I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence in favor of either type. A year or two
ago there was an article in Ocean Navigator (or on of its related mags) about
someone who grounded hard going through Wood's Hole. Although superficially the
damage didn't look too bad, the encapsulated keel was bent and the insurance
company declared it a total.



"Parallax" wrote in message
om...
I frequently hear the supposed virtues of external ballast when
somebody hits a rock and says it absorbed the impact so they got no
water in the boat. Does this make sense? Most internal ballast is
encapsulated so an impact to it would not let in any water. I also
hear horror stories about external ballast keels on older boats coming
loose resulting in very expensive reapirs or drilling into thick lead
to install new keel bolts. So, why is external ballast supposedly
better?