Rob,

Could you tell us what you think would be the cruising and top speeds for an
Harrigami ?

Regards
--
Nicolas Vivier
Icarai

I am still not sure how much distortion from conic section one can
get from polyprop with 400 db glass on one side.

 

The Polycore will distort a huge amount, the limit is the glass.    Could probably experiment with partial glassing and see what you end up with, but this has the potential to get expensive.

 

snip

 

Looking forward to seeing pictures of the monster

 

No monster, it should weigh less than 550 kg/1,200 lbs on the start line.

regards,

 

Rob

 

I am still not sure how much distortion from conic section one can
get from polyprop with 400 db glass on one side.

 

The Polycore will distort a huge amount, the limit is the glass.    Could probably experiment with partial glassing and see what you end up with, but this has the potential to get expensive.

 

snip

 

Looking forward to seeing pictures of the monster

 

No monster, it should weigh less than 550 kg/1,200 lbs on the start line.

regards,

 

Rob

 

Sailed Peel Inlet today, saw a pair of Hobies going real quick across
the good Northerly we had today.
Sailing my Hartley 16, scraping all over the mud shallows.

Finished the rudders for Elementarry, conventional swing up in a stock
hinged off the beams. Will post more photos of project in a while.

Doug

I am still not sure how much distortion from conic section one can
get from polyprop with 400 db glass on one side.

 

The Polycore will distort a huge amount, the limit is the glass.    Could probably experiment with partial glassing and see what you end up with, but this has the potential to get expensive.

 

snip

 

Looking forward to seeing pictures of the monster

 

No monster, it should weigh less than 550 kg/1,200 lbs on the start line.

regards,

 

Rob

 

I am still not sure how much distortion from conic section one can
get from polyprop with 400 db glass on one side. For the lw hull the
compound curves aren't so tight but the extra longitudinal strength
needed may make it more difficult so I was considering adding all the
longitudinal stiffening on the inside in places of higher compound
curvature.
  Assuming just a little more than 4mm plywood, there shouldn't be too
much cutting and shutting on the bottom using KSS if you can get away
with half hulls going the other way.I am not sure if the same forces
can be applied so easily to a hull using the KSS system as using your
system so it may need some. There would have to be some cutting and
shutting to get the inward cuves on the upper parts of the side of
the hulls but not too many and it would be in the same area as the
windows which need reinforcing and extra fairing anyway.
  For the deck edge I've always liked a texture to get a grip on and
the deck is going to have nonslip on it anyway.
  Looking forward to seeing pictures of the monster
Robert

  --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> Before you do anything rash, there should be some pictures and
build instructions of my new ww hull for a 50' solo race boat on the
next web update, due soon.  Worked pretty well although there are a
few things I will do differently next time.
>
> Not sure yet whether we will be changing the designs, but if you
don't want or need any fancy 3 dimensional curves it is a very quick
way to build hulls.  Took me about 8 hours actual work (fair bit more
than this making mistakes and thinking) to get two half hulls and
decks ready to join amidships.  With some cutting and shutting, more
elaborate deck shapes will be possible.  Under water shapes are fine
as is.  Not sure whether the cutting and shutting will be more or
less work than KSS, but as they are only along one axis, and this is
on the deck so it is easier to conceal, less critical to fair and
should be less work.
>
> A KSS workshop would be a great idea.  Learn about infusion, table
making and tricks for getting panels how you want them, even if you
don't use the actual KSS technique.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:40 PM
>   Subject: [harryproa] Re: moulds for Visionarry
>
>
>   I'm hoping to use a modificaton of the KSS system of derek kelsal
>   using polyprop honeycomb. I have made a couple of 1:20 models in
>   cardboard-of a Harry using the half hull technique and managed
>   something pretty close to the design as I remember it so it seems
>   plausible. Rob is playing with polyprop at the moment and he and
Mark
>   should have some idea of the practicality of the idea, though I
don't
>   know how keen he is about once again having to modify the designs
to
>   be able to use the technique and i am not sure of the ethics of
not
>   slinging a few dollars dereks way for his intellectual effort.
>   Possibly going to one of his workshops would be a good idea.
>   regards
>   Robert
>   In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@y...> wrote:
>   >
>   > There are probably some ways of cooperating to make building
>   easier, and contacting others in the area is a good idea.
>   >
>   >   Doug
>   >
>   >   PS Nice sailing weather around, seabreezes and warm spring
temps
>   starting.
>   >
>   > chrisultrabat <chrisultrabat@y...> wrote:
>   >   since I started this in ignorance, I should finish it ......
I
>   spoke to Rob Denney and he has
>   > convincingly said that the cost of moulds is very, very
>   substantial, and that in his opinion the
>   > investment is not merited.  also the design becomes completely
>   fixed, not allowing for any
>   > variation or progress without a big cost.  If I had read the
early
>   pages of this site, I would
>   > have seen that the topic was raised and dropped by about 2003.
>   >
>   > Chris
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > ---------------------------------
>   >  Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically
easier
>   to use" - The Wall Street Journal
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>   Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date:
8/23/2006
>

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

From: Robert

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:40 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: moulds for Visionarry

