Jeff Morris wrote:

Perhaps you should look at the drawings of your beloved boat


Incidentally, I never claimed that the MacGregor 26M was a perfect boat
that would meet the needs of everyone, or that it was suitable for all
types of sailing. My interest in this discussion is that the boat has
got a bad rap on this ng in previous discussion, and I want to see that
it gets somewhat more accurate and balanced treatment.

- 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.

The water ballast chamber extends along the lowermost part of the hull
rearwardly from the bow for around 2/3rds of the length of the boat.
Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant, since if the boat runs over
an obstruction, the lowermost portions of the hull are the part that is
most likely to hit the obstruction and become punctured. Obviously, the
boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
entire hull. (Does your boat?)


If you hit a log (especially at speed) you're
going to need that foam flotation.

I don't intend to, but if I did, having a boat that didn't sink would be
nice. And helpful. And, perhaps, critical.


And the boat will be a total loss,

Maybe. Maybe not.


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?

My engine weighs around 200 lbs., so I doubt that it is going to pull
the boat to the bottom. The picture of the boat afloat after they cut a
hole through the hull doesn't show the motor (so its not clear whether
they removed it or not), but it does indicate that, with five men aboard
the boat, the boat has sunk about a foot or so from its normal position.
In other words, with five adult passengers, the boat isn't anywhere near
sinking. 200 lbs of motor not make that much difference, and there is
plenty of capacity for more people, particularly if they didn't try to
stand on top of the cabin.

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.

Actually, the new 26M model has a combination of both water ballast and
permanent ballast. The permanent ballast provides stability for the
boat when the water ballast isn't being used.


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?

I would prefer a car with seat belts and air bags, and I would prefer a
boat with foam flotation. I would rather have a boat that would survive
even under critical emergency situations in which the hull was
compromised rather than one that would survive a minor collision but not
a major or critical one, in which case the keel would quickly pull the
boat to the bottom.

I suppos



"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