Hello Mike,
Thanks for your time and effort of your take on the comparison.
To me the comparison and what I believe single outrigger shunters
are your last paragraph sums it up. Single dominate hull shunters
are in a new class by them selfs with as good or better performance
than most of the off the shelf cats and tris on the market today.
Knowing that at any length wind speed or better can be achieved with
the least amount of equipment, least amount of weight, least amount
of sail, least amount of stress and strain on hull and float. Mybe
thats why as Rob said some builders/ designers have stopped
answering on price. It would be a shame for proffesional builders
getting beat on the water and in their pocket books on a craft that
can do it better at 1/10th the coast and 1/10th the materials. Are
they realizing the market of a craft once made from pile of
vegetation built with a keen sense of how nature works that sailed
circles around other craft of thier day and into the future.
On production line boats I'd never own one are you kidding me talk
about least of this an that, and the use of materials not really
designed for the water... polyester resin come on.
So now they charge for performance of the craft A sad spiral down
the tubes for proas.
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogrou
wrote:
>
> Todd,
>
> It's nice to see some boats for comparison. The Reynolds and
Wharram
> are both great boats at what they do, but aren't really great at
what
> the harryproas do. I'll write up a quick comparison, and will also
> include a Farrier F36, which is probably the closest thing in
terms of
> apples and oranges.
>
> Reynolds
>
> As you said the price has increased. The original $33,000 didn't
> include sails or rigging, so the number was deceivingly low even
at the
> time. The finished boat with a trailer was closer to $70,000 to
> $90,000. But now they are closer to $140,000. That's a lot of
money
> for a boat without a double berth or standing room.
>
> That's also probably the price of a custom-built Harry. The
Harry as
> two double bunks, standing headroom, an enclosed head, a stand-up
> galley, and a rig that is easily single-handed at maximum sail
area.
> The r33 has four pipe-berths, only sitting headroom, no real
galley, and
> a rig that requires winches (and furling for the reacher) on every
> tack. The Harry also has a longer waterline, better righting
moment
> with respect to the sail area, a protected cockpit with a hard
deck, and
> the advantage of not risking rig collapse due to the failure of
dozens
> of little components used in stayed rigs.
>
> One note: don't compare the boats on length alone -- it's price
and
> performance that matter when looking at a proa. It will always be
> longer than equivalent boats with the same interior volume. The
> question to ask is: what does it cost on another multihull to sail
two
> double berths in separate areas, with a standing galley, at the
speed of
> a Harry? That's the question.
>
> Wharram
>
> The only 40 foot Wharram I've seen for $35k is a 1982 model. I
simply
> don't have much faith that a 25-year-old homebuilt plywood boat
will do
> what I want it to do. Pro built, and well-maintained? Perhaps.
But
> while I count myself as a Wharram enthusiast, I'll be the first to
admit
> that there are a lot of Wharrams out there that have not been
built and
> maintained to professional standards.
>
> Your Pahi 63 is an interesting comparison. You simply won't
find more
> boat for the money than the 63. If you want acres of deck space,
> low-windage standing room, and the ability to take eight people
out for
> a weeks at a time, it's hard to beat. But the 63 is an 8000kg
beast
> that's never going to be demounted and transported to low-cost
storage
> or new locations, has a lower sail area to displacement ratio than
a
> Visionarry, and is highly unlikely to be easily single-handed.
It's
> just in a different class.
>
> If you want a closer comparison, it might be a Tiki 38, which
has two
> double berths and two singles. The Tiki will cost a bit less to
build
> than the Visionarry, but will not have nearly the same performance
> characteristics, nor will it be as easily demounted -- there's a
lot of
> rigging to play with on a Schooner-rigged 38. More deck room and
> interior space than a harryproa, but again, far from a raceboat.
>
> Farrier F36
>
> The demountable F36 is probably the most appropriate boat to
which to
> compare a Visionarry. It is a demountable multihull with good
> performance, standing headroom, a full galley, and two double
berths in
> separate areas. Apples to apples. One one hand it has a saloon
table
> which Visionarry Sport does not (though Visionarry Cruiser does),
on the
> other, the Visionarry has a a much larger and more protected
cockpit, as
> well as more deck space.
>
> The Visionarry will have the benefit of another 4m of waterline
> length, better righting moment, an empty SA/D of 47 compared to the
> Farrier's empty SA/D of 38, can be single-handed much more easily,
> doesn't have the failure risk and rig stress of a stayed mast, and
costs
> about $50,000 less to build than the $259,000 F36 I've seen
advertised
> on the net.
>
> The F36 is still a great boat, and some will prefer it, but in
terms
> of performance and accommodation per dollar spent, the Visionarry
comes
> out on top.
>
> ---
>
> As with all boat comparisons, it comes down to what you want to
do
> with the boat. If you want to cruise, or race, for the lowest
price for
> real performance with separate double berths, the harryproas are
very
> strong choices. If you want something else, then they aren't as
> attractive. I'd look to performance multihulls like the Farriers
and
> Corsairs for comparisons, though, since the Wharrams really are in
an
> entirely different category.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> > On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past
> > desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the
> > construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail
the
> > craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so
far.
> > Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with
the
> > same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same
> > price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats
and
> > tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first
run
> > they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
> >
> > Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the
> > sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe
i
> > got the weight wrong.
