Proaconstrictor and Rob,Thanks all for the input. I posted similar to
the proa file and it didn't seem that they could grasp the concept to
give decent criticism-Possibly they saw the word Elementarry and
their cognitive facilities immediately paralysed.

Will post the sketches to files as soon as I get the bandages off my
hand (carelessness with a stanley knife while refurbbishing the
bathroom)and have couple or three evenings to tidy up and get all
views and dimensions consistant. I'll have to guess the present
Elementarry spcings from the pictures, especially the heights of
crossbeams and the distance betweeen them.

I agree about windage,especially as smooth flow would be obstructd by
having to make hand holds for getting to the rudders and rigs but
there should not be that much more weight except for the fact that it
needs heavier ground tackle and is now a permanent cabin that will
accumulate things that may come in handy. This would probably mean
slightly fatter and/or deepr hulls Speedy access to both rudders is
compromised but it is for cruising, not racing. A hard cockpit
configuration should be more comfortable than presnt arrangement and
be no more wet, maybe less as the spray from the bow is less likely
to get you.

As for comfort inside in a blow, our little Jarcat is extremely
comfortable and cosey in the cabin.  I just wish it could sail a bit
faster and handle the heavy chop without stalling. I think the
concept melded to a Harryproa could do this.

Rob,
Please don't feel any pressure on my part for the weight analysis. I
don't plan on building this in the foreseeable future as my next boat
build will be a Harry and we can micro cruise on the Jarcat
meanwhile, but I thought I'd share my satisfaction with aspects of
the Jarcat and how it could be melded to a Harryproa.
If I wanted a microcruiser from scratch, or if I wasn't almost ready
for a Harry, I would probably go this route.

Good luck with the Elementarry. Its a long haul to the West coast A
bit sad for the crew at Urunga that you're taking their toy away.
When and where will you be in Sydney as I may be able to get away for
a day during the weeek? 0485438515 should get me.
Robert

In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> Everything is a compromise.  You are adding weight, windage and
sacrificing ease of getting round the boat for more space.   No
problem with the cockpit to windward, except it may not be very
comfortable from a sitting point of view.  The bridge deck cabin is
not what I would do, but will give you some space while sailing.  Not
sure whether it will be very habitable in weather when it is likely
to be needed.  Need to do a pretty detailed weight analysis and
decide whether to increase the hull size.  Feel free to send me the
sketches, or put them in the Files section and I will comment in more
detail.
>
> I am away for the next couple of weeks, so do not expect prompt
replies.  Going to Coffs to pick up Elementarry, then to Sydney for a
week of sailing (anyone want a go, let me know) and kite demos, then
driving boat and car to Perth for some serious
practise/debugging/making the kite work prior to our assault on
Europe.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:30 AM

Subject: [harryproa] elementarry cruiser

i've been sketching a 2.5m wide Elementarry with a folding out
cockpit to windward another 1.2-1.5m. It can either be a tramp held
up with a beam as in 18' skiffs or it could be a solid floor
arrangement with the raised seat to ww giving extra clearance at the
extremes. I can't see that it would be any more of a problem with
chop than the wings on skiffs or the bridge decks on tris.

Having the cockpit to ww frees up the rest of the boat for
accommodation. It is possible to put a Jarcat type cabin between the
hulls with the floor of the cabin going slightly below the
crossbeams. This would leave the top of the cabin ~60-70cm above the
height of the crossbeams and similar headroom to that of the Jarcat
5.  Narrow walkways could be left between the cabin and the
crossbeams for easy access to the working bits and pieces. Access to
the cabin could be on either end of the cabin on the inside edge of
the ww hull or through a top hatch.

This configuration gives a legal towing width and good stability and
makes it very quick to get it from towing to sailing to sleeping. I
can't see that it should be significantly heavier than the present
camping version, (though it may not be a pretty).

Regards
Robert

We had some threads on this kind of thing a while back. I think it is
essential if one is going to get something that can really be trailer
sailed.  Not just sailed and at times on a trailer, but as easily
launched as a purpose built trailer boat should be.  We explored
varialbe and water ballast, and and the jarcat configuration.

I know that Rob didn't much like the idea at the time, but he has
come around on the dual spars, so who knows where we currently stand.

For me the Jarcat and G32 pave the way.  If a proa configuration is
advantageous for all boats, then it should be ideal here too.


