> I have been an interested reader of this forum for the past few years and > four years ago commissioned Roger Hill to design me a 10m by 4.5m > displacement cat with a couple of 60hp 4 stroke outboards. It has met all > my > expectations, cruises at 12 to 19 knots, top speed about 21 and handles > rough water well due to the slim hulls and high wingdeck. I agree with the > recent postings describing the benefits of this type of craft and would > add > a few such as excellent carrying capacity and very positive feedback from > passangers and other boaties. > > I was most annoyed however to see in the last Passage Maker magazine a two > page add by a member of this forum using photos of my boat to advertise > another displacement cat called a Coastal Cat 34. I don't mind supporting > the catamaran concept but I object to using my cat as a sales boost for > what > I think is a far inferior product. The photos in question are at the top > left > of the page and on the travel hoist at the top right. Without them the add > would be > a non event. > The other issue that concerns me is the fuel consumption claims. Anyone > who > takes the trouble of checking the Yamaha test data for 60hp 4 stroke high > thrust motors would know it is not possible to achieve the claimed 3.8gph > at > 20 knots, which is close to WOT. Double that consumption would be getting > closer which suggests omitting the "per motor" statement is expedient > advertising. To confirm that, one needs only check the Boating New Zealand > test for the Cat 34.(June 2008) They quote realistic fuel consumption > figures. > > I enjoy the forum and am pleased that it is necessary to declare a > commercial interest but would expect better ethics from someone with such > an interest as otherwise it reduces > the value of postings if their content is suspect. Peter Riddell