Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#71
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
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. |
#72
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
jeff wrote:
JimC wrote: Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the world and in all types of conditions. Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real offshore passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most of the comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open ocean and it does quite well, especially since I can power in before it get too rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing." The fact that Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing to Catalina (or Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas) does not mean they have been "offshore." I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages, but every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe 8-10 foot seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these conditions should be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent skipper. But when you say "offshore" you're implying the possibility of much worse conditions, 50+ knots, large breaking seas, and storms lasting several days. I'm just a bit skeptical that Macs have endured such conditions on many occasions. Puhleeze.... Mac 26X/M are unsafe in the presence of air. A long passage for a Mac should be from one end of the marina lot to the other. No competent skipper would consider taking a Mac 26X/M on a long passage. |
#73
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
JimC wrote:
Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the world and in all types of conditions. Well Jim, to use your tack, please provide reliable evidence of a Mac26 surviving an open ocean passage that involves a significant storm, duration greater that 48hrs, oh hell I'd settle for 24. Can't do it can you? I wonder why not? Well not really Cheers Marty |
#74
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message news As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes, I know so. Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation. Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as Joe's boat. And your evidence supporting that assertion is................................................ .................? From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize it, much less admit it. Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and your contentions. I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor, O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Once again, did I say that? Don't think so. You don't know much about boats... And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that fact, much less admit it. clearly, and I do think so. Clearly, you're trying to change the subject. Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally Yes, this we know. to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe And, you thought wrong. And your proof supporting that particular assertion is.........................? described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay, speculation, and personal bias. Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific conditions, none of which include offshore. Wrong again. I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a friend's older Mac26. And how old was that Mac26 Gantz? Jim |
#75
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave to, rather than lying ahull. Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. - For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of boats." Feel free to believe what you want. And also to believe the recommendations of references such as the Annapolis Book of Seamship Gantz? It's pretty clear that heaving to can be dangerous in heavy, breaking seas. Heaving-to is one of the best methods to survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the" best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line. Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or under a reefed sail plan. Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it would be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be gone, it would be unsailable. Wrong again Gantz. I'm not suggesting that the rigging and mast would be gone, merely tied securely. But even if they were, with storm anchor deployed, the boat wouldn't broach. As to your contention that it would roll and roll and roll and roll with a sea anchor deployed, once again, where is your evidence supporting that particular assertion? Apparently, you have none at all. (Seems like we have gone through this discussin several times before, yet you continue to post those preposterous speculations as fact. - Is there an echo on this ng? Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position... Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your Mac? Right. A response to Bruce. - Crawfishing on your earlier statements. Seems to me it would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around. Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently resist a knock-down or complete roll. Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for a while. If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way. Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is, the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not recommended. You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring, supporting a piece of junk. Have a nice evening Gantz. Jim |
#76
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
|
#77
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:55 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC wrote: 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 can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor. Good point. Let's take it past Mac-bashing. Here's some advice for those who take such things seriously. Whether it's a Mac or more substantial boat, don't assume your cleats have backing plates and will take much strain. I've read of one "well respected" brand sailboat having no backing plates and breaking up on the rocks when the cleats pulled out during a blow, losing the mooring. Your suggestions are well taken. From their literature, the Macs' cleats on current models do have SS backing plates, but their capacity should be verified. Also, see my suggestions for forming a towing bridle and reinforcing it with extensions to the mid-deck cleats. Another boat that the "real sailors" fawn over is now undergoing some refurbishing by a real sailor friend of mine. He found a faultily bedded thruhull that only luck kept from coming free and perhaps sinking the boat. In addition to its positive floatation. the Mac has zero thruhulls. --Nada. In both cases the boats were built with the weaknesses/defects. Know your boat well, and know what you can expect of it when you ask it to save your bacon. BTW, I recall at least one Mac owner detailing his procedure for installing a substantial backing plate for a critical cleat. --Vic Jim |
#78
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
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 |
#79
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "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. I've been at sea in some rough conditions, and sailed and motored in what we were told was a 80-90 mph storm. Also sailed offshore on several boats in a variety of conditions. Also qualified as a crewmember on the 1877 bark Elissa, sailing several years from Galveston, which involved climbing rope ladders 100 feet up the masts and furling and unfurling sails in some exciting conditions aloft. 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? As far as I know, we're discussing characteristics of the Mac 26M, not the moon. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that Ganz. You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption. From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Did I say that? Don't think so. Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out Neal's original post. My mistake. It *is* about your Mac! Is it, Ganz? I thought you were also discussing the moon. Jim |
#80
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
|
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 |