Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:IEUMj.683$26.582@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>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 sup****ted by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of
hearsay, speculation, and personal bias.
Jim
|
