Donal wrote:
I think that you should accept his silence with gratitude.


Donal, you're too nice a guy. Maybe that's why you don't
hang around here much any more?

DSK

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast,
but then
you're in deep **** if it died,


you're in DEEP **** as soon as you step aboard a Mac26Xm.

Scotty

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when
sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.

"Scotty" wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote:
Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when
sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship
and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were
to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.

We'd give you a tomato broadside! Har har.
snort...catch up...snort

Seahag

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when
sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.




Heh... hey, you stole that one from me!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast,
but then
you're in deep **** if it died,


you're in DEEP **** as soon as you step aboard a Mac26Xm.

Scotty




Even on the trailer?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

JimC wrote:
Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad nauseum, the
following is still true:





1. Your theories relating to the effects of weight DISTRIBUTION on the
boat are wrong. - The boat does not pitch excessively, and it sails
steadily with little corrective helm. - When you have sailed a 26M on
several occasions, then you can come back and tell us about all the
terrible effects weight DISTRIBUTION on the 26M were causing. -
Meanwhile, despite all your yada, yada, yadas, and all your theories,
you have never sailed the 26M and you really don't know how it handles
or sails. And meanwhile, I'll continue enjoying sailing the boat.

My theories are wrong? Sorry, this isn't my theory at all. It's
common physics and will be mentioned in any text on yacht design.
Calculation of the pitch moment is a fundamental of design. Anyone
who has raced one designs understands this - having a few crew members
move to the bow and stern while sailing alongside a sister ship
provides an easy demonstration. Most sailors take this very seriously
- they will carefully consider the weight of any gear placed in the
bow or stern. Powerboats also - those big Hatteras' have their 1000
gallon fuel tanks placed precisely at the "pitch center" of the boat.

Further, nowhere did I say, as you claim, that the Mac pitches
excessively or uncontrollably. I did mention once that I've seen them
"bob around" a lot more than other boats, but I've also said I've seen
so few of them actually sailing that I can't make a definitive statement.

The problem is that you've focused all of your energy denying that the
Mac has weight distributed more towards the extremities than
normally ballasted boats. This is an obvious, undeniably fact and yet
you wasted any shred of credibility you think you have on claiming
that it not so.

What you should have done is consider what other features of your boat
work to reduce any tendency to pitch. For example, boats that are
overly symmetrical tend to pitch more because the resistance doesn't
change as it pitches. Full bows and overhangs that provide reserve
buoyancy work in the opposite way and reduce the tendency to pitch, as
does moving the point of maximum beam well aft. But no, you preferred
to look like a fool arguing that an oversized outboard hanging on the
stern doesn't affect the moment at all.


2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant safety
factor are just that. - Theories. Neither you or I have stats on the
significance of the efficacy of the double hull section. The difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge it, whereas you want to
continue ranting and raving about it. But from my experience with the
boat, the double-hull section, positioned along the lowermost portion of
the hull from bow to aft of amidships, could be effective to prevent
incursion of sea water into the cabin if the boat were planing and ran
over a piece of wood or whatever floating at or just below the surface.
- A further factor is that visibility directly forward of the boat can
be partially obscured when planing.

I have little doubt that the double layer in certain parts of the hull
could, in some circumstances, prevent a hull breech. I'm not sure
what you mean by "from my experience" unless you're saying you
frequently hit things and while they penetrate the outer layer, you
have never holed the inner layer.

The issues are whether this represents a significant safety feature,
or whether this can be considered a "double hull."

1. First and foremost, the manufacturer makes absolutely no claims
about this on the web site or in any literature. One would think that
if this is a significant feature, it would be mentioned.

2. For a hull to be considered a "double hull" it has to be double
everywhere. The doubled portion of the Mac's hull is less than half,
perhaps less than a quarter. While this might offer some benefit, it
really isn't much different from any other hull where certain areas
have extra reinforcement, or an integral water or fuel tank. My boat,
BTW, has collision bulkheads in the forward part of each bow such that
I could totally crunch one or even both bows and not take in a drop of
water. This is a true safety feature, worth mentioning.

