I decided
Wilbur Hubbard
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
Bob
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 ;)
~^ beancounter ~^
On Apr 11, 4:05 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invalid>
wrote:
Bloody Horvath
<wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> 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.
Hor...@Horvath.net
I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.
You
"Wilbur Hubbard" <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> 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.....
JimC
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
Capt. JG
news:OHeMj.8414$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> 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
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
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
bullshit 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
Capt. JG
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
Wayne.B
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.
JimC
Wayne.B wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC <avo...@sbcglobal.net>
> 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
>
Capt. JG
>
>
> Wayne.B wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC <avo...@sbcglobal.net>
>> 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....
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
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
Capt. JG
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
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> 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
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
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
Capt. JG
>> 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.
Capt. JG
>> 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.
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
>
>
>Capt. JG wrote:
>
>> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:zPAMj.4934$GO4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Capt. JG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:6%qMj.277$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Capt. JG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:OHeMj.8414$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
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)
Capt. JG
news:27g8041if045lq5r0...@4ax.com...
>>> 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
Roger Long
> 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.
>
I'm not quite sure what he was stating either. However, as to the question:
The statistical and tank test research conducted in the wake of the Fastnet
Race disaster found a high correlation between high rotational inertia and
capsizing, this is a fancy way of expressing the counter intuitive idea
that, the heavier the mast, the less likely a boat is to be rolled by a
breaking beam sea. I have some gut reservations about the methodolgy and
conclusions but it's still probably the best work out there on the subject.
A heavier mast and corresoponding less stability make it easier to heel the
vessel but when the primary rolling force is breaking wave force on the
topsides and resistance of the keel below, there is a good case to be made
that the inertia of the rig can help keep the boat upright during the brief
impact. This assumes that sails are not set and being hit by a gust of wind
at the same time. If the wind is light and steady and the boat is rolled
suddenly by wave action, the sails will go aback which could also hold it up
momentarily or slow the rate of roll.
The conclusions from this study were incorporated in the stability criteria
for sailing school vessels in a rather crude and stupid way due to a naval
architect who worked on it having a social relationship with a key Coast
Guard team member sneaking it in the back door during a time that the
industry task force I was conducting research for was prevented by statute
from presenting further evidence or having contact with the final
formulators of the rule. It's alwasys been a thorn in my side therefore
although there is certainly some truth in it unders specific circumstances
when you are talking about small, light, racing types.
After the wind does down and the seas are still large and breaking,
something like a Mac 26 probably would be more prone to being rolled if
lying helplessly a hull. Getting the centerboards or lifting keels up on a
boat like that would help a lot.
My problem with the study is that it seems to apply best to boats that are
no longer being sailed and handled to best reduce the probability of
capsize. If the boat is being actively managed, maximizing stability should
improve survivability. That means having as slight a rig as possible but
still having a working one. The former popularity of lying a-hull probably
made a lot more sense in Tahiti Ketch types with shallow and minimally
effective keels and heavy tree trunks trimmed down for masts.
--
Roger Long
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
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
Brian Whatcott
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> 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
Wayne.B
>>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.
I don't think I've ever seen one under sail, always motoring along
with the skipper perched up in the air on that funny little helm seat.
Given the big outboards they are typically powered with and the
limited fuel range that implies, it seems doubtful they could make it
very far offshore. Somewhere on the internet is a video of a Hobie 33
surviving a 30 ft drop test into the water. Perhaps our friend would
be willing to volunteer his Mac for similar testing.
Bruce in Bangkok
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....
Martin Baxter
>
>
> 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
Roger Long
> 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.
Roll period isn't the issue in this case (breaking wave). The inertia of
the rig is a pretty strong counterforce at the speeds of a wave induced
capsize. The Fastnet study was able to find a statistical relationship
between the rotational inertia of the various yachts involved and the
capsize incidence but I have my own doubts about the methodology, sample
size, and applicability of the findings to the real world.
--
Roger Long
dougk...@yahoo.com
> > 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
dougk...@yahoo.com
> 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
Capt. JG
news:07v804phaiqab5p29...@4ax.com...
>
>
I was blaming the salesman with the slicked back hair.
Capt. JG
news:a0243cb6-3cfb-4f8d...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
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.
Capt. JG
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.
dougk...@yahoo.com
> 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
Jere Lull
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/
Capt. JG
news:2008041519282516807-jerelull@maccom...
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. :-)
Bruce in Bangkok
>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.
I had exactly this experience. Carrying a full main and 150% genoa
sailing along off a fairly long island in light air. We came to a cut,
or valley in the hills on the island and Wham the spreaders were in
the water.
