|
I decided
wrote in message
... On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:47:19 -0400, Marty wrote: 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. And pool noodles! I love pool noodles! We had them by the dozens on Lake Mead last summer... so much fun! Yeah! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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. Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're obviously not. But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be interested in seeing your evidence. Jim 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. |
I decided
Marty wrote: 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 Marty, as I suspect you're sixth-grade teachers probably told you, you need to read and understand the question before you write your answer. - Clearly, I didn't say that "thousands of Mac26m's broke up." Instead, I said that even though there are thousands of Mac 26s out there being sailed in US and foreign waters, "no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted ANY accounts of ANY of the thousands of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions..." Read your own post Marty. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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.... Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do that for us Ganz? Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
|
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "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. Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're obviously not. But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be interested in seeing your evidence. Jim Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "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.... Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do that for us Ganz? Jim Just 10 or 15?? Wow. That's all it would take... LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... "The MacGregor 26 is built to outlast all of us. HAHAHAHAHA... now that's funny! Yeah, if you're on a resperator. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Marty wrote: 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 Marty, as I suspect you're sixth-grade teachers probably told you, you need to read and understand the question before you write your answer. - Clearly, I didn't say that "thousands of Mac26m's broke up." Instead, I said that even though there are thousands of Mac 26s out there being sailed in US and foreign waters, "no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted ANY accounts of ANY of the thousands of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions..." Read your own post Marty. Jim Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you. Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,, Get back to us on that one. Cheers marty |
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 What do I see? Among other things, I see the following: 1) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the immediate area. - The Mac26M can be quickly and easily transported by the owner (with a pickup or SUV) in one weekend to waters hundreds of miles from it's berth or storage area, thereby making available hundreds of sailing areas that wouldn't be conveniently available with a larger, keeled vessel. (Without having it hauled out of the water and hiring a truck to transport the boat to a distant sailing area.) - Practically speaking, most large, conventional keeled boats are limited to sailing within a day or so of their marinas unless the owners are retired or want to spend several weeks of vacation. (Of course, you can always point to exceptions, but they ARE the exceptions, not the usual practice for most owners, most of the time.) 2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Thus, the storage fees are substantially less than most marina fees, and ongoing lease and maintenance fees can be substantially reduced. Or, if desired, I can (and do) choose to keep it in a Marina, at a relatively modest fee because of its size and limited draft. 3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters, including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. The boat has plenty of ballast and plenty of righting forces. Also, it's suitable for sailing and/or motoring in shallow or restricted waters that aren't available to large, fixed keel vessels. 4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. The boat is also designed to accommodate a large outboard which gives the skipper more options in the event of heavy weather, e.g., for returning to port quickly. 5) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth. 6) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and docking by one person. 7) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger boats (comparing new prices with new prices and used prices with used prices, of course). This permits getting a fully equipped vessel (with accessories such as autopilot, chart reader, roller reefing, 50-hp motor, lines led aft, radio, stereo, etc., etc.), still within an affordable total cost. 8) A boat that can be sailed or motored with or without the ballast, and that can be trailord without the ballast, making it a substantially lighter load when trailoring. 9) 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 waters or waters with variable depth, or for anchoring in shallow waters, or for bringing it up a ramp for trailoring, or for simply bringing the boat ashore on a beach for a picnic or the like. Or, the dagger board can be only partially retracted for increased speed on a reach or a run, or completely retracted for motoring on a plane. 10) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this ng, isn't limited to hull speed. With the (typical) 50-hp to 60-hp outboard, the Mac 26M can be motored on a plane at two or three times hull speed. While some on this ng have ridiculed this feature, it offers a number of rather important advantages. - For example, the skipper can get the boat out to a preferred sailing area substantially sooner, PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME in the desired area. Similarly, at the end of the day, he can get the boat back more quickly, regardless of wind direction, again PERMITTING MORE SAILING TIME (since he can stay out later and still get the family home in time for dinner or other activities). Practically speaking, it's also an advantage of the wife or kids or guests are getting tired of sailing and want to get back ASAP. This capability is also a safety factor, as mentioned above, in the event the skipper wants to bring the boat in quickly to avoid heavy weather, or move down the coast to avoid a squall, etc. 11) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. - Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. - (I also like the looks of some of the large conventional boats, particularly if they are long enough.) But if we are comparing apples to apples, consider the looks of other boats of 26-foot length. - For example, the smaller Island Packets look something like a tug boat to me. All I know is that it looks good to me and my guests. - Every time I see him, the owner of the boat in the next slip compliments me on what a good-looking boat it is. Again, I ALREADY STATED THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL TASTE, DIDN'T I? So there's really no need to tell me that you don't like the Mac, and prefer something else. - More power to you. 12) Finally, I see a boat that is FUN TO SAIL! On my Mac 26M, when I get to the sailing area, raise the sails, turn off the motor, and sense the boat moving under sail, it's an amazing, almost magical experience. In contrast to some of the heavier, conventional boats that I have sailed, the Mac is sufficiently light that it gives you a 'kick in the pants' as it accelerates under sail. Although larger boats are steadier, and more comfortable in choppy waters (sort of like a large, heavy Lincoln Town Car or equivalent) the Macs are responsive enough to give you more of a feel of the changing conditions (sort of like the feel of a sports car, such as a Porsche (a car that is fun to drive but not quite as smooth or comfortable on long trips as the Lincoln). Also, in moderate conditions, I sometimes like to set the boat on autopilot and sit on the deck watching the boat gliding silently through the water. - Again, it's an ethereal, almost magical experience. - - - Does that answer your question Ganz? - Or do you want a few more? Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
jeff wrote: 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? Yes. Out of sight of land? Yes. Any Bermuda crossings? I believe so. Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on some proof, now its your turn to ante up. Actually, Jeff, what I said originally was that I didn't consider the Mac 26 to be suitable for extended ocean crossings and wouldn't want to take mine out 200 miles. Since I already said that I don't consider the Mac to be suitable for extended crossings, I really don't see the need to defend it as a boat suitable for extended ocean crossings. I also said that, in the event that Joe was on a Mac 26 rather than Red Cloud, I thought that the boat would not break apart and sink, as did Red Cloud, apparently, because the Macs are built with positive floatation that will keep them afloat even if the hull is compromised, etc. - Once more, I have already said that it isn't suitable for extended ocean crossings. - What is it about that statement do you not understand? 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. It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various waters around the world. I have seen reports of owners sailing them off Australia, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore of California (often to Catalina Is.), etc. But remember that they may be subject to severe conditions no matter where they are sailed. My point is that with this many boats out there, over many years, it is obviously likely that some will have been subject to severe and unexpected conditions of various kinds. - Remember that it was Ganz and others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy conditions. (By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for extended Blue Water crossings.) Therefore, in view of the fact that it was Ganz and his buddies that made the assertions that they would break up in heavy weather, seems like it would be his responsibility to support that particular assertions. Here's what he actually posted: "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." Again, if he is going to disparage my boat, equating it to a washing machine and asserting that no one on it would survive, then he should be the one to provide the evidence supporting his assertions. Laser's don't break up or sink, but that doesn't mean they are a suitable "offshore" boat. Once more, I never said it was a "suitable offshore boat." (How many times do I have to repeat this?) I merely stated that I didn't think it would have sunk, as did Joe's 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 have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me again this Fall. Jim |
I decided
Martin Baxter wrote: 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 Sorry to see you go Roger. Is there any chance you might reconsider your decision? Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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. On the other hand, if people were routinely dying the day after eating a Big Mac, we WOULD have heard about it, woudln't we? Same principle with a boat that is being sailed by thousands of owners around the world. Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
