Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Revised ideas on big trailerable |
From: "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@networknow.org> |
Date: 6/23/2008, 1:23 PM |
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au |
Reply-to: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au |
Thinking on it a bit more, one could just extend the cabin top across my 4' fold down walkway. Then you could have a queen where the current twin is, put a twin next to the other queen, extende the moveable settes to 6' long and then they could fold out for emergency bunks if you have guests. Add a fixed table and a wheel (sorry <grin>).
It is good to get different points of view. I had not considered
trailering a 12' wide load. I am not sure I am brave enough to do that;
trailering my 25' tri at 8'6" made me pretty nervous, but there are a
couple of advantages that you had not mentioned. One is that it should
actually be easier to get set up and break it down, because you don't
have to remove the cross beams. This may lead to making life simpler
for the rudder mountings, outboard, etc. Speaking of which, does
anybody know if it is practical to have the rudders mounted at the
midpoint of the beams? They would be closer to the helmsman, could be
mounted on the larger beam that doesn't get removed in your scheme, and
could potentially be used with a wheel, since they stay in the same
place regardless of whether the boat is collapsed or expanded. Gardner, Hi all, -There is no need to bury the fatter beam all the way
through
the ww
Upsides:
1) simpler - roof is now a single piece. walkway does not need to be hinged.
2) Double the accomodations. Queen and head together is nearly a master bunk.
3) Possible to permanently mount rudder and put in wheel steering.
4) Fixed cockpit table for nav station/workspace/
5) faster setup from trailer
Downsides:
1) removes personal trailering (for me, anyway)
2) Heavier, probably a tad slower due to max expanded beam
Maybe someone more knowledgable than me can comment more on the sailing characteristics. It seems that since I would probably hire out the trailering of the boat, I might also be able to do away with the removable bow idea and possibly length the ww hull (but not the deck/cabin).
I have checked on professional trailering prices, and they seem to run on the order of $3/mile. Since I am on the Cheasapeake, the areas that interest me most would be Maine, Florida Keys/Bahamas, Great Lakes and Baja. The first two might be cheaper/easier to reach by water. The others would be pricey, but possible, with a 12' beam.
Good ideas, everybody. I'll have to think hard on that one.
- Gardner
I'm in Harpswell, Maine, about 45 minutes north of Portland.
You're right -- the size of the cockpit does put the boat more in the
Visionarry class than the Harry class. It might make more sense to
just downsize slightly and go for a trailerable Harry. Less windage,
less weight, less cost, smaller rig, and so forth.
I'd still probably want to maxizmize the cockpit size, though, even
if the boat weren't sized up to a full Visionarry. We don't need a
stand-up head and shower, but it is nice to have the option of sleeping
next to someone, instead of on top of them, when the weather is warm.
The extra beam would be nice for those wider bunks, and would also
leave room for the helmsman when the boat is collapsed. Fortunately it
wouldn't add any windage, and would only be a slight increase in weight.
Your idea of mounting the rudders on the fixed side of the telescopic
beam might work nicely. That's probably what I'd want to do in order
to ge 360 degree rudders (and therefore not have to worry about which
direction the rudders need to turn in order to flip for a shunt).
I'm partial to tillers, however, and would probably want to see if I
could use them instead of a wheel. In many of the large multihulls the
helm is perched up on a pedestal to one side (or way on top), making
the experience more like driving a bus rather than sailing a
performance machine. I realize that a 40' boat is never going to feel
like a 15' dingy or trimaran, but I'd still like to stay as close to
the fun as possible. Tillers would also solve the problem of where to
put the wheel when the boat collapses down to its minimum beam.
But the tiller vs. wheel argument can obviously never be settled.
One likes what one likes.
I agree that it would be scary to trailer a 12' wide boat. But since
I'd only trailer the boat a few miles from a ramp to our property twice
per year, I'd be willing to put up with that size. Anyone who wanted
to transport the boat on a regular basis, or over long distances, might
be happier with something more narrow.
