Un-flippable Proa

It is not so much my gut as the experience of the small float trimarans back in the 60's. These would submerge the lee hull when pressed too hard and then capsize/trip over it. The pod looks (to me) like it would do exactly the same.

I was not characterising anything, just quoting his article. The only characterisation I have made is that Steve's article did more to turn people off Russ's boats (and proas in general) than anything else. Given all the positive(and correct) points you made about Russ and his boats, and the lack of jzerro type boats out there, the evidence supports this.

True, but a lot of what makes that work necessary is removed on a harry.

What simpler elements?

Fair enough. I should have said cat rather than multi, although an add on pod like they did with Cheers would be easy enough on a high volume float tri.

A dd harry would use two layers of 6mm with a skin of 200 glass as the base laminate. This compares with 12mm strips with 600 db each side. May need a couple of extra stringers and ring frames, but I suspect not.

The platform, weight distribution and rig efficiency on a harry are all very different to any other boat, which is why they are so light, and fast. This is not magic, but the result of 10 years of trial and error.

I disagree. Compared to a cat of similar accommodation, at 30 degrees to the breeze, the harry has far less windage. This is a big part of why they can cruise at wind speed. Ditto for one with the same accommodation as Russ's boats.

Russ is also, for the most part, dragging two hulls around. As are all multis except for the cream of the round the cans racers. It takes a lot of concentration to fly a hull for more than a minute.

I've not heard of either of these. Can you give me a reference, please?

I have not heard of any end plate problems.
They look vulnerable because you can actually see them. They are far less vulnerable than conventional, unable-to-kick-up-in-a-collision rudders.
I wouldn't use high tech to describe something that anyone with a compressor can build in their garage.

Thanks, so do I. And so far it mostly has with the boats that are not experimental.

Try Russ. You are knowledgable enough that he might let you have a go. Or Joe Oster/Jim Antrim. All else fails, I would happily help you. Would not be a full set of highly detailed plans, but between us i am sure we could come up with a pretty good replica which you could build, or have built. Maybe suggest this to Russ and Joe if they won't help. They might choose the rock over the hard place! ;-)

Thanks. I have met Russ and seen Jzerro. Both are impressive. I have sent him half a dozen placatory emails, but got no reply. I have never said anything against him personally. Unfortunately, Joe, Steve and a few others got their knickers in a twist when they could not refute my comparisons with harrys so made it personal. It was always going to be difficult for them as they had never seen or sailed a harry, and for the most part refused to read or watch anything about them. I had the last laugh as web page hits, enquiries, chat group membership and plan sales over that period were the highest they have ever been.

rob

 

I still dont get the whole Jzero/harry "thing" - as they are completely different.
The harry makes more sense as a cruiser - especially if marketting to wide audience. But, it seems that there are those that want proa's to remain "traditional" - ie pacific......
So a mkt - no matter how small - remains for both? But logically - using the capsize monster - WTW wins. The pod does seem to work tho' and needn't be part of the hull structure.... building wise they probably come out equal - tho' with less length on the windward hull - means less building and probably less drag? But altho' a smaller rig reduces c of e , it also reduces speed for the pac?
Rob - how about a more minimalist version out of ply with a more basic rig?
Sort of a base/entry level model for us cheapskates?

 

"The pod looks (to me) like it would do exactly the same."

I just don't see the comparison, the placement on hull longi, the hook angle to trip, the probable conditions where disasters occurred in the past... Not saying you are wrong, it just isn't getting any traction with me.




"I was not characterising anything, just quoting his article."

I meant that in the sense that he rejects what you made of those quotes. There is always lots of latitude in these matters, emphasis being a big part of these things.

"Given all the positive(and correct) points you made about Russ and his boats, and the lack of jzerro type boats out there, the evidence supports this."

I don't know, it was not happening for a long time before the article.



"What simpler elements?"

Spar obviously, and I prefer the Newick style rudders, which are also of a type used on a number of non-proas.

"The platform, weight distribution and rig efficiency on a harry are all very different to any other boat, which is why they are so light, and fast. This is not magic, but the result of 10 years of trial and error."

