<<We need to be far longer in proportion to the accomodations
I think. Or is it just that we can afford to go longer without much
extra weight and expense?>>
Both! Of course, I'm guessing the question was semi-rhetorical.
The cost is low enough to where it's silly to try to save money
with shorter hulls -- the performance hit wouldn't generate any
real savings.
I'm not sure one /can/ accurately explain the whole proa length
thing. I try to explain the 40 footer as a really fast 30-footer,
the same way an Outremer 45 has the accommodation space of some
35-foot cruising catamarssn. Since people seem to somewhat
readily accept that the Outremer is a fast boat that has added
length for performance, they seem to start to understand the
proa.
However, that doesn't help people get over their discomfort with
the unexpected proa form factor. And I'm not sure there's much
that can be said in that department to convince a naysayer of the
proa's value.
Gardner was trying to find a succinct and convincing explanation
for a while. Any luck with that, Gardner?
- Mike
Doug Haines wrote:
|
That video has some nice hull flying in it.
Not a huge cabin. But of a camper class cruiser
maybe.
Well it is the long hulls that I loved about
sidecar (lw hull at least).
It sticks way out and is so thin and slices
through not hobby-horsing.
No wake turbulence and so on.
There are a few people doing there large
cruising cat with 40' accomodations but extending
out their cat hulls to about 60'. Longer but
skinnier.
I don't think the leeward hull length of a proa
should be compared exactly to a catamaran length
though. We need to be far longer in proportion to
the accomodations I think.
Or is it just that we can afford to go longer
without much extra weight and expense?
Doug
Western Australia.
|