demountable catamaran for the caribbean and south pacific

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by cloudsrule9, Jun 10, 2016.

  1. cloudsrule9
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 21
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: uk

    cloudsrule9 Junior Member

    I guess this is my point, people are still figuring it out and figuring something out generally takes time, money and mistakes. You have an reasonably untested boat design built in an unconventional manner. I'm sure you can see why this makes people nervous. If i had the time i would test the idea but i want a construction technique i know will last. I don't have 10 years build and sail a small boat around and see if any problems develop. I just don't trust the construction technique. It is a bit like the pre-fab concrete house that where built in the UK, just after the war. It was a new idea and seemed fast and economical and it was. However it turns out the steel bars inside the concrete rust and the house become unsafe and worthless. I have no idea if there will be any long term problems with this construction technique but my sailing around the Caribbean and south pacific boat is not the best way to find out.

    Doing a conventional build of a harryproa seems like an insane idea. I like the simple and light construction technique. Taking a multi hull and making it heavier than needed seems to go against the design philosophy. Plus building a 40 foot boat in strip plank would take ages, why do you think im am looking at boats like richards eagle 24 which he estimates as having a build time of 700 ish hours. I didn't think i could afford to build a 40 foot boat (mainly in time rather than money) which is one of the reasons i am very interested in your designs and building technique.


    I have spoken to "my girl" at length and the main problem is that she doesn't "get" the boat. Put her in a mono or a cat and she knows how to sail it how it will behave. In a harryproa she thinks she would feel confused and scared and thats when people make mistakes. Plus who wants to sail around on a boat that scares them. Its the same reason she still ties on with a figure of 8 knot when we go climbing. Its not the quickest knot to tie and is a real pain to undo if you fall onto it but she trusts it and thats what you want when you are 30 foot of the floor. Me building 1 harryproa with intelligent infusion isnt going to give her (or me) anywhere near the same level of confidence as thousands of wood or "traditional" fiberglass boats can. You list 5 harryproas that have been launched on your website, atleast 3 appear to have been made using a technique other than intelligent infusion. With such small numbers any sort of analysis of the durability of the construction technique is going to be hard.

    Put another way, build a couple of small harryproas and donate them to the local sailing club/sea scouts (if you have them) or whoever. Leave them there for few years and see what how the hold up. If they are robust and simple to sail then people will sail them. When you build one film it, then speed up the footage and post it on the net. Nothing says fast and easy like seeing someone do it. Stick the thing in some scales and that shows how light it is. I guess, to me, it doesn't make any sense that this hasn't happened if things are really as easy as you say. Other designers do it, for example richard woods made a duo at a boat building competition (okay no video but a written report).

    The price of the plans is also an issue. I just bought a set of tryst 10 plans from richard woods for £35. This lets me see what his plans are like for very little money (his cheapest dinghy plans are £5, but i like the tryst better). Your cheapest plans seem to be $200 which is about £120. For that i can have richards plans and all the materials for the boat hull .

    Don't get me wrong i really like the idea of a harryproa. The design looks like the kind of boat i want, hence the reason i emailed you in the first place. I'm waiting to see how fast bucket list sails. I hope that one day i will be able to sail in harryproa. I'm not trying to knock the idea, just letting you know where i am and what concerns me. I suspect i'm not the only one with reservations and there is no point in not talking about them. They might help you think of ways to show people this idea does work.
     
  2. cloudsrule9
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 21
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: uk

    cloudsrule9 Junior Member

    So another short update. I have been trying to find production boats that fit what im looking for. I found an aventura 28.

    http://www.aventura-catamarans.com/bateau_aventura_catamarans.php?ref=3

    It might not quite fit in a container, but it does fit on a trailer. The hulls will fit, and the mast should (or could be shorted by a foot to make it) but the cockpit might not depending exact size and if it can be put in at an angle. Has anyone sailed an aventura 28? Has anyone shipped on in a shipping container? I have read the review on multi hull world (http://www.multihulls-world.com/us/...0115-189-AVENTURA-28-AVENTURA-CATAMARANS.html) Not sure the review was worth 5 euro

    It claims RCD cat B, for what that is worth and its quite heavy (1.4T). It appears to have 1.65m headroom in the hulls which is just enough. Its draw with a double bed in the hulls but it is a bit thin at 1.11m. A cuddy on the deck might be needed even if this does kill the windward proframce somewhat.

    Its little sister aventura 23.5 is also interesting. This will need a cuddy on the deck as the hull are even narrower. Anyone sailed one of these? Fairly sure this will fit into a shipping container.
     
