Today's Topics:

 1. Re: The recent query about Fountaine Pajot's Highland-35 and
    Maryland 37 power cats (Tahir Uysal)

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:15:10 +0200
From: Tahir Uysal tahiruysal@me.com
To: Power Catamaran List power-catamaran@lists.trawlering.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] The recent query about Fountaine Pajot's
Highland-35 and Maryland 37 power cats
Message-ID: 05C228B6-11CC-47D7-A363-3AB574BC70BC@me.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Rod,

What a great review !

[partial deletion here of Tahir's text]

On 25 ?ub 2015, at 03:02, Rod Gibbons rodgibbons@mindspring.com wrote:

RE:  The recent thread about the differences between Fountaine Pajot's prior power cats:  the Highland 35 and Maryland 37.

As a former, long-time dealer for Fountaine Pajot, and Lagoon, and Gemini catamarans (with offices on San Francisco Bay, and Seattle, WA), and as a former Maryland 37 owner, I have some observations about the two boats addressed in a recent communication: FP's Highland 35 and Maryland 37 power cats. Some of what I'll write is objective, some subjective. It's based on my experiences with those vessels when they were new, the years from about 2002 to 2006.

1. As an overall observation, I could only recommend the H-35 if you were to find one for a really GREAT (low) price. Your alternative would be to consider the Canadian hit of back then (which, at the time, was comparably priced), the PDQ-34 power cat.

2. However, if you can at all afford it, opt for the arguably superior (to both of the above cats) Maryland 37.

3. I very much liked the appearance of the H-35. It's large-and-low cockpit was, in my opinion, immeasurably superior to the high-and-blockish PDQ's stern. The swim platform of either hull of the H-35 lead right into a LARGE cockpit area, which then leads right into the salon. As I recall, those 3 regions existed at a near seamless and same-height:  a long, same-level extension between the swim platform, to cockpit, to salon. This also allowed for big, hinged hatches in the sole of the cockpit, providing quite good access to each engine. There was plenty of room in that cockpit for a group to enjoy themselves when dockside or at anchor, and it was a far better place from which to fish than the abrupt rise (via several stairs) from the PDQ's transom up to its much higher cockpit.  Of course, the reason for the height and chunkiness of the PDQ squat-and-abrupt stern was it's rather ingenious internal layout which offered 2 aft cabins, accessible from the aft end of the salon with barely a step or two, whereas ALL of the smaller FP power cats have their cabins down in either hull.

4. The Maryland 37 has almost as stepless of a layout between swim platforms, cockpit and salon (although there may be a slight rise of a step between the swim platform and cockpit -- sorry, I can't recall that at this time. But if there is, it's wa-aa-a-y less problematic than either the PDQ-34, or virtually ANY sailing cat in that size range, due to the latters many steps in order to reach their elevated cockpits.) And thus there is quick-and-easy access to the M-37's engines through similar (but larger) hinged hatches along either side of that spacious cockpit sole. (with the PDQ, you have to wrestle the mattresses out of their positiongs, lift the boards under them, THEN get to the engines. Obviously, after cruising for several hours, there can be additional heat transmitted to the beds above -- sometimes that's appreciated, sometimes it isn't.)

5. The galley for the M-35 is minimal. This need not have been -- look at any of the (smaller) Gemini 34' sailing cats, or even the smaller Catfisher 32 sailing cat -- and you'll find more functional galleys. (I consider this a "French thing" -- the galley in the FP 35 and 37 and 38 sailing cats, and the Lagoon 38 and 380 were continually undersized, including micro-size counter tops, and way too few cabinets. Again, even the galley-up layout of the far smaller CF-32 [UK designed-and-built] was superior to the L-380. And the H-35 galley was, in my opinion, barely "weekender-adequate" compared to what it might have been. Comparatively, the PDQ-34 had more (if smaller) cabinets, but not quite as good visibility for the chef. I'm not sure if the natural ventilation would have been quite as good, either. The M-37's galley is much superior to that of its smaller sister.

6. The headroom in the salon og M-35 was pure frustration, especially when compared to the really GREAT headroom inside the PDQ-34. When you first enter the salon of the M-35 the headroom is about 6' or slightly taller. But,as you move forward, it diminishes substantially: as I recall, it was somewhere around 5'9" -- maybe (?) 5'10" -- at the forward end of the salon. So, what could have been a fine inside steering station was forever problematic. In fact (and I'm not sure if this was rectified by the last year or two of H-35 production or not), I seem to recall that boat either NOT offering an inside helm, or else simply a set of optional, engine controls...but not much else. (It may have even been just an autopilot joy stick -- NOT something you could adequately use in close-quarter conditions. By comparison, the M-37 offers a GOOD interior helm...but ONLY one good helm seat. (What's with THAT? Guess how many wives/girlfriends groused -- and rightly so -- about that solo configuration?!)

For sure, the H-35's inboard steering situation was, at best, a BARELY half-hearted commitment. And yet the flybridge helm was woefully inadequate for all-weather cruising. Again, that truly BAD/absent helm station need not have been: refer to again, of all things, the much smaller (only 32' x 13') Catfisher 32 motorsailor (in the best sense of the term) sailing catamaran which had a very serviceable interior helm (along with its cockpit helm). By "serviceable, I mean:  Good standing headroom, 360-degree visibility, good wheel-and-engine-controls, room for basic nav-electronics, and comfortable adjoining seating for 4 or 5 individuals who had the same exterior view as the skipper. In fact, I'd say the really unimaginative -- no, just outright BADLY designed helm stations in the H-35 (both in the salon AND up on the flybridge -- and especially compared to what could EASILY have been included by the yard within the parameters of the given layout), give me the most serious pause about recommending the boat. Alas, as just referenced, the flybridge helm was little better (well, at least headroom wasn't an issue). But sheesh, that upper helm invariably seemed to have been designed by someone back in the FP design office who'd NEVER been to sea. Yes, on the drawing board they allowed for "seating, steering wheel, modest instrument panel," which, in the 2-D line drawings must looked like an adequate design. However, in "real life" conditions, the ergonomics of that upper helm station were poor, minimal, and . . . oh yeah . . .bad.

Probably everything ANY designer ever needs to know about the ergonomics of furnishings was fully addressed back in the Bauhaus period of the 1920s:  how many inches of support should be supplied under ones thighs; how much the seat's horizontal surface should angle down at the rear; what angle the back of the seat should describe. In short, take a look at ANY well-built Adirondacks wood chair, and you'll find it amazingly comfortable WITHOUT any cushion or padding. Why? BECAUSE of the angle of the seat and its back. Perfectly proportioned angles. Then, compare that to the child-size dimensions allowed for the H-35 . . . not to mention so many other cats (or boats, period!) Not to get on a rant here, but AS SOON as I enter a boat and see a dinette with precisely horizontal seats, and precisely vertical back rest, I KNOW I'm looking at a seat that ANYONE will begin twisting about on, discomfort quickly increasing, in less than 20 minutes -- FORGET ABOUT trying to find comfort during an hour or twos chat AFTER dinner in those same seats. You've GOT to have at least angled backs. And if the portion under your thighs is too shallow, that's going to cause inevitable discomfort, too.

