This is mostly boring stuff from the now highly censored proa-file
chat group, posted here for the record. Feel free to ignore it or to
skip to the last paragraph, where you may find something to discuss.
As most of you know I have compared harryproas to Russ Brown's boats,
both here and on the proafile list. Most of the information I have on
Russ' boats came from articles in Cruising World and Wooden Boat
magazines.
A week ago Russ Brown entered the fray on the proafile list with the following:
"Rob is good at making up facts, and I think he's extremely good at
making people believe them, even if he knows it's bull. snip For the
record I will say that not one of Rob's many negative comments about
my boats has been anywhere near factually correct and many are
outright lies made just to squash interest in an opposing concept."
I then sent an email with a list of comparisons and asked him to tell
me which were lies. John Dalziel (owner of the proa list with whom I
had many battles in the days before the first harry was launched) told
me to "tone down the aggression" or I would be thrown off the list,
like "shit out of a seagull". He also ordered everybody to not use
the magazine articles as they were "obsolete".
There followed an email from John telling the moderator how to behave,
one from the moderator suggesting all the problems were caused by "one
person", a couple of 'aggressive' posts from Tony Ruiz, two
'aggressive' ones from Steve Callaghan (CW article author), including
more allegations of lying, and another email from Russ saying "I'm
okay with answering questions as long as I am not asked to compare my
boats with Rob's". The moderator then closed the thread, but allowed
another one to open immediately on the same topic.
While I took Russ' refusal to compare boats to be a tacit admission
that he thinks harrys are superior I will continue to ask him to
either support or remove his statement that I have lied about the
boats. I would also like to continue discussing Steve's comments,
without the personal bits. Following is my answer to his post. The
personal stuff I will ignore. Because it is obvious that I will be
censored on the proafile group, but no one else will be, I am posting
my reply here, where all the serious proa people are members anyway
;-).
from Steve's post
Denny: 1) They are wet boats compared to harryproas. Source: Cruising
World article.
SC: Completely untrue. I never wrote Jzerro was a wet boat. Doesn't
mean you can't get wet. It's a BOAT, Rob, and my rear has gotten wet
on virtually every boat I've sailed. When we did get wet it was
because we were handling foul weather. Pilot houses and dodgers
existed well before HarryProas and can be fit to ANY boat type. I
never compared Jzerro's state of dryness to a HarryProa except to note
that in your videos, taken on flat waters with virtually no whitecaps
with the boat on a reach, your leeward hull is already scooping up a
good amount of water, which would be shed out and down from Jzerro's
bow. Anyone can compare the videos of your boat with claimed speed and
Jzerro with GPS speed shown, which has no water being thrown on deck.
Rob: From CW: "We often take our favorite (and only relatively dry)
seat on the stern".
I agree a pilot house/dodger/sheltered cockpit would be drier, and so
that is what harrys have. Not sure such comfort could be fitted
easily to Jzerro. Regardless, which of the crew of the two boats is
drier? Those in the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8chR6DAFjGA or those in the photo at
http://www.wingo.com/proa/brown/jzerro_lat38.jpg. Which would be
drier if the speeds/conditions were reversed?
Denny: 2) They need constant attention to ballast, trim and steering
to keep the ama (windward hull) from slamming in waves, unlike harrys
which, quite simply, don't. Source: Cruising World article
SC: Untrue. I never wrote or said this, and have corrected you more
than once. I did say that we chose to trim the boat and steer
sometimes to get the best performance out of her. We also let her lope
along a much greater part of the time under autopilot (clearly stated
in article). I also discussed ama shape in relation to having at times
too much stability, and the greatest motion in the boat from the ama
taking off of a wave and then re-entering---not a regular or daily
experience.
Rob: From the article: "When the ama begs to fly, we ..snip.. throw
some weight in the ama, we add an anchor or extra water jug. More
often we remove weight, an unballasted ama rides heavily, ..snip..
racking and shaking the whole boat." Russ now tells us he pumps
water, though not how much or when.
Common sense/physics tells us that a proa needs some weight in the ww
hull in a breeze. Is this sometimes, occasionally or rarely?
Regardless, the question is whether ballast is moved more often than
on a harry when it never happens.
