Capt. JG wrote:
> "JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:HeaSj.13878$2g1.5988@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>Capt. JG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:QQ4Sj.7929$iK6.3560@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not
adequate
>>>>>for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a
>>>>>displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is
substantial...
>>>>>more than what would normally be required... why... because it's
>>>>>designed for real coastal cruising.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre.
>>>
>>>
>>>I shall. Thanks.
>>>
>>>I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't
>>>the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out
>>>there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for
>>>small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees
with
>>>that also.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M
for
>>>>coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could
post
>>>>the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual
>>>>tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting
more
>>>>of your obviously biased personal opinions.
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>You're right. I biased
>>
>>I biased Ganz?
>>
>>
>>when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for
>>
>>>40 years,
>>
>>
>>I have 45 years, on a variety of boats of varying sizes.
>> so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats
>>
>>>of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of
>>>Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your
>>>obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Once again, if I had come on this ng stating that the Mac was suitable
for
>>sailing offshore in heavy weather, I might feel some obligation to
provide
>>more exampls. But I didn't, so I don't.
>>
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>
> Ah, falling back on typoism again. Well, ok. Good for you. You claimed
the
> mac won't sink because it has positive floatation. Please prove it.
Ganz, for one thing, no one on this ng has been able to come up with ANY
reference to ANY instance of ANY Mac 26 (X or M models) sinking under
ANY cir***stances. That in itself is pretty convincing evidence that the
floatation is effective to keep the boat afloat in a variety of
difficult environments and situations - This was the case even in the
unfortunate instance involving the drunk skipper on a Mac26X (not M),
with drunk guests.
Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any
cir***stances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation.
Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. The current
MacGregor website makes the following statements about the Mac 26M: "The
MacGregor 26 has built-in solid foam floatation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won't sail fast when flooded like this, but it beats
swimming. Most competing boats do not offer this essential safety
protection, and their heavy keels can pull them straight to the bottom.
Don't get a boat without solid flotation!" Additionally, it includes a
photograph of a boat partially sunk but still afloat and sup****ting five
adult men standing on its cabin, with the following comment: "We drilled
a hole in the bottom of the boat and let it fill. The boat has built-in
solid foam flotation to keep it afloat in the event of damage."
The related legal principles are as follows: In the event of death or
injury by a Mac owner or guest resulting from a failure of the
floatation system, MacGregor could be sued under several legal
principles (deceptive trade practices, negligence, torts, punitive
damages, criminal negligence, etc.) with the plaintiffs citing the above
sections of MacGregor's published literature. In other words, if
MacGregor didn't have good sup****t for the above statements (and
inferences fairly derived therefrom), they would be taking a hell of a
chance releasing such public statements about their floatation system.
(And since they have the advice of a fairly good legal team, it's rather
naive (incredulous, actually) to suggest that they simply put that
information out there on the web without approval by counsel.
Well Ganz, NOW IT'S YOUR TURN.. - When are you going to provide proof
for your own ridiculous assertions. - Including the following amazing
account:
"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."
Great fiction Ganz. Have a nice day.
Jim
>
>
|