While I'm at it, let me add that a "bull-nose" along the front edge of the cushion is HIGHLY desirable, too. (You'll see this in EVERY automobile that has properly -- ergonomically--designed seats. A "bull-nose" is that raised [rounded-or-angular] portion along the front edge of the cushion. It, in effect, creates that desirous angle, putting your butt slightly lower than the area behind your knees) which ALWAYS increases sitting comfort. (Of course, the bad/cheap way to go is simply to have a perfectly horizontal surface, onto which a slab of covered foam is set.)  To that effect, many models in the Fountaine Pajot line have proven highly superior to those offered by, say Lagoon, and some other brands. Even some of FPs seats from 15 years ago were marvels of ergonomic comfort. Unfortunately, this really GOOD seating design was out of all proportion (in terms of the time and money spent) compared to the ergonomics of innumerable adjoining features. Alas, too many American boats don't give a second-of-thought to this matter, either. Frankly, as soon as you board ANY vessel at a boat show, just by eye-balling the seats -- in the cockpit, in the salon, on the flybridge -- if you CANNOT readily see yourself lying down on your back on any of the seats for a snooze, due to their narrowness, you KNOW you're looking at a boat in which the seating has NOT been given proper thought. A man needs a MINIMUM of 20" width to lie down without feeling like he's going to fall off. If the back cushion is 3" thick, then the seating-portion of the seat should be close to 23" deep. So, once you add PROPERLY designed cushions to a 20" wide base, you CAN have (although the angle of the back portion must be correct for this to actually occur), but you CAN have a truly great seat. One that's comfortable even for repeated, 2-hour sitting sessions.

So, from an even broader perspective, I NEVER understand when boat designers create seating, counter tops, work areas, beds -- name the living area of your choice on ANY small cruising vessel -- why they don't make each of those areas more comfortable. As I said, the research for ALL type of sitting and standing ergonomics was done 100 years ago. This isn't a mystery. It's not even a science. And no, I do NOT accept the "well-it's-a-small-vessel" argument. The current interest in the Tiny House movement has shown us that even just an 8'6" wide x 14' to 24' long structure can have GOOD seating, GOOD counter space, etc. So with cats that are 16', 18', 20-feet or wider, the "too-little-room" response is simply an excuse. There is NO reason for poor (i.e. uncomfortable) design. Alas, it remains probably the LEAST addressed (yet one of the MOST aggravating) aspects of catamaran design that I've viewed for more than 30 years.    Period.

Getting back on point:  the flybridge helm for the H-35 was (a) too short (under the thighs) . . . badly angled for extended sitting . . . offered the WORST leg room, had a Torquemada-inspired back rest (i.e. a single chrome bar with a ridiculously thin foam tube to "make it comfortable" (ha!) . . . and had a helm/dash/wheel configuration that, in relation to the unadjustable seat,  just couldn't have been more poorly designed.  If there's any "good news," I'd say that the seat/dash arrangement was so minimal in size and construction that one would EASILY be better served by tearing it all out, and simply buying some GOOD stock seating and console units (either West Marine or O'Brien ... or any of the good after-market suppliers for the nation's numerous deck boats which offer really GOOD seating, and steering consoles, ALL superior to the FP-supplied layout), and replacing with same, in order to get a more comfortable and functional flybridge helm.

Worse yet, there was virtually NOWHERE to put ANYTHING.  I mean it takes next to no design smarts to include at least SOME recessed spots atop a dashboard, and/or in little "cave-lockers" below the dash. For what? sunglasses...cell phone...paperback book....hat....keys & wallet....snack bar, etc. And is there an automobile created today -- even the CHEAPEST -- that doesn't provide recesses/holders for beverages? So why are NONE provided by FP?  (Or Lagoon, et al). Further, it's the easiest thing in the world to put a small opening door at the end, or along the backside, of an enclosed bench seat so as to have additional storage room for bulkier items (rolled up windbreaker, foul-weather jacket, towel, minor cleaning supplies -- perhaps even a pull-out insulated picnic box for snacks or beverages, etc.).  I also seem to recall there was barely a single hand-hold up at the helm, too. (This is SUCH a commonly disregarded feature. I look at the expensive 38' to 48' AQUILA cats and think the same thing. Although, their minimalist design THROUGHOUT their interiors is equally shocking. C'mon guys -- you're charging $400K to $800K-plus . . .put some dang handholds throughout your boats, and invest a few thousand more in a helm station that is truly COMFORTABLE for skipper and mate.  Again, this has ALL been addressed already. Look at ANY of the commuter power cats serving Hong Kong, Seattle-to-Victoria, Lake Geneva, . . .and look at THEIR helm stations. Those crews would MUTINY if forced to accept what today's supposed "leading cat manufacturers" provide for "cruising comfort" at their respective helms.

I know, I'm starting to sound like the ol' neighbor guy to the kids . . . GET-OFFA-MY-LAWN!  (smile)  But seriously, the average cruising boater spends 85% of his/her time either dockside or at anchor. And they are NOT standing most of that time. So, to skimp on the salon seating (not to mention the helm seating -- which is when the boat is liable to be most active, and thus those seated MOST in need of especially supportive and ergonomic seating), is to short-change the owners regarding one of the aspects of their respective vessels that they'll MOST use. The seats!

At least the skipper has the wheel to hold onto. In short, the flybridge of the H-35 was virtually naked of most ANY feature that ANY so-called "cruising boat" should include. And I recall, during a slow spot in one or another boat show, when I took my badge off and ambled over to the PDQ-34, and looked over ITS flybridge. Virtually EVERY item I've mentioned above was addressed: GOOD seating, multiple storage areas, ergonomically-smart relationship between the helm seat and the dash-and-wheel. I don't recall if it had better-designed leg room than the H-35 . . . but it could NOT have been worse.

Frankly, this is a downside to many French-designed yachts in general. They perpetually are inclined to sacrifice functional items in lieu of a spare, stylish, "clean" look. (Although, even then there is NO excuse for design execution that results in specific discomfort.)  In my experience, that doesn't add spit to one's safety or comfort when out bashing through a seaway. As it happens, this is as true for the Lagoon designs (which I also represented for many years) as the Fountaine Pajot designs. (I've NEVER seen a more stylishly inventive exterior, matched with the most god-awfully ill-conceived interior than Lagoon's 42' and 43' power cats of a few years back. Whoa! I could iterate a DOZEN "what-WERE-they-thinking" problems with most every aspect of that design's interior layout. I'll simply say, though, it's NO surprise that sales were so perpetually bad in the U.S. for that model, and certainly no surprise that they abandoned the model after several years of abysmally low sales. And now? I REMAIN mystified by Lagoon and its notion of power cats. With their new, so-called 'power cats' they've pretty much just stripped off the mast and added a couple of larger engines -- VERY disappointing for anyone seeking even a "moderately serious" power-cruising cat in the 40-to-60-something length range. WHERE is the all-weather helm, with truly supportive seating, arm rests, handlholds, etc. Then again, maybe they're ahead of me on this, and have discovered that the majority of their would-be buyers ONLY go out in relatively calm, non-rainy/non-cold conditions, and thus all-weather considerations are irrelevant. . . ?)  I can only imagine these latest designs are the result of two, albeit wildly, divergent philosophies: (1) Things are tight financially, and they decided the way less expensive route of simply modifying their already existing sailing cats (quite nice, by the way), into these truly 'minimalist' power cats (and I use that latter designation in only the very loosest of terms), or (2) The folks at Lagoon have done some serious market-research, and discovered they can capture an appreciable added market share of non-sailors by simply "tweaking" their current sailing models and removing the sailing rigs.  Then again, one only has to look at the perpetually dismal acceptance of the Citroen and Renault        automobiles in the U.S. to recognize -- there's simply a surprisingly large divide between cultural-and-design sensibilities between the Frogs and the Yanks.

But, I digress . . .

