salty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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.
I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of
the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The
requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See
also my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea
anchor.
Jim
>
>
|