  3. Jim Caldwell
    Joined: Aug 2013
    Posts: 266
    Likes: 8, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: Cleveland, Ohio

    Jim Caldwell Senior Member

    Taking Clouds thoughts a little further, is the Dive Cat being built from your plans?
    I hope you have arranged to video or photograph the build steps because it will go a long way to answering the basic questions.
     
  4. sigurd
    Joined: Jun 2004
    Posts: 827
    Likes: 8, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 65
    Location: norway

    sigurd Pompuous Pangolin

    Since bows are the fastest part of the boat (they always get there first!), I never could understand why people keep so little of them, both in length and in number.
     
  5. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 761
    Likes: 119, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    You asked why everyone isn't using it. My guess was that they probably haven't figured it out.
    I did not say it was not figured out. It is.
    And it did take a lot of my time, money and mistakes.
    I could see it if it was correct. But it isn't. Harryproas have been sailing for the best part of 20 years and Intelligent Infusion is simply a collection of techniques to eliminate the fiddly, messy, strenuous and wasteful parts of boat building and a more efficient method of applying resin than slopping it on by hand then sanding half of it off.
    What specific part don't you trust? Foam/glass boats have been around since the sixties. They have a longer lifespan than most plywood boats. Infusion is simply a better way of applying the resin.
    I did not intend you to strip plank it. It is mostly flat panels, so could be built in ply. Or you could use foam and wet it out by hand or infuse the panels then join them. Either way, you then spend days cleaning up edges, grinding, filletting, tabbing and sanding. With Intelligent Infusion, you don't.
    Your design philosophy is confused. Building in ply means the boat will be 1.5-2 times as heavy as it would be in infused foam. Alloy masts and beams vs carbon are about the same.
    I have no idea why you are looking at a 24'ter, when Richard, I and anyone else who has done any reasonable miles in a small cat reckon it is not sensible from comfort, safety, payload and performance points of view unless you are using it as a weekend camper in sheltered waters. The build time will seem inconsequential when you are caught in a decent blow or have to spend a couple of days cooped up onboard in the rain. Please spend a week living/sailing on one before you start building.
    There is very little to "get". Shunting, increased safety, higher levels of comfort and the lack of effort required to sail it are the only things that are different to conventional boats. Apart from shunting, all of them are way above a 24' cat.
    Confidence in the boat's use is far more important than confidence in the build method. See my previous post about seaworthiness, and Richard's earlier comments about sailing in small catamarans. Also my comments above about what Intelligent infusion actually is.
    There is plenty of text, photos and videos about building and sailing harrys on the web page and the harryproa chat group. I have been sailing and abusing my 25'ter for 10 years, without any problems. It is vacuum bagged foam and apart from the holes i have cut in it to try various ideas, is in mint condition. It weighs 120 kgs, the same as it did on the day it was launched.
    Bucket List is on track to weigh 500 kgs. Photos and text explaining it's build are at http://harryproa.com/?p=424 Anything you don't understand or that needs clarification, let me know.
    The harry plans more than pay for themselves in time and materials saved. Cheap plans for a labour intensive boat with a lot of wasted material is false economy.
    I appreciate your concerns and enjoy addressing them.

    Jim,
    I have not had any progress updates on the dive cat.
     
  6. DennisRB
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 1,268
    Likes: 25, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 228
    Location: Brisbane

    DennisRB Senior Member

    Wow Alik. That boat is very close to what my ideal boat I have been imagining is. Do you have any more details?
     
  7. DennisRB
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 1,268
    Likes: 25, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 228
    Location: Brisbane

    DennisRB Senior Member

    While your philosophy can't be disputed for you, others who have learned the art of cruising with ultra shoal draft and easy beachability in areas that can benefit from it have a different view. Here in QLD there are so many places you simply cant go at all without it, and many more where it means you can go when ever you want rather than waiting for tides. To those that love these tidal areas they would certainly see losing this ability as a gigantic detriment. Its usually always those who have never done this style of cruising who claim there is little benefit but they not in a position to make this claim having never done it themselves. Having a 300mm draft with 100% kick up appendages means being able to cross reefs at high tide. It means sandbanks are no problem in moreton bay or anywhere. It means using your yacht as a dingy to drop and pick people off a sandy shore is possible. Its a totally different style of cruising that having grown up with is something many people do not want to loose.