7. For whatever reason, FP got much (most?) of the above liabilities addressed in the Maryland 37. There's at least decent headroom in the salon, the interior helm is workable/usable, the seats are bull-nosed. (Although, they failed to offer TWO truly comfortable seats at that interior helm, and I find that a LOT of American boaters are desirous of a helm station offering TRULY comfortable seating for TWO . . . husband AND wife . . . .for extended cruising.) The galley is fully adequate -- but, once again, it could be BETTER if the French weren't so devoted to their curves and stylish "visual" marriages between materials and bulkheads and counter tops. . . ALL at the expense of additional, good ol' rectangular compartments and drawers.  I mean the galley in their Maryland 37 has less than 6' of linear counter space, barely 2 drawers (if I recollect correctly), and 5 SMALL compartments.  By comparison, my latest 40' power cat design offers FIFTEEN FEET of linear counter space (lovely stone, too!) . . . EIGHT capacious drawers . . . and FOURTEEN cabinets! I mean, if a builder says they're offering a "cruising vessel", then let's get serious about storage areas.. . ."n'est ce pas" my dear French designers?

8. I very much like the curved, FG steps leading from the cockpit to the flybridge (so much so, I used the same design parameters for my own 40-footers cockpit-to-flybridge stairs). The M-37's flybridge is suitably roomy, aesthetically attractive, and a grand place to spend time, whether underway , or at anchor. Are the seats as comfortable as they SHOULD be? No . . .but they're not bad. So too for the legroom at the helm seat. Storage? TOO minimal, but at least (unlike the H-35) there is SOME (i.e. under the seats).

9. Performance:  I have only modest experience with the H-35. I spent a full day cruising one off of La Rochelle (near the FP factory). And we undertook all manner of conditions (including a partial grounding!...I'm pleased to note the factory rep was at the helm at that time; obviously he was NOT watching the depth meter.) The boat seem comfortable in most sea states (although we never had more than 12-13 knots of wind, and even the errant wakes we occasionally chased after wasn't more than about 24" to 30"). And, when a few sprinkles DID come our way, we were stuck up on the flybridge, given there was no interior helm. (Would you buy an automobile with no more than a "bimini" to protect you? Then don't accept that too-modest design accommodation in a boat, either.)

By comparison, during the near year-long period that I owned a Maryland 37 here on Puget Sound (Seattle), I had that boat out in all manner of conditions. And I was pleased with her in all manner of weather. One blustery November day -- it was blowing 25-to-30 knots from the north, with occasional higher gusts, and with 4-6-foot "graybeards" rolling down the 125-mile length of Puget Sound -- I set out across the Sound, east to west, to visit my brother on Bainbridge Island. The Sound is 7 miles wide, but my diagonal course to his home would be a 14 mile run, at about a 45-degree angle to the wind and big seas, off my starboard quarter. During that 80-minute transit I saw only 2 other vessels out in that mess. Both were Grand Banks trawlers, about 38' to 42' long . . .and "rolling their guts out" while they chugged along at barely 6 knots. I held a steady 13-14 knots, and enjoyed a remarkably comfortable passage, even though the seas were among the largest I've experienced here on this usually more sedate Sound. (I've singlehanded the Atlantic, and cruised the European coast and all of the Caribbean, so I have some experience with heavy-weather sailing.)  I was repeatedly impressed with the seakeeping capabilities of the Maryland's twin hulls. I don't remember the engines size for certain, but I believe I had twin 130 HP Yanmars in that Maryland. They were somewhat noisy -- no doubt the DBs could have been lessened with (a) better insulation in the engine compartments, plus (b) spending several hundred dollars for better dampening hardware where the engines mounted to the hulls. But it wasn't at anywhere close to a painful level, and up on the flybridge the engines were always much less noticeable. Even after all those years repping cats, I was forever impressed by the comfort they afford in a rough sea. I recall visiting New Zealand, to meet with reknowned cat designer Roger Hill. During my days there, we got out on all manner of sailing and power cats. The most . . .ummm . . ."eye-widening" experience is when Roger brought me back into one harbor when 8' to 10' BREAKING seas blocked all outgoing boats. (Outgoing tide, and inblowing winds made for Columbiar-River-bar-like conditions. Of course, he's a well experienced hand aboard his own designs. But there were times when we were partially hanging over a breaking crest that it looked about 20' down into the trough -- so, let's just agree it was probably more like 15'. But with the big, twin engines and that inherent cat stability, he kept us just-behind to right-atop each crest, working us forward, wave by wave, until we were suddenly within the relative calm of the harbor. I'd been a monohull boat for nearly 30 years before boarding my first cat, and I can tell you:  You just would NOT have wanted to try what Roger did in a single hull vessel. Not that there aren't some ol' salts out there who couldn't do it.

But, as I headed diagonally across Puget Sound on that really blustery November day, i was again reminded:  "I'm so-o-o-o much better off being in this Marlyand 37 than ANY comparable sized monohull." With the latter, I'd have had to much more closely emulate the Grand Banks' speed, and thus wallowed miserably. But the M-37's hulls cut through the innumerably crests, and -- truly -- I had a genuinely FUN ride clear across the Sound (so much so that I thereafter brought my brother, also an avid boater, out onto the Sound again for about 30 minutes, just to demonstrate the cat advantage. (He owned a 60-foot trawler and allowed as how he's never take it out in such conditions if given the chance: he AND the boat could certainly "take it." It simply, however, would NOT have been "fun."

Well, I've rambled far too long. I hope you took advantage of the "delete key" if the length annoyed you. But I also hope this gives a bit of information about what a long-time cat dealer dwells on when considering power cats in the 30'-to-40' range.

Oh, BTW:  I've only seen the online info regarding FP's newest power cat (somewhere around 38 or 39 feet I think). It looked to me like they've addressed at least several of my above complaints. I was, in fact, impressed: both by the yacht's overall appearance (a subjective comment, to be sure), AND by what I could see on their website, which showed attention paid to several of the points I ranted about, above. [And no, I have no connection with FP these days. In fact, as also noted briefly above, I'm soon [within the week] going to have the completed 2-D and 3-D renderings for a new, 40' cat I've designed, which has ALL the features and design ideas that I'M seeking as my "final power cat":  this includes my desire for the most HOME-like interior I can manage (i.e., ALL major appliances -- big flat-screen TV hanging over a same-size fireplace [this pair of features in both the living room and the Owner's suite] -- BIG living room AND separate dining area [each with house-like furnishings] -- office space with 4' "picture window" -- the optional layouts including 1-to-3 bedrooms, and 1-to-3 heads. This power cat, cruising at 10 to 13 knots, will be great for any lakes, river, ICW, "big loop", or even coastal-bay cruising [it's windows are fine for what I've just mentioned, but are NOT designed for ocean cruising]. The range, depending upon tankage chosen, will be from 450 to 700 miles; twin 75-to 120  HP Yanmars -- 40' x 17' x 35" dimensions, with a HUGE sun deck up top -- $375K "Turn-key" ready for cruising  (incl. genset, AC, nav-instruments, windlass/anchor). If anyone's interested, I could expand on how that design evolved. Even with my long-time power cat experience, it was an a sometimes trying endeavor to address the many "complaints" I've had over the years about OTHER power cat designs. But in the end, I've gotten JUST the design that will best suit me. And, as such, I anticipate there may be a few others boaters who are just as picky . . . ooops, I mean "discerning" (grin).

Cheers,

Rod Gibbons, boating author, and mngr/founder
Eco-SeaCottage.com
Seattle, WA
(206) 297-1330

---

Power-Catamaran Mailing List

On 26 Şub 2015, at 10:08, Rod Gibbons rodgibbons@mindspring.com wrote:

Dear Tahir Uysal,

Please find my comments/answers (below) within the text of your kind reply to my previous posting.    Cheers -- Rod Gibbons

On 2/25/2015 8:59 PM, power-catamaran-request@lists.trawlering.com wrote:

Today's Topics:

1. Re: The recent query about Fountaine Pajot's Highland-35 and
   Maryland 37 power cats (Tahir Uysal)

---

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:15:10 +0200
From: Tahir Uysal tahiruysal@me.com
To: Power Catamaran List power-catamaran@lists.trawlering.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] The recent query about Fountaine Pajot's
Highland-35 and Maryland 37 power cats
Message-ID: 05C228B6-11CC-47D7-A363-3AB574BC70BC@me.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Rod,

What a great review !

