Agreed. The flattened main is not as good as a reef, but at least it
adds another option.
It could either be a temporary measure while preparing to reef, or a
lazy measure when racing if you're just on the edge of needing a reef
and don't want to spend the time. Combined with reefing, it will prove
useful in even more wind conditions than an easyrig.
Plus, a partially-furled jib will have a higher center of effort than a
I like your idea of shorter poles being used for more than one
purpose. If you could use the same pole as an emergency mast, hiking,
righting, and mast-raising, that would be quite a benefit! A very good
use of material. Two 9m masts would be plenty, and shouldn't add to
much weight to the total.
Maybe I have gotten a bit safety-happy with the spare-everything
talk, but it's nice to know that it's all possible. There's no way you
could carry all that gear for a normal cat or trimaran. The amount I'd
carry would depend upon the distance I'd intend to sail.
rob dalton wrote:
I agree with everything. A flattenned sail my not be as
efficient as a reefed sail, but certainly as a short term easy
solution. ALso a tall mast is still windage in nasty weathre and extra
'bare poles' for travelling too fast when the wind reall gets up but
theere is no rigging so may not be too much of a problem. You can reef
one sail at a time, preferably the aft one first .
The spare sail is a big plus but you would have to get them made
specially. I have been thinking a couple of shorter mast lengths with
ends made for pivots would be useful for rigging up a gantry for
lifting in the taller masts or for lifting heavy things like motors and
dinghies aboard or for dealing with 'that that will never happen' the
capsize or trolling arms. The trolling arms could double up as hiking
out platforms for when you are getting really serious about racing ;-).
spare rudder blade tips, spare masts, spare sail: this caould get out
of hand. Maybe reduce it to one spare mast and a spare boom.
I believe Rare bird did 11.5 knots in 15 knots of wind. But with
that bendy rig, a fouled bottom, and a huge load, that's still quite a
feat. I look forward to hearing about what Blind date does when it
I definitely agree with you on the schooner rig. I also agree on not
screwing around with too many sails. Headsails would require way too
much effort and cost, from building the boat to handle the loads, to
purchasing additional sails and rigging, to buying, installing, and
grinding winches, to the big hassle of furling one end and unfurling
the other on each shunt. No thank you. If I wanted that much work, I
wouldn't be looking at a harryproa.
As you and Rob have pointed out, mast height is key in really low
wind. I'd much rather have two 18m masts, reefed much of the time,
than a single easyrig (or shorter masts) with headsails. This would
require a sail that's easy to reef, but that's not a very difficult
thing to find. If you've got a good way to control sail shape, such as
with a wishbone una or an easily-adjustable outhaul and vang on a
standard main, you can also reduce power very significantly just by
flattening the sail and letting out the mainsheet a bit. No shrouds to
get in the way!
Another benefit with the schooner is that any sail you carry is a
spare! You could carry one or two spares, plus two short 10m masts
with heavy dacron sails as emergency rigs (in case a mast buckles).
Everything becomes easier when there is only one kind of sail. There's
also more mast buoyancy, which I like a lot. I don't intend to go
over, but if it happens, I like the idea of having an option of self
A 15m lw hull Harry with a tall schooner rig would be a sight to
behold. I imagine it could easily surpass wind speed, and also go past
that "emotional" 20-knot mark.
Besides, you can always set up an outleader if you've got a really
long downwind run.
rob dalton wrote:
I had thought of the lw hull wtih rig tucking under. It
should fit without widening the beam if using a schooner rig as you
need less bury and the bury would come where there is a little less
beam on the corredponding point on the ww hull. Putting the lw hull
over can actually be a plus if you have enough room as it makes it dead
easy to remove and replace the masts as the holes and masts are than
horizontal. The combination could then be winched up to the sailing
position.Much easier than rigging up a gantry to place them in the
holes vertically. The process I imagine for getting the boat to the
water if there is a wide enough ramp to take the expanded boat. Lee
hull is tucked under ww hull on its side. and cross beams are separate.