    I have not circumnavigated but I have sailed across the south pacific in a shoal draft 1.5m mono (legend 40.5). The draft did not matter most of the time in the south pacific and I would have had more during that trip until I got home. Here in QLD the draft and no beachability was an enormous detriment and we soon swapped it for a beachable cat. So it pays to talk to others in the region you plan to sail if ultra shoal draft and beachability is worth it (NOTE don't ask someone with a boat that does not have it as of course they will say they have not needed it, they never had an option to use it in the first place).

    And since when are cats poorer to maneuver and "motorize" than a mono? They are much easier to maneuver providing you have twin engines. I have owned both of similar length and the twin engine cat was far better in this regard. The cat was 3 foot longer and much larger over all yet used much less fuel (unless it was into a stiff headwind). It had a top speed almost 2 knots faster. It motored much better than my modernish 40 foot mono with a 50hp engine with 2 x 27 hp engines (over propped to so only about 45hp available). Top speed using only one 27hp engine was the same as full speed with the 50hp mono. 8K. There is no way I can see how the cat was not far better under motor. I even clocked up 8.5K into a 40knot apparent head wind recently. I don't get it? I guess not all cats are created equally.
     
  8. DennisRB
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 1,268
    Likes: 25, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 228
    Location: Brisbane

    DennisRB Senior Member

    I like Robs designs. I eagerly wait on all his latest developments and cant wait to see some of the modern versions built and sailed with decent continued feed back from the builders and sailors. Infusion is not an unproven method at all. It has been around for ages with many boats built. Seems many production boats are done this way now so its no mystery. The thing which makes a harryproa style (this is not new) infusion build so fast is not just the infusion, but the hull shapes are flat sides, bottom and deck with 4 pieces like a box. The method would not work that quickly if you had to build a mold for a round bilge hull. This kind of shape usually makes people who know just enough to be dangerous think it must be high drag due to wetted surface area etc etc. But the overriding parameter for hull resistance is displacement to length ratio and this method comes up with an amazingly light and long boat. You just need to look at the hulls of a very modern lightweight racing cat, tri or even a moth. Many are almost shaped like this and its not because its slow, there are other reasons why this is not slow too.

    [​IMG]

    Home built infused design.

    http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/bo...displacement-powercat-build-thread-38588.html

    But I have to disagree with this one Rob. Come on? The turning circle of a cat is the same as its LOA. Seems most of your designs don't usually have twin engines when cats usually do, and even if they did you claim a benefit of proas is the longer LOA for a given amount of material so you can't have it both ways. :p Its not like it matters much anyway though. Turning a 40 foot anything is no issue even in a marina.

    Here is another design you might be interested in. http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_other/cat2fold36.htm

    I fully agree the exhilarator 40 cruise version would be much nicer to be on at sea than a mid to high 20 foot cat. Its much longer and wider so will be harder to capsize and the motions will be nicer due to the length.
     
  9. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 761
    Likes: 119, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    Agree with this and your other points.

    I assumed the question was about sailing manoeuvrability, where fore and aft rudders give a tighter turning circle and better control than stern mounted rudders.

    The 50' harrys have twin motors (2 x 29 hp outboards, 2 x Torqeedo Cruise 4's, 1 x 20 hp o/b plus an electric trolling motor as a bow thruster) and turn accordingly (ie in their own length).
     
  10. cloudsrule9
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 21
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: uk

    cloudsrule9 Junior Member

    Okay so I think I'm beginning to understand the idea of intelligent infusion more.I suspect my problems was that i was misunderstanding how the process worked and therefore had doubts about it. Rob's comments, and those of others have helped my understanding. I might have to just give it a go.

    I still have reservations about how well this idea will transfer from production boats to home builds. The ability of commercial/professional builders to use a technique does not always make for a good home build technique. Im sold on fiberglass/foam being strong and durable if done correctly. However its making sure it is done correctly that i think might be a problem.

    For example, it look part in a cardboard boat race while at school in Alabama, USA. A collection of boats where entered all from the same material (mainly cardboard) but it was how this was put together that made the difference. We won, well not the race, but we did get the award for the most spectacular sinking. Our fire engine red boat broke up beautifully. The winning boat had the same parts (cardboard, ducktape, paint...) but they where much better put together.

    How can i tell that my infused panels are correct, which i guess means having no voids? With plywood the best you can do is buy from an approved mill and hope but this seems to work okay. Even professional boat glass boats delaminate (bumfuzzle's 35 foot wildcat) comes to mind. Or this this something that cannot happen with intelligent infusion due to the way the process works.