[partial deletion here of Tahir's text]

[TAHIR]  Some comments and questions; What I find most bizarre in a way with H35 is that the boat has only one head for the 3 cabin version, although the earlier Greenland versions have 2 heads in all configuration models, like M37. That is probably, almost ok for a family but would not be the case if there are, say, two couples on board. Also, maybe the owners have not selected them but I also find the oven suddenly disappearing in H35 whereas the G34 had one and so does M37.

[ROD]  Well, on the one hand, I, too, LIKE the notion of 2 cabins and 2 heads in Fountaine Pajot's Highland 35 power cat -- if only theoretically.  A 2-cabin/2-head arrangement would SEEM to make sense . . . . OR DOES IT?  The market place (the source of much "common wisdom") usually "gets things right." And the market place suggests that a 2-cabin/2-head layout in 32' to 36' cats is NOT a "good idea." Why might that be?

1. First off, my "guesstimate" is that 2 couples, cruising on "just" a 32' to 36' cat, simply doesn't happen often. I mean, if you're seeking a boat for bare-boat charter, I think you'd be hugely ill-advised (I had written "NUTS" in my first draft...smile)  to not spend the extra $200 or $300 per week, per person, in order to have a MUCH bigger (i.e. 38' to 41') cat. And in that size range, the seemingly modest increase of 3-to-4-feet in length  IS, in fact,  a substantial jump in overall room. It's like moving up from a pop-top VW Westphalia "camper model" to a 20' RV. Two adult couples touring in the former would just be so much less comfortable than 2 couples touring in the latter.
2. And,  ESPECIALLY in cats from 32' to 36' of length . . .WHERE DO YOU PUT EVERYONE'S STUFF if you only have 2 cabins and 2 heads? Even if everyone is savvy about boating, and brings only one fabric, modest-size seabag apiece . . .WHERE do the 4 seabags go when it comes time to sleep? The ONLY place typically available is that tiny scrap of floor space at the foot of each bed. The so-called "closets" (hanging lockers) in either of the 2 cabins are miniscule -- they might be capable of containing 2 hung-up shirts and a rolled up set of underwear. There may be a bit of room under a forward berth, but if those two compartments are the heads, then there's likely NO room under the aft berths (because the engines are under there in a relatively short, 32' to 36',  cat.)  Sure, this situation CAN be managed; i.e., you just relocate everyone's sea bag into the salon every night. And sure, likewise, two couples CAN go camping in an 8' x 6' umbrella tent . . .but are there many who CHOOSE to do so? (Again, with this tent example, when the four chose to sleep, ALL backpacks and unworn clothing would have to be stowed out under a raised fly-tarp. But is that REALLY the format you want to follow for a multi-day camping trip?)  In short, unless you only VERY occasionally have a 2nd couple on board, who INSIST on having their own head (and hey, who's paying for that boat initially -- YOU . . . or BOTH couples?), having that 3rd cabin as a place where everyone's sea bag can be stowed at night is almost a necessity in terms of just functional living. In my experience, THAT is the use of the 3rd-cabin on just about ANY cat up to, perhaps 41' to 42' length. The 3rd cabin is for STOWAGE, NOT sleeping. (And when you look at how doll-house-like the galley is, that 3rd cabin is where a LOT of the groceries are going to be stowed to. Because, if not there . . . WHERE?) When you move up to the 39' to 42' length, THEN you have room in the midship section of each hull for 1 or 2 good-sized stowage lockers.
3. A substantial number of sailors simply do NOT want to double the likelihood of head-plumbing problems. Not to mention which, you have to ALSO give up additional room in one bilge for the holding tank for that 2nd head.
   So, while as noted above ("theoretically" I think the 2-cabin/2-head option "seems" to make sense in a small, 32' to 36' cruising cat), I CAN'T refute the reality. And that's this:  In all the years that I sold cats (and I sold a lot of them), I don't think more than 3, maybe 4 people chose a 2-cabin/2-head combination, when the alternative layout was the 3/1 choice. Do you comprehend that "reality"?  Again: maybe TWO, or THREE couples chose that 2/2 configuration during DECADES of selling cruising cats.
   And, when you get to the larger sizes -- 38' to 45' (of which I sold even more during those 30-plus years) -- the NO-BRAINER choice was to have an "owner's suite" in one hull (sleeping portion aft, lots of storage and maybe a desk midship, with a head-and-SEPARATE shower forward), and two good-sized sleeping cabins (fore and aft) in the other hull, with a single, shared head-and-separate-shower midship in that hull.  And STILL the 3rd cabin tended to be the "storage locker."
4. So (again, merely theoretically), the 2-cabin/2-head seems (??) to make sense.
   This leads me to note a couple of "non-negotiables" (these are simply my subjective choices) when it comes to investing in a used (or new) 32' to 36' cruising power (or sailing) cat:
   FIRST, one HOPES for full standing headroom (and I'm simply talking about 6') headroom throughout the boat. If the design does NOT give you that, I'd really think twice about purchasing it. I'm 5'10"...and I was amazed when Fountaine Pajot once had a 37' or 38' model that ONLY offered 5'9" headroom in a portion of each hull. BAD design choice. It could NOT have affected performance OR construction costs to have increased the headroom in that length of a cat so it was AT LEAST 6' everywhere. Shoot, Lagoon had a very rare (I think they only made about a dozen of them), 35' sailing cat in which the salon headroom was about 6'5", and the headroom in the aft cabins was nearly 7' -- one of the ONLY times I can remember when I found myself thinking, "Man, why didn't they design a LOWER ceiling profile?")
   SECOND, (again, subjective, but ....) for ME, the absence of a SEPARATE, STAND-UP SHOWER is a virtual deal-breaker . . . whether in a boat or an RV. Oh sure, I've cruised in boats with "wet heads" (where the toilet -- sometimes the sink, too -- get either "spritzed"...or outright sprayed whenever the shower is used.) But it becomes such an annoying chore to HAVE to wipe down the entire head compartment ever time you shower (and if you DON'T, black mold starts growing within just days). In addition, if it's a 'wet-head' set up, just WHERE do you put your clothes, not to mention your towel, when you DO shower?...on the floor, OUTSIDE the head compartment door?
   THIRD.  When I DID see the rare, 2-cabin/2-head cat in the 32' to 36' length, my UN-CHANGING opinion was that the owners would be so-o-o much better served if they simply had the head-and sink in one of the head compartments, and replaced the other head with a stand-alone shower (maybe with a small, corner sink), in the other so-called head compartment.
   After all, for those of us raised in the 50s and 60s . . .it was NOT unusual for a 2 or even 3 bedroom house to have only ONE bathroom. (Although I am somewhat amazed to consider that even as I write it. But it was certainly true in my house as a kid, and I think for all of the neighboring houses, too. And everyone got along OK.)
   So, with ALL of the above considerations, I hope you'll see that the "theoretically superior" 2-cabin/2-head arrangement in a 32' to 36' cat really is NOT the best choice in most instances. And even when the builders OFFERED it as an option, when push-came-to-shove, the VAST majority of buyers did NOT select that option. Hence, the "rarity of that beast" in the used market place. As so often happens, the "common wisdom" was, in most regards, right again as concerns this matter.

[TAHIR]  On a design detail; would you able to comment as to why the (window) hatches on M37 (and G34) have disappeared from the front on H35 ? Is there a problem with those or is that someone was playing around with the design? They must be so useful for ventilation of the boat given the greenhouse effect these boats are most possibly suffering in hotter climates.

