"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
- 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.

But is only extends one third of the width. It is more likely that you will hit
a floating obstruction on the side.


Thus, your inference that only around a third of the hull is protected
by the ballast tank is actually irrelevant,

Only to a non-boater with no experiance.

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.

In a boat that only draws one foot it would take a complete idiot to hit a rock
dead on at high speed. Is that what you're claiming, Jim? That this design
feature is only there to protect the complete idiot? Far more likely is a
glancing blow to a floating object.

Obviously, the
boat doesn't have a complete second hull that extends throughout the
entire hull. (Does your boat?)

Actually, my boat has two complete hulls, running the entire length.

.....

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.

Look again, Jim, its down to the rail on both sides. Given the very high
freeboard, that's closer to two feet below her lines. The question is, how
much foam floatation is left above the water? That tells you how close it is to
sinking. That picture is taken at the dock - in almost any sea conditions the
deck would be awash amd the boat would flip.

Clearly, positive floatation is a advantage, but its not clear a flooded mac is
a better platform than a liferaft. On the other hand, the time may come when
you decided that unsinkable is a disadvantage.



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.

Not enough stability, given the stern warnings about aperating without ballast.




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 would prefer a good sailboat that provides these advantages. In fact, I have
one. The mac is a poor powerboat, and a worse sailboat.