Proa Questions: Atlantic vs Pacific

Doesn't interest me either, and I was not picking on Russ or Jzero (Russ' best boat by far, in my view) just fleshing out post #48.

I agree that most copies and modern versions of the traditional Pacific proas are not for average sailors, but there is nothing stopping an average sailor from successfully sailing a harryproa. In fact, I think it is easier to learn to sail a harry than a conventional boat as you never have to change sides and get disoriented, there is never a rush to perform tacking or gybing and there is only one lightly loaded sheet to handle.

rob

 

Even amongst all these heroes, I might be one of the few to have the distinction of first learning to sail by taking control of the helm of my own self-built trimaran (without any sailors present) on it's first sail, without a motor, on a lake known for it's violent storms. For the most part tacking proved easy. The first time I gybed in a wind/boat speed difference situation, it was a little tense, but I just had to learn to control the sheet a little better. In fact about the worst thing that happened when tacking was coming into irons, which along with getting out, is pretty much just shunting. geometrically not the same thing, but essentially you go for a turn, then you stop, you adjust your rudder and maybe back a sail, and the next thing you know you are on a new tack!

I have a huge long list of reservations about HPs, but those could for the most part wait until the boat was launched. My main concern is the carbon fiber mast. That is just a killer. If you could source a Chinese made tube, that could be shipped world wide, and was cheap as dirt (I mean relatively), I think things would move faster.

 

Jeeeze... that's definitely learning by the Sink or Swim School of Sailing. How old were you at the time?

From what I've seen, Robert's build methodology for the mast looks pretty strait forward. I'm sure his plans are explicit to eliminate risk. Certainly, its more difficult and a more advanced technique than "just" laying up a boat hull in a female mold. I'd think its still manageable for a builder who has already the experience built up building the rest of the boat from least to more difficult parts... lee hull, windward hull, cross beams and leaving mast to last. Besides,safely shipping of a (50' x 8" x 250 lbs) pole around the world would probably cost more than the labor to make it (at least in China). Making it sectional (or telescoping) might greatly help that out, but at the expense of what... extra weight aloft (when deployed) and stress concentrations.

 

The methodology keeps changing, and the supply for the raw material is pretty hard to come by at a decent price. I'm just cheap, my perception though is that people who make this kind of boat might also be resistant to spending thousands on a comparative shot in the dark spar. Rob does ship his spars to people around the world. I'm just scared to ask... And I am talking about the real actual delivered price, as opposed to the optimal scenario price.

I wasn't young at the time, not sure that helped, there were others depending on my highly tuned skills.

 

ThomD
Very impressive way to learn to sail. Don't think many people (heroes or not) could match that.

Carbon mast prices are reducing all the time. A local company here is building stayed wing masts for about 60% of what the major companies charge and unstayed masts much cheaper than the cost of a stayed mast and all it's fittings.

Building a high quality mast for yourself has never been easier (a vacuum pump and a string line are all you need, and the cost savings are significant.

The "methodology " does change, there is no other way to make them quicker/simpler/easier to build. Carbon keeps going down as well, unlike aluminium and timber which are going up.

Nothing wrong with being cheap, but unstayed carbon masts on harryproas are very well proven.

I'm not sure that building them in China would be much cheaper, but I am meant to be going over to supervise the building of a 60' stick for one of Kurt's cats sometime in the near future, so will let you know.

Please get started on the harryproa doubts list. Serious discussion about them has led to a lot of the developments that have been made.

rob

 

Can you send me the plans update for the Spar. I still am at the stage where it is made from tow with reference to your online build of the US proa, I think. Sounds like you have made some changes.

"Nothing wrong with being cheap, but unstayed carbon masts on harryproas are very well proven."

Where are the links. I still haven't actually seen an online video of a Harry proa of the standard size sailing. (just checked on that, and found some sidecar video with a blog of a cruise in which both the mast and rudder broke. Hmm).

 

Sure. Still made from tow, but unless you have a wet out machine, you will be better off using uni, which is currently very cheap. Unless you are planning to build soon, you may be better off waiting a month or so, as we are experimenting with infused seamless masts built without a mould, which will be less stressful, easier, quicker and lighter. Yeah, I know. Another methodology change. The price of progress. Please let me know your mast and boat details and your email address.

There is no "Hmm" about it. Sidecar is what harryproa development was all about before I started selling plans. Doug built it on the smell of an oily rag, is experimenting with as many variables as he can think of and cruises up and down the fairly wild West Australian coast. The mast which broke was a cut down one I built as a tube, added a fairing to and used on one of my prototypes. No idea why it broke, but it has been repaired and is sailing again. Doug breaks experimental rudders on a fairly regular basis. None of the built to plans rudders have failed when built properly.

There is only one standard size (12m) harry sailing, and that is Aroha which sailed across the Tasman last year, including a 45 knot, 3 day storm. The mast gave no trouble at all, but there are no videos. Sorry, but this is not within my control. The owner has just joined the harryproa chat group, so you can ask him any questions there.

rob

 

I wonder if proas have anu real advantage to compare with more common craft? Besides 'I am building a proa!' statement...

 

'I am building a proa!' statement...