- Mike
Gardner Pomper wrote:
On the other side, expanding the ww hull to 9-10' puts the boat more in
the visionarry class than the harry class for accomodations, but with
an expanded beam limitied to 20' I am worried that the sail performance
would be compromised because you don't have the 27' beam of the
visionarry to counter the rig. Robert has ideas on expanding the beam
by basically going to a double telescoping design, but I am nervous
enough about how well a single telescope will work.
I think that what you describe is closer to what Robert is working on
than mine. I will be very interested to seeing those drawings when they
get posted. I might play with the idea of making my flip down walkway
fixed, which would allow 2 queen bunks and better cockpit layout. I
think you still need a way to get forward and aft, so I will have to
play with it.
As for the containerization, that is just a cost-saving idea. I can
always go with a regular boat shipping transport, which (at 12' beam)
may not be THAT much more expensive than putting it in a container,
especially if it makes the boat more complicated (i.e. expensive) to
build for an idea that I may never use.
Thanks for the feedback. It keeps me thinking!
BTW, where are you located? Maine?
- Gardner
York, PA
The last time I checked, the bulk of the states on the east cost of
the US had similar requirements for wide loads. While the max wide
load requirements differed, most allowed a 12' wide by 80' long load
(includes the tow vehicle) without an escort vehicle.
Anything wider or longer would require an escort vehicle with a large
sign to either lead, follow, or both. All states require a wide load
permit for anything over 8.5', but these are easy to get.
Thus, my ideal maxi-trailerable would collapse down to a 12' beam, on
the water, and then set onto a fixed trailer. This would allow the
boat to be launched and retrieved with little hassle, and wouldn't
require the use of a team of boatyard hands, forklift, travelift, or
other such assistance. I doubt it could be done by a single person,
but you could probably do it with two, and that's a lot better than
trying to schedule a whole team.
We have an expanding trailer for the current catamaran, but for us
it's more trouble than it is, and we're currently using a boatyard in
the winter. Sometimes the trailer cooperates, sometimes it doesn't,
and it's really tough to keep the expanding beams and their mechanisms
working properly. It's also nowhere near as strong as a monolithic
trailer.
With Rob's lifting-pole design for stepping the mast (a separate pole
with a block that lets you hoist the mast by its center of gravity and
then step it), you could get into the water in less than half a day.
That's not quite the 30 minutes that some companies advertise, but in
the end, no boat over 30' goes from trailer to sailing in that amount
of time. Thankfully the lack of standing rigging radically simplifies
the process.
A few hours time to set up the boat or take it down is also a lot
better than the $4,500 it would cost to store such a beamy craft in a
boatyard ($4.50 per square foot in some Maine boatyards). Alternately,
collapsing the boat to 12' would bring the cost down to roughly $2,400.
I personally would abandon trying to fit the boat into a single
container while upright in order to get the largest cockpit I could fit
into a 12' collapsed beam. With your fixed roof and clears, that
cockpit would double as the main saloon, and I'd want as much space in
there as I could get. Heck, I'd want space for six seated adults even
if the cockpit weren't doubling as living space. I'd also want the
interior space for doubles or queen beds fore and aft, as well as some
storage space for kit bags (nothing heavy).
With the windward hull being between 9' and 10', though, fitting the
boat into a container would be challenging. You could conceivably pack
it into a high-cube container by using some custom cradles to store the
the windward hull on an angle with the leeward hull beneath.
In any case, I like what you're doing and thank you for posting the
designs. Any work in this area helps to refine the design process.
- Mike
Gardner Pomper wrote:
Ok, I have uploaded the modifications to the trailerable PDFs to allow
for the different underwing clearance for the ww and lw hulls. This
allowed me to add a bench/storage cabinet to the galley area. I also
extended the hardtop to cover the flip down walkway, so the drawings
show the boat the way it will normally be in the water; the whole
10'x11' cockpit area will be covered with a hard roof, from which roll
down clears can enclose it against any weather. This can all stay in
place when going in and out of the slip, and there is very little
additional work to trailer it this way as well.
