|
I decided
I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought,
I just felt like I'd buy one. Boy, am I ever sorry! What a waste! The thing is a pile of crap. It doesn't sail well at all, it's not very weatherly, it's rather cheap and flimsy. To top it off, it doesn't motor well or at least not as well as a real motor boat. All in all, it's a shabby affair. But, the thing of it is everybody should give me kudos for deciding. After all, it's better to decide than to just remain undecided. At least I decided. That's something, isn't it? I deserve credit for being able to decide, don't I? Never mind I didn't bother basing my decision on facts, research, knowledge, needs and desires. Those things don't matter, do they? Just what the heck am I getting at? Well, try substituting the words try, tried, trying for decide, decided and deciding. It will shed some light on why it is equally stupid to give kudos to somebody for trying as if trying is something to laud. Both deciding and making a poor decision based on how you felt or thought you felt, and trying without basing your try upon study, research, practice, know-how, paying attention to good advice etc. are just plain stupid. Yet there are plenty of people these days who seem to think any old try is credit worthy as evidenced by several posts in these groups. How did it come to this? It came to this through embracing liberal tenets. I've often stated that liberals will fail when it comes to sailing, especially ocean voyaging. It seems my statements have been born out time after time. Those who succeed without fuss are always conservatives while those who brag and make a spectacular failure worthy of a rescue are the liberal thinkers who go off willy-nilly without proper thought or preparation because they feel that trying, even if it results in failure, is an accomplishment of which to be proud. And those of you who support them are a big part of the problem. Wilbur Hubbard |
I decided
On Apr 11, 2:05*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought, I just felt like I'd buy one. Boy, am I ever sorry! What a waste! The thing is a pile of crap. It doesn't sail well at all, it's not very weatherly, it's rather cheap and flimsy. To top it off, it doesn't motor well or at least not as well as a real motor boat. All in all, it's a shabby affair. Oh, yu poor captain. that must have been such a disappointment. I will immediatly start a fund for you where others can send money to help you through theses difficult times. I will also pledge to help you through this crisis and give man-hugs when you are felling depressed from trying to accomplish your dream. I say Kudos to you for tying to live the dream when other nasty people denigrate your attempts and only talk about what you are trying to do....... and if any one says you are an idiot i will plonk the puppets. Bob ;) |
I decided
it will be a good lake boat......
On Apr 11, 4:05*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought, I just felt like I'd buy one. Boy, am I ever sorry! What a waste! The thing is a pile of crap. It doesn't sail well at all, it's not very weatherly, it's rather cheap and flimsy. To top it off, it doesn't motor well or at least not as well as a real motor boat. All in all, it's a shabby affair. But, the thing of it is everybody should give me kudos for deciding. After all, it's better to decide than to just remain undecided. At least I decided. That's something, isn't it? I deserve credit for being able to decide, don't I? Never mind I didn't bother basing my decision on facts, research, knowledge, needs and desires. Those things don't matter, do they? Just what the heck am I getting at? Well, try substituting the words try, tried, trying for decide, decided and deciding. It will shed some light on why it is equally stupid to give kudos to somebody for trying as if trying is something to laud. Both deciding and making a poor decision based on how you felt or thought you felt, and trying without basing your try upon study, research, practice, know-how, paying attention to good advice etc. are just plain stupid. Yet there are plenty of people these days who seem to think any old try is credit worthy as evidenced by several posts in these groups.. How did it come to this? It came to this through embracing liberal tenets. I've often stated that liberals will fail when it comes to sailing, especially ocean voyaging. It seems my statements have been born out time after time. Those who succeed without fuss are always conservatives while those who brag and make a spectacular failure worthy of a rescue are the liberal thinkers who go off willy-nilly without proper thought or preparation because they feel that trying, even if it results in failure, is an accomplishment of which to be proud. And those of you who support them are a big part of the problem. Wilbur Hubbard |
I decided
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:05:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap: I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought, I just felt like I'd buy one. Boy, am I ever sorry! What a waste! The thing is a pile of crap. It doesn't sail well at all, it's not very weatherly, it's rather cheap and flimsy. To top it off, it doesn't motor well or at least not as well as a real motor boat. All in all, it's a shabby affair. SUCKER!!!!!!! If you were a Hungarian warrior, you never would have done that. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
I decided
In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought, I just felt like I'd buy one. Boy, am I ever sorry! What a waste! The thing is a pile of crap. It doesn't sail well at all, it's not very weatherly, it's rather cheap and flimsy. To top it off, it doesn't motor well or at least not as well as a real motor boat. All in all, it's a shabby affair. Wilbur Hubbard Well, it couldn't happen to a 'Nice Guy"..... I wonder if the guy you paid your cash to, was laughing "All the way to the Bank".... I sure Hope so..... |
I decided
Wilbur Hubbard wrote: I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought, I just felt like I'd buy one. Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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. Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative, critical notes on this ng.) You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case. But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up. In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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. Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative, critical notes on this ng.) You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case. But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up. In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation. Jim Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll? If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac out in those conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC
wrote: You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. |
I decided
Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out there. But, feel free and send us a report! It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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. Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative, critical notes on this ng.) You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case. But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up. In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation. Jim Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll? What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly. If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac out in those conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart, there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message . .. Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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. Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative, critical notes on this ng.) You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case. But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up. In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation. Jim Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll? What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly. If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac out in those conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart, there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL. Jim I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have. So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read Fastnet Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the crews abandoned them (to their peril). You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption. From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. If the boat is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point... QED. You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post. I'm not man..... LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message t... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation, the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry. Jim Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal (even he isn't suicidal). 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. Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative, critical notes on this ng.) You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case. But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up. In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation. Jim Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll? What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly. If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac out in those conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart, there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is compromised. I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL. Jim I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have.- But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion. So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float means that it won't capsize over and over? Did I say that? Don't think so. Perhaps you should read Fastnet Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the crews abandoned them (to their peril). You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption. Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such conditions? No? I didn't think so. From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Once again, did I say that? Don't think so. If the boat is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point... QED. You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post. I'm not man..... LOL So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly had me fooled. Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC wrote: You also say that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion? His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and sinking in heavy seas. - Have you? Fortunately, most people, even those who buy Macs, don't take them out there. But, feel free and send us a report! It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30 feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will give you a good idea where the weak spots are. I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that "it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up 30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times. That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... OK.- Being very, very careful .... I suspect that if the Mac were dropped off a 10-story building, it might suffer severe structural damage. Once again, however, I don't know how I would manage the logistics of such an experiment. To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have.- But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion. Nope. I also don't have evidence that cockroaches are smarter than elephants. So, back at you... do you seriously believe that a dismasted boat is stable in heavy seas? Because that's the real discussion whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float means that it won't capsize over and over? Did I say that? Don't think so. You pretty much did in your previous comment. You should read what you write. It's a gas. Perhaps you should read Fastnet Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the crews abandoned them (to their peril). You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption. Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such conditions? No? I didn't think so. As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes, I know so. From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. Once again, did I say that? Don't think so. You don't know much about boats... clearly, and I do think so. If the boat is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point... QED. You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post. I'm not man..... LOL So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly had me fooled. Well, that's apparently pretty easy to do! Feel free to show us some empirical evidence that a Mac will not roll, capsize, and kill anyone stupid enough to be in the conditions previously described. Nope, didn't think you could. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... OK.- Being very, very careful .... I suspect that if the Mac were dropped off a 10-story building, it might suffer severe structural damage. Once again, however, I don't know how I would manage the logistics of such an experiment. Try going out in a storm. Water isn't so soft as you think, and when your nice little Mac goes flying off the top of 30 foot wave, then gets pounded by another one, and another, and another, you'll know the answer. To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted. You're right. It just takes common sense. The Mac is a great boat for protected waters and light winds with small waves. Any place else, and you can't blame the boat for the consequences. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:45:08 -0600, JimC
wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message et... Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message m... Quite a lot cut as I am interested in one specific statement I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have.- Jim Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have.- Jim Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) 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. This implies some sail up. Thus, some ability to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the storm, you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could do it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to. Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. 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. 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. All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just fold up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who wants to go offshore. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:14 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have.- Jim Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) 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. This implies some sail up. Thus, some ability to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the storm, you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could do it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to. I apparently misunderstood the situation you were describing. However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be overwhelmed. Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in the trough of the wave and pitch pole. Even in the Fastnet race there were vastly different experiences with some boats overcome and others merely having a "spot of heavy weather" as the British put it. But all things considered I suspect that the hatchway and ports of a lightly built boat wold be the weak points and the boat would probably have serious problems not being swamped. Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. 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. 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. All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just fold up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who wants to go offshore. LOL Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W |
I decided
|
I decided
JimC wrote:
To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted. If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly. Cheers Marty |
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:20:21 -0500, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously doubt. I have had the spreaders in the water (not on purpose, I might say) and the boat popped right back up. I don't believe that a properly designed sail boat will roll over except when it is overcome with a breaking wave and the boat effectively falls down the face of the wave. This assumes some mediocre level of seamanship, i.e., not full sails in a typhoon.... Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
JimC wrote:
To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted. You're just like the little old lady who has 47 cats... anybody who thinks it's not great just plain HATES KITTYS, and must therefor be a barbarian. I've had cats, and still prefer dogs. I've sailed a Mac 26X, sailed in company with the 26M (which despite all ad copy, and your protestation, is pretty much the same boat)... and they don't sail very well, period. BTW I've also sailed the older Mac 26 which was a much better sailing boat, and a number of the yet-older Ventures. Martin Baxter wrote: If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly. Obviously you have no knowledge or experience with the heat-shielding properties of un cored fiberglass, with a high proportion of chopper gun. The Mac 26X (or the MUCH BETTER 26M) would be far better as a reentry vehicle than most conventional sailboats. DSK |
I decided
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be overwhelmed. And don't overlook or underestimate the knockdown. I've seen this happen on small & medium sized keelboats: the a heavy gust blows the boat over far enough to put the boom in the water, at which point the keel has lost effectiveness as a foil & the boat is being shoved sideways... putting increasing pressure from water flow on the mainsail & boom, dragging the rig under... boat inverts and may have a pretty strong tendency to stay that way. No wave action necessary. Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in the trough of the wave and pitch pole. And if the drogue *does* slow you sufficiently, then you are being pulled through a breaking crest and being hammered by truckloads of water at 60+. There is no bulletproof "right answer." Furthermore, the sea can be destructive beyond belief. I've seen one of those V-shaped depression gales generate sea conditions that ripped welded steel fittings off a US Navy vessel. IMHO there is *no* cruising sailboat... or racer either, for that matter... which could have survived those local conditions, no matter what her equipment or tactics. The only answer is to be elsewhere when it gets that bad. DSK |
I decided
wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:51:14 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a 10-story apartment building it might "break up"? Careful how you answer.... OK.- Being very, very careful .... I suspect that if the Mac were dropped off a 10-story building, it might suffer severe structural damage. Once again, however, I don't know how I would manage the logistics of such an experiment. Try going out in a storm. Water isn't so soft as you think, and when your nice little Mac goes flying off the top of 30 foot wave, then gets pounded by another one, and another, and another, you'll know the answer. To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted. You're right. It just takes common sense. The Mac is a great boat for protected waters and light winds with small waves. Any place else, and you can't blame the boat for the consequences. Yeah, blame the sales brochure! I was blaming the salesman with the slicked back hair. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
wrote in message
... JimC wrote: To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted. You're just like the little old lady who has 47 cats... anybody who thinks it's not great just plain HATES KITTYS, and must therefor be a barbarian. I've had cats, and still prefer dogs. I've sailed a Mac 26X, sailed in company with the 26M (which despite all ad copy, and your protestation, is pretty much the same boat)... and they don't sail very well, period. BTW I've also sailed the older Mac 26 which was a much better sailing boat, and a number of the yet-older Ventures. Martin Baxter wrote: If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly. Obviously you have no knowledge or experience with the heat-shielding properties of un cored fiberglass, with a high proportion of chopper gun. The Mac 26X (or the MUCH BETTER 26M) would be far better as a reentry vehicle than most conventional sailboats. DSK Not after I hack it up with a chainsaw... LOL I have a friend who has one of the older Macs. He reinforced a lot of stuff and sails in the bay. Does fine... knowing the limitations of his boat. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:14 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in ocean conditions? I have.- Jim Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) 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. This implies some sail up. Thus, some ability to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the storm, you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could do it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to. I apparently misunderstood the situation you were describing. However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be overwhelmed. Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in the trough of the wave and pitch pole. Even in the Fastnet race there were vastly different experiences with some boats overcome and others merely having a "spot of heavy weather" as the British put it. But all things considered I suspect that the hatchway and ports of a lightly built boat wold be the weak points and the boat would probably have serious problems not being swamped. Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. 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. 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. All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just fold up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who wants to go offshore. LOL Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Bruce, thanks for turning this into a "real" discussion vs. my rant (according to Jim) against Macs. You're destroying people's expections about the lack of quality of a.s.a. Seriously though... sure, there are going to be times when, as Doug and others have said, it's best to not be there... nothing is for sure. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Capt. JG" wrote:
I have a friend who has one of the older Macs. He reinforced a lot of stuff and sails in the bay. Does fine... knowing the limitations of his boat. Well, the limits of the boat are still beyond the limits of the sailor, in most cases. The MacGregor / Venture line was never high-end, not after the "blue- water cruiser" market or the "America's Cup" market. But there are a heck of a lot of them out there and many are still sailing after all these years. The decks flex sure, but the only time I have known one to suffer major structural failure was while trailering... hit by another car... A lot of the MacGregor boats sail quite well, probably the older swing- keel Mac 25 was the best (before the water ballast craze). Unfortunately the 26X/M nonsense has ruined what reputation the older models had. DSK |
I decided
On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
I decided
"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down. Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is better offshore. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
|
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down. Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is better offshore. :-) Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel to sail. Think about it for a moment. 1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position 2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out. 3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the portion exposed to the waves. 4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head stay. 5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes. 6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights. 7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick your wounds. 8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking. No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
And they require two berths in the marina.
Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
I decided
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-15 08:20:21 -0400, Brian Whatcott said: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:55:37 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in place. It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above the deck line. I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of iniertia) which slows the rate of roll in adverse seas. The con-stab factor is the increased windage and weight above the water line. Brian W As I read this thread, the mast *might* slow wave-induced roll enough to prevent a roll-over. Anyone who's taken their boat out without a mast up can attest that the boat is a lot less "stable". But such waves don't come without wind trying to roll the boat all on its own. I can only believe that having the mast and remains of sails "up" once the boat is inverted would be a distinct disadvantage to coming back up in a timely manner. Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Likely true. For catamarans, if inverted, they're more stable upside down. Of course, this comment might open up a religious war about which one is better offshore. :-) Being a bit bored this afternoon - the glue is hardening. My car is broke and I don't have anything pending for an hour or I'd like to forward the proposition that Catamarans are the safest type of vessel to sail. Think about it for a moment. 1. They are stable in either the upright or inverted position 2. Modern Cats have a hatch in the bottom of the hull so it doesn't make any difference which side up you are you can get in and out. 3. If inverted the strongest part of the boat - the hull - is the portion exposed to the waves. 4. The rig is pretty simple with only one shroud a side and a head stay. 5. Cats don't rock so bad so you don't need a gimbel stove, and your significant other seldom barfs in the mashed potatoes. 6. Cats have big windows so you don't need so many lights. 7. Cats have two separate bedrooms so when you really have a bruhaha with She Who Must be Obeyed you can go off to the other hull to lick your wounds. 8. Cats usually have a BIG cockpit which allows you to sit out in the summer's breezes in the evening and enjoy a cool beverage. It also allows you to feed the mosquitoes but what the Ha, mosquitoes got to live too. Living in tune with nature. That's the ticket. Participating in the Malaria Fever Research Project if also a worthy undertaking. No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Hard for me to disagree... probably the only major negatives are stowage and cost, the former of which you have to watch or it'll get out of control and really slow down the boat. Crew fatigue is a *big* factor for long-distance. I saw a cat that had screens up around the cockpit, so screw the mosquitos. When we charter in various locations, we always rent a catamaran... makes for a much pleasant vacation. Disclaimer: I own a mono. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"Gordon" wrote in message
... And they require two berths in the marina. Gordon No, there is no question but what Catamarans are safe, congenial and in tune with nature. The only way the thinking man will sail. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Ah... yes, the other negative. This relates to expense. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:07:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: Dinghy sailors know how much drag a little bit of cloth can create. This is true of 38 foot planing hull daysailers [ A scows]. If you want to call them dinghies. I have never sailed a dinghy, but I have had the sails in the water many times, as much as twenty, or so, times in one day [ Sunfish ]. Burying the mast in the mud will also make a boat hard to right. The Iowa lake I sailed on as a kid is everywhere 20 feet deep, and mast groundings were common. Never was any damage. Casady |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com