looking for info on this boat

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by TwoBirds, Oct 17, 2017.

  1. TwoBirds
    Joined: Aug 2016
    Posts: 36
    Likes: 0, Points: 6, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Gulf Islands

    TwoBirds Junior Member

    one of those cases where the boat goes faster with less sail :)

    I think most of the problem was that they ran out of time, if they could have just sunk another 50 thousand or so into her she would have done fine :)

    Madness, the 31 footer he designed later on looks like a really fun boat, for 2 people who really really like each other, not much usable volume on a proa, probably why they tend to be more common where it doesn't get cold.

    I'll definitely start a build journal for the Wa'apa here, might be a slow process since I'm making changes as I go, I've already added 5 inches of freeboard and am planing on a cockpit sole so I can make it self bailing, my last boat isn't up to local conditions, I only get about 3 days a month when the wind is blowing hard enough, but not too hard :(

    2b
     
  2. CT249
    Joined: May 2003
    Posts: 931
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT249 Senior Member

    Have you spent much time on modern squaretop short-overlap film-sailed fast multis?

    Is there much evidence that a high aspect rig is harder to keep upright in a boat of this type? Many of us find them very little work; the mast bend depowers automatically to a significant extent and simply pulling and easing strings (ie downhaul) does a lot as well. And all else being equal a high aspect rig can be smaller than a low-aspect one, especially on a boat that is unlikely to be sailing at high angles of attack.

    I've regularly pointed out how efficient low aspect rigs can be on boats like Lasers, but on a fast multi the high aspect rigs are not only very fast, but often very easy to handle.
     
  3. rwatson
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 5,125
    Likes: 135, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1749
    Location: Tasmania,Australia

    rwatson Senior Member

    Did you look at their flying amas on the video in ten knots of wind ?

    Did you read "full time attention of both crew in anything over 6 knots" ?

    "fast multis ? " -
    a fat bodied 24 footer is nothing like a Tornado hull.
     
  4. CT249
    Joined: May 2003
    Posts: 931
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT249 Senior Member

    It's not particularly fat bodied, and in the right conditions such a boat should be able to be quite fast. Look at a Farrier, which has a wide main hull and still performs well.

    Have you spent much time on fast modern rig multis? Skiffs? Boards? Moths? Are you familiar with the gust response and depowering of a modern squaretop? If not, on what basis are you comparing the rig with any other?

    By the way, the race that year was won by "crazies" on a small open cat with a modern exotic squaretop rig, complete with hiking racks. I don't think they had as much shelter as the proa offered; they just slept in sleeping bags inside bivvy bags on the open tramp as I understand it.
     
    dsigned likes this.
  5. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 635
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    Maybe. But it is obvious looking at the boat, and from the fact that 2 Olympic level sailors were unable to cope with more than 6 knots of breeze, that it has nowhere near enough rm unless the crew sit on the windward hull. It is equally obvious that this would be unpleasant/impossible as the windward hull is so small and low.

    Water ballast is stupid on a multihull if all the crew are sitting on the lee hull, and/or sleeping to leeward of the lee hull. Worse though is that the windward hull is not designed to carry the weight unless the hull is flying. Consequently, in a lull, it floats below it's lines, and is sluggish.

    20 years playing with proas, plus their facebook post which you published below. Any one who knows about sailing (RWatson and CT49 on this thread) picks it up immediately. Those who prefer the romantic fiction of 'sailing like the Pacific Islanders' rather than physics take longer. Unfortunately, some of them need to buy a boat to discover reality. When they do, the boat is sold.

    Pumping and draining water is hard work and slow. Wind strength variations are fast and often. The small windward hull with both crew on it and water ballast would be nearly submerged in a lull. As well as getting wet, they run the risk of being washed off. More often than not, one of them would be asleep, to leeward of the leeward hull. Pumping/draining ballast, trimming the sheet to keep the boat on it's feet and steering is simply not possible for one person for extended periods.

    The reason they gave was righting moment. However, if they had continued, they would also have discovered that:
    1) I
    n narrow confines with floating logs and deadheads, rudders that don't kick up in a collision are dangerous. Foam crashboxes are a poor substitute.
    2) Tired shorthanded crews make mistakes, which can lead to accidental tacks and gybes which with the stayed rig would either blow the mast away (Russ' words, which anyone looking at the rig would agree with) or capsize the boat the wrong way which is terminal for the race, and possibly also for the crew. This is more likely if the windwardward hull is partly full of water.
    3) The low, narrow foredeck with no safety rails is no place to be in a breeze when the furler jams or wraps around the forestay.
    4) Big cockpits on lee hulls are an accident looking for a place (or a wave) to happen.

    5) Gear stowage and sleeping to leeward of the lee hull reduces insufficient righting moment even more.

    The Madness owners are going to discover these design faults, hopefully in light air.

    Proas are really good race boats, with some obvious drawbacks which can be designed around with unstayed masts, schooner rigs, no extras, crew to windward in a hull designed to take the weight and kick up rudders. EXPEDITIONARRY – Harryproa http://harryproa.com/?p=1755#more-1755 is one example. Why no effort was made to do any of this on TPW is a mystery to me.