I agree with that, the laws of physics still apply. Also what falls into the Harry basket can be quite a stretch at times, and I am simply saying people who want to stretch an RB PP could also push the definition.


"I disagree. Compared to a cat of similar accommodation, at 30 degrees to the breeze, the harry has far less windage. This is a big part of why they can cruise at wind speed. Ditto for one with the same accommodation as Russ's boats."

I think one effect of the boats as drawn is a Winnebago hull which is not as aero as two hulls.



"I've not heard of either of these. Can you give me a reference, please?"

Sorry, your rig.



"I have not heard of any end plate problems.
They look vulnerable because you can actually see them. They are far less vulnerable than conventional, unable-to-kick-up-in-a-collision rudders."

That could be, as far as grounding is concerned, but they appear less well wedded to the boat. I mean, if they are strong enough so be it, but it's like the free standing spar, heavily loaded and hard to get right, but arguably better when all the details are worked out.


"I wouldn't use high tech to describe something that anyone with a compressor can build in their garage."

It is compared to what you can get flying in a daggerboard slot in a tri, or your LW hull if it had a slot. I just started a new one for my tri. Sorta a backup board, I'm just as skeptical of my own stuff.... It's several pieces of ply bent around some 2x material with pultruded garden fencing stakes for a little bit more strength than I use in my last one (which seems fine). So far 8 bucks, and of course a fairly long pull of the WEST epoxy.

Sorry a bit rushed tonight, I hope some of it is on point.

 

"Rob - how about a more minimalist version out of ply with a more basic rig?"

I don't know what to tell you about the rig, but as far as the boat is concerned, there are a lot of versions of the hulls already. Partly this goes back to the fact that the hulls seem sorta comodity style in HPs. Sure they have to be carefully designed, but they aren't overly mystical about it. They have been made of ply strip, tortured foam, and a lot of other materials. I could loft them for flat panels if you wanted them in plywood with chines, how many sections? Then you could have them cut in duflex if you wanted.

 

Harrys and Jzerros are much more alike than they are different. The "thing" is much more to do with a couple of ardent Russ fans being unable to cope with my assertions that there are some things that are better on a harry than they are on Jzerro and my criticism of Jzerro based on an article Steve Callaghan wrote in Cruising World in March 2001. Since our last major dust up on the Proa-File forum, a year or so ago, the Jzerro proponents have been pretty quiet. You can find a somewhat one sided history of the argument on Pacific proas.com which is owned by one of the most ardent Jzerro fans, or read through the archives on the Yahoo Proa-File group.

The Jzerro market is zilch (none of the ardent fans own one). The harry market not a huge amount more, but it does exist, and is growing, despite numerous set backs and my inability to stop experimenting, build a boat and do some serious miles and racing.

Building wise, there is almost twice the material and probably3 times the hours in Jzerro than in a comparable harry.

There is no evidence that either is quicker. Steve Callaghan put up a $2,000 bet for a race, but pulled out when he was overwhelmed with people willing to back the harry and none of his supporters were willing to back Jzerro.

To the present:
It is difficult to be much more minimal than Solitarry with a 12m/40' lee hull. Or much cheaper ($aus10k for materials, and 300 hours work to painting stage), plus rig. However, it is built from flat panels so you could just as easily substitute ply for the infused foam panels. There would be an increase in weight, labour and maintenance.

How much more minimal can the rig be than a single pole with a couple of plastic bearings and a single sail? Build it yourself, and it will be cheaper and lighter than an alloy mast with wires.

ThomD,
looks like we agree to disagree on the pod. Please try it on a boat and let us know how it performs.

I suggest you read Steve's article and decide for yourself about the emphasis and latitude.

The spar on Jzerro is not only complex (2 stays, one split shroud, 2 sets of spreaders and diamond shrouds) but according to Russ (p 43 col 2 & 3 Cruising World article) "a jibing mainsail in a breeze will blow the stick away. When running ddw we usually strike the main". It is also heavier (I lifted it when Jzerro was on the hard in Brisbane) than an equivalent carbon unstayed mast. Originally, it had less rigging than it has now, so probably needed to be beefed up despite it's weight.

