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.

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.

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

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:


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.

That was not quite an ocean passage, but it was about 900 miles
altogether, including the last 550 miles of open water. This was not a
little peek outside the harbor's mouth. While not the North Atlantic in
Winter, or hurricane season, it was a lot more than any Mac trip I've
heard of. And the discussion certainly seems to be about survival
weather, since you're talking about the relative merits of laying ahull
and laying off a sea anchor.

- 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.

Were any of them more than a day trip? Out of sight of land? Any
Bermuda crossings? Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on
some proof, now its your turn to ante up.

I've spent time perusing the Mac boards and I've yet to find a mention
of really strong conditions. "Heavy Weather" in Mac terms seems to be
20-25 kts with a three foot chop, and most owners say they hope to never
see worse. And while I've seen no stories of total breakups, there are
a number of cases of dismastings and lots of rudder problems. And then
there's the break away dagger board issue (yes, they only cost $250)
that you claim is actually the shallow water alarm. And need I remind
you that people have drowned in a capsized Mac?

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.

Nope, claiming it must have happened because there are a lot of Macs out
there doesn't cut it. As I (and a number of others) have pointed out,
even though I've cruised the entire East Coast, and spend a few months
each summer cruising New England, I've never seen a Mac outside of
protected waters.

My point is that, so far, we don't see any
reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink.

True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually
survived true heavy weather. Laser's don't break up or sink, but that
doesn't mean they are a suitable "offshore" boat.

And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it
offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you
repost them?

jeff wrote:

JimC 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.


I think the discussion has related largely to conditions such as those
Joe experienced in the Gulf of Mexico.


That was not quite an ocean passage, but it was about 900 miles
altogether, including the last 550 miles of open water. This was not a
little peek outside the harbor's mouth. While not the North Atlantic in
Winter, or hurricane season, it was a lot more than any Mac trip I've
heard of. And the discussion certainly seems to be about survival
weather, since you're talking about the relative merits of laying ahull
and laying off a sea anchor.

- 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.


Were any of them more than a day trip?

Yes.

Out of sight of land?

Yes.
Any
Bermuda crossings?

I believe so.

Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on
some proof, now its your turn to ante up.


Actually, Jeff, what I said originally was that I didn't consider the
Mac 26 to be suitable for extended ocean crossings and wouldn't want to
take mine out 200 miles. Since I already said that I don't consider the
Mac to be suitable for extended crossings, I really don't see the need
to defend it as a boat suitable for extended ocean crossings. I also
said that, in the event that Joe was on a Mac 26 rather than Red Cloud,
I thought that the boat would not break apart and sink, as did Red
Cloud, apparently, because the Macs are built with positive floatation
that will keep them afloat even if the hull is compromised, etc. - Once
more, I have already said that it isn't suitable for extended ocean
crossings. - What is it about that statement do you not understand?




I've spent time perusing the Mac boards and I've yet to find a mention
of really strong conditions. "Heavy Weather" in Mac terms seems to be
20-25 kts with a three foot chop, and most owners say they hope to never
see worse. And while I've seen no stories of total breakups, there are
a number of cases of dismastings and lots of rudder problems. And then
there's the break away dagger board issue (yes, they only cost $250)
that you claim is actually the shallow water alarm. And need I remind
you that people have drowned in a capsized Mac?

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.


Nope, claiming it must have happened because there are a lot of Macs out
there doesn't cut it. As I (and a number of others) have pointed out,
even though I've cruised the entire East Coast, and spend a few months
each summer cruising New England, I've never seen a Mac outside of
protected waters.

My point is that, so far, we don't see any reports of any tendencies
of the boats to break up or sink.


True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually
survived true heavy weather.