I'm hoping to use a modificaton of the KSS system of derek kelsal
using polyprop honeycomb. I have made a couple of 1:20 models in
cardboard-of a Harry using the half hull technique and managed
something pretty close to the design as I remember it so it seems
plausible. Rob is playing with polyprop at the moment and he and Mark
should have some idea of the practicality of the idea, though I don't
know how keen he is about once again having to modify the designs to
be able to use the technique and i am not sure of the ethics of not
slinging a few dollars dereks way for his intellectual effort.
Possibly going to one of his workshops would be a good idea.
regards
Robert
In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@y...> wrote:
>
> There are probably some ways of cooperating to make building
easier, and contacting others in the area is a good idea.
>   
>   Doug
>   
>   PS Nice sailing weather around, seabreezes and warm spring temps
starting.
>
> chrisultrabat <chrisultrabat@y...> wrote:
>   since I started this in ignorance, I should finish it ...... I
spoke to Rob Denney and he has
> convincingly said that the cost of moulds is very, very
substantial, and that in his opinion the
> investment is not merited.  also the design becomes completely
fixed, not allowing for any
> variation or progress without a big cost.  If I had read the early
pages of this site, I would
> have seen that the topic was raised and dropped by about 2003.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>             
> ---------------------------------
>  Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier
to use" – The Wall Street Journal
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006

I'm hoping to use a modificaton of the KSS system of derek kelsal
using polyprop honeycomb. I have made a couple of 1:20 models in
cardboard-of a Harry using the half hull technique and managed
something pretty close to the design as I remember it so it seems
plausible. Rob is playing with polyprop at the moment and he and Mark
should have some idea of the practicality of the idea, though I don't
know how keen he is about once again having to modify the designs to
be able to use the technique and i am not sure of the ethics of not
slinging a few dollars dereks way for his intellectual effort.
Possibly going to one of his workshops would be a good idea.
regards
Robert
In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@y...> wrote:
>
> There are probably some ways of cooperating to make building
easier, and contacting others in the area is a good idea.
>
>   Doug
>
>   PS Nice sailing weather around, seabreezes and warm spring temps
starting.
>
> chrisultrabat <chrisultrabat@y...> wrote:
>   since I started this in ignorance, I should finish it ...... I
spoke to Rob Denney and he has
> convincingly said that the cost of moulds is very, very
substantial, and that in his opinion the
> investment is not merited.  also the design becomes completely
fixed, not allowing for any
> variation or progress without a big cost.  If I had read the early
pages of this site, I would
> have seen that the topic was raised and dropped by about 2003.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier
to use" – The Wall Street Journal
>

since I started this in ignorance, I should finish it ...... I spoke to Rob Denney and he has
convincingly said that the cost of moulds is very, very substantial, and that in his opinion the
investment is not merited.  also the design becomes completely fixed, not allowing for any
variation or progress without a big cost.  If I had read the early pages of this site, I would
have seen that the topic was raised and dropped by about 2003.

Chris

since I started this in ignorance, I should finish it ...... I spoke to Rob
Denney and he has
convincingly said that the cost of moulds is very, very substantial, and that in
his opinion the
investment is not merited.  also the design becomes completely fixed, not
allowing for any
variation or progress without a big cost.  If I had read the early pages of this
site, I would
have seen that the topic was raised and dropped by about 2003.

Chris

apparently it would take about 9 boats for moulds to become economical ..... would there be
that anyone out there who might wish to look further into this - ie work out the cost of
moulds;  cost of hulls from moulds;  perhaps build one mould to start with and see how it
goes;  where the break even would be reached etc etc.

apparently it would take about 9 boats for moulds to become economical .....
would there be
that anyone out there who might wish to look further into this - ie work out the
cost of
moulds;  cost of hulls from moulds;  perhaps build one mould to start with and
see how it
goes;  where the break even would be reached etc etc.

Hi Rob,

Messages to you keep bouncing back so I 'll try this way.
I would happy to meet Col, thanks.

Regards,

Rudolf

Good 'ay,

Thought I'd write about the sail makers' issue over making my two
elementarry sails.
Rolly Taskers in Phuket, very cheap, delivered the sails pretty well
made with the important points: 6m luff height to pass under
Fremantle bridges, two reefs at 1/3 and 2/3 for very versatile
cruising weather. However on the advice of Rolly himself having
circumnavigated Australia 4 times, he said to use a simploe bolt
rope in the luff instead of the sleeve so as to make reefing easier.
I agreed that this would be more important than the sail shape and
could see how I might make a good shapely (rotating ofcourse) mast
and so said OK do it with a bolt rope.
The sails arrived in abox with sleeves and zips up the sleeve. So
anyway it has a curve and might not be easy to chage to bolt and I
don't really want to make do with the sleeves as they look a bit
tight to pull up and down - plus you need to ploay with a down haul
and I'd really rather prefer simple and quick mast work.

DOUG

By the way stopped rushing on the building job, so be a few months
to get that one done.
There are 3 sets of photos if you didn't know.