3. For any boat with a traditional hull form and keel, the risk of a
breech in the areas so protected in the Mac are pretty low. For
instance, hitting a rock on the centerline would be much more likely
to strike the keel, or the heavily protected stem. Almost every case
of a serious breech that I've seen has actually been on the side,
which is unprotected on the Mac. (This is from collisions, or a
glancing blow to a rock.)

4. This is actually a pretty small risk for most sailboats - the
number of sinkings is extremely small. In spite of the fact that
you've mentioned many times that all other sailboats would "sink to
the bottom" there are very, very few deaths occur from this in
protected waters.

5. You have mentioned many times that the boat has flotation and is
unsinkable. Thus, this is not a feature that would prevent sinking.

6. If the outer layer of the tank were breeched and you continued on
at speed, you would actually have a dangerous situation of a partially
full tank which could induce a capsize. This is actually a bigger
risk than sinking.

7. Did I mention that even the manufacturer doesn't seem to consider
this a safety feature?

I could probably find a few more items to add, but this is enough.

My objection to your numerous references to the double hull or liner
is that you have often described this as an important feature that
makes the Mac superior to other boats. For example, on 9/15/04 you
responded to a request for recommendations by extolling the virtues of
the Mac. You listed as "advantages over other boats" in this order: a
"double double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is
penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter
the cabin," flotation in the mast, and foam flotation. You made no
mention of the fact that the "double hull" only gives very limited
protection. Also, you never mentioned that the mast flotation, while
handy in dinghies, shouldn't be needed in boats unless they are prone
to capsizing. Even the Mac shouldn't ever capsize, assuming the
ballast tank is full.



3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics. - In view of the thousands of Macs
sold and in use, if they were inherently unsafe, you should be able to
come up with hundreds of examples of crews being lost, boats sinking,
rigging coming to pieces, boat foundering and filling with water, etc.,
etc. - But all you have is an example in which the captain was drunk,
the boat severely overloaded, and in which the captain did not have any
understanding of the boat or its water ballast system. ANECDOTES, and
statements like: "everybody knows that....." don't cut it, Jeff. If the
boat is inherently dangerous, give us evidence or stats on the
percentages of Macs that have failed at sea, or on which crew or skipper
have been killed or critically injured. While its true that positive
flotation COULD be installed in conventional sailboats, it normally IS
NOT offered. And its a significant safety factor on the Mac.

You have often said that if there where any flaws in the Mac there
would be hundreds of incidents. Well actually, there are very few
accidents at all with sailboats, especially 26 feet and over. You've
frequently claimed the Mac is safer than other boats because of
certain features, but if these other boats are so unsafe, why aren't
there hundreds of fatalities with them?

The truth is, while there are over 50,000 aux sailboats 26-40 feet
there are only a couple of fatalities per year in this class of boats.
I don't have access to the raw data so its hard to break things out,
but the numbers would seem to indicate a risk on the order of 1 per
20,000 per year.

There are two implications of this. One is that any claim that the
Mac is safer than other boats suffers from a lack of evidence the
other boats are in any way unsafe. But on the other hand, we know of
at least three deaths related specifically to the unique properties of
the Mac 26X. If we assume 5000 were built, this represent more than
what one might expect. In other words, from this single incident the
26X has had more than its share of fatalities since its launch and for
some years into the future.

What was more troubling about these deaths is that they were caused
specifically by the unusual properties of the Mac. On any other 26
foot sailboat, 8 adults would not be "seriously overloaded." On any
other 26 foot sailboat, goosing the throttle when stopped would not
result in an roll over in a flat calm, windless evening. Yes, the
company avoided a disastrous lawsuit because helmsman was inebriated,
but so are half the boaters out there, especially on the 4th of July
when this took place. Had those children been in any other 26 foot
sailboat, they would still be alive.

My point on the Mac is not that it is so unsafe that anyone foolish
enough to buy one will likely die. My point has been that some of the
features that are used as selling points have safety risks that would
not be an issue on any other sailboat. In particular, the high speeds
that can be achieved without ballast are only safe if the operator
follows a lengthy list of warnings. These include only four people on
the boat (2 if they are your weight), no one on deck, no one forward
below, sails removed, board and rudders up, chop under one foot (and
therefore presumably a light wind), water should be warm.