--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
wrote:
>
> i've been sketching a 2.5m wide Elementarry with a folding out
> cockpit to windward another 1.2-1.5m. It can either be a tramp held
> up with a beam as in 18' skiffs or it could be a solid floor
> arrangement with the raised seat to ww giving extra clearance at
the
> extremes. I can't see that it would be any more of a problem with
> chop than the wings on skiffs or the bridge decks on tris.
>
> Having the cockpit to ww frees up the rest of the boat for
> accommodation. It is possible to put a Jarcat type cabin between
the
> hulls with the floor of the cabin going slightly below the
> crossbeams. This would leave the top of the cabin ~60-70cm above
the
> height of the crossbeams and similar headroom to that of the Jarcat
> 5.  Narrow walkways could be left between the cabin and the
> crossbeams for easy access to the working bits and pieces. Access
to
> the cabin could be on either end of the cabin on the inside edge of
> the ww hull or through a top hatch.
>
> This configuration gives a legal towing width and good stability
and
> makes it very quick to get it from towing to sailing to sleeping. I
> can't see that it should be significantly heavier than the present
> camping version, (though it may not be a pretty).
>
> Regards
> Robert

i've been sketching a 2.5m wide Elementarry with a folding out
cockpit to windward another 1.2-1.5m. It can either be a tramp held
up with a beam as in 18' skiffs or it could be a solid floor
arrangement with the raised seat to ww giving extra clearance at the
extremes. I can't see that it would be any more of a problem with
chop than the wings on skiffs or the bridge decks on tris.

Having the cockpit to ww frees up the rest of the boat for
accommodation. It is possible to put a Jarcat type cabin between the
hulls with the floor of the cabin going slightly below the
crossbeams. This would leave the top of the cabin ~60-70cm above the
height of the crossbeams and similar headroom to that of the Jarcat
5.  Narrow walkways could be left between the cabin and the
crossbeams for easy access to the working bits and pieces. Access to
the cabin could be on either end of the cabin on the inside edge of
the ww hull or through a top hatch.

This configuration gives a legal towing width and good stability and
makes it very quick to get it from towing to sailing to sleeping. I
can't see that it should be significantly heavier than the present
camping version, (though it may not be a pretty).

Regards
Robert

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul and Barbara Nudd

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Racing harryproa issues

Rob Denney wrote:

Not this windsurfer!  At speed, I invariably go in to leeward!    Raking a rotating, keel stepped mast in a narrow hull is not as easy as it sounds.  However, the main problem is that as the boat heels, the mast becomes more upright, making the capsize quicker and more inevitable.  For total non heeling, the angle of windward rake has to be quite high.

 

regards,

 

Rob

---------------------------
Yes and then you get no forward drive. The tri's cant the rig to windward relative to the the non-heeling hull so that it will be upright and most efficient when the boat is heeling at it's normal sailing angle.
Paul Nudd

If one is going to all this trouble why not just have the mast move to windward and have a lifting component on the LW hull as in windsurfing. From observation it seems the windsurfer doesn't go over to leeward but ends up draging his rear to windward.
Just a casual observation with little thought!

--- In harryproa@..., "dominiquebovey"
<dominiquebovey@y...> wrote:

snip
Therre seems to be plenty of reserve bouyancy forward. This
configuration has to be better than a trimaran as the lw hull is
considerably longer--I remember early criticism of the Harry concept
that it would drag its stern! I an't see why a platform such as on
skiffs couldn't be used for extra stability. They manage to go quite
quickly without falling over too often - even without the 'training
wheel' of the ww hull. I was wondering it the platform could even be
organised with a fold over canopy for sleeping.


On another note, it seems that ease of shunting is helped by reducing
the distance between hulls. This brings back a previous idea of
having a slight pod to ww to improve the galley.

I also have an ugly duckling of a Jarcat. I am very fond of Mandy and
impressed by the engineering and thought that has gone into the
design. For its length and cost it is still one of the best in the
micro cruisers, especially as the ease in getting into the water. 20
minutes is our best so far from arrival at the ramp to being ready to
sail. It is quite remarkable how every thing works and we regularly
sleep on board. I feel it could be better with more low down forward
bouyancy to reduce hobby horsing- possibly something like the Marlin
Broadbill powercats- and is a bit underpowered in light airs-
especially if over loaded. Still, the boat is 20 years old, still
gets used and is a delight once the wind gets above 15-20 knots.
I have racked my brain as to how to get the same level of
accommodation in a Harryproa of the same width and ww length. I feel
the cockpit needs to be central of the ww hull but this gets in the
way of accommodation in small ww hulls unless you; take over the
decks right up to the lw hull, thus raising the height of the rigs;
provide some mechanical means of converting the cockpit; or have an
offset cockpit and a ww platform. By the same token, stick some wings
on a Jarcat and you can give it some decent sail area.
I'll just have to wait until I build a 9m ww Harry- a size where
things start getting easier to fit.

