You're talking about the transpac? I mean extra buoyancy for me when I start flying down waves into the trough! You have the experience, what's the sea handling diffrence between sizes like vis to har? Would the waves you might ride out here in a seabreeze, be the same as say the waves in the trades?
Doug (any chane you'll be going sailing on Sunday?)
Rob Denney <proa@...> wrote:
G'day,
Nothing like seeing how others do it to give one some other options. A cuddy is an option, but this is virtually what we have on Rare Bird and Bain's boat, only it is offset to windward, with access to the ww hull. There is also nothing to prevent a full bridge deck cabin like cruising cats have. Would have all the pluses and minuses of the cat, but for someone who was not interested in performance and wanted lots of space, it would be a good option.
15m is faster than 12m, it is nothing to do with surfing ability. The rig has to fit in a container, not sure whether we will get by with a 12m mast, or whether it will need to be sleeved, or telescope. Will depend on the weight of the boat.
Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hi ya,
I am getting a lot more food for thought, now that I work in a Schionning Cat
Factory. Something I sorted out in my mind today was the argument for general accomodation /cockpit layout in cats, tris and HP's. I saw in Multihull World Sept 2003 just now, a GBE sportsdeck. Now I have never really thought of wanting o build or buy a bridgedeck cat because of the huge living space, weight,windage and cost etc. I was heading more along the lines of trimarans (liking Chris White's designs) with accom. in a central hull. But this GBE sports deck reminds me of the HP Harryin that you get a little set of seats under cover with 360 deg. view and a helm station. The little table on the GBE would be good too, could be included at the expense of one of the double berths. But that is all - no indoor sofas and kitchen. That's down below, same as with Harry. You're going to beat other cats in speed, and spend much less building. Someone care to argue the bridge deck or a more Visionarry cruiser type saloon?
Eg. Entertaining, warmth, The cabin/saloon is open to LW when sailing, so this seems better than a cat, where opening is aft, which could let weather in.
Also been wondering about matching up a longer LW like 15m with Harry WW 8.5 or 9m. Is that being too scared of the ocean and the 12m LW is plenty bouyant for surfing waves? Would you go up in rig too? Surely not up to Vis rig! Cross beams stronger or longer?
Douhg
Doug Haines <doha720@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,
For the booms: I liked the way the tow wraps around in the beams and thought a similar application applies here? Remembering Uni Engineering - the corner points of a box section are higher loadedthan the middles of each side, due to forces from two diffrent directions. A boom would get forces sideways and up or maybe down too when sheeted in.
If the mast was done as a whole, then cut in half to fit the stub in, would you put two layers of db around as you would need two layers of db in a mast anyway and this way it holds the two halves together.
I'm guessing that the tapering section would mean you wouldn't really stagger the layers but have the constant number of layers all the way up?
Hope you can find aenough space for the kite on the river on a weekend, or will you try Cockburn Sound? Hot today!
Rob
Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Tube diameter sounds good, although the bigger it is, the stiffer the mast will be. I can't see an easy way to get the stub in the mast without making it in 2 halves. It also needs a bulkhead at the top bearing.
I will let you know laminates in he next day or so.
If you are wrapping the tow round a tube on the mast and back onto the beam,
then an I (This should be a capital i, but my keyboard doesn't have this. The shape is the same as an rsj) is better than a T. Just be aware that i's are not very good at withstanding twist, so the main sheet should attach to the clew of the sail, rather than to the boom, unless the boom is heavily tapered.
regards,
Rob
Ya Hi,
Wel I'm trying to get the planning sorted for all the sizes and amounts of materials and things to start making the masts again:
I'll give you what I've got to so far. Changing the mast tubes (
termed mast step by Rob I think), that sit inside the hull in between the bulkhead halves. I made incorrectly small diameter tubes about 75mm inside diameter. So replacing these with I think it is 86mm inside diameter pipe. Wrapping carbon round that. No probs. Re-doing the fillets from the bulkhead halves later and fitting tubes in. By the way staying with two masts.
Now with the tubes set I know I need the stub of the mast to be round 84mm or so. This and the mast I want to do with solid carbon on molds. I've got the foil section shape. I can scale this to get the molds all the way up tapering linearly to I'm guessing a good size is about half size at the top? With the taper I'm confident that one piece molded will come straight off, though it may be to get the stub in if it is in two halves. What I need is the lay up weights of carbon.
Including the round stub. Then also the boom. Do you mean I or T section boom? It is attached with freee tube on the stub between wing and hull. Wrap carbon tow around mast like design of beams? I've got two 6m luff sails, so total mast is about 6+0.7+0.3+a bit =7 and a bit metres. PLease let me know what else I need to work on. I'm trying to bring the performancr (and looks) up to standard.
Thanks DOug
mark@harryproa.com wrote:
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require
closing off, jus a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Doug
Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing
sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect
his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug
Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Nothing like seeing how others do it to give one some other options. A cuddy is an option, but this is virtually what we have on Rare Bird and Bain's boat, only it is offset to windward, with access to the ww hull. There is also nothing to prevent a full bridge deck cabin like cruising cats have. Would have all the pluses and minuses of the cat, but for someone who was not interested in performance and wanted lots of space, it would be a good option.
15m is faster than 12m, it is nothing to do with surfing ability. The rig has to fit in a container, not sure whether we will get by with a 12m mast, or whether it will need to be sleeved, or telescope. Will depend on the weight of the boat.
Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hi ya,
I am getting a lot more food for thought, now that I work in a Schionning Cat Factory. Something I sorted out in my mind today was the argument for general accomodation /cockpit layout in cats, tris and HP's. I saw in Multihull World Sept 2003 just now, a GBE sportsdeck. Now I have never really thought of wanting o build or buy a bridgedeck cat because of the huge living space, weight,windage and cost etc. I was heading more along the lines of trimarans (liking Chris White's designs) with accom. in a central hull. But this GBE sports deck reminds me of the HP Harryin that you get a little set of seats under cover with 360 deg. view and a helm station. The little table on the GBE would be good too, could be included at the expense of one of the double berths. But that is all - no indoor sofas and kitchen. That's down below, same as with Harry. You're going to beat other cats in speed, and spend much less building. Someone care to argue the bridge deck or a more Visionarry cruiser type saloon? Eg. Entertaining, warmth, The cabin/saloon is open to LW when sailing, so this seems better than a cat, where opening is aft, which could let weather in.
Also been wondering about matching up a longer LW like 15m with Harry WW 8.5 or 9m. Is that being too scared of the ocean and the 12m LW is plenty bouyant for surfing waves? Would you go up in rig too? Surely not up to Vis rig! Cross beams stronger or longer?
Douhg
Doug Haines <doha720@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,
For the booms: I liked the way the tow wraps around in the beams and thought a similar application applies here? Remembering Uni Engineering - the corner points of a box section are higher loadedthan the middles of each side, due to forces from two diffrent directions. A boom would get forces sideways and up or maybe down too when sheeted in.
If the mast was done as a whole, then cut in half to fit the stub in, would you put two layers of db around as you would need two layers of db in a mast anyway and this way it holds the two halves together.
I'm guessing that the tapering section would mean you wouldn't really stagger the layers but have the constant number of layers all the way up?
Hope you can find aenough space for the kite on the river on a weekend, or will you try Cockburn Sound? Hot today!
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Tube diameter sounds good, although the bigger it is, the stiffer the mast will be. I can't see an easy way to get the stub in the mast without making it in 2 halves. It also needs a bulkhead at the top bearing.
I will let you know laminates in he next day or so.
If you are wrapping the tow round a tube on the mast and back onto the beam, then an I (This should be a capital i, but my keyboard doesn't have this. The shape is the same as an rsj) is better than a T. Just be aware that i's are not very good at withstanding twist, so the main sheet should attach to the clew of the sail, rather than to the boom, unless the boom is heavily tapered.
regards,
Rob
Ya Hi,
Wel I'm trying to get the planning sorted for all the sizes and amounts of materials and things to start making the masts again:
I'll give you what I've got to so far. Changing the mast tubes ( termed mast step by Rob I think), that sit inside the hull in between the bulkhead halves. I made incorrectly small diameter tubes about 75mm inside diameter. So replacing these with I think it is 86mm inside diameter pipe. Wrapping carbon round that. No probs. Re-doing the fillets from the bulkhead halves later and fitting tubes in. By the way staying with two masts.
Now with the tubes set I know I need the stub of the mast to be round 84mm or so. This and the mast I want to do with solid carbon on molds. I've got the foil section shape. I can scale this to get the molds all the way up tapering linearly to I'm guessing a good size is about half size at the top? With the taper I'm confident that one piece molded will come straight off, though it may be to get the stub in if it is in two halves. What I need is the lay up weights of carbon. Including the round stub. Then also the boom. Do you mean I or T section boom? It is attached with freee tube on the stub between wing and hull. Wrap carbon tow around mast like design of beams? I've got two 6m luff sails, so total mast is about 6+0.7+0.3+a bit =7 and a bit metres. PLease let me know what else I need to work on. I'm trying to bring the performancr (and looks) up to standard.
Thanks DOug
mark@harryproa.com wrote:
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require closing off, jus a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Doug Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
I am getting a lot more food for thought, now that I work in a Schionning Cat Factory. Something I sorted out in my mind today was the argument for general accomodation /cockpit layout in cats, tris and HP's. I saw in Multihull World Sept 2003 just now, a GBE sportsdeck. Now I have never really thought of wanting o build or buy a bridgedeck cat because of the huge living space, weight,windage and cost etc. I was heading more along the lines of trimarans (liking Chris White's designs) with accom. in a central hull. But this GBE sports deck reminds me of the HP Harryin that you get a little set of seats under cover with 360 deg. view and a helm station. The little table on the GBE would be good too, could be included at the expense of one of the double berths. But that is all - no indoor sofas and kitchen. That's down below, same as with Harry. You're going to beat other cats in speed, and spend much less building. Someone care to argue the
bridge deck or a more Visionarry cruiser type saloon? Eg. Entertaining, warmth, The cabin/saloon is open to LW when sailing, so this seems better than a cat, where opening is aft, which could let weather in.