Newick rudders (a flap on the back of the daggerboard) are hardly simple. In fact, it is difficult to think of a more complex system. I don't know of any boats, apart from Cheers and Russ' which use them for steering. They also need to be raised and lowered each shunt, so have to be much bigger than required and if you hit something, there is no option but to break something. The harry spade rudders can be used together or individually, can be raised and kick up in a collision. They can also be seen and easily cleared when they are fouled by weed or plastic and can have a small outboard mounted on them for motoring.

Superimpose a harry over a cat (or Russ' boat) from 30 degrees and you will be pleasantly surprised about the windage.

I don't have "a rig". The unstayed ballestron is the best cruising rig available (in my experience) and I like schooners in a lot of applications. My personal proas both have una rigs, one with a wing, one with a tube mast. The sail shape on Rare Bird in the video is not perfect (first sail, relaxed crew) but was a lot better when trimmed. I am happy with the sail shape on my boat and the main on Blind Date looks perfect in the photos.

There is more work in a daggerboard case, daggerboard, rudder mounting and rudder than there is in a harry rudder and mounting. Like the unstayed mast, the loads are comparatively simple and easily resisted with tow as they can mostly be resolved to tension/compression. If ply and garden stakes are strong enough for a daggerboard, they will be strong enough for a rudder blade.

It is all on point, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you.

Harry hulls have been built from many materials, but not ply strip (expensive and heavy). There are no secrets to the hull shapes, but you could not build them from tortured ply. I have not built hulls with chines for 10 years and would not recommend them. Duflex is expensive, heavier than necessary (lightest skins are 600 gsm) and far more work (joining panels, fairing the exterior) than full size infused panels. However, you are welcome to try any or all of these and I will give you all the assistance I can, in the interest of improving the breed, which is more interesting and important to me than selling plans.
rob

 

"Harrys and Jzerros are much more alike than they are different. The "thing" is much more to do with a couple of ardent Russ fans being unable to cope with my assertions that there are some things that are better on a harry than they are on Jzerro and my criticism of Jzerro based on an article Steve Callaghan wrote in Cruising World in March 2001. Since our last major dust up on the Proa-File forum, a year or so ago, the Jzerro proponents have been pretty quiet. You can find a somewhat one sided history of the argument on Pacific proas.com which is owned by one of the most ardent Jzerro fans, or read through the archives on the Yahoo Proa-File group."

Some element of it does seem to be related to claims that your proa is better, but this is largely irrelevant. Anyone can make a boat that is better than another. I have a boat that was sold with the claim it is better than a Newick boat. What is difficult about that. Once the objective is agreed to it is very simple to come up with a better solution if one is not considering the same limitations. Where proas are concerned, you have long said that you weren't even all that fussed about whether your boats were called proas. But it is clear that there is a romantic link to Micronesian design in the boats RB designs. So unless you embrace that realm also you aren't really to be expected to get the same results, without even considering other differences. People get hot when their boats are dissed, and you don't show much charity in that regard, but the reality is any boat can be easily improved, and usually the owners themselves could tell you how.

"build a boat and do some serious miles and racing."

I do think you were better off before you even mentioned racing. You could have done it when you wanted to, but it doesn't really fit the Harry thing, and the boats you have plans for, and you have repeatedly missed the starting line.

"Building wise, there is almost twice the material and probably3 times the hours in Jzerro than in a comparable harry"

That isn't true on two counts. One you are comparing specific boats to a type. A type that you don't really (sensibly) limit, so the type can weigh a lot of different numbers, some efficient others perhaps more sturdy or chunky. The basic Harryness doesn't really include a weight limit, though you talk about it a lot. And there isn't any reason why an RB PP can't be light, high PC low windage, or for that mater more like a cat with equalized weight between the hulls.

"There is no evidence that either is quicker. Steve Callaghan put up a $2,000 bet for a race, but pulled out when he was overwhelmed with people willing to back the harry and none of his supporters were willing to back Jzerro."