Denny: 3) If Jzerro gybes with the mainsail up in a blow, the mast
gets blown away, unlike a harry where the rig weathercocks, and the
boat slowly stops. Source: Your quote. Same article.
SC: I also have answered this. The conditions at this very limited
time were boisterous, and I would be concerned on any boat. My
conclusions at the time were wrong, but I wrote the article log-style,
accurately recording our greatest worry. In the final analysis, Jzerro
and other Brown proas have been caught aback, sailed aback, laid ahull
the wrong way, and gybed, all without losing their rigs. The splayed
fore/backstays act like swept-back shrouds on boats with big mains and
no backstays, like open-style designs sailed 'round the world
routinely. As for a boat with ballestron rig, even if it can rotate
180 degrees, if it is sheeted off when a gybe occurs, unless the sheet
is freed in time (impossible on autopilot as we were on at the time in
question), it, too, can still impose sufficient loads on the rig to
dismast it.
Rob: After many thousands of words trying to avoid it, an admission
that he was wrong in his article. Russ has never claimed that he was
misquoted, so who knows? Steve is also wrong about ballestrons on
harrys. The sheet leads to the cockpit, there is nothing stopping 180
degree rotation. The jib also slows the rotation so it is much less
violent. Regardless, which one is more likely to lose a rig in a
crash jibe? The boat with very narrow angle stays for the mast and
genoa to press against, or the boat where the boom can swing unimpeded
and weathercock?
There are few or no round the world race boats with small angle swept
back shrouds that don't have backstays plus checkstays and runners
from the hounds. If there were, and they gybed all standing, they
would likely lose their rigs.
Denny: 5) Beam to in big breaking seas, your boats will slip sideways
and, if heeled enough, the large flat pod will act like the lee hull
of a 60's era small float trimaran and cause the boat to capsize
sideways. Source: Trimaran experience.
SC: Oversimplified misleading disinformation: Not much detail about
the trimaran experience, but I sailed quite a lot on FT, a
minimal-bouyancy trimaran, Kauri, and Jzerro, and found that capsize
does not necessarily follow being beam to in big seas. We drove FT
relentlessly with float under water routinely in the 1979 Bermuda
Race, and won. There is as substantive arguments against full-bouyancy
floats contributing to capsize (hulls lift and are subject to forces
from wind and breaking waves). In any case, never has Jzerro or any
Brown proa tripped over the pod. It has proven very effective for
preventing capsize in storm conditions.
Rob: It is about comparisons. Will a boat with a large square sided
pod to lewward slide down a big wave (probably with little or no sail
up and no racing crew) and trip sideways easier than a boat without a
pod? As an example, try pushing a sheet of ply across the water,
then lifting the edge you are pushing. Or read what Shuttleworth says
about short hull trimarans.
Denny: 6) The beams of a Pacific proa need to be stronger than those
of a harry of similar overall weight and beam. If you dispute this,
please tell us what you expect to happen to the beams if the boat is
caught aback in a strong enough gust to lift the accommodation hull.
SC: Curious engineering: Designers I know design for maximum loads,
plus a factor of safety. Newick's approach is to be able to support
entire boat weight on the end of a single beam end. In other words, if
the boats have equal maximum beam, weight and maxium righting moment,
they should have the same beams strengths. A HarryProa type could
reach maximum RM on normal sailing tacts, Pacific proas should the ama
be caught to leeward, that's all. I have no worries about Brown's
proas having enough strength in the cross arms to withstand maximum
load of the ama is caught to leeward. You have zero evidence
otherwise. After crossing oceans and surviving multiple gales, his
boats have suffered no beam failures.
Rob: Correct but Steve misses the comparison. Does a a 60%/40% weight
distribution harryproa sailing normally, or a caught aback 20%/80%
Russ Brown proa have the higher righting moment, and hence need the
heavier beams?
7) 38' Cimba is near enough the same weight as the 50' Blind Date,
with less sail area and much less accommodation. Source: Wooden Boat
magazine layout drawing
SC: Also curious: Not sure how you build a 50 footer with much more
accommodation (and therefore cruising loads)and as you point out
later, much greater righting moment, but at the same weight as a 36-37
foot sporty cruiser that employs pretty lightweight construction (more
below) without either the smaller boat being overbuilt, which it
appears not to be, or yours being underbuilt, but perhaps you do build
with unobtanium.