Also been wondering about matching up a longer LW like 15m with Harry WW 8.5 or 9m. Is that being too scared of the ocean and the 12m LW is plenty bouyant for surfing waves? Would you go up in rig too? Surely not up to Vis rig! Cross beams stronger or longer?
Douhg
Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
Hi,
For the booms: I liked the way the tow wraps around in the beams and thought a similar application applies here? Remembering Uni Engineering - the corner points of a box section are higher loadedthan the middles of each side, due to forces from two diffrent directions. A boom would get forces sideways and up or maybe down too when sheeted in.
If the mast was done as a whole, then cut in half to fit the stub in, would you put two layers of db around as you would need two layers of db in a mast anyway and this way it holds the two halves together.
I'm
guessing that the tapering section would mean you wouldn't really stagger the layers but have the constant number of layers all the way up?
Hope you can find aenough space for the kite on the river on a weekend, or will you try Cockburn Sound? Hot today!
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Tube diameter sounds good, although the bigger it is, the stiffer the mast will be. I can't see an easy way to get the stub in the mast without making it in 2 halves. It also needs a bulkhead at the top bearing.
I will let you know laminates in the next day or so.
If you are wrapping the tow round a tube on the mast and back onto the beam, then an I (This should be a capital i, but my keyboard doesn't have this. The shape is the same as an rsj) is better than a T. Just be aware that i's are not very good at withstanding twist, so the main sheet should attach to the clew of the sail, rather than to the boom, unless the boom is heavily tapered.
regards,
Rob
Ya Hi,
Wel I'm trying to get the planning sorted for all the sizes and
amounts of materials and things to start making the masts again:
I'll give you what I've got to so far. Changing the mast tubes ( termed mast step by Rob I think), that sit inside the hull in between the bulkhead halves. I made incorrectly small diameter tubes about 75mm inside diameter. So replacing these with I think it is 86mm inside diameter pipe. Wrapping carbon round that. No probs. Re-doing the fillets from the bulkhead halves later and fitting tubes in. By the way staying with two masts.
Now with the tubes set I know I need the stub of the mast to be round 84mm or so. This and the mast I want to do with solid carbon on molds. I've got the foil section shape. I can scale this to get the molds all the way up tapering linearly to I'm guessing a good size is about half size at the top? With the taper I'm confident that one piece molded will come straight off, though it may be to get the stub in if it
is in two halves. What I need is the lay up weights of carbon. Including the round stub. Then also the boom. Do you mean I or T section boom? It is attached with freee tube on the stub between wing and hull. Wrap carbon tow around mast like design of beams? I've got two 6m luff sails, so total mast is about 6+0.7+0.3+a bit =7 and a bit metres. PLease let me know what else I need to work on. I'm trying to bring the performancr (and looks) up to standard.
Thanks DOug
mark@harryproa.com wrote:
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require closing off, jus
a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Doug Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow,
all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and
the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only
critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down
and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus
Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
For the booms: I liked the way the tow wraps around in the beams and thought a similar application applies here? Remembering Uni Engineering - the corner points of a box section are higher loadedthan the middles of each side, due to forces from two diffrent directions. A boom would get forces sideways and up or maybe down too when sheeted in.
If the mast was done as a whole, then cut in half to fit the stub in, would you put two layers of db around as you would need two layers of db in a mast anyway and this way it holds the two halves together.
I'm guessing that the tapering section would mean you wouldn't really stagger the layers but have the constant number of layers all the way up?
Hope you can find aenough space for the kite on the river on a weekend, or will you try Cockburn Sound? Hot today!
Rob Denney <proa@...> wrote:
G'day,
Tube diameter sounds good, although the bigger it is, the stiffer the mast will be. I can't see an easy way to get the stub in the mast without making it in 2 halves. It also needs a bulkhead at the top bearing.
I will let you know laminates in the next day or so.
If you are wrapping the tow round a tube on the mast and back onto the beam, then an I (This should be a capital i, but my keyboard doesn't have this. The shape is the same as an rsj) is better than a T. Just be aware that i's are not very good at withstanding twist, so the main sheet should attach to the clew of the sail, rather than to the boom, unless the boom is heavily tapered.
regards,
Rob
Ya Hi,
Wel I'm trying to get the planning sorted for all the sizes and amounts of materials and things to start making the masts again:
I'll give you what I've got to so far. Changing the mast tubes ( termed mast
step by Rob I think), that sit inside the hull in between the bulkhead halves. I made incorrectly small diameter tubes about 75mm inside diameter. So replacing these with I think it is 86mm inside diameter pipe. Wrapping carbon round that. No probs. Re-doing the fillets from the bulkhead halves later and fitting tubes in. By the way staying with two masts.
Now with the tubes set I know I need the stub of the mast to be round 84mm or so. This and the mast I want to do with solid carbon on molds. I've got the foil section shape. I can scale this to get the molds all the way up tapering linearly to I'm guessing a good size is about half size at the top? With the taper I'm confident that one piece molded will come straight off, though it may be to get the stub in if it is in two halves. What I need is the lay up weights of carbon. Including the round stub. Then also the boom. Do you mean I or T section
boom? It is attached with freee tube on the stub between wing and hull. Wrap carbon tow around mast like design of beams? I've got two 6m luff sails, so total mast is about 6+0.7+0.3+a bit =7 and a bit metres. PLease let me know what else I need to work on. I'm trying to bring the performancr (and looks) up to standard.
Thanks DOug
mark@harryproa.com wrote:
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require closing off, jus a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to
take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Doug Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in
while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the
water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and
save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free
analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
It is well worth setting up the system so the sails are dropped, the reef tied in, then hoisted again. Tying in reefs while standing on the hull is a recipe for a swim.
Hope you are feeling better. Rudders worked, but not well enough. Few more adjustments happening, maybe sailing this weekend. Suddenly had lots of interest in Outleader kites, so need to get my boat sorted for flying them.
Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
Tube diameter sounds good, although the bigger it is, the stiffer the mast will be. I can't see an easy way to get the stub in the mast without making it in 2 halves. It also needs a bulkhead at the top bearing.
I will let you know laminates in the next day or so.
If you are wrapping the tow round a tube on the mast and back onto the beam, then an I (This should be a capital i, but my keyboard doesn't have this. The shape is the same as an rsj) is better than a T. Just be aware that i's are not very good at withstanding twist, so the main sheet should attach to the clew of the sail, rather than to the boom, unless the boom is heavily tapered.
regards,
Rob
Ya Hi,
Wel I'm trying to get the planning sorted for all the sizes and amounts of materials and things to start making the masts again:
I'll give you what I've got to so far. Changing the mast tubes ( termed mast step by Rob I think), that sit inside the hull in between the bulkhead halves. I made incorrectly small diameter tubes about 75mm inside diameter. So replacing these with I think it is 86mm inside diameter pipe. Wrapping carbon round that. No probs. Re-doing the fillets from the bulkhead halves later and fitting tubes in. By the way staying with two masts.
Now with the tubes set I know I need the stub of the mast to be round 84mm or so. This and the mast I want to do with solid carbon on molds. I've got the foil section shape. I can scale this to get the molds all the way up tapering linearly to I'm guessing a good size is about half size at the top? With the taper I'm confident that one piece molded will come straight off, though it may be to get the stub in if it is in two halves. What I need is the lay up weights of carbon. Including the round stub. Then also the boom. Do you mean I or T section boom? It is attached with freee tube on the stub between wing and hull. Wrap carbon tow around mast like design of beams? I've got two 6m luff sails, so total mast is about 6+0.7+0.3+a bit =7 and a bit metres. PLease let me know what else I need to work on. I'm trying to bring the performancr (and looks) up to standard.
Thanks DOug
mark@harryproa.com wrote:
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require closing off, jus a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Doug Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
Hello Mike,
Thanks for your time and effort of your take on the comparison.
To me the comparison and what I believe single outrigger shunters are your last paragraph sums it up. Single dominate hull shunters are in a new class by them selfs with as good or better performance than most of the off the shelf cats and tris on the market today. Knowing that at any length wind speed or better can be achieved with the least amount of equipment, least amount of weight, least amount of sail, least amount of stress and strain on hull and float. Mybe thats why as Rob said some builders/ designers have stopped answering on price. It would be a shame for proffesional builders getting beat on the water and in their pocket books on a craft that can do it better at 1/10th the coast and 1/10th the materials. Are they realizing the market of a craft once made from pile of vegetation built with a keen sense of how nature works that sailed circles around other craft of thier day and into the future.
On production line boats I'd never own one are you kidding me talk about least of this an that, and the use of materials not really designed for the water... polyester resin come on.
So now they charge for performance of the craft A sad spiral down the tubes for proas.