> >
> > As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just
no
> > market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the
record
> > in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
> >
> > If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1
1/2
> > times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10
knots,
> > then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique
craft
> > in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast
per
> > length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
> >
> > Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us
and a
> > 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a
> > cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space
and
> > equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > - In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > <mailto:harryproa%
wrote:
> > >
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design,
> > shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered
> > cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I
suspect
> > that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot
more
> > than a Harry.
> > >
> > > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although
> > the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance
version
> > and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately
built
> > and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard.
It
> > is for sale for $Aus16,000/$
> > harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double
> > this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more
> > complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a
tdsoc,
> > I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as
well
> > as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should
be
> > comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare
price
> > with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a
> > trailer, with an outboard.
> > >
> > > If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the
> > harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the
> > reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they
are
> > too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be
> > wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built
> > trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You
may
> > like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any
> > such boats.
> > >
> > > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6
> > knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so
> > much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are
> > claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed
> > (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12
knots.
> > I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly
> > achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots,
> > you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as
fast
> > as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need
> > a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is
the
> > case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to
windward.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Todd
> > > To: harryproa@yahoogrou
> > <mailto:harryproa%
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM
> > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building
> > > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob
> > > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design.
Knowing
> > > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of
anything
> > to
> > > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I
> > > ask.
> > >
> > > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much
> > room
> > > and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > <mailto:harryproa%
<jmichael@>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed
> > cost
> > > so
> > > > little.
> > > >
> > > > - Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat
that
> > > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good
> > overall
> > > speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may
> > be
> > > just
> > > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
> > > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play
a
> > > part in
> > > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out
come
> > > would
> > > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to
> > each
> > > > > would be?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rob,
> > > > >
> > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal
> > material
> > > and
> > > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used
> > boats ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > <mailto:harryproa%
> > > > > <mailto:harryproa%
> > <cateran1949@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved
> > gaff
> > > to
> > > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed
> > mast to
> > > > > take
> > > > > > the point loading of the gaff,
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > <mailto:harryproa%
> > > > > <mailto:harryproa%
> > > <brag_rotor@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate
on
> > > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s,
> > > and 'Pilgrim'
> > > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing
> > much
> > > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of
> > sail.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially
since
> > our
> > > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when
I
> > > posted
> > > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All
> > boats are
> > > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to
> > > denigrate
> > > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably
> > sustain
> > > high
> > > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
> > > > > comfortable,
> > > > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious
> > for
> > > our
> > > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on
> > the
> > > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately?
> > #;^p
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why we're here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see
> > PS)
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus
is
> > now
> > > on
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an
> > EasyRig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a
> > wrap-
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due
> > to the
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to
> > use.
> > > It
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of
> > the
> > > loose
> > > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top
> > down;
> > > > > plus
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the
> > rig,
> > > since
> > > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail
> > chord
> > > > > > shrinks
> > > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy
> > to
> > > make;
> > > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper
> > than
> > > most
> > > > > > > modern battens-with-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since
> > > boyhood,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at
the
> > CAAE
> > > > > > telling
> > > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the
> > flow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I
have
> > > > > uploaded
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > > > > > >
> > >
http://au.ph.
> >
<http://au.ph.
> > > > >
> > >
> > <http://au.ph.
> >
<http://au.ph.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance
of
> > very
> > > > > small
> > > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat,
for
> > > > > example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia
> > <http://en.wikipedia
> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia
> > <http://en.wikipedia
> > > > > > >
> > > > > (http://www.princeto
> > <http://www.princeto
> > > > > <http://www.princeto
> > <http://www.princeto
> > > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness
> > of
> > > the
> > > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low
> > Reynolds
> > > Nos
> > > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_
the
> > > drag in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a
> > round
> > > > > wire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they
> > rotate
> > > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They
> > are in
> > > > > > > the low Re zone for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some
> > cleaner
> > > flow to
> > > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading
> > edge
> > > of
> > > > > > sails,
> > > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality
> > fluid
> > > > > > dynamics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a
> > bermudan
> > > rig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that
> > the
> > > mast
> > > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the
> > spar
> > > on an
> > > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> > > > > > imperfections
> > > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are
> > > addressed.
> > > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great
> > aerodynamic
> > > > > > importance
> > > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump
and
> > > > > stiff.
> > > > > > Not
> > > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when
> > reefed
> > > or in
> > > > > > high
> > > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a
> > beam
> > > or
> > > > > pole
> > > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed
> > wind
> > > load
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's
> > flexing
> > > > > > batten.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one
> > seen
> > > from
> > > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not
> > > Pilgrim,
> > > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as
ours.
> > A
> > > lot
> > > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have
> > admitted to
> > > > > Rob,
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to
> > sail
> > > shape.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other
> > people's
> > > > > sails,
> > > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small
> > wrinkles?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail -
> > more
> > > at:-
> > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.wharram.
> > <http://www.wharram.
> > mode=album&album=
> > > > > <http://www.wharram.
> > <http://www.wharram.
> > mode=album&album=
> > > > > > range/Tiki-30
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a
> > > Wharram
> > > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the best, Ben
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS
> > > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January
> > under
> > > main
> > > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and
> > genoa.
> > > > > > > But we learned something interesting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near
as
> > > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing
upwind
> > at
> > > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on
> > > without
> > > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -
> > roughly-
> > > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It
> > was
> > > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone,
> > which
> > > > > > > is not usually our custom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in
and
> > > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which
was
> > > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were
going
> > > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------
> > -----------
> > >
> > >
> > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date:
> > 2/18/2007
> > >
> >
> >
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe