On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:42:55 -0600, JimC <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>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
First of all, I'm not Ganz. Second of all, there is absolutely no
attachment
point on a Mac26M that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea
anchor in
heavy weather. Creating one would be a pretty extensive undertaking due to
the
overall light construction.
|