As the boat heeled the rudder lost effectiveness and the boat rounded
up and nearly before I could realize what was happening we were
upright headed nearly into the wind.
Just to add insult to injury, after I got the boat moving (and the
pulse rate down) we proceeded along the coast still in light air.
Well, about 45 minutes later we came to another notch in the hills and
the same thing happened again.
So, in my limited experience, in a heavy displacement medium length
keel boat the ballast will pull the boat back upright with the mast
horizontal and at least some off the sails in the water.
>
>> 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
You are correct - we take out life in out hands every time we go
sailing; ride in airplanes; drive a car. Hell! some people die
shoveling the snow off the driveway. Life is just a dangerous business
to be in.
Capt. JG
I had an interesting experience with a Merit (25?) years ago. I was sailing
in the south bay, where there are occasional small tornado-like whirlwinds
coming from the marsh land. They're packing 40kts or so (total guess on my
part), but are very small. They are very unpredictable, as we found out. We
saw one quite a way off, and it was moving away from us. We were looking
elsewhere, when it basically knocked us down while we were close hauled. The
main touched the water before we could do anything, then the boat popped
right back and we continued sailing. Now that was a thrill ride.
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
>"Jere Lull" <jere...@mac.com> wrote in message
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.
Gordon
Gordon
Capt. JG
news:5r8b04p35m5co5hv6...@4ax.com...
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. :-)
Capt. JG
news:yc-dnW5iEdT1hZvV...@wavecable.com...
Ah... yes, the other negative. This relates to expense.
Richard Casady
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
sailor164
> "JimC" <avoc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:GgAMj.5751$GE1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wayne.B wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC <avoc...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge.
Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water.
Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe.
Capt. JG
news:63f8e4e6-7444-4210...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
+Maybe all get some heavy weather knowledge.
+
+Seen a Sadler 26 in real bad weather of African coast take on water.
+Did not lose mast, did not roll and came home safe.
A Sadler does not a Mac make.
Brian Whatcott
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:
/snip/
>>There are conflicting factors (as usual): the pro-stability factor is
>>the considerable mass far from the roll center (called moment of
>
>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.
>Bruce-in-Bangkok
This is not the first time that you have not quite understood an
engineering input, but felt comfortable about doubting it.
The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass.
Easy to look up though.....
Brian W
tsm...@gmail.com
> The concept is "second moment of inertia" Bruce, not mass.
Hmmm. I think mass moment of inertia is what you're after (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia). Second moment of inertia is
form stiffness (eg. the "I"'s in a mast section description).
-- Tom.
Bruce in Bangkok
One of their major advantages. After all, one doesn't want to be
jammed in with the trailer trash does one?
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
Well, one simply advises the Captain that the crew will be limited to
a single "tee" shirt and pair of shorts. Keeps the weight down and
also restricts the use of fresh water, don;t you know?
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
>"Gordon" <gaz...@olypen.com> wrote in message
As I previously posted, one of the great advantages. Keeps the
riff-raff out.
Bruce in Bangkok
Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how
a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on
stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major
effect on a boat rolling over.
Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be
picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs
500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders
about half way up the mast.
I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2
sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at
the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less
then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast
head.
The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the
Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date.
It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life
dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over.
cavelamb himself
>
> Well, I do understand "moment of inertia" but I do not understand how
> a rig that when you put it in the water has a negligible effect on
> stability, i.e., the boat rights itself, is going to have a major
> effect on a boat rolling over.
>
> Now, for argument's sake we are talking about my boat. the mast can be
> picked up by four Asians so lets say, for argument's sake it weighs
> 500 lbs. It is desk stepped and is forty feet long with the spreaders
> about half way up the mast.
>
> I can carry one set of shrouds with no problems so say 100 lbs X 2
> sets = shrouds = 200 lbs. Four terminate at the spreaders and two at
> the mast head. The fore and aft stays probably weigh a little less
> then the stays so say 75 lbs together, both terminating at the mast
> head.
>
> The boat displaces 12,000 lbs. It was built in 1971, sailed across the
> Pacific Ocean, among other places and hasn't rolled over to date.
>
> It would be a kindness for you to explain it to me the real life
> dynamics that will cause my rig to make my boat to roll over.
>
>
>
> Bruce-in-Bangkok
> (correct email address for reply)
Roger Long
aren't real and nothing makes stability harder to understand from what is
generally written. I've given many lectures on stability and I usually have
to spend the first third of the lecture getting the students to forget all
the stuff they read the night before.
