[harryproa] Re: Changes

G'day Nikki,
The boats that I have seen are absolutely beautiful and sail like a
dream. There is still development and a state of flux, but the
capacity for a good boat has increased as development continues. There
has never been any doubt about the boats being good value from the
people in the development. Just a bit of friction as frequently
happens when new concepts are developed. The boats may not be blonde
but they are brilliant,
RObert
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Nikki <blonde_n_brilliant@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm.
> As a complete outsider who was considering buying the biggest proa I
could get made, I have to admit I am extremely thrown off by this.
> I saw you in sail magazine, as I am sure many others did. The
website could have had more videos and inside views.
> I am all for sailing something which might be looked upon as a bit
kooky, but when you see this kind of crazy going back and fourth it
makes you wonder if the business will go the way of the dodo bird
before your boat is built.
>
> I am only offering a suggestion here but I would remove the group
link from the website.
> Anyone who joins here immediately sees that there is massive tension
and that things are not going well. (EVEN IF THAT IS NOT THE ACTUAL CASE)
>
> I am not going to buy a Harry Proa now, though I was very interested
in seeing more about them. Also the clips off the front and not the
entire ship, and the tiny weenie one going back and fourth... lets see
a big one in full not just from out the bow.
>
> It's unfortunate that one cannot step outside and see the big picture.
>
> You want to instill a tremendous amount of confidence when people
are handing over their money.
> This is not the way to do it.
> Especially for something so unique.
>
>
> I will be unsubbing from the group now, but best of luck to all of
you...
>
>
>
>
> ״ �)
> �.��.� ��) �.�*�)
> *~ Nikki ~*`�.��.��.��`�
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:35:22 AM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Changes
>
>
> For what it's worth, from my perspective, all three of you have
beenreasonable up to this point, and I see no reason for
additionaldiscussion in this forum.
>
> Harryproas are amazing designs that do several things very well.
Butthey don't do everything well -- no boat does. As Rob pointed out
backin 2002, sailors are notoriously conservative people, and
theaccommodation- to-windward proa with an unstayed mast is just
toodifferent for most people to purchase. Yet. With time, things
willchange.
>
> In the meantime, this makes for a difficult business.
Thereinevitably is friction between people even when business is going
welland the money is flowing in. When trying to get a business off
theground selling such a radical design, things are much tougher.
I'mgrateful that the three of you have stuck at it as long as you
have. I'm also appreciative that you've found an amicable way to let
Robcontinue on with the Harryproa designs.
>
> In the end, all three of you are right. Rob was right in that
therewas tension, for which he blamed no one, and that the web site
updatessometimes took a while. It was reasonable of Michelle to not
want tosee comments like that in the open forum (which was a mistake
on Rob'spart, and for which he apologized). Mark is right in that an
unstayedproa is not better than a catamaran at everything. None of
this isparticularly negative nor unfair.
>
> In the end, the three of you have had a tough time in a
challengingsituation, and have really come up with great designs, as
well as agood plan for moving forward.
>
> Let's just leave it at that, and get back to talking about proas.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> Rob Denney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Mark Stephens <mark@harryproa.
com>wrote:
> snip
> >
> > Rob has requested I not make any further 'negative' comments onthis
> > group. I believe that a discussion group should be open and free to
> > express an opinion without it being seen as disparaging; adiscussion
> > group that only allows the views of the moderator is of littlevalue.
> > As Harryproa is now Rob's I will honour his request and
> > not make any further posts. I do reserve the right of reply toRob's
> > last post and hope it is seen as a useful discussion.
>
> G'day,
> My request was in a personal email in totally different context to
> that above. I don't discuss personal emails on public forums so that
> is all I will be saying about it.
>
> If Mark (or Fritz, or Todd or any of the other dissenters i have
> welcomed to the group in the past) want to post, they are welcome.
>
> The only posts that have ever been censored on this group (2943-2946)
> were from me and were chopped without my permission a week before I
> received ownership.
>
> Replies to the rest when I cool off a little.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Mark Stephens wrote:
> > > > I've never been quite sure about the extra sailing loadsargument
> > as the rigging loads on a cat are taken by strips of uni in the top
> > and bottom of the bulkheads, not a big deal.
> > >
> > > There is about as much material in these strips as in theglass which
> > > goes around the hull to support the harryproa mast.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Other
> > > comparisons are:
> > >
> > > 1) The cat has a substantial transverse bulkhead to keep thestrips
> > > apart and take the sheer loads, and a substantial compressionpost
> > > under the mast, all of which needs to be very solidly glassedto the
> > > very solid bridgedeck, hull and cabin roof. Some also havefore and
> > > aft bulkheads to prevent the main beam buckling.
> > >
> > > Harryproas have a single ring frame in the hull. Weighs lessthan 10
> > > kgs glassed in.
> >
> > True but a catamarans bulkheads don't just hold the rig up theyalso
> > hold the hulls together, segregate the boat into cabins, holds upthe
> > bridgedeck etc etc. Either only include the extra uni reinforcingin a
> > cats bulkhead or add the weight of a proas beams to make weight
> > comparison fair. The mast compression post isn't very heavy,usually
> > just a piece of western red cedar glassed to the bulkhead.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2) The fore and aft loads on the cat are enormous and requirethe
> > > hulls to be beefed up (either with extra material or bigger
> > > dimensions), plus a forebeam, a seagull striker and amainsheet
> > > traveller with a large beam to support it.