Again there is a type vs. actually boat error here. Maybe it would be different if the race was between Sidecar and Crossbow.

"To the present:
It is difficult to be much more minimal than Solitarry with a 12m/40' lee hull. Or much cheaper ($aus10k for materials, and 300 hours work to painting stage), plus rig. However, it is built from flat panels so you could just as easily substitute ply for the infused foam panels. There would be an increase in weight, labour and maintenance."

It's like tortured ply or CM great systems but off the beaten path, generally people want panels and probably kits, and the designer gets paid more, it isn't as good in some ways, but it has it's points. I have yet to hear of a Kelsal boat not built by someone who didn't hold a potluck, or go to a seminar, to much like joining a club (and yes I am sure there are examples to the contrary).

And it is very much the "plus rig" part, that's a whole other boat cost and complexity wise.

OT - I don't really agree about maintenance on wood. I used to be very scared about it. 30 years of wooden boats later, I find, that yes I made some goofs, and had some lifestyle issues that got me behind on maintenance, and it hurt me, but overall it turned out to be much better than I had expected, and I just a few weeks back did a fairly large repair to a delam on my boat, but is was fast and easy, and wouldn't have happened to me with my current experience (something beginners will have to earn the old fashioned way). What is more I have learned a lot from OZ builders about making tougher wooden boats, which is strange really.

"How much more minimal can the rig be than a single pole with a couple of plastic bearings and a single sail? Build it yourself, and it will be cheaper and lighter than an alloy mast with wires."

The first part of that is true as far as buying ready made equipment. It did offend me not to properly use the staying base of a multi, until about 6 hours ago when my rotating spar crashed down after a jet ski passed. My mind is a little more open. It's still tougher if you have to spin the cloth yourself so to speak.

I frankly have to call you on the cost thing. I think someone has home built carbon spars for less than metal or wood. But it isn't realistic for most of us, and I frankly never really believed you could put it all in a box and send it over. You don't have a float of materials, no blame there, so one is left chasing the next deal. Realistically, somewhere, there is the rob denny of aluminum or wood, and his prices will be well below market also.

"I suggest you read Steve's article and decide for yourself about the emphasis and latitude."

Is there more that one? I have the mag with the cover story, and I agree that you distort it for the most part. It's an adventure puff piece, that probably serves mostly to promote Steve, and to give all of us a thrill, thanks Steve. To give it the peer reviewed journal treatment is ridiculous. As you say, the longer the arguments go on, the more plans and boats you sell which is a surprise to me, but if true it gives you a rather shoddy motive.

"The spar on Jzerro is not only complex (2 stays, one split shroud, 2 sets of spreaders and diamond shrouds) but according to Russ (p 43 col 2 & 3 Cruising World article) "a jibing mainsail in a breeze will blow the stick away. When running ddw we usually strike the main". It is also heavier (I lifted it when Jzerro was on the hard in Brisbane) than an equivalent carbon unstayed mast. Originally, it had less rigging than it has now, so probably needed to be beefed up despite it's weight."

My complexity concern is largely twofold, one is that carbon is still out there for the home builder. I find it an attractive possibility, and I have thought of just making one since it would be good on some boat, they are picking up steam, but it is a big project hurdle for a newbie with no local supply or other builders. You are after all a pro carbon spar builder. My sister is a PHD is math, she can introduce you to a lot of really simple ideas I am sure you will have no problems with...

The other aspect of it is the simplicity of getting what I want which is lots of redundancy. I have been around a lot of carbon developments over a lifetime of outdoor sports, about 50 % blow up all the time, and some others are remarkably durable. I have learned to let others do the experimenting for me. Conversely a few really strong wires or spectra, a decent rotating mast, and some cheaply recut sails, and we are sailing!!

"Newick rudders (a flap on the back of the daggerboard) are hardly simple. In fact, it is difficult to think of a more complex system. I don't know of any boats, apart from Cheers and Russ' which use them for steering."