Robert








>

----- Original Message -----

From: ppl_rjg

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:19 AM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Racing harryproa issues

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
>> I pretend with these two features a HP can be a very good racing
> machine. You are able to hold more canvas, get better control of
the
> mast(s), and decrease the risk of capsize.
>
>
> Whaddya think of it you all?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob

If one is going to all this trouble why not just have the mast move
to windward and have a lifting component on the LW hull as in
windsurfing. From observation it seems the windsurfer doesn't go
over to leeward but ends up draging his rear to windward.

Just a casual observation with little thought!

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
>> I pretend with these two features a HP can be a very good racing
> machine. You are able to hold more canvas, get better control of
the
> mast(s), and decrease the risk of capsize.
>
>
> Whaddya think of it you all?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob

If one is going to all this trouble why not just have the mast move
to windward and have a lifting component on the LW hull as in
windsurfing. From observation it seems the windsurfer doesn't go
over to leeward but ends up draging his rear to windward.

Just a casual observation with little thought!

----- Original Message -----

From: dominiquebovey

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 10:07 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Elementarry racing in Europe

G'Day all,


Rob wrote:
> Re racing on Europes lakes.  I will be racing the first Wangka boat
in > Europe this year.  High on the list is Bol d'Or on Lake Geneva.
> > > > Unfortunately, this clashes with Texel (800 beach cats round
an island > in the North Sea).  However, later in the summer is the
Cento Miglia, > up and down Lake Garda (northern Italy).  I am looking
for crew for > > this race.  Are you, or anyone you know, interested?
Racing skills > > are not required, but the boat does have to be
collected (and returned > if you donj't buy it :-)) from Ghent in Belgium.

===> Count me in!!!!
I'll contact the guy at wangka. I know a guy who might be interested
to race, once his barrage of skepticism is overcome...

Hi,
in the micro-cruiser thread Rob raised two issues about racing HPs:
- mast support: why not mobile "sidestays" on the model of classical
backstays. The hassle of back/sidestays is perfectly manageable on a
racing boat.
Quite straightforward with a schooner rig, you could even support each
masts in two spots, like masttop and half height, or masttop and 2/3.
The sidestays could be fitted on several hooks to chose from on the ww
hull, to change the way the masts are supported (more to the
front/back etc).
With an easyrig, the mast could be supported only at the top. To avoid
the sidestay coming in the way of the sails/mainstays it could be
guided along an horizontal flexible batten at the masttop.
- forward buoyancy: it is true that racing tris especially have an
edge to proas in the field of forward buoyancy, their hulls are
designed with a lot of front buoyancy to decrease as much as possible
the risk of capsizing. And the often have a rear ballast! This
indicates a possible way: 2 waterballasts, in the lw hull, situated
approximately outside from the rudders. One could also consider
ballasts in the ww hull, fore and aft for the capsizing issue, or
centered to allow (even) more righting moment and allow holding more
canvas (with the sidestays then).

I pretend with these two features a HP can be a very good racing
machine. You are able to hold more canvas, get better control of the
mast(s), and decrease the risk of capsize.

Whaddya think of it you all?

regards,
Dom

G'Day all,


Rob wrote:
> Re racing on Europes lakes.  I will be racing the first Wangka boat
in > Europe this year.  High on the list is Bol d'Or on Lake Geneva.
> > > > Unfortunately, this clashes with Texel (800 beach cats round
an island > in the North Sea).  However, later in the summer is the
Cento Miglia, > up and down Lake Garda (northern Italy).  I am looking
for crew for > > this race.  Are you, or anyone you know, interested?
  Racing skills > > are not required, but the boat does have to be
collected (and returned > if you donj't buy it :-)) from Ghent in Belgium.

===> Count me in!!!!
I'll contact the guy at wangka. I know a guy who might be interested
to race, once his barrage of skepticism is overcome...

>> Jarcats are ugly cause that guy designs ugly boats.  And HPs are
>> pretty cause Mark doesn't.  Now if Mark Designed a Jarcat style boat
>> we would be on to something.

> Harry proas are pretty because they are an ellegant concept, fitting
> in with natures preference for efficiency. When designing boats you
> get a feel for which boat will be a good one. When drawing up
catamarans
> I used to find some designs just happened easily, almost designing
> themselves as you go, others fight you all the way. I haven't yet
> found a Harry proa that wasn't easy to design, with the possible
> exception of the Maine boat and that was more to do with the
walkthrough
> cockpit. I doubt that a Jarcat style boat would go so smoothly.