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote: > > Todd, > > It's nice to see some boats for comparison. The Reynolds and Wharram > are both great boats at what they do, but aren't really great at what > the harryproas do. I'll write up a quick comparison, and will also > include a Farrier F36, which is probably the closest thing in terms of > apples and oranges. > > Reynolds > > As you said the price has increased. The original $33,000 didn't > include sails or rigging, so the number was deceivingly low even at the > time. The finished boat with a trailer was closer to $70,000 to > $90,000. But now they are closer to $140,000. That's a lot of money > for a boat without a double berth or standing room. > > That's also probably the price of a custom-built Harry. The Harry as > two double bunks, standing headroom, an enclosed head, a stand-up > galley, and a rig that is easily single-handed at maximum sail area. > The r33 has four pipe-berths, only sitting headroom, no real galley, and > a rig that requires winches (and furling for the reacher) on every > tack. The Harry also has a longer waterline, better righting moment > with respect to the sail area, a protected cockpit with a hard deck, and > the advantage of not risking rig collapse due to the failure of dozens > of little components used in stayed rigs. > > One note: don't compare the boats on length alone -- it's price and > performance that matter when looking at a proa. It will always be > longer than equivalent boats with the same interior volume. The > question to ask is: what does it cost on another multihull to sail two > double berths in separate areas, with a standing galley, at the speed of > a Harry? That's the question. > > Wharram > > The only 40 foot Wharram I've seen for $35k is a 1982 model. I simply > don't have much faith that a 25-year-old homebuilt plywood boat will do > what I want it to do. Pro built, and well-maintained? Perhaps. But > while I count myself as a Wharram enthusiast, I'll be the first to admit > that there are a lot of Wharrams out there that have not been built and > maintained to professional standards. > > Your Pahi 63 is an interesting comparison. You simply won't find more > boat for the money than the 63. If you want acres of deck space, > low-windage standing room, and the ability to take eight people out for > a weeks at a time, it's hard to beat. But the 63 is an 8000kg beast > that's never going to be demounted and transported to low-cost storage > or new locations, has a lower sail area to displacement ratio than a > Visionarry, and is highly unlikely to be easily single-handed. It's > just in a different class. > > If you want a closer comparison, it might be a Tiki 38, which has two > double berths and two singles. The Tiki will cost a bit less to build > than the Visionarry, but will not have nearly the same performance > characteristics, nor will it be as easily demounted -- there's a lot of > rigging to play with on a Schooner-rigged 38. More deck room and > interior space than a harryproa, but again, far from a raceboat. > > Farrier F36 > > The demountable F36 is probably the most appropriate boat to which to > compare a Visionarry. It is a demountable multihull with good > performance, standing headroom, a full galley, and two double berths in > separate areas. Apples to apples. One one hand it has a saloon table > which Visionarry Sport does not (though Visionarry Cruiser does), on the > other, the Visionarry has a a much larger and more protected cockpit, as > well as more deck space. > > The Visionarry will have the benefit of another 4m of waterline > length, better righting moment, an empty SA/D of 47 compared to the > Farrier's empty SA/D of 38, can be single-handed much more easily, > doesn't have the failure risk and rig stress of a stayed mast, and costs > about $50,000 less to build than the $259,000 F36 I've seen advertised > on the net. > > The F36 is still a great boat, and some will prefer it, but in terms > of performance and accommodation per dollar spent, the Visionarry comes > out on top. > > --- > > As with all boat comparisons, it comes down to what you want to do > with the boat. If you want to cruise, or race, for the lowest price for > real performance with separate double berths, the harryproas are very > strong choices. If you want something else, then they aren't as > attractive. I'd look to performance multihulls like the Farriers and > Corsairs for comparisons, though, since the Wharrams really are in an > entirely different category. > > - Mike > > > > > Todd wrote: > > > > > > Hello Rob, > > > > On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past > > desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the > > construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail the > > craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so far. > > Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with the > > same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same > > price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats and > > tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first run > > they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow... > > > > Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the > > sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe i > > got the weight wrong. > > > > As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just no > > market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the record > > in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:) > > > > If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1 1/2 > > times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10 knots, > > then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique craft > > in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast per > > length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware. > > > > Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us and a > > 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a > > cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space and > > equipment/hardware required to sail the craft. > > > > Todd > > > > - In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Rob Denney" <proa@> wrote: > > > > > > G'day, > > > > > > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design, > > shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered > > cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect > > that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot more > > than a Harry. > > > > > > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although > > the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version > > and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built > > and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It > > is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger > > harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double > > this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more > > complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc, > > I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well > > as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be > > comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price > > with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a > > trailer, with an outboard. > > > > > > If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the > > harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the > > reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are > > too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be > > wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built > > trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may > > like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any > > such boats. > > > > > > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6 > > knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so > > much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are > > claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed > > (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots. > > I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly > > achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots, > > you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast > > as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need > > a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the > > case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Todd > > > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance > > > > > > > > > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building > > > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob > > > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing > > > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything > > to > > > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I > > > ask. > > > > > > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much > > room > > > and with only 1/6 the hardware!? > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, Mike Crawford <jmichael@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed > > cost > > > so > > > > little. > > > > > > > > - Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Todd wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that > > > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good > > overall > > > speed. > > > > > > > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may > > be > > > just > > > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in > > > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a > > > part in > > > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come > > > would > > > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to > > each > > > > > would be? > > > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal > > material > > > and > > > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used > > boats ? > > > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au> > > > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert" > > <cateran1949@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved > > gaff > > > to > > > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed > > mast to > > > > > take > > > > > > the point loading of the gaff, > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au> > > > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor" > > > <brag_rotor@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, > > > and 'Pilgrim' > > > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing > > much > > > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of > > sail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since > > our > > > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I > > > posted > > > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All > > boats are > > > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to > > > denigrate > > > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably > > sustain > > > high > > > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't > > > > > comfortable, > > > > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious > > for > > > our > > > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on > > the > > > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? > > #;^p > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see > > PS) > > > that > > > > > we > > > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is > > now > > > on > > > > > > this > > > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an > > EasyRig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a > > wrap- > > > > > around > > > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due > > to the > > > > > huge > > > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to > > use. > > > It > > > > > > will > > > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of > > the > > > loose > > > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top > > down; > > > > > plus > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the > > rig, > > > since > > > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail > > chord > > > > > > shrinks > > > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy > > to > > > make; > > > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper > > than > > > most > > > > > > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since > > > boyhood, > > > > > and > > > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the > > CAAE > > > > > > telling > > > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the > > flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have > > > > > uploaded > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > > > > > > > > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641> > > > > > > > > > > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of > > very > > > > > small > > > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number> > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>>) > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html> > > > > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>>) > > > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness > > of > > > the > > > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low > > Reynolds > > > Nos > > > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the > > > drag in > > > > > the > > > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a > > round > > > > > wire. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they > > rotate > > > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They > > are in > > > > > > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some > > cleaner > > > flow to > > > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading > > edge > > > of > > > > > > sails, > > > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality > > fluid > > > > > > dynamics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a > > bermudan > > > rig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that > > the > > > mast > > > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the > > spar > > > on an > > > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > > > > > > imperfections > > > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are > > > addressed. > > > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great > > aerodynamic > > > > > > importance > > > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and > > > > > stiff. > > > > > > Not > > > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when > > reefed > > > or in > > > > > > high > > > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a > > beam > > > or > > > > > pole > > > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed > > wind > > > load > > > > > in a > > > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's > > flexing > > > > > > batten. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one > > seen > > > from > > > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not > > > Pilgrim, > > > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. > > A > > > lot > > > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have > > admitted to > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to > > sail > > > shape. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other > > people's > > > > > sails, > > > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle > > > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small > > wrinkles? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - > > more > > > at:- > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?> > > mode=album&album=Tiki- > > > > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?> > > mode=album&album=Tiki-> > > > > > > range/Tiki-30 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a > > > Wharram > > > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS > > > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January > > under > > > main > > > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and > > genoa. > > > > > > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind > > at > > > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on > > > without > > > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots - > > roughly- > > > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It > > was > > > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, > > which > > > > > > > is not usually our custom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------- > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: > > 2/18/2007 > > > > > > > >
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
The "correct taper", would have the mast the same percentage of the sail all the way to the top. However, I think it makes very little difference, so going to 50% will be fine.
Subject: Re: [harryproa] Help drawing the mast section - REDO masts.
HI to You and Rob and all,
I want to do the masts again. This time a mold for a solid carbon wing. Although it is harder, I still want to taper it. I noticed that You asked about how much taper in this email. I scaled down the section using PaintBox program to give the sections from full 300mm length to half that at the top. Is this a good tapering?
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] Namens doha720 Verzonden: woensdag 28 juni 2006 13:34 Aan: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Onderwerp: [harryproa] Help drawing the mast section
Hi,
I want to find something on the internet that shows a mast section so that I can print it and scale it to form the molds. Rob mentioned something about length 3 x width. I found something one time and made rudders and fins on some site.
Ta Doug
__._,_.___ __,_._,___
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 5/1/2006
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
Hello Mike,
Thanks for your time and effort of your take on the comparison.
To me the comparison and what I believe single outrigger shunters
are your last paragraph sums it up. Single dominate hull shunters
are in a new class by them selfs with as good or better performance
than most of the off the shelf cats and tris on the market today.
Knowing that at any length wind speed or better can be achieved with
the least amount of equipment, least amount of weight, least amount
of sail, least amount of stress and strain on hull and float. Mybe
thats why as Rob said some builders/ designers have stopped
answering on price. It would be a shame for proffesional builders
getting beat on the water and in their pocket books on a craft that
can do it better at 1/10th the coast and 1/10th the materials. Are
they realizing the market of a craft once made from pile of
vegetation built with a keen sense of how nature works that sailed
circles around other craft of thier day and into the future.
On production line boats I'd never own one are you kidding me talk
about least of this an that, and the use of materials not really
designed for the water... polyester resin come on.
So now they charge for performance of the craft A sad spiral down
the tubes for proas.
Todd
--- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
wrote:
>
> Todd,
>
> It's nice to see some boats for comparison. The Reynolds and
Wharram
> are both great boats at what they do, but aren't really great at
what
> the harryproas do. I'll write up a quick comparison, and will also
> include a Farrier F36, which is probably the closest thing in
terms of
> apples and oranges.
>
> Reynolds
>
> As you said the price has increased. The original $33,000 didn't
> include sails or rigging, so the number was deceivingly low even
at the
> time. The finished boat with a trailer was closer to $70,000 to
> $90,000. But now they are closer to $140,000. That's a lot of
money
> for a boat without a double berth or standing room.
