otnmbrd wrote:



Jim Cate wrote:



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.


If it walks like a duck, and talks like a
duck...................................

In other words, the Mac includes an additional liner in the hull
positioned over the lower hull IN EXACTLY THE AREAS MOST LIKELY TO BE
COMPROMISED IF THE BOAT STRIKES A SUBMERGED OBJECT WHEN PLANING.



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.


Two points:
1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the bottom.
From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
for either, unless your a salesman..

Although you may be right technically in questioning whether the term
"double hulled" should be applied, SUBSTANTIVELY, the extra, inner layer
serves the same purpose in the event the boat is compromised along its
central axis.

While your nomentclature might be more precise, if the extra layer
prevents water from entering the cabin, the end result is that your ass,
and that of my passengers, might be saved.


2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
before you claim it as a positive.

In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.


One factor I'M SEEING is that most contributors to this ng don't have
the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that they are
wrong, and/or, that they have never sailed the26m, or that they really
don't know what they are talking about.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck.......................................

Jim



otn