Edgar wrote: "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 The skipper was drunk, the boat was severely overloaded and top heavy, the skipper had borrowed the boat from the owner and was apparently unfamiliar with it, and the owner was apparently not there to check things out. Most critically, the drunk skipper was motoring the boat with the ballast tank empty. Therefore, once the boat started to roll (apparently when he turned, under power, with the heavy load on deck), the boat had little righting force and rolled over. ANYONE WHO HAS SAILED OR MOTORED a water-ballasted boat should know that such boats aren't self-righting without the water ballast and are dangerous, particularly if you are going out with the boat overloaded and while you and several of the guests are drunk. Also, the two casualties were small infants who had been left in the cabin while the "adults" were drinking up on deck. I also think the owner had a responsibility to check the boat (and the skipper) before the boat went out. In any event, the case was vigorously prosecuted, but the plaintiffs lost. They tried to make the case that the boat was inherently unsafe, but the judge didn't buy it. As to how this relates to our present discussion, I really doubt than any even half-way rational skipper would consider taking a Mac offshore under such conditions (with the boat overloaded, with several adults standing on the deck, with the skipper and half the guests drunk, and with the ballast tank empty). It's an anomaly that doesn't really relate to the present discussion. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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... Ganz, I think what you said was: 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. Of course, you had no evidence whatsoever to back up those ridiculous assertions. Incidentally, I never thought of my Mac as a washing machine, but maybe I should look into it. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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! Hope you continue to enjoy your boat, Capt. As I do sailing my Mac. Also, I hope my commitement to get back to you has been adequately met. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See also my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea anchor. Jim No. He's judging it on the basis of what's a decent rig. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Or is sarcasm simply the best way to put down us Mac supporters ..? Jim Just an easy way when a MacMoonie gets huffy. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you. Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,, Get back to us on that one. Cheers marty We need 10 to 15 examples please.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... What do I see? Among other things, I see the following: Step 1) Open eyes. 1) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the immediate area. - The Mac26M can be quickly and easily transported by the owner (with a pickup or SUV) in one weekend to waters hundreds of miles from it's berth or storage area, thereby making available hundreds of sailing areas that wouldn't be conveniently available with a larger, keeled vessel. (Without having it hauled out of the water and hiring a truck to transport the boat to a distant sailing area.) - Practically speaking, most large, conventional keeled boats are limited to sailing within a day or so of their marinas unless the owners are retired or want to spend several weeks of vacation. (Of course, you can always point to exceptions, but they ARE the exceptions, not the usual practice for most owners, most of the time.) Are you claiming that my boat can't be sailing in areas other than where she's berthed??? I prefer to actually sail to places not put my boat on truck. 2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Thus, the storage fees are substantially less than most marina fees, and ongoing lease and maintenance fees can be substantially reduced. Or, if desired, I can (and do) choose to keep it in a Marina, at a relatively modest fee because of its size and limited draft. Ongoing lease? Wow...stunning news. A 26' boat is less expensive to berth than a 30. 3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters, including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. The boat has plenty of ballast and plenty of righting forces. Also, it's suitable for sailing and/or motoring in shallow or restricted waters that aren't available to large, fixed keel vessels. It might be a coastal cruiser a couple of months a year, but I assure you it's not a coastal cruiser out here 95% of the time, unless you count foundering on rocks as coastal cruising. 4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. The boat is also designed to accommodate a large outboard which gives the skipper more options in the event of heavy weather, e.g., for returning to port quickly. I bet you have PFDs too! Yeah, a large outboard to get you out of trouble when either the skipper fails or the boat is about to fail. 5) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth. Stuff em in... I bet you can. 6) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and docking by one person. Compared to what? My Sabre is 30' and 8000 lbs. I have no problem sailing and docking in fairly rigorous conditions. I've seen Mac sailors trying to dock, and they did so quite nicely... coming in like freight and jamming it in reverse at the last second. I've also seen them "sailing" on the bay in 20+ kts... sails a flappin, boat heeled, people looking very scared, and finally, the skipper gets the engine going just to get it under control. 7) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger boats (comparing new prices with new prices and used prices with used prices, of course). This permits getting a fully equipped vessel (with accessories such as autopilot, chart reader, roller reefing, 50-hp motor, lines led aft, radio, stereo, etc., etc.), still within an affordable total cost. Well, you got me there... cheap compared to used boats of higher quality. 8) A boat that can be sailed or motored with or without the ballast, and that can be trailord without the ballast, making it a substantially lighter load when trailoring. Get a bigger fricken car. 9) 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 waters or waters with variable depth, or for anchoring in shallow waters, or for bringing it up a ramp for trailoring, or for simply bringing the boat ashore on a beach for a picnic or the like. Or, the dagger board can be only partially retracted for increased speed on a reach or a run, or completely retracted for motoring on a plane. You sure think trailering is the end all and be all of sailing. Got news for you... 10) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this ng, isn't limited to hull speed. With the (typical) 50-hp to 60-hp outboard, the Mac 26M can be motored on a plane at two or three times hull speed. bs removed This capability is also a safety factor, as mentioned above, in the event the skipper wants to bring the boat in quickly to avoid heavy weather, or move down the coast to avoid a squall, etc. Yeah, and you're responsible for your wake. Whoooo... heavy weather. Scary! When they announce a small craft advisory (just about every day in the Summer), we head out not in. 11) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. - Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. Admittedly, bad taste in my opinion. 12) Finally, I see a boat that is FUN TO SAIL! On my Mac 26M, when I get to the sailing area, raise the sails, turn off the motor, and sense the boat moving under sail, it's an amazing, almost magical experience. In Say it isn't so! You turn off the engine?? That's mightly brave of you! bs removed - - - Does that answer your question Ganz? - Or do you want a few more? Sure does!! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
t... Again, despite the thousands of Mac 26's out there sailed in US and foreign waters, we have NO reports of Mac 26M's breaking up and sinking in ANY conditions. NONE! Have a nice day Salty. Jim Please prove this. I see no evidence of this in your post. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you. Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,, Get back to us on that one. Cheers marty We need 10 to 15 examples please.... Jon, this got me to thinking, I haven't heard of single person coming to grief crossing the North Atlantic in January on a SeaDoo, therefore SeaDoos are the ideal vehicle for this purpose! Cheers Marty |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "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. On the other hand, if people were routinely dying the day after eating a Big Mac, we WOULD have heard about it, woudln't we? Same principle with a boat that is being sailed by thousands of owners around the world. Jim Yeah, they just get really, really sick, and it takes about 20 years to die from eating them. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... I really doubt than any even half-way rational skipper would consider taking a Mac offshore under such conditions (with the boat overloaded, with several adults standing on the deck, with the skipper and half the guests drunk, and with the ballast tank empty). It's an anomaly that doesn't really relate to the present discussion. Such conditions? Calm waters? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "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... Ganz, I think what you said was: 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. Of course, you had no evidence whatsoever to back up those ridiculous assertions. Incidentally, I never thought of my Mac as a washing machine, but maybe I should look into it. Jim Take it offshore and encounter some weather. Then, report back to us. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you. Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,, Get back to us on that one. Cheers marty We need 10 to 15 examples please.... Jon, this got me to thinking, I haven't heard of single person coming to grief crossing the North Atlantic in January on a SeaDoo, therefore SeaDoos are the ideal vehicle for this purpose! Cheers Marty And you can go really fast in SeaDoo... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
JimC wrote:
Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do that for us Ganz? Jim, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs actually venturing out in conditions that might cause other boats to break up and sink. - Could you do that for us Jim? Ok, we'll settle for 5. How about just 2? |
I decided
"jeff" wrote in message
. .. JimC wrote: Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do that for us Ganz? Jim, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs actually venturing out in conditions that might cause other boats to break up and sink. - Could you do that for us Jim? Ok, we'll settle for 5. How about just 2? Jeff, please don't Mac bash.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See also my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea anchor. Jim No. He's judging it on the basis of what's a decent rig. A "decent rig" for a 69-foot Swan, or a 40-ft Valiant or a 39-ft O'Day, is not the same thing as a "decent rig" for a 26-ft boat displacing 4,000 pounds. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "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. Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're obviously not. But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be interested in seeing your evidence. Jim Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz? Jim |
I decided
Marty wrote: JimC wrote: Marty wrote: 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 Marty, as I suspect you're sixth-grade teachers probably told you, you need to read and understand the question before you write your answer. - Clearly, I didn't say that "thousands of Mac26m's broke up." Instead, I said that even though there are thousands of Mac 26s out there being sailed in US and foreign waters, "no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted ANY accounts of ANY of the thousands of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions..." Read your own post Marty. Jim Give it a rest Jim, when you can provide evidence of Mac26s completing ocean voyages in heavy weather we'll believe you. Hmmm ...... still looking I see,,,, Get back to us on that one. Cheers marty If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of the kind. Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. - Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back. Jim |