The rig is lying supported by the water, easily removed from the
hull,lashed to lw hull and after bringing the boat and trailer into
the car park is lifted onto the roof with the gantry attached to the
trailer. (Depending on the rig, it may have to be packedup further
before it can fit into width limits) This does require space in the
water but sometimes there is space nearby to the ramp where this can
be done. If there isn't space, then the rig has to be removed early,
requiring a gantry or jacking mechanism with supporting stays and
hinging set up on a sleeve
There is a little difficulty in reverse as gravity is working against
the raising of the mast as the hulls separate. This can be done on
the water but requires a bit of a fiddle. If there is space to put
the full width boat in the water, the separation and subsequent rig
raising can be done on the hard using a fork lift type attachment on
the bull bar of the fwd used to tow.
Park the trailer, disconnect the car from the trailer,drive it to the
foklift attachment and attach it, lower the rig onto the forklift
attchment then drive the rig into position and slide it in. similarly
insert the rudder blade Drive the car to where it can lift out the lw
hull using the fork lift attachment and attach the lw hull in such a
way that it can rotate and end up vertical snug against the vertical
part of the fork lift. Lift up the supports on the trailer for the
crossbeams, lower the lw hull so the supports take the load ,
reconnect the trailer, and back it into the water. There may be
stabilty issues with the trailer that need to be addressed by either
moving the whole boat over to ww on side extensions on the trailer or
ballast to ww on the trailerand take the boat to the water.
regards,
robert
--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stepehens" <stephens@o...>
wrote:
>
> A Visionarry is brought in sinlgle handed towards the waiting
trailer. The skipper casually pulls two pins, the boat folds and the
bows locate in the trailer guides. The skipper jumps off, attaches
the trailer winch, hits the remote and stands back as his pride and
joy lifts secury in place. A couple of tie down straps and he's off
with a big grin.
>
> I'd give a great deal to be that delighted :>)
>
> Damn, forgot about the rig. There's always something that gets in
the way of a good idea.
>
> M
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jim Shanahan
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:26 AM
>   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising
>
>
>
>   > Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the
>   trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big
>   boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be
>   better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and
expect
>   to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to
be
>   proven wrong.
>   >
>   > Mark
>
>   Sounds like a challenge, Mark!
>
>   What would you give to be that delighted?
>
>   And what would constitute proof for you as in "proven wrong"?
>
>   Jim
>

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

From: Jim Shanahan

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:26 AM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

> Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the
trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big
boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be
better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect
to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be
proven wrong.
>
> Mark

Sounds like a challenge, Mark!

What would you give to be that delighted?

And what would constitute proof for you as in "proven wrong"?

Jim

> Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the
trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big
boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be
better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect
to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be
proven wrong.
>
> Mark

Sounds like a challenge, Mark!

What would you give to be that delighted?

And what would constitute proof for you as in "proven wrong"?

Jim

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

From: carlos Solanilla

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 1:08 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

turnbuckles to a wire I presume? - interesting

Rudolf vd Brug <rpvdb@...> wrote:

We use turnbuckles though Mark suggested a rope lashing.

 

Rudolf

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

From: carlos Solanilla

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

How do you secure the beams to each hull so they don't slip back? DO you have a pin through it or a series of fasteners?

Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:

  Thank you for sharing this information -- there's nothing like having actual data.  Two people for one day is quite impressive. 

  Despite the "less than two hours" claims of many trailerable boat manufacturers, it's not uncommon for a 30' boat to take half a day to get everything working.  There will be more weight and size with a Blind Date-class boat, but fortunately fewer systems, strings, and wires.

       - Mike



Rudolf vd Brug wrote:

Blind Date was easily put together in one day by two people earlier this summer.

Hulls are on separate dollies, very simple supports on wheels.

We rented a hand operated forklift to handle the beams (150 kg each).

The walkway with steering pedestal is on a trailer.

It is not hard work.

We have a custom trailer for moving the hulls by road. Very basic, it takes both hulls( one at a time).

Hulls weigh less than 500kg each.

 

Blind Date is demountable, and easily demountable for it's size.

I certainly wouldn't call her trailerable, nor would I want a trailerable boat this size.

 

Rudolf 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:18 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

  I would definitely go the Blind Date approach as you describe, or even simpler, but that would still leave the cockpit benches and floor to contend with, not to mention the steering.  That would basically eliminate any possibility of folding the boat to fit in a slip, and instead restrict the folding system to being a trailering convenience.  Even if I could figure out how to somehow deal with the cockpit, getting the steering set up while folding/unfolding on the water would be ugly at best.

  I'm generally resigned to a trailer/trolley/box beam approach, but still hold out the hope of a folding system and normal trailer.  There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an ingenious way to solve the problem. 

  Either way, though, I can't see a boat this size being trailerable in the sense that one might tow it to a ramp, sail it all day, and then bring it back.  I just don't want to pay the $4,000US that the local yard would charge for storage each year, and perhaps go on a road trip once per year.

  Thanks for the tips.

       - Mike


Mark Stepehens wrote:

Hi,

 

One thing to remember when thinking about folding boats is all the extra bits and pieces that the bridgedeck carries. A Farrier system can be relatively simple as it is only folding the amas and trampolines. On Rare Bird we have walkways, steering lines, two outboard sleds, deck boxes, anchor winch, sheet winch, trampolines, engine control lines, fuel lines, lw hull wiring harness, a ramp, a longitudinal beam, cockpit with binnacle and wheels, and overhead a sunshade. Of course you could take the Blind Date approach and make the boat much simpler but you would still have outboard, steering and walkways to contend with.

 

Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

Mark

 

 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

We use turnbuckles though Mark suggested a rope lashing.

 

Rudolf

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

From: carlos Solanilla

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

How do you secure the beams to each hull so they don't slip back? DO you have a pin through it or a series of fasteners?

Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:

  Thank you for sharing this information -- there's nothing like having actual data.  Two people for one day is quite impressive. 

  Despite the "less than two hours" claims of many trailerable boat manufacturers, it's not uncommon for a 30' boat to take half a day to get everything working.  There will be more weight and size with a Blind Date-class boat, but fortunately fewer systems, strings, and wires.

       - Mike



Rudolf vd Brug wrote:

Blind Date was easily put together in one day by two people earlier this summer.

