Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Apr 13, 8:39*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. *Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. *Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out there. But, feel free and send us a report! It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. *Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. *That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... -- "j" ganz - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge. Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water. Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe. |
#42
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
"sailor164" wrote in message
... On Apr 13, 8:39 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out there. But, feel free and send us a report! It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... -- "j" ganz - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - +Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge. + +Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water. +Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe. A Sadler does not a Mac make. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#43
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:41:41 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: /snip/ There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of inertia) /snip/ Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously doubt. /snip/ Bruce-in-Bangkok This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it. The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass. Easy to look up though..... Brian W |
#44
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, Brian Whatcott wrote:
The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass. Hmmm. I think mass moment of inertia is what you're after (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia). Second moment of inertia is form stiffness (eg. the "I"'s in a mast section description). -- Tom. |
#45
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:14:49 -0700, Gordon wrote:
And they require two berths in the marina. Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) One of their major advantages. After all, one doesn't want to be jammed in with the trailer trash does one? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
#46
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:35:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down. Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is better offshore. :-) Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel to sail. Think about it for a moment. 1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position 2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out. 3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the portion exposed to the waves. 4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head stay. 5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes. 6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights. 7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick your wounds. 8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking. No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Hard for me to disagree... probably the only major negatives are stowage and cost, the former of which you have to watch or it'll get out of control and really slow down the boat. Crew fatigue is a *big* factor for long-distance. I saw a cat that had screens up around the cockpit, so screw the mosquitos. When we charter in various locations, we always rent a catamaran... makes for a much pleasant vacation. Disclaimer: I own a mono. :-) Well, one simply advises the Captain that the crew will be limited to a single "tee" shirt and pair of shorts. Keeps the weight down and also restricts the use of fresh water, don;t you know? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
#47
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:38:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Gordon" wrote in message ... And they require two berths in the marina. Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Ah... yes, the other negative. This relates to expense. As I previously posted, one of the great advantages. Keeps the riff-raff out. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
#48
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:10:11 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:41:41 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: /snip/ There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of inertia) /snip/ Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously doubt. /snip/ Bruce-in-Bangkok This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it. The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass. Easy to look up though..... Brian W Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major effect on a boat rolling over. Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs 500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders about half way up the mast. I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2 sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast head. The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date. It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
#49
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major effect on a boat rolling over. Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs 500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders about half way up the mast. I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2 sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast head. The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date. It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacenter |
#50
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), --- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No? it would be dismasted for sure. Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No? Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time to time. Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No? It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush. LOL. In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself from the boat deliberately. That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a novel? Either way, you wouldn't survive. Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support it. Jim |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I have decided to become.......... | General | |||
Decided on Dry Tortugas | Cruising | |||
Decided on Dry Tortugas | General | |||
Decided on Dry Tortugas | General |