I decided
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... What do I see? Among other things, I see the following: Step 1) Open eyes. Open yours. 1) A boat that is not essentially limited to being sailed in the immediate area. - The Mac26M can be quickly and easily transported by the owner (with a pickup or SUV) in one weekend to waters hundreds of miles from it's berth or storage area, thereby making available hundreds of sailing areas that wouldn't be conveniently available with a larger, keeled vessel. (Without having it hauled out of the water and hiring a truck to transport the boat to a distant sailing area.) - Practically speaking, most large, conventional keeled boats are limited to sailing within a day or so of their marinas unless the owners are retired or want to spend several weeks of vacation. (Of course, you can always point to exceptions, but they ARE the exceptions, not the usual practice for most owners, most of the time.) Are you claiming that my boat can't be sailing in areas other than where she's berthed??? Read my note Ganz. What I said was that the Mac can be quickly and easily transported by the owner with a pickup or SUV in one weekend to waters hundreds of miles away. (Making the Mac more versatile and giving the owner more choices.) Your boat obviously can be sailed in areas other than where it's berthed, but it can't be easily transported by the owner with a pickup or SUV in one weekend to waters hundreds of miles away. (Which is what I posted in the first place, in case you didn't take the time to read my note.) I prefer to actually sail to places not put my boat on truck. Can you sail 1500 miles in one weekend Ganz? I would sure like to see that. - Let me know when you are about to move out. 2) A boat that doesn't have to be berthed in a marina. Thus, the storage fees are substantially less than most marina fees, and ongoing lease and maintenance fees can be substantially reduced. Or, if desired, I can (and do) choose to keep it in a Marina, at a relatively modest fee because of its size and limited draft. Ongoing lease? Wow...stunning news. A 26' boat is less expensive to berth than a 30. Storage and maintenance fees can be substantially less, Ganz, because you don't have to keep the boat in a slip. Regarding slip fees, I get a reduced rate because, with the Mac's shallow draft, I can leave the boat in a shallow slip that wouldn't be suitable for a conventional boat with deep keel. 3) A coastal cruiser that can be sailed in a variety of waters, including offshore, with the understanding that it isn't recommended for extended ocean crossings and isn't as comfortable in heavy weather. The boat has plenty of ballast and plenty of righting forces. Also, it's suitable for sailing and/or motoring in shallow or restricted waters that aren't available to large, fixed keel vessels. It might be a coastal cruiser a couple of months a year, but I assure you it's not a coastal cruiser out here 95% of the time, unless you count foundering on rocks as coastal cruising. Don't know where "out here" is Ganz.- Maybe you could be a little more specific. But in any event, the Mac is maneuverable and can be motored or sailed around rocks and in shallow waters most fixed-keel boats couldn't manage. 4} A boat that incorporates a number of safety features, including positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. The boat is also designed to accommodate a large outboard which gives the skipper more options in the event of heavy weather, e.g., for returning to port quickly. I bet you have PFDs too! Yeah, a large outboard to get you out of trouble when either the skipper fails or the boat is about to fail. What's your point Ganz? That the boat SHOULDN'T have such safety measures?- How long would YOUR boat stay afloat if it's hull were substantially compromised? With a 6-inch puncture, for example? 5) A boat that, despite its relatively modest size, has substantial cabin space and berths for five people, including a queen-size aft berth. Stuff em in... I bet you can. Again, your point is:.......? 6) A boat that is small and light enough to permit easy handling and docking by one person. Compared to what? My Sabre is 30' and 8000 lbs. I have no problem sailing and docking in fairly rigorous conditions. I've seen Mac sailors trying to dock, and they did so quite nicely... coming in like freight and jamming it in reverse at the last second. I've also seen them "sailing" on the bay in 20+ kts... sails a flappin, boat heeled, people looking very scared, and finally, the skipper gets the engine going just to get it under control. Mine has three reefing points on the main, and a roller furling jib. I seldom have problems keeping the boat under control. 7) A boat that is priced substantially lower than conventional larger boats (comparing new prices with new prices and used prices with used prices, of course). This permits getting a fully equipped vessel (with accessories such as autopilot, chart reader, roller reefing, 50-hp motor, lines led aft, radio, stereo, etc., etc.), still within an affordable total cost. Well, you got me there... cheap compared to used boats of higher quality. Not necessarily "cheap," but a good value when compared with some larger, conventional boats. Also, If buying a new boat, you may loose multiple $$$$ in depreciation the first few years. Macs keep their value relatively well, but even more importantly, you haven't sunk as much money into it in the first place. (To make this perfectly clear, I'm not saying that the Macs don't depreciate. What I'm saying is that the total depreciation, in dollars, is substantially less than would experienced if buying a new Tartan, Sabre, Benateux, Catalina, or the like.) Jim 8) A boat that can be sailed or motored with or without the ballast, and that can be trailord without the ballast, making it a substantially lighter load when trailoring. Get a bigger fricken car. Could I tow your Sabre with my Mercury Marquis Ganz? How about a Ford pickup? 