Modernising a Horstman Tri.

Guzzis3,
Thanks for your reply, easily 2c worth and I appreciate it.

Worth what you paid.

I am considering the 27' 9" and have the study plans, my main concern with going to the bigger boat is cost, everything gets more expensive even with a small increase in size.

Fair enough. I've got the folding study plans (26mt) but none of the hard deck boats. I don't know how much dearer the 27/9 would be compared to a streched 24. Looks about 20% more sail and weight from 24 to 28 so I assume you'd save about 10% at 26'.

I am not fixated on an enclosed head but people do prefer them and I simply saw bringing the dagger case into the main hull as a "two birds one stone" thing where the case would be one wall of the head/shower.

An enclosed head is a good thing, no argument there. But the horstmans have generous berths in the wings so setting aside the nose area for a head seems the obvious solution. It just seems to me putting a daggerboard case there is unnecessary clutter.

Fractional rig, I am familiar with, I have crewed on monohulls with both, and given that I will be sailing shorthanded I would rather reef a main than change a headsail, further forestay and swept back side stays is simple. I realise a roller furler is an option but I'm not convinced (yet). But you have me thinking !

As you please. Obviously big roaches are problematic with a backstay. I've nothing against fractionals it's just that fashion and heard mentality being what it is people are sometimes prone to believe what everyone else is doing must be best and anything from yesterday must be inferior. This thinking perpetuated prejudice against multihulls for quite some time in the west. The marconi rig was almost universal for a while until people started "remembering" that gaffs sprits and lugs do some nice things in certain conditions apart from looking pretty

I cannot help but think with such big changes on the cards you might be better served by another design. Stepping back from the horstman, what are you trying to achieve ? ie budget, crew, scope of cruising, storage limitations ? As I mentioned previously if money is your limiting factor rather than length you might do better building a longer slimmer lighter boat like a Hughes. I know people who have knocked them out pretty cheaply. Longer waterline and slim hulls might appeal ?

http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/30sdtri.html

carries a lot more sail but hull weight is close to what your proposing and hull cost is proportional to weight.

Just some thoughts.

 

Faster but not roomier, without the solid deck keeping the kids dry + the added expense of larger sails, beams and netting that must be replaced every few years.......

 

I cant find all the info Fred sent me but I did find the sail area and disp. for boats 27'9" up to the37XRC, not sur where I got them from though

L/B S/A Disp
27'9" /17'9" 500 3250
31 31'4"/19'1" 631 5200
31XR 31'3"/20' 446 4700
31CM 31'/21' 549 3300
32XR 32/19'1" 700 4700
35 35/20'6"? 725 6900
35XR 35/21'8" 819 6000
36 36/21'6"? 743 7300
36XR 819 7900
37 522 8750
37XRC 894 7900


The beam on the 35 and 36 dont seem right if memory serves. As the smaller XR,s are listed I would these would be old numbers. Rick

 

I am not trying to sell you a KH tri

faster but not roomier: My point. Not only faster but nicer ride in a seaway with the same accomodations your after.

solid deck: I am not entirely convinced a 26' horstman would be drier than the 31' KH, at least at a given speed. I am prepared to believe I'm wrong.

Added expense: Certainly the rig will be dearer initially. It need not be a huge expense though.

The nets will need replacing if you use webbing. If you make nets from telstra rope they will last almost as long as the boat That stuff will be laying around when the human race has ceased to exist.

The beams should not require replacement. The overall cost of hulls and beams should be comporable to the horstman, and it'd probably be quicker to build with no flares or complex shapes.

You might also convince Mr Kelsall or Mr Denny to knock you out something in kiss.

Remember all these boats will have limited resale. Better in foam, next to nothing in ply. The only boat that will yield a return on labor is a farrier, and even those have been a tad shakey lately.

Pity you didn't buy the manta 29 that was advertised recently on yachthub. $42k was the right money, hard decks, ocean capable, glass. Very nice.

 

I,m looking at around $8 to $10 per pound disp. for the 31 using ,foam,epoxy, biax. The $10 range is with inboard, outboard would put me at the $8 mark or lower. The 27'9" should come in at around $25,600 or lower depending on your options, ebay and craigslist. I,m told the 27'9" will beat the 31 in a race, both lite, but the 31 would win, both loaded, so it comes down to what you want the boat for. The 31 has the payload to cruise for a while, the 27'9" will get you some where on a weekend quicker with about as much or more space as a Searunner 31 or Cross 31. The hulls of the 31 are about 8.5 , the 27'9" should be thinner . Rick

 

Payload ???

Gooday 'Guzz' - Thanks for those observations - "All's good" (sailing comment heard on fast boats). I don't see that the 'K-H' has enough room for 2 adults & 2 or 3 kids - at least not if you don't want them to all have sun cancer - after just 1 season.