Hulls are on separate dollies, very simple supports on wheels.

We rented a hand operated forklift to handle the beams (150 kg each).

The walkway with steering pedestal is on a trailer.

It is not hard work.

We have a custom trailer for moving the hulls by road. Very basic, it takes both hulls( one at a time).

Hulls weigh less than 500kg each.

 

Blind Date is demountable, and easily demountable for it's size.

I certainly wouldn't call her trailerable, nor would I want a trailerable boat this size.

 

Rudolf 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:18 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

  I would definitely go the Blind Date approach as you describe, or even simpler, but that would still leave the cockpit benches and floor to contend with, not to mention the steering.  That would basically eliminate any possibility of folding the boat to fit in a slip, and instead restrict the folding system to being a trailering convenience.  Even if I could figure out how to somehow deal with the cockpit, getting the steering set up while folding/unfolding on the water would be ugly at best.

  I'm generally resigned to a trailer/trolley/box beam approach, but still hold out the hope of a folding system and normal trailer.  There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an ingenious way to solve the problem. 

  Either way, though, I can't see a boat this size being trailerable in the sense that one might tow it to a ramp, sail it all day, and then bring it back.  I just don't want to pay the $4,000US that the local yard would charge for storage each year, and perhaps go on a road trip once per year.

  Thanks for the tips.

       - Mike


Mark Stepehens wrote:

Hi,

 

One thing to remember when thinking about folding boats is all the extra bits and pieces that the bridgedeck carries. A Farrier system can be relatively simple as it is only folding the amas and trampolines. On Rare Bird we have walkways, steering lines, two outboard sleds, deck boxes, anchor winch, sheet winch, trampolines, engine control lines, fuel lines, lw hull wiring harness, a ramp, a longitudinal beam, cockpit with binnacle and wheels, and overhead a sunshade. Of course you could take the Blind Date approach and make the boat much simpler but you would still have outboard, steering and walkways to contend with.

 

Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

Mark

 

 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

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

From: carlos Solanilla

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

How do you secure the beams to each hull so they don't slip back? DO you have a pin through it or a series of fasteners?

Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:

  Thank you for sharing this information -- there's nothing like having actual data.  Two people for one day is quite impressive. 

  Despite the "less than two hours" claims of many trailerable boat manufacturers, it's not uncommon for a 30' boat to take half a day to get everything working.  There will be more weight and size with a Blind Date-class boat, but fortunately fewer systems, strings, and wires.

       - Mike



Rudolf vd Brug wrote:

Blind Date was easily put together in one day by two people earlier this summer.

Hulls are on separate dollies, very simple supports on wheels.

We rented a hand operated forklift to handle the beams (150 kg each).

The walkway with steering pedestal is on a trailer.

It is not hard work.

We have a custom trailer for moving the hulls by road. Very basic, it takes both hulls( one at a time).

Hulls weigh less than 500kg each.

 

Blind Date is demountable, and easily demountable for it's size.

I certainly wouldn't call her trailerable, nor would I want a trailerable boat this size.

 

Rudolf 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:18 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

  I would definitely go the Blind Date approach as you describe, or even simpler, but that would still leave the cockpit benches and floor to contend with, not to mention the steering.  That would basically eliminate any possibility of folding the boat to fit in a slip, and instead restrict the folding system to being a trailering convenience.  Even if I could figure out how to somehow deal with the cockpit, getting the steering set up while folding/unfolding on the water would be ugly at best.

  I'm generally resigned to a trailer/trolley/box beam approach, but still hold out the hope of a folding system and normal trailer.  There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an ingenious way to solve the problem. 

  Either way, though, I can't see a boat this size being trailerable in the sense that one might tow it to a ramp, sail it all day, and then bring it back.  I just don't want to pay the $4,000US that the local yard would charge for storage each year, and perhaps go on a road trip once per year.

  Thanks for the tips.

       - Mike


Mark Stepehens wrote:

Hi,

 

One thing to remember when thinking about folding boats is all the extra bits and pieces that the bridgedeck carries. A Farrier system can be relatively simple as it is only folding the amas and trampolines. On Rare Bird we have walkways, steering lines, two outboard sleds, deck boxes, anchor winch, sheet winch, trampolines, engine control lines, fuel lines, lw hull wiring harness, a ramp, a longitudinal beam, cockpit with binnacle and wheels, and overhead a sunshade. Of course you could take the Blind Date approach and make the boat much simpler but you would still have outboard, steering and walkways to contend with.

 

Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

Mark

 

 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

  Thank you for sharing this information -- there's nothing like having actual data.  Two people for one day is quite impressive. 

  Despite the "less than two hours" claims of many trailerable boat manufacturers, it's not uncommon for a 30' boat to take half a day to get everything working.  There will be more weight and size with a Blind Date-class boat, but fortunately fewer systems, strings, and wires.

       - Mike



Rudolf vd Brug wrote:

Blind Date was easily put together in one day by two people earlier this summer.

Hulls are on separate dollies, very simple supports on wheels.

We rented a hand operated forklift to handle the beams (150 kg each).

The walkway with steering pedestal is on a trailer.

It is not hard work.

We have a custom trailer for moving the hulls by road. Very basic, it takes both hulls( one at a time).

Hulls weigh less than 500kg each.

 

Blind Date is demountable, and easily demountable for it's size.

I certainly wouldn't call her trailerable, nor would I want a trailerable boat this size.