Rob: As I told Steve three years ago, the reason is pretty obvious.
One type has lower loads, better utilisation of space, better location
of weight and needs less equipment (daggerboard, extra sails, deck
gear, simpler steering and rigging, etc) so will be lighter.
Denny: 8) Sitting in the spray to leeward and having to carry anchors,
chain and equipment back and forth between the hulls in rough seas is
less pleasant than sitting in the sheltered cockpit in the windward
hull of a harry along with all the ballast which can be moved to
leeward in quiet conditions, if required. Source: Cruising World
article
SC: Curious logic and intentional misrepresentation: I don't recall
mentioning HarryProas or comparing. And what you say might be a
partially valid comparison to Brown's boats if we did sit in spray and
humped anchors and chains between hulls a lot, but we didn't and you
know we didn't. Any cockpit can be covered to keep spray off of crew.
Does Brown shift ballast ever? Sure. Did we? Sure. As I recall, at
some days out, we decided the ama was providing too much stability and
was riding too heavily for maximum comfort and speed, so we pulled an
anchor and rode out. No problem at all. Took all of two minutes. We
could, remotely from cockpit, add water ballast should we choose. (I
don't recall ever using it, but Russell may have added some for a bit
while I was off watch). Backwards logic is that if you move ballast to
leeward in light conditions on a Harry, do you go down to that
wave-piercing wet hull in heavy conditions when you need to move it
back to windward? Seems to me a lot safer the other way around as we
did. Also, I like having mast and sail controls at hand as in Jzerro,
not way off on a hull being covered in spray and possibly solid water
with no secure cockpit, especially if one needs to free a snagged
line, reef, or deal with any other rig problem.
Rob: You _can_ move ballast in a harry if it is very light air and
you are racing. You don't _have_ to move it to ensure a comfortable
or a safe ride as the breeze increases, then remove it when it drops.
The assumption that Pac proas do not need righting moment so can have
light, empty windward hulls regardless of breeze strength never ceases
to amaze me.
Denny: 9) Only 4 of your large proas have been built, despite a lot of
effort to sell the concept. This is nothing to do with you, apart from
your quoted negative comments above. It is everything to do with the
excellent Pacific proa web page and the attempts of Joe and Jim Antrim
to sell boats based on yours.
SC: Self-contradictory disinformation: On the one hand, you criticize
Russell for NOT trying to sell plans and being very conservative about
recommending proas to people but now he's making "a lot of effort to
sell the concept." Make up your mind. How the self-evident success of
his designs have inspired others who might want to design similar
proas lends only positive to them. What on earth is your point here?
Rob: I have never criticised Russell, nor said he is trying to sell
the concept. No one has said as many nice things about him over a
longer time in public, than me. The guys doing the selling are on the
Pacific proa web page.
My point? One type of proa, designed, built, sailed and raced for
many miles by the most famous multihull designers very clever son,
written about by one of the USA's most famous journos and pushed on
the world's most popular proa site for 12 years has sold 4 boats. The
other type, designed, built and sailed in a sheltered bay by a no name
ex yachting bum with no famous relatives, who writes his own
articles, has no clue about the web and was totally disparaged by all
the 'experts' at the time, sold more than this before the first
privately owned one was launched and many more since. All the
owners are happy, most of them have had teething troubles, all have
been fixed. Second hand value is poor, but a whole lot better than
Kauri (Russ' 2nd proa) which was noticably not bought by any of the
people who are saying how wonderful such boats are when it was
available for about a tenth of it's cost.
Denny: 10) Your boats are beautifully built but have some weak points,
which I have tried to correct on harryproas. Source: Comments from
people who have sailed them.
SC: Pure and utter nonsense: You continually misquote those who've
sailed with Russell on his boats and you have no experience on them.
Among other things you have lied about, including but not limited to
Russ's crew at Arlie beach and across the Tasman. Even if your proas
address some compromises inherent in a Brown proa, so what? His have
strengths over your compromises. Oh, I forgot, you're the only
designer in history who creates boats without compromises.
Rob: I was quoting Russell that "his boats have weak points". If
this is "pure and utter nonsense", I suggest Steve tells him so.
I don't doubt that Russ' boats have some strengths over mine, or
that my boats have compromises. Just wish it was not so hard getting
him and his fan club to discuss them instead of calling me names.
Denny: 11) Jibs on proa forestays are a nightmare compared to a
ballestron. They either take time to remove and rehank, which has to
be done on a very narrow foredeck with no rails or they are furled
with all the cost, weight and windage aloft this entails. They are
another source of drama if caught aback. Source: last video at
> http://www.wingo.com/proa/brown/video.html#video
SC: Overgeneralized, overstatement, but at least, finally, an actual
reference: I certainly stated that shunting Jzerro took a little time,
but not long once I got the routine down, in part because the sail
area is very small and easy to handle. I also wrote that it all
happens without drama and in complete control. In the video you cite,
it takes Russell from 00:50 to 02:36--less than two minutes--to get
Kauri's jib unhanked, changed to the other end, raised and retrimmed.
The boat already has been accelerating under the main on the new tack.
No one is panicked, nor endangered. Generally, of course you can use
two sails or one and change ends as shown on Kauri. We used two on
Jzerro, which was quite fast; I'd say less than 30 seconds from tack
to tack, and the spare, which is nice to know you have, rests securely
on the prior bow, ready for re-use. In open waters, this may happen
only once in days or weeks. The deck is not narrower than trimarans
I've sailed and can be easily broadened and fit with more lifelines if
one desired. Kauri and Jzerro have some lifelines at the ends,
although minimal, but this has nothing to do with boat type. Also, I
prefer the much wider choice in sail inventory than a fixed ballestron
rig with limitation of working sail (unless, of course, you opt for
multiple sails with all that cost, etc.) One thing I adore about
Russ's boats is the number of sail options available to suit every
condition, from setting double headsails and no mainsail running
downwind to genoas, storm sails, spinnakers. Seems a personal choice
to me.
Rob: Anyone who thinks that shunting with a genoa on the foredeck of
Jzerro on a dark night in big wind and waves is not a nightmare
compared to shunting a harry needs to try it.
Leaving a large genoa hanked to the backstay does not make much sense
either. Presumably, it has to be tied down and untied each shunt,
which may be a little quicker, but is not very seamanlike.
Lots of sail options is great, if you like buying sails, hoisting,
trimming, repairing and changing them. For those who prefer a rig
that works in light and strong air on all points of sail, an unstayed
ballestron is a better bet.
Denny: 12) Deep V hulls with rocker pitch more than rounded hulls with
none. Source: 3rd video, same page, sundry boat design texts.
SC: Where to start with this oversimplified mistruth? The video has no
comparison with a HarryProa video as it is of Kauri going upwind. I
only see HarryProas reaching in calm waters. Pitching is a very
complex issue that has as much to do with weight and its concentration
and how the boat is handled as it does hull shape. Hugo Myers
developed models and tests that indicated the opposite of what you
claim. If you want to see how a full-ended boat with no rocker can
pitch badly, see Orma 60s go upwind against a big chop. That's one
reason designers have compromised in recent years, introduced a bit
more rocker and pinched the sterns of the amas. As the wave crest
passes a full bow, it kicks upward, which can be resisted by a full
stern, but as it passes aft, it also kicks the stern up and bow down,
which can be resisted by a full bow. It's a matter of balance that
designers have sought for centuries. Concentration of weights is very
important, something a challenge to all multihulls with such a
percentage of weight in the beams. Some of the most pitch-resistant
boats have been monohulls with very full sterns and very narrow bows
and weight very concentrated aft of amidships, but these boats had
their own host of problems (wedges heeling out and lifting rudders
free if knocked down; poor ultimate righting moment, etc. There is no
evidence the HarryProa choice is better or worse than Brown's, and
even if you ever prove it true, full ends and no rocker do incorporate
other compromises. Full bows can add to resistance and little rocker
usually slows the boat's ability to turn.
Rob: Which designers are decreasing rocker of trimaran outriggers?
