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?

Parallax wrote:
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?

I don't believe it _is_ supposedly better. I suspect the question is more
one of degree. Banging into a rock at speed is not going to "help" things
in either case. Depending upon the particulars of the collision, either
design can be better, or worse, or whatever the third choice is.

I have "encountered" rocks and, in one case, a submerged automobile, and we
are still afloat. I also rolled completely over a deadhead log in the ICW
that made one hell of a lot of noise as we met, and certainly got the
attention of the dink I was dragging on about 60 feet of painter. Our boat
is a long-keel Alberg design with encapsulated lead. The only advantage I
would put forth for our design is that we seem less likely to pick up an
obstruction such as a lobster pot line, a stray submerged object, and so on.
However strange things _will_ happen.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

Parallax wrote:
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?

I don't believe it _is_ supposedly better. I suspect the question is more
one of degree. Banging into a rock at speed is not going to "help" things
in either case. Depending upon the particulars of the collision, either
design can be better, or worse, or whatever the third choice is.

I have "encountered" rocks and, in one case, a submerged automobile, and we
are still afloat. I also rolled completely over a deadhead log in the ICW
that made one hell of a lot of noise as we met, and certainly got the
attention of the dink I was dragging on about 60 feet of painter. Our boat
is a long-keel Alberg design with encapsulated lead. The only advantage I
would put forth for our design is that we seem less likely to pick up an
obstruction such as a lobster pot line, a stray submerged object, and so on.
However strange things _will_ happen.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

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?

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?

The question itself is "ill formed." The shape of the keel has a lot
more to do with how it takes the ground.

For example, a Hinckley Pilot 35 and a J35 both have external ballast.
I am quite sure a Pilot, sailing full tilt, would fare much better
hitting a reef than a J35 also sailing full tilt.

I am sure similar contrasts could be thought up with encapsulated
ballast.




On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:53:07 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

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
. com...
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?


Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
- Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"

The question itself is "ill formed." The shape of the keel has a lot
more to do with how it takes the ground.

For example, a Hinckley Pilot 35 and a J35 both have external ballast.
I am quite sure a Pilot, sailing full tilt, would fare much better
hitting a reef than a J35 also sailing full tilt.

I am sure similar contrasts could be thought up with encapsulated
ballast.




On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:53:07 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

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
. com...
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?


Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
- Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"