http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/46442/1/071.pdf

I have been reading the above paper by the University of Southampton regarding DLR (displacement to length ratio) and B/T (beam to depth) and this quote below is sure to make people think twice about B/T.

As beam to depth gets bigger, the hull is fatter so the Length to beam ratio is reduced. The tests had the same displacement and WSA (wetted surface area). So the factor they isolated was the B/T and therefore also L/B, or skinny hulls VS fat hulls.

So according to my interpretation of the above quote, which is that over the ranges tested, the trend for light displacement hulls is that, WIDER hulls actually have LESS resistance than narrow hulls? And heavier displacement hulls have less resistance with narrow hulls? Where does this leave us with a performance light weight cruising cat vs heavy cats? Why do we see the opposite in actual designs?For the highest Length : Displacement ratio (Models 6a — 6c), Model 6a with the smallest B/T tends to have the largest resistance coefficient. For the low Length : Displacement ratio (Models 4a —.4c) the trend has been reversed and Model 4a (with the smallest B/T) tends to have the lower resistance coefficient over much of the Froude Number range beyond the resistance hump speed.