Again, complex how. A trim tab is mechanical, might scare the non-welder without a machine shop, but lucky for me... What I like about them in theory, is that a daggerboard slot is a well proven no problem kind of thing, and you can carry extra rudders and being a proa they are usable either end. I probably would not prefer them for skinny water use, there might have to be an alternative there.

I certainly know of other boats that use them, or spec them. I thought there were sometimes used on charter boats, but I haven't actually seen that. What does wharram use on his Pahis?

"They also need to be raised and lowered each shunt... mounted on them for motoring."

My main concern is they seem to come off the boat. They seem to be anchored to the skin of the boat... over core... And I don't believe the set I has says much about how to build them.

"I don't have "a rig". The unstayed ballestron is the best cruising rig available (in my experience) and I like schooners in a lot of applications."

I liked how easy the Ball seemed to be to rig. It worries me a little like chafe on the spar. And if you don't have a rig, you do have a spar. I would love to see an alternative, but it doesn't seem all that possible.



"Harry hulls have been built from many materials, but not ply strip (expensive and heavy)."


Oh I hope not. I would never build ply strip, unless it was a prison escape or something.

"There are no secrets to the hull shapes, but you could not build them from tortured ply."

I find that hard to believe if we are talking about the type, not least of all because you built one out of bending ply.


"I have not built hulls with chines for 10 years and would not recommend them. Duflex is expensive, heavier than necessary (lightest skins are 600 gsm) and far more work (joining panels, fairing the exterior) than full size infused panels."

You can't really sell chines as a positive, people just love the S&G boat idea, and they aren't all wrong. I am not sure I believe you about the KISS system, I don't believe it is as designeable as panels, it is tortured seat of the pants stuff (which I love), and it seems to require EVEN FOR YOU, the presence of the international visitor. And it uses bad resin, and cheap foam, and the people end up with infusion software, and a website, and a whole bunch of stuff whereas the guy with the stack of panels is done. I think even your first carbon race hull ended up scraped, may not have been KISS, but it shows why people on the sidelines would prefer a nice ORAM (method wise).

I do have an interesting project you might want to discuss, but it is on offline thing for now.

 

Tell you what. Instead of talking about how easy it is to improve on what is out there, draw up an improved version of Jzerro so we have something real to discuss. Maybe use Alex's criteria for a cheap, easy, etc cruiser as the design spec.

Specific? The boat I am currently building (Solitarry) has a little less head room than Jzerro, but a usable cockpit and more bunk space. Less the experimental rig, it weighs 360 kgs and has taken 300 hours to build. With the rig it will be about 500 of each. Blind Date has about 3 times the usable space of Jzerro, is 35% longer, weighs 2 tonnes and took about 3,000 hours to build. Jzerro weighs about 1.5 tonnes. No idea how long it took to build, but I bet it was much longer, even for a maestro like Russ. Include in your "improved Jzerro" a breakdown of weight, cost and building time.

No there isn't. The challenge was "Jzerro vs my proa" which I had already announced details of.

It is on the current boat because we are experimenting with a telescoping rig and batten controlled mainsail. A standard unstayed mast would add about $AUS9,000. A sail, boom and running rigging, perhaps as much again. So, a professionally built ready to sail 50'ter with 2 double bunks for under $AUS50,000. Build it yourself, and it will be less than half this.

Fine, but instead of an unsubstantiated accusation, give me some specifics of where I am wrong, what is difficult about the technique and why it will cost more than I say. I appreciate that this is difficult for you as you don't know anything about it. Perhaps you should find out about it first, then "call me on the cost thing".

The parts of the article I refer to are those dealing with shifting ballast, getting wet sailing in a breeze and the rig falling down in a gybe. Study the boat (rigging set up, lack of deck shelter, lack of righting moment, etc,) and see if you think Steve was exaggerating these to give his readers a thrill, or because they are based on fact. Then have a look at a harry, and tell me if these problems are solved, which was my original, and only, assertion. And if you still think they are better addressed on Jzerro, then include them in your design.

