"JimC" wrote in message
...


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

Ganz is a closed-minded fool. You can't expect his like to act rationally.
His mind is made up so don't confuse him with the facts.

Macgregor 26s are great little boats. Thousands of people get a whole lot of
enjoyment out of them and I've not heard about one single solitary
foundering to date. And with thousands of Macs out there on the water a
sinking would be a daily event if Jon Boy was right.

--
Gregory Hall

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
t...


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), 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.


Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200
miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say
was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all,
he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative,
critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps
even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case.
But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to
support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs
that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming
that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do
you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your
assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over
and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll?
If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the
evidence and statistics supporting your theories. 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?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim



Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it
over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that
the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to
be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac
out in those

conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL


It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than
what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the
boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the
boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if
the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the
boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being
on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay
keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart,
there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim



I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in
ocean conditions?

Yes.

I have.

So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats.
They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the
crews abandoned them (to their peril).


Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
support your assertions.

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.

If the boat
is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat
won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I
love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at
it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point...
QED.

You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post.
I'm not man..... LOL

Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
Neal's original post.


Jim

On Apr 17, 6:12 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds
a boat up?

Lots of tiny levitation daemons? Maybe if you get them really riled
they'll hoist the boat clean into the air and you can save on haul out
fees. I take it that you aren't buying the argument from the clean
gent from Syracuse either. So, what are you saying?

-- Tom.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Uh oh. Don't get me started on Metacenters. As the name implies they
aren't real and nothing makes stability harder to understand from what is
generally written. I've given many lectures on stability and I usually
have to spend the first third of the lecture getting the students to
forget all the stuff they read the night before.

Metacenters and metacentric height are very useful calculation shortcuts
for naval architects but a very poor way to understand the forces
involved.

Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really
holds a boat up?

--
Roger Long

Bad weather and/or beautiful women.

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

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)


I have tried this several times, and the women just won't go for it.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
...
I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on
the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present
that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from
side to side in ocean conditions?

Yes.

I have.

So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.

So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read
Fastnet Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to
several boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the
point where the crews abandoned them (to their peril).

Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that a
Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You said
that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't support
your assertions.

I haven't presented any evidence that the moon revolves around the Earth
either. Do I need to support my assertion that it does?

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!


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

wrote in message
...

You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.




How about around his thick head?

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:WISdnRUtNokGEZrVnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@bayareasolut ions...
I have tried this several times, and the women just won't go for it.

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



Women don't want sex with girly-men!

--
Gregory Hall

"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.


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.

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.

Either way, you wouldn't
survive.


Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to
support it.


Yeah, too bad.




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

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)


I guess I'm going to have to continue to rent. :-)



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