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