possibly lashed to the roof of the ww hull and supported with trailer
framework. The crossbeams are tipped into the lw hull holes form the
top of the roof. It may need some giuding boards and rope restraints to
do it on your own but it should be possible to sort out relatively
easily. Once the beams are in the lw hull sockets thay can be attached
to the folding system iwth a couple of rods. The masts are taken out
and possibly using something like a piano trolley guided horizontally
into the mast sockets. The beams are then winched into placeand locked
down. The bottom of the lw hull would have to be supported by
the trolley as it went out. Here comes the difficult part, the
instability of having the boat so of centre. The possibilties are
sliding the whole boat sideways on the trailer to center the weight and
supporting the boat under the wing deck and the crossbeams or rotating
the trolley 90degrees and letting the trolley support the lw hull.
The other choice is to put the boat in the water before the masts are
in and put the masts in from the beach or even from the water .
Without the folding system the main difference is that you
have to manoevre the lw hull around with the masts and crossbeams in
place and tip the ww hull to allow the sockets and the crossbeams to
line up, and you would have to have a wide enough ramp. On your own
with uneven ground it would be dificult. with one other person to help
with fine adjustment it shouldn't be too hardThe Farrier systems are
very robust as they have to support a strong torque on the joints. The
Harry, though having longer beams, only has to hold up the ww hull
without a great deal of torque so the folding machanism really only has
to support the loads of assembly.. There would be some extra weight in
the flanges to hold the beams in position rather than having the
Don't know how muach extra the weight is for the horizontal
folding system but apart from the bolts you have two extra surfaces
and a centreline with less resistance to sheer.
According to Robs posts, didn't Rare Bird do 18knots in
20knots of wind with a fouled bottom? Don't know how much faster a
harry will be with a couple of tall Una rigs. I would avoid the hassle
of screechers as it means you have to start putting in extra weight to
take the loads. With the schooner rig the rigging loads are
concentrated in one plane and the rudders aren't far off. There are a
lot of loads trying to get decent luff tension on a foresail. It would
be a pain to shunt.
I did muck up the conversion. I meant 60'/18m masts with a 50'/15m lw
hull. I have no idea how I could have come up with 23m -- none of the
factors could yield that number, even if I reversed them.
I'm starting to like an expanded Harry design. The drop in weight
would help light wind performance, and the smaller design would mean a
lower cost. That would be one fast boat.
One of my problems is that I've gotten addicted to the speed of the
current cat, which has hit 17 knots, and hopefully will reach 20 this
sailing season (new sails, more experience). More than the top end,
though, is the ability to sail in wind that keeps others at the dock.
I don't necessarily have to fly about like a madman, but it's really
nice to move at a good clip in winds that would just leave my bobbing
about in my old boat. I have a feeling that a schooner rigged 15m
Harry would even be an upgrade from my stiletto. Especially when the
wind is strong enough to reach, but not quite good enough to tack.
Shunting would be welcome on days like that.
I can't see using the Farrier system because it tilts the ama
down when retracted. This works for a trimaran, tucking the short ama
into the hollow beneath the deck, but would be a problem for a Harryproa
with the taller leeward hull. That would place the side of the hull in
the water, would angle the mast(s), and might expand the trailering
Looking at the folding method on cat2fold, I'm not sure where all the
unwanted weight would come in. It's really just a beam, cut in two,
with a pivot point in the middle and a hinge at each end. How much
weight do you think it would add? 50 Kg? Not knowing what the normal
beams weigh, I can't really estimate. Masts would always be vertical,
as would the leeward hull.
On the other hand, I think you have a good point: a well-designed
trailer could do the trick, allowing you to transport a boat with
standard beams, yet without requiring a boatyard lift. It wouldn't
allow you to collapse the boat in a harbor, but it would make
transportation a heck of a lot easier. Plus the boat would be lighter,
and probably sturdier.
$200 a year for storage? My, that is nice. Prices keep going up
here in Maine as the value of real estate soars. We're lucky to have
bought property up here when we did.
I don't know if I can swing a trip before October. When is Bain
planning to sail?
Cars NEW - sell your car and browse
thousands of new and used cars online search
Photos – NEW, now offering a quality
print service from just 8p a photo.