My "motive" for posting on these forums is a) to inform people about what I am doing, b) to encourage ideas on improving my boats and c) to refute incorrect statements about my boats, invariably made by people who have neither seen, nor sailed them. Usually, when it dawns on these people that they are arguing from a position of ignorance against the person who knows more about my boats than anyone else, they start calling me names, accusing me of not racing or crossing oceans and accusing me of untruths, without any data to back up their claims.

If you think simple or sasfe is a rig held up by 50 individual pieces, the failure of any one of which will cause the mast to fall down, then unstayed masts are not for you. Ditto if you can't accept that carbon is proven as a mast material and you are unwilling even to try it to see if it is as easy to build with as wood. Put a rig from a proven material with redundancy on your improved Jzerro and we will see what it does to the cost, weight and ease of sailing.

Complex because every other steering system is simpler, which is why no one else uses it.
No one I know with a daggerboard cat describes them as a "no problem kind of thing", particularly when they run over a log at 20 knots and the daggerboard is semi destroyed, and jammed in the leaking case. Not much redundancy there. Again, if they are as good as you say, include them in the design.

Charter boats (like harrys) use simple, strong, protected rudders, none of which applies to a tab on the back/front of a daggerboard. Wharram uses rudders lashed onto the back of skegs. Rather neat, very cheap (no metal), but nothing like Newick's/Russ'.

They may "seem" to be attached to the skin, but they are actually attached to a grid bulkhead inside the hull which has never let go. The latest ones are mounted on the beams. Even simpler, safer and lighter.

Not sure what you are talking about. Why does easy worry you? One of (many) advantages of an unstayed rig is there is nothing to chafe the sails.

What attributes would you want in your "alternative spar"? Include them in the design.

Bending and torturing ply are completely different things. Bending is far simpler and works with foam/glass panels as well as ply. Torturing usually results in a veed hull and a veed, forward raked bow. Harrys have none of these.

You offered Alex the chined hulls, not me.

Your comments on KSS show a remarkable amount of ignorance for someone who is otherwise well informed. I suggest you delete them or post them under a seperate title and I will ask Derek to comment. In fact, if you don't, I will, as this is the most ill informed comment on an excellent, well proven build system that I have ever heard.

It is also totally wrong in respect of my build method. I am not using KSS. I gave Derek the benefit of the doubt and put on a seminar so he could show us what he had, but it is nowhere near as simple as what I am now doing. See http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/ for details, costs and photos of the build.

The only similarity between my current method and KSS is that both use infused glass/foam panels. Because of the simple harry hull shapes, I do no torturing, no cutting and shutting and can build 90% of the decks, cabin sides, bunks and cockpit from the same panel, which won't need fairing.

None of Bob Oram's (or any other) catamaran kits are anywhere near as quick to build as a flat panel harryproa. See the address above for detailed build times. These have since been almost halved.

Full length panels include moulded in bulkhead landings, beam reinforcing and hatches. The panels bend into exactly the correct shape without any frames or alignment and once the bulkheads are slotted in, the panel is bent again to make the decks. 90% of the hull is then ready to paint. The hull is finished before the Oram kit builder has finished Z joining his sheets. He then has to cut and erect frames, man handle the panels, bog and glass the joins, then fair the entire hull, measure and align the bulkheads, cut and bond on the decks, then more glassing and fairing. Hundreds of hours vs tens.

Any time you like. You have my email address. It has to be more fun than chasing this thread round in circles.

rob

 

Is it not time you dingalings with ignorance figured it out? How many times does Rob Denney have to shoot your Big Hats off? I'm amazed how calm he remains faced with the loads of horse defecation you turkeys attempt to throw at him ... but you always slip over and find find yourselves covered in your own crap.

 

I was wondering if I was the only one in the cheap seats who has noticed this. You know... I started this thread as a lark... I think beer had more to do with it. I was moved by the limp noodle beam concept which certainly involved hallucinogenic drugs. I think I've seen several threads lately that degenerate to this point... and every time the Teflon man stands up and moves on to the next topic.

 

Do either of you guys have the HP plans? Started building? I do and have.

 

No... I did say cheap seats.