    If it was taken there, it was never sailed (a boat like that would have been noticed, and filmed). If it was half as good as the hype in the articles and "the reputed design team" said it was, it would be sailing. If it was a case of not enough development time, they would have used it this year. They didn't.
     
    rwatson likes this.
  6. rwatson
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 5,125
    Likes: 135, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1749
    Location: Tasmania,Australia

    rwatson Senior Member

    Thanks Rob - saved me the time :)
     
  7. CT249
    Joined: May 2003
    Posts: 931
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT249 Senior Member

    Rob, with respect, on another forum you are currently defending your decision to basically scrap another proa.

    Okay, you have provided reasons. However, isn't it possible that the creators of the boat in question have reasons for not racing their proa that are as good as your reasons for scrapping your proa?
     
  8. rwatson
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 5,125
    Likes: 135, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1749
    Location: Tasmania,Australia

    rwatson Senior Member

    Yeah maybe, but also Rob probably got it right.

    Especially since you ignore all the obvious points we have both been making.
     
  9. CT249
    Joined: May 2003
    Posts: 931
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT249 Senior Member

    Which are what precisely? I've said that I believed that the boat lacked RM. However, on another forum Rob is saying that a few sails proved that one proa concept worked, whereas here is is saying that another few sails indicated that another proa concept failed. It's not insulting or silly to note that the similar tests should be applied to competing proa concepts before it is accepted that one works and the other does not.

    As far as ignoring obvious posts, may one point out that that you keep on ignoring the simple question of how much experience you have had with the rigs you decry, on boats of the same sort of performance as a racing proa?

    It is completely incorrect, as the simplest view of this thread shows, to say that I have been ignoring your points. I have done no such thing. I have, in the past, defended low aspect rig and will do so in the future. However, you claimed certain flaws in the Bieker/Brown proa's rig and you have provided no information that supports your claims and no information that indicates that you have any experience with such rigs in performance multis on which to base them.

    To make it clear, I think the Bieker/Brown proas and the Harryproas are cool and interesting boats. it's just that from where I sit I would like to see dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various designs.
     
  10. rwatson
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 5,125
    Likes: 135, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1749
    Location: Tasmania,Australia

    rwatson Senior Member

    Oh come on. That Proa was no "performance multi ", and "Which are what precisely? ... that supports your claims" is just plain rude, especially after Robs detailed analysis.

    As far as experience goes, I started in Tornadoes at 16, and I have built designed several multi-hulls ( trimarans and Proa's) over the last 40 years.

    Mine and Robs points come from sufficient experience to critique this poorly conceived craft that will never see any competition. I wont bother to say any more on the topic.
     
  11. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 635
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    The difference is that the Farrier wide hull is unweighted as it powers up, TPW's hull is pushed into the water. A Farrier with floats the same width as the main hull would not perform as well.

    The top of that rig needs to depower in 6 knots of breeze to keep the boat on it's feet while racing; less breeze than this if half the crew are asleep in the pod. How does that compare with the boats you mention? The aspect ratio is not as important as the height and sail area, both of which are absurd for a short handed, low rm boat that is going offshore.

    Not quite. It was a 32'ter, 4th largest boat in the race. They spent their time pre race making sure the boat was safe and everything worked, rather than telling the world how wonderful their boat and team was. Bivvy hags (on the wings when it got rough) are a better idea than trying to sleep in a lee pod which is continually being hit by waves, and which, if the boat capsizes, you are trapped as there is no (obvious) escape hatch and no way to open the deck hatch against the water pressure. A sheltered berth in a pod to leeward of the lee hull in a 24'ter is not going to be used on a race boat once the breeze gets above a certain speed (6 knots in this case) so it's value is dubious.

    There are a few differences between Bucket List and TPW.
    Bucket List was not "scrapped". The lee hull is being cut into two pieces, I am adding foils and the rig and rudders are being moved. It was the concept of the charter race boat that failed, not the boat. I could have kept it and also built a foiling version, but already have far too many boats and bits of boats around the place. For the reasons I gave The “Bucket List” Prototype Building Blog – Harryproa http://harryproa.com/?p=424#more-424, it made sense to use it to try the innovations we came up with for the Volvo proa http://harryproa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/volvoproa.pdf.
    I do all my own development. My money, my labour, my problem if it falls apart. TPW was a waste of sponsor's money, which makes it harder for others to get sponsorship.
    I write as much about my failures as I do about my successes. And I learn from them. The TPW team hyped it to the max, have not said a word since it failed. Worse, they are still designing boats with the same flaws.
    I consider it to be stupid to the point of criminal to race (or cruise) offshore in a boat which I have not tested as much as possible.

