Perhaps because the weight concentration is more to the ends in a plus-s?
I imagine that a double bottom design distributes the weight more evenly over the whole of the hull, effectively shortening the arm of the moment of inertia. (a moment [tork] is a force [weight] multiplied by an arm [distance, leverage]). Also the CG may be lower in a double floor design.
Nothing is imposible, so I am curious how the designer will solve this issue.
It all depends how the two floors support each other. If it is only in a very few places it will not stiffen the boat at all. Worse, the hull may go wobbely over the ribs. A much more reliable way to stiffen the hull is by a sandwich construction. Not as crude as in the current plus-s. This technique was state of the art in the early 90-ies but today there are better solutions. Foam sandwich works, but its quite a thick laminate and the foam plates are hard to form. Not over the large areas of course, but in the all important corners where they should exactly join. Using a honeycombe filler renders a thinner hull that is just as stiff and much easier to make. Perhaps it weighs less too, not sure.
True, but if you have a choise:
1. Not self bailing but easy to right.
– Bucket bailing
2. Self bailing but goes turtle immediatly and is very hard to get up again.
– CB that is too high up in the air.
– much higher righting moment.
What would you prefer?
I am one that is not convinced self bailing is safer. I may be better of in an instable boat that is upright then in a self bailing one that has gone turtle and that I can’t get up again.
What would be the cruisers view?
I mean; they lack the convenience of a rescue boat….