I was very close to buying a set of plans. Talking to Rob, there was one criteria I couldn't live without. He was up front about it. Anyone of lesser character would have tried to "sell" me. He has been... encouraging. That's why I'm a fan. He sincerely wishes people luck, encouragement and help. I think he sees the need to expand the market and educating us in the cheap seats helps in that goal... by spreading the word.

Also, I see he's curious. He's willing to admit its a young field and has tremendous room for improvement. I think he sees the ones of us that don't buy his tried-and-true solutions as an extension of his personal lab. I think he would steer me clear of most any pot hole and cheer us on in any areas he hasn't had the time to explore.

If I was to say anything to anyone else... it would be get plans while you can. THE money is not selling plans or even pieces and parts. When he has a turn key product ready to be picked up... that is when he'll be financially "there". If he can deliver a boat that can run at wind speed and be a cruiser and sell it for... what... maybe half that of any other boat with the same accomadations... it will sell! The fact that it'll probably be close to twice as fast. I think its golden. If he gets his foot in the door of the charter industry, you probably won't see him selling plans any longer.

Just my opinion.

p.s. to answer your question... no HP plans and yes, I'm building. As I told Rob... maybe my ship will come back in... and he'll be building a show-room product at the same time. If both happen... I'll buy.

p.p.s. Do you have pictures? I'd love to see them.

 

"Tell you what. Instead of talking about how easy it is to improve on what is out there, draw up an improved version of Jzerro so we have something real to discuss. Maybe use Alex's criteria for a cheap, easy, etc cruiser as the design spec."

Not interested, I am just of the view that anything can be improved with work. And in an earlier comment you mentioned how you could design an RB PP, I assume it was not intended to be worse.

"Specific? The boat I am currently building (Solitarry)... "

I didn't say you didn't have a specific case, just that comparing a type to a specific boat is not the same thing.


"No there isn't. The challenge was "Jzerro vs my proa" which I had already announced details of."

There is in what you wrote. There may well be an actual instance, I don't really care.

"Fine, but instead of an unsubstantiated accusation, give me some specifics of where I am wrong, what is difficult about the technique and why it will cost more than I say. I appreciate that this is difficult for you as you don't know anything about it. Perhaps you should find out about it first, then "call me on the cost thing". "

I'm sorry, did you not write on how the US charter project went over budget? I know I never got anything but a rapidly increasing quote on tow. I'm not saying there is anything wrong about this, the price of carbon was going up at the time, but it's my money, and when I hear a quote I now round up. These are my impressions. I an not suggesting bad business practices, no such knowledge. I am suggesting I had difficulty knowing where I stood.


"he parts of the article I refer to are those dealing with shifting ballast, getting wet sailing in a breeze and the rig falling down in a gybe."

I'm sorry, the rig fell down in a gybe? Admittedly that doesn't sound good.

"tudy the boat (rigging set up, lack of deck shelter, lack of righting moment, etc,) and see if you think Steve was exaggerating these to give his readers a thrill, or because they are based on fact. Then have a look at a harry, and tell me if these problems are solved, which was my original,"

Call me old fashioned, but I judge a design not in comparison with how well it matches your brief, but with how well it matched the brief of the person who designed it. I realize you don't like it, which is kinda creepy actually - I'd love to hear your views on Rozinante, but it seems that they did like it at the time. I don't think Russ at the time wanted to cross the pacific on something that looks like a camper connected to a fuel pump island. Had he, you would have been his man. I am more catholic in my taste, which is why I am a long time supporter of your project.

"Usually, when it dawns on these people that they are arguing from a position of ignorance against the person who knows more about my boats than anyone else, they start calling me names, accusing me of not racing or crossing oceans and accusing me of untruths, without any data to back up their claims."

I have noticed that. You are generally very cool in Internet discussions, except that you constantly savage everyone elses boats. Post one of yours on the Yahoo group was a broadside to every boat then sailing. You are not only the guy who knows more about your boats than anyone else, but everyone else's also.

"Ditto if you can't accept that carbon is proven as a mast material and you are unwilling even to try it to see if it is as easy to build with as wood.""