Metacenters and metacentric height are very useful calculation shortcuts for
naval architects but a very poor way to understand the forces involved.
Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds
a boat up?
--
Roger Long
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:OHeMj.8414$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>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),
--- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No?
it would be dismasted for sure.
Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No?
> 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.
Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No?
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.
LOL.
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.
That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing
a novel?
Either way, you wouldn't
> survive.
>
Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to
support it.
Jim
Gregory Hall
Ganz is a closed-minded fool. You can't expect his like to act rationally.
His mind is made up so don't confuse him with the facts.
Macgregor 26s are great little boats. Thousands of people get a whole lot of
enjoyment out of them and I've not heard about one single solitary
foundering to date. And with thousands of Macs out there on the water a
sinking would be a daily event if Jon Boy was right.
--
Gregory Hall
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:zPAMj.4934$GO4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>
>>Capt. JG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6%qMj.277$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Capt. JG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:OHeMj.8414$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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 bullshit
>>>>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?
Yes.
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).
>
Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
support your assertions.
> 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.
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
>
Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
Neal's original post.
Jim
tsm...@gmail.com
> Even buoyancy is imaginary. Anybody want to try and guess what really holds
> a boat up?
Lots of tiny levitation daemons? Maybe if you get them really riled
they'll hoist the boat clean into the air and you can save on haul out
fees. I take it that you aren't buying the argument from the clean
gent from Syracuse either. So, what are you saying?
-- Tom.
Roger Long
I'll get back to you later up top.
--
Roger Long
Capt. JG
news:480776d0$0$7721$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Bad weather and/or beautiful women.
Capt. JG
I have tried this several times, and the women just won't go for it.
Capt. JG
>> 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?
>
> Yes.
>
> I have.
So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.
>> 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).
>
> Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that a
> Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You said
> that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't support
> your assertions.
I haven't presented any evidence that the moon revolves around the Earth
either. Do I need to support my assertion that it does?
>> 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.
>
> Did I say that? Don't think so.
>
> Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
> Neal's original post.
My mistake. It *is* about your Mac!
Capt. JG
news:mp0f04tjrb0fn5muj...@4ax.com...
>
> You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
> that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.
>
>
How about around his thick head?
Gregory Hall
"Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote in message
news:WISdnRUtNokGEZrVnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@bayareasolutions...
> I have tried this several times, and the women just won't go for it.
>
> --
> "j" ganz @@
> www.sailnow.com
Women don't want sex with girly-men!
--
Gregory Hall
Capt. JG
>> Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
>> pounding it would endure, it would likely break up),
>
>
> --- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No?
Is there any proof that if I go after it with a sawsall it'll remain intact?
No.
>
> it would be dismasted for sure.
>
> Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No?
Like I said, you know next to nothing about boats. That is certainly my
assertion, and the proof is what you bought and then claim it's going to do
fine offshore in storm conditions.
>
>> 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.
>
> Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No?
See other thread parts. This is boring.
>
> 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.
>
> LOL.
Not so funny if you happen to be there.
> 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.
>
>
> That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a
> novel?
Read it as fact in a non-fiction book... actually several.
> Either way, you wouldn't
>> survive.
>>
>
> Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to
> support it.
>
Yeah, too bad.
Capt. JG
I guess I'm going to have to continue to rent. :-)
cavelamb himself
Just go study the wiki page.
It's a pretty clear explanation.
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:IEUMj.683$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>>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.
Actually, that's not the "real discussion." My initial comments related
to my contention that, had Joe been in a Mac 26M, his boat would have
remained afloat. Whether or not he would still want to call the CC, in
view of his wife's condition, is another issue. In either case, he
wouldn't have lost his boat. And had he elected to stay on the boat, he
wouldn't have sunk when the boat sank.
>
>
>>>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.
Not nearly as interesting as the sensationalized fiction you have bee
posting Capt.
>
>
>>>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.
>>
Your comments regarding the instability of dismasted boats apparently
assumes that, with the mast, the crews would have been able to keep
their boats stable by reducing, possibly heaving to. But in heavy seas
such as those Joe described (the conditions observed several hours prior
to the CC rescue), it seems likely that a boat would not stay on course
when hoved to. For example, when the boat was below the waves, the winds
would be erratic, and the boat would wander about unpredictably, ready
to be broad sided by the next wave. As stated above, I personally think
it would be wiser to deploy a sea anchor and forget about trying to
heave to. But in any case, you don't have evidence or proof that one or
both of these tactics would be for a boat in the situation Joe
described. You also don't have evidence or proof that a Mac 26 would
roll and roll and roll if a sea anchor were deployed, whether or not it
was dismasted. In any case the boat has floatation that would keep it
afloat, which would be preferable to being pulled to the bottom by a
heavy keel in a boat with no floatation.
