange, but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing our Macs. But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a promise. Jim |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange, but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing our Macs. But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a promise. Getting a bit paranoid there Jim. Nobody was bashing Macs, just bashing the idea that they were sufficiently seaworthy as to be taken off shore and brave open ocean storms. Now go take a pill and relax, Macs have their place, as do canoes and paddle boats. Cheers Marty Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange, but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing our Macs. But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a promise. Jim Really? Gee, I was sailing before the Strictly Sail show today... on an actual sailboat that doesn't capsize when you make a hard turn. No pleasure there... nope, none at all! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... JimC wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange, but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing our Macs. But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a promise. Getting a bit paranoid there Jim. Nobody was bashing Macs, just bashing the idea that they were sufficiently seaworthy as to be taken off shore and brave open ocean storms. Now go take a pill and relax, Macs have their place, as do canoes and paddle boats. Cheers Marty Jim That's right Marty... in fact, as the chief Mac-basher (apparently) I said near those exact words, but Jim doesn't want to hear... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com