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

Re Rod's comments on seating design:  Yes, Yes, Yes.  I'm always amazed at the horrible built-in furniture on most boats.  I've been on a few of the 80's Hatteras' with real furniture both on the interior and the aft deck.  It's a revelation.  
Not to go too far off on a tangent - is there a good summary of these design principles somewhere on the web?  is there any moderately lightweight furniture that could be used on a weight sensitive boat?  I'm considering switching back to sail - the up coming Maine Cat 38 has a completely open bridgedeck and you can put whatever you want in there.  Looking for something with higher & properly angled back, proper seat depth for napping - Rod is right, 22" is the minimum.  
Mark
From: Rod Gibbons rodgibbons@mindspring.com
To: power-catamaran@lists.trawlering.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PCW] The recent query about Fountaine Pajot's Highland-35 and Maryland 37 power cats

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