I have drawn the visual for putting the boat in a shipping container. I
am cutting the measurements very close, so I don't know if that will
work or not. I am assuming that I will need a 108" high, top loading
container. So far, none of the shipping companies have gotten back to
me on what the cost is for a container from Panama to Philadelphia or
Baltimore, so it may cost more to do that than to get it delivered. I
would still like the option of shipping it to New Zealand. I am not
sure yet if this is a boat that should cross the Pacific.
The steering remaings as one of my bigger concerns. I am unclear if
there is some way to put the rudders on the beam, while still allowing
the boat to extend its beam from 12' to 20'. I am willing to increase
the max beam to 14' if this will make a big difference.
The steering of a proa is still unclear to me in general. If I have 2
rudders, and 2 tillers, what happens to the tillers when I shunt? Do
the tillers have to flip up overtop of the rudders, since the rudders
flip 180 degrees? How do I do that on a boat where the helmsman is
15-20' from the rudders? Do I need to handle both tillers at the same
time? Plus, I need to handle the sheets to swing the boom across. How
do I do this single handed? Can the rudders be connected together with
a fiberglass pole, and then I just have 1 extension tiller to that pole?
I definitely plan on single handing, and so far it sounds like a lot of
running around on the tramps, using 4 hands at a time. I am sure there
is a better way, but I am not clear on it yet.
- Gardner
hull when expanded, only enough to support it. As the loads are
significantly less than the other joins,. it doesn't have to be that
deep, I reckon you could get away with 18" to 2'.The only problem is
beefing the parts up for the compression point loads. The contact
areas are slightly fatter to make for minimum slack at the various
expansion widths, while slightly narrower elsewhere to allow easy
movement between, so the extra carbon is easy to add at these points.
This gives you about another 4' With suitable triangular bracing, you
could reduce the bury to 4" such as on Farrier tris but that would
increase the complexity.
For the bows, I feel a hinged system would allow easier alignment, and
if you need to completely remove them, simply remove the cotter pin
and pull out the axle. Much easier to align the hinge on the outside
for the first attachment than try and push bolts through with someone
on the inside of the hull quickly getting a nut on,
Robert-- In harryproa@yahoogrou
<gardner@...> wrote:
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "how to get another 5 feet". Do you
mean in
> beam or in length? The outer beam already buries all the way
through
the ww
> hull to the ww side. Sorry, I am just not following. Can you
elaborate?
>
> I was not really trying to shorten the boat for slip storage,
although I can
> see that could help when I rent a slip. I have a dock, so I wasn't
that
> concerned with that. I just want the boat shortened for trailering.
I am not
> sure of the max height I can trailer without permits, etc, so 8'
bow
> extensions that hinged up would take my height to about 13 feet,
which I
> thought was probably too high.
>
> - Gardner
>
>
> > -I can see how to get another 5 feet or so by making the
cabin edges
> > strong enough to allow the outer beam to have a bury of 2'
into the ww
> > hull. This would allow the through beam rudders and still
have plenty
> > of narrowing for slips. Still reckon a hinge on top would
allow the
> > bows relatively easy shortening for being left in a slip
> > You have worked out the tolerances pretty fine. I reckon it
should
> > work-- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > "gardnerpomper" <gardner@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have posted new versions of my ideas for a 50'
trailerable in the
> > Gardner's Layout folder, if
> > > anyone is interested.
> > >
> > > The idea for this boat is one that can be trailered, or
shipped in a
> > container, but is ordinarily
> > > left in a slip, so is just collapsed to a 12' beam. This
allowed me
> > to basically move the seating
> > > out from the galley area, so that I can have a real
galley, as well
> > as a queen and a single.
> > >
> > > I am retaining the idea of bows that remove for
trailering or
> > containerizing, because that lets
> > > me put a very long lw hull without the awkwardness of
trying to
> > trailer a 50' boat.
> > >
> > > I have absolutely no idea how the steering would be set
up on this,
> > how the rudders would
> > > mount, etc. I am hoping that someone can help me out
with ideas for
> > that. I would be willing
> > > to go with fixed rudders if I really have to in the
leeward hull,
> > but I don't want a draft of more
> > > than 30". Lift up rudders would be preferable.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any feedback.
> > >
> > > - Gardner
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>