I'm not trying to 'talk you - out-of - a K-H' but it can only carry 700 kgs (max displacement - to design sailing lines) & we all know - full well - that - - that is not enough - not by half.

2 x adults + 2/3/4 kids + anchory-chain-rode + sails + water + food + batteries + kitchen & cooking + toilet + fresh water + saftey gear, clothes, personal gear - etc - etc = much more than 700 kgs - so before you cast off - you're below your displacement sailing lines (below - safe sailing available flotation level) - not where I'd want to be taking my Grand-children.

What say you ???

Very intersting subject & I'm sure we'll all learn a lot. Thanks, james

 

Thanks for the post Michael, here are a few questions- how do I find your blog? What is the metal work like on the folding mechanism? Are you building in wood or foam? I could see adding one of these to the fleet one day to save myself from trailering the monohull.

 

blog

Sorry, but I haven't started the new build blog yet. will post here when it's up. ..Michael..

 

Folding detail MT26

Hopefully these can be seen...Michael..

 

Hi James (waves),

I was comparing it to the streched horstman 24' trimaran. I figure if he's happy with a 26' version of that boat the Kurt Hughes would be enough.

This sort of thing is why I asked previously exactly what he's trying to achieve, rather than discussing this boat or that. Note he says he's thought about this for a while and decided that boat suits him, and if that's it, that's it. But for me I'd be starting with a list of "musts" and "wants" and trying to fill that criteria.

Payload is a BIG problem with small cruising tris. You have to go quite a bit longer to get an equivalent payload to a similar size cat. I usually think about 20% longer. It probably matters less as they get bigger, up towards 40' or so, but these smaller boats under 30' have limited carrying. Mr Farrier has addressed it to some extent with his fat hulls which work well. The older tri designes like piver, Brown and Horstman address it aswell. Mr Hughes is very interested in speed and his design displacement might be a bit lower than others for that reason.

 

The tristars are are what they are ,fairly fast cruisers for their payload. To stretch the boat up to 10% is one thing , but to redesign to the point of changing the hull lines is risky and against the plan lease agreement. The 24 has room for a porta potty and can be seen on the yellow 24 located in the UK. I have looked very hard at modernising the tristars, this can only be done using modern material , and they were designed to be built with those modern materials. You cannot get a higher payload cruising tri from the modern designs because they dont design one. If you build a tristar with modern materials and rigging, you will have a modern cruiser. Look at the definition of a 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen tri, if I build with foam and epoxy then all I,m missing is a computer designed hull line. And whose to say Ed did'nt use a computer to up date the hull lines.The big three Searunner, Horstman, Cross, have no modern competition, and if you try and change them into a F boat you might as well buy the plans for a F boat. Rick

 

IMHO, double berths way out in the wing deck of a 24ft Tri are the biggest Furphy ever.
Early Pivers had the same problem and if you have ever tried to sleep in a double berth in the wing of a tri in a seaway you will know what I mean.
OK tied up in a snug harbour, but thats all.
Double berths in the centre of the main hull are the best alternative, as they are on or near the centre of motion and can be achieved in most 24s by folding down the cabin seat. Single berths on the gunwhale each side of the hull are better, since they too are closer to the centre of motion.
For my tastes Horstmans Tris are too bulky, have too much topsides area and his curved sloping decks are just plain dangerous. He tries to pack too much in them, like trying to put a quart in a pint pot. Just look at those pics again.

 

Your points are well taken oldsailor7,but there are past owners of the 24', 27'9", and 31' who would dissagree with you.That,s my point these boats are designed to be what they are , and for those of us that want that kind of boat they fit the bill. Modern design is somehow translated to (faster), and your Buc,s prove thats not the case. I think we should define modern as how it is designed , materials used, and build methods , not how fast the boat can sail. The tristars and Buc,s are like apples and oranges when looking at intended use. Both are not modern, but both are going strong today with home builders, that has to say somthing for the designers and their designs. Will the modern designs do the same 30 years from now? Would a carbon fiber, foam cored Buc 24 be modern, or just the fastest oldsailor on the sea? We should be asking how can we make these designs better with todays advances, or can we make them better. There is nothing wrong with many of the old designs, they do today what they were intended to do yesterday, the designs of the boats dont need to be redesigned. And at your age oldsailor7 you might enjoy a tristar in a snug harbour, thats where you'll find me when I get mine built. Rick

 

" and for those of us that want that kind of boat they fit the bill."

rberrey .
I am quite happy with that. I was only speaking from my own perspective.

 

Relating and referring to what OS7 was saying (negatively and with good reason) about the Horstman, here's an 8 metre cruisy/part racy trimaran main hull, also plan, that I tentatively drew up for a friend. The idea was to have a wide, single beam (a la Newick) to allow larger interior. Floats would be full length, overall beam 6m.