Shuttleworth agrees (see his seaworthiness article) with me as do
most others. The ORMAS are grossly overrigged and pressed hard. The
boat in the video is neither, yet is pitching enough for the cameraman
to have to apologise for it and explain. Full bows are a problem on
wide hulls, less so on narrow ones. Shallow hulls are easy to turn
with fore and aft rudders. I could turn one of the 40' prototypes
in it's own length at 6 knots. The bow on the video harry is much
blunter than it should be, although the entry angle is quite fine.
Plumbing the bow and filling in the round would eliminate most of the
spray.
Denny: 14) The hole in the lee hull for the pod is in a highly loaded
area, as is the cockpit. Both require more strengthening/weight/cost
of the hull than the similar sized hole in the windward hull of a
harryproa.
SC: Utter nonsense: The small companionway opening in Russell's boats
are flanked by huge deck surface areas directly between head/backstays
that are more than sufficient to carry all loads. He has never even
had a hint of failure in these areas and this is a non-issue. The
cockpit is dropped between the beams. It's side that carries the
compression loads of the mast is more than sufficient. No matter where
you put the mast, it is going to exert loads, and an unstayed stick
places enormous twisting loads on the hull (and in a Harry's case, the
end of beams in that hull. Loads are loads, and to pretend they exist
only on Brown proas is simple folly. Quite the other way around:
Normal working loads on a boat with greater displacement,
higher-volume hulls, and greater righting moment are much, much
greater. This is basic physics (force equals mass times acceleration
or deceleration). Also, not sure why HarryProas have smaller
companionways, but if they are, they're very tight indeed.
Rob: I was not arguing whether Jzerro was strong enough, or well
built. It is both. However, a hole in a hull with forestay and
backstay ( lee hull on Jzerro) will be more highly loaded than one in
a hull with no mast (ww hull on a harry). Nor did I mention
companionway size.
While "loads are loads", the way they are resisted is very different.
Forestay, backstay and resulting compression loads are all Jzerro
specific and need the entire hull to be strong enough to resist them.
Bending loads from an unstayed mast are harry specific and need 20
bucks worth of carbon tow and an extra layer of glass between the
beams to resist them. This is one of the reasons harrys can be so
light without using unobtanium (see #7 above).
The implication that the Pacific proa has lower loads due to lower rm
is wrong. If both boats are carrying the same sail area, they will
have the same capsize moment, be using the same righting moment
(augmented by ballast in the case of the Pacific) and seeing the same
loads, all else being equal. If both boats are reefed, they will
still have the same cm and loads and need the same rm. The harry has
higher _reserve_ rm. It is not until the Pac proa reefs or flies a
hull that the rm on the harry is higher.
Denny: 15) The drag of the pod on the lee side of the lee hull is
higher than if it was on the _lee_ side of the windward hull.
SC: Again, utter nonsense. You have zero evidence of this. It might be
true if the lee pod dragged all the time, but it rarely touches water.
On the contrary, if on the windward side, the pod would be routinely
exposed to breaking waves, especially in beam seas. When struck, the
large area of pod and a hull to support it in a windward proa must
suffer significant slamming.
Rob: Again, 'rarely' on the lee hull of the podboat vs never on the
harry. The accommodation pod on a harry is on the _lee_ side of the
ww hull. It is never exposed to breaking waves, or immersed.
Denny: 16) A harry with the same accommodation as Jzerro would beat it
in a race. Source: The weights, sail areas, righting moments and
lengths of the two boats.
SC: Pure speculation based on nothing real. You will get sillier and
sillier. Weight, sail area, and righting moment are but a small piece
of the overall performance figure and balance between developing power
and reducing resistance. You supply no evidence that any Harry is
remotely competitive. All I can say is, in your dreams. And if it were
true, why didn't you take the opportunity to show us when Russ sailed
all the way across the Pacific and remained in your general backyard
and raced Jzerro? I know, you have plenty of excuses.
Rob: Those "small pieces" make up about 80% of the performance
potential for similar boat types. Add in windage and wetted surface,
rig height, wetted surface, holes in the hulls and there is not much
else of importance.
Re competitive and dreams: On the proa list 3 years ago Steve
challenged me to a $1,000 winner takes all race between Jzerro and a
harry with the same accommodation. There were about a dozen people
prepared to back the harry with cash vs none prepared to back Jzerro.
Steve stopped posting. Good to have him back, I am still
interested in the wager.
