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

"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

Capt. JG wrote:

"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?

As opposed to other methods such as deploying a sea anchor.




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.


My point is that you have posted a number of rather "colorful"
assertions that are unsupported by evidence or proof of any kind. And
you can't seem to stop. - You seem to be addicted to it.




Jim