>>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.
Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.
>
>>>From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
>>>about boats.
It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic
principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to
recognize it, much less admit it.
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...
And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand
that fact, much less admit it.
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.
>
Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm
one of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally
to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations
or shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe
described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such
as yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are
not supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of
hearsay, speculation, and personal bias.
Jim
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote in message
> news:27g8041if045lq5r0...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>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.
Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of
survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the
Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to
steep breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or
in an exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different
methods may be preferred under different conditions, and for different
boats. - For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into
debates about families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute
answers, many participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one
device and damn the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is
nothing aboluste even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly
changing... Different tactics and gear work best at different stages and
on different types of boats."
Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do
better with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove
to or under a reefed sail plan.
>
> Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
> heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.
In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...
Seems to me it
> would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
> aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least
> dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.
Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one
direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting
against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted
by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more
efficiently resist a knock-down or complete roll.
>
> If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
> poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
> was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political
> pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll
> be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making
> some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way.
Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is,
the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the
particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not
recommended.
Jim
JimC
Gregory Hall wrote:
Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
world and in all types of conditions.
I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats
have certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of
larger boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas,
Ericksons, Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I
bought the Mac.) The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their
own, provided you aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from
Belize to Galveston.
Jim
Capt. JG
>> As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case.
>> Yes, I know so.
>
> Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
> conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.
Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as
Joe's boat.
>>>>From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
>>>>about boats.
>
> It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles
> of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize
> it, much less admit it.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some
evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and
your contentions.
>
> 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...
>
>
> And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
> evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that
> fact, much less admit it.
> clearly, and I do think so.
>
Clearly, you're trying to change the subject.
>
> Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
> of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally
Yes, this we know.
> to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
> in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
> boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or
> shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
> thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe
And, you thought wrong.
> described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as
> yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
> would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
> simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not
> supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay,
> speculation, and personal bias.
Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
conditions, none of which include offshore.
I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
friend's older Mac26.
Capt. JG
>> If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
>> storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to
>> heave to, rather than lying ahull.
>
> Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of
> survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the
> Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep
> breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an
> exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods
> may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. -
> For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about
> families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many
> participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn
> the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste
> even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different
> tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of
> boats."
Feel free to believe what you want. Heaving-to is one of the best methods to
survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the"
best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm
sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line.
> Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better
> with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or
> under a reefed sail plan.
Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it would
be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be gone, it
would be unsailable.
>
>>
>> Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
>> heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.
>
> In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...
Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your Mac?
>
> Seems to me it
>> would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
>> aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at
>> least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.
>
> Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one
> direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting
> against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted
> by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently
> resist a knock-down or complete roll.
Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for a
while.
>>
>> If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
>> poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
>> was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the
>> political pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail
>> up, that'll be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails....
>> heaving to, making some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes
>> your way.
>
> Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is,
> the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the
> particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not
> recommended.
You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring,
supporting a piece of junk.
Molesworth
"Roger Long" <str...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
Air pressure?
--
Molesworth
Capt. JG
>
> Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
> had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
> the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
> such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
> world and in all types of conditions.
>
> I enjoy sailing the Mac26M, but I am aware that larger, heavier boats have
> certain advantages and are more comfortable. (I sailed a number of larger
> boats, including Valiants, O'Days, Beneteaux, Catalinas, Ericksons,
> Endeavors, and Cals in the 30 ft to 40 ft range, before I bought the Mac.)
> The Macs are fun to sail and have advantages of their own, provided you
> aren't racing or trying to transport coffee from Belize to Galveston.
>
> Jim
You must be desperate. Now you're replying to a known liar and stalker.
Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim they're
more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it includes offshore.
Yes, it's a rhetorial question.
Vic Smith
>On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC <avo...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
>>a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
>>said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
>>support your assertions.
>>
>
>You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
>that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.
>
Good point. Let's take it past Mac-bashing.
Here's some advice for those who take such things seriously.
Whether it's a Mac or more substantial boat, don't assume your
cleats have backing plates and will take much strain.
I've read of one "well respected" brand sailboat having no backing
plates and breaking up on the rocks when the cleats pulled out during
a blow, losing the mooring.
Another boat that the "real sailors" fawn over is now undergoing some
refurbishing by a real sailor friend of mine.
He found a faultily bedded thruhull that only luck kept from coming
free and perhaps sinking the boat.
