Perhaps you should look at the drawings of your beloved boat - its doesn't have
a double hull either. The portion of the hull the is protected by the ballast
tank is about a third of the underwater surface - and its the part least likely
to be damaged in a collision. If you hit a log (especially at speed) you're
going to need that foam flotation. And the boat will be a total loss, the
engine certainly wasted. BTW, they never actually say that there is enough foam
to float the boat if the engine is attached, do they? Do you think they
destroyed a $8000 engine just to take that picture?

And, if you have any damage to the ballast tank, it could lose water and the
partially filled tank becomes dangerously unstable. This is not so bad if
you're on a lake where the mac belongs, but offshore this becomes treacherous.

So the question is, would you prefer a boat with a solid hull that can withstand
a beating without being compromised, or one that is likely to be compromised by
a minor collision?





"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


wrote:

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:54:53 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote:


wrote

are you under the impression that a mac26 is double hulled?


It is double hulled, but the space in between the layers is water ballast,

which

gives you a head start on filling up the rest of the boat with water.

and the space in-between your ears is a vacuum if you think the Mac is
double hulled.



Scotty,

There is a space between the bottom of the boat and the floor of the
boat. It is a tank for water ballast. Jim thinks that means the same
thing as double hulled.

Whether or not you call it a second hull, it is a second wall that preents
entry of water into the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. - Does
the Valiant have one of these back-up walls? I didn't see one on the one
we sailed.

Jim
barrier that would pre or not