You're still solving problems that don't exist. This is only important on a mac
where the hull it too thin given the speed it can attain (if you empty the
ballast, leave the mast and sails at the dock, carry one gallon of fuel, and
singlehand).

And, you have to be luck enough to hit something in the middle, not on the side
of the boat. What are you going to do when you see a log? Aim for it so you
hit dead on, rather than a glancing blow?


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

It only covers 1/3 of the width, and its the least likely part of the hull
to
hit something. Hitting bottom is no going to sink the boat, not when it
only
draw a foot. Hitting a floating object while you're in deep water is the
real
risk. That's why having an extra layer along the waterline is meaningless.

It's not "along the waterline." It's below the waterline. And in a boat
plaining under power, the portion protected by the extra wall is
precisely the area most likely to be damaged by impacts with submerged
objects just below the surface.


Of
course, mac are not marketed to people that understand the real risks -
that's
why their marketing department makes up nonsense like this.

Claiming over and over that its a "double hull" just makes you sound like
an
idiot.

Actually, it is a double hull, although I don't think that MacGregor is
advertising the boat has having a double hull.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a

duck.............................................. ..............................
.................................................. ................



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:


Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out to you

that

the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
probably
less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines. Frankly,

many

boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of the

surface

they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.

As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds of
the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable (lowermost.
central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want to call the
extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same purpose. - If it
walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not call it a duck.


BTW, if your ballast tank is punctured, the water would partially drain,

(Unless the boat turtled or pitch polled and then remained in an
inverted position (despite the safety factors such as flotaion in the
mast itself, and the permanent ballast in the hull), why do you think
the water in the ballast tank would drain, since it is positioned below
the cg of the boat?
leaving

the boat dangerously unstable.

You don't seem to get it. - Would you prefer to be on a displacement
boat with no floatation whatsoever, in which the keel would pull the
boat to the bottom QUICKLY if the cabin were filled with water?


Since far more people drown from falling off

capsized boats than from sinking boats (by a huge margin, like 30 to 1),

Jeff, where did you get those statistics ("like, 30 to 1"). PLEASE
PROVIDE LISTINGS OF YOUR SOURCES AND CITES TO ANY WEBSITES YOU ARE
CITING. ALSO, PLEASE INCLUDE THE VOLUME, DATE, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC., OF
ANY ARTICLES OR BOOKS YOU ARE CITING.


its not

clear you can call this a safety factor at all.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott, whether or not you call it double hulled, IT DOES INCLUDE A
SECOND wall above its lowermost hull that SERVES THE PURPOSE of keeping
water out of the cabin if the lower hull is compromised. And although
the second wall doesn't extend over all the hull, IT DOES extend over
the lowermost portion thereof, and it does extend for around 2/3rd. the
length of the boat. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,
and serves the same purpose as a second hull......it doesn't make much
difference whether you call it a double hull or not.

Jim