[PCW] Powercat design

[Pelchat Family]

Pat,



Interesting thread, that seems to have a lot of mileage.  I would like to 
hear what you and others think have been examples of boats that have 
over-emphasized aesthetics at the cost of the advantages the designers 
should be protecting.  In other words, what boats seem to be failing for a 
relative lack of merit.



Although initially drawn by other designs (Africat and the Mooring 463), I 
have come to admire the PDQ boats a lot.  There are those who would argue 
that PDQ failed, but in my view, it was overwhelmed by external economic 
factors (such as the strength of the Canadian versus the US dollar) that no 
company has control over.  And I think the strength of the design (or at 
least its marketability) is clear in the way Pearson Composites seems to 
have stepped up to continue building the boats.



Thanks . . . and to all of you ...take care.



John


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pat Reischmann" <preischmann at msn.com>
To: "power-catamaran" <power-catamaran at lists.samurai.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:13 AM
Subject: [PCW] Powercat design


> When you get down to it, the real advantage power catamarans offer really 
> only
> matter to people who actually go cruising and or live aboard which is the
> smallest part of the marine market. The advantages SHOULD include:
>
> Fuel economy
> Stability
> Sea keeping
> Propeller/drive train protection
>
> Aesthetics for this group is at the bottom of the list. To achieve these
> qualities and to maximize them requires:
>
> Narrow hulls
> Lighter displacement
> Wider beams
> Lower CG
>
> None of this plays into the hands of aesthetics, so to an extent if you 
> want a
> true offshore capable catamaran, you are a bit locked in.
>
> Attempts to make catamarans more aesthetically pleasing with narrower 
> beam,
> rounded surfaces, wider hulls, usually results in compromising the real 
> reason
> and advantage to a high efficiency displacement power cat for cruising. 
> Based
> on my observations these attempts have failed badly because they really 
> end up
> offering no real advantage over their mono hull counterparts (with the
> exception maybe better stability), other than they can be called a 
> catamaran.
>
> I think the markets initial discovery infatuation a few years ago with the
> "different" catamaran alternative is over, and it's going to boil down to
> those who identify the fact they are after a specific more specialized, 
> albeit
> smaller part of the market, (livea board/offshore cruisers) who are much 
> more
> interested in fuel economy, and sea keeping, than having yacht club curb
> appeal.
> _______________________________________________
> Power-Catamaran Mailing List