None of these warnings would apply on a traditional boat. However,
the speed of the boat is its major feature, and the feature that
drives most of the design. Further, the boat appeals mainly to
novices. I find it rather troubling that people unfamiliar with boats
would have to understand a list of warnings that would never come up
in their ordinary experience.

BTW, I'll remind you that although you mentioned the high speeds a
number of times before you bought the boat, since then you've admitted
that you actually power at the lower speed that I predicted you would.



4. You have consistently ignored or brushed aside the many advantages
of the Mac design. - You fail to acknowledge that the ability to carry a
larger outboard does indeed provide a number of advantages relating both
to the ability to get to desired sailing areas, the ability to maneuver
against adverse winds and weather, family recreational uses, etc. While
not denying the advantages of a diesel as far as cog, etc., the larger
engines does get the job done and does provide greater versatility and
other advantages. - Yes, a conventional sailboat doesn't need such an
engine, and may have a greater range, but that doesn't mean that the Mac
arrangement doesn't provide a number of other advantages. While the high
freeboard does entail disadvantages, it also provides a number of
advantages. - Very few small sailboats have anywhere near the room and
accommodations provided in the Mac.

I reserve the right to ignore anything I want. The Mac has enough
attributes that I dislike that I have no desire to belabor the few
that might be of interest.

However, I will admit that I appreciate boats that can power fast, and
I've admitted that a substantial amount of my cruising has been done
under power.

I've even said that for some people the Mac is a reasonable boat.
I've even said that given its design goals it might be the best
solution out there. There is certainly no doubt that it is popular.

However, the particular combination of features is meaningless unless
you actually need them. For instance, if you leave the boat in the
slip, the easy trailorability is of marginal value. While a few
people can argue a real need to power at speed to get to a reasonable
cruising ground, the vast majority of sailors seem to make do with
powering at a lower speed.

And given that the Mac is one of the worst sailers out there, its hard
to justify your claim elsewhere that it "serves the needs of
most sailors, under the conditions experienced 90% of the time."
Certainly anyone who has as a high priority a boat that is a good
sailer would not choose a Mac.


6. As to costs, you and others seem to always compare the cost of
15-year old used boats to that of new Macs. If you are going to compare
costs, take the apples and apples approach. - If you you want to talk
about new boats, compare costs of both new conventional boats and new
Macs, with equivalent equipment. And then add in the costs of slip
fees, maintenance, bottom treatments, etc.

Actually I haven't made that big an issue of the costs. I do think
that there are much better ways to spend 30 kilobucks. I, for
instance, might buy a nice used overnighter plus a small powerboat.
But I might also look for a small cruiser, like a Nonsuch 26.

However, one point I've made about Macs is that they seem to
depreciate faster than other boats. There are a number of five year
old Macs that are asking roughly 60% of the original price. This does
not speak well of their quality or desirability. When you see an ad
offering a 2002 at $12-14K under the purchase price and claiming "only
used 8 or 9 times" you really have to wonder if this person was happy
he bought it.


6. And, it's lots of fun to sail.

When I was a kid I found an old cement mixing tub. I turned it into
my yacht and had a ball with it! So that can be your motto: "A Mac!
As much fun as a cement tub!"

Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad nauseum, the
following is still true:


1. Your theories relating to the effects of weight DISTRIBUTION on the
boat are wrong. - The boat does not pitch excessively, and it sails
steadily with little corrective helm. - When you have sailed a 26M on
several occasions, then you can come back and tell us about all the
terrible effects weight DISTRIBUTION on the 26M were causing. -
Meanwhile, despite all your yada, yada, yadas, and all your theories,
you have never sailed the 26M and you really don't know how it handles
or sails. And meanwhile, I'll continue enjoying sailing the boat.

