Paulrack, I don't have the numbers in front of me, although .85 m is substantial on a boat of that size. Having said that, I am always suspicious of the design numbers.
I understand your comments about beam (and the improvement in interior/cockpit space), but increased beam comes with some real-life penalties:
1. In catamarans, there is a balance between the risk of capsize
and the risk of pitchpoling - increased beam reduces the risk of the former, while increasing
the risk of the latter. Many naval architects believe that a ratio of about 2:1 is ideal : anything significantly above that tends to increase the risk of pitchpoling unacceptably.
Virtually all sailors of catamarans will agree that in anything approaching survival conditions, one should never have their boat take seas beam on, or anything close to the same. Consequently, the tactic of choice is either to run with the storm (with or without a series drogue), or to deploy a sea anchor
from a bridle
off the center of the bow (rather than from the front quarter, as preferred by the Pardy's and others for monohulls). The end result is that the danger
of pitchpoling is far greater for a properly handled cat, than capsize
. So yes, the Leopard and the Knysna have less beam than the Maverick, but that can be a safety
feature in ultimate conditions.
2. Increased beam tends to reduce its ability to 'track', putting more strain on the helmsperson/autopilot.
3. Increase beam makes it more difficult for a boat to tack.
4. Beam is a (if not the
) significant factor in determining appropriate bridgedeck clearance. The greater the beam, the greater the required bridgedeck clearance. As a result, the Maverick will require more
bridgedeck clearance than either the Knysna or the Leopard. Perhaps Catmar can give us the numbers, but I would be surprised if this were so.
5. Many travel lifts are limited to beam of (as I recall) about 21.5 feet; go wider and you will reduce the number of available places for a haul-out.
6. The number of available docking
spaces tends to be inversely proportional to the beam, rather than the length of the boat.
7. Increased beam increases the tendancy for the structure to twist, or 'rack'. As a consequence, the bridgedeck and its connection to the hulls must be stronger - and in the absence of more sophisticated materials, heavier. I am not saying that the Maverick has not been properly engineered in that regard (although if not, the consequences could be disastrous); I am saying that the boat is going to be heavier (read slower) as a result.
Let me say that from the photos you have posted, the fit and finish of the Maverick appear to be absolutely first rate. Let me also say that the interior
seems very well done and, both it and the cockpit
very roomy for a cat of that size. If these are your main priorities, then it may be the boat for you. Just understand that, apart from the concerns about ventilation and access to the coachroof, there are also some compromises that will inevitably result from the increase in beam.