looking for info on this boat

Before I got into the thread, RWatson had described the boat as "an awkward looking beast" of a configuration that was "really useless", "difficult to steer". He later labelled the TPW configuration "a crazy decision".

Given those comments by RWatson, it is hard to see how my simple question about his own experience with squaretop rigs caused the thread to go downhill. Why should we allow people to use terms such as "crazy" "awkward" and "useless" but then get apparently get all precious about hurting their own feelings? Is it OK to insult someone's work behind their back but not OK to ask a simple and relevant question of the person doing the insulting?

By the way, it appears that my question was answered. RWatson appears to have no experience with modern squaretops, and he has still not explained why a low aspect rig would be better all else considered. If high aspect squaretops are bad for proas then why do you seem to use them? Let me reiterate, since it appears to have been ignored, that I was discussing one particular aspect of the rig, not the concept of the boat.

I have no idea why you think I should contact Paul and Russell - I never said that I was interested in improving the boat. I was asked a direct question by you and I gave a logical answer, which is to first obtain more information from people who knew more about the boat than I do. I have no reason to "go for it" when that involves something I have little interest in doing.

The purpose of BL and TPW WERE the same in some respects. BL and TPW were proas designed for offshore racing. One of them was tested in offshore racing and failed. The other was not put to the same test of offshore racing, therefore we do not know whether it would have passed the test. Again, criticising one item for failing a test that a comparable item was not put to is not logical.

I'm not comparing TPW with a Harryproa. They are different types of proas, just as a hybrid windsurfer is different from a longboard windsurfer and some people choose one and some people prefer the other. Nor am I debating the sponsorship return involved with TPW or how the crew feel, since I don't know the commission they gave the designers (ie whether they said they wanted to try an extreme idea and just loved Pacific Proas in particular) and given the discussion the boat has created the sponsor may well be quite happy.

Finally, being told by a designer about some races is not dispassionate or objective, nor is what appear to be pacing racing boats with a much shorter LOA as with the Tornadoes. The only actual race time I can find for a Harryproa is from a race in Europe in which a Harryproa was only 78% of the speed of a TRT 1200 cat of similar average length and weight, albeit with a bigger rig. Obviously that may not be a valid measurement of the concept's speed - the issue is that we still have not see a lot of objective independent evidence of that.

PS - re sleeping accommodation, it's a personal thing and given the conditions of the race, such as the cold and (I believe) the damp and long patches of very light wind that are encountered, some people could reasonably prefer TPW's sleeping arrangements to the 32'er with the bivvy bags on tramps, especially since TPW could also use a bivvy bag to sleep the crew to windward when required but also have a drier option for lighter winds.

The main point was that RWatson said "the whole idea of a small, cramped open boat for work in for that climate is a crazy decision". For one, he once again insults people, confirming that it is bizarre to imply that my simple question to RWatson was the reason the thread "went downhill". Secondly, my point was that a (comparatively) small and even more open boat WON the race so choosing one is hardly "a crazy decision".

 

Unlike the rest of you I have actually seen this boat, moored next to it, raced against it. Talked to the owners and builders.

The main problems were a lack of development time, a lack of understanding about proas by the owners, and no real trial sails before the race. They were not the only boat in the first race to suffer from those problems. No one really knew what would happen in the race (in the same way no one really knew what would happen in the first OSTAR or RBR)

The Turnpoint cat also pulled out early in the first race for similar reasons. However I sailed it this year a couple of times. It is now very well sorted and very quick.

I have also sailed on Russell's own proa. And he showed that the proa is a potential race winner, as he almost beat us into Victoria on the first leg - not that he was actually racing, just accompanying the fleet on the first leg. Mind you, had the TPW proa not trapped us in the marina before the start as they couldn't hoist their mainsail and we couldn't leave the dock until they were clear, we wouldn't have started 8 minutes late and then would have been an easy couple of miles ahead of Russell

I suspect had the TPW proa been developed as much as Felix it would now be much more competitive. But it could sensibly only be sailed by two people and should have been kept really simple and light.

The first R2Ak was won easily by a F25c, the second even easier by the open winged "big beach cat". It was only in the third race that the first two finished neck and neck. And had it not been for damage caused after hitting rocks at night the third boat could have been up there as well.