2. Your theories about the "double hull" not being a significant safety
factor are just that. - Theories. Neither you or I have stats on the
significance of the efficacy of the double hull section. The difference
between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge it, whereas you are not,
and instead want to continue ranting and raving about it. But from my
experience with the boat knowing how it't positioned when plaining, the
double-hull section, positioned along the lowermost portion of
the hull from bow to aft of amidships, could be effective to prevent
incursion of sea water into the cabin if the boat were plaining and ran
over a piece of wood or whatever floating at or just below the surface.
- A further factor is that visibility directly forward of the boat can
be partially obscured when plaining.

3. Your theories about the boat being unsafe are, as usual, not
supported by evidence or statistics. - In view of the thousands of Macs
sold and in use, if they were inherently unsafe, you should be able to
come up with hundreds of examples of crews being lost, boats sinking,
rigging coming to pieces, boats foundering and filling with water, etc.,
etc. - But all you have is an example in which the captain was drunk,
the boat severely overloaded, and in which the captain did not have any
understanding of the boat or its water ballast system. ANECDOTES like
that one, and statements like: "everybody knows that....." don't cut it,
Jeff. If the boat is inherently dangerous, give us evidence or stats as
to the percentages of Macs that have failed at sea, or on which crew or
skipper have been killed or critically injured. Regarding the positive
flotation, while its true that positive flotation COULD be installed in
conventional sailboats, it normally IS NOT offered. And its a
significant safety factor on the Mac.

4. You have consistently ignored or brushed aside the many advantages
of the Mac design. - You fail to acknowledge that the ability to carry a
larger outboard does indeed provide a number of advantages relating both
to the ability to get to desired sailing areas, the ability to maneuver
against adverse winds and weather, versatility for family recreational
uses, etc. While not denying the advantages of a diesel re COG, etc.,
the larger engine used in the Mac DOES does provide other advantages amd
gets the job done. - Yes, a conventional sailboat doesn't need such an
engine, and a diesel may provide greater range, but that doesn't mean
that the Mac combination doesn't provide a number of other advantages.
For example, while the high freeboard does entail disadvantages, it also
provides a number of advantages. - Very few small sailboats have
anywhere near the room and accommodations provided in the Mac.

6. As to costs, you and others seem always ready to compare the cost of
15-year old used boats to that of a new Mac. If you are going to compare
costs, take the apples and apples approach. - If you you want to talk
about new boats, then compare costs of both new conventional boats and
new Macs, with equivalent equipment. And then add in the continuing
costs of slip fees, maintenance, bottom treatments, etc.


6. Plus, it's lots of fun to sail.


Jim






Jeff wrote:
JimC wrote:


Looks like you erased all my additional remarks POSTED IN THAT
DISCUSSION stating that the warnings should NOT be ignored. ... Why
would you do a pitiful, sneaky thing like that Jeff?? You talk about
layers' ethics. - What about your own???


Sorry Jim. No mulligans. No do-overs. If I had snipped things from
the same post you could accuse me of taking it out of context. However,
once I had called you on this and showed your hypocrisy, you can't take
it back. You could have admitted that you made a mistake, but you
preferred to defend it to the death, hanging your credibility on people
believing that when you likened the warnings on a Mac to warnings to
wear a seatbelt on the exercise machine you didn't mean it was just
lawyer talk.

So every time you try to defend, all you're doing is claiming that you
have the right to say "ignore what lawyers say, except this time."

OK, I'll repost the original in its entirety. I had said:

"The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments
include: no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The
kids can't even stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to
use the forward bunks when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas
higher than one foot! So much for coming in from offshore. You can't
stand on the deck because someone might grab the mast to hold on!
What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat over trying to hold
on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat, nor is it typical
of a 26 foot powerboat."

You replied:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.
Actually, the new 26M has 300 pounds of additional permanent ballast, in
addition to the water ballast, for providing added stability when
motoring without the water ballast. (The previous model, the 26X, didn't
have this feature, yet I haven't heard of hundreds of Mac 26X owners
being lost at sea because they didn't stay below deck when motoring the
boat without the ballast. In essence, when under power without the water
ballast, the boat is a small, lightweight power boat, and you have to
take reasonable precautions to keep the com low. (On the other hand, if
you can provide statistics regarding hundreds of Mac sailors being lost
at sea because they didn't stay in the cabin when motoring without the
water ballast, I would like to see those statistics.)