[ROD]  As you've no doubt already gathered, I have a few (or more) comments about most things boating-related. This is no exception. First off, if you want to keep from having leaks in a boat, just get rid of ALL windows -- ALL hatches -- ALL openings. PERIOD. Because if you really do any serious blue-water cruising, you will find there are very few, TRULY WATER-TIGHT hatches or windows. (At least NOT in the price range that buyers of 32' to 36' cats are willing to pay for. Now, when you spend a couple THOUSAND dollars for a hatch or door -- see the units employed on, say, the Nordhavn ocean cruising boats -- THEN they're truly watertight.) But, the buyers of 32' to 45' power cats simply do NOT want to pay the (literally) THOUSANDS of dollars that truly water-tight ports, hatches, and sea doors CAN cost.
There was a time when Fountaine Pajot offered one of its two, forward bow lockers with NO hatches, and NO ports. The only way you could access it was by going below, and climbing along the length of the forward berth, then opening a thin, wood, bulkhead door, to get into that bow compartment. And guess what?  you could store most ANYTHING up there that you wanted to keep dry -- even packs of toilet paper and paper towels. I DEFY you to store those particular items in ANY bow locker on a 30' to 50'-or-so cat (sail or power), that has either a hatch or a port (be it fixed or opening) in that bow locker. The hydraulics that come into play when a bow is plunging into a big seaway -- literally THOUSANDS of times some days -- is almost immeasurable.
SECOND.  An opening port, even just a small one, probably costs the builder -- ALL things considered -- about $800 to $850 when you factor in the initial design-drawing changes required  and then tooling changes (so the fiberglass has a nice, recessed edge to accept that port light), and then the cost of the port, and then the cost of having a workman NOT do some other aspect of the construction in order TO DO the installation of that opening port, which means overall production is slowed, which delays the NEXT cat along the production line which is NOT having that pair of opening portlights installed in its bow sections . . .yada-yada-yada.
Meanwhile, though, the potential buyer, viewing the boat at a boat show or at a dealer's dock,  is simply thinking: "Yikes! I saw that very same opening port in the West Marine catalog for about $109! ! ! What the hell are they doing charging $850?"  Well, besides the various things I just note, you ALSO have to figure in the fact that EVERY manufacturer factors in some percentage of profit-margin for WHATEVER he includes in his boat. Typically, a builder wants to earn AT LEAST 15% profit margin . . .but he ALSO has to factor in that the dealer needs to earn nearly 20%.  (If a dealer can't earn at least that much, he might as well sell ONLY used boats, because the latter earn him 10% for a product that he neither had to first purchase/floor on his own, nor does he have to insure it, nor does he have to pay for the dockage -- the SELLER of that used boat pays for all that. So, if the dealer isn't getting close to 20% when selling a new boat, again, why bother? Just sell brokerage. And, truth be known, the majority of all new-boat dealers make MORE money from (a) their repair/service departments, AND (b) from their brokerage (used) boat divisions, than from their new boat sales. In fact, some of the rationale for even bothering to sell new boats is that doing so thereby increases the service and used-boat facets of the business.) So, this is a long-winded explanation of why there probably weren't opening ports. Either the builder decided that it's just not WORTH the cost; or, too look at it from the opposite direction, the builder could decrease his retail price by $1,700 for the boat ($850 per opening port), while the buyer only sees that as a $218 diminishment (because he's simply thinking, "Oh, those ports are only worth $108 a piece).
THIRD.  You're absolutely CORRECT about ventilation. You CANNOT (in my opinion), have too much ventilation when boating in the tropics (which, relatively speaking, includes much of the eastern U.S. during the summer time, in terms of actual temperature-and-humidity). BUT, every opening port or hatch that CAN be opened, is -- in heavy-weather conditions -- a very likely source of leaking. I recall that ALL sail-cruising cats used to have opening hatches so that if the boat turned turtle, people could get out of them. But no matter HOW much money the spent on ocean-rated hatches, leaking was NOT an unknown occurrence. And it got so that some of the builders finally went with FIXED hatches, and a tiny hammer-with-a-chain affixed nearby. So that, IF the vessel overturned, one could smash open the hatch. In the meanwhile, the fact that it could NOT open, greatly increased the chance it would not leak, even when the huge, hydraulic pressures of seas sweeping between the hulls and pressing mightily against those hatches was unrelenting, especially during weeks'-long ocean passages.

[TAHIR]  Did you experience wave slapping under the deck, say during this passage that you have mentioned below?

[ROD]    In my experience, "bridgedeck slam" (the sound resulting from waves between the hulls smacking up against the underside of the bridge deck, which is that relatively horizontal surface between the two hulls), is simply a moot point with power cats when they'reunderway. If the vessel is doing more than about 9 or 10 knots, the water between the hulls is forced to really speed through that slot between the hulls (Venturi effect). Aboard most any power cat, once it's doing more than 10 knots, if you stand at the stern and watch the water exiting from between the hulls it is, literally, a rectangular shape, the size of the rectangle defined by the size of the apperature between the two hulls, AND the height of the bridgedeck above the water's surface. Plus, as you get to 10 knots and higher, the boat begins to lift slightly (semi-planing).  It may be that there's some effect from the increased wind as the boat's speed increases. As the wind doubles in speed, it squares in force. (I think I'm remembering my high-school physics properly...?) So, a power cat that increased in speed from, say 5 knots to 10 knots, has double the air-speed pushing through the two bows from the front, but that air speed squares in its force. In other words, as your power cat increases in speed, the water gets flattened by the air compressing between the hulls. And, since I have NO training about fluid dynamics, I couldn't begin to tell you what's happening with the water that's getting forced/funneled between the 2 hulls. But, the point I'm getting at is that I was aware of little-if-no bridgedeck slam when proceeding through rough waters and 30 knot winds. (Although, yes, an occasional, irregular shaped wave WOULD sometimes smack inside the bow portion of the leeward hull -- that that same thing would smack the bow of a monohull boat, too.) Keep in mind, there's a "masking effect" also. First, there's a greatly increased degree of exterior noise from the weather. AND . . .there's substantial engine noise once a pair of 130 HP diesels are thumping away, at three-quarter throttle, only about 15 feet from the interior helm station.
Bottom line:  I was NEVER as aware of "bridgedeck slam" when cruising in a power cat as I was when cruising in a sailing cat of the same dimensions. And frankly, as long as the sailing model wasn't overloaded (AND it was a modern design, with good bridgedeck clearance built in), I never found bridgedeck slam a problem during thousands of miles sailed . . .

[TAHIR]  The ones that I am looking at are around 2007 for H35 and I could get a 2001/02 M37, for more or less the same price level. Should I be concerned with the age, if a survey were to provide a good report and also if the engine hours are considerably low?

[ROD]  Shoot, there are good fiberglass boats from the 1950s (when production-built FG boats first began appearing) that are still providing satisfying results.  But yes, a GOOD survey is absolutely MANDATORY (in my opinion) for ANY used vessel you purchase. And it's just about the size that you're looking at when I think you'd be well served by having a SEPARATE  survey of the engines, too. A boat surveyor -- besides telling you much about the current condition of the vessel itself -- may (??) also find any "big things" that may be wrong about the engines:  loose attachment of them to the hulls (does it simply need tightening...or have the bolts been partially pulled out of the hull?)  . . .shaft misalignment. . . possible gear/transmission problems based on how it sounds to him . . . and so on. But typically you'll find in the wording of his survey that he is NOT vouching for anything but obvious problems with the engines. So, given the size (and hence cost) of the engines you'd find in the 35' to 37' cats you're considering, I'd strongly recommend 2 other "surveys." (1) I'd have a diesel mechanic -- one familiar with the engines in the boat you're considering-- do an engine-only survey. And (2), I'd have the engine oil analyzed. This is already "above my pay grade," but it's my understanding that an analysis of the oil can tell you all SORTS of valuable information. I know that as a new-boat dealer, if we ever had a client who voiced problems about his relatively new engines, my service guys ALWAYS wanted to have an analysis of the oil, because it could alert them to otherwise unknowable information about the engine. (i.e., whether the builder had gotten a "bad batch" of engines, or if the oil initially installed into the engine was of the wrong type, etc.)
My service people assured me that, properly maintained, a good diesel engine could readily provide 6,000 hours (sometimes more) of reliable service before needing to be re-built. (as compared to outboard motors where, for many years, 600 hours was considered time to have them possibly serviced -- although I get the sense that in the past few years that may have been increased substantially: I simply DON'T know the suggested rebuild time for modern outboards). On the other hand, I saw boats in the charter trade, where the charter companies were often seeking to 'maximize near-term profits,' in which the diesel engines were kaput within 3,000 hours use -- again, that halving of the engine's lifespan due to poor maintenance. So, the thing to watch for in your case is if the engines have more than, say, 4,000 to 5,000 hours. But again, a GOOD engine survey should reveal helpful information.