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

Sorry, when you said "I would like to see dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various designs.", then suggested the first thing you would do towards this would be to contact the designers, I assumed this would be what you wanted to do.

If it was against similar length boats, you would complain the harry was lighter.
If against similar cost boats, it would not be fair as the harry would be longer and lighter.
If similar accommodation, the harry would be lighter, cheaper and faster so the results would be invalid.
If the result was reported by me or an owner, they would not be objective. But, if they were from a design rival or the results showed harrys in a poor light, you would quote it without any attempt to find out or explain why.
Neither "dispassionate" nor "objective".

I had forgotten about ONO. It was sailed by the owner's family, theirs and the boat's first race. They were in the middle of a cruise, with all their cruising gear on board and were late for the start. The TRT had a gun crew and all the go fast kit including downwind sails, which the proa doesn't have. 78% as fast under these circumstances is fine and I would be quite happy if you use that in the "dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various designs".

You are now saying that sleeping to leeward of the lee hull is a "reasonable" idea on a 24' race proa with insufficient rm? Get real. Don't waste your time using the weasel reference to "some people" explaining how you didn't actually say what you said.
A bivvy bag that worked on the tramp of TPW in breeze would be more than adequate in light winds. Sleeping on the tramp is a much better idea than in the pod; sleeping in an adequately sized windward hull, an even better one, don't you think?

Depends on your definition of "crazy". Could we now have some "dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the various designs."? I asked some questions in my last post which you didn't answer. ie

surely you can see there is more wrong with TPW than a small hull shape change and wider beam would correct, given that it could not be raced in more than 6 knots of breeze?
harrys are bound by the same rules as other boats, and consequently, perform just as well/badly. Why do you think they would not do so?
Where they are different is in the layout, ease of use and light weight for their size or accommodation. Do you have any "dispassionate and objective" comments on these?[/QUOTE]

Richard,
What "development" and "understanding" would have made the boat safer in more than 6 knots of breeze?
Do you agree that there is a big difference between being unprepared (Turning Point) and having a boat which is fundamentally wrong and underprepared (TPW)?
What did the "owners and builders" say they should have done differently? Specifics rather than generalisations like "further development", please. Using your experience of sailing Pacific proas, do you think it was a good design for it's purpose?

 

The thread is not about the Harryproa concept and it's hard to see why you appear to think it is. I don't think I have actually criticised the Harryproas. I didn't mention them at all until you did, and until after you had used terms such as "stupid" and "unpleasant/impossible" apparently in reference to TPW. For someone to start off by using such derogatory terms but then to decry my comments on issues such as the extremely unusual choice of combined hull lengths as a way to compare boats does not appear to the logical.

I have defended stayed rigs in the past and that appeared to annoy you, but I have not attacked your boats or your rigs. I have dared to suggest that people who prefer other rigs may just have different likes, dislikes, needs and budgets and to ask for objective information to substantiate claims that have been made. It's a mystery why that appears to upset you. I do recall that you chose to believe that I started that thread to attack you, but that's completely untrue.

If the TPW team chose to do a Pacific Proa because they wanted to, then a Harryproa is largely irrelevant. A dispassionate and objective observer must be able to understand that human beings are allowed to have different preferences and experiences. In this case the TPW team may well have preferred the Pacific Proa based on the way they sail (some of us LIKE flying a lightweight hull), the way they look, or any other reason. The Harryproa concept may be no more relevant than a trimaran is when discussing a cat design, or a foiler is when discussing a seahugger.

 

Thanks for that information. As noted in my first post, the guys behind the boat are outstanding but I was puzzled by the apparent lack of righting moment. Am I getting it wrong or do you think the development you write about would include increasing RM or reducing the rig size?

 

Relax. No need for the bad language, bold font/shouting, exclamation marks and answering immediately in the hope that no one will read the original. We are discussing boat design, not Middle East peace.

It is a boat design discussion forum. The question was not hypothetical. Neither were the questions I keep asking you about the boat's design, that you won't answer.