"Of course, if I were sailing or motoring with several guests, or with
children (our grandkids), I would certainly make sure that they didn't
head out to the foredeck when the boat was motoring without the water
ballast. Also, if I was going to go offshore, I would want to make sure
that the water ballast was filled. Ultimately, however, this is a
"lawyer thing." Remember, the boat is manufactured in California."


Its very clear that you're saying that the long list of rather sever
warnings about running without ballast is just, and I'm using your words
here, a "lawyer thing."

My point was never that the warning can be ignored, I was saying that
they should be taken seriously and serve as an indication that the high
speeds sometimes talked about cannot really be achieved in all
conditions. You didn't see where the discussion was going and so chose
to counter with this "lawyer thing" comment. Unfortunately, in that
moment, you lost all credibility.

Sorry Jim. No mulligans. No do-overs.

snip all further discussion on lawyers - its just too embarrassing for
Jim






And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound
engine hanging off the transom.



Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the
crew/guests/skipper, not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed
solo). The motor is slightly farther aft, but not much. (The
captains seat is about a foot forward of the motor.)



What a crock of ****. Do you actually read the stuff you write?
Since the moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the
distance from the center of mass, the mass of the engine is actually
equivalent to a mass 4 time larger but half the distance to the
center of mass.


And you did take math, and geometry in high school? Consider a
typical crew of two people (assume total weight of 350 lbs) and a
skipper of 230 lbs. (about my weight).


The weight used as the "standard" is 160 pounds. Obviously, if you put
overweight people aft in the cockpit, you can force the numbers to look
however you want.


Assuming that the skipper is sitting on the captain's chair, about 1.5
ft forward of the center of the motor, and about 16 feet aft of the
center of mass.


Where do you get "16 feet aft"? The boat is only 26 feet long, and the
center of mass has to be at the center of buoyancy, so the bow overhang
doesn't count much and as you keep claiming the forward bit at the
waterline contributes little. And given the relatively flat profile,
you have to figure a relatively even distribution. This means boat can
only be considered about 22-23 feet long, and the center of mass is
roughly 11 to 12 feet at most from the stern. Figuring the skipper at 10
feet and 160 lbs, that's 16K ft^2 lbs. Repeating placing the 220 lb
engine 1.5 feet aft of that gives over 29K, or almost double the
moment. Placing a crew 3 feet forward of that only has a moment of
7.8K, so you could add two crew and still have less moment than the
engine. And if the crew stay well forward, up again the bulkhead, the
moment becomes rather small.

Assuming that the two crew members are sitting two and three feet
forward of the captain, respectively, their total mass will be the
equivalent of 350 pounds positioned about 14.5 feet from the center of
mass about which the boat has a tendency to pitch. The motor, at
about 220 pounds is about 17.5 feet from the center of mass. Squaring
the distances, the relative values of the rotational momentum of the
skipper and crew are more than twice that of the motor, despite the
fact that they are closer to the center of mass. Once again, Jeff,
your theories are simply wrong. (If you wish, I'll provide the
calculations and "foot pounds" or whatever, in greater detail.)


Yes Jim, you can fudge the numbers by claiming that the center of mass
of forward of the mast. But everyone knows that's not the case. The
bottom line is that the engine makes a major contribution to the moment,
claiming that its small compared to the skipper and crew is bogus.


In

other words, the engine on the stern contributes roughly the same to
the moment as crew that would equal the safe limit of the boat.


Nope. Not if you do the math.


No, when I do the math I get the right answer. Its when you do the math
that there's a problem.



No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between
the mast and the bow.


Nope. You're ignoring the permanent ballast and also the fact that the
large section extends rearwardly aft of the mast.


I'm not ignoring it, the permanent ballast isn't the water ballast. This
entire discussion has been about the water ballast, and where its
located. Did you miss that or have you been lying about this all along?

The first and second "station" are substantially the same.


You're ****ting me, right? I mean you have looked at the diagram?

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm


Actually, the first, second, and third station are essentially the
same. - The black area in the third section represents the permanent
ballast, which is heavier than water.