Cheers,

Rod Gibbons, mngr/founder
Eco-SeaCottage.com
(former long-time dealer for Fountaine Pajot, Lagoon, Gemini catamarans)
Seattle, WA

On 25 ?ub 2015, at 03:02, Rod Gibbons rodgibbons@mindspring.com wrote:

RE:  The recent thread about the differences between Fountaine Pajot's prior power cats:  the Highland 35 and Maryland 37.

As a former, long-time dealer for Fountaine Pajot, and Lagoon, and Gemini catamarans (with offices on San Francisco Bay, and Seattle, WA), and as a former Maryland 37 owner, I have some observations about the two boats addressed in a recent communication: FP's Highland 35 and Maryland 37 power cats. Some of what I'll write is objective, some subjective. It's based on my experiences with those vessels when they were new, the years from about 2002 to 2006.

1. As an overall observation, I could only recommend the H-35 if you were to find one for a really GREAT (low) price. Your alternative would be to consider the Canadian hit of back then (which, at the time, was comparably priced), the PDQ-34 power cat.

2. However, if you can at all afford it, opt for the arguably superior (to both of the above cats) Maryland 37.

3. I very much liked the appearance of the H-35. It's large-and-low cockpit was, in my opinion, immeasurably superior to the high-and-blockish PDQ's stern. The swim platform of either hull of the H-35 lead right into a LARGE cockpit area, which then leads right into the salon. As I recall, those 3 regions existed at a near seamless and same-height:  a long, same-level extension between the swim platform, to cockpit, to salon. This also allowed for big, hinged hatches in the sole of the cockpit, providing quite good access to each engine. There was plenty of room in that cockpit for a group to enjoy themselves when dockside or at anchor, and it was a far better place from which to fish than the abrupt rise (via several stairs) from the PDQ's transom up to its much higher cockpit.  Of course, the reason for the height and chunkiness of the PDQ squat-and-abrupt stern was it's rather ingenious internal layout which offered 2 aft cabins, accessible from the aft end of the salon with
   barely a step or two, whereas ALL of the smaller FP power cats have their cabins down in either hull.

4. The Maryland 37 has almost as stepless of a layout between swim platforms, cockpit and salon (although there may be a slight rise of a step between the swim platform and cockpit -- sorry, I can't recall that at this time. But if there is, it's wa-aa-a-y less problematic than either the PDQ-34, or virtually ANY sailing cat in that size range, due to the latters many steps in order to reach their elevated cockpits.) And thus there is quick-and-easy access to the M-37's engines through similar (but larger) hinged hatches along either side of that spacious cockpit sole. (with the PDQ, you have to wrestle the mattresses out of their positiongs, lift the boards under them, THEN get to the engines. Obviously, after cruising for several hours, there can be additional heat transmitted to the beds above -- sometimes that's appreciated, sometimes it isn't.)

5. The galley for the M-35 is minimal. This need not have been -- look at any of the (smaller) Gemini 34' sailing cats, or even the smaller Catfisher 32 sailing cat -- and you'll find more functional galleys. (I consider this a "French thing" -- the galley in the FP 35 and 37 and 38 sailing cats, and the Lagoon 38 and 380 were continually undersized, including micro-size counter tops, and way too few cabinets. Again, even the galley-up layout of the far smaller CF-32 [UK designed-and-built] was superior to the L-380. And the H-35 galley was, in my opinion, barely "weekender-adequate" compared to what it might have been. Comparatively, the PDQ-34 had more (if smaller) cabinets, but not quite as good visibility for the chef. I'm not sure if the natural ventilation would have been quite as good, either. The M-37's galley is much superior to that of its smaller sister.

6. The headroom in the salon og M-35 was pure frustration, especially when compared to the really GREAT headroom inside the PDQ-34. When you first enter the salon of the M-35 the headroom is about 6' or slightly taller. But,as you move forward, it diminishes substantially: as I recall, it was somewhere around 5'9" -- maybe (?) 5'10" -- at the forward end of the salon. So, what could have been a fine inside steering station was forever problematic. In fact (and I'm not sure if this was rectified by the last year or two of H-35 production or not), I seem to recall that boat either NOT offering an inside helm, or else simply a set of optional, engine controls...but not much else. (It may have even been just an autopilot joy stick -- NOT something you could adequately use in close-quarter conditions. By comparison, the M-37 offers a GOOD interior helm...but ONLY one good helm seat. (What's with THAT? Guess how many wives/girlfriends groused -- and rightly so -- about that solo
   configuration?!)

For sure, the H-35's inboard steering situation was, at best, a BARELY half-hearted commitment. And yet the flybridge helm was woefully inadequate for all-weather cruising. Again, that truly BAD/absent helm station need not have been: refer to again, of all things, the much smaller (only 32' x 13') Catfisher 32 motorsailor (in the best sense of the term) sailing catamaran which had a very serviceable interior helm (along with its cockpit helm). By "serviceable, I mean:  Good standing headroom, 360-degree visibility, good wheel-and-engine-controls, room for basic nav-electronics, and comfortable adjoining seating for 4 or 5 individuals who had the same exterior view as the skipper. In fact, I'd say the really unimaginative -- no, just outright BADLY designed helm stations in the H-35 (both in the salon AND up on the flybridge -- and especially compared to what could EASILY have been included by the yard within the parameters of the given layout), give me the most serious pause
about recommending the boat. Alas, as just referenced, the flybridge helm was little better (well, at least headroom wasn't an issue). But sheesh, that upper helm invariably seemed to have been designed by someone back in the FP design office who'd NEVER been to sea. Yes, on the drawing board they allowed for "seating, steering wheel, modest instrument panel," which, in the 2-D line drawings must looked like an adequate design. However, in "real life" conditions, the ergonomics of that upper helm station were poor, minimal, and . . . oh yeah . . .bad.

Probably everything ANY designer ever needs to know about the ergonomics of furnishings was fully addressed back in the Bauhaus period of the 1920s:  how many inches of support should be supplied under ones thighs; how much the seat's horizontal surface should angle down at the rear; what angle the back of the seat should describe. In short, take a look at ANY well-built Adirondacks wood chair, and you'll find it amazingly comfortable WITHOUT any cushion or padding. Why? BECAUSE of the angle of the seat and its back. Perfectly proportioned angles. Then, compare that to the child-size dimensions allowed for the H-35 . . . not to mention so many other cats (or boats, period!) Not to get on a rant here, but AS SOON as I enter a boat and see a dinette with precisely horizontal seats, and precisely vertical back rest, I KNOW I'm looking at a seat that ANYONE will begin twisting about on, discomfort quickly increasing, in less than 20 minutes -- FORGET ABOUT trying to find comfort
during an hour or twos chat AFTER dinner in those same seats. You've GOT to have at least angled backs. And if the portion under your thighs is too shallow, that's going to cause inevitable discomfort, too.

