JimC wrote:



I actually did engineering, what did you do? Write product liability
waivers? You have trouble taking the high road here, Jim, after you
explained to us that all of the warnings that come with a Mac is just
lawyer talk that can be ignored.

Although I did say that I thought that attorneys were involved in
wording the warnings, where did I say that the warnings can be ignored?


Your comment was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

I really don't see how anyone can reasonably interpret this as meaning
anything other than this is just lawyer talk. So Jim, do you think
anyone is going to take your side on this one???



Jeff, further to my comment above, note, in Figures 4 and 5, that the
cross-hatched elements near the bottom of the hull (the ones you
interpreted as being part of the ballast tank) are of identical
configuration in both FIGS. 4 and 5, further demonstrating that they are
actually linear conduits or passageways rather than part of the ballast
tank itself.


OK, you made your point, there's not much ballast aft of the mast.

I'm not sure I follow that last statement, Jeff. - Are you now saying I
was right (after all that discussion) in describing the ballast tank as
not extending along the full length of the boat? Or that your statement,
copied below, was wrong?

"And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way from
stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all."



You really don't get it. First of all, the tank truly does extend all
the way from the stem to the stern. If all they wanted was a conduit,
they could have put in a tube with a lot less expense. You're only
claiming that the volume aft is relatively small. But that just means
the the volume forward of the mast is that much higher. This supports
my claim that there is a lot of mass in the extremities. Go back to
my comments, this is about mass in the extremities which increase the
moment of inertia.

And of course, your claim that the ballast tank is only a "conduit"
rather blows away your "double hull" assertion.



And by the way, what happened to your claim that the entire boat was
protected by a "doubled hull" - now you're claiming it's just a small
portion. Was that just "lawyer talk" that we can ignore?

Give us a break Jeff. - Where did I say that the "entire boat" was
protected by a doubled hull? A large portion of the lower portion of
the hull is, indeed, "doubled," but the two-layer "doubled" portion
doesn't extend beyond the ballast tank. In all prior discussions of the
matter, I have certainly attempted to make that point clear.

But the problem is that when the boat is at high speed it will be
planing with the bow raised up. Thus the vulnerable portion is the
aft part that you're claiming now is not double hulled. In other
words, although you have repeatedly claimed this as a significant
advantage, its value is really limited. In fact, even the Mac
marketing literature doesn't mention this; why do you think this is?
Is this something you made up, or just something a salesman told a
gullible customer?

BTW, if the hull was compromised and you brought it up on a plane, the
tank could possibly drain, leaving you in the dangerous situation of
having several hundred pounds of water surging around.




Jeff, you criticise me for making ad hominem attacks, etc. Actually, my
friends and colleagues consider me a courteous, laid-back, amicable kind
of guy willing to listen patiently to all sides of a discussion.

I'm sure you're one helluva guy. Did I ever mention that my closest
sailing buddy had, as his first boat, a Venture 22? (Its a period he
doesn't like to talk about!)

- I
would be happy to minimize the ad hominems and to treat you and other
Mac-Bashers with all the respect and deference you deserve,

I really don't know why you consider me a "mac basher," all I've tried
to do is honestly consider the attributes of the boat. In fact, my
involvement in this thread only started with a consideration of how
water ballast affects stability. You've tried to make it sound like
all proper boats (you said "most ocean-going vessels") use internal
ballast, but in fact most designers would consider it a choice of last
resort. Of course, for a trailerable boat it makes sense, but a lot
of Macs I see are kept in slips, which certainly minimizes that.

and I'll do
so just as soon as I see some of the same from you and the other
Mac-Bashers. Meanwhile, I suppose that I'll continue to give as well as
I get.

I wouldn't get too excited about how much you've "given."