fast but lightweight cruiser

Not quite correct. Russ publicly refuses to discuss proas with me but takes every opportunity to attack me personally. Russ has some rabid followers whose ravings give me the opportunity to point out the advantages of harrys. This approach seems to work. We have just sold one, possibly two new 20m/68' designs, have updated 18m/60' and 15m/50' designs on the drawing board, and the interest in Bucket List https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttXu3pRTzs8 has been extraordinary.

Since that stirrer Baigent raised the subject, I have included a few snippets from his superb book, Light Brigade, the New Zealand School of Yacht Design http://www.coolmobility.com.au/Yacht/LightBrigade.pdf which has a chapter on harryproas.

45. strange machines
But Denney broke into new territory with his clever and unusual layout placing accommodation in the smaller outrigger float. It seems an obvious solution to increasing the righting moment and power by having this extrapolation of an ancient Pacific design.
snip
The differing schools of thought intensified between the traditionalî Pacific flying proa platforms with their wire stayed rigs from Russell Brown in the US (not the Atlantic leeward proas like Newick's Cheers, although even their advocates thought Pacific designs dangerous and voiced it) - and the Denney-type Pacific proa called Harryproas from Australia with their accommodation weight in the outrigger hull while having the unstayed rigs in the longer, but uninhabited main hull. Denney considers traditional Pacific proas, although works of art, only suitable in warm latitudes and that they necessitate great expertise (Polynesian/Micronesian/Melanesian athletes) to sail, and strongly advocates his own designs as a far better solution. Having confronted the US camp with this commentary, his dry humoured, practical and anarchic school of thought has infuriated them.

Perhaps the most damning for the US proas is that their guru, the very skilled Russell Brown, (son of famed trimaran designer Jim Brown) who has ocean travelled extensively in his 36 and 37 foot Pacific proas Jzerro and Kauri has, after originally writing in Wooden Boat that his proa designs were suitable for ocean crossings, now backtracked and refutes earlier claims. He does not recommend that they be used for this purpose. The largest problems seem to be the old capsize bugbear and having to reduce sail at night (plus shifting ballast to the windward float) with the added danger that the rig could come down in an accidental gybe while running, hence the dropping of the main at night for safety. The rig is naturally stayed on both sides of the platform but the leeward side is from the sponson but this is too narrow based for mast staying solidity. However Russ Brown, completely in tune and vastly experienced with his boats having designed and built them, feels there are few sailors capable of keeping his proa type on its feet and the rig erect. Therefore now he discourages others from taking his designs offshore - and hence the result that there are small numbers of his sailing designs in existence. On the other hand the secure and safer to handle, freestanding rig Harryproa models are quite popular, relatively proa speaking, with examples sailing and being built in a number of countries and Denney has let this be known Anzac style, pointing out US Pacific proa design deficiencies to the horror and disgust of the somewhat spiritualistic Brown proa advocates.
end quote.

Please note that I did not write this, Gary did. Denials, abuse and idiotic comparisons with past presidents of the USA should be addressed to him, not me. If Russ lists the book on his web page, I would like to place an order for a signed copy. By the subject, not the author.

Re the thread subject: I have just spent 4 days building the mould and laying up the first glass/foam infused 12m/40' lee hull half for Bucket List. It weighs 75 kgs/165 lbs, 170 kgs/370 lbs when finished. The windward hull is ready for paint, weighs 80 kgs/175 lbs. The cruising windward hull (2 double berths, etc) is also built and weighs 160 kgs/360 lbs.
I'm not sure how this compares with the proa Russ is building for the Race to Alaska, but compared to the cat Richard describes as a probable race winner earlier in the thread, Bucket List is longer (12m vs 8.5), lighter (700 kgs vs 990), has more sail area (60 sqm vs 50 sq m), probably less wetted surface (Richard does not give a number, BL is 9.9 sqm incl rudders/boards) and much less aero drag. At $50,000, I suspect Bucket list is also a lot cheaper.
Unfortunately, R2A next year clashes with already booked charter dates so Bucket List will not be competing, but we hope to have a container with 4 of them available for charter the following year. Description/discussion of the build is at https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/grou...tions/messages

 

Hi Rob, that link didn't work for me.

 

Just for the sake of correctness can you confirm the referenced material was written by Russell Brown and not Steve Callaghan. May be worth a check if were going to start slinging mud in this way. I'm pretty sure Rob can attribute this to the correct author as he has referenced it many times in the past. We don't need anyone being verballed now, do we?

