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

Capt. JG wrote:

"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.

What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient
floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a
hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and
written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your
attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort
liability, punitive damages, etc.)



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.

Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well
with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest
deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn.
In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most
fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the
ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited
conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the
owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this
most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also
substantially exceeded.

But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is
inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue,
and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.)

Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac
26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water
ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it
isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had
been one of the current 26M models.



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.


Don't think Joe would (or could) have loaded 10,000 lbs of coffee into
the Mac, do you Ganz? Along with his crew and their provisions?


I'll post my report this Fall. Ok?


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



I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"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.

What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient
floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a hole
drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and written
material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your attorney
regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort liability,
punitive damages, etc.)



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.

Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well with
six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest deck
portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn. In
this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most
fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the
ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited
conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the owner
of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this most basic
factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also substantially
exceeded.

But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is
inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue, and
ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.)

Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac
26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water
ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it isn't
known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had been one
of the current 26M models.



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.


Don't think Joe would (or could) have loaded 10,000 lbs of coffee into the
Mac, do you Ganz? Along with his crew and their provisions?


I'll post my report this Fall. Ok?


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



I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it.

Jim


Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe
said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load
it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats.


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

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe
said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load
it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats.

Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot
occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term
called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is
much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even
float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation
materal. There is lots of air space between the beans.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:04:07 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Not if they can't find you because you've sunk. I believe that's what Joe
said he was carrying. You couldn't do that in your Mac, but you could load
it with 10000 lbs of lead. Try it and let us know if it still floats.

Joe was carrying coffee, which is not very dense. The water cannot
occupy the space taken up by the coffee. There is a technical term
called ' sinkage ' which reflects the actual floodable volume. This is
much more for the lead, which has little volumn. The coffee might even
float, for all I know, in which case it would acually be floatation
materal. There is lots of air space between the beans.

Casady


Great idea! We could make a Mac out of coffee!!

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

wrote:

On Thu, 01 May 2008 04:01:17 GMT, JimC wrote:



Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
t...


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.


What their specs and website state is that that there is sufficient
floatation to keep the boat afloat even with a full crew, even with a
hole drilled through the hull. (And if you thank the pictures and
written material are insignificant, go have a discussion with your
attorney regarding issues such as deceptive trade practices, tort
liability, punitive damages, etc.)



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.

Actually, other 26 ft sailboats aren't guaranteed to do all that well
with six drunk adults standing on top of the cockpit (i.e., the highest
deck portion) holding onto the mast while the motor is gunned on a turn.


I'll be happy to guarantee that my 27 foot boat can do that without even raising
a fuss.


In this case, however, the boat was a water ballast boat. - The most
fundamental and basic safety consideration for a wb boat is that the
ballast MUST be filled for safe operation (except in certain limited
conditions), particularly with substantial weight topside. Both the
owner of the boat and the skipper were negligent in not checking this
most basic factor. The maximum recommended load for the Mac was also
substantially exceeded.

But if you are trying to say that the particular design of the boat is
inherently unsafe, the trial judge specifically considered that issue,
and ruled to the contrary. (MacGregor won the case.)

Furthermore, the boat in question was a Mac 26X, not a Mac 26M. The Mac
26M is not a purely water ballast boat in that, in addition to the water
ballast, it has solid, permanent ballast built in to the hull. So it
isn't known whether the same result would have occurred if the boat had
been one of the current 26M models.



Sounds like the original design was so bad they got kinda nervous about future
lawsuits.

Maybe, maybe not. The mast for the new boat is 2' taller, so they state
that additional ballast is needed. - But with idiots like the drunk
skipper, and hack lawyers willing to take cases like that, why shouldn't
they cover their ass?




I have insurance good for 75 miles offshore. - That ought to do it.

Jim


Insurance does not protect you from catastrophe. It just pays bills for
survivors, if there are any.

You are the one who brought up the subject of insurance. I wss simply
responding to your statement. With an attempt at a little humor, which
you don't seem to appreciate.


Jim

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.

jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:
----------------------
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.

I haven't claimed that the Mac would NEVER sink under ANY conditions. I
stated that I thought Joe's boat wouldn't have sunk in the conditions he
described. But of course no one knows, and I never said that it was a
slam dunk.

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.

I suppose I would rather stick with a boat that is partially submerged
but still floating than a boat with a heavy keel that was dragging the
boat to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.


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

Clarification: The boat in that incident was a Mac 26X, which is a
completely water-ballasted boat. The mac 26M is a hybrid, having
permenant ballast built into the hull in additon to the water ballast.


given the right (or should we say wrong) circumstances, and if it does,
there is a risk of flooding severe enough to drown inhabitants.

Clarification: The victims were infants, left below deck while the drunk
adults partied on deck.

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.


Maybe. Maybe not.


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.

Again, I would rather be on a boat that was low in the water but
remaining afloat rather than one that was sinking.


Remember, I've
already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac.

Clarification: You showed how two infants left in the cockpit on a
water-ballasted Mac 26X could drown. You didn't show how two adult crew
members on a hybrid ballast Mac 26M would drown.


And hundreds
of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation.



Yep. There are some careless, stupid people out there.

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.

Sorry.

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.

This, of course, is your opinion and is not supported. Whether it would
apply to the Mac 26M, particularly with an experienced crew as was the
case with Red Cloud, is another matter.

However,
all it would really take is a lost hatch,

The boat is designed to stay afloat even if the hull is compromised.

or a hull fracture to fully
flood the boat. When this happens there simply isn't enough room below
to support life.

Not a good situation to be in, but, again, I personally would rather be
in a partially flooded boat that stayed afloat than one that was sinking
to the bottom.

Plus, the boat will be so unstable that it probably
will continue to roll over in a large sea.

Maybe. Maybe not.


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.


Maybe. Maybe not.

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 discussed, I think the best action in that situation would
have been to set a sea anchor and remained onboard. I believe that would
have prevented the boat from yawing, or rolling.


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.

At least he would still have a boat, and possibly some of the coffee.



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.

Maybe. But probably not.



- 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.


When you and your buddies provide evidence to support your amazing
assertions, I'll consider getting more to support mine. Meanwhile, I'm
not going to look for evidence supporting statements I haven't made.


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.

Nope. That's not what I said.


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 Jeff.


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.

From five years of sailing a Mac, participating in various Mac
discussion groups, watching other Mac owners take their boats out, etc.,
your contentions is simply absurd.



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?


Both. - I acknowledged (not admitted) that the Macs weren't suitable for
ocean crossings or extended blue water sailing. That doesn't mean that
they aren't taken offshore.


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 see them leaving the docks all the time.

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.

Once more, attack me for what I said, not what you think I said.


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.



Wrong again. I have been able to post such links. I haven't posted such
links, because, as stated above over and over again, I have, and will,
provide evidence for my assertions, not for yours, or in response to
your questions. The assertion for which I will gladly provide evidence
is as follows:

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.

Do I have to explain this to you again Jeff?

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 . 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!

Don't think so Jeff. In fact, you're sort of making an ass of yourself
with that one.






- 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.


Both of you are wrong.

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.

That's certainly on my to-do list for this Summer. I'm hoping to do some
fishing out there also.

Jim