I accept carbon is proven, your stuff in contrast is a bit of a moving target. But mostly as I have made abundantly clear, it is about cost in my markets. Some ago, on the basis of your numbers, carbon was cheaper than building the same mast locally in spruce, and we have lumberyards that are the size of municipal airports. Yet in the real world I was never able to actually source materials at anywhere near the stated prices. That isn't your fault, but it doesn't make these spars a universal solution. And you don`t have a realistic alternative that I am aware of. Other designers may spec carbon spars, but in most cases if a person doesnt`t want them the designer can accommodate the alternative. HPs are based on carbon spars, if you know of an alternative, please don`t keep it to yourself.

Also, cost is not a problem to me. Maybe you have a hangup about things being cheap, but for most yachties, cheap isn't a word they understand. The prices you are quoting don`t scare them, so I don`t see the fact carbon is affordable to me, but not something I am going to spend the money on, a problem with your design. It could be a problem with the marketing, because I could never get close to your numbers so they seem optimistic. The cost benefit analysis for your style of boat has to bear some relationship to real world numbers somewhere else than in the headquarters of your spar making enterprise.

"They may "seem" to be attached to the skin, but they are actually attached to a grid bulkhead inside the hull which has never let go. The latest ones are mounted on the beams. Even simpler, safer and lighter."

I guess I missed that plans update.

"Not sure what you are talking about."

Damage to the spar, which may not happen if the spar rips the boat in half first, so I won't let that get to me.

"Bending and torturing ply are completely different things. Bending is far simpler and works with foam/glass panels as well as ply. Torturing usually results in a veed hull and a veed, forward raked bow. Harrys have none of these."

Torturing is developing flat panels in two directions as with curvature in the plan and section views, for instance. If your boat does not have curvature in the plan view, then there is probably a very good reason, though it may not do much for nearby property values.

""You can't really sell chines as a positive""

"You offered Alex the chined hulls, not me."

This is a rhetorical device you may not be familiar with, it is called agreement.

"Your comments on KSS show a remarkable amount of ignorance for someone who is otherwise well informed. I suggest you delete them or post them under a separate title and I will ask Derek to comment. In fact, if you don't, I will, as this is the most ill informed comment on an excellent, well proven build system that I have ever heard."

That should be interesting. I look forward to Derek's informed discussion of my personal impressions of KSS. I assumed he was not unhappy to conduct these seminars, and that people enjoyed them, and the other necessary activities that seem to abound in that segment. I would not. I have been interested to read about people's efforts to conform KSS to the art of building square section boats, as on Kohler's forum, for instance. Nice little square plywood box, next thing you know a man arrives from afar...

"It is also totally wrong in respect of my build method. I am not using KSS. I gave Derek the benefit of the doubt and put on a seminar"

That is way out there in front as usual. You held a seminar without even intending to build with KSS! This KSS thing is more powerful than I had imagined. You then gushed about the seminar on your website, and planed another. I got the wrong end of that for sure.

" so he could show us what he had, but it is nowhere near as simple as what I am now doing." "

I'm not sure how this is different from my experience. I prefer to build another way, though I didn't hold my own seminar half series first. You seem to infer you have a better way of building which is also my personal experience. I hope that doesn't get you in trouble for so saying. Everything else I said seems to be either verifiable or stated as an opinion.

"None of Bob Oram's (or any other) catamaran kits are anywhere near as quick to build as a flat panel harryproa. See the address above for detailed build times. These have since been almost halved."

People sure eat up that stitch and glue though.

 

No, I don't have Harryproa plans - but I'm interested in proa history - also somewhat amazed at the various vitriolic splits emanating from differing proa design followers - which seems more savage than 1960's mono/pioneering multi factions, and yet we're talking one type of boat (proa) design.
Am I building?- yes, not proa but foiler.

 

Foiler, cool. Actually I have seen it. It's that nice one 22 feet?

 

Found your pics on the Yahoo group, that is a big change over the black hull, very clever. Not much of any of that in my plans though...