The revisionist mythology of Wharram

I've always loved the idea of Wharram catamarans, the aesthetic, and especially the artwork of Hanneke Boon in the Wharram design book. At the same time, I've been suspicious of the man himself, as some of what he said has always sounded like bull**** to me. Much of that BS relates to the design of and seaworthiness of ocean-going catamarans, which of course is difficult to prove or disprove. Today, I've come to view his (and Hanneke's) designs as safe and proven, but somewhat substandard in regard to engineering and performance.

So, when I started reading James Wharram's biography, the "People of the Sea," I fully expected to be exposed to a certain amount of hot air. The biography mentions that upon his return to England, one paper ran the headline "love tangle on a raft," in reference to his polyamorous relationship. Curious to see the article, I googled "love tangle on a raft," but that only returned contemporary obituaries that referred to his book. Then through some digging in the British news archive, I managed to find the original (love tangle on his raft), as well as a bunch of other articles from the mid late 1950s (see attached for some of them). It was a bit hard to find some of the articles, as Wharram is sometimes referred to as Jim Wharram, or "Kontiki Jim," and the catamaran is sometimes referred to as a raft. Some of the content in these articles differ from the narrative later provided by Wharram, which piqued my interest and led to a big more digging, which revealed some discrepancies in his narrative. Nothing too damaging, but it paints a picture of a man who is more than willing to bend the truth in order to promote himself.

Here's some interesting examples of shifting narratives:

On Tangaroa's design, in which Wharram first crossed the atlantic:

1. In June of 1954 James told the Manchester Evening news that Tangaroa was 'almost an exact copy of the ancient Polynesian "pahee," or canoe, in which the Maoris first sailed to New Zealand.'

2. In his 1969 book "Two Girls Two Catamarans," Wharram states Tangaroa was based on a "flat bottomed" design of the society islands that he had seen in the book "Canoes of Oceania." (no such canoe exists in this book)

3. In Wharram's 2020 biography "The People of the Sea" he states Tangaroa was based on a model of a 24ft double canoe from the Society Islands that he had seen in a science museum in Kensington. He said he didn't know how to build the "beautiful" hull shape, so he "westernized" it and built dory hulls instead.

On the impetus for his first Catamaran voyage:

1. 1950s: In many different articles published, no impetus for the voyage is given. However, two newspaper articles mention his intent to circumnavigate.

2. In his 1969 book "Two Girls Two Catamarans," no impetus is clearly stated and no intent to circumnavigate is mentioned. He does mention the Kaimiloa and polynesian migration theory, but also states polynesian migration theory is "immaterial to the study of the catamaran."

3. In his 2020 biography "The People of the Sea" he says he was incensed by the drift theory espoused by Thor Heyerdahl when he saw Kon Tiki in the theater in the early 1950s. In an effort to "prove Eric De Bisschop right" (a proponent of west east migration theory) he decided to build a catamaran with the intent of crossing the Atlantic. He makes no mention of the intent to circumnavigate, as he had told newspapers 66 years earlier.


On Tangaroa's fate:

1. A 1959 newspaper article says Tangaroa broke up on the coast of Trinidad, with James/Ruth/Jutta having to swim to shore.

2. In his 1969 book "Two Girls Two Catamarans," Wharram describes Tangaroa as being damaged when it was brought on land. The bow, weaked by shipworms, crumbled when dropped on a support block.

3. 2020 bio - No mention of the fate of Tangaroa

So what's the true story? I'm guessing Wharram simply decided to build a catamaran and sail it around the world in an effort to make a name for himself. I'm also guessing that catamaran wasn't based on anything in particular, and that he later tried to reframe the failed circumnavigation bid as experimental archaeology. Perhaps the birth of his son, or the demise of the Tangaroa derailed the voyage, who knows.

As for the fate of Tangaroa? Again, who knows. Maybe he told the newspaper he had to swim to shore to make the story more dramatic. Later, that story wasn't helpful in selling plans, so he revised it.

 

Wharram cats do seem to have a cult status, like a religion.
However cat design has moved on a long way since this religion started.
Richard Woods worked for James Wharram in the 70's, and sailed transatlantic with him on his 51' cat Tehini - I think these experiences taught him a lot about how not to design a cat........
He subsequently developed his own range of very successful designs - I have been onboard his Sagitta, and sailed on his Eclipse, and if I had to make a choice I would choose a Woods cat any day.
www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

So what exactly is the point of this post? I myself am outraged that some facts from 70 years ago don't line up with what is currently written.

 

Nothing wrong with being a pioneer in..... Lifestyle Marketing! And the boats get people there alive, the comradery gives a support to builders and sailors. I think the properties of plywood did most of the design work but shapes that bend easy don't fight the sea. It looks like fun was had to me and that is a good thing.

Now, for outright revisionist and creative story telling I nominate Tristan Jones. Of course those books are a fun read so does it matter?

 

Yeah, I agree with all that, and I have read Richard's bio on his website. Seems like Richard did design v-bottomed hulls for a time (windsong, surfsong, etc,) but abandoned them pretty quickly.

In the wharram design catalog there are some pictures of hulls that look like windsong/surfsong along with text that says "what I do object to is the people who corrupt this classic hull form due to lack of sea experience, or desire for commericial gain." I wonder if this was aimed at Richard Woods at the time.

 

There's no real point, I just thought someone would find this interesting, although clearly that person is not you!

I do feel like Wharram spent a lot of energy denigrating other people's designs or design features that don't conform to his philosophy. Maybe that's just my perception. Regardless, it bothers me and it feels like he was essentially scaring people into choosing his designs.

