My sentiments exactly. It seems to me the time taken for a boat is
proportion to the fiddly bits more than the size. It doesn't take
that much more time making a 2m panel as a 1m, though the costs of
materials goes up with the cube of the length and there are probably
more fiddly bits on a bigger boat. I'm certainly looking at getting
the masts built if there is only that marginal difference from the
self build. Might be time to hassle about getting the pictures of
Bain's Harry either in the files or on the website(sorry Mark and
michelle ;-))--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, David Howie <dana-
tenacity@u...> wrote:
>
>
> Lol, when I first mentioned the R33 it was a bit tongue in cheek,
but I'm
> enjoying the responses. For what it's worth he seems to have built
a decent
> light cat, then stuck a huge rig on it and said look how fast it
is. Not
> hugely sophisticated but one way of doing it. I think the Harry
approach is
> more subtle, and is actually a new way of doing things.
> For what it's worth I'm drifting back towards the idea of a
schooner rig, but
> it was always my intention with the schooner to run a halyard out
the front of
> the masts around 3/4 height for a free flying staysail/screacher
for light
> airs and running. (Sheet off the end of the wishbone?)
> When I first found this site I was getting ready to start a smaller
project as
> practice for a bigger real boat. Now I'm wondering whether or not
to just jump
> in the deep end and do the Harry thing instead of wasting time and
money on a
> boat that isn't the one I want to end up with. Still it's a big
project for me
> in a number of ways ( not least financial). Got about two months to
decide as
> I was going to start after the last big A class regatta for the
year.
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:22:33 PM MST
> From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reynolds 33
>
> Agreed. If I wanted to inshore race a harry I'd go for two tall
> skinny square topped sails with wingmasts and sail it like an
> Elementarry, (Including the righting pole ;-)). I figure that if
you
> have the righting ability and the fore aft stability then you can
> somehow get the extra sail area. Theoretically, a Harry loaded,
> giving 50% more righting moment should allow a 20% higher rig and
as
> you are sailing upwind all the time, its the lengths of those luffs
> that count. Or you can leave it light and have a similar height rig
> trimming for the main wind strength and allowing the flex of the
> masts depower for the gusts. The long bows with low down bouyancy
of
> the lw hull allow a harry to use its righting moment. Offshore I
may
> be a bit more consevative and have a kite to send up to catch the
> breeze. Theoretically you can work the kite to get more swept area
> instead of tacking down wind. And if you had four crew you could
take
> it in turns to sip the iced tea --- In
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au,
> Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I test sailed the R33, and it is indeed a very fast and boat.
> With
> > its tall mast and huge code 0 on the bowsprit, it's particularly
> good in
> > light air. The design is a bit funky with that backrest, but
it's
> > really nice to lean back and sail when everything is set just
> right. It
> > was an amazing value for $40,000 US (minus sails) when it was
first
> > advertised. Now that it's closer to $140,000 US fully-rigged,
it's
> not
> > quite such a value any more.
> >
> > I chose a used Stiletto 27 instead of the Reynolds, partially
> because
> > it's nice to have a removable hard cockpit deck, and partially
> because
> > the entire boat could be had for the cost of a down payment on
the
> R33.
> >
> > A Harry should be able to compete with an R33, but that would
> require
> > some effort. You'd need either a really tall mast, a schooner
rig,
> > headsails, or a combination of the three. The R33 would lack the
> > Harry's righting moment, but it sure does have an awesome amount
of
> sail
> > area for its weight. Not quite like the Décision 35's, but still
a
> lot
> > of canvas.
> >
> > For the same price as an R33, you could have a really fast
harry
> that
> > would include a head, galley, standing headroom, and two double
> bunks.
> > The Harry would also be a lot easier to sail, will probably be
> safer,
> > and should be faster in some wind conditions. If you wanted to
> race
> > against the R33, though, you'd have to go past the standard easy
> rig.
> > It could be done, but you'd have to spend more time pulling
strings
> and
> > less time sipping that ice cold drink.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> >
> > > Don't know about a Reynolds 33 at 'only 3000lbs' being
necessarily
> > > faster . A 40'lw hull harry weighs not much more than half of
> that. You
> > > can pile your stores in the ww hull to bring it to the same
> weight and
> > > you have 50% more righting moment and a longer waterline length
> with
> > > higher prismatic coefficient for the hull with the load on it
so
> you
> > > can push it harder before pichpoling. This 3000lb is not much
> less than
> > > the 3700lbs for 50' Visionary, a cruiser built in strip plank.
> > > Sometimes I wonder at the figures for Harry designs in contrast
> with
> > > catamarans and tris and try to work out where the differences
are
> but
> > > there are now five built and the reality confirms the estimated
> weights.
> > > regards,
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> > >
> > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > harryproa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.au
> > > <mailto:harryproa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.au?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links