I find this discussion interesting, as the Jarcat list is talking about
a "next generation" Jarcat 6 at the moment. Very serendipitous!
Of course the constraints of 6mx2.5m x cheap is pretty hard to meet.
And cheap here is around A$8000 without trailer! I think most of
the current owner don't give a toss about "ugly", they're just glad
to be out on the water in a safe, cheap boat they could build
themselves: it only looks ugly if you're on the shore :-)

It seems there's a cross-over between current Jarcat owners who are
interested in a new-style Jarcat, and Harry-proa watchers who are
interested in a micro-cruising proa. What this leads to, I don't know...

Regards
Robert

 

Rob,

you mentioned in a reply, that you thought a number of boats could benefit from adapting "proa characteristics".

( or words to that effect )

The comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, but yes, most boats would benefit. 

Got me thinking.  Which types ? What context etc ?

for example ,

- the latest generation , canting keel , canard rudder, water ballasted open 60's or 70's ??

Canting keels taken the next step become pretty similar to tacking proas.  ie, cant the keel 9 Maybe move it round the hull as well) until  it is clear of the water and you get more rm, plus the weight is not supported by water (less weight can be used), nor being dragged through the water.  It is also easier to make the beam/keel longer if it is out of the water so again less ballast is required.  From here it is a short step to putting the crew in the windward hull as well, making the lee hull thinner and double ended.   For the money, a proa would be a lot faster.

- Ellen's tri - B&Q - what proa configuration might equal or better her boats performance, assume similar sail area.

First, assume similar sailing ability!  Band Q's hulls are pretty close to double ended, and I suspect that making them so would not cost any speed.  Therefore, it is a weight and righting moment issue.   Moving the rig to the lee hull (support issues need to be addressed, but given the number of rtw boats that have rigging problems, an unstayed mast would be a saving in time spent checking and repairing and weight of spares required) and the crew and gear to the windward hull would enable you to ditch the middle hull, which must be a pretty big weight saving.  Reconfigure the ww hull so it was shorter, higher and wider and maybe save some more weight.  So, if the boat weighs 8 tonnes, the rig 1 ton, the beams a ton each, the hulls a tonne each, gear a ton, this leaves 2 tonnes for the middle hull.  ie a 25% weight saving so the rig could be smaller (a good thing, as we have not figured out how to support it ;-)   

Would/could Extraordinarry ( on the website ) match the tri's potential , in what conditions.

Who knows.  Extraordinarry was a bit oif a whim.  I doubt if it would look much like that now.  The current dream boat is an Elementarry scaled up to 50' for the 2009 singlehanded trans Atlantic race.  Guess the next (very large) step would be 150' long, weighing maybe 10- tonnes, with comparatively small, probably schooner rig and a large Outleader kite.  Would only need a small crew (of lunatics).  Interestingly, Orange seems to spend a fair bit of time taking oit easy so as nopt to damage the boat.  With a more easily flown (and unflown) ww hull, and less cluttered beams, this may not be such  an issue for a big proa. 

- are the arguments for considering a HP form predominantly about assumed cost saving for a given waterline length??
cf  cat or tri .

Waterline length limits tend to kill off racing proas due to the inability to get weight aft and the double ended configuration.  Sail area limits help proas, but as there are none of these, this is not much help.  Cost wise, the harryproa configuration is unbeatable for a given length and theoretically for a given speed.  Time will tell.

- these are not entirely academic issues - several 60 - 70 foot harryproas are currently in build.

 

These are cruisers, not racers.  The above comments should be taken in the context that maxi racing proas are brand new, or would be if there were any!.  The big cats and tris have been refined over many years with unlimited budgets, and are sailed by the best guys on the planet.  To compete with them, would take a 2 boat program, with options to change rigs, beams, appendages and hulls, plus some expert sailors..  Would cost a bit more than I am ever likely to have, but maybe if we can make Elementarry go, someone will look at the next stage for a race boat.  

 

By the way, I have nearly finished a new set of rudders for Elementarry.  Bit less complex to build than the side mouted ones, kick up easier, will be lighter, although mine aren't) and are much more robust.  Not liftable, but more or less steerable when kicked up.

 

It also looks as if there will be a smaller version of Elementarry being built in NZ in the near future. 

