| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Marty wrote: 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 Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive research. In any event, have a nice evening Marty. Jim Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true offshore-capable boat. I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Marty wrote: 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 Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive research. In any event, have a nice evening Marty. Jim Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true offshore-capable boat. Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're obviously not. But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be interested in seeing your evidence. Jim I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Marty wrote: 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 Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive research. In any event, have a nice evening Marty. Jim Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true offshore-capable boat. Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're obviously not. But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be interested in seeing your evidence. Jim Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message . .. Marty wrote: 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 Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive research. In any event, have a nice evening Marty. Jim Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true offshore-capable boat. Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're obviously not. But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be interested in seeing your evidence. Jim Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz? Jim |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz? Jim The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz? Jim The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job. What "claims" are you talking about Ganz? Have I made any "claims" that the Mac26M is a good boat for extended offshore cruising? Have I made any "claims" that it is a good boat for ocean crossings? Have I made any "claims" that I would want to take it offshore for extended blue water cruising? (Helpful hint: Not. - Just the opposite. In fact, I have stated in several posts that it wouldn't be good choice for extended crossings or the like.) Neal, I think it would be helpful if you took the time to actually read my notes before you post any more of those indignant, sarcastic, snooty replies. Jim |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job. What "claims" are you talking about Ganz? Have I made any "claims" that the Mac26M is a good boat for extended offshore cruising? Have I made any "claims" that it is a good boat for ocean crossings? Have I made any "claims" that I would want to take it offshore for extended blue water cruising? (Helpful hint: Not. - Just the opposite. In fact, I have stated in several posts that it wouldn't be good choice for extended crossings or the like.) Neal, I think it would be helpful if you took the time to actually read my notes before you post any more of those indignant, sarcastic, snooty replies. Jim Please don't refer to me as "Neal." That's truly insulting! I think you're starting to get really frazzled. You now claim that the Mac wouldn't be a good choice for crossings, so that makes one wonder why, given what a "great" boat it's supposed be. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
I decided
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:00:32 -0600, JimC wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz? Jim The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job. What "claims" are you talking about Ganz? Have I made any "claims" that the Mac26M is a good boat for extended offshore cruising? Have I made any "claims" that it is a good boat for ocean crossings? Have I made any "claims" that I would want to take it offshore for extended blue water cruising? (Helpful hint: Not. - Just the opposite. In fact, I have stated in several posts that it wouldn't be good choice for extended crossings or the like.) Neal, I think it would be helpful if you took the time to actually read my notes before you post any more of those indignant, sarcastic, snooty replies. Jim Where does the silly term "extended off shore cruising" come from? The Mac26M is unfit for many conditions found regularly on a day sail near shore. Certainly offshore cruising around here... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#9
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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