>
> That's also probably the price of a custom-built Harry. The
Harry as
> two double bunks, standing headroom, an enclosed head, a stand-up
> galley, and a rig that is easily single-handed at maximum sail
area.
> The r33 has four pipe-berths, only sitting headroom, no real
galley, and
> a rig that requires winches (and furling for the reacher) on every
> tack. The Harry also has a longer waterline, better righting
moment
> with respect to the sail area, a protected cockpit with a hard
deck, and
> the advantage of not risking rig collapse due to the failure of
dozens
> of little components used in stayed rigs.
>
> One note: don't compare the boats on length alone -- it's price
and
> performance that matter when looking at a proa. It will always be
> longer than equivalent boats with the same interior volume. The
> question to ask is: what does it cost on another multihull to sail
two
> double berths in separate areas, with a standing galley, at the
speed of
> a Harry? That's the question.
>
> Wharram
>
> The only 40 foot Wharram I've seen for $35k is a 1982 model. I
simply
> don't have much faith that a 25-year-old homebuilt plywood boat
will do
> what I want it to do. Pro built, and well-maintained? Perhaps.
But
> while I count myself as a Wharram enthusiast, I'll be the first to
admit
> that there are a lot of Wharrams out there that have not been
built and
> maintained to professional standards.
>
> Your Pahi 63 is an interesting comparison. You simply won't
find more
> boat for the money than the 63. If you want acres of deck space,
> low-windage standing room, and the ability to take eight people
out for
> a weeks at a time, it's hard to beat. But the 63 is an 8000kg
beast
> that's never going to be demounted and transported to low-cost
storage
> or new locations, has a lower sail area to displacement ratio than
a
> Visionarry, and is highly unlikely to be easily single-handed.
It's
> just in a different class.
>
> If you want a closer comparison, it might be a Tiki 38, which
has two
> double berths and two singles. The Tiki will cost a bit less to
build
> than the Visionarry, but will not have nearly the same performance
> characteristics, nor will it be as easily demounted -- there's a
lot of
> rigging to play with on a Schooner-rigged 38. More deck room and
> interior space than a harryproa, but again, far from a raceboat.
>
> Farrier F36
>
> The demountable F36 is probably the most appropriate boat to
which to
> compare a Visionarry. It is a demountable multihull with good
> performance, standing headroom, a full galley, and two double
berths in
> separate areas. Apples to apples. One one hand it has a saloon
table
> which Visionarry Sport does not (though Visionarry Cruiser does),
on the
> other, the Visionarry has a a much larger and more protected
cockpit, as
> well as more deck space.
>
> The Visionarry will have the benefit of another 4m of waterline
> length, better righting moment, an empty SA/D of 47 compared to the
> Farrier's empty SA/D of 38, can be single-handed much more easily,
> doesn't have the failure risk and rig stress of a stayed mast, and
costs
> about $50,000 less to build than the $259,000 F36 I've seen
advertised
> on the net.
>
> The F36 is still a great boat, and some will prefer it, but in
terms
> of performance and accommodation per dollar spent, the Visionarry
comes
> out on top.
>
> ---
>
> As with all boat comparisons, it comes down to what you want to
do
> with the boat. If you want to cruise, or race, for the lowest
price for
> real performance with separate double berths, the harryproas are
very
> strong choices. If you want something else, then they aren't as
> attractive. I'd look to performance multihulls like the Farriers
and
> Corsairs for comparisons, though, since the Wharrams really are in
an
> entirely different category.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> > On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past
> > desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the
> > construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail
the
> > craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so
far.
> > Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with
the
> > same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same
> > price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats
and
> > tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first
run
> > they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
> >
> > Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the
> > sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe
i
> > got the weight wrong.
> >
> > As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just
no
> > market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the
record
> > in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
> >
> > If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1
1/2
> > times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10
knots,
> > then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique
craft
> > in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast
per
> > length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
> >
> > Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us
and a
> > 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a
> > cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space
and
> > equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > - In harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Rob Denney" <proa@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design,
> > shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered
> > cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I
suspect
> > that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot
more
> > than a Harry.
> > >
> > > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although
> > the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance
version
> > and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately
built
> > and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard.
It
> > is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger
> > harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double
> > this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more
> > complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a
tdsoc,
> > I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as
well
> > as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should
be
> > comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare
price
> > with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a
> > trailer, with an outboard.
> > >
> > > If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the
> > harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the
> > reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they
are
> > too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be
> > wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built
> > trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You
may
> > like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any
> > such boats.
> > >
> > > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6
> > knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so
> > much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are
> > claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed
> > (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12
knots.
> > I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly
> > achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots,
> > you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as
fast
> > as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need
> > a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is
the
> > case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to
windward.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Todd
> > > To: harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM
> > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building
> > > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob
> > > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design.
Knowing
> > > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of
anything
> > to
> > > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I
> > > ask.
> > >
> > > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much
> > room
> > > and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, Mike Crawford
<jmichael@>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed
> > cost
> > > so
> > > > little.
> > > >
> > > > - Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat
that
> > > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good
> > overall
> > > speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may
> > be
> > > just
> > > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
> > > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play
a
> > > part in
> > > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out
come
> > > would
> > > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to
> > each
> > > > > would be?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rob,
> > > > >
> > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal
> > material
> > > and
> > > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used
> > boats ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> > > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert"
> > <cateran1949@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved
> > gaff
> > > to
> > > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed
> > mast to
> > > > > take
> > > > > > the point loading of the gaff,
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > --- In harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> > > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor"
> > > <brag_rotor@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate
on
> > > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s,
> > > and 'Pilgrim'
> > > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing
> > much
> > > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of
> > sail.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially
since
> > our
> > > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when
I
> > > posted
> > > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All
> > boats are
> > > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to
> > > denigrate
> > > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably
> > sustain
> > > high
> > > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
> > > > > comfortable,
> > > > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious
> > for
> > > our
> > > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on
> > the
> > > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately?
> > #;^p
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why we're here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see
> > PS)
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus
is
> > now
> > > on
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an
> > EasyRig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a
> > wrap-
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due
> > to the
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to
> > use.
> > > It
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of
> > the
> > > loose
> > > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top
> > down;
> > > > > plus
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the
> > rig,
> > > since
> > > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail
> > chord
> > > > > > shrinks
> > > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy
> > to
> > > make;
> > > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper
> > than
> > > most
> > > > > > > modern battens-with-cars.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since
> > > boyhood,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at
the
> > CAAE
> > > > > > telling
> > > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the
> > flow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I
have
> > > > > uploaded
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > > > > > >
> > >
http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> >
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>
> > > > >
> > >
> > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> >
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance
of
> > very
> > > > > small
> > > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat,
for
> > > > > example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>
> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>>)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html
> > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>
> > > > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html
> > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>>)
> > > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness
> > of
> > > the
> > > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low
> > Reynolds
> > > Nos
> > > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_
the
> > > drag in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a
> > round
> > > > > wire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they
> > rotate
> > > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They
> > are in
> > > > > > > the low Re zone for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some
> > cleaner
> > > flow to
> > > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading
> > edge
> > > of
> > > > > > sails,
> > > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality
> > fluid
> > > > > > dynamics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a
> > bermudan
> > > rig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that
> > the
> > > mast
> > > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the
> > spar
> > > on an
> > > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> > > > > > imperfections
> > > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are
> > > addressed.
> > > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great
> > aerodynamic
> > > > > > importance
> > > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump
and
> > > > > stiff.
> > > > > > Not
> > > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when
> > reefed
> > > or in
> > > > > > high
> > > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a
> > beam
> > > or
> > > > > pole
> > > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed
> > wind
> > > load
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's
> > flexing
> > > > > > batten.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one
> > seen
> > > from
> > > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not
> > > Pilgrim,
> > > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as
ours.
> > A
> > > lot
> > > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have
> > admitted to
> > > > > Rob,
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to
> > sail
> > > shape.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other
> > people's
> > > > > sails,
> > > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small
> > wrinkles?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail -
> > more
> > > at:-
> > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
> > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?>
> > mode=album&album=Tiki-
> > > > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
> > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?>
> > mode=album&album=Tiki->
> > > > > > range/Tiki-30
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a
> > > Wharram
> > > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the best, Ben
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS
> > > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January
> > under
> > > main
> > > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and
> > genoa.
> > > > > > > But we learned something interesting....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near
as
> > > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing
upwind
> > at
> > > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on
> > > without
> > > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -
> > roughly-
> > > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It
> > was
> > > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone,
> > which
> > > > > > > is not usually our custom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in
and
> > > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which
was
> > > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were
going
> > > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------
> > >
> > >
> > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date:
> > 2/18/2007
> > >
> >
> >
>
I don't know barebones prices as there are so many variables. For some reason, builders and designers have stopped answering my questions about their prices for boats. :-) Sailing level Harry is about $Aus120,000, Visionarry about double this. If you want to chase some Aus builders for prices, I can give you some contact names.
The Transpac boat is undergoing a bit of a transformation. Two things have caused this. 1) We need a test bed for a kit boat using Duflex foam cored panels. 2) I reckon it would be fun to sail back to Aus from Hawaii with my 6 year old daughter. Consequently, we are looking at building a Harrigami windward hull from a kit. Lee hull will still be 15m/50' and built from bent core, glassed on one side. We are currently building a 6m/20'ter to test this technique.
The ww hull will be a little heavier, so the beams, mast and leeward hull also need to grow a bit. Expect an extra 100 or so kgs, which will slow it down significantly, but should still be fast enough to win the race. Extra weight is extra cost, plus the kit will cost more than building it ourselves, although the difference is surprisingly small, at this stage. So, bottom line is, the 30k boat is not the one we are building, and at the moment, I have no idea what the actual boat will cost.