Regards,

 

Rob

Rob,

you mentioned in a reply, that you thought a number of boats could benefit from adapting "proa characteristics".

( or words to that effect )

Got me thinking.  Which types ? What context etc ?

for example ,

- the latest generation , canting keel , canard rudder, water ballasted open 60's or 70's ??

- Ellen's tri - B&Q - what proa configuration might equal or better her boats performance, assume similar sail area.

Would/could Extraordinarry ( on the website ) match the tri's potential , in what conditions.

- are the arguments for considering a HP form predominantly about assumed cost saving for a given waterline length??
cf  cat or tri .

- these are not entirely academic issues - several 60 - 70 foot harryproas are currently in build.

What does the group think ?

Paul N

-----Original Message-----
From:   proaconstrictor [SMTP:proaconstrictor@...]
Sent:   Tuesday, 15 February 2005 10:04 AM
To:     harryproa@...
Subject:        [harryproa] Re: Elementarry micro-cruiser




Never say never.  With a 8-1 fineness you could have 2500 pounds in
that hull. 

I think I asked about a cruising version of this type several years
back Rob, and as I remember, the drawing, which was rather nice, came
back with a 30 foot waterline and the berths stacked bunk style.  The
WW hull was longer by a significant margin than the LW hull.  Getting
this down to the size of a solo canoe will be an acheivement.

I can imagine wanting to build 4 small hulls as opposed to 2 larger
ones, if one takes into account things like LWL based tie-up fees. 
But in general I would prefer to just build a larger boat like the
original Harry, that was cheap, light, and supposed to do everything
rather well.






  _____ 


Yahoo! Groups Links


• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  <http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/>
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  harryproa-unsubscribe@... <mailto:harryproa-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

> - I just saw the jarcats, they are UGLY!!!! (And I am kind). I
totally
> agree I do not want to go in that direction. These things cannot be
> called multihulls: maybe bathtubs? The micro-cruiser would NOT be a
> bathtub! Or I stop being interested


Agreed, asking for a bath in addition would be a little over the top.

Jarcats are ugly cause that guy designs ugly boats.  And HPs are
pretty cause Mark doesn't.  Now if Mark Designed a Jarcat style boat
we would be on to something.

Never say never.  With a 8-1 fineness you could have 2500 pounds in
that hull.

I think I asked about a cruising version of this type several years
back Rob, and as I remember, the drawing, which was rather nice, came
back with a 30 foot waterline and the berths stacked bunk style.  The
WW hull was longer by a significant margin than the LW hull.  Getting
this down to the size of a solo canoe will be an acheivement.

I can imagine wanting to build 4 small hulls as opposed to 2 larger
ones, if one takes into account things like LWL based tie-up fees.
But in general I would prefer to just build a larger boat like the
original Harry, that was cheap, light, and supposed to do everything
rather well.

Rob,
Do you see any impossibility in putting 2x20m2 of sail, on an
elementarry, as said previously in the thread? Any serious structural
problems, or so? I guess the mast bearings should be reinforced a bit.
And with 8.2cm dia mast holes, I guess carbon tubes starting with 82mm
round section, and tapering into a narrower section suitable for
fitting inside these masts I can find rather easily.
These fully battened sails are really much easier to get by my place
than C Class catamaran stuff, and come rather