Re Russ in Australia. Russ asked if anyone could help him find
somewhere to leave his boat. I offered to do so, and also asked when
he would be here so I could meet him. Got no reply. Me and my boat
were in Perth. Bit like me turning up in Florida, not telling
anyone I was there, then criticising Russ for not bringing Jzerro down
from Seattle for a race in his "general backyard". When I eventually
heard Jzerro was in Brisbane, I flew over to have a look and hopefully
renew my acquaintance with Russ. He had gone, but I had a look at the
boat on the hard, did some measuring and weighing.
Denny: 17) The leeward pod is weight in the worst possible place.
Source: boat design texts.
SC: Baffling disinformation: Worst for what? Yes, it puts some weight
to leeward, but boat stability is based on center of weights and the
pod is a very small weight compared to the overall boat weight and the
center of gravity is well enough to windward to create more than
enough righting moment. At the same time, the pod provides superb
accommodations volume and reserve buoyancy. To say it's in the worst
place is like saying to lee half of a monohull is in the worst place
because the weight would be better on the windward side. Can boats
have too much stability? Well, yes. In large craft, it can result in a
high metacenter, which produces more aggravated motion that can become
dangerous. In small craft, it just means usually a harsher motion, and
unnecessary drag to carry sail. From the available videos of Harrys,
which are sailing in very benign conditions on reaches, it appears to
me that the masts are already pushed close to their limits, or at
least show enough mast bend to already be spilling wind from the
sails, but the windward hulls are still firmly planted in the sea. Why
would you need the weight of a pod to give the platform more power
than it can develop?
Rob:
The analogy is flawed. It makes sense if you say the crew sitting to
leeward are in the worst place and should move to windward, and take
as much stuff as they can with them.
Jzerro would not need the weight of the pod if the platform was using
all the power it could develop. But if it was, you would not be
pumping water ballast when the wind blew.
If flying a hull is considered a good thing, a harry has too much rm
up to about 30 knots, when it flies a hull. No idea what the number
is for Jzerro with an empty ww hull, despite asking many times, but
probably less than half this.
The masts in the videos are nowhere near their limits.
Denny, finally: 18) Double diagonal construction is slower and more
expensive than strip planking, both of which are slower than infused
flat panels.
SC: Say what? I spent five years building cold-molded hulls, and knew
many who built strip plank, etc. We always figured it was six of one
half dozen of the other in terms of difficulty and time. Much of any
significant difference had to do with the individual design and
details---is the framework inherent in the structure or is a mold
required; can the surfaces be built with a more efficient method like
Constant Camber; etc. Both methods remain competitive on a
strength-per-weight basis and time to construct basis as cored
fiberglass. All are best if vacuum bagged, but this can sound more
intimidating than it is. Jim Brown and others have shown it can be
learned quickly and practiced in places as remote as the middle of a
jungle. AS for infused panels, well the folks who invented it at
Tillotson Pearson, and the professional yards that use it routinely,
like Hinckley and Gold Coast, all talk about how difficult it is to
get right, flat panels or otherwise. You must be very careful to get
full infusion without pooling. Dry spots are a disaster. I know of
none of these folks who would recommend infusion for amateur building
without training and supervision. If folks are successful with it,
good on them, but for a one-off, I don't think I would bother to
attack it any more than building a big oven and doing pre-preg.
Rob: Australia and NZ were the most prolific wooden/amateur boat
building countries in the world in the 80's and 90's. Why? Because
strip planking was so much quicker (and easier) than double diagonal
which it replaced. I was involved with hundreds of them, they
would no more have used dd than ferro.
Infusing flat panels is very simple. "Pooling" is a non event, "dry
spots" are rare and easily fixed during the process. Derek Kelsall
teaches all you need to know about flat panel infusion in an
afternoon, or you can buy a sheet of glass and teach yourself.
I hope Steve's comments on Russ' boats are based on better knowledge
than his comments on infusing flat panels vs prepreg and ovens.