However, if you want the $30k version with the small ww hull, we could still build it. It looks like we will be building 2 of them simultaneously, so a third would not be a problem. Freight to US is about $US4000 (goes up regularly) but half this if you can wait till next year and share my container.
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
No you all ready noted the custom fit out of the owner builder. I'm reffering to the boats built in aus. barebones 12m built to sail whats the price?
Is that right about 30$us for the transpac - shipping? I want one!
Todd
-- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Rob Denney" <proa@...> wrote: > > > G'day, > > Like I said, lets compare apples and apples. You will not find a near new 12m/40' cat with the same level of finish and gear as Rare Bird for less than $Aus500k. I do not consider second hand Wharrams to be in the same category in regards to performance, comfort, usable space, ease of sailing or ease of maintaining, and probably not as well finished, built or equipped. > > For evidence of built costs and time, I can do no more than point you to Harrigami, which took me 500 hours to build and cost $4,500 in materials, including the rig. If you can build a cat of similar space, comfort, etc, then go ahead, you will make a lot of money. > > The Transpac should be a lot of fun, although the record is held by Steve Fossett in an Open 60 trimaran, so not sure I will be breaking it. Hope you can get to SF in June next year and come for a sail. . > > regards, > > Rob > > > > Hello Rob, > > On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past > desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the > construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail the > craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so far. > Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with the > same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same > price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats and > tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first run > they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow... > > Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the > sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe i > got the weight wrong. > > As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just no > market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the record > in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:) > > If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1 1/2 > times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10 knots, > then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique craft > in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast per > length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware. > > Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us and a > 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a > cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space and > equipment/hardware required to sail the craft. > > Todd > > - In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Rob Denney" <proa@> wrote: > > > > G'day, > > > > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design, > shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered > cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect > that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot more > than a Harry. > > > > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although > the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version > and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built > and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It > is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger > harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double > this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more > complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc, > I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well > as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be > comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price > with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a > trailer, with an outboard. > > > > If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the > harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the > reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are > too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be > wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built > trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may > like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any > such boats. > > > > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0- 6 > knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so > much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are > claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed > (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots. > I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly > achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots, > you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast > as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need > a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the > case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Todd > > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance > > > > > > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building > > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob > > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing > > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything > to > > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I > > ask. > > > > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much > room > > and with only 1/6 the hardware!? > > > > Todd > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <jmichael@> > > > > > > > > > > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed > cost > > so > > > little. > > > > > > - Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Todd wrote: > > > > > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that > > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good > overall > > speed. > > > > > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may > be > > just > > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in > > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a > > part in > > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come > > would > > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to > each > > > > would be? > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal > material > > and > > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used > boats ? > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert" > <cateran1949@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved > gaff > > to > > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed > mast to > > > > take > > > > > the point loading of the gaff, > > > > > Robert > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor" > > <brag_rotor@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, > > and 'Pilgrim' > > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing > much > > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of > sail. > > > > > > > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since > our > > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I > > posted > > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All > boats are > > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to > > denigrate > > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably > sustain > > high > > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't > > > > comfortable, > > > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious > for > > our > > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on > the > > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? > #;^p > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > > > > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see > PS) > > that > > > > we > > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is > now > > on > > > > > this > > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an > EasyRig. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a > wrap- > > > > around > > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due > to the > > > > huge > > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to > use. > > It > > > > > will > > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of > the > > loose > > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top > down; > > > > plus > > > > > it > > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > > > > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the > rig, > > since > > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail > chord > > > > > shrinks > > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy > to > > make; > > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper > than > > most > > > > > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > > > > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since > > boyhood, > > > > and > > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the > CAAE > > > > > telling > > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the > flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have > > > > uploaded > > > > > to > > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > > > > > > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > > > > > > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641> > > > > > > > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of > very > > > > small > > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>) > > > > > > > > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html > > > > <http://www.princeton.edu/% 7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>) > > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness > of > > the > > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low > Reynolds > > Nos > > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the > > drag in > > > > the > > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a > round > > > > wire. > > > > > > > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they > rotate > > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They > are in > > > > > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some > cleaner > > flow to > > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading > edge > > of > > > > > sails, > > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality > fluid > > > > > dynamics. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a > bermudan > > rig. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that > the > > mast > > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the > spar > > on an > > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > > > > > imperfections > > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are > > addressed. > > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great > aerodynamic > > > > > importance > > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and > > > > stiff. > > > > > Not > > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when > reefed > > or in > > > > > high > > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a > beam > > or > > > > pole > > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed > wind > > load > > > > in a > > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's > flexing > > > > > batten. > > > > > > > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one > seen > > from > > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not > > Pilgrim, > > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. > A > > lot > > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have > admitted to > > > > Rob, > > > > > I'm > > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to > sail > > shape. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other > people's > > > > sails, > > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle > > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small > wrinkles? > > > > > > > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail -
> more > > at:- > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? > mode=album&album=Tiki- > > > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? > mode=album&album=Tiki-> > > > > > range/Tiki-30 > > > > > > > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a > > Wharram > > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > > > > > > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > > > > > > > > > PS > > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January > under > > main > > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and > genoa. > > > > > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > > > > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind > at > > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on > > without > > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots - > roughly- > > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It > was > > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, > which > > > > > > is not usually our custom. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > > > > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: > 2/18/2007 > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007 >
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
It's nice to see some boats for comparison. The Reynolds and Wharram
are both great boats at what they do, but aren't really great at what
the harryproas do. I'll write up a quick comparison, and will also
include a Farrier F36, which is probably the closest thing in terms of
apples and oranges.
Reynolds
As you said the price has increased. The original $33,000 didn't
include sails or rigging, so the number was deceivingly low even at the
time. The finished boat with a trailer was closer to $70,000 to
$90,000. But now they are closer to $140,000. That's a lot of money
for a boat without a double berth or standing room.
That's also probably the price of a custom-built Harry. The Harry as
two double bunks, standing headroom, an enclosed head, a stand-up
galley, and a rig that is easily single-handed at maximum sail area.
The r33 has four pipe-berths, only sitting headroom, no real galley,
and a rig that requires winches (and furling for the reacher) on every
tack. The Harry also has a longer waterline, better righting moment
with respect to the sail area, a protected cockpit with a hard deck,
and the advantage of not risking rig collapse due to the failure of
dozens of little components used in stayed rigs.
One note: don't compare the boats on length alone -- it's price and
performance that matter when looking at a proa. It will always be
longer than equivalent boats with the same interior volume. The
question to ask is: what does it cost on another multihull to sail two
double berths in separate areas, with a standing galley, at the speed
of a Harry? That's the question.
Wharram
The only 40 foot Wharram I've seen for $35k is a 1982 model. I
simply don't have much faith that a 25-year-old homebuilt plywood boat
will do what I want it to do. Pro built, and well-maintained?
Perhaps. But while I count myself as a Wharram enthusiast, I'll be the
first to admit that there are a lot of Wharrams out there that have not
been built and maintained to professional standards.
Your Pahi 63 is an interesting comparison. You simply won't find
more boat for the money than the 63. If you want acres of deck space,
low-windage standing room, and the ability to take eight people out for
a weeks at a time, it's hard to beat. But the 63 is an 8000kg beast
that's never going to be demounted and transported to low-cost storage
or new locations, has a lower sail area to displacement ratio than a
Visionarry, and is highly unlikely to be easily single-handed. It's
just in a different class.
If you want a closer comparison, it might be a Tiki 38, which has two
double berths and two singles. The Tiki will cost a bit less to build
than the Visionarry, but will not have nearly the same performance
characteristics, nor will it be as easily demounted -- there's a lot of
rigging to play with on a Schooner-rigged 38. More deck room and
interior space than a harryproa, but again, far from a raceboat.
Farrier F36
The demountable F36 is probably the most appropriate boat to which to
compare a Visionarry. It is a demountable multihull with good
performance, standing headroom, a full galley, and two double berths in
separate areas. Apples to apples. One one hand it has a saloon table
which Visionarry Sport does not (though Visionarry Cruiser does), on
the other, the Visionarry has a a much larger and more protected
cockpit, as well as more deck space.
The Visionarry will have the benefit of another 4m of waterline
length, better righting moment, an empty SA/D of 47 compared to the
Farrier's empty SA/D of 38, can be single-handed much more easily,
doesn't have the failure risk and rig stress of a stayed mast, and
costs about $50,000 less to build than the $259,000 F36 I've seen
advertised on the net.
The F36 is still a great boat, and some will prefer it, but in terms
of performance and accommodation per dollar spent, the Visionarry comes
out on top.
---
As with all boat comparisons, it comes down to what you want to do
with the boat. If you want to cruise, or race, for the lowest price
for real performance with separate double berths, the harryproas are
very strong choices. If you want something else, then they aren't as
attractive. I'd look to performance multihulls like the Farriers and
Corsairs for comparisons, though, since the Wharrams really are in an
entirely different category.
- Mike
Todd wrote:
Hello Rob,
On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past
desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the
construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail the
craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so far.
Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with the
same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same
price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats and
tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first run
they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the
sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe i
got the weight wrong.
As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just no
market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the record
in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1 1/2
times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10 knots,
then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique craft
in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast per
length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us and a
63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a
cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space and
equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
Todd
- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au,
"Rob Denney" <proa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design,
shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered
cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect
that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot more
than a Harry.
>
> If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although
the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version
and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built
and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It
is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger
harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double
this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more
complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc,
I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well
as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be
comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price
with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a
trailer, with an outboard.
>
> If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the
harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the
reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are
too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be
wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built
trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may
like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any
such boats.
>
> I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6
knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so
much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are
claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed
(by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots.