    Not sure i completely agree with my "design philosophy is confused." I'm suggesting i build a boat in the way a designer though best. For richards boat thats in ply, for your boats that using intelligent infusion. However its not a very important point. Something i like about your design is that it seems that the building technique and the boat have been chosen to complement each other. I don't want to mess this up.

    So ill have to just accept "Building a 16' harriette would show you everything you needed to know about building and sailing a harryproa." as being true as i havent done it. However scaling a 26 foot cat (say richard woods elf) to 10 foot isn't going to produce a very good boat to sail. The internal space will be to small and you are comparing a boat that was designed to be 16 foot with a boat which was shrunk to less than half the length. Id put good money on the harriette being better to sail, but then again a mini (not sure if you have these in oz: its a very small city car) will be better to drive and easier to build than a scaled down landcruiser. Doesn't make the landcruiser a bad car just means it was designed to scaled down to half its size. As for the tender, my packraft will beat anything, hard or inflatable. It weights 2.7 kg, rolls up into a 20l rucksac, has an 2 inch draft and i can get through grade 3 white water. I know inflatable tenders suck, i have one and i never use it, i also can't be bothered to get the hard tender out of the dinghy park to get to the boat either. If we are in the middle of nowhere and i need to paddle a mile to shore then it is true a packraft will suck (im working on a sailing version but need to sort out the daggerboards/leeboards). However it appears that a HARRYPROA 40F uses the same outboard for the tender and the main boat. Roll the tender, or if it gets stolen you have just lost both your tender and your outboard. I guess you could just carry a spare outboard but you still have a big hole in your deck ( the slats that cover the tender went stored don't look big enough to work without the boat).
     
  11. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 761
    Likes: 119, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    Cool. Borrow or buy a pump http://www.ebay.com.au/bhp/vacuum-pump , a 2' square piece of window glass and a trial kit from your local resin supplier. Make a basic panel and then I can tell you the tricks required to simplify the build.

    Intelligent Infusion is derived from Derek Kelsall's KSS method for amateur builders. It is simpler to do correctly than any other form of building, and any stuff ups are very obvious, and easily fixed. Based on other user's experience, once you try it, your reservations will disappear.
    Durability is very rarely the result of materials failing. Dud resin, flawed ply, outgassing foam, under spec glass, non marine stainless) are so rare that they can be ignored, or tested (although no one does).
    The likely stuff up is in how it is all put together. Poor joins, dry/wrongly aligned/too much/too little cloth, faulty resin measuring/mixing, etc are all builder mistakes. These are rarely the cause of boats breaking, falling apart or sinking.
    The vast majority of the small minority of cruising boats that get into trouble are caused by operator error: not wiring rigging screws, forgetting to shut windows/hatches, letting the halyard fly, ropes in the water getting round the prop, booms/sheets/travellers hitting crew, ignoring forecasts, anchoring on lee shores, poor chart reading, sailing when tired and panicking when things start going wrong to name a few.

    The solution to these is seamanship and a boat that has as little as possible to go wrong, and that will look after you if it does. Unstayed masts, no foredeck work, easily handled, reefing with the boat stopped, kick up rudders/boards, accessible props, instant depower on all points of sail, big outboard and the other harry attributes.

    On a correctly infused panel the glass is invisible as there are no micro airbubbles in it. If you have set it up properly, there will be no voids (gaps between foam, glass not pushed into corners, etc). If there are any gaps, they will fill with resin.

    The reason the samples are infused on glass is so you can see both sides and observe the wet out. On large pieces (table or mould), this is not possible, so peel ply around the edges is used as an indicator. It does not wet out until the laminate underneath has. Perforations in the foam at ~50mm centres mean that as long as there is resin on the top surface, it will flow through and wet out underneath.

    Once the panel is completed, any misses are very obvious (dry glass) and can be fixed by wetting them out, reinfusing the area or replacing the f/glass. Misses can't happen as long as the vacuum is maintained and the resin flow path covers the job. This is easier to do on flat panels than on a complex hull shape.
    The vacuum is applied before the resin, so there is plenty of time to make sure it is correct.
    There is more to know about this, which is explained in the plans.

    My understanding is that it was not the materials on BF but the way they were applied. Lazy laminating, no vacum applied to the core and poor quality control. The side against the mould was gel coated so dry areas and non bonded core could not be seen. This is one of the reasons intelligent infusion panels are not gel coated.
    The other structural problem on BFwas the secondary bonding of bulkheads etc. Done properly this requires small tolerances on the bulkheads, accurate alignment (fore/aft, sideways, vertically and untwisted), accurate fillets and carefully applied glass.
    The third problem was the fittings and fixtures installed in a rush by careless workers.