Some of his claims fall apart on close examination, but others are hard to verify. We don't have a 1979 fastnet for catamarans that tells us, for example, canoe sterns are better in a storm than transoms, or vice versa.

Wharram's origin story is that his first design was based on a Polynesian canoes. But he has told 3 different incompatible versions of what is essentially his own genesis. If he's willing to make that up, then he's also willing to make up his entire design philosophy. Maybe he believed everything he claimed, maybe he didn't. For me this is just more evidence that I don't need to take him seriously.

 

I think you may mean "thread" not "post".
If you don't like it, move on.
Please delete your negative post.

Perhaps Wharram suffered from this and was unable to evolve:

 

My humblest apologies for my "negative" post. Next time I will find the right emoji to convey my real tone.

 

I don't know more than I've heard and or experienced. Wharram and other designers, like Woods, and their designs are not above critique, ffs.

My understanding is Wharram was a try and try again designer.

I'd say Wood's was a student and has followed the master with designs and redesigns or designs with a different set of compromise and that same try again style. This is supported by the hull overlays on Richard's own website.

Unfortunately, that try and get right style. has resulted in some pain for a few of us recently as the Skoota's needed better weight study. In modern boat building, epoxy for a Skoota 32 in foam costs between $20-$35,000, foam and glass another $20-$30,000. So, try again, is a very expensive proposition. My bow extensions cost $4000 in materials for epoxy and 13 layers of glass bottom. A fuller hull would have been incremental costs; say $500 max, and 200-400 less hours?

To be fairer; beyond critique of their design styles; critique of their individual designs is more appropriate. This is not to give them a 'style' pass, but to keep the discussion here more objective.

Not to mention, in a public forum, one must consider litigation. Some of us may be subject to legal jeopardy for commenting about a designer's style; so we are treading in dangerous water.

I don't believe Richard has reach on me, so I'm willing to make a comment, but I also genuinely like Richard and my critique is fair minded and pretty kind. He helped me get a boat built!

This fact about tort also keeps people from considering any public comment. And, again, this is why discussion about a design is better than discussion about a designer.

 

I don't agree with this at all. Wharram's training in boat design was some pictures of Polynesian canoes and a copy of "boat building in your backyard" by Rabl. In contrast, Richard Woods attended a full time, in person yacht design course at Southampton University and graduated with "distinctions in design, structures and stability." This is, of course, according to their respective bios.

I would assume Woods drank some of the Wharram Kool aid at first and implemented deep v hulls, but with daggerboards, and better engineering. Then quickly abandoned them for a more engineering based (edit: evidence based) approach. Regarding the trim of your boat, there doesn't seem to be an epidemic of Richard woods designs that are out of trim, and that includes the other skoota 32 that was launched before yours.

Unlike the other skoota, your boat is demountable, which is not a model shown on the website as far as I know. Was it built 100% to plan? Has anyone other than you verified the dimensions? Do you and Richard agree on the nature of the error? Or is it disputed?

Regarding Wharram, I think it's fine to debate design features without looking at a specific design. Eg Wharram et al claim beam mountings should be flexible, which was the case with their designs back in the 1960s. But then they switched to rope mountings, which are probably not flexible in practice and are better because you don't want your mountings to flex anyway. The mountings are fine, but they still maintain the fiction that they are flexible and help the catamaran ride the ocean, absorb shock, etc. But it's all hot air.

 

well, you have a right to be wrong

I don't need to reply to your query either. The boat was built exceptionally well. The design missed a few key elements.

Richard removed the demountable plan because I told him it was too difficult to build.

As for the rope mountings not flexing, I'd say you are making things up.

If @oldmulti hasn't grown weary of this nonsense, maybe he's shed accurate light on the Wharram rope mountings. I only know what I've read.

 

@power boater

Don't take the bait...

 

No disagreement here

Ok

My understanding is Wharram owners make the rope lashings tight enough so they don't stretch, otherwise the beams make noise (clunking, creaking etc.). Could be wrong. Perhaps under extreme stress they flex, I don't know.

Not relevant to this argument, but Rory McDougall used bolts instead of lashings on his Wharram Tiki 21 that he circumnavigated with

 

I don't profess expert knowledge on rope stretch, but if a rope stretches 4% to failure; then the stretch must be less than 4% or break. So, from a purely mathematical approach, if a rope stretches 1%, then a set of ropes also stretch 1%. If the length of the rope is 8", then 1% is .01 • 8 or 0.08". If the lashings on the opposite sides of the boat are both stretched to 1%; that is a bit over 1/8", no?

If a Wharram lashing loosens at sea, I've seen sailors insert a 3/4" shim behind them. So, I suppose an improper or failing lashing would stretch more.

 

I saw a couple of threads on Wharram lashings and in both cases they used polyester rope to lash the beams and dynex to "frap" the polyester.

I Googled polyester rope and it looks like the elongation is essentially linear and based on the force (after a load cycle). So if two ropes are used instead of one, or four instead of two, the elongation should be halved, no? Additionally, stretch was about 1% for 10% of breaking load and 2% for 20% of breaking load, etc.

But without knowing the breaking load of the rope they are using, the number of lashings, and the loads, we can't know the elongation. Right?

As I said before, I'm just basing my claim on the idea that the lashings are tight enough to prevent clunking/creaking.

I do think the lashings are a good low tech idea. Some other designs require tig welding stainless plates to bolts, annealing, passivation, etc. Wharram just does it with a bit of rope and it seems to work fine.