In both cases the boats were built with the weaknesses/defects.
Know your boat well, and know what you can expect of it when you ask
it to save your bacon.
BTW, I recall at least one Mac owner detailing his procedure for
installing a substantial backing plate for a critical cleat.
--Vic
Capt. JG
news:h8hf04li0kga3seb2...@4ax.com...
There's no point in bashing them. They can't take it! (sorry)
As to backing plates and thru-hull/stopcocks, you definitely need to check.
Interestingly, for the latter, I noticed one of mine was very slightly
weeping. Here's what they look like via the drawing:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW.com/Sabre30LineDrawings/photo#5091316306491370466
They're bronze and very tough. Basically, I manipulated it many times, every
chance I got, and the weeping seems to have stopped. Now, I check at every
opportunity.
I don't have a line drawing of the big cleat on the foredeck, but here's a
drawing of the stanchion assembly:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW.com/Sabre30LineDrawings/photo#5091316276426599298
jeff
>
> Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
> had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
> the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
> such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
> world and in all types of conditions.
>
Really? I'd love to see an account of a Mac 26X/M doing a real offshore
passage. I don't doubt that there have been a few, but most of the
comments I see are more like "I take my Mac out on the open ocean and it
does quite well, especially since I can power in before it get too
rough. But I wouldn't want to do a real ocean crossing." The fact that
Macs are taken out in the open ocean, such as a crossing to Catalina (or
Boston to P'town, or even crossing to the Bahamas) does not mean they
have been "offshore."
I'm a fair weather cruiser with little ambition to do long passages, but
every year or two I get "caught out" in 30-40 knots, or maybe 8-10 foot
seas. My boat handles this with no problem, and these conditions should
be survivable by a Mac, assuming a competent skipper. But when you say
"offshore" you're implying the possibility of much worse conditions, 50+
knots, large breaking seas, and storms lasting several days. I'm just a
bit skeptical that Macs have endured such conditions on many occasions.
Chip Thomas
Puhleeze....
Mac 26X/M are unsafe in the presence of air. A long passage for a Mac
should be from one end of the marina lot to the other.
No competent skipper would consider taking a Mac 26X/M on a long passage.
Marty
>
> Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether anyone
> had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas. (Many of
> the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had heard of any
> such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out there, all over the
> world and in all types of conditions.
Well Jim, to use your tack, please provide reliable evidence of a Mac26
surviving an open ocean passage that involves a significant storm,
duration greater that 48hrs, oh hell I'd settle for 24.
Can't do it can you?
I wonder why not? Well not really
Cheers
Marty
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:pTMNj.6974$GE1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>>As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case.
>>>Yes, I know so.
>>
>>Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
>>conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.
>
>
> Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as
> Joe's boat.
And your evidence supporting that assertion
is.................................................................?
>
>>>>>From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
>>>>
>>>>>about boats.
>>
>>It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles
>>of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize
>>it, much less admit it.
>
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some
> evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and
> your contentions.
I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor,
O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years.
>
>
>>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...
>>
>>
>>And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
>>evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that
>>fact, much less admit it.
>>clearly, and I do think so.
>>
>
>
> Clearly, you're trying to change the subject.
>
Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
>>of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally
>
>
> Yes, this we know.
>
>
>>to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
>>in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
>>boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or
>>shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
>>thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe
>
>
> And, you thought wrong.
And your proof supporting that particular assertion
is.........................?
>
>
>>described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as
>>yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
>>would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
>>simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not
>>supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay,
>>speculation, and personal bias.
>
>
> Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
> conditions, none of which include offshore.
>
Wrong again.
> I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
> friend's older Mac26.
>
And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?
Jim
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:0_NNj.8632$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>>If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
>>>storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to
>>>heave to, rather than lying ahull.
>>
>>Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of
>>survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the
>>Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to steep
>>breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an
>>exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different methods
>>may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. -
>>For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates about
>>families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many
>>participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and damn
>>the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste
>>even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing... Different
>>tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of
>>boats."
>
>
> Feel free to believe what you want.
And also to believe the recommendations of references such as the
Annapolis Book of Seamship Gantz? It's pretty clear that heaving to can
be dangerous in heavy, breaking seas.
Heaving-to is one of the best methods to
> survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the"
> best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm
> sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line.
>
>
>>Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do better
>>with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or
>>under a reefed sail plan.
>
>
> Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it would
> be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be gone, it
> would be unsailable.
