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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
world and in all types of conditions.

I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats have
certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of larger
boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas, Ericksons,
Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I bought the Mac.)
The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their own, provided you
aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from Belize to Galveston.

Jim



You must be desperate. Now you're replying to a known liar and stalker.

Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim they're
more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it includes offshore.
Yes, it's a rhetorial question.


I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz,
but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher.
And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be
seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems,
they can be a good ego booster.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just
as Joe's boat.

And your evidence supporting that assertion
is................................................ .................?

Ummm... it was abandoned?

I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor,
O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years.

Did you learn anything?

Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally

Key phrase: one of the few.

And, you thought wrong.

And your proof supporting that particular assertion
is.........................?

Common knowledge and experience. And, your counter supporting proof is....?

Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
conditions, none of which include offshore.

Wrong again.

And, that's why it's chosen as an offshore passagemaker the world over. Got
it.


I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
friend's older Mac26.


And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?

Older that yours, better reenforced for the demanding conditions where he
sails it.

Last name is Ganz, btw.


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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
Feel free to believe what you want.
And also to believe the recommendations of references such as the
Annapolis Book of Seamship Gantz? It's pretty clear that heaving to can be
dangerous in heavy, breaking seas.

As opposed to what? Sitting at home?

Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it
would be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be
gone, it would be unsailable.

Wrong again Gantz. I'm not suggesting that the rigging and mast would be
gone, merely tied securely. But even if they were, with storm anchor
deployed, the boat wouldn't broach. As to your contention that it would
roll and roll and roll and roll with a sea anchor deployed, once again,
where is your evidence supporting that particular assertion? Apparently,
you have none at all. (Seems like we have gone through this discussin
several times before, yet you continue to post those preposterous
speculations as fact. - Is there an echo on this ng?

And, you base that on what experience JimE? Is there an echo in your head?
Deploying a sea anchor is certainly a good idea. Don't worry, you won't have
a chance if you take your Mac out in a storm.

Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.

In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...


Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your
Mac?


Right. A response to Bruce. - Crawfishing on your earlier statements.

It was unless you'd care to deny it. Reality, despite your best try, does
intrude from time to time.

Have a nice evening Gantz.

Always do JimE.



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

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC
wrote:



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


Wrong again Ganz. You are judging the Mac's rigging by what's necessary on
a heavy keel boat. Because of it's small size and relative light weight,
the cleats and bow fittings used on the Macs are entirely adequate. What I
would do in the case of approaching severe weather conditions would be to
form a towing bridle connected around the two bow chucks, with extensions
to the mid-deck cleats, and then tie the sea anchor to the bridle.


Jim


You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel free
to claim I did.

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

"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow
chucks,

Wow! Since you have all this experience on "big" sailboats, perhaps you
could explain what a "bow chuck" is?

Cheers
Marty


Gross! LOL

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

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:


Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether
anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas.
(Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had
heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out
there, all over the world and in all types of conditions.


Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real offshore
passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most of the
comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open ocean and it
does quite well, especially since I can power in before it get too
rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing." The fact that
Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing to Catalina (or
Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas) does not mean they
have been "offshore."

I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages, but
every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe 8-10 foot
seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these conditions should
be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent skipper. But when you say
"offshore" you're implying the possibility of much worse conditions, 50+
knots, large breaking seas, and storms lasting several days. I'm just a
bit skeptical that Macs have endured such conditions on many occasions.

I think the discussion has related largely to conditions such as those
Joe experienced in the Gulf of Mexico. - Regarding accounts of ocean
voyages, I have read of a number of them on various Mac discussion
groups, although not many are true extended ocean crossings. On the
other hand, with thousands of Macs out there, in US and foreign waters,
the probabilities of exposure to various problems under sail is
significant. In other words, with that many boats exposed to the
vagaries of weather, other severe conditions, collisions, inexperienced
or distracted skippers, etc., etc., problems can arise no matter where
the boats are being sailed. My point is that, so far, we don't see any
reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.


I've been at sea in some rough conditions, and sailed and motored in what
we were told was a 80-90 mph storm. Also sailed offshore on several boats
in a variety of conditions. Also qualified as a crewmember on the 1877
bark Elissa, sailing several years from Galveston, which involved climbing
rope ladders 100 feet up the masts and furling and unfurling sails in some
exciting conditions aloft.

Like I said, "wasn't on your Mac."

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


As far as I know, we're discussing characteristics of the Mac 26M, not the
moon. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that Ganz.

Too bad. The moon can sometimes be seen.


You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally
unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption.

From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Did I say that? Don't think so.

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


My mistake. It *is* about your Mac!

Is it, Ganz? I thought you were also discussing the moon.

At least you got my name right.


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

"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.

Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty


Uh oh... I'm vacuous.. or at least the company I keep is...

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

Chip Thomas wrote:

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:


Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether
anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy
seas. (Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No
one had heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands
out there, all over the world and in all types of conditions.


Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real
offshore passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most
of the comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open
ocean and it does quite well, especially since I can power in before
it get too rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing."
The fact that Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing
to Catalina (or Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas)
does not mean they have been "offshore."

I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages,
but every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe
8-10 foot seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these
conditions should be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent
skipper. But when you say "offshore" you're implying the possibility
of much worse conditions, 50+ knots, large breaking seas, and storms
lasting several days. I'm just a bit skeptical that Macs have endured
such conditions on many occasions.


Puhleeze....

Mac 26X/M are unsafe in the presence of air.

Have a nice evening Chip.

Jim