This of course should not be underestimated since this kind of thing accounts for 95% of all boat purchases! Even a good percent of the serious professional user.

A lot of proas are built for purely recreational uses, and can be compared to preferring kite boars over windsurfers. Rob as the one main plan seller has an arms length list of advantages, but other boats also have advantages. One has to sift through the relative advantages and make one's own decision.

 

A lot of proas? Where???
I still want to hear something about real advantages...

To me, these boats lack functionality, and hull hydrodynamics will be always far from perfect.

 

"A lot" is an exageration. There are 9 Harryproas from 5-15m sailing and another half dozen or so (mostly 15-22m) due to be launched in the next 12 months. There are also half a dozen other proas that are cruising round the place and a few dozen under 6m.
Please explain where they lack functionality and why you think the hull hydrodynamics are far from perfect.

As for real advantages, harryproas are:
1) Lighter. About half the weight of an equivalent cruising cat, and a quarter of a racing one.
2) Cheaper. Half the materials is half the cost and a lot less labour to put it together. Less windage and less boat to push, so smaller rig.
3) Easier to build. Rockerless hull shapes are very simple, an unstayed rig has much less structure to build, Bunks are integral with the hulls, 2 water foils instead of four. I am currently building a 50ter hulls, decks, cabin, beams, mast, cockpit, bunks and galley shelf from 5 infused flat panels. see attached rendering.
4) More comfortable. No need to go on the foredeck to wrestle with headsails, all the accommodation and cockpit is in the centre of the boat so it is less affected by pitching.
5) Easier to sail: No need to change sides, no flogging sails and sheets.
6) Safer: More righting moment than an equivalent weight cat or tri. Rig feathers automatically in a gust. Crew are sheltered. Shunting in a gale is no harder than shunting in a calm. Double ended makes it much easier to deploy a sea anchor. Shunting makes man overboard recovery much simpler. Rudders (no daggerboards or fixed keels) kick up in a collision or grounding.
7) More convenient: 50'ter dismantles for storage and transport.

Otherwise, they are pretty much the same as any other boat.

if you doubt or dispute any of the above, please say so, but please include why as well. Ta.

rob

 

Nice pic Rob.
Only problem with proa's is that they only really have advantages in larger sizes - i think that for smaller sizes a cat still wins?

 

1. I do not belive it is so much lighter due to proa concept only, for same level of outfit; could be 20% - probably yes. Still needs 2 hulls and structure to connect them.
2. Same as #1. Also resale value is much lower; I would say almost zero due to VERY limited mrket.
3. Shapes - doesn't it make boat less seaworthy? Unstayed mast... hmm does not look simple to me, definetely is heavier than stayed mast.
4. Seems reasonalbe, but is shoud be tested in reality.
5. Requires completely different sailing skills...
6. Not true; righting arm will be same for cat of compartable beam. Aslo this contradicts statement #1 - if proa is so much lighter, how RM can be bigger??
7. Agreed

Major disadvantage I see in proa concept - the hull is not really suitable for high Froude numbers.

I believe that proa will work once is very light (record-breaking craft, funboat); in cruising range it will loose advantges due to lack of seaworthiness and poor load carrying capaicty.

 

Ta.
What do you mean by small? length, weight, space?
And what are we trying to win? racing, cruising, price, space, ease of sailing?
rob

 

Perhaps some of the benefits could be used on a cat, but few do.

Would you agree that even a 20% weight and material cost saving is a "real advantage"?

The boat in the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8chR6DAFjGAis is one of the first harrys launched. It is strip planked timber and hand laid E glass, fitted out for comfortable extensive cruising, weighs 3+ tonnes, has 2 queen size doubles and 3 singles, table for 6, big galley, etc etc. It is 15m long and is sailing at wind speed in the video under main and jib.

What do you think an equivalent fit out/speed cat would weigh?

I have just quoted $Aus28,500 for a professionally built vacuum infused foam/glass hulls, decks, beams, rudders, cockpit and internal fit out, ready to paint 15m cruiser racer with weekender accommodation. (see http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/ under Solitarry for photos and details)

Any idea of the cost of a similar spec cat?

Because of the simple shapes available, and the light weight possible, a harry built this way is much cheaper than any other boat type to build. Even if this boat was given away, there would be less money lost than a new boat sold a year after it was launched.

Actually about 50% of new for the older, strip plank boats after 4 years.

Why?

What is not simple about it?

The boat in the video has a righting moment of 18 tonne metres. What would a stayed rig and all it's supporting gear and beefing up weigh on an equivalent cruising catamaran?

Has been, and is.

Shunting is very simple, far easier than tacking. After that, the skills are the same.

Read what I said. If both boats weigh the same, the proa has more righting moment, due to having all the accommodation, consumables etc in the windward hull. They can also be much wider than a cat as they do not have to tack.

Do you agree with the other safety advantages I listed?

This is not quite the same as your original post stating there are "no real advantages" What part of the video suggests that there are any problems with the hull shape?

Why do you consider it to be lacking in seaworthiness?
The boat in the video has payload of 1.7 tonnes. Could carry a lot more, but performance will suffer, the same as for a cat.

rob