Wrong again Gantz. I'm not suggesting that the rigging and mast would be
gone, merely tied securely. But even if they were, with storm anchor
deployed, the boat wouldn't broach. As to your contention that it would
roll and roll and roll and roll with a sea anchor deployed, once again,
where is your evidence supporting that particular assertion? Apparently,
you have none at all. (Seems like we have gone through this discussin
several times before, yet you continue to post those preposterous
speculations as fact. - Is there an echo on this ng?
>
>
>>>Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
>>>heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.
>>
>>In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...
>
>
> Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your Mac?
>
Right. A response to Bruce. - Crawfishing on your earlier statements.
>
>>Seems to me it
>>
>>>would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
>>>aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at
>>>least dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.
>>
>>Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one
>>direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting
>>against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted
>>by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more efficiently
>>resist a knock-down or complete roll.
>
>
> Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for a
> while.
>
>
>>>If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
>>>poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
>>>was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the
>>>political pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail
>>>up, that'll be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails....
>>>heaving to, making some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes
>>>your way.
>>
>>Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is,
>>the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the
>>particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not
>>recommended.
>
>
> You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring,
> supporting a piece of junk.
>
Have a nice evening Gantz.
Jim
JimC
sa...@dog.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC <avo...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>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 bullshit
>>>>>>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 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).
>>>
>>
>>Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
>>a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
>>said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
>>support your assertions.
>>
>
>
>
> You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
> that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.
Wrong again Ganz. You are judging the Mac's rigging by what's necessary
on a heavy keel boat. Because of it's small size and relative light
weight, the cleats and bow fittings used on the Macs are entirely
adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow
chucks, with extensions to the mid-deck cleats, and then tie the sea
anchor to the bridle.
Jim
JimC
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:55 -0400, sa...@dog.com wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC <avo...@sbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
>>>a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
>>>said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
>>>support your assertions.
>>>
>>
>>You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
>>that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.
>>
>
> Good point. Let's take it past Mac-bashing.
> Here's some advice for those who take such things seriously.
> Whether it's a Mac or more substantial boat, don't assume your
> cleats have backing plates and will take much strain.
> I've read of one "well respected" brand sailboat having no backing
> plates and breaking up on the rocks when the cleats pulled out during
> a blow, losing the mooring.
Your suggestions are well taken. From their literature, the Macs' cleats
on current models do have SS backing plates, but their capacity should
be verified. Also, see my suggestions for forming a towing bridle and
reinforcing it with extensions to the mid-deck cleats.
> Another boat that the "real sailors" fawn over is now undergoing some
> refurbishing by a real sailor friend of mine.
> He found a faultily bedded thruhull that only luck kept from coming
> free and perhaps sinking the boat.
In addition to its positive floatation. the Mac has zero thruhulls. --Nada.
> In both cases the boats were built with the weaknesses/defects.
> Know your boat well, and know what you can expect of it when you ask
> it to save your bacon.
> BTW, I recall at least one Mac owner detailing his procedure for
> installing a substantial backing plate for a critical cleat.
>
> --Vic
Jim
Marty
> adequate. What I would do in the case of approaching severe weather
> conditions would be to form a towing bridle connected around the two bow
> chucks,
Wow! Since you have all this experience on "big" sailboats, perhaps you
could explain what a "bow chuck" is?
Cheers
Marty
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:_iLNj.6947$GE1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>>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?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>I have.
>
>
> So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.
I've been at sea in some rough conditions, and sailed and motored in
what we were told was a 80-90 mph storm. Also sailed offshore on several
boats in a variety of conditions. Also qualified as a crewmember on the
1877 bark Elissa, sailing several years from Galveston, which involved
climbing rope ladders 100 feet up the masts and furling and unfurling
sails in some exciting conditions aloft.
>
>
>>>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).
>>
>>Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that a
>>Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You said
>>that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't support
>>your assertions.
>
>
> I haven't presented any evidence that the moon revolves around the Earth
> either. Do I need to support my assertion that it does?
>
As far as I know, we're discussing characteristics of the Mac 26M, not
the moon. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that Ganz.
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Did I say that? Don't think so.
>>
>>Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
>>Neal's original post.
>
>
> My mistake. It *is* about your Mac!
Is it, Ganz? I thought you were also discussing the moon.
Jim
>
JimC
dougk...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>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
>
Obviously, you have no knowledge of the design and construction of the
Mac 26M. In contrast to your assertion, it is made with multiple
fiberglas-resin layups, NOT CHOPPER GUNS. (As to its reentry
characteristics, an outer layer of a silicon zirconium based coating
would of course be recommended.) - You are also misrepresenting the
rationale of my statements regarding the survivability of the Mac 26M at
sea. What I pointed out was that the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most
popular series of sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both
in the US and in various foreign countries. And many Mac 26 owners (in
the US and in foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore. In view
of the thousands of Mac26s out there, if the Macs had a tendency to
break up and sink under stress of any kind, it would be impossible to
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.
