Subject: Re: Another layout submitted for review
From: Mike Crawford
Date: 12/16/2008, 11:49 PM
To: Gardner Pomper


  You know, you're really starting to infect me with your enthusiasm, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. 

  I went through a phase two years ago where i just HAD to get my stretched Harry, but then eventually calmed down and got more rational.  Instead of getting another boat, we're building a house in either 2009 or 2010.  Not just because it's a sane thing to do, but more because we really love the property and are excited about the design.  That's where my creative energies have been flowing lately.  In fact, since we plan to build the house out of used shipping containers, I was able to answer one of your questions.

  But now I want my Harry!

  Fortunately a rendering of the house is staring at me from the coffee table, and our landlord is starting to get on my nerves, so the house isn't yet in danger.

  I agree with you about the Maine Cat design.  Very well thought-out.  I thought the 40' version was beautiful, and drove out to the factory to see it one winter day.  But $400K is insane, and $200K for the 30'-er is also way past what I'd want to spend on it. 

  Both are great boats, but if I'm going to start tacking zeroes onto the price, I want the boat to outperform what I have.  And be safer, and more spacious, and not require a boatyard.  The Maine Cats fall short in that area.

  What I would want to take from the design is the deck that's also a cabin.  Great, protected sailing, and just as important, super ventilation when it's warm out.  The helm is right with everyone else, not isolated, but it's also protected.

  You're right about getting four times the boat.  Adding length on will be particularly easy: with the panel process, the materials cost goes up a bit, but the labor is almost the same.  While the Visionarry is a much larger boat than the Harry, the stretched Harry won't cost much more than the shorter version. 

  Some might say "That's not much accommodation for a 50' boat", but I'm the opposite: I look at most cruise-able multihulls and think "That's not much waterline length for the windage and weight of those accommodations".  To each his own.  The longer, lighter boat will be faster and more seaworthy.  It's just that as the condomaran becomes more common, people start thinking that tall, stubby, heavy boats are normal, and start judging faster boats as not having enough interior given their size.

  If I can get a 50' leeward hull with mast heights 64' off the water (maybe 62 like you say), and two doubles, that's probably more boat than I'll ever need, either in terms of accommodations or speed.  To think of getting it for $50,000 or even $80,000 is astounding, especially when you consider that a Corsair F36 is over $200,000, and likely won't be able to compete in terms of performance.  Plus it won't have the unstayed masts, kick-up leeway prevention, ability to fully depower, shunt instead of tack (when needed), and so forth.

  Speaking of leeway prevention, Doug posted some photos of his current hinged rudder stock design:

    http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/6337

  I think I prefer the non-hinged design that Rob is planning for Blind Date because it will probably be stronger, and will kick up fore/aft even if the rudder is at a 45 degree angle.  The hinge might just break at that angle since the impact won't be perpendicular to the hinge's pin.  But we'll see how things test out.

  Sorry about the length of the email; I just can't stop thinking about the proas today.


       - Mike
 

Gardner Pomper wrote:
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