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. 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.



"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

No. It doesn't make MacBoy sound like an idiot. He is an idiot.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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. 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.



"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

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

"Jim Cate" wrote


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.............................................. ..........................
.................................................. ....................


if it sounds like an asshole, and writes like an asshole, jim must be an
asshole.

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

Jeff Morris wrote:

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?



Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.

Jim



"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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
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?



Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.


You keep claiming it's a safety factor if you hit it just right. What it you
see a log, try to avoid it, but hit it on the side? Are you going to give
your grandkids life jackets that work half the time?

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

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?



Obviously, the problem would arise when you DIDN'T see a partially
submerged log, not when you see one in time to avoid it.



You keep claiming it's a safety factor if you hit it just right. What it you
see a log, try to avoid it, but hit it on the side? Are you going to give
your grandkids life jackets that work half the time?


In that unlikely event, the boat wouldn't sail very well, but because of
the internal flotation, it would stay afloat. -

And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
And since I have been willing to answer your questions, how about you
answering one of mine? - What would happen to YOUR boat if you hit a
log with sufficient force to penetrate your hull? Would YOUR boat stay
afloat, or would your keel quickly pull the boat down to the bottom?


My boat has enough foam in her construction to float the basic hull. In
addition, she has 6 watertight flotation chambers, four across the boat forward,
forming a "collision bulkhead," and two aft. Also, I have two complete hulls
(though I wouldn't call her "double-hulled") running the full length. I have no
lead keel, but the fiberglass keels are designed to breakaway without damaging
the hull.

I don't worry much about sinking, but I didn't worry that much with my previous
boat which did not have these advantages. The vast majority of sinkings happen
at the dock and are an insurance headache, not life threatening. The only
reason why this is an issue for a Mac is that they are so lightly built is easy
to see how it might be compromised.

--
-jeff www.sv-loki.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friend. Like an old man trying to send back soup
at the deli."