8.5' of beam does not make for tremendous stability on boats in that size
range. The fact is stability is compromised in the Glacier Bay's and World
Cat's etc. in order to make them trailerable. All of these designs should have
more beam, they would run more efficiently, have much better stability, and
obviously much more cockpit and deck space. Too many catamaran designs are
compromised to make them fit better in marina's and trailer's.

But Pat, ALL boats are compromises.  My 28' 9-6' catamaran would
certainly be more stable if it were 14' wide, but then I wouldn't own
it.  I couldn't afford it, nor find a place to park it.  But after 8
years of running it in some pretty hairy waters here in SE Alaska I've
concluded that its capabilities far exceed my courage (or foolhardiness,
as you will).

You state that a wider beam would "run more efficiently".  Please expand
upon that.  While there may be some wave interactions between the two
hulls that could affect efficiency (good or bad), it seems obvious that
a wider beam means more weight... which means poorer efficiency.  What
am I missing?

Bob Deering
Juneau Alaska

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Reischmann
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:26 AM
To: power-catamaran
Subject: [PCW] capsize

8.5' of beam does not make for tremendous stability on boats in that
size
range. The fact is stability is compromised in the Glacier Bay's and
World
Cat's etc. in order to make them trailerable. All of these designs
should have
more beam, they would run more efficiently, have much better stability,
and
obviously much more cockpit and deck space. Too many catamaran designs
are
compromised to make them fit better in marina's and trailer's.

Power-Catamaran Mailing List