It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple
thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various waters
around the world. I have seen reports of owners sailing them off
Australia, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore
of California (often to Catalina Is.), etc. But remember that they may
be subject to severe conditions no matter where they are sailed. My
point is that with this many boats out there, over many years, it is
obviously likely that some will have been subject to severe and
unexpected conditions of various kinds. - Remember that it was Ganz and
others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy
conditions. (By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for
extended Blue Water crossings.) Therefore, in view of the fact that it
was Ganz and his buddies that made the assertions that they would break
up in heavy weather, seems like it would be his responsibility to
support that particular assertions.

Here's what he actually posted:

"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."

Again, if he is going to disparage my boat, equating it to a washing
machine and asserting that no one on it would survive, then he should be
the one to provide the evidence supporting his assertions.


Laser's don't break up or sink, but that
doesn't mean they are a suitable "offshore" boat.

Once more, I never said it was a "suitable offshore boat." (How many
times do I have to repeat this?) I merely stated that I didn't think it
would have sunk, as did Joe's boat.



And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it
offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you
repost them?


I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the
boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me again
this Fall.

Jim

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:

....
- 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.


Were any of them more than a day trip?

Yes.

Out of sight of land?

Yes.
Any
Bermuda crossings?

I believe so.


What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove, or
at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making
claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything.


Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on
some proof, now its your turn to ante up.


Actually, Jeff, what I said originally was that I didn't consider the
Mac 26 to be suitable for extended ocean crossings and wouldn't want to
take mine out 200 miles. Since I already said that I don't consider the
Mac to be suitable for extended crossings, I really don't see the need
to defend it as a boat suitable for extended ocean crossings. I also
said that, in the event that Joe was on a Mac 26 rather than Red Cloud,
I thought that the boat would not break apart and sink, as did Red
Cloud, apparently, because the Macs are built with positive floatation
that will keep them afloat even if the hull is compromised, etc.

You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to the
point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has some
foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected. Remember, I've already
shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. And hundreds of people
drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.

....
My point is that, so far, we don't see any reports of any tendencies
of the boats to break up or sink.


True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually
survived true heavy weather.

It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple
thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various waters
around the world.

That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because there
are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the harbor. So
is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make ludicrous claims
claims and hope the jury is stupid?


I have seen reports of owners sailing them off
Australia, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore
of California (often to Catalina Is.), etc.

And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.

But remember that they may
be subject to severe conditions no matter where they are sailed. My
point is that with this many boats out there, over many years, it is
obviously likely that some will have been subject to severe and
unexpected conditions of various kinds.

Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is buying
this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at least one must
be real. Have you been probed lately?


- Remember that it was Ganz and
others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy
conditions.

I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an
unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have
to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most multihulls
have positive flotation, though a number have eventually sunk,
fortunately long after the crew has been rescued.

(By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for
extended Blue Water crossings.)

But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions.


Therefore, in view of the fact that it
was Ganz and his buddies that made the assertions that they would break
up in heavy weather, seems like it would be his responsibility to
support that particular assertions.


There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up. And
there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from "average
nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover.


Here's what he actually posted:

"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."

Again, if he is going to disparage my boat, equating it to a washing
machine and asserting that no one on it would survive, then he should be
the one to provide the evidence supporting his assertions.

Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller,
lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew
anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only
question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch falls
off and the boat floods.

....

And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it
offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you
repost them?


I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the
boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me again
this Fall.

Sure thing. But you've said this every year.

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



jeff wrote:

...

- 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.



Were any of them more than a day trip?


Yes.

Out of sight of land?

Yes.
Any

Bermuda crossings?


I believe so.


What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove, or
at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making
claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything.


Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac.

They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. - My
evidence for this is that I can see the floatation throughout the boat,
and the fact that MacGregor's specs state the same. (Incidentally, if
they made false or deceptive claims in their published specs, they would
be subject to suits for deceptive trade practices, which entail treble
damages and the possibility of punitive damages.) Further proof is the
fact that incident you cite below, the boat didn't sink, and didn't fall
apart. (I made no assertion that people couldn't be harmed on a Mac26
with a drunk skipper, who wasn't familiar with the boat, who ignored
the most fundamental safety warnings given by MacGregor relative to
using the water ballast except in particular, limited circumstances)
maximum loads, positioning of passengers, whose drunk crew members were
standing on deck holding onto the mast, and who gunned the boat to make
a turn, etc., etc.)




Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on

some proof, now its your turn to ante up.


Actually, Jeff, what I said originally was that I didn't consider the
Mac 26 to be suitable for extended ocean crossings and wouldn't want
to take mine out 200 miles. Since I already said that I don't
consider the Mac to be suitable for extended crossings, I really don't
see the need to defend it as a boat suitable for extended ocean
crossings. I also said that, in the event that Joe was on a Mac 26
rather than Red Cloud, I thought that the boat would not break apart
and sink, as did Red Cloud, apparently, because the Macs are built
with positive floatation that will keep them afloat even if the hull
is compromised, etc.


You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to the
point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has some
foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected. Remember, I've already
shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. And hundreds of people
drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.


One more time Marty. - I'll gladly back up the statements I actually
made. But not those you are trying to put into my mouth. As previously
noted:



Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses to what
you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what
your caricature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I
actually did say. Regarding the positive floatation, as noted above, the
Mac specs state that the boat, with full crew and motor, will continue
to float even if the hull is compromised. Your assertion that this
doesn't apply if the boat is in heavy weather conditions is illogical
and is not supported by any evidence. (Think about what you are
inferring. You seem to think that the boat will be broken into so many
pieces that the foam floatation will all come loose, float out of the
boat, leaving the boat and it's crew to sink. - SIMPLY RIDICULOUS!

As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for
extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just
the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a
Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have
stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink
to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-bashing buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.


I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.




My point is that, so far, we don't see any reports of any
tendencies of the boats to break up or sink.



True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually
survived true heavy weather.


It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple
thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various
waters around the world.


That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because there
are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the harbor. So
is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make ludicrous claims
claims and hope the jury is stupid?


Think for a moment about what You are saying Marty. The thousands of Mac
26s owners simply buy their boats and never take them out? Never get
them out of the harbor? And I should have to provide proof that they
actually do take them out? - Again, UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS.




I have seen reports of owners sailing them off Australia, in the
Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore of California
(often to Catalina Is.), etc.


And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.

If I did, would you be satisfied? Or would you dig through all the
reports trying to discredit them any way you could? I'm not basing my
statements on any listing of specific sailings; rather, I'm saying that
it is simply preposterous for you or your buddies to say that, with
multiple thousands of Macs out there, there weren't incidents of
skippers getting into severe, difficult situations. (And again, in any
waters, not necessarily extended, blue-water voyages.)


But remember that they may be subject to severe conditions no matter
where they are sailed. My point is that with this many boats out
there, over many years, it is obviously likely that some will have
been subject to severe and unexpected conditions of various kinds.


Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is buying
this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at least one must
be real. Have you been probed lately?

Wrong again Marty. Because there are thousands of Macs out there, it
would be incredible to believe that they haven't been subject to severe
or difficult conditions of various kinds.

- Remember that it was Ganz and others who made the assertions that
they would break up in heavy conditions.


I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an
unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have
to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most multihulls
have positive flotation, though a number have eventually sunk,
fortunately long after the crew has been rescued.


You're entitled to your own (unsupported) opinion, Marty, even if it's
wrong.


(By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for extended
Blue Water crossings.)


But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions.


What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it
wouldn't have sunk.


Therefore, in view of the fact that it was Ganz and his buddies that
made the assertions that they would break up in heavy weather, seems
like it would be his responsibility to support that particular
assertions.


There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up. And
there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from "average
nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover.

Really, Marty? So far I haven't seen the reports of "plenty of cases of
Macs suffering damage from average nasty conditions." Where are those
reports, Marty? Did I miss that particular post?




Here's what he actually posted:

"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."

