Hypothesis testing
It seems logical that in event of a strike you want the energy to be routed to the water, which is highly conductive, and to have as much surface area of metal in contact with the water. I have heard of lightning hitting ungrounded boats and going through the hull resulting in porous laminate. Not sure the validitiy of that either but an interesting phenomena.
I can't argue with the statistics you quote not knowing the source, but the question I ask is what is the statistics on boats that are grounded versus those that are not. Saying bonded boats get hit more often is meaningless if 95% of the boats are bonded. Your statement is only valid if there is a 50/50 mix and all are in the same region with the same frequency of storms.Yes, but overall, statistics show that boats with grounding/bonding systems do get hit more often than ungrounded/bonded boats. However,statistics also show that the damage to a grounded/bonded boat that is hit is generally less than a ungrounded/unbonded boat that gets hit.
It seems logical that in event of a strike you want the energy to be routed to the water, which is highly conductive, and to have as much surface area of metal in contact with the water. I have heard of lightning hitting ungrounded boats and going through the hull resulting in porous laminate. Not sure the validitiy of that either but an interesting phenomena.