 

Rudolf 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:18 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

  I would definitely go the Blind Date approach as you describe, or even simpler, but that would still leave the cockpit benches and floor to contend with, not to mention the steering.  That would basically eliminate any possibility of folding the boat to fit in a slip, and instead restrict the folding system to being a trailering convenience.  Even if I could figure out how to somehow deal with the cockpit, getting the steering set up while folding/unfolding on the water would be ugly at best.

  I'm generally resigned to a trailer/trolley/box beam approach, but still hold out the hope of a folding system and normal trailer.  There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an ingenious way to solve the problem. 

  Either way, though, I can't see a boat this size being trailerable in the sense that one might tow it to a ramp, sail it all day, and then bring it back.  I just don't want to pay the $4,000US that the local yard would charge for storage each year, and perhaps go on a road trip once per year.

  Thanks for the tips.

       - Mike


Mark Stepehens wrote:

Hi,

 

One thing to remember when thinking about folding boats is all the extra bits and pieces that the bridgedeck carries. A Farrier system can be relatively simple as it is only folding the amas and trampolines. On Rare Bird we have walkways, steering lines, two outboard sleds, deck boxes, anchor winch, sheet winch, trampolines, engine control lines, fuel lines, lw hull wiring harness, a ramp, a longitudinal beam, cockpit with binnacle and wheels, and overhead a sunshade. Of course you could take the Blind Date approach and make the boat much simpler but you would still have outboard, steering and walkways to contend with.

 

Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

Mark

 

 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-G'day Mike,
I am not sure what job I was about to do but the present one of
lecturing on plant physiology means I am supposed to be re writing a
prac manual instead of this email. It is actually challenging and
enjoyable.
I do not see why having the lw hull on its side prevents it
floating. There is the difficulty of providing steering. The best I
could come up with on that is a small removable electric outboard.
This is the hardest bit I have come up against.
regards,
Robert

-- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
> Hey Robert,
>
>   How is the new job?
>
>   The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull
is
> stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a
Visionarry,
> though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load
limit, so
> one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.
>
>   The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing
deck,
> makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two
birds
> with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is
> already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my
dream
> of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard
> trailer, though.  
>
>   Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular
to the
> hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system
would
> work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the
> Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the
moment
> is the cat2fold scissors system.
>
>   However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal. 
My
> only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer
could
> take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the
> water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything
other
> than a wide open ramp.
>
>   Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and
> chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to
use the
> trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the
inconvenience
> of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.
>
>   Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim
> Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it
in
> early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it
works.  One
> message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than
> conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting
> aspect is also intriguing.
>
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > -G'day Mike
> > I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding
up
> > the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
> > vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the
base
> > should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie
down
> > straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
> > junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the
lw
> > side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
> > If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
> > farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam,
or
> > even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then
the
> > only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
> > trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
> > winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
> > righting from a complete overturning.
> > My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
> > can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
> > possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
> > water supporting the system and you're away.
> > I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
> > and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
> > possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.
> >
> > On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get
round
> > the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
> > excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
> > looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing
of
> > tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips
of
> > bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo
strips
> > a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
> > utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
> > organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would
be
> > horrendous
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >   -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford
<jmichael@g...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> > > horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
> > the
> > > size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
> > 16:1
> > > should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
> > wing
> > > mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on
the
> > > Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is
the
> > > smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
> > >
> > >   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the
purchase
> > with
> > > a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
> > single
> > > line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the
trailer,
> > up
> > > to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to
the
> > > winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
> > you put
> > > some muscle into it..
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing
to
> > > require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
> > Harrigami
> > > setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly
the
> > > simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said
for
> > both.
> > >
> > >   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease
the
> > > process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
> > costs, and
> > > partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
> > necessarily
> > > have paid help.
> > >
> > >   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
> > trailering
> > > width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
> > trailer
> > > beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
> > >
> > >     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its
own,
> > >
> > >     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its
own
> > > wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
> > from the
> > > trailer,
> > >
> > >     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold
the
> > lw
> > > hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as
well as
> > keep
> > > the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
> > proa,
> > >
> > >     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
> > vertical
> > > without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
> > >
> > >     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through
which
> > the
> > > winch line can be run,
> > >
> > >     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could
be
> > > inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as
they
> > > rotate down to horizontal,
> > >
> > >     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
> > can be
> > > winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
> > >
> > >   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
> > situation,
> > > though.
> > >
> > >   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
> > strong,
> > > especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on
the
> > road.
> > > Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it
is
> > in
> > > place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under
the
> > > cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
> > >
> > >   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion
arm/track
> > to
> > > support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
> > inboard
> > > wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while
the
> > > trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
> > degrees
> > > to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately,
there
> > > could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
> > >
> > >   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
> > that lw
> > > hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas
trashed
> > as
> > > long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve
this in
> > a
> > > weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five
years
> > left
> > > of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
> > >
> > >        - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > oceanplodder2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become
an
> > issue,
> > > > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the
mast
> > must
> > > > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to
begin
> > with.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Blind Date was easily put together in one day by two people earlier this summer.

Hulls are on separate dollies, very simple supports on wheels.

We rented a hand operated forklift to handle the beams (150 kg each).

The walkway with steering pedestal is on a trailer.

It is not hard work.

We have a custom trailer for moving the hulls by road. Very basic, it takes both hulls( one at a time).

Hulls weigh less than 500kg each.

 

Blind Date is demountable, and easily demountable for it's size.