 

Barra, I wrote that quote (and not Rob Denney) and it is taken from what I read in a past Wooden boat and other publications; I'll have to hunt through the back shed for the article but I'm fairly certain the information did not come from Steve Callaghan but was written by Russell himself. But I could be wrong.
Anyway, it is important - but not that important who said what - but the agreement that a Pacific proa design, at night, unless handled by a highly skilled expert like Russell Brown, is not recommended for the average sailing bloke.
That, imo, is the "guts of the matter" - as we say here in NZ.

 

I was really looking forward to seeing and hearing progress on Russ Browns testing/building. But as we know, he is unlikely to be drawn into a mud slinging match with you know who, and will probably stop posting on this forum. I hope Im wrong....

 

I have built a few amas in stress form, about Tornado sized, 19 ft. They never blew up, though they were made out of fairly desperate door skin material I had mistakenly sourced for the task. Still going strong over 20 years later. Kurt Hughes has been doing CAD and stressform for maybe 30 years. Not sure he claims to have it worked out so that the computer models and the real thing match up perfectly. Though it is tougher in a plans situation were many different opportunities for client substitution exist.

I first built the amas in very light aircraft ply, as specked in the Gougeon book for 1"-1' construction in 4mm ply. The hardest part for me was getting a proportional keel pour. But as far as I can tell the end result was pretty representative.

Full size build is pretty fast. I found it took about 20 hours to build the ama to the point where decking was the next step. I left them like that till the beams were connected, so I have no idea how long they took overall. There is probably only about 75 dollars material in the ama up to that point (assuming you would know where you stood before sheathing), so going full scale is not expensive. That assumes that if you don't like the shape you save the shears as they are made out of very expensive wood imported from the west coast. Also assumes you aren't going to toss the deck jig since it is something where the drawn and built shape are pretty equivalent.

 

Most will agree that facts are important. Very important.

What a strange conclusion you draw, " no pacific proas can be sailed at night"?
Quick we need to save the Polynesians' from themselves.

Would Mr Farrier recommend all his trimaran designs are suitable for ocean crossings. I doubt it. Therefore following your logic trimarans are unsafe at night. Having crossed oceans in my small light 35 foot self built catamaran, which I reduce sail area on considerably at night (wary of squalls and flotsam) ,I certainly wouldn't consider such a small light catamaran safe in the hands of just anyone. Does this mean all catamarans are unsafe to use at night?

Of course not. I love my boat but i wouldn't flop mould of it and mass market it because we have a responsibility to the (clowns) sorry customers out there.

 

Hey Barra, that was not my conclusion (nor was your non-context accusation correct, nor did anyone else say that proas cannot be sailed at night) but those were the words, recommendations, of the very experienced Russell Brown, who of course, has sailed at night and done ocean crossings in his Pacific proas ... yet he considers the Pacific proa not suited for the average sailor. Comprehend? Average sailor, not an expert.
Do you want us to say that you are exceptional in your catamaran?
But, a whisper in your ear - we're not talking cats or tris but Pacific flying proas. And Russell Brown, I know, has way more experience in these craft than you.

 

I wish I'd kept my mouth shut.

 

Ok, so were having trouble with analogies.
Can't help you there.

 

Ok Rob i'll show interest.

I'm interested to know how one operates the self righting bouyant boom thingy while dangling 5 meters in the air by ones safety harness?

Frome your web site....If it does capsize, the buoyant mast stops it going past 90° from where the buoyant boom will right it without the crew getting wet.

 

Sorry. Try http://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/conversations/messages If that doesn't work, google 'yahoo harryproa discussion group' and go to the messages page.

Gary,
To save you looking.
The Wooden Boat article was written by Mike O'Brien. He quotes Russ "In no way do I want to be responsible for people going offshore in proas...snip... If you're going offshore, you need to have at least a couple of people tuned into it."

Barra 1,
Some of what Gary wrote about Russ' boats was also written by Steve Callaghan, presumably with Russ' approval.

Gypsy 28,
Russ chose to gratuitously attack me in post #112, after Gary provocatively (and I suspect, with a smile on his face) mentioned me in a reply to Russ. I returned Gary's serve with something he wrote. If Russ chooses to leave or not respond, it will be because of his reluctance to discuss what was written about his boats' shortcomings and safety issues by Gary, Mike O'B and Steve C. I was the messenger, no point shooting me.