OK, let's give it a shot.
If I said 25' Elementarry beat a "similar length" Dragonfly 25, you wouldn't say "that doesn't count, the harry was lighter"?
If I said 25' Elementarry beat a "similar cost" Hirondelle , you wouldn't say "that doesn't count, harry was longer and lighter"?
If I said 25' Elementarry beat a "similar accommodation" Seawind 24, you wouldn't say "that doesn't count, the harry was lighter, cheaper and faster"?
What you would never say is "well done! To get a shoe string budget prototype close to a highly developed boat like a Tornado sailed by world class sailors is a good effort. Shows there is some potential for the configuration, the rig and the rudders. If TPW had used some or all of these, it would have got past the first night, might even have won" or "Ono did well under those circumstances, sorry I implied otherwise" just in case it meant you might loose some points in a silly pissing contest.

Good to hear it. You mentioning the Ono race result, with the rider that it performed poorly in a race you could not be bothered checking must have been a typo or something.

Not at all. I look forward to Russell's response when he hears yet another antipodean journo thinks this about his boats. He is selling them to people who might do just that, so he may not be so keen to hear it. I also look forward to you weasling and backpedalling to clarify "most"

Anything can be justified by reference to SOME people's preference. Instead of SOME people, what does CT249 think about sleeping to leeward of the lee hull in a 24' race boat which is unsafe in >6 knots of breeze?

I introduced Expeditionarry in Post 19 as a proa with none of TPW's problems. You did not comment on this, inserted your sly dig re Bucket List in Post 22, then asked for a "dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the various designs" which you are now dodging by attributing TPW's flaws to SOME people's preferences.

What makes you think I am upset/annoyed, now or then? I thought you wanted to discuss proas, was looking forward to hearing your thoughts, but am being frustrated by your efforts to justify a bad design by saying SOME people might want to race a boat that can't be raced in more than 6 knots, rather than the pros and cons of the boat's design.

Regardless of any personal preferences, the boat was a flop, the reasons for which is what we discuss on BoatDesign.net. Do you have any comments to make about boat design?

 

Oh good grief people, enough.

 

You once again have used insulting and inflammatory language and slurs. Please stop it. It is against forum rules and against good manners. The person who could relax here is the one who has used terms such as "stupid", "absurd" and "failed so miserably" about a boat, and the poster who has been insulting my honesty. That's you.

I am not "answering immediately in the hope that no one will read the original." Let's look at the facts, so other people can see the basis for your slur. My reply to your post 30 was over 10 hours later. My reply to your post 26 was on a different date. It is quite clear that there is no factual basis for your slur and no reasonable basis for your insult.

No, I would not always denigrate a Harryproa's race results and you have no basis for that slur - in fact I think I was one of the first people to give them publicity in print. That's hardly the act of someone biased against them. The point is that you have provided no objective and independent evidence for the claims about their race results.

What makes me think you are upset? The fact that you are throwing abuse at me and doubting my honesty, that's what. And for what? From some comments it seems that it may be because you believe I started a thread about rigs because of you (you had nothing to do with it) and because while I said the TPW project "apparently miscarried" and the boat seemed to be short of righting moment, I didn't criticise it enough for you.

Oh, and the reason I wasn't critical enough for you because I'd bet that the apparent righting moment issue could be fixed with more beam or a slightly smaller rig or perhaps just more time to fix minor issues. Let's remember that the only person who has seen it said the same thing. However, I couldn't explore those issues because you want to talk about a different type of boat.

"what does CT249 think about sleeping to leeward of the lee hull in a 24' race boat which is unsafe in >6 knots of breeze? " I would prefer having the option of TPW's pod to having to sleep in a bivvy bag in a harness on a tramp during the considerable periods of the RAK when it is windless, cold and raining. But as I repeatedly said, it's not about me, it's about respecting those who have different tastes and preferences to me.

It wasn't a "sly dig" on post 22. It was simply pointing out that abusing one small offshore racing proa for failing a test that another small offshore racing proa was not put to can appear to be a bit harsh. It's apparent that you don't actually wish to hear my thoughts unless I insult TPW even more and praise Harryproas to the skies.





\

 

CT, you're almost entering Lord of Fools territory. No one can be that bonkers but you need to take a break.

 

I no more think you are biased against harrys than I think you consider TPW to be a good boat. I simply think you are more interested in scoring points in a pissing contest than discussing boat design.

Take a couple of deep breaths and read how little you have said about boat design since stating "I would like to see dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various designs".

Your last post is not worth a reply. When people conjure up as much indignation as you have, from as little evidence, it is time to take a break.