9) 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 waters or waters with variable depth, or for anchoring in shallow waters, or for bringing it up a ramp for trailoring, or for simply bringing the boat ashore on a beach for a picnic or the like. Or, the dagger board can be only partially retracted for increased speed on a reach or a run, or completely retracted for motoring on a plane. You sure think trailering is the end all and be all of sailing. Got news for you... Ganz, where do you get an emphasis on trailoring from the above paragraph? I mentioned the following: a) sailing, with dagger-board down b} conversion to 1.5 ft draft for shallow waters, or c) adapatable for use in waters of variable depth d) capable of being anchored in shallow waters e) ease of bringing up a ramp for trailoring f) ability to beach the boat for a picnic or the like g) ability to partially retract the dagger boatd for increased speed ona reach or run h) capability of being retracted for increased speed when motoring on a plane In other words, of the eight advantages or functions listed above, only one relates to trailoring. - Yet you interpret the entire list as indicating I think "trailering is the end all and be all of sailing." Sorry Ganz, but you aren't making any sense whatsoever. In fact, you're making an ass of yourself. As to sailing the Mac, check out the other sections below this one, and in particular, paragraph 12. 10) A sailboat that, unlike 90 percent of the boats discussed on this ng, isn't limited to hull speed. With the (typical) 50-hp to 60-hp outboard, the Mac 26M can be motored on a plane at two or three times hull speed. bs removed This capability is also a safety factor, as mentioned above, in the event the skipper wants to bring the boat in quickly to avoid heavy weather, or move down the coast to avoid a squall, etc. Yeah, and you're responsible for your wake. Whoooo... heavy weather. Scary! When they announce a small craft advisory (just about every day in the Summer), we head out not in. Actually, I do watch the wake and watch to see that I don't interfere with other boats. Obviously, the speed and, when under sail, the set of the sails have to be appropriate for the conditions. 11) A boat that has clean lines and a modern, streamlined design. - Admittedly, this is a matter of taste. Admittedly, bad taste in my opinion. 12) Finally, I see a boat that is FUN TO SAIL! On my Mac 26M, when I get to the sailing area, raise the sails, turn off the motor, and sense the boat moving under sail, it's an amazing, almost magical experience. In Say it isn't so! You turn off the engine?? That's mightly brave of you! bs removed Important deleted material replaced: .. In contrast to some of the heavier, conventional boats that I have sailed, the Mac is sufficiently light that it gives you a 'kick in the pants' as it accelerates under sail. Although larger boats are steadier, and more comfortable in choppy waters (sort of like a large, heavy Lincoln Town Car or equivalent) the Macs are responsive enough to give you more of a feel of the changing conditions (sort of like the feel of a sports car, such as a Porsche (a car that is fun to drive but not quite as smooth or comfortable on long trips as the Lincoln). Also, in moderate conditions, I sometimes like to set the boat on autopilot and sit on the deck watching the boat gliding silently through the water. - Again, it's an ethereal, almost magical experience. - - - Does that answer your question Ganz? - Or do you want a few more? Sure does!! Have a nice evening Ganz. - Next time try to read and respond to what what I am actually posting instead of responding to your own distortions of my notes and to the "Mac owner caracatures" you love to sneak into the discussion. I hesitate to bring this up, Ganz, but you seem to be getting further and further afield, wandering about as if you don't know where you are. You can't even understand what's being posted, much less come up with a rational response. - You're loosing it Ganz! Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message t... Again, despite the thousands of Mac 26's out there sailed in US and foreign waters, we have NO reports of Mac 26M's breaking up and sinking in ANY conditions. NONE! Have a nice day Salty. Jim Please prove this. I see no evidence of this in your post. We (those posting on alt.sailing.asa) have so far been unable to provide ANY reports of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions. If you think this statement is incorrect in any respect, please identify the source you think contradicts it. Or, if you have other sources that would contradict it, post those as well (or instead). I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there somewhere, but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it. Your move. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "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. On the other hand, if people were routinely dying the day after eating a Big Mac, we WOULD have heard about it, woudln't we? Same principle with a boat that is being sailed by thousands of owners around the world. Jim Yeah, they just get really, really sick, and it takes about 20 years to die from eating them. Once again, Ganz, you are simply evading the point that was made. Which is that, with so many Mac 26's out there, if there were a problem with them breaking up and sinking in severe conditions (of any kind) we would have heard of it. The boats are sailed by thousands of skippers around the world, of different skill levels and different interests, and if they had a tendency or susceptibility to break up and sink in severe conditions (severe conditions of any kind, off-shore, near shore, in the bays, in large lakes, etc., etc.) it would be impossible to keep it a secret. And the Mac-bashers on this ng would certainly take pleasure in learning about such a deficiency.) But they haven't, and they can't. Jim |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com