I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly
achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots,
you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast
as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need
a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the
case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
>
>
> I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building
> proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob
> preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing
> that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything
to
> go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I
> ask.
>
> I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much
room
> and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
>
> Todd
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au,
Mike Crawford <jmichael@>
> >
> >
>
> > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed
cost
> so
> > little.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat
that
> > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good
overall
> speed.
> > >
> > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy,
may
be
> just
> > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
> > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width
play a
> part in
> > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out
come
> would
> > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach
to
each
> > > would be?
> > >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal
material
> and
> > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used
boats ?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>,
"Robert"
<cateran1949@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a
curved
gaff
> to
> > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the
unstayed
mast to
> > > take
> > > > the point loading of the gaff,
> > > > Robert
> > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>,
"brag_rotor"
> <brag_rotor@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the
debate on
> > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the
'90s,
> and 'Pilgrim'
> > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in
nailing
much
> > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most
points of
sail.
> > > > >
> > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat
(especially since
our
> > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some
surprise when I
> posted
> > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of
tact. All
boats are
> > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my
place to
> denigrate
> > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot
comfortably
sustain
> high
> > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly
isn't
> > > comfortable,
> > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and
spacious
for
> our
> > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to
give up on
the
> > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters
lately?
#;^p
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why we're here.
> > > > >
> > > > > We did check our numbers and have also
discovered (see
PS)
> that
> > > we
> > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So
my focus is
now
> on
> > > > this
> > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application
to an
EasyRig.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning
combination of a
wrap-
> > > around
> > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually
loose-footed due
to the
> > > huge
> > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is
simple to
use.
> It
> > > > will
> > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor)
because of
the
> loose
> > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff
bringing the top
down;
> > > plus
> > > > it
> > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack
of a boom.
> > > > >
> > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top
of the
rig,
> since
> > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as
the sail
chord
> > > > shrinks
> > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant
is easy
to
> make;
> > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten,
but cheaper
than
> most
> > > > > modern battens-with-cars.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of
mine since
> boyhood,
> > > and
> > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics
instructor at the
CAAE
> > > > telling
> > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can
perturb the
flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil,
which I have
> > > uploaded
> > > > to
> > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails'
.....
> > > > >
> http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> > >
>
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>
> > > > >
> > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the
importance of
very
> > > small
> > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing
boat, for
> > > example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>)
> > > > >
> > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html
> > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>)
> > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the
thickness
of
> the
> > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at
very low
Reynolds
> Nos
> > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might
_double_ the
> drag in
> > > the
> > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse
than a
round
> > > wire.
> > > > >
> > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless
they
rotate
> > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good,
either. They
are in
> > > > > the low Re zone for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up
some
cleaner
> flow to
> > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in
the leading
edge
> of
> > > > sails,
> > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of
aircraft quality
fluid
> > > > dynamics.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over
a
bermudan
> rig.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff,
so that
the
> mast
> > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail,
like the
spar
> on an
> > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since
smaller
> > > > imperfections
> > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of
drag are
> addressed.
> > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> > > > >
> > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of
great
aerodynamic
> > > > importance
> > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be
properly plump and
> > > stiff.
> > > > Not
> > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag
when
reefed
> or in
> > > > high
> > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the
stiffness of a
beam
> or
> > > pole
> > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility
to shed
wind
> load
> > > in a
> > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a
windsurfer's
flexing
> > > > batten.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo
folder, one
seen
> from
> > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board.
These are not
> Pilgrim,
> > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as
well as ours.
A
> lot
> > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I
have
admitted to
> > > Rob,
> > > > I'm
> > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it
comes to
sail
> shape.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on
other
people's
> > > sails,
> > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5%
wrinkle
> > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of
small
wrinkles?
> > > > >
> > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram
wingsail -
more
> at:-
> > >
> > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
mode=album&album=Tiki-
> > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
mode=album&album=Tiki->
> > > > range/Tiki-30
> > > > >
> > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case
for using a
> Wharram
> > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa
EasyRig?
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best, Ben
> > > > >
> > > > > PS
> > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in
January
under
> main
> > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both
main and
genoa.
> > > > > But we learned something interesting....
> > > > >
> > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and
compass - near as
> > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started
footing upwind
at
> > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main
flying spot on
> without
> > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9
knots -
roughly-
> > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought
vaguely. It
was
> > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under
main alone,
which
> > > > > is not usually our custom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> > > > >
> > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd
put in and
> > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by
hand, which was
> > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed
measured
> > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we
were going
> > > > > pretty well even without a genoa.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date:
2/18/2007
>
Wel I'm trying to get the planning sorted for all the sizes and amounts of materials and things to start making the masts again:
I'll give you what I've got to so far. Changing the mast tubes ( termed mast step by Rob I think), that sit inside the hull in between the bulkhead halves. I made incorrectly small diameter tubes about 75mm inside diameter. So replacing these with I think it is 86mm inside diameter pipe. Wrapping carbon round that. No probs. Re-doing the fillets from the bulkhead halves later and fitting tubes in. By the way staying with two masts.
Now with the tubes set I know I need the stub of the mast to be round 84mm or so. This and the mast I want to do with solid carbon on molds. I've got the foil section shape. I can scale this to get the molds all the way up tapering linearly to I'm guessing a good size is about half size at the top? With the taper I'm confident that one piece molded will come straight off,
though it may be to get the stub in if it is in two halves. What I need is the lay up weights of carbon. Including the round stub. Then also the boom. Do you mean I or T section boom? It is attached with freee tube on the stub between wing and hull. Wrap carbon tow around mast like design of beams? I've got two 6m luff sails, so total mast is about 6+0.7+0.3+a bit =7 and a bit metres. PLease let me know what else I need to work on. I'm trying to bring the performancr (and looks) up to standard.
Thanks DOug
mark@... wrote:
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require closing off, just a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of
Doug Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be
sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping
sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the
mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had
around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > >
Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
Rather than making a box boom you could consider an 'I' beam boom. This is much simpler as it doesn't require closing off, just a top and bottom plate and a vertical web. The uni carbon or glass can be laid flat on the plates with double bias on the web to take shear loads. Hardware can be bolted through easily, lazy jacks can be tied at the bottom by drilling holes in the top plate. Wish I had thought of it before making the 4 Elementarry box booms :>(.
Let us know if you want to go that way and we'll send you details.
-----Original Message----- From: harryproa@... [mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Doug Haines Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:16 PM To: harryproa@... Subject: Re: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Thanks Rob,
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@....au> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
Hello Doug,
three of your posts where diverted by Yahoo as spam. I've only just
noticed so have un-spammed them. I'll keep a closer eye on things.
Cheers, Michele
I want to do the masts again. This time a mold for a solid carbon wing. Although it is harder, I still want to taper it. I noticed that You asked about how much taper in this email. I scaled down the section using PaintBox program to give the sections from full 300mm length to half that at the top. Is this a good tapering?
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: harryproa@... [mailto:harryproa@...] Namens doha720 Verzonden: woensdag 28 juni 2006 13:34 Aan: harryproa@... Onderwerp: [harryproa]
Help drawing the mast section
Hi,
I want to find something on the internet that shows a mast section so that I can print it and scale it to form the molds. Rob mentioned something about length 3 x width. I found something one time and made rudders and fins on some site.
Ta Doug
__._,_.___ __,_._,___
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 5/1/2006
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
I have had some fun trying to put a reef in while on the water - sailing the booms round inboard, dropping sails and pulling booms inboard, and sliding out along the hull to tie sails!
Doing it from at the mast is a necessity.
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@...> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by
polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet
changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind - 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to
windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
Yes, lots of effort. Mostly thought that it was an awful expensive use of several hundred sanding discs. I can see a trailerable boat like your increasing speed with this finish though. Planning ahead for new masts and boom, I thought something like the beams design - wrapping the carbon around the pipe on the mastand back along the boom. Top and bottom in a rctangle (box) rather than the triangular beams? I thought a couple of flange? type additions stuck on te top would control the sail nicely.
I'm sick at the moment,but probably will go back to work tommorrow, so maybe aweekend sailing?
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@...> wrote:
G'day,
Experimenting going ok. Will be sailing tomorrow, all going well.
Glad the job is interesting, although it sounds like a bit too much effort for me!
The sail can be dropped with the boom anywhere, as long as the sheet is released so it aligns with the breeze. The lazy jacks keep it in place, reefs don't need to be tied in. Vis sail does not flake into the boom, is a bit of work to get it flaked and the cover on. Not sure about harry as I have not sailed
on it yet.
The open boom is pretty complex to make, and the benefit on a little boat is negligible. I would stick with the box and the lazy jacks.
Subject: [harryproa] Reducing sail with boom out over the water.
Hello (Rob),
How's experimenting? I'm busy with this new job - interesting, learnt how to get that mirror finish on the paint job (it's sanding again after painting 1200 grit floowied by polishing compound!) and other proffessional tricks of the trade I wanted to ask about reefing/dropping sails: On the Harry/Visionarries, can the mainsail be dropped with the boom angled out over the water? Is this possible due to the lazy jacks and the hollow built into the boom? When reefed does the sail flaked in the boom need ties to hold it in? So therefore is this what I'd need to build for Elementarry?
Doug
brag_rotor <brag_rotor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Doug,
It bundles up in a civilised fashion the luff just concertinas - with reef points you an make it all neat and tidy, but the only critical attachment is at the clew, where we use a light line to haul it all together for the mainsheet changeover. There's a second 'snap shackle' on the mainsheet for that purpose. We make those out of rope and save £32 a time.....
Packing the sail into its cover can be fun if you are single handed, but I can do it OK. Just wrap the sail around the gaff as best you can, apply
the gaskets or bunjees, and heave the cover on, being careful not to make the sail too lumpy to fit.