Barra 2,
From Cruising World: "A jibing mainsail in a breeze will blow the stick away". From Wooden Boat "The big danger is being caught aback". Both are pretty self evident if you look at the rigging layout. This is a bit different to shortening sail on a cruising cat at night in squally weather, but might be an acceptable risk on a fully crewed racing boat.
Either way, my point is/was that on a harry, it is not a problem as the unstayed rig, self vanging boom, ballestron jib and mainsheet taken from the boom to the weather hull allow the rig to weathercock if caught aback or in an unexpected gybe. The boat stops, you sort it out and resume sailing.

Red,
Not your fault. Russ knows that when he attacks me i defend myself, but he keeps doing it and usually he ends up being upset and leaves the conversation. He also knows that every time he does it, my enquiry rate increases. Not sure what he gains from it, but it certainly erodes his nice guy reputation amongst the proa fraternity.

Back on topic. I installed the rudder mountings on the beams of my test boat today. Hopefully will tow test the Bucket List rudders tomorrow. What has this to do with "fast but lightweight cruisers"? The rudders are large enough to make daggerboards unnecessary. They are also mounted on the beams which allows them to kick up in a collision or grounding and be completely raised in a storm or for beaching. The savings in weight, build-time and money are large. There are also no holes below the waterline to worry about and no cases to antifoul or leak.
In the same way some boats have rigs that cannot be safely caught aback, there are a lot of boats with dagger boards and in hull rudders. Everyone knows they are expensive, heavy, hit things and suffer damage, but accept the cost and risk and fix them when it happens. Which is fine if this is how you operate. But on a harryproa you don't have to.

These rudders are not perfect, foam/glass infusion in cheap moulds is a major breakthrough in low cost, lightweight boat building with a lot of improvements still possible. I would much rather discuss possible improvements to both than rehash arguments from 10 years ago.

Barra 3. Will answer the capsize question tomorrow, but briefly, the answer is: You don't.
rob

rob

 

Well this is familiar! There's no multihull forum that I can contribute to without this happening. I wish someone could please explain why Rob Denny sees me as a threat to his kingdom.

Gary, it's obvious that you drank some of the Denny Cool-aid. I won't hold it against you even if what you put in your book is both a bit mean spirited and mostly incorrect.
Denny's weapon in conquering the proa kingdom is words and he's very good at it. His favorite tactic is to repeat something often enough that it becomes true, even if it's not true, just like a polician at campaign time.

Rob will eat humble pie eventually. No one can make performance with words and make-believe.

I appreciate the support I have received on this thread, but it's not worth it to me, I'm signing off.

Since some who read this post don't know the history I'm attaching a couple of links.
One is the first time I ever posted on a forum. After over a decade of Denny trying to promote his proas by bashing mine, I wrote my view of the situation (boats aside).

I also wrote an article on Pacific Proas which shows my experience with many of the things that misinformation was being spread about, but it's just my view of the boats that I know, nothing else.

Russell



https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/proa_file/conversations/topics/29417

http://www.pacificproa.com/brown/observations_on_pacific_proas.html

 

Russell, I'm fascinated by yacht design where, to produce a certain breakthrough/non conformist craft, courage, hard won education and original thinking has to be applied - and ALL the proas, Atlantic, Pacific, Harrys and other variations exhibit this. And the same to monos, cats, tris, foilers and so on. If, unfortunately, stuff I've written in the past about you reads as mean spirited, it was certainly not the intention. As said, I have nothing but respect for designer/sailors who think outside the boring box.

 

Geez you guys......Gary I'll have to call you an insensitive prig for fanning old flames. A problem with proas is the people get so used to defending the concepts against convention that everything becomes a fight and it doesn't help the cause to have infighting. Perhaps the gents involved could just ignore each other and tout their own crafts virtues. Russel and Rob have much to contribute and it would be a shame if either didn't feel welcome.

Russel, I'm glad you are getting a boat ready for the Alaska race, that is a good arena for light fast craft. I like to doodle with rotating a-frame crab claws when I sketch things out.

Rob, do you offer other bows besides the bang for buck hulls? I'd put in more time for less bow wave.

Dick Newick may have hit it on the head with equal length hulls to allow easy motion through the waves. Works for the load or mast hulls where ever they wind up.

Forums need a thick skin at times because of the amount of do nothing ******* who think they score points picking at casual statements. Richard Woods does a good job of fending off the trolls, doing anything in a world of nonstarters can make one a target so save the fire for the louts boys.