Subject: Re: Another layout submitted for review |
From: Mike Crawford |
Date: 12/16/2008, 11:49 PM |
To: Gardner Pomper |
Well, the Contrarry is really a different class of boat. I did that design with the intention that I could live aboard it, if I am by myself, and certainly spend a few weeks aboard with my family. It has nearly the same level of accomdation that my 30 ft Maine Cat had, which now goes for about $200K.
The step up for me is a true liveaboard; 50' lw, 36'ww, 2 doubles (maybe queens) + 2 singles, plus a real bridgedeck; not just a cockpit. When you live on the boat, you spend all your time topsides. I figure that will probably cost me $100K fully outfitted. Maybe $60K just for the hull, but sails, equipment, etc will really add up.
I guess it depends on how you want to use the boat. I am not a daysailing person; it is generally too much trouble for me. I wouldn't get a bigger boat unless I was going to spend significant time on it. I think even Contrarry is a bit big if I was just going to daysail/weekend. On the other hand, if the boat is really simple to handle, then you can still daysail a bigger boat.
One of the things I loved about the Maine Cat was that with the clears rolled down around the cockpit, I could sail in any temp, provided it was sunny. I took delivery in Maine on Nov 1st, with the air temp in the 30s and the water not much warmer, and we were in short sleeves during the day. Parkas and down sleeping bags at night, but I know people in New Jersey who take their Maine Cat out every New Years day, if it is sunny. Gotta love that in a boat, especially if you live in a cold climate.
On the third hand, getting a bigger harryproa makes sense if the pricing that keeps getting bandied about is to be believed, since you can get about 4 times the boat for the price than with any other multihull.
I'll post my 50' layout as soon as I can get to it. I think your wife would like it.
- Gardner
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@gwi.net> wrote:
I agree. I like the Contrarry name, and also the design.
But here's my problem: If I'm going to spend $50,000 or more on a boat, I'm probably going to want a spacious cockpit, two full doubles, and another single or two. Otherwise, why move up from my 27' open deck catamaran (single in each hull)?
The Contrarry is a great design, but if I bought it, I'd worry about being annoyed at spending that much money to be cramped.
Then again, perhaps 50' is too long or too much boat to bother daysailing. So if I get the stretched schooner Harry, I could end up chiding myself for having gotten greedy.
That said, I did see the 40' step-through-cockpit harry in the snow a few years ago, and the leeward hull looked surprisingly small.
Ahh, tradeoffs.
I agree with you that being able to collapse down to a 12' beam is important. As large catamarans become more popular, there can be problems getting end slips or mooring locations, and it's good to have the option of a normal slip. A 50' length is also probably do-able, especially with such low freeboard at each end (not like a 50' monohull).
- Mike
Gardner Pomper wrote:Hi,
Yes, this is probably better off list. As is the question I just posted <sorry> about the max trailerable length.
After writing up the cost differences on the transport of the boat and realizing how few times I am likely to do it, I am moving away from the containerization. Although I do love the "Contrarry" name <grin>
I do still think that reducing beam in order to get into a slip is important, and the 12' beam for trucking seems a decent target. I have been concerned with how well the retractable beams work, so I have an idea about just placing a pivot point in the beam, just past the rudder, and having the ww end of the beam run along a sail track on the inside of the ww hull. Then I could have quite a wide sailing beam (up to 21' in the Contrarry case), but it would widen the boat and raise the sides just enough so that it would no longer fit in a container. But, that is my next plan for a layout.
- Gardner
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@gwi.net> wrote:
Gardner,
I emailed that last item to you personally, basically because I'd said the same things to the group before, and didn't want to repeat myself. As a result, this response on the 14th "OK, I have uploaded...") is not on the list. If you want this on the list for everyone, you'll have to post it on the group site. Sorry for any confusion.
---
I do like the two doubles, but I also hear your arguments about not forcing people to sleep together (especially if they aren't a couple), and also about being willing to sleep in the leeward hull. Thanks for posting the new design.
Collapsible beams should be fine on a crossing. Why wouldn't they work?
That said, the less complexity, the better. Beams in two sections are better than beams in three sections, and beams in one section are better than beams in two sections. A single carbon/epoxy beam is highly unlikely to fail, while multiple joints invite new possibilities for breaking down.
The big question is: how often do you want to get into that container, and how much complexity and expense is that worth?
If you're going to put the boat in a container three times in its life, just go for demountable beams. Pay the boatyard a few hundred dollars to help you set it up or take it down. But if you're going to containerize it or trailer it at 8.5' wide a few times per year, then get fancy.
- Mike