SC: Rob, I can understand why you might want to justify your
fantasies, but trying to build your career and sell boat plans based
on nothing more than making stuff up to belittle Russell Brown's work,
which is just so amazingly successful in the real world, is really
quite pathetic and irritating at the same time. I would gain a good
deal from you and begin to gather up a tad of respect for you if you
would begin to be more candid about your own failures and learning
curve, and to cite real sources for information on your boats,
particularly your clients accounts of building and sailing them. I
looked at Sailing Anarchy for a reference to one of your boats
crossing the Tasman, and found nothing, for example. The only
reference I saw, which you quoted, noted that the mast was stayed en
route, presumably to limit its flex, and the lee hull suffered from
flexing. You claim to having created the only commercially successful
proa in the world, but you also complain that you never have enough
dough to stick together and equip a boat to prove anything. That just
doesn't fit together. You live in Australia but are conspicuously
absent even the local regattas. And so why, I ask, should anyone take
you seriously, and why do you presume to waste everyone's time until
you begin to limit your discussions to one topic that can be
rationally covered? Please, Rob, give all of us, including yourself, a
break.
Rob:
For harry information, read the posts on this group.
Re Aroha (40'ter that crossed the Tasman). The mast was stayed for
the latter part of the journey because they broke a hull frame in or
after a 36 hour storm with 45 knot winds, causing the hull to flex.
They still managed 12 knots for long periods under double reefed main
and no jib. I can't report more than I have as this is all I know.
Anyone can quote all of it, though. None of it was written for
"entertainment" or "assuming an uneducated audience", nor was it
written "log-style". None of it will be changed in 10 years time if I
need to change my story and no one will be given "the seagull shit"
treatment if they quote it on a chat group.
My failures and learning curves are well documented on
www.harryproa.com, proafile and the harryproa chat groups. You can
also find them through SA, crew.org.nz, the steam radio multihull
list, the yahoo multihull builders list and various cruising multihull
forums. I have shared more information on building, breaking,
sailing and designing proas on these groups than anybody anywhere.
Enough for a "tad of respect"?
The thing is, people have to belong to the groups and participate to
get this information, not just swing by every three years, spill some
vitriol and leave. Some have also needed to open their minds a
little.
Harryproas have proven that the concept works offshore, in tight
corners, in big waves, in light and heavy air and at speed. They
handle well, shunt easily, are comfortable and easy to sail. All the
owners contribute to this list and have no qualms about telling me
when I stuff up or their ideas are different to mine. We work
together to sort the problems.
I have done more racing than 99% of the members of all proa lists,
probably built more boats too. Certainly built more proas. These
days, I prefer to spend my sailing time teaching my daughter and her
friends how to sail and spend my available money improving the build
techniques. Not only is this far more interesting to me, but it
enables my clients to build a lighter, cheaper boat.
For example, a local professional builder has almost finished the
second hull of a 50'ter, with near enough the same accommodation as
Jzerro. It is built from infused flat panels (no pools, no dry
spots), cost $AUS35,000 painted and ready to go, without the rig, the
cost of which will vary with the options chosen. The ww hull weighs
160 kgs/350 lbs, the leeward one is about the same, and will be under
200kgs/440 lbs when finished. The beams weigh 25 kgs/55 lbs each.
Completed boat about 500 kgs/1100 lbs. The builder has a waiting
list for future boats, while most other one off builders in Australia
have gone out of business. Before this boat could be started, I
spent $26,000 and 6 months building a prototype to ensure that the
method would work properly. Photos, costs, hours, problems, solutions
and discussions are all in the harryproa archives along with the same
information on other boats I have built.
Discussing this is of far more interest to me than rehashing the same
old arguments about Russ' boats vs harrys, particularly when neither
Russ, Steve, John or Tony can do so without calling me names.
For a change, let's turn the discussion round. Here are 11 ways that
I think Jzerro could be as good or better than harrys. Let's discuss
them.
1) Unlikely to be capsized to leeward by wind strength
2) More warning that you are pushing too hard.
3) Easier to store the ww hull when disassembled.
4) Easier to climb aboard the windward hull in a MOB or from a dinghy.
5) Far better physical workout.
6) Better for drying out due to V bottom and rocker.
7) Lot of sails onboard for sleeping on, sea anchors or covering
puncture holes in the hull.
8) More traditional looking.
9) Easier to fly a hull, which is more fun and more likely to get your
picture taken than not.
10) More to do so not boring.
11) Able to walk to the bow on both hulls.
Others?
rob