    These are builder errors, not materials. The more possible errors you simplify or eliminate, the lower the chance of problems. For example, with Intelligent Infusion the bulkhead landings are measured when measuring is easily checked and included in the infusion.
    Bulkheads are cut to size (very easy with foam and mostly straight sides) and checked against the hull landings.
    Openings such as doorways, windows, hatchways, skin fitting holes, mast and beam sockets, limber holes, etc are included. As are the doors, hatches, their surrounds, landings for shelves and any local strengthening in high load areas. Any errors are a simple recut and some hot melt glue. The glass is then cut and it and the foam are laid on the table/mould and infused.
    The glass wraps around the edges so there is no trimming or edge sealing (a tedious job with ply). When cured, the peel ply is removed and they are simply glued into the self aligning, male/female joins in the landings, ready for painting.

    In the unlikely event they don't fit or align, you have screwed up the measurement, and will need to do some grinding and conventional filleting and glassing.

    Bumfuzzle is a good example of why you should build (or supervise the build) of your boat yourself if quality is important.

    Agree it is not important. My point was that if light weight is required, ply is not the best choice.

    Good.

    You will see the building part for yourself after the first couple of test pieces. A 1/10th scale hull model is cheap and easy to build and would show you the Int Inf tricks. The sailing is harder to organise, but you could think about a trip to Holland for a day sail on Blind Date.

    Of course. I should have put an "imagine" in the suggestion about building the cat, but the comparison does give you the general idea. A big boat is a better choice, if the weight and space are the same.

    A big, fast tender is handy when you:
    anchor off and want to get ashore for an hour or so and bring back water, shopping, friends, etc. The alternative is paying the daily rate for a marina or town wharf.
    need to place a second anchor in a gale
    want to explore a shallow river, beach or dive spot a few miles away and it is inconvenient to take the mothership
    All cruisers would have one if storage and launching were not a problem.

    It's pretty hard to roll the tender, and if you do, it floats and would be an easy recovery. Theft is a possibility which needs to be prepared for, same as it does for your possessions, the mothership or it's outboard.
    They aren't. A roll of slats to cover the hole would be required if this was deemed a problem. A beam mounted outboard bracket is easy to make and weighs a couple of kgs.
     
  12. DennisRB
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 1,268
    Likes: 25, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 228
    Location: Brisbane

    DennisRB Senior Member

    Bumfuzzle were using their boat beyond the limits and classification it was designed for.
     
  13. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 761
    Likes: 119, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

  14. cloudsrule9
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 21
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: uk

    cloudsrule9 Junior Member

    I agree that the bumfuzzles boat was being used out of its design brief but they didn't exactly abuse the boat. My point is that everyone, well save charter cats, agree that it was a build problem and i dont want to be building problems into my boat. After the repair the boat went on to sail the rest of the way around the world and sold well (i think they got $140K US), so i dont think the boat was really being pushed to hard or was that unsuitable.

    Anyway this is all going rather off-topic. I'm still after a boat for island hopping in the Caribbean and south pacific.

    we are aiming for a more laid back version of what bumfuzzle did. No ocean passages and in the Caribbean we expect to do little more than day sailing (maybe one or two 24 to 48 hour passages). Any long passages will be made with the boat on a container ship and us on a plane. We aim to avoid heavy weather as much as possible by sailling the correct season, sheltering in anchorages etc during storms and making the most of modern weather forecasting to avoid be out in storms. We still want a boat that can take a bit of a beating encase we do end up in a storm but

    So current front runners are an Elf 26 and an Eagle 24 both designed by Richard woods. I got the full build plans for a tryst 10 and am very happy with the quality and attention to detail. The free online study plan for the eagle was also a great help as has Mr. Woods himself. So i have confidence in being able to build a reasonable Eagle. Richard has been very helpful in how much the design can be altered to suit are needs and wants. The elf is coming back into production in france, although they do come up for sale second hand from time to time. it appears that there is also some flexibility in this boats design as well.

    The aventura 28 is also being considered (either new or used). I have read on test done by a sailing magazine. Seemed reasonably complementary. The design is quite old suggesting and has been bought back into production suggesting that it must have some virtues.

    http://www.aventura-catamarans.com/bateau_aventura_catamarans.php?ref=3

    Anyone got any experience with these boats? I have emailed an agent for these boats in the UK who has been helpful but nothing beats first hand ownership experience. The agent says they can fit into a shipping container. They are still in production at 64K (euro) with a reasonable list of "stock" options. There are also a few on the used market. Any thoughts?