D.
--- In harryproa@..., "dominiquebovey"
<dominiquebovey@y...> wrote:
>
> The ideal thing would that the lw hull would be common to all the
> versions. Il really like the modularity of the harryproa concept.
> Rgds
> D.
> --- In harryproa@..., "Tony Richardson"
> <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > Something that competes with these boats would be interesting.
> > I think the essence of beating/competing with these is waterline
> length and plenty of it.
> > They look like they are built to fly a hull all the time and until
> they do they would suffer from plenty of drag.
> > Also look at the amount of crew they are carrying.
> > More sail area on a texel proa might do the trick
> > If you were looking at using used cat gear then have a good look
> around Europe for C class cat wing sail. They don't need downwind
> sails because they are always creating apparent wind.
> > Fits with the less is more/better idea that proas benefit from.
> > Rgs
> > Tony
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: dominiquebovey
> >   To: harryproa@...
> >   Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:45 AM
> >   Subject: [harryproa] Turbo elementarry
> >
> >
> >
> >   Hi again,
> >
> >   my first idea is a really racing elementarry.
> >
> >   The "standard" elemetarry is nice for places were you've got real
> >   wind. But on lake Geneva saling is done between 0.25 and 2 beaufort,
> >   which is about the wind you get in summer. The racing machines
(35-40'
> >   tris) lift 2 hulls with 5knots of wind. Example:
> >
> >   http://www.decision.ch/ANG/construction-navale/decision35.htm
> >
> >   The D35 is a class boat that was setup so that the rich guys around
> >   here  don't have to spend 1.2million Swissfrancs (CHF) to race
against
> >   each other but "only" 400'000CHF to buy the boat.
> >
> >   I estimated that an elementarry, to get the same bruce number
than the
> >   D35, needs 40m2 of sail, plus some kind of gennaker for really light
> >   winds, totalling about 60-70m2. The rigs could be made of the masts
> >   and mainsails of the "beach cats" typical of lake geneva: often cat
> >   boats, with a 20m2 main sail, (and 28-30m2 genaker). So there
could be
> >   a way to use these (often carbon) masts and even 2nd hand sails.
> >   As these masts are rigged, for the stiffness I see a pair of "side
> >   stays" (you would not speak about backstays would'nt you) on each
> >   mast, which you can hook at several spots on the ww hull.
> >
> >   What do you think of this? Would the structure of an elementarry
> >   sustain the forces involved? Ideally it would be an elemetarry from
> >   multicascos, done in low-tech grp.
> >
> >   I don't think it would really "compete" with the owner of Al1nghi
> >   (yes, the winner of the @merica owns one of the D35) but it be
really
> >   fun to put a "kick into the anthouse".
> >
> >   bye
> >   D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> >
> >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >     harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.

G'day !
(OK not "Hi" as this is an aussie group ;-)

Thanks Paul and Rob for your remarks:
- skin weight is surprisingly low as quoted by you, wow! Makes the
micro-cruiser even more feasible. It is true I was reasoning in
thicknesses for bluewater cruising 12m ply monohulls...
- I just saw the jarcats, they are UGLY!!!! (And I am kind). I totally
agree I do not want to go in that direction. These things cannot be
called multihulls: maybe bathtubs? The micro-cruiser would NOT be a
bathtub! Or I stop being interested
- I understand that for shunting on a such a micro-cruiser with a
heavy ww hull, the crew has to move to leeward to decrease the drag
which prevents shunting in light wind. Not a problem as most of the
crew would be outside anyway... And in heavy wind the adult half of
the crew would happily move like this!
- I would not sail such a comparativily heavy boat on the swiss Lakes
in light winds. I would rather use the camper hull, sometimes, and
mostly the racing hull. The micro-cruiser is for sea costal cruising.
- BUT: I want sails with 2 reeves for the cruiser. The sleeved sails
(ugly, by the way) that are shown on the coffs harbour sail are OK
only for beachcruising. In corsica, and on the swiss lakes you can get
wind increasing from 3 to 30knots in 5 minutes.

- A new weight estimate:
25m2 ww hull:    75kg
rest of structure: 110kg,
outboard:          20kg,
anchoring gear:    10kg
Food and water:    40kg,
toilet:            15kg,
electrical:        30kg,
cooker:            10kg
TOTAL  320kg which seems reasonable!

- I would not pull this boat up a beach, I would pull it up the ramp
to a dry parking place on harbour by the lake. And while costal
cruising you anchor in 50cm of water 5m from the beach, with 2 anchors.

- Rob, I'll ask you for a design+build quote soon! Multicascos seem to
take much time for their grp elemetarry.

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:21 AM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: kickup rudders

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> They kick up around the bottom of the case. 

I am assuming they kick up if fully down and a fuse for partly
retracted.



>Haven't got any pictures, will try and get some next time.  Next
generation rudders are under way in my garage as I write.   Gotta
agree about Visionarry.  Really does look a treat.

Carole was amused at the interior colour scheme.
robert





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    harryproa-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

 

No fuse for partly retracted.  In this case, either sail slowly, or pull them up all together. 


>Haven't got any pictures, will try and get some next time.  Next
generation rudders are under way in my garage as I write.   Gotta
agree about Visionarry.  Really does look a treat.

Carole was amused at the interior colour scheme.

 

No comment on colour schemes, especially those chosen by wives.  ;-)

regards,

 

Rob

 

No problem as far as I can see.  We are looking at options for smaller boats at the moment.  Elementarry is bigger, faster and more of a handful than I expected.  The sailing part is pretty straightforward, especially when cruising, but it is a sizable chunk of boat for puling up the beach etc.   I would like to keep the weight and the waterline beam down lower than a Jarcat type.

