Yeah I know How easy the weight adds up on the small craft a few extra bulkheads and taped seems adds up quick. I'm not saying by any means your configuration is wrong just pointing out things to consider possibly. Its your boat and suits your needs. Much respect to you.

Srcew the mast head float and sheltered waters if you can't keep it up right or self rescue you shouldn't be out there. Stay in the sheltered waters!!!

Todd

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Answering your post below:
>  
> I don't have much heavy gear, mostly it is my own weight.
> Say about 50kgs max extra (30kg water, cooker, pots and pan, books). No outboard or fuel.
> One small spare anchor.
> I couldn't give the hull weights, I could try and work it all out on the maerials itemised, but that would take a while.
> I understand the design viewpoint" it should be a narrower overall beam that i made it last time. And you should have a mast heaad float and sealed mastto go swizzing around on one hull.
> There was a lot less cabin and interior stuff on the original (poptop plans). So i have added a lot of weight there, and ofcourse lots of extra work adds more taping and bulkheads.
> If it was in sheltered waters and made for it, you could still sail around with a "dinghy" attitude.
> I went over width when i looked at how tall the 11m mast was and new i would be trying to cruise far afield.
>
> Doug
>
> --- On Sat, 1/1/11, tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:
>
> From: tsstproa <bitme1234@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Hull slenderness ratios ww hull lengths
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Date: Saturday, 1 January, 2011, 5:21
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I know it probably sounded like a really simply question that one obviously could have answered him/her self. But coming from a Pacific proa stand point, regardless of windward hull length. Your adding to the over all weight of proa by having a windward hull large enough to support weight of stuffs and crew. Would that be a logical conclusion?
>
>
>
> Never thought of Robs windward hull as having a wide waterline beam, just large structure with large amount of volume.
>
>
>
> I tend to believe making windward hull as high as possible in length to beam ratio for the given length and weight to be carried for a given draft. Especially for the smaller craft. To compensate for shorter length.
>
>
>
> Haven't run the displacement for what draft numbers, but running a WW hull 4.26m/ 14' length with a waterline beam width of 25.4cm /10'' gets you double your 8/1 for a 16.8/1 length to beam ratio. Pushing it to 16'L x 12''w gets you greater weight carrying ability on a little wide waterline beam with a 2'' increase from 10'' to 12'' with a 16/1 ratio or keep the 10''wlb for 19/2 ratio, just a thought. Whats your load out on extended cruising and the weight when just out for a day sail on windward hull? +/-
>
>
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > well you might save 10-15kgs, by not having an extra 2m of b0w.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Thu, 30/12/10, tsstproa <bitme1234@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: tsstproa <bitme1234@>
>
> > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Hull slenderness ratios ww hull lengths
>
> > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
>
> > Date: Thursday, 30 December, 2010, 2:26
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > How do you save weight by having shorter hull? If that's the hull you have all your gear stowed in and its the hull you sail from?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Thinking now - maybe higher bridge deck/beam clearance.
>
> >
>
> > > SWome splash guards deflecting spray and white water and even green (or can it be blue as well) water out of cockpit.
>
> >
>
> > > The El camper is only 8:1 ww hull compared with 12:1 harry ww hull. I wonder what Sol and $Rapscallion length to beam ratios are?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > A little extra lenght or buoyancy or free board and a pointier bow is what i'd want.
>
> >
>
> > >  
>
> >
>
> > > I don't mind saving weight with a short ww hull, but it has to go THROUGH the waves almost as much as the lw hull (which performs sweetly in slicing through chop).
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I was sthinking say doing somethging based on solitarry, with two beams and schooner.
>
> >
>
> > > Maybe not 8m wide, maybe like about 6m wide.
>
> >
>
> > > Something similar to Rob's ww cabin, but the way that the cabin ends just right on the bow with the flares all coming in to that point and the beams as well , it just looks like there is a anothere forward section missing fromit.
>
> >
>
> > > Another 2m with a foredeck would be nicer I reckon.
>
> >
>
> > > How much extra weight is that?
>
> >
>
> > > 10kgs?15 kgs?
>
> >
>
> > > Not much more.
>
> >
>
> > > So that is a 7m ww hull, plus 2x2m = 11m ww hull all up.
>
> >
>
> > > I think a Vis is 12m.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Doug
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --- On Wed, 29/12/10, proaconstrictor <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > From: proaconstrictor <proaconstrictor@>
>
> >
>
> > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Hull slenderness ratios
>
> >
>
> > > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
>
> >
>
> > > Date: Wednesday, 29 December, 2010, 19:51
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >  
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I mean ideally you would have a ww hull as narrow as the lw wouldn'tÃÆ'‚  you?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I fact why not a 15m ww hull as well?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > That presupposes that longer hull = better. That isn't always the case. But it becomes a difficult issue to discuss when the objectives of the various parties aren't agreed upon.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > When the HP is sailing full throttle the main hull is being lifted up, and the LW is being pressed down. So relative to drag, how dissimilar are their resistances. relative to longi stability, one can always ask the further question that while one could extend the WW hull waterline length would that weight, slight as it could be, be better spent extending the length of the LW hull which is the one getting tossed around by the rig and various drive action.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It is assume in the Multihull case often, that longer and narrower are always faster. That isn't true of all boats. Boats that are paddled can start to experience increased drag when they assume higher wetted surface areas. Another complex issues with lots of types. While this might not be an issue when heavily driven, I wonder if two equally long hulls will perform as well it light conditions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There used also to be some stuff about how the proa hulls encounter waves, that suggested that shorter WW hulls where better. I leave that to those who are interested in making the case. What about shunting, is there any advantage there to a shorter hull given the different path it gets dragged through, and rocker.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There is also a lot of posturing on over and under length issues. What waterline length is the length for record, and for comparison purposes. is a Harryproa a 20+ foot boat with a 40' waterline, or a forty foot ama with a really short main hull. What features have been optimized to create what relative benefits.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There is also and aesthetic issue, that is hardly going to be controlling with this type. But proas have traditionally had the shorter WW hull. Presumably nobody cares about that. Most people haven't drunk the Kool Aid, and those that have are not going to be affected by traditional proportions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>