    Its smaller sister has been more or less discounted as a just a bit to small and doesn't appear to have standing headroom in the hulls (even for a 5' 2'' girl).


    rob's harry proa is still in the mix, reviews are hard to find and i don't think that any of the design he recommended (Exhilarator 40F) be have been built. Has anyone got any hands on experience with robs boats, particularity a Exhilarator 40F or a harryproa 40F, either was a builder or sailing? Given the time rob says his boats have been around for (20 years) there seems to be very few examples ( i have found 6) especially when compared to other multi-hull designers (Richard Woods, Erik Lerough, Jeff Schionning to name a few).

    Now i know this could be due to people just being skeptical (like me) but i do think that if you offer something that really works for people then 20 years should be long enough for the message to get out. Especially given the designs appears (claims?) to solve so many issues that cruiser complain about (like the inflatable tender issue). There is just something about this that bugs me and i can't shake it. I also can't really identify what it is that bugs me, i though it was the build method but I'm pretty sold on intelligent infusion now, atleast if done correctly. I have always liked the design. I bought the house i currently live in without seeing it in person(my girlfriend walked in the door saw the big kitchen and said we would take despite the former cannabis factory in the loft), so i generally just go for things. So any thoughts on whats holding me back about your designs would be great, they might be the same things that are stopping others with harryproas
     

  15. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 761
    Likes: 119, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    This will seriously limit your enjoyment of the South Pacific. Or cost you a fortune in shipping and airfares.
    Bumfuzzle cruised down the trades. Coastal sailing is different, especially in a small boat on a limited time table in remote places.

    It is not the forecast storms that cause strife, nor how long you spend sailing offshore. It is the local fresh to strong breezes that no one knew was coming. This applies to both night sailing and anchoring off the beaten track.

    Be careful of magazine reviews that the boat is advertised in. Ditto for owners who may want to sell their boats one day.

    The first harry was launched 20 odd years ago. The first ~6 were experiments for my personal use. A draftsman/boat builder then offered to draw up the plans and found a first client. He built the first boat, we sold a bunch of plans, about 15 were started, all except 4 strip planked.
    He left, I did not need to sell plans to make a living, spent several years playing with build techniques (including a lot of very helpful forum chats) and building more hulls for myself to see what worked. Most of these are in the Files and Photos sections of the harryproa chat forum https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/info?yguid=312404726.

    18 months ago one of the original builders (infused 2 x 70'ters) offered to redraw the range when he was not busy building his boat or at his day job. We included all we knew about simplifying and lowering the cost of building. The first boat was Bucket List, which is being built very slowly for reasons to do with it's eventual production. Second was a 60'ter, currently being built in Peru, then the 40F for a USA client, who will be starting when time and health permit. Somewhere between Bucket List and the 60, we realised we were onto something pretty special, so called it Intelligent Infusion.
    Upshot, there are no Intelligent Infusion boats built yet.

    Why haven't I built a boat and sailed it round the world to prove harrys are good? Time, money, job and I did not see the need as everything relevant that such a trip would prove has already been proven. Plus, the boat i would have sailed on 3 years ago is vastly different to what I would sail now. Mostly though, I would rather be discovering and developing new ideas than proving the (to me) obvious.

    Why aren't there more harrys? Same reasons it has taken multis 50 years to be accepted, despite all the designers you mention pushing them a lot harder than I push harrys.

    "hands on experience" from John Metza in the Multihulls Mailing List a couple of years ago: "I watched Rob shunt his 25' proa upwind up the narrow (35m for most of it) boat filled channel in front of his house so fast and easy I thought he must've had an electric motor hidden in the leeward hull. I would've had a very difficult time doing it in a beach cat without stalling, hitting somebody's boat and/or breaking out a canoe paddle. With the exception of a wind surfer, I had never seen a sailboat with a reverse gear before. He could head right for something, then throw it in reverse, back away and bolt off in a new direction under perfect control."

    I have no idea what is 'holding you back' as you seem to know your requirements, and that the harry fulfils them better than the little cats. Let me know what other things you are unsure about and i will do my best to answer them, with real life examples.

    For what it is worth, 40 years ago I spent 2 years on a 30' Iroquois cat with my wife cruising from the UK to the Med and back, fitting it out en route. Fantastic time, lived on 5 quid per week. The important thing is to do it, the boat is pretty secondary.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.