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

"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

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

"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

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:59:49 -0600, JimC wrote:



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



No. You are confused about this as well. He was discussing Mac26M sailboats with
a MacMoonie.



Does this ridiculous childish banter really support either of your
positions? Or is sarcasm simply the best way to put down us Mac
supporters if all else fails?

Jim

"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

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

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.
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 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

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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.
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 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


There's no point in bashing them. They can't take it! (sorry)

As to backing plates and thru-hull/stopcocks, you definitely need to check.
Interestingly, for the latter, I noticed one of mine was very slightly
weeping. Here's what they look like via the drawing:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW....16306491370466

They're bronze and very tough. Basically, I manipulated it many times, every
chance I got, and the weeping seems to have stopped. Now, I check at every
opportunity.

I don't have a line drawing of the big cleat on the foredeck, but here's a
drawing of the stanchion assembly:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW....16276426599298


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

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