While I'm at it, let me add that a "bull-nose" along the front edge of the cushion is HIGHLY desirable, too. (You'll see this in EVERY automobile that has properly -- ergonomically--designed seats. A "bull-nose" is that raised [rounded-or-angular] portion along the front edge of the cushion. It, in effect, creates that desirous angle, putting your butt slightly lower than the area behind your knees) which ALWAYS increases sitting comfort. (Of course, the bad/cheap way to go is simply to have a perfectly horizontal surface, onto which a slab of covered foam is set.)  To that effect, many models in the Fountaine Pajot line have proven highly superior to those offered by, say Lagoon, and some other brands. Even some of FPs seats from 15 years ago were marvels of ergonomic comfort. Unfortunately, this really GOOD seating design was out of all proportion (in terms of the time and money spent) compared to the ergonomics of innumerable adjoining features. Alas, too many American boats
don't give a second-of-thought to this matter, either. Frankly, as soon as you board ANY vessel at a boat show, just by eye-balling the seats -- in the cockpit, in the salon, on the flybridge -- if you CANNOT readily see yourself lying down on your back on any of the seats for a snooze, due to their narrowness, you KNOW you're looking at a boat in which the seating has NOT been given proper thought. A man needs a MINIMUM of 20" width to lie down without feeling like he's going to fall off. If the back cushion is 3" thick, then the seating-portion of the seat should be close to 23" deep. So, once you add PROPERLY designed cushions to a 20" wide base, you CAN have (although the angle of the back portion must be correct for this to actually occur), but you CAN have a truly great seat. One that's comfortable even for repeated, 2-hour sitting sessions.

So, from an even broader perspective, I NEVER understand when boat designers create seating, counter tops, work areas, beds -- name the living area of your choice on ANY small cruising vessel -- why they don't make each of those areas more comfortable. As I said, the research for ALL type of sitting and standing ergonomics was done 100 years ago. This isn't a mystery. It's not even a science. And no, I do NOT accept the "well-it's-a-small-vessel" argument. The current interest in the Tiny House movement has shown us that even just an 8'6" wide x 14' to 24' long structure can have GOOD seating, GOOD counter space, etc. So with cats that are 16', 18', 20-feet or wider, the "too-little-room" response is simply an excuse. There is NO reason for poor (i.e. uncomfortable) design. Alas, it remains probably the LEAST addressed (yet one of the MOST aggravating) aspects of catamaran design that I've viewed for more than 30 years.    Period.

Getting back on point:  the flybridge helm for the H-35 was (a) too short (under the thighs) . . . badly angled for extended sitting . . . offered the WORST leg room, had a Torquemada-inspired back rest (i.e. a single chrome bar with a ridiculously thin foam tube to "make it comfortable" (ha!) . . . and had a helm/dash/wheel configuration that, in relation to the unadjustable seat,  just couldn't have been more poorly designed.  If there's any "good news," I'd say that the seat/dash arrangement was so minimal in size and construction that one would EASILY be better served by tearing it all out, and simply buying some GOOD stock seating and console units (either West Marine or O'Brien ... or any of the good after-market suppliers for the nation's numerous deck boats which offer really GOOD seating, and steering consoles, ALL superior to the FP-supplied layout), and replacing with same, in order to get a more comfortable and functional flybridge helm.

Worse yet, there was virtually NOWHERE to put ANYTHING.  I mean it takes next to no design smarts to include at least SOME recessed spots atop a dashboard, and/or in little "cave-lockers" below the dash. For what? sunglasses...cell phone...paperback book....hat....keys & wallet....snack bar, etc. And is there an automobile created today -- even the CHEAPEST -- that doesn't provide recesses/holders for beverages? So why are NONE provided by FP?  (Or Lagoon, et al). Further, it's the easiest thing in the world to put a small opening door at the end, or along the backside, of an enclosed bench seat so as to have additional storage room for bulkier items (rolled up windbreaker, foul-weather jacket, towel, minor cleaning supplies -- perhaps even a pull-out insulated picnic box for snacks or beverages, etc.).  I also seem to recall there was barely a single hand-hold up at the helm, too. (This is SUCH a commonly disregarded feature. I look at the expensive 38' to 48' AQUILA cats and
think the same thing. Although, their minimalist design THROUGHOUT their interiors is equally shocking. C'mon guys -- you're charging $400K to $800K-plus . . .put some dang handholds throughout your boats, and invest a few thousand more in a helm station that is truly COMFORTABLE for skipper and mate.  Again, this has ALL been addressed already. Look at ANY of the commuter power cats serving Hong Kong, Seattle-to-Victoria, Lake Geneva, . . .and look at THEIR helm stations. Those crews would MUTINY if forced to accept what today's supposed "leading cat manufacturers" provide for "cruising comfort" at their respective helms.

I know, I'm starting to sound like the ol' neighbor guy to the kids . . . GET-OFFA-MY-LAWN!  (smile)  But seriously, the average cruising boater spends 85% of his/her time either dockside or at anchor. And they are NOT standing most of that time. So, to skimp on the salon seating (not to mention the helm seating -- which is when the boat is liable to be most active, and thus those seated MOST in need of especially supportive and ergonomic seating), is to short-change the owners regarding one of the aspects of their respective vessels that they'll MOST use. The seats!

At least the skipper has the wheel to hold onto. In short, the flybridge of the H-35 was virtually naked of most ANY feature that ANY so-called "cruising boat" should include. And I recall, during a slow spot in one or another boat show, when I took my badge off and ambled over to the PDQ-34, and looked over ITS flybridge. Virtually EVERY item I've mentioned above was addressed: GOOD seating, multiple storage areas, ergonomically-smart relationship between the helm seat and the dash-and-wheel. I don't recall if it had better-designed leg room than the H-35 . . . but it could NOT have been worse.

Frankly, this is a downside to many French-designed yachts in general. They perpetually are inclined to sacrifice functional items in lieu of a spare, stylish, "clean" look. (Although, even then there is NO excuse for design execution that results in specific discomfort.)  In my experience, that doesn't add spit to one's safety or comfort when out bashing through a seaway. As it happens, this is as true for the Lagoon designs (which I also represented for many years) as the Fountaine Pajot designs. (I've NEVER seen a more stylishly inventive exterior, matched with the most god-awfully ill-conceived interior than Lagoon's 42' and 43' power cats of a few years back. Whoa! I could iterate a DOZEN "what-WERE-they-thinking" problems with most every aspect of that design's interior layout. I'll simply say, though, it's NO surprise that sales were so perpetually bad in the U.S. for that model, and certainly no surprise that they abandoned the model after several years of abysmally low
sales. And now? I REMAIN mystified by Lagoon and its notion of power cats. With their new, so-called 'power cats' they've pretty much just stripped off the mast and added a couple of larger engines -- VERY disappointing for anyone seeking even a "moderately serious" power-cruising cat in the 40-to-60-something length range. WHERE is the all-weather helm, with truly supportive seating, arm rests, handlholds, etc. Then again, maybe they're ahead of me on this, and have discovered that the majority of their would-be buyers ONLY go out in relatively calm, non-rainy/non-cold conditions, and thus all-weather considerations are irrelevant. . . ?)  I can only imagine these latest designs are the result of two, albeit wildly, divergent philosophies: (1) Things are tight financially, and they decided the way less expensive route of simply modifying their already existing sailing cats (quite nice, by the way), into these truly 'minimalist' power cats (and I use that latter designation in only
the very loosest of terms), or (2) The folks at Lagoon have done some serious market-research, and discovered they can capture an appreciable added market share of non-sailors by simply "tweaking" their current sailing models and removing the sailing rigs.  Then again, one only has to look at the perpetually dismal acceptance of the Citroen and Renault        automobiles in the U.S. to recognize -- there's simply a surprisingly large divide between cultural-and-design sensibilities between the Frogs and the Yanks.