Again, if he is going to disparage my boat, equating it to a washing
machine and asserting that no one on it would survive, then he should
be the one to provide the evidence supporting his assertions.


Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller,
lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew
anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only
question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch falls
off and the boat floods.

...

Pure speculation, Marty. Interesting writing, however. It would make a
good fiction article.






And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it
offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you
repost them?


I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the
boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me
again this Fall.


Sure thing. But you've said this every year.


I'll post my report this Fall. Ok?

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .
Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac.

They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that
it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink.

who gunned the boat to make a turn...

Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other
sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or
not, "guns" the engine.


What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it
wouldn't have sunk.

With 10,000 lbs of lead in it's hold, since I don't think you can get 10K of
coffee in it? Right.

I'll post my report this Fall. Ok?

If you're going offshore in a storm, get plenty of insurance!


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

JimC wrote:


jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



jeff wrote:

...

- 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.



Were any of them more than a day trip?


Yes.

Out of sight of land?

Yes.
Any

Bermuda crossings?


I believe so.


What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove,
or at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making
claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything.


Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac.

They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. - My
evidence for this is that I can see the floatation throughout the boat,
and the fact that MacGregor's specs state the same. ...

I have never claimed it didn't have flotation. There is the question of
whether the hull and/or deck would break under severe pounding, and at
what point this would happen. I'm inclined to think that the conditions
that did in Redcloud could break a Mac, rendering it meaningless whether
a portion of the boat did sink.

Further proof is the
fact that incident you cite below, the boat didn't sink, and didn't fall
apart. (I made no assertion that people couldn't be harmed on a Mac26

Yes, I know you've denied this aspect. However, claiming that a boat
won't sink is meaningless if it flooded and won't support life.

with a drunk skipper, who wasn't familiar with the boat, who ignored the
most fundamental safety warnings given by MacGregor relative to using
the water ballast except in particular, limited circumstances) maximum
loads, positioning of passengers, whose drunk crew members were standing
on deck holding onto the mast, and who gunned the boat to make a turn,
etc., etc.)

All this is meaningless. The bottom line is that a Mac CAN rollover
given the right (or should we say wrong) circumstances, and if it does,
there is a risk of flooding severe enough to drown inhabitants. That
much is clearly proven. I think any boater would admit the the forces
generated in a major offshore storm are greater than what a drunk
skipper can do in a few seconds.

You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to the
point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has some
foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected. Remember, I've
already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. And hundreds
of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.


One more time Marty. - I'll gladly back up the statements I actually
made. But not those you are trying to put into my mouth. As previously
noted:



Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses to what
you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what
your caricature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I
actually did say.

Its me Jim. Jeff, not Marty.

Regarding the positive floatation, as noted above, the
Mac specs state that the boat, with full crew and motor, will continue
to float even if the hull is compromised. Your assertion that this
doesn't apply if the boat is in heavy weather conditions is illogical
and is not supported by any evidence. (Think about what you are
inferring. You seem to think that the boat will be broken into so many
pieces that the foam floatation will all come loose, float out of the
boat, leaving the boat and it's crew to sink. - SIMPLY RIDICULOUS!

First of all, this is not ridiculous, it can and does happen. However,
all it would really take is a lost hatch, or a hull fracture to fully
flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below
to support life. Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably
will continue to roll over in a large sea. Its a nice feature in a lake
where boats sink because a cockpit drain fill with leaves, but its
doesn't mean you can survive a major storm.

Going back to your original claim, if a Mac had been in the same
condition as Redcloud, would anyone still be alive when the helicopter
arrived?



As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for
extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just
the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings.

Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in
difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26,
with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed
afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the
floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

Maybe, if he were alive. And the Mac probably would be worth much even
if most of it were there.


Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac
would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine)
in heavy weather conditions.

I think there is little doubt amongst sailors that the Mac would be like
a washing machine. This is how every small boat sailor describes major
storms.