I certainly wouldn't call her trailerable, nor would I want a trailerable boat this size.

 

Rudolf 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:18 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

  I would definitely go the Blind Date approach as you describe, or even simpler, but that would still leave the cockpit benches and floor to contend with, not to mention the steering.  That would basically eliminate any possibility of folding the boat to fit in a slip, and instead restrict the folding system to being a trailering convenience.  Even if I could figure out how to somehow deal with the cockpit, getting the steering set up while folding/unfolding on the water would be ugly at best.

  I'm generally resigned to a trailer/trolley/box beam approach, but still hold out the hope of a folding system and normal trailer.  There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an ingenious way to solve the problem. 

  Either way, though, I can't see a boat this size being trailerable in the sense that one might tow it to a ramp, sail it all day, and then bring it back.  I just don't want to pay the $4,000US that the local yard would charge for storage each year, and perhaps go on a road trip once per year.

  Thanks for the tips.

       - Mike


Mark Stepehens wrote:

Hi,

 

One thing to remember when thinking about folding boats is all the extra bits and pieces that the bridgedeck carries. A Farrier system can be relatively simple as it is only folding the amas and trampolines. On Rare Bird we have walkways, steering lines, two outboard sleds, deck boxes, anchor winch, sheet winch, trampolines, engine control lines, fuel lines, lw hull wiring harness, a ramp, a longitudinal beam, cockpit with binnacle and wheels, and overhead a sunshade. Of course you could take the Blind Date approach and make the boat much simpler but you would still have outboard, steering and walkways to contend with.

 

Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

Mark

 

 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...> wrote:
>
> -G'day Mike
>  I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
> the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
> vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
> should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
> straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
> junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
> side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
>  If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
> farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
> even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
> only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
> trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
> winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
> righting from a complete overturning.
> My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
> can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
> possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
> water supporting the system and you're away.
>  I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
> and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
> possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.
> ...

Robert, do you have a link or reference to the Jim Shanahan folding system you mentioned
here? Googling "Jim Shanahan folding system" yields nothing interesting, at least on this
subject.

Been thinking along similar lines, although with a Farrier-style link system (properly
referred to as a 4-bar linkage) and sleeve to join the beam halves. Keeping the whole
assembly upright during unfolding might be an interesting challenge, though ;-)

One other question: Mike, where was the source that gave you the absolute unescorted
trailer width requirement in the US? Been looking for that information for a while; have
resorted to corresponding with individual states in the meantime. I also tape-measured a
large bulldozer at a stop here in Colorado once, it was very close to 12 feet wide and
entirely escort-free.

This is a fun problem!

Regards,

Mike

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:18 AM

Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

  I would definitely go the Blind Date approach as you describe, or even simpler, but that would still leave the cockpit benches and floor to contend with, not to mention the steering.  That would basically eliminate any possibility of folding the boat to fit in a slip, and instead restrict the folding system to being a trailering convenience.  Even if I could figure out how to somehow deal with the cockpit, getting the steering set up while folding/unfolding on the water would be ugly at best.

  I'm generally resigned to a trailer/trolley/box beam approach, but still hold out the hope of a folding system and normal trailer.  There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an ingenious way to solve the problem. 

  Either way, though, I can't see a boat this size being trailerable in the sense that one might tow it to a ramp, sail it all day, and then bring it back.  I just don't want to pay the $4,000US that the local yard would charge for storage each year, and perhaps go on a road trip once per year.

  Thanks for the tips.

       - Mike


Mark Stepehens wrote:

Hi,

 

One thing to remember when thinking about folding boats is all the extra bits and pieces that the bridgedeck carries. A Farrier system can be relatively simple as it is only folding the amas and trampolines. On Rare Bird we have walkways, steering lines, two outboard sleds, deck boxes, anchor winch, sheet winch, trampolines, engine control lines, fuel lines, lw hull wiring harness, a ramp, a longitudinal beam, cockpit with binnacle and wheels, and overhead a sunshade. Of course you could take the Blind Date approach and make the boat much simpler but you would still have outboard, steering and walkways to contend with.

 

Making a Harrigami fold is difficult enough but a sail onto the trailer Visionarry I suspect will remain a dream. It is a very big boat. If you only intend to trailer a few times a year you may be better off building a simple Visionarry with plug in beams and expect to spend a day or two loading. Of course I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

Mark

 

 

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-G'day Mike,
  I am not sure what job I was about to do but the present one of
lecturing on plant physiology means I am supposed to be re writing a
prac manual instead of this email. It is actually challenging and
enjoyable.
  I do not see why having the lw hull on its side prevents it
floating. There is the difficulty of providing steering. The best I
could come up with on that is a small removable electric outboard.
This is the hardest bit I have come up against.
regards,
Robert

-- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
> Hey Robert,
>
>   How is the new job?
>
>   The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull
is
> stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a
Visionarry,
> though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load
limit, so
> one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.
>
>   The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing
deck,
> makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two
birds
> with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is
> already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my
dream
> of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard
> trailer, though.
>
>   Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular
to the
> hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system
would
> work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the
> Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the
moment
> is the cat2fold scissors system.
>
>   However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.
My
> only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer
could
> take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the
> water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything
other
> than a wide open ramp.
>
>   Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and
> chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to
use the
> trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the
inconvenience
> of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.
>
>   Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim
> Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it
in
> early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it
works.  One
> message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than
> conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting
> aspect is also intriguing.
>
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > -G'day Mike
> > I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding
up
> > the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
> > vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the
base
> > should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie
down
> > straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
> > junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the
lw
> > side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
> > If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
> > farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam,
or
> > even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then
the
> > only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
> > trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
> > winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
> > righting from a complete overturning.
> > My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
> > can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
> > possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
> > water supporting the system and you're away.
> > I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
> > and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
> > possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.
> >
> > On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get
round
> > the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
> > excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
> > looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing
of
> > tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips
of
> > bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo
strips
> > a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
> > utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
> > organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would
be
> > horrendous
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >   -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford
<jmichael@g...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> > > horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
> > the
> > > size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
> > 16:1
> > > should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
> > wing
> > > mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on
the
> > > Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is
the
> > > smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
> > >
> > >   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the
purchase
> > with
> > > a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
> > single
> > > line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the
trailer,
> > up
> > > to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to
the
> > > winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
> > you put
> > > some muscle into it..
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing
to
> > > require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
> > Harrigami
> > > setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly
the
> > > simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said
for
> > both.
> > >
> > >   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease
the
> > > process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
> > costs, and
> > > partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
> > necessarily
> > > have paid help.
> > >
> > >   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
> > trailering
> > > width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
> > trailer
> > > beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
> > >
> > >     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its
own,
> > >
> > >     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its
own
> > > wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
> > from the
> > > trailer,
> > >
> > >     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold
the
> > lw
> > > hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as
well as
> > keep
> > > the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
> > proa,
> > >
> > >     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
> > vertical
> > > without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
> > >
> > >     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through
which
> > the
> > > winch line can be run,
> > >
> > >     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could
be
> > > inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as
they
> > > rotate down to horizontal,
> > >
> > >     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
> > can be
> > > winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
> > >
> > >   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
> > situation,
> > > though.
> > >
> > >   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
> > strong,
> > > especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on
the
> > road.
> > > Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it
is
> > in
> > > place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under
the
> > > cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
> > >
> > >   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion
arm/track
> > to
> > > support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
> > inboard
> > > wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while
the
> > > trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
> > degrees
> > > to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately,
there
> > > could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
> > >
> > >   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
> > that lw
> > > hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas
trashed
> > as
> > > long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve
this in
> > a
> > > weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five
years
> > left
> > > of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
> > >
> > >        - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > oceanplodder2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become
an
> > issue,
> > > > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the
mast
> > must
> > > > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to
begin
> > with.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

This is a confidential system that Jim gave me a model of. You would
have to ask him. ALl I can say is that it as far as the folding part
goes and its strength it should work well. As Mark pointed out ,
organising all the other gear is a different matter. I have given it
some thought and I believe it can be done if things are kept
reasonably simple but you have to decide if it is worth it. It
depends very much on your circumstance.
  Robert

--- In harryproa@..., "rattus32" <mike@g...> wrote:
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > -G'day Mike
> >  I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem
holding up
> > the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
> > vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the
base
> > should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie
down
> > straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
> > junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the
lw
> > side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
> >  If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
> > farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam,
or
> > even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then
the
> > only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
> > trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
> > winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
> > righting from a complete overturning.
> > My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the
boat
> > can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
> > possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
> > water supporting the system and you're away.
> >  I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the
water
> > and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
> > possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.
> > ...
>
> Robert, do you have a link or reference to the Jim Shanahan folding
system you mentioned
> here? Googling "Jim Shanahan folding system" yields nothing
interesting, at least on this
> subject.
>
> Been thinking along similar lines, although with a Farrier-style
link system (properly
> referred to as a 4-bar linkage) and sleeve to join the beam halves.
Keeping the whole
> assembly upright during unfolding might be an interesting
challenge, though ;-)
>
> One other question: Mike, where was the source that gave you the
absolute unescorted
> trailer width requirement in the US? Been looking for that
information for a while; have
> resorted to corresponding with individual states in the meantime. I
also tape-measured a
> large bulldozer at a stop here in Colorado once, it was very close
to 12 feet wide and
> entirely escort-free.
>
> This is a fun problem!
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>

How would the boat float with the hull on its side like you describe?

Cheers,

Peter

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

From: Mike Crawford

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 1:27 PM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Mast raising

Hey Robert,

  How is the new job? 

  The support system you describe should work well if the lw hull is stored upright next to the ww hull on the trailer.  For a Visionarry, though, that puts me about 20cm past the unescorted wide load limit, so one or both hulls would have to get a bit narrower.

  The idea of storing the lw hull on its side, beneath the wing deck, makes supporting the ww hull more of a challenge, but kills two birds with one stone: neither hull has to change size, and the lw hull is already on its side ready for the mast.  It does get away from my dream of collapsing the boat on the water and floating it onto a standard trailer, though.   

  Since the beams aren't parallel to each other and perpendicular to the hulls, I'm having a hard time imagining how an Farrier-type system would work.  The same geometry would also make it difficult to use the Dragonfly system.  The only one that's making sense to me at the moment is the cat2fold scissors system.

  However, I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the goal.  My only doubt involves a tilting/folding system.  Unless the trailer could take the boat out sideways, or I could remove the mast while on the water, that could make it very difficult to launch from anything other than a wide open ramp.

  Is the dream worth it in terms of added weight, complexity, and chances for failure?  I'm not so sure.  Of course, my goal is to use the trailer only two to four times per year, so that makes the inconvenience of box beams and a funky trailer less of an issue.