Secondly, remember that I wasn't the one who posted statements to the
effect that the Macs would break up and sink in severe conditions. Those
statements were posted by Ganz, with gleeful but vacuous support from
several others. Since Ganz and his friends posted those assertions, Ganz
and his friends are the ones who should be providing evidence and proof
supporting their theories. - They haven't, of course, and they clearly
are unable to do so.
Jim
Marty
> keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
> Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
> heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.
Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.
Cheers
Marty
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz,
but you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher.
And there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be
seen. Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems,
they can be a good ego booster.
Jim
Capt. JG
>> Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just
>> as Joe's boat.
>
> And your evidence supporting that assertion
> is.................................................................?
Ummm... it was abandoned?
> I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor,
> O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years.
Did you learn anything?
> Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
>>>of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally
Key phrase: one of the few.
>> And, you thought wrong.
>
> And your proof supporting that particular assertion
> is.........................?
Common knowledge and experience. And, your counter supporting proof is....?
>> Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
>> conditions, none of which include offshore.
>>
> Wrong again.
And, that's why it's chosen as an offshore passagemaker the world over. Got
it.
>
>> I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
>> friend's older Mac26.
>>
>
> And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?
Older that yours, better reenforced for the demanding conditions where he
sails it.
Last name is Ganz, btw.
Capt. JG
>> Feel free to believe what you want.
> And also to believe the recommendations of references such as the
> Annapolis Book of Seamship Gantz? It's pretty clear that heaving to can be
> dangerous in heavy, breaking seas.
As opposed to what? Sitting at home?
>> Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it
>> would be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be
>> gone, it would be unsailable.
>
> Wrong again Gantz. I'm not suggesting that the rigging and mast would be
> gone, merely tied securely. But even if they were, with storm anchor
> deployed, the boat wouldn't broach. As to your contention that it would
> roll and roll and roll and roll with a sea anchor deployed, once again,
> where is your evidence supporting that particular assertion? Apparently,
> you have none at all. (Seems like we have gone through this discussin
> several times before, yet you continue to post those preposterous
> speculations as fact. - Is there an echo on this ng?
And, you base that on what experience JimE? Is there an echo in your head?
Deploying a sea anchor is certainly a good idea. Don't worry, you won't have
a chance if you take your Mac out in a storm.
>>>>Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
>>>>heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.
>>>
>>>In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...
>>
>>
>> Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your
>> Mac?
>>
>
> Right. A response to Bruce. - Crawfishing on your earlier statements.
It was unless you'd care to deny it. Reality, despite your best try, does
intrude from time to time.
> Have a nice evening Gantz.
Always do JimE.
Capt. JG
You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel free
to claim I did.
Capt. JG
Capt. JG
>> So, what did you experience? Do tell. Certainly, this wasn't on your Mac.
>
>
> I've been at sea in some rough conditions, and sailed and motored in what
> we were told was a 80-90 mph storm. Also sailed offshore on several boats
> in a variety of conditions. Also qualified as a crewmember on the 1877
> bark Elissa, sailing several years from Galveston, which involved climbing
> rope ladders 100 feet up the masts and furling and unfurling sails in some
> exciting conditions aloft.
Like I said, "wasn't on your Mac."
>> I haven't presented any evidence that the moon revolves around the Earth
>> either. Do I need to support my assertion that it does?
>>
>
> As far as I know, we're discussing characteristics of the Mac 26M, not the
> moon. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that Ganz.
Too bad. The moon can sometimes be seen.
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Did I say that? Don't think so.
>>>
>>>Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
>>>Neal's original post.
>>
>>
>> My mistake. It *is* about your Mac!
>
> Is it, Ganz? I thought you were also discussing the moon.
At least you got my name right.
JimC
jeff wrote:
I think the discussion has related largely to conditions such as those
Joe experienced in the Gulf of Mexico. - 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. On the
other hand, with thousands of Macs out there, in US and foreign waters,
the probabilities of exposure to various problems under sail is
significant. In other words, with that many boats exposed to the
vagaries of weather, other severe conditions, collisions, inexperienced
or distracted skippers, etc., etc., problems can arise no matter where
the boats are being sailed. My point is that, so far, we don't see any
reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink.
Jim
Capt. JG
Uh oh... I'm vacuous.. or at least the company I keep is...
Capt. JG
>>
>> Well, come on... what are the advantages of heavier boats? You claim
>> they're more comfortable. Is this just at the dock or perhaps it includes
>> offshore. Yes, it's a rhetorial question.
>
>
> I've discussed those advantages many times in prior discussions, Ganz, but
> you apparently prefer to forget such comments and stick with your
> caricatures (what you like to consider as inexperienced, naive Mac
> owners). - In answer to your "rhetorial" question, larger, conventional
> keeled sailboats are heavier and usually more comfortable in heavy
> weather; they can be faster under sail, due to their longer water lines;
> and they have greater storage capacity suitable for provisioning for
> extended crossings. With a deep keel, they can normally point higher. And
> there's usually more room on their deck for sexy girls to see and be seen.
> Also, don't forget that if the skipper has inferiority problems, they can
> be a good ego booster.
>
> Jim
Yep. I like the answer. Now, take a look at your Mac. What do you see?
(answer: none of the above) LOL
JimC
Chip Thomas wrote:
Have a nice evening Chip.
Jim
JimC
Marty wrote:
> JimC wrote:
>
>>
>> Out of curiosity, I asked the MacGregor discussion group whether
>> anyone had heard of a Mac 26 breaking up and/or sinking in heavy seas.
>> (Many of the Mac owners have taken their boats offshore.) No one had
>> heard of any such incidence. As you say, there are thousands out
>> there, all over the world and in all types of conditions.
>
>
>
> Well Jim, to use your tack, please provide reliable evidence of a Mac26
> surviving an open ocean passage that involves a significant storm,
> duration greater that 48hrs, oh hell I'd settle for 24.
>
Hi Marty. Before I respond to your note, would you please show me any
note I posted stating that the Mac is suitable for use on an open ocean
passage of any kind? Seems to me that what I stated was that I wouldn't
want to take mine 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the Mac's do have
positive floatation, and they don't have a heavy keel that would drag
the boat quickly to the bottom if the hull were compromised. Marty, so
far, no one has provided ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of one breaking apart and
sinking under ANY conditions, offshore, inshore, heavy weather, squalls,
drunk skipper, collisions. No one. Nada. Despite the thousands of Macs
out there.
As stated above, the Mac 26 is one of, if not the most popular series of
sailboats ever made, with thousands still in use both in the US and in
various foreign countries. And many Mac 26 owners (in the US and in
foreign waters) have taken their boats offshore, though few are used in
open crossings. In view of the thousands of Mac26s out there, if the
Macs did have a tendency to break up and sink, under stress of any kind,
it would be impossible to keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no
one (on this ng or on the Mac owners ng) has heard of ANY Mac26 breaking
up and sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms
of stress.
Secondly, remember that I wasn't the one who posted statements to the
effect that the Macs would break up and sink in severe conditions. Those
statements were posted by Ganz, with vacuous support from several
others. Since Ganz and his friends posted those assertions, Ganz and his
friends are the ones who should be providing evidence and proof
supporting their theories. - They haven't, of course, and they clearly
are unable to do so.
Have a nice evening.
Jim
JimC
Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:N2LNj.1897$pS4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>>Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
>>>pounding it would endure, it would likely break up),
>>
>>
>>--- Any evidence or proof to back up that statement Capt? No?
>
>
> Is there any proof that if I go after it with a sawsall it'll remain intact?
> No.
>
>> it would be dismasted for sure.
>>
>>Any evidence or proof to support that assertion Capt?.... No?
>
>
> Like I said, you know next to nothing about boats. That is certainly my
> assertion, and the proof is what you bought and then claim it's going to do
> fine offshore in storm conditions.
Don't believe I said that, Ganz. - Could you please point out the
particular note in which I said it would "do fine offshore in storm
conditions?" What I said was that you have provided no evidence that it
would break up and sink.
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Any evidence or proof to back up that particular assertion Capt? ....No?
>
>
> See other thread parts. This is boring.
In other words, you have no answer?
>
>>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.
>>
>>LOL.
>
>
> Not so funny if you happen to be there.
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>That's fascinating piece of fiction Capt. - Have you considered writing a
>>novel?
>
>
> Read it as fact in a non-fiction book... actually several.
>
A non-fiction book about a Mac 26M Ganz?
>
>>Either way, you wouldn't
>>
>>>survive.
>>>
>>
>>Great fiction Capt. Too bad you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to
>>support it.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, too bad.
>
Once more Ganz, you do seem to have a fertile imagination and an
interesting, colorful style of fiction writing. I would encourage you to
give it a try.
Jim