But I suspect his sail material is half the weight of ours, and a lot more malleable. Heavy duty HydraNet is a beast to furl, but we went for its toughness and total lack of stretch. This means that we do not worry about stretching the sails out of shape due to reefing, and they didn't - even in a Biscay gale. Boilerplate sails.
Only bagging the sail single handed is any sort of tussle, anyway. That's partly because the bag has to be tight to avoid flutter. Our sail has lived in its bag since .... ummm .... 1999 I think. Just hose it down and do some sewing on the odd seam once or twice a year.
Gives you a chance to see how it's been furled. They are no hassle, in our experience.
A bit off topic, one of Steve Turner's clients wanted a Tiki without the 'old fashioned' rig, and had Steve build him one of his GRP boats with a full-on 25% oversize battened bermudan rig, no expense spared, so Steve and the gang then had a chance to sail it against a standard production boat.
Interestingly the standard boat had the advantage everywhere, except downwind
- 25% more sail area made a difference there. So one might be tempted to assume that the Wharram Tiki Wingsail had around 25% more drive to windward/on a reach than the fully battened bermudan...?
Reason that I mention this is that I found a photo of what may be that boat when I was looking for furled/reefed sails....
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote: > > HI, > > How does
the sail fold up at the sleeve when you reef or take the sail down? > > Doug >
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
No you all ready noted the custom fit out of the owner builder. I'm
reffering to the boats built in aus. barebones 12m built to sail
whats the price?
Is that right about 30$us for the transpac - shipping? I want one!
Todd
-- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@...> wrote:
>
>
> G'day,
>
> Like I said, lets compare apples and apples. You will not find
a near new 12m/40' cat with the same level of finish and gear as
Rare Bird for less than $Aus500k. I do not consider second hand
Wharrams to be in the same category in regards to performance,
comfort, usable space, ease of sailing or ease of maintaining, and
probably not as well finished, built or equipped.
>
> For evidence of built costs and time, I can do no more than
point you to Harrigami, which took me 500 hours to build and cost
$4,500 in materials, including the rig. If you can build a cat of
similar space, comfort, etc, then go ahead, you will make a lot of
money.
>
> The Transpac should be a lot of fun, although the record is held
by Steve Fossett in an Open 60 trimaran, so not sure I will be
breaking it. Hope you can get to SF in June next year and come for
a sail. .
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past
> desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the
> construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail
the
> craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so
far.
> Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with
the
> same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same
> price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats
and
> tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first
run
> they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
>
> Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with
the
> sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe
i
> got the weight wrong.
>
> As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just
no
> market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the
record
> in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
>
> If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1
1/2
> times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10
knots,
> then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique
craft
> in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast
per
> length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
>
> Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us
and a
> 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a
> cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space
and
> equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
>
> Todd
>
> - In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@> wrote:
> >
> > G'day,
> >
> > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design,
> shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered
> cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I
suspect
> that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot
more
> than a Harry.
> >
> > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies,
although
> the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance
version
> and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately
built
> and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard.
It
> is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger
> harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double
> this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more
> complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a
tdsoc,
> I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as
well
> as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should
be
> comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare
price
> with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a
> trailer, with an outboard.
> >
> > If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the
> harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that
the
> reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they
are
> too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be
> wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally
built
> trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You
may
> like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are
any
> such boats.
> >
> > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-
6
> knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so
> much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are
> claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this
speed
> (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12
knots.
> I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly
> achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots,
> you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as
fast
> as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would
need
> a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is
the
> case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to
windward.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Todd
> > To: harryproa@...
> > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM
> > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
> >
> >
> > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building
> > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob
> > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design.
Knowing
> > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of
anything
> to
> > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why
I
> > ask.
> >
> > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much
> room
> > and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and
speed
> cost
> > so
> > > little.
> > >
> > > - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Todd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat
that
> > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good
> overall
> > speed.
> > > >
> > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy,
may
> be
> > just
> > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
> > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play
a
> > part in
> > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out
come
> > would
> > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach
to
> each
> > > > would be?
> > > >
> > > > Rob,
> > > >
> > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal
> material
> > and
> > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used
> boats ?
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@...
> > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert"
> <cateran1949@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a
curved
> gaff
> > to
> > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed
> mast to
> > > > take
> > > > > the point loading of the gaff,
> > > > > Robert
> > > > > --- In harryproa@...
> > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor"
> > <brag_rotor@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate
on
> > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s,
> > and 'Pilgrim'
> > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing
> much
> > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of
> sail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially
since
> our
> > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when
I
> > posted
> > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All
> boats are
> > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to
> > denigrate
> > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably
> sustain
> > high
> > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
> > > > comfortable,
> > > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious
> for
> > our
> > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on
> the
> > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately?
> #;^p
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's why we're here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see
> PS)
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus
is
> now
> > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an
> EasyRig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of
a
> wrap-
> > > > around
> > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due
> to the
> > > > huge
> > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple
to
> use.
> > It
> > > > > will
> > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of
> the
> > loose
> > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the
top
> down;
> > > > plus
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the
> rig,
> > since
> > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the
sail
> chord
> > > > > shrinks
> > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy
> to
> > make;
> > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but
cheaper
> than
> > most
> > > > > > modern battens-with-cars.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since
> > boyhood,
> > > > and
> > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at
the
> CAAE
> > > > > telling
> > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the
> flow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I
have
> > > > uploaded
> > > > > to
> > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > > > > >
> >
http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> > > >
> >
>
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance
of
> very
> > > > small
> > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat,
for
> > > > example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number
> > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>)
> > > > > >
> > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html
> > > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%
7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>)
> > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the
thickness
> of
> > the
> > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low
> Reynolds
> > Nos
> > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_
the
> > drag in
> > > > the
> > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a
> round
> > > > wire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they
> rotate
> > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They
> are in
> > > > > > the low Re zone for sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some
> cleaner
> > flow to
> > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the
leading
> edge
> > of
> > > > > sails,
> > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft
quality
> fluid
> > > > > dynamics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a
> bermudan
> > rig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that
> the
> > mast
> > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the
> spar
> > on an
> > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> > > > > imperfections
> > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are
> > addressed.
> > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great
> aerodynamic
> > > > > importance
> > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump
and
> > > > stiff.
> > > > > Not
> > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when
> reefed
> > or in
> > > > > high
> > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a
> beam
> > or
> > > > pole
> > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed
> wind
> > load
> > > > in a
> > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's
> flexing
> > > > > batten.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one
> seen
> > from
> > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are
not
> > Pilgrim,
> > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as
ours.
> A
> > lot
> > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have
> admitted to
> > > > Rob,
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to
> sail
> > shape.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other
> people's
> > > > sails,
> > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small
> wrinkles?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail -
> more
> > at:-
> > > >
> > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
> mode=album&album=Tiki-
> > > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
> mode=album&album=Tiki->
> > > > > range/Tiki-30
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using
a
> > Wharram
> > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best, Ben
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS
> > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January
> under
> > main
> > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and
> genoa.
> > > > > > But we learned something interesting....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near
as
> > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing
upwind
> at
> > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot
on
> > without
> > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -
> roughly-
> > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It
> was
> > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone,
> which
> > > > > > is not usually our custom.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in
and
> > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which
was
> > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were
going
> > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> >
> >
> > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release
Date:
> 2/18/2007
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date:
3/3/2007
>
I'd like to take a point of view of appreciating boats as individual creations that appeal to thier owners in a special way. But Rob's right - harryproas are the best boat. I own one!
Doug
Rob Denney <proa@...> wrote:
G'day,
Like I said, lets compare apples and apples. You will not find a near new 12m/40' cat with the same level of finish and gear as Rare Bird for less than $Aus500k. I do not consider second hand Wharrams to be in the same category in regards to performance, comfort, usable space, ease of sailing or ease of maintaining, and probably not as well finished, built or equipped.
For evidence of built costs and time, I can do no more than point you to Harrigami, which took me 500 hours to build and cost $4,500 in materials, including the rig. If you can build a cat of similar space, comfort, etc, then go ahead, you will make a lot of money.
The Transpac should be a lot of fun, although the record is held by
Steve Fossett in an Open 60 trimaran, so not sure I will be breaking it. Hope you can get to SF in June next year and come for a sail. .
regards,
Rob
Hello Rob,
On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail the craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so far. Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with the same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats and tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first run they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe i got the weight wrong.