- It was Ganz, and a few of his
Mac-bashing buddies.

MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES,
HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY
WEATHER CONDITIONS.

AND I DON'T MUCH CARE. YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT A MAC HAS
EVER SURVIVED HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS.


I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't
put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had
made, or thought I had made, but didn't.

OK, just so we're clear on this: you are standing by your assertion
about a situation that has never happened. Further, you claim it
doesn't matter if everyone drowns, as long as most of the boat is
recovered. This certainly makes sense.


It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple
thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various
waters around the world.


That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because
there are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the
harbor. So is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make
ludicrous claims claims and hope the jury is stupid?


Think for a moment about what You are saying Marty.

Its Jeff, not Marty.

The thousands of Mac
26s owners simply buy their boats and never take them out? Never get
them out of the harbor? And I should have to provide proof that they
actually do take them out? - Again, UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS.

Why preposterous? First of all, Macs are notorious as "first boat, not
used, sold in a few years, never sail again" boats.

Second, although you admitted over and over again that Macs are not
offshore boats, you're claiming here that it preposterous to think that
they aren't taken offshore? Which way is it?

I've sailed the New England coast every summer since Macs were Ventures,
and I've taken several years to go up and down the East Coast. But in
all of this, I've never seen Mac offshore, out in even 25 knot coastal
conditions. There have been Macs at the marinas I've used for the last
8 years, but I can count on the fingers of one hand (without using the
thumb) the number of times I've seen one leave the dock.

I'm not the only one with this experience - its been repeated by a
number of cruisers in this forum.

I'm not denying that a few Macs have gone to the Bahamas, Catalina, and
other slightly out of the way places. But this is not the same as being
several hundred miles offshore in a major storm.


I have seen reports of owners sailing them off Australia, in the
Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore of California
(often to Catalina Is.), etc.


And yet, you've never been able to post a link here.

If I did, would you be satisfied? Or would you dig through all the
reports trying to discredit them any way you could? I'm not basing my
statements on any listing of specific sailings; rather, I'm saying that
it is simply preposterous for you or your buddies to say that, with
multiple thousands of Macs out there, there weren't incidents of
skippers getting into severe, difficult situations. (And again, in any
waters, not necessarily extended, blue-water voyages.)

Difficult conditions? Yes, but I'm sure that what a Mac considers
"difficult" is much different fron what other consider "difficult."

Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is buying
this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at least one
must be real. Have you been probed lately?

Wrong again Marty. Because there are thousands of Macs out there, it
would be incredible to believe that they haven't been subject to severe
or difficult conditions of various kinds.

Again, a silly argument. With all the pigs out there, there must be one
that flies!



- Remember that it was Ganz and others who made the assertions that
they would break up in heavy conditions.


I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an
unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have
to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most
multihulls have positive flotation, though a number have eventually
sunk, fortunately long after the crew has been rescued.


You're entitled to your own (unsupported) opinion, Marty, even if it's
wrong.

Marty might be wrong, but I'm Jeff. And I'm right.

But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions.


What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it
wouldn't have sunk.

Actually you said he would be able to recover it, implying that he would
be alive.

There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up.
And there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from
"average nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover.

Really, Marty? So far I haven't seen the reports of "plenty of cases of
Macs suffering damage from average nasty conditions." Where are those
reports, Marty? Did I miss that particular post?

Oh come on, Jim. Its pretty easy to find cases of dismastings and
capsizes. And I've personally seen a broken rudder.



Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller,
lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew
anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only
question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch
falls off and the boat floods.

...

Pure speculation, Marty. Interesting writing, however. It would make a
good fiction article.

So now you're admitting you've not only never been in heavy weather,
you've never read the the basic literature. As long as we all understand.


I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the
boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me
again this Fall.


Sure thing. But you've said this every year.

I'll post my report this Fall. Ok?

With all the time you've said this, its preposterous to think that you
wouldn't do it eventually.