Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reynolds 33
From: David Howie
Date: 1/30/2006, 3:13 AM
To:
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au


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@yahoo.co.uk>
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