What's better:  a) The most-efficient design?   Or,  b) A slightly less-efficient design that avoids likely failures or massive slowdowns inherent in the more efficient design?"

I think they call that a wickedly difficult problem : )

Perfection is the enemy of good enough. The HP is good enough, which is rare praise from me by the way. I don't think I have seen a better design for what it is intended to do, which is nice, fast, efficient sailing.

The problem with the HP is that it is tantalizingly close to perfection, but doesn't do anything perfectly.  Every 'improvement' comes with a trade off, better accommodations makes it heavier, putting the rudders in the hull makes it faster, and more complex, expensive and susceptible to damage. Stayed masts give more power, but cause more drag, stress and weight.  Adding engines and props are tough to do and maybe unnecessary.

It does everything well, especially use the wind efficiently, but there are other boats that do one or two individual things better than an HP. Race boats are faster, cruising boats have more accommodations, Mega yachts empty wallets faster, etc.

Rob's real genius isn't the Proa concept, it is his correctly using engineering and material properties that results in lighter, stronger, stiffer, cheaper, better boat and mast designs and applying them to the Proa. In a game of fractional improvements, it is a game changer. It may not sound like much but it is huge.  

The proa can be optimized for any particular design and the tradeoffs are understood. The template is there, it is up to us to apply it. I am trying to understand it's implications to use it for a cruising HP to keep my wife happy.

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use