salty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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 wa****ng 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
>>>>>>unsup****ted. 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
>>>>>>sup****t this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the
Macs
>>>>>>that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
>>>>>>think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
>>>>>>posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and
assuming
>>>>>>that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
>>>>>>ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm
anchor), do
>>>>>>you actually have some valid evidence or proof sup****ting 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 sup****ting 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, sup****ting 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 cir***stances, 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 cir***stance,
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
>>sup****t 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
|
