A listee named Alan sent a private email responding to my online question about the fuel efficiency of power catamarans. He has given his permission for me to repost an edited version of my reply. I will cite PDQ frequently because I have one and am pretty familiar with the builder's operation. I don't mean to slight anybody else's design, but I think it can be fairly said that the PDQ 34 had a large role in the development of production power catamarans, at least here in North America. > <snip out some stuff> I think better fuel economy can be done. REPLY: Not just can be done, in the case of PDQ, and any other slender hull style power cat with small engines is already being done. I don't think you will be seeing any revolutionary improvements in the slender hulled catamaran fuel economy because the engine makers, boat builders, etc. already have squeezed out about the best compromises available today. Incremental and evolutionary improvements are what I expect because fuel economy (and attendantly longer ranges) is a top concern for the buyers, and therefore the builders of these sort of boats. The other sort of power catamaran, the sort with broad planing bottoms, smallish tunnels in the hull, large motors and amazing top speeds are designed by and marketed to folks who don't seem to have fuel economy on their list of favorite concerns, at least not yet. I don't see any movement toward fuel economy there, it seems there are two distinct and nearly opposite markets for boats that are either fast or fuel efficient. The monohull market is saturated with fast boats today, and they are selling surprisingly well. When will the buyers change their collective mind and require better fuel economy, I can't tell. I can tell you that the power catamaran market appears to follow the monohull market, perhaps with some lag time, and that resistance to change away from traditional appearances and designs in boats is retarding sales of innovative designs like power catamarans, despite their clear advatages. > <more snipping> ...why it costs so much for boats. I understand the > more fancy they are the more they will cost. REPLY: The economics of boat making are pretty straightforward. Modern boats are VERY sophisticated and complex -- some more so than others of course. PDQs are very high on that scale, with particularly clever and sophisticated design and amazingly complex manufacturing efforts to produce an amazingly light (swamp both hulls and the cored hull itsself will keep the boat afloat -- proven after Katrina!) and high performance boat (the speed, fuel economy, handling and comfort you already know about), unlike any other. > <snip> (equipment) in boats seem to cost several thousands of dollars > more when purchasing a boat with it already installed than it would if > you go buy it and have it installed yourself. REPLY: A good idea, I did that with the electronics package for my PDQ (SSB and VHF radios, four foot fixed array radar and a custom designed mast, chart plotter, fathometers and miscellaneous instrumentation) and saved a bundle. It costs the factory a lot for the labor costs, production time/floor space and use of capital to select and purchase, stock and install this stuff, and I was uncertain that they would make the right choices about placement and such. I also re-designed and moved the mast to bear the big radar rig, and to fold gracefully to accomodate my covered slip. We picked up the boat in Whitby Ontario and cruised it across the Great Lakes to Wisconsin, where we had it loaded on a truck and transported to Portland, Oregon. We made that maiden voyage with a handheld VHF, a handheld GPS, my laptop with plotter software and e-charts, and a set of chartbooks. I had a local marine electronics outfit bid the whole electronics package at a little over $20K, which I included in the financing of the boat. I guess I saved about $15K, I never added it up. I did solve all the issues that came up and got everything just where and how I wanted. I also understand these systems so much better for all the hands on time getting them installed. Others should carefully consider their own abilities and inclinations before attempting this challenge. > I wish I could afford to buy what's left of PDQ because I am confident > I can build them just as good for less. COMMENT: The molds and tooling were already owned by some other entity, I suspect it is the financial angel that helped them from the beginning. He could theoretically re-start the business in some other mode, or sell them to an existing manufacturer -- I sure hope so, as I would love to see the line continue. All the remaining factory equipment were in receivership and sold at auction. The buildings and facilities were leased from the town, who may have been the creditor that forced them into receivership (that's the rumor anyway). I don't know what happened to the uncompleted boats, other than that #114 was shipped to a buyer in San Diego, #115 lay incomplete in the factory and it's buyer was refunded his money. Based on my boat's build time of about three months (as I recall), and the averaged production of 102 boats in 62 months after mine, there are probably a couple more hulls in lesser stages of completion. The information from the auction didn't mention sale of the incomplete boats, just fork lifts, office equipment and such. Regarding building such a boat for less, I am skeptical. I was pretty familiar with the factory and the folk who worked there, the owners and management, and it seems to me that they ran a very lean operation. I know they never seemed to have much of a margin. They were a privately held business, so the profit levels were not available, but it seemed that almost all the profits were plowed back into growing and improving the company. Likely the choice to produce the 41 foot powercat at the time when the currency exchange was about to invert, to their particular disadvantage, when fuel (and therefore resin and most other materials) costs would skyrocket as oil approached $100/bbl, and when the market was about to collapse in the general economic recession in the US doomed the company unwittingly. I did hear when I picked up our hull #12 that the major backer (and a founding engineer as well) reportedly held off taking any profits out of the company until about the time we picked up our boat, at which time they had just made him one of their 36 foot sail cats. They offered me a greatly reduced waiting time (trimmed about a year and a half off) in exchange for a 50% downpayment, as they needed the cash injection to incorporate some hull changes in the production (modify the molds from 32 to 34 feet length overall, to reduce squatting at speed and redesigned the transom) and would have to stall production for a week or two. Those ideas both speak to lean margins and low net profits. > (I'm not talking about Ocean A rated cats) COMMENT: Don't confuse the ratings. Ocean A describes a boat capable of surviving the weather and waves found in stormy blue water passages -- proper freeboard, robust hull of suitable shape, self righting, resistant to damage from large waves (small stout portlights and doors), small self bailing (or none at all) cockpits and minimum bulwarked decks with generous scuppers, adequate bilge pumps, etc., etc.. It is not a rating of the quality of the boat's construction or it's fittness for the coastal or inland cruising that virtually all power boaters do. For blue water cruising here on the left coast, I would want fuel capacity to give a minimum range of 2500 to 3000 miles, with reserves to outrun storm systems etc.. PDQ range is anywhere from 500 to 1000 miles, depending on speed, and is therefore limited to nearshore coastal and inland cruising. In the case of coastal cruising, here in the PNW I have relatively few stretches of coastline that challenge that, so I can pick my speed to favor wind, waves and schedule. BTW, the most dangerous item on any cruising boat, aircraft or whatever is a schedule. Think about it. Get-there-itis kills more than almost any other risk. To be continued in part II