> >
> > No extra material is needed for fore/aft loads, the existing
> > dimensions and laminates are enough to take care of these. Trueabout
> > the forebeam and mainsheet track but these are no heavier than the
> > heavy balestron boom. Not having so many mainsheet control wincheson
> > a proa is a big plus.
> >
> >
> > The forebeam then needs a
> > > lot more hull height to keep it out of the waves. Not onlyheavy and
> > > added windage, but it is in the extreme bow of the boatadding to the
> > > pitching moment.
> >
> > Agree with this. Not having a fore beam and tramp is a great safety
> > advantage and Harryproas certainly pitch a lot less than cats.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Harryproas have a simple stringer along the deck and the keelbetween
> > > the beams. Maybe another 10 kgs.
> >
> > Modern cats don't have any stringers along the deck but do havesouls
> > and webs to walk on. Proas require an extra layer of glass over the
> > leeward hull between the beams to take the mast loads, about 50kg.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 3) Cats, especially those with the user unfriendly 3 stayrigs also
> > > need considerable structure to support the chainplates.Minimum is a
> > > decent thickness half bulkhead, solidly glassed to the hulland deck.
> >
> > Most catamarans use an existing bulkhead to attach chainplates with
> > some extra reinforcing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Harryproas don't.
> > >
> > > 4) The cat needs beefing up of the cabin top to take theheadsail
> > > track loads and the winches for the sheets.
> >
> > Not really much beefing up. A well designed saloontop with enough
> > glass and thickness to support walking on will be enough to takethe
> > jibsheet loads with maybe an extra layer around the jib sheettrack.
> > Again, not having winches is a big proa benefit.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Harryproas don't.
> > >
> > > > Also weight isn't necessarily a big factor. Where a proasaves
> > weight is in not having so much material as they don't have such an
> > extensive fitout, and not so much solid bridgedeck and saloon. Ithink
> > a proa built with the same accommodation and appointment as a catwill
> > weigh about the same.
> > >
> > > Weight is a huge factor. Blind Date has 2 doubles and asingle berth
> > > with space for 2 more single cabins , huge deck space, covered
> > > cockpit, galley, large nav station and toilet. It weighs 2and a bit
> > > tonnes/tons in sailing trim. There are no catamarans withsimilar
> > > usable space that are anywhere near this weight. Lower weightmeans
> > > smaller motors, smaller rigs, higher speeds, lower build and
> > > maintenance costs, less to paint, easier to haul out, etc etc.
> >
> > Blind Date is a very nice boat and very light but it is also very
> > basic with no saloon and very little deck space, being mainlytramp,
> > one outboard, no anchor winch etc. It would be more appropriate to
> > compare Rare Bird which weighs 3.7 tonnes empty because it has of a
> > fitout more similar to a cat, though still only one hull fittedout.
> > My original comment was to say a proa with the same level of fitout
> > doesn't have a huge weight benefit. Put the same fitout of thetypical
> > cruising cat on a proa and it would be a dog and may not evenshunt.
> > Proas need to be kept light so they can take advantage of their
> > waterline length of the leeward hull and not bog down their fat
> > windward hull. Keep them light and they are magic.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The owner and I are working on tenders to build a 60' charterproa
> > > optimised to take advantage of the proa and unstayed rigbenefits.
> > > The shell, bulkheads and beam materials are a touch under 2tonnes
> > > based on surface areas and laminates. This boat has 4 doublecabins
> > > (2 with island beds) each with a toilet and shower, a hugesaloon and
> > > covered deck space, plus enough cabin top to mount enoughsolar
panels
> > > to power the electric motors. Ready to charter it will weighand
> > > cost less than most 40' cats and outperform most 60 foot cats
> > > according to the same spread sheet that accurately predictedBlind
> > > Date's weight,.
> >
> > That will be very impressive if it can be achieved.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >Where a proa gets it's performance is in the extrawaterline length.
> > > It's pretty pointless comparing proas with cats as they aresuch
> > > different beasts fulfilling different rolls.
> > >
> > > The harryproa role is cruising comfortably and safely for agiven
> > > price . Most cat owners would say the same. Harryproas do this
> > > extremely well. Look at http://www.youtube. com/watch?
v=8chR6DAFjGA.
> > > Has anyone sailed on a cruising cat at 15 knots boatspeed in15 knots
> > > wind speed in such comfort with such low stress? Mark Giles,who has
> > > test sailed a lot of cats (and one harryproa) for MultihullWorld
> > > magazine hasn't. The cat fulfills this role comparativelypoorly,
> > > unless the comparison is with a mono.
> >
> > Rare Bird is a joy to sail as are all the Harryproas I have sailedon.
> > Nobody is disputing that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Waterline length is part, but not all of the story. Otherimportant
> > > factors are:
> > > The reduced drag from not having daggerboards and their slots.
> > > Reduced weight and windage of superstructure that isn'tcompromised
> > > for rigging loads and daggerbboards.
> > > All the weight concentrated in the middle of the boat.
> > > Higher righting moment for a given weight.
> > > More efficient hull beam to length ratios.
> > > Better rigs.
> > > Superior hull forms (no rocker, high prismatic) which are not
> > > compromised for tacking.
> >
> > As I said, cats and proas are very different beasts. Harryproashave a
> > lot of great advantages which is why I like them so much, if I hadthe
> > money I would buy Rare Bird tomorrow.
> >
> > Speaking of which the estate is desperate to sell Rare Bird. Anyone
> > interested in making an offer approaching $200,000 would land them
> > selves an absolute bargain and own a very special boat.
> >
> > All the best and goodbye,
> > Mark
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (23) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Members

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