New Maverick 400

[paulrack]

It is great to get feedback on the boat one is looking at so thanks for the posts. This is the first hull, second boat launched so changes are made to the first couple to get them right. Feedback on some of the comments

• Weight, I agree this boat is too heavy, there are a number of places where weight can be saved and that is something I will be working with the designer and builder to achieve. The first few boats in a build are generally heavier.
• Lower boom, that is something that was already identified as changing.
• Steps to roof coachouse - There are steps next to the mast so you can go via the front. The mainsheet system also secures the boom firmly in the centre. this is quite different to a track where you still get a lot of boom sway. This helps when closing up the stackpack. I would not think it would be wise to go up the side whilst underway.
• There are two big hatches on the forward end of the coachroof and two aft, I think the forward ones you cannot see in the picture.
• There are four hatches in the hull to provide ventilation. They are further forward but would blow back as the owners hull is one room. They are offset which is nice as you do not need to walk over them and therefore cannot slip on them or trip over them, especially when they are open. I guess it is easy enough to add an additional one further back if it was necessary.
• Side windows, agree this is a downside of them, I see the lagoons and Leopards have the same issue. When I charter on a leopard 46 I am always carefull to make sure I protect that area. On the lagoon we were moored next to it was more tricky as the windows are lower down and it is easier to put a fender over the window by mistake. They do have opening portlights in them.
• I did not take a picture which showed the stepped hull clearly

[Southern Star]

Paulrack, you are correct that other manufacturers are now installing these large, fixed sidelights and that one has to take care with them. Nevertheless, there are designs such as the Leopard 40 (as you know, a comparable S.African 'cruising' cat), that:

1. Does not have side picture windows, but rather opening portlights.
2. Has substantial s/s handholds on the coachroof.
3. Has 3 opening overhead hatches per hull, spread evenly over the accomodation.
4. Has a substantial forward sunshade/steps.
5. Has not only forward hatches in the main saloon overhead, but also one at the leading edge to the saloon.
6. Does not rely upon transom portlights to assist in ventilating the aft cabins.

Please understand that I am not extolling the virtues of the Leopord - they too tend to face criticism for their bridgedeck height and significant weight. However, it strikes me that the hull designs are very similar (including a substantial outboard knuckle), albeit the Leopard seems to have slightly finer hulls and at least the potential, therefore, for slightly better performance.

Furthermore, on cats with a 'galley up' arrangement, most prefer to have it by the companionway in order to take advantage of pass-through service, superior ventilation and so as not to islolate the cook from the cockpit. Indeed, those are typically the most salient reasons for having the galley (and the weight associated with it), up rather than down.

In all, I just don't see this design as having any real advantage over existing designs and in fact, see some real disadvantages. Added to that is the concern that this is the first production boat from a new manufacturer and that, quite frankly, at least some 'teething' problems are to be expected.

Brad

[paulrack]

Hi Brad

The Leopard 40 was on my shortlist. I chartered a 46 last year and am leaving again in 2 weeks to sail one in Croatia. Loved the 46, well built, had just sailed from SA and still looked new with no wear and tear. A huge advantage of the 46 in Med mooring scenarios is that you could drop the dinghy down the back and ride out between the hulls. So many of the other cats were stuck with their dinghy's once moored stern to. The 46 is a big boat which comes at a cost. The problem was that that became my wifes benchmark of what a cat must have! The leopard 40 looks great, but is a lot smaller in terms of the cabin and saloon space. I think you see it in the beam where the leopard is 6.8m. This becomes a big issue when people join us for some cruising as I have three children. The other boats I looked at were the Admiral 40 and the upgraded Knysna 440 (Wider hulls, higher bridgedeck clearance). If built to spec the bridgedeck should be 0.85m if I remember correctly. How does that compare to similar size boats? Your comments re the galley are very valid, I must relook at that layout as it would also be nicer to have more seating at the saloon table.

[Aussiesuede]

I like the head. (See mom, I really did listen to ya. )

[CATMAR]

MAVERICK 400

From the day we gave naval architect Phil Southwell the design specs for the new Maverick 400, we knew she will be a winner.

The detailed design and rendering from Phil was amazing. The yacht is well-tooled and moulds of the highest quality.

The Maverick 400 is a comfortable long range cruiser with good performance. She has many new features not found on any of our friendly competitors of 40 - 45 feet

With good bridge deck clearance, light and spacious interior, allround vision and quality finishes, she will arguable be the best 40 feet cat on the international boat show circuit.

We were very excited about her good performance and single handed (track and jibe) ability earlier this week in Cape Town. Paulrack and Markw, amongst many other new owners and the spar and sail specialists were ecstatic about her practical cruising space and good (and stable) performance. We would like to improve her performance even more when building the next boats, without compromising on her structural integrity. As always Phil is helping.

With CTBi Sailing Boat of the Year (2009) awards, we are taking her to Hiswa. La Rochelle and of course Cape Town Boat Show later this year.

Catmar
(Catmar is a partner in Maverick Yachts)

[Southern Star]

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.

Brad

[paulrack]

Hi Brad

When you measure the length to beam ratio is it calculated from the widest point of the hulls (ie the space needed to moor) or the distance from the centre of one hull to the centre of the other?

[Southern Star]

Paulrack, I am referring to both. BOA is most relevant when speaking about the difficulties in docking, haul-outs and lateral stability. Centerline beam is most relevant when considering tacking, tracking; resistance to pitchpoling and bridgedeck clearance. On the latter subject, I should note that although I do not have the reference materials in front of me, I seem to recall that NA's have created ratios for bridgedeck clearance versus BOA, centerline beam, and even LWL. Nevertheless, I think that it can be inarguably stated that appropriate bridgedeck clearance is directly proportional to beam and, most importantly, centerline beam.

From a practical perspective, however, I would assume that the both BOA as well as the centerline beam of the Maverick is greater than either the Knysna or Leopard.

Brad

[paulrack]

Hi Brad

Thanks for that info I am seeing the designer tomorrow and will talk those through with him. I had a look at pictures of the second hull built at anchor up the westcoast with liveaboards on and she seemed to sit much higher than this one, I post it when I get to work tomorrow.

Cheers
Paul

[paulrack]

Hi Picture of the one I referred to with liveaboards in Langebaan lagoon, seems to sit much higher out of the water

[Gordon]

The FP Orana 44 is NOT an old design that has evolved and is worth you taking a look at, has the volume and performs well in all breezes. By the way FP have also just launched a new LIPARI 41 ( actually 40' ) which replaces the Lavezi 40.

[wacko]

price of the maverick 400 new?

[CATMAR]

The price of our next Maverick 400 (owners sailaway) for delivery September 2009 is USD 450,000

CATMAR

[captstu]

I sailed a Voyage 430 for 5+ years, bridge deck isn't THE issue. Ventilation is important and hard to fix, but ventilation isn't THE issue.

The determining factor for me is the Saildrive. Never buy one, Never own one, and never design a boat with one. They are hard to keep runing, expensive to service and detract from an otherwise good boat.

If the Maverick 400 has a sail drive, look at a Leopard 42. It has a direct marine drive and is otherwise a similar boat.

[Overlord]

I agree...saildrives add more to what can go wrong !Shafts are first prize. I would not buy a cat with sail drives, thats why i just bought a 2003 leopard 47 , tried and tested