Hello Norm, thanks for your note. We agree with everything you are saying. Please know, though, that as a site we strive to be as consistent as possible across all builders worldwide. (While 45% of our monthly users are from the US, we get about 30% from Europe, 10% from Canada and still another 15% from other countries around the globe. For example, Australia normally comes in ranked about 6th.)

Today, many but not all builder’s worldwide use LOA to include overhangs and LOD for hull length. That said, some still stick with the “honest” use of LOA… hull length.

When a builder only reports LOA, it is impossible for us to know which use of LOA they are using. As this is the case, for consistency’s sake, we show LOA as reported by the builder regardless of whether it includes overhangs or not.

We feel like, to report LOA as hull length for the 320 mkII, then add a note reporting the overall length as something longer, can be confusing for most of our users who are not marine professionals like yourself.

For us, the best scenario for the 320 mkII, one that will be the easiest for most to understand and is consistent with how other boats are reported, is to report LOA including overhangs and LOD for hull length.

We hope you understand.

BTW, we have a note on the 320 page that states LOA equals hull length.