> You can get what you are after two ways for starters.  A completely
> different design from elementary.  Or an elementary with an entirely
> inappropriate sidecar.  I mean you can bolt anything you want to the
> side of an elementary, and it wouldn't necesarily be that bad an
> idea.  In other words it might be a fast Bolger Micro, I just can't
> see it being a proportional elementary, with reasonable performance
> etc... 
No the micro-cruiser would not be a high performance boat but it
hasn't to be! Don't forget you still keep on the trailer the bare hull
for speed runs and the camper hull for a bit more extended racing/less
ambitious cruising. It is exactly this "modularity" (as we engineers
say) which in my sense is interesting in the harryproa concept: you
have a "kit boat", and you use changing parts (different ww huls,
different masts/rigs) depending on how you use the boat, for example:
- the bare ww hull with the big rigs for Lake Geneva sailing on a hot
summer day with 2Bf max
- the micro-cruiser hull with the small rigs when sailing in corsica
where you suddenly may have Bf7 even on a beautiful day
- or the camper ww hull when the race last more than a day and you
need some very limited sleeping accomodation.
- etc.

 

Agree entirely.  The first camper plans have been sold, with us building all the components except the windward hull.  Not sure if he is having a racing ww hull as well. 


> Not every boat wants to be a proa.  In fact there is little
> convincing evidence of any boats that really need to be proas.  Get
> too far from the sweetspot, and it just doesn't make sense.
I think I feel what you mean - and I agree with it.

 

Not sure I do.  The more I sail these things, the more I think that maybe lots of boats do want to be proas.  A keel boat would be faster, safer, have more room if it had a windward hull (and two bows) instead of a keel.  Catamarans and trimarans  would be a lot easier to sail if you did not have to change sides and back the genoa each time you tacked.  Obviously, each could be improved on once the first step was taken, but aesthetics aside, I think most boats want to be proas, or at least would do their job better if they were.     This is a pretty broad statement and there will be exceptions, so start the criticism gently, please. ;-)

>
> Anyway, my quibble was intended to be objective.  You had a long
> list. I can't get that stuff on my 24 foot trimaran, literaly.  It
> all starts with displacement.
I agree, you can't have that on a trimaran because much space is
"wasted" for the chassis and so can't be used for accomodation - as
the trimaran is less than ideal than the harryproa concept!
Comparatively more structure is needed in a trimaran for the "chassis"
of the boat than in a harryproa.

The things I listed would find place in a 5.50m "micro" class monohull
it there was no cockpit. And there is no cockpit in the hull of a
micro-cruser elementarry, this is how you can put two double beds in
it, one on each end. But don't misunderstand me, there is almost no
floor space, around 0.5x0.5m just for 3 persons sitting inside and not
more.
The porta potti finds its place under a a lifting part of the beds,
exactly as it is fitted in a 5.5m micro monohull, the battery and 30L
of water on the other side.

 

If it can fit in a 5.5m mono, it can probably be squeezed into a 5.5 proa ww hull.

About displacement. I think you can count on about 10kg weight per
square meter of "hull skin", using a not too high-tech way of
building. I estimate the skin area of such a ww hull at 20m2, that is
200kg for the bare hull. Add 60kg for battery, wiring and water, 20kg
for the WC, and a small cooker, VHF, etc to a total of 320kg. Add
200kg crew weight (a couple with 2 smallish kids), 100kg for lw hull
and rig, and this amounts to a total loaded displacement of 620kg. It
would certainly not be a racing boat - but would still a fine cruiser.
Rob, tell me whether/where I am wrong here?

 

6mm kiri and 200 gsm uni glass weighs 2.5 kgs per sq m, the ww hull of the camper is about 12 sq m.  Total weight of the boat is about 140 kgs.   We sail Elementarry (4m ww hull vs 5m on the camper) with 160 kgs sitting on the ww hull, no problems.  So, if your ww hull had less than this in the food, water potapotti department, and the family was prepared to move inboard in light air and for shunting, then it will be OK.    Not fast, as you noted, but certainly a lot faster than your 5.5m mono carrying this sort of payload.

