"JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:w0TNj.1008$26.220@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 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
You really must be damaged. Did I say this????? No... but please feel free
to claim I did.
--
"j" ganz @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
