I like the idea of roll down clears but I am not sure about them for heavy off shore conditions, especially beating in nasty weather in the tasman. I am planning on a top like on Aroha which can be snugged down and everyone simply has to sit when things get nasty. clears could be used for when it is reasonable or not going to weather.
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> Given that you live in Maine and sail with your wife and young daughter, I
> would suggest that it would be handy to have the table in the cockpit,
> shielded from the wind with roll up plastics. Then when you are sailing with
> your wife, you can roll them down and she will stay warm, and when you want
> more peformance, you can roll them up and eliminate the windage. If you
> had a permanent hardtop, you would still have some windage from it, but
> maybe you could have a completely removable bimini that you leave off on
> your hard-core, flying a hull, sailing days.
>
> I know I sailed my Maine Cat 30 in Maine in November in short sleeves,
> because the roll down plastics really kept the solar heat in. All the
> monohull sailors (what few I saw) were bundled up in their ski jackets and
> wool caps, all the way down to Virginia.
>
> By keeping the table in the cockpit, the family can all be together when you
> are sailing. It also lessens the chance that your wife or daughter would get
> seasick belowdecks.
>
> My daughter was 4 when we took off for the Bahamas in our Maine Cat. She
> could care less about the sailing, but she could be up in the cockpit with
> us, playing with her Barbies, or coloring, or whatever, right at the table.
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > <<By imposing the restriction that it must fit in a standard shipping
> > container (not high top, or 48' or whatever), I am constrained to prioritize
> > the minimum of what I can go for>>
> >
> > Very nice. Without a hard limit, it's a very slippery slope. And then
> > soon you end up with a 60' schooner capable of holding 12 people. But
> > nowhere to moor it, store it, and no budget to build it.
> >
> > I'm working towards a similar box rule, but with a different box:
> >
> > - The largest boat that can fit under an ICW bridge with a Bruce number
> > of 2.0.
> >
> > - The largest boat that can collapse down to 12' for transportation over
> > roadways without an escort.
> >
> > - The least windage possible given the previous two constraints -- no
> > bridgedeck cabin or hard bimini, and perhaps without standing room in the
> > head.
> >
> > - The smallest boat that can fit a saloon table inside the ww hull.
> >
> > - A boat which can be collapsed on the water and still steered. That
> > probably means putting the wheel(s) in the cockpit and the rudders on the lw
> > hull. Which is another reason for wanting a table inside.
> >
> > - A rig I can singlehand without using winches on each shunt. I may
> > sacrifice the ability to shunt without putting down a cold beverage, or
> > without switching to the opposite bench. But that's as far as I'll go. I
> > want something an idiot can sail if I become incapacitated.
> >
> >
> > The main reason for the table inside is that while my wife loves to join
> > me for a sail, she tends to get cold below 70 degrees when it's windy. That
> > limit seriously shortens the season where we can sail together here in
> > Maine. Thus, it would be great to have an interior space where she and our
> > 11-month-old daughter (2 1/2 years by the time we build a proa?) can be warm
> > and safe.
> >
> > Judging from the interior of Blind Date (
> > http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/10306322/sn/1252178567/name/n_a ), it would
> > not be too difficult to fit a modest table next to one of the bunks. It
> > would cut down on privacy for that bunk, and obviously shorten the galley,
> > which would have to end before the table, but it could be done by flaring
> > the ww hull.
> >
> > The added weight would be minimal, and since it wouldn't add to our
> > ability to carry more guests or store more gear, it shouldn't affect the
> > wetted surface area that much.
> >
> > But I haven't tried to draw it yet. We're working on house designs, and
> > while my wife has already agreed to the purchase of four boats since we
> > started our house plans, it's time for me to stop asking. The proa can
> > follow the house once we have the resources to do it.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > Gardner Pomper wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Commenting on the container idea:
> >
> > From what I see, it costs about $6000 to ship a container between pretty
> > much any two ports. I figure there will probably be at least $1000 expenses
> > in assembling/disassembling the boat and getting it into a container, plus
> > another $1000 for who knows what. So, I think that shipping the boat will
> > cost about $8000. That doesn't really make sense for getting it to europe,
> > because I can hire a captain to deliver it for less than that. But, if I
> > want to get it to Australia or New Zealand, then it does make sense.
> >
> > I have no particular plans for any specific shipments, but I find the
> > concept of a container useful in a couple of ways. First, it opens the
> > possibility of my getting the boat built overseas (for example, by the
> > people involved in building Rob's boat right now) and getting the bare hull
> > shipped to me to outfit and equip at a reasonable price.
> >
> > Second, it limits the size of the boat I can design. I have found that my
> > designs tend to get bigger and bigger as I add in all the things that I (and
> > particularly my wife) would like to have in a boat. This easily translates
> > to twice the cost, twice the time, and therefore 1/4 the probability that it
> > will ever happen. By imposing the restriction that it must fit in a standard
> > shipping container (not high top, or 48' or whatever), I am constrained to
> > prioritize the minimum of what I can go for
> >
> > That minimum, at the moment, is for me to singlehand the boat, but for my
> > daughter and possibly a friend, to come visit. So, this means 2 bunks. Then
> > I want a bridgedeck with a table to eat at, that can be enclosed against the
> > weather, and space to walk around in and a galley up (since I am very prone
> > to seasickness if I spend any time belowdecks).
> >
> > The end result of all this a 40' proa, with a 23'-24' beam that (wild
> > estimate) will weigh about 2000 lbs, and have a normal payload of about
> > another 2000 lbs.
> >
> > If I figure Rare Birds SA/D ratio as sqrt(774)/pow(10000,0.33) = 1.33 fully
> > loaded and want to match/exceed that, I come up with a required sail area of
> > 350 sq ft. Harry comes out about 1.43 fully loaded. If I want mine to be
> > 1.5, then my sail area would need to be 560 sq ft.
> >
> > With a 39' mast (34' luff) and a 7.5' boom, with an 80% roach, each sail
> > comes in at about 200 sq ft. If I can add a 4'x25' jib to each mast as an
> > easyrig, I can add another 100 sq ft, bringing it up to 500 sq ft, which is
> > at least in the right ballpark.
> >
> > I need to work the numbers better, especially the weights. When I try to
> > work with just the panel weights, I get only about 1500 lbs, which is
> > lighter than harry, which makes no sense since it is a much bigger ww hull
> > area and a big hardtop. So, I will keep working on it.
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> >
> >
> >
>