  Are there any photos, CAD images, or links that describe Jim Shanahan's system in more detail?  I found a few references to it in early posts, but haven't seen anything that describes how it works.  One message mentioned something about being lighter and stronger than conventional beams.  If so, that would be impressive.  The righting aspect is also intriguing.


       - Mike



Robert wrote:

-G'day Mike
I was thinking on similar lines but don't se much problem holding up
the ww hull. There is not an enormous weight off centre and a
vertical  bit of box section on the ww side triangulated at the base
should provide enough support for the hull with a couple of tie down
straps to hold it against. Either that and/or a support under the
junction of the wing deck and hull. This would have to be to the lw
side of the c of g.of the www hull on its own.
If the crossbeams had a temporary controlling system such as a
farrier wishbone with a sleeve to allow sliding of the crossbeam, or
even a complete folding system as designed by Jim Shanahan then the
only difficulty is moving the lw hulls off the trailer and onto a
trolley as everything else can be controlled with a couple of
winches. Jim's system makes a lot of sense and would even allow
righting from a complete overturning.
My personal preference is to launch a folded system where the boat
can then be brought side on to shore and the mast then inserted-
possibly with sail attached. The crossbeams get winched out with
water supporting the system and you're away.
I have tried to imagine taking the folded boat out onto the water
and inserting the mast from the water. It seems theoretically
possible but would probably be excessively difficult in practice.

On another issue, I was wondering if there was any wat to get round
the dependance on carbon for making a free standing mast without
excessive weight. The closest I could come up with was , while
looking through a website on making bamboo fly rods, the testing of
tensile and  compressive strengths and Young's modulus of strips of
bamboo. Rough calculations give a mast made of quality bamboo strips
a weight of about 2.5 times that of carbon. The technology for
utilising bamboo has come some way to making this practical, but
organising supplies off stream from flooring manufacturers would be
horrendous

Robert

  -- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@g...>
wrote:
>
>
>   If you can keep that leeward hull in place as it rotates from
> horizontal to vertical, then there shouldn't be any problem with
the
> size of the mast.  Given the length of the beams, a #14 winch at
16:1
> should be enough to bring the leeward hull into place with a 22m
wing
> mast.  Though I'm not familiar with the size of winches used on the
> Harry's, my guess is that you'll have at least a #14, which is the
> smallest self-tailing size offered by some vendors.
>
>   If this is not enough, it would be simple to double the purchase
with
> a block.  If you want even more than 32:1, then you could have a
single
> line going from the trailer to the first beam, back to the trailer,
up
> to the second beam, back to the trailer again, and then up to the
> winch.  That might be even be enough to lift your tow vehicle if
you put
> some muscle into it..
>
> ---
>
>   For me the question then becomes how much help you're willing to
> require.  If you can get a few people to lend a hand, then the
Harrigami
> setup described in the article should be fine.  It's certainly the
> simplest and cheapest way to go, and there's a lot to be said for
both.
>
>   I'd probably choose to spend more on a trailer to help ease the
> process, though.  This would be partially to save on boatyard
costs, and
> partially to allow two people to launch in areas that don't
necessarily
> have paid help.
>
>   I think even a Visionarry could be kept to an 11' / 3.3m
trailering
> width if the leeward hull could be stored on its side on the
trailer
> beneath the cockpit.  My first thoughts on this would be to:
>
>     - Create a bunk that could hold the ww hull upright on its own,
>
>     - Create a detachable moving bunk for the lw hull with its own
> wheels that could be lowered and used to move the hull out away
from the
> trailer,
>
>     - Add two long horizontal arms that could be used to hold the
lw
> hull in place the proper distance away from the ww hull, as well as
keep
> the trailer assembly together when launching and retrieving the
proa,
>
>     - Give the lw hull bunk assembly the ability to pivot to
vertical
> without sliding towards the ww hull and trailer,
>
>     - Add some sheet blocks to the trailer and akas through which
the
> winch line can be run,
>
>     - Add two short vertical arms with soft rollers that could be
> inserted into the main trailer and used to catch the beams as they
> rotate down to horizontal,
>
>     - Add some block attachment points to the lw hull so that it
can be
> winched tightly towards the ww hull once the beams are in place.
>
>   I'm not exactly sure how this would be done in a real world
situation,
> though.
>
>   The bunk keeping the ww hull vertical would need to be pretty
strong,
> especially if it's going to hold everything in place while on the
road. 
> Perhaps it could be supported while by the lw hull bunk once it is
in
> place under the ww hull, and by a temporary support arm under the
> cockpit when the lw hull bunk is away from the main trailer.
>
>   The lw bunk might need a roller bearing and expansion arm/track
to
> support it until it is moved far enough from center to get the
inboard
> wheels down (assuming the outboard wheels can be dropped while the
> trailer is still whole).  The wheels would also need to pivot 90
degrees
> to make the transition from assembly to launch.  Alternately, there
> could be two sets of wheels, but that seems a bit excessive.
>
>   Ideas on how to improve this setup, especially on how to make
that lw
> hull bunk work, are welcome.  I don't mind seeing my ideas trashed
as
> long as something better results.  Rob could probably solve this in
a
> weekend if I were actually building a boat, but I've got five years
left
> of lurking in this group before I get to that stage.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> oceanplodder2003 wrote:
>
> > Saw that, my concern was at what mast length would it become an
issue,
> > considering that if I go for Rob's una rig I'm assuming the mast
must
> > be taller, and I think Harry's is longer than Harrigami to begin
with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 2006/06/30