    If you genuinely "would like to see dispassionate and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various designs", stop being personal, and start discussing the boats. Maybe tell us why you find TPW "cool and interesting", then move onto why you think it failed so miserably and what you would do to remedy the problems. Much more interesting to me, let's discuss the advantages/disadvantages you see in harryproas. See if you can do it without mentioning my personal shortcomings which, I am sure you agree, are not relevant to whether the boats are any good or not.
     
    rwatson likes this.
  12. TwoBirds
    Joined: Aug 2016
    Posts: 36
    Likes: 0, Points: 6, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Gulf Islands

    TwoBirds Junior Member

    I don't know much about boat design but within a minuet into the first video I was thinking that these are tri guys.
    the proa evolved to get the most speed out of the lowest tech materials, tri's evolved around getting the most speed out of the most advanced materials, different ways of thinking, if they had relied on hull aspect for speed and gone with a low aspect rig they might have done ok, if they managed to avoid ripping their daggerboard rudders off anyway.

    I was mostly interested in the boats modular nature since I'm building a modular boat myself at the moment, and the lee pod which I thought for some reason was a companion way into the hull through a safety ama which would make sense, a berth, not so much. I suspect the berth on madness sticks out far enough to serve as a safety ama if need be and that it'll be empty anytime the wind is blowing hard enough to be a problem because the waves slapping the bottom would drive one nuts.

    Thanks again to those who took the time and effort to dig up the info, I managed to learn quite a bit, even if it was what not to do :) and come up with a few design ideas for my boat.

    2b
     
  13. CT249
    Joined: May 2003
    Posts: 931
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT249 Senior Member

    I didn't mention any personal shortcomings of anyone. The point was that the more items are tested, the more flaws may appear. A very short test programme may not reveal major flaws that arise in conditions in which a craft was not tested. Saying that Craft A was a failure and Craft B was a success when Craft A was put to a test that Craft B was not put through does not appear to be ideal. Surely the test of success or failure should be roughly comparable when the craft are roughly comparable.

    The first thing I would do to fix TPW is to ask Paul and Russell and the team what they thought happened. If left to me I'd perhaps look at a higher prismatic main hull and wider beam, but I'm not claiming to be a proa expert so I may well be wrong.

    I think the Harryproa concept is interesting. To know more of its advantages and disadvantages as far as they interest me, I'd have to see the evidence of one sailing over a full range of conditions against a bunch of well-sailed roughly comparable boats and to see objective performance data from a neutral source. As far as I understand, we still haven't seen that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  14. CT249
    Joined: May 2003
    Posts: 931
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 215
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT249 Senior Member

    Okay, thanks for giving me information on your experience, although your Tornado experience appears to have been many years before modern rigs arrived in the class. From the information provided it appears that the answer to the question whether you have sailed with a modern film-sailed squaretop rig is probably "no".

    If experience is the trump card, then the people involved in the design of the RAK proa beat us all in terms of ocean miles in proas and world titles and major contests won as designers. Therefore if that is your measure, they win, we lose.

    I have never ignored your evidence about the rig design (I have already noted my reservations about its size) so your claim is incorrect. It's just that you don't seem to have produced any evidence about why a low aspect rig would have been better than a modern low-drag rig with good gust response. I have never claimed that the RAK proa is without flaws, merely that there has been little information about why a low aspect rig would have been better.

    As far as being rude, if posters are prepared to insult designers and designers then they cannot complain if they receive very mild queries in return.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017

  15. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 635
    Likes: 40, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    You implied strongly that because rwatson did not sail modern rigs, his comment was worthless. The thread went downhill from there.

    A fair point, if the boat's reasons for being were the same. They weren't. Bucket List is/was an experiment, designed and paid for by me, for my edification.
    TPW is a small version of a boat that was "proven", paid for by sponsorship money and patently unsafe. It's co designer described the type as "only fairly safe" 30 years ago and has changed nothing to make it safe. If the breeze had got up that night, those guys would be in serious trouble.

    Go for it. Both their email and Skype addresses are easy to find on the web, as are their phone numbers. You might also try the crew who put in all the work for a day and a half's racing.

    The main point should have been that above 6 knots of breeze, sleeping in the pod was reducing the already unsafe righting moment.

    You do not need to be a proa expert to see the failings in TPW, any more than you need to be an artist to see that the first harryproas were ugly.
    Do you think your suggestions would have a bigger effect than a windward hull large enough for the crew to steer from and sleep in and a lower weight and windage lee hull? Do you think it would be safer with an unstayed rig? (given that if it is caught aback, there is not a lot holding the mast up or stopping it capsizing the wrong way, especially if the crew were on the windward hull and it was water ballasted)

    If that is your basis, then 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?
    We have enough data to know that harrys perform as well as you would expect, given their length, weight, sail area, rig type and level of tuning, none of which came as a surprise. They 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? Fwiw, Elementarry raced the world class Tornado fleet in Perth, held them upwind and down, lost them in the spi gybes. Same weights, sail areas (upwind, no spi on El) El was 39' total waterline, the T's 40. The weekend cruiser harrigami (35') regularly sailed against similar size/space cruisers and was competitive. The very first harry (12m) raced a mixed fleet in Brisbane, was competitive with the SuperShockwave cats. A 15m raced half the Brisbane Gladstone, was holding her own against similar weight/space cats. The proa had less sail area, longer waterline.

    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?
     
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.