Hi Paul, Hi Paul, I too was convinced the slim hull length to beam ratio was the answer until I started talking to Naval architects who had real time data with wide hull forms performing just as efficiently as my slim hull form. I find when cruising I either do 10 or 20 knots, very little time spent between. In these speed ranges the wide body hulls data were very comparable to slim hulls. I put our new designs together, do the layouts and styling based on what feedback I get from Powercat liveaboards and my own years of liveaboard experience. Then I build the first ones for spec to make sure we get it right. For Naval architecture I rely on the experts. You can contact Scott Jutson or Brett Crowther whom I have been talking very closely with on a new hull shape. Crowther has just merged with Incat and have hundreds of large boats in operation for data analysis. Their customers are ferry owners, their figures of efficiency have to match their claims or they get sued so they can't bluff performance or gloss over other mistakes like some pleasure cat Naval architects have done. Now days they don't look at much under 100 ft and custom pleasure designs are not profitable so we are talking more closely with Scott Jutson We have also sea-trialled some of Scott's boats in the mid 50 size range and are very impressed with the volume and efficiency. He seems to be a very clever man and his customers rate him highly, always a good measure of success. Whenever I meet a Cat naval architect I ask for their hull beam and efficiency figures and have been surprised how many are getting good results from wider forms. There are other benefits I will be looking forward to. We noticed in some large ocean sea conditions, the slim hulls were not comfortable and more experienced Cat skippers and I came to the same conclusion that more beam would improve things which was borne out with sea trials on wider hull boats. Regards, John Winter