So now you're admitting that you knew all along that the "black area"
was not the water ballast but persisted in your lie until you could no
longer deny it.

The issue here is where the 1150 pounds of water is put, not where the
300 lbs. of permanent ballast is. Obviously, for this purpose the
permanent can be ignored.

We're not talking about the 300 pounds of permanent ballast. We're
talking about the amount that is forward. You've got 1150 pounds to
distribute. The diagram clearly shows the largest cross section of
the tank at the first station, halfway to the bow. You're claiming
there's very little aft. That would seem to imply 300 or so pounds
in the far forward area. You can babble all you want, but it doesn't
change that fact.

http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm


Once again, Jeff, the ballast in the first, second, and third
sectional views are essentially the same. With the exception that the
permanent ballast has a higher density, and higher mass per unit of
volume.


But the water ballast isn't the same as the permanent ballast. If
there's less water ballast in the center of the boat, there must be more
up near there bow. Its as simple as that.

By lying over and over again, as you now admit, you're showing that you
had absolutely no interest in an honest discussion.




Moreover, the ballast tank is tapered at its forward and rear end
portions, further reducing the mass of ballast spaced furthest
from the central or largest portion, thereby lessening the moment
of inertia of the ballast when the boat pitches upon a wave, etc.




Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong,
so why do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the
tank is in the forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the
centerline, there is little tapering forward until you get very
close to the bow.


Wrong again, Jeff. You are apparently considering only the taper
occurring across the width of the tank. - There is also a substantial
taper in the vertical direction, when the tank is viewed from the
side. As previously discussed, the ballast tank is (already) tapering
upwardly at Section No. 1, and it continues to taper up sharply from
that point forwardly, as can be seen most clearly in the longitudinal
sectional view. I know it's a little hard for you to understand, Jeff,
but give it another try.


Sorry, the math works against you on this. To the extent that the bow
narrows, the center of flotation has to move aft. This means that the
lever arm of the ballast just aft of the bow is increased. Sorry Jim,
its pretty clear that you can go halfway from station one to the stem
without greatly reducing the size of the tank. Anyway you look at it,
there has to be hundreds of pounds of water up there.

You've insisted it isn't aft, you've now admitted that much of the
center is taken by the permanent ballast, now you can't claim there's
none forward!


Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches the bow.



The largest cross section is already way forward.


Nope. You're clearly wrong.


You've already admitted above I'm right!



QED. End of story.

The best that you can claim is that there isn't much in the last few
inches.


Last five or six feet.


Station one is 5 feet aft of the stem and it has the largest
cross-section of the water tank! How can you claim that the largest
part of the tank doesn't contain much ballast??? Oh, I forgot, you're a
lawyer and we can ignore what lawyers say.



why? It doesn't change anything. You tried to claim:

"the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank."

You were quite happy to leave the reader with the impression that
this is a double hull, which has a very specific meaning in marine
terminology. This is 6 months after I, and others, had already
called you on this, so if this does not make you a blatant liar, I
don't know what does.


Actually, my statement was quite accurate. The ballast does provide
protection if the lower hull is penetrated. It doesn't provide
protection if the sides or chines of the boat are penetrated, and I
never said that it did.


In other words, you were able to leave the reader with a false
impression, but that didn't bother you because you had deniability.

BTW, what the area is, it doesn't include the majority of the outside
waterline, since the ballast runs down the center. Every case I've
ever seen of a major hull breech has been on the side where there is
no protection.


In that case, you still wouldn't be out of luck on the Mac as you
would be in your own boat, Jeff, since the flotation provided in the
Mac would keep you afloat. In contrast, if you were on your own boat,
the keel would quickly pull the boat to the bottom.


My boat has flotation and no keel. I have four collision bulkheads with
flotation chambers plus several other chambers. In addition, the
geometry of my boat means that I could sustain serious damage without
flooding more than one section.

But I never claimed to have a "double liner."

And, of course, you'd have a lot of trouble showing that sinking is a
major safety risk. The overwhelming cause of drowning is falling
overboard or capsizing.

This is clearly not true for a boat that is planing.