Regards,

 

Rob

re microcruiser

Dom, re your weight budgets. You can do better than 10kg per sq mtr with a ( for example) 8mm foam / doublebias or biax / vac bagged lay up , hull skin

 
Suggest revise your estimates . Conceptually your micro is interesting but given that the current LW hull on elementarry weighs in at 30 kg approx ( Rob, correct me if I'm wrong here ) I think you would need to revise your comparative weight/displacement relationships.

regards
Paul Napper

-----Original Message-----
From:   dominiquebovey [SMTP:dominiquebovey@...]
Sent:   Monday, 7 February 2005 8:05 PM
To:     harryproa@...
Subject:        [harryproa] Re: Elementarry micro-cruiser




--- In harryproa@..., "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
Hi Proaconstrictor,

Thanks for your remarks.
And Rob, what do you think about this?
regds
Dom

>
> We did explore the idea of a micro cruiser not that far different
> from what you are describing on a 16 foot platform: Imagine a Jarcat
> with hulls going both ways, and bow sections that bolted on to extend
> the lee hull to 20 0r 24 feet.It was quite an active thread on the
> yahoo Multihull Boatbuilding group.  I don't doubt something of the
> sort can be arranged.
>
==> me too!

> You can get what you are after two ways for starters.  A completely
> different design from elementary.  Or an elementary with an entirely
> inappropriate sidecar.  I mean you can bolt anything you want to the
> side of an elementary, and it wouldn't necesarily be that bad an
> idea.  In other words it might be a fast Bolger Micro, I just can't
> see it being a proportional elementary, with reasonable performance
> etc... 
No the micro-cruiser would not be a high performance boat but it
hasn't to be! Don't forget you still keep on the trailer the bare hull
for speed runs and the camper hull for a bit more extended racing/less
ambitious cruising. It is exactly this "modularity" (as we engineers
say) which in my sense is interesting in the harryproa concept: you
have a "kit boat", and you use changing parts (different ww huls,
different masts/rigs) depending on how you use the boat, for example:
- the bare ww hull with the big rigs for Lake Geneva sailing on a hot
summer day with 2Bf max
- the micro-cruiser hull with the small rigs when sailing in corsica
where you suddenly may have Bf7 even on a beautiful day
- or the camper ww hull when the race last more than a day and you
need some very limited sleeping accomodation.
- etc.

> I also think that once you go sufficiently far in a
> particular direction it may still be conceptualy a proa, but it
> starts to loose the "Why is it actually better than a Farier 18 or a
> jarcat 16" race. 
In my view it is better than these because of the modularity as said
above. You can't easily tranform a lightweight trimaran in to a
cruising one: I feel on the contrary it is possible with harryproa.

I mean the original, long gone, Harryproa was
> supposed to be better than something in an equal weight, cost, speed,
> nausea resistance, building time bracket.  About twice as good as I
> recall. 
It still is! And with the added advantage that it is not a "fixed
function" boat.

> Not every boat wants to be a proa.  In fact there is little
> convincing evidence of any boats that really need to be proas.  Get
> too far from the sweetspot, and it just doesn't make sense.
I think I feel what you mean - and I agree with it.

>
> Anyway, my quibble was intended to be objective.  You had a long
> list. I can't get that stuff on my 24 foot trimaran, literaly.  It
> all starts with displacement.
I agree, you can't have that on a trimaran because much space is
"wasted" for the chassis and so can't be used for accomodation - as
the trimaran is less than ideal than the harryproa concept!
Comparatively more structure is needed in a trimaran for the "chassis"
of the boat than in a harryproa.

The things I listed would find place in a 5.50m "micro" class monohull
it there was no cockpit. And there is no cockpit in the hull of a
micro-cruser elementarry, this is how you can put two double beds in
it, one on each end. But don't misunderstand me, there is almost no
floor space, around 0.5x0.5m just for 3 persons sitting inside and not
more.
The porta potti finds its place under a a lifting part of the beds,
exactly as it is fitted in a 5.5m micro monohull, the battery and 30L
of water on the other side.
About displacement. I think you can count on about 10kg weight per
square meter of "hull skin", using a not too high-tech way of
building. I estimate the skin area of such a ww hull at 20m2, that is
200kg for the bare hull. Add 60kg for battery, wiring and water, 20kg
for the WC, and a small cooker, VHF, etc to a total of 320kg. Add
200kg crew weight (a couple with 2 smallish kids), 100kg for lw hull
and rig, and this amounts to a total loaded displacement of 620kg. It
would certainly not be a racing boat - but would still a fine cruiser.
Rob, tell me whether/where I am wrong here?








  _____ 


Yahoo! Groups Links


• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  <http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/>
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  harryproa-unsubscribe@... <mailto:harryproa-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> They kick up around the bottom of the case.

I am assuming they kick up if fully down and a fuse for partly
retracted.



>Haven't got any pictures, will try and get some next time.  Next
generation rudders are under way in my garage as I write.   Gotta
agree about Visionarry.  Really does look a treat.

Carole was amused at the interior colour scheme.
robert