But, I digress . . .

7. For whatever reason, FP got much (most?) of the above liabilities addressed in the Maryland 37. There's at least decent headroom in the salon, the interior helm is workable/usable, the seats are bull-nosed. (Although, they failed to offer TWO truly comfortable seats at that interior helm, and I find that a LOT of American boaters are desirous of a helm station offering TRULY comfortable seating for TWO . . . husband AND wife . . . .for extended cruising.) The galley is fully adequate -- but, once again, it could be BETTER if the French weren't so devoted to their curves and stylish "visual" marriages between materials and bulkheads and counter tops. . . ALL at the expense of additional, good ol' rectangular compartments and drawers.  I mean the galley in their Maryland 37 has less than 6' of linear counter space, barely 2 drawers (if I recollect correctly), and 5 SMALL compartments.  By comparison, my latest 40' power cat design offers FIFTEEN FEET of linear counter space
   (lovely stone, too!) . . . EIGHT capacious drawers . . . and FOURTEEN cabinets! I mean, if a builder says they're offering a "cruising vessel", then let's get serious about storage areas.. . ."n'est ce pas" my dear French designers?

8. I very much like the curved, FG steps leading from the cockpit to the flybridge (so much so, I used the same design parameters for my own 40-footers cockpit-to-flybridge stairs). The M-37's flybridge is suitably roomy, aesthetically attractive, and a grand place to spend time, whether underway , or at anchor. Are the seats as comfortable as they SHOULD be? No . . .but they're not bad. So too for the legroom at the helm seat. Storage? TOO minimal, but at least (unlike the H-35) there is SOME (i.e. under the seats).

9. Performance:  I have only modest experience with the H-35. I spent a full day cruising one off of La Rochelle (near the FP factory). And we undertook all manner of conditions (including a partial grounding!...I'm pleased to note the factory rep was at the helm at that time; obviously he was NOT watching the depth meter.) The boat seem comfortable in most sea states (although we never had more than 12-13 knots of wind, and even the errant wakes we occasionally chased after wasn't more than about 24" to 30"). And, when a few sprinkles DID come our way, we were stuck up on the flybridge, given there was no interior helm. (Would you buy an automobile with no more than a "bimini" to protect you? Then don't accept that too-modest design accommodation in a boat, either.)

By comparison, during the near year-long period that I owned a Maryland 37 here on Puget Sound (Seattle), I had that boat out in all manner of conditions. And I was pleased with her in all manner of weather. One blustery November day -- it was blowing 25-to-30 knots from the north, with occasional higher gusts, and with 4-6-foot "graybeards" rolling down the 125-mile length of Puget Sound -- I set out across the Sound, east to west, to visit my brother on Bainbridge Island. The Sound is 7 miles wide, but my diagonal course to his home would be a 14 mile run, at about a 45-degree angle to the wind and big seas, off my starboard quarter. During that 80-minute transit I saw only 2 other vessels out in that mess. Both were Grand Banks trawlers, about 38' to 42' long . . .and "rolling their guts out" while they chugged along at barely 6 knots. I held a steady 13-14 knots, and enjoyed a remarkably comfortable passage, even though the seas were among the largest I've experienced here on
this usually more sedate Sound. (I've singlehanded the Atlantic, and cruised the European coast and all of the Caribbean, so I have some experience with heavy-weather sailing.)  I was repeatedly impressed with the seakeeping capabilities of the Maryland's twin hulls. I don't remember the engines size for certain, but I believe I had twin 130 HP Yanmars in that Maryland. They were somewhat noisy -- no doubt the DBs could have been lessened with (a) better insulation in the engine compartments, plus (b) spending several hundred dollars for better dampening hardware where the engines mounted to the hulls. But it wasn't at anywhere close to a painful level, and up on the flybridge the engines were always much less noticeable. Even after all those years repping cats, I was forever impressed by the comfort they afford in a rough sea. I recall visiting New Zealand, to meet with reknowned cat designer Roger Hill. During my days there, we got out on all manner of sailing and power cats. The
most . . .ummm . . ."eye-widening" experience is when Roger brought me back into one harbor when 8' to 10' BREAKING seas blocked all outgoing boats. (Outgoing tide, and inblowing winds made for Columbiar-River-bar-like conditions. Of course, he's a well experienced hand aboard his own designs. But there were times when we were partially hanging over a breaking crest that it looked about 20' down into the trough -- so, let's just agree it was probably more like 15'. But with the big, twin engines and that inherent cat stability, he kept us just-behind to right-atop each crest, working us forward, wave by wave, until we were suddenly within the relative calm of the harbor. I'd been a monohull boat for nearly 30 years before boarding my first cat, and I can tell you:  You just would NOT have wanted to try what Roger did in a single hull vessel. Not that there aren't some ol' salts out there who couldn't do it.

But, as I headed diagonally across Puget Sound on that really blustery November day, i was again reminded:  "I'm so-o-o-o much better off being in this Marlyand 37 than ANY comparable sized monohull." With the latter, I'd have had to much more closely emulate the Grand Banks' speed, and thus wallowed miserably. But the M-37's hulls cut through the innumerably crests, and -- truly -- I had a genuinely FUN ride clear across the Sound (so much so that I thereafter brought my brother, also an avid boater, out onto the Sound again for about 30 minutes, just to demonstrate the cat advantage. (He owned a 60-foot trawler and allowed as how he's never take it out in such conditions if given the chance: he AND the boat could certainly "take it." It simply, however, would NOT have been "fun."

Well, I've rambled far too long. I hope you took advantage of the "delete key" if the length annoyed you. But I also hope this gives a bit of information about what a long-time cat dealer dwells on when considering power cats in the 30'-to-40' range.

Oh, BTW:  I've only seen the online info regarding FP's newest power cat (somewhere around 38 or 39 feet I think). It looked to me like they've addressed at least several of my above complaints. I was, in fact, impressed: both by the yacht's overall appearance (a subjective comment, to be sure), AND by what I could see on their website, which showed attention paid to several of the points I ranted about, above. [And no, I have no connection with FP these days. In fact, as also noted briefly above, I'm soon [within the week] going to have the completed 2-D and 3-D renderings for a new, 40' cat I've designed, which has ALL the features and design ideas that I'M seeking as my "final power cat":  this includes my desire for the most HOME-like interior I can manage (i.e., ALL major appliances -- big flat-screen TV hanging over a same-size fireplace [this pair of features in both the living room and the Owner's suite] -- BIG living room AND separate dining area [each with house-like
furnishings] -- office space with 4' "picture window" -- the optional layouts including 1-to-3 bedrooms, and 1-to-3 heads. This power cat, cruising at 10 to 13 knots, will be great for any lakes, river, ICW, "big loop", or even coastal-bay cruising [it's windows are fine for what I've just mentioned, but are NOT designed for ocean cruising]. The range, depending upon tankage chosen, will be from 450 to 700 miles; twin 75-to 120  HP Yanmars -- 40' x 17' x 35" dimensions, with a HUGE sun deck up top -- $375K "Turn-key" ready for cruising  (incl. genset, AC, nav-instruments, windlass/anchor). If anyone's interested, I could expand on how that design evolved. Even with my long-time power cat experience, it was an a sometimes trying endeavor to address the many "complaints" I've had over the years about OTHER power cat designs. But in the end, I've gotten JUST the design that will best suit me. And, as such, I anticipate there may be a few others boaters who are just as picky . . .
ooops, I mean "discerning" (grin).

Cheers,

Rod Gibbons, boating author, and mngr/founder
Eco-SeaCottage.com
Seattle, WA
(206) 297-1330

---

Power-Catamaran Mailing List