Maybe, maybe not. - The Macs don't plane high out of the water like a
high-speed power boat. - They are, after all, a sailboat.



All of the picture show the bow lifted well out of the water:

http://www.macgregor26.com/powering_...g/powering.htm

If you hit something submerged, it could clearly hit anywhere, so the
"double liner" is only protecting a small portion.


I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire
boat has a double hull.



You were quite happy to word it in such a way as to leave that
impression, while still maintaining denyability.


Nope. That, again, was your own invention. And once more, you
conveniently ignore my previous remarks discussing the limitations of
the "double-hull" effect.

Shame, shame shame, Jeff. You censor out anything you think might
introduce a better understanding of my original discussion, and quote
an excerpt from my original note ONLY, ignoring my subsequent
discussion of the entire matter. Jeff, you apparently have no scruples
whatsoever if you think you can pretend to have found a "gotcha."


Actually, when you made the "double liner" comment that was your initial
response to someone asking for recommendations. This poster clearly
would not have read any of your previous comments, and yet you made the
"double liner" claim without any caveat.

You really like to maintain deniability and then coming back "holier
than thou." You're a real piece of work, Jim!


So? I ignored your comments after it was pointed out that you
initial comments were bogus. Your backpedaling is not a fun target.
However, 6 months later you came back again with our "double liner"
comment.


Because there is a double hull, over the lowermost, central portions
of the hull.


But you already know its not a "double hull" unless it covers the entire
hull. There's no such thing as "half a double hull."



First of all, that was 6 months after we had a lengthy discussion on
the topic, so you're lying when you say that was the original note.

Secondly, you obviously have no trouble wording that so that one
might assume the "double liner" actually covers the hull, not a small
portion of it.


You could have easily said that there is "partial protection"

but you preferred to use terminology easily confused with "double
hull" which you know has a very specific meaning in the nautical world.


Actually, I don't. - I don't have a captains license.


Actually, the point was clearly made in a post to you by someone who
everyone knows is "big ship captain" that the term "double hull" has a
very specific meaning. The point was discussed at some length. Now
you're claiming it never happened.


Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine"
which is about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern???


The engine is closer to 5% of the weight of the boat with water
ballast and crew. But that's only an error of about 50%, Jeff.


I specially said "dry weight." You do know what that means?

- That's rather typical of your guestimates. Also, check out the
math. - The momentum relating to the motor is less than half that of a
typical skipper and crew, as explained above.


Not when I do the math. When You did it, you assumed an obese helmsman,
and the the center of mass forward of the mast!

Again, reality has no place in your logic, does it?


In contrast with your cherry-picking, your censoring out or ignoring
my statements dealing with these same issues with greater specificity,
your twisting of my original meanings, and your devious
"interpretations" of what I "must have intended" (never giving me the
benefit of a doubt), you are the one who has a problem, Jeff, not me.


I have never censored one word you've said. That is a boldface lie.
Every single word you've said is still out there, something that I'm
sure you regret now!

I've ignored much of what you said; that's true.

As to your intentions, I think that is quite clear. Over and over
you've things that any normal person would interpret one way, and then
you've come back and claimed you didn't mean that. Other times, you've
denied what I've said and then when cornered, claimed I said something
different (as in the "cross-section of the water ballast" issue).


After twisting my statements, censoring out anything you don't like,
and reaching back to discussions posted more than a year ago, you end
up concluding dogmatically that your own particular interpretation of
what I actually was trying to say is the only acceptable interpretation.


blah blah blah. You talk a lot, but you don't say much, do you? You
must get paid by the word.

How about this? Lets see how many people come to your defense.

Scotty wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when

sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.



We;d kull you...deader than a doornail....and pin your skin to the
yardarm....

Seahag wrote:
"Scotty" wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote:

Yes, that's my point... I like to play what-if games when

sailing...

me too. Like, what if I were a pirate on a pirate ship
and
I spotted Katy and Haggy sailing by themselves and I were
to
catch up with them and............


Yo Ho Ho !.


We'd give you a tomato broadside! Har har.
snort...catch up...snort

Seahag


THAT was SO bad!