As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just no market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the record in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1 1/2 times the wind speed
when its windy enough to sail above 10 knots, then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique craft in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast per length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us and a 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space and equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
Todd
- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Rob Denney" <proa@...> wrote: > > G'day, > > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design, shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect that if you paid someone to build you one
it would cost a lot more than a Harry. > > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc, I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a trailer, with an outboard. > > If
you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any such boats. > > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6 knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots. I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly achieved such speeds, much
less in moderate air. Above 12 knots, you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward. > > Regards, > > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Todd > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance > > > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of
anything to > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I > ask. > > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much room > and with only 1/6 the hardware!? > > Todd > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <jmichael@> > > > > > > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed cost > so > > little. > > > > - Mike > > > > > > > > Todd wrote: > > > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall > speed. > > > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may
be > just > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a > part in > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come > would > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each > > > would be? > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material > and > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ? > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert" <cateran1949@> > > >
wrote: > > > > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff > to > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to > > > take > > > > the point loading of the gaff, > > > > Robert > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor" > <brag_rotor@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, >
and 'Pilgrim' > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail. > > > > > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I > posted > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to > denigrate > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain > high > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't > > > comfortable, > >
> > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for > our > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p > > > > > > > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS) > that > > > we > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now > on > > > > this > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig. > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap- > > > around > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the > > > huge > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use. > It > > > > will > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the > loose > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down; > > > plus > > > > it > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig, > since > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord > > > > shrinks > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to > make; > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a
batten, but cheaper than > most > > > > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since > boyhood, > > > and > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE > > > > telling > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow. > > > > > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have > > > uploaded > > > > to > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > > > > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > > >
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641> > > > > > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very > > > small > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>) > > > > > > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html > > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>) > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of > the > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds > Nos > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the > drag in > > > the > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round > > > wire. > > > > > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor
light unless they rotate > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in > > > > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner > flow to > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge > of > > > > sails, > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid > > > > dynamics. > > > > > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan > rig. > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the > mast > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar > on an > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > > > > imperfections > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are > addressed. > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic > > > > importance > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and > > > stiff. > > > > Not > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed > or in > > > > high > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam > or > > > pole > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind >
load > > > in a > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing > > > > batten. > > > > > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen > from > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not > Pilgrim, > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A > lot > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to > > > Rob, > > > > I'm > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail > shape. > > > > > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's > > > sails, > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the
foil. A 5% wrinkle > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles? > > > > > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more > at:- > > > > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? mode=album&album=Tiki- > > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? mode=album&album=Tiki-> > > > > range/Tiki-30 > > > > > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a > Wharram > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > > > > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > > >
> > > > PS > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under > main > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa. > > > > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on > without > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots - roughly- > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which > > > > > is not usually our custom. > >
> > > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release
Date: 2/18/2007 >
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
Like I said, lets compare apples and apples. You will not find a near new 12m/40' cat with the same level of finish and gear as Rare Bird for less than $Aus500k. I do not consider second hand Wharrams to be in the same category in regards to performance, comfort, usable space, ease of sailing or ease of maintaining, and probably not as well finished, built or equipped.
For evidence of built costs and time, I can do no more than point you to Harrigami, which took me 500 hours to build and cost $4,500 in materials, including the rig. If you can build a cat of similar space, comfort, etc, then go ahead, you will make a lot of money.
The Transpac should be a lot of fun, although the record is held by Steve Fossett in an Open 60 trimaran, so not sure I will be breaking it. Hope you can get to SF in June next year and come for a sail. .
regards,
Rob
Hello Rob,
On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail the craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so far. Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with the same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats and tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first run they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe i got the weight wrong.
As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just no market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the record in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1 1/2 times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10 knots, then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique craft in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast per length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us and a 63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space and equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
Todd
- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Rob Denney" <proa@...> wrote: > > G'day, > > I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design, shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot more than a Harry. > > If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc, I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a trailer, with an outboard. > > If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any such boats. > > I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6 knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots. I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots, you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward. > > Regards, > > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Todd > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance > > > I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building > proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob > preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing > that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything to > go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I > ask. > > I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much room > and with only 1/6 the hardware!? > > Todd > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <jmichael@> > > > > > > > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed cost > so > > little. > > > > - Mike > > > > > > > > Todd wrote: > > > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that > > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall > speed. > > > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may be > just > > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in > > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a > part in > > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come > would > > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each > > > would be? > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material > and > > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ? > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert" <cateran1949@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff > to > > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to > > > take > > > > the point loading of the gaff, > > > > Robert > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor" > <brag_rotor@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, > and 'Pilgrim' > > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much > > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail. > > > > > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our > > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I > posted > > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are > > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to > denigrate > > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain > high > > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't > > > comfortable, > > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for > our > > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the > > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p > > > > > > > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS) > that > > > we > > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now > on > > > > this > > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig. > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap- > > > around > > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the > > > huge > > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use. > It > > > > will > > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the > loose > > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down; > > > plus > > > > it > > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig, > since > > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord > > > > shrinks > > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to > make; > > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than > most > > > > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since > boyhood, > > > and > > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE > > > > telling > > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow. > > > > > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have > > > uploaded > > > > to > > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > > > > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > > > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641> > > > > > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very > > > small > > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>) > > > > > > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html > > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>) > > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of > the > > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds > Nos > > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the > drag in > > > the > > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round > > > wire. > > > > > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate > > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in > > > > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner > flow to > > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge > of > > > > sails, > > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid > > > > dynamics. > > > > > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan > rig. > > > > > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the > mast > > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar > on an > > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > > > > imperfections > > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are > addressed. > > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic > > > > importance > > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and > > > stiff. > > > > Not > > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed > or in > > > > high > > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam > or > > > pole > > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind > load > > > in a > > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing > > > > batten. > > > > > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen > from > > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not > Pilgrim, > > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A > lot > > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to > > > Rob, > > > > I'm > > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail > shape. > > > > > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's > > > sails, > > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle > > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles? > > > > > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more > at:- > > > > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? mode=album&album=Tiki- > > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi? mode=album&album=Tiki-> > > > > range/Tiki-30 > > > > > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a > Wharram > > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > > > > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > > > > > > > PS > > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under > main > > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa. > > > > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at > > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on > without > > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots - roughly- > > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was > > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which > > > > > is not usually our custom. > > > > > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > > > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 >
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007
Hello Rob,
On your 12 and 15 meter boats and the why you have in the past
desribe the build process and minimal materials used in the
construction with almost no high $ hardware and rigging to sail the
craft they would be alot less coastly than what I have seen so far.
Other wise whats the point? Minimum this and minimum that with the
same performance as a cat with less space at the almost the same
price. I believe shunters should blow away most production cats and
tris at 1/10 the cost at any length. Reynolds has a cat at first run
they were around 33 now 133$ maybe even more now , wow...
Not really intrested in the 7 meter performance boat but with the
sail area to weight i'd expect A class cat performance but maybe i
got the weight wrong.
As far as proffesoinal built traditional shunters. There's just no
market for them yet. Maybe there will be when you smash the record
in the transpac race. whoo hoooooo:)
If a single dominate leeward hull shunter can't do aleast 1 to 1 1/2
times the wind speed when its windy enough to sail above 10 knots,
then why bother. Unless your just into having the most unique craft
in the harbor with the least amount of room for the most coast per
length of hull with minimum amount of equipment and hardware.
Just seen a wharram 40' on yacht world for 35$ a 52 for 105$us and a
63' for 200$us. Granted probably with the performace of a
cuiser/race mono hull of same length but with a lot more space and
equipment/hardware required to sail the craft.
Todd
- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design,
shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered
cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect
that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot more
than a Harry.
>
> If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although
the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version
and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built
and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It
is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger
harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double
this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more
complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc,
I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well
as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be
comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price
with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a
trailer, with an outboard.
>
> If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the
harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the
reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are
too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be
wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built
trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may
like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any
such boats.
>
> I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6
knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so
much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are
claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed
(by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots.
I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly
achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots,
you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast
as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need
a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the
case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd
> To: harryproa@...
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:26 AM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
>
>
> I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building
> proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob
> preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing
> that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything
to
> go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I
> ask.
>
> I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much
room
> and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
>
> Todd
>
> --- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@>
> >
> >
>
> > The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed
cost
> so
> > little.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that
> > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good
overall
> speed.
> > >
> > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may
be
> just
> > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
> > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a
> part in
> > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come
> would
> > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to
each
> > > would be?
> > >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal
material
> and
> > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used
boats ?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@...
> > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert"
<cateran1949@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved
gaff
> to
> > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed
mast to
> > > take
> > > > the point loading of the gaff,
> > > > Robert
> > > > --- In harryproa@...
> > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor"
> <brag_rotor@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on
> > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s,
> and 'Pilgrim'
> > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing
much
> > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of
sail.
> > > > >
> > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since
our
> > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I
> posted
> > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All
boats are
> > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to
> denigrate
> > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably
sustain
> high
> > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
> > > comfortable,
> > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious
for
> our
> > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on
the
> > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately?
#;^p
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why we're here.
> > > > >
> > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see
PS)
> that
> > > we
> > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is
now
> on
> > > > this
> > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an
EasyRig.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a
wrap-
> > > around
> > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due
to the
> > > huge
> > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to
use.
> It
> > > > will
> > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of
the
> loose
> > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top
down;
> > > plus
> > > > it
> > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> > > > >
> > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the
rig,
> since
> > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail
chord
> > > > shrinks
> > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy
to
> make;
> > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper
than
> most
> > > > > modern battens-with-cars.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since
> boyhood,
> > > and
> > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the
CAAE
> > > > telling
> > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the
flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have
> > > uploaded
> > > > to
> > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > > > >
> http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> > >
>
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>
> > > > >
> > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of
very
> > > small
> > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for
> > > example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>)
> > > > >
> > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html
> > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>)
> > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness
of
> the
> > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low
Reynolds
> Nos
> > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the
> drag in
> > > the
> > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a
round
> > > wire.
> > > > >
> > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they
rotate
> > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They
are in
> > > > > the low Re zone for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some
cleaner
> flow to
> > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading
edge
> of
> > > > sails,
> > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality
fluid
> > > > dynamics.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a
bermudan
> rig.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that
the
> mast
> > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the
spar
> on an
> > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> > > > imperfections
> > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are
> addressed.
> > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> > > > >
> > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great
aerodynamic
> > > > importance
> > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and
> > > stiff.
> > > > Not
> > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when
reefed
> or in
> > > > high
> > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a
beam
> or
> > > pole
> > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed
wind
> load
> > > in a
> > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's
flexing
> > > > batten.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one
seen
> from
> > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not
> Pilgrim,
> > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours.
A
> lot
> > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have
admitted to
> > > Rob,
> > > > I'm
> > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to
sail
> shape.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other
people's
> > > sails,
> > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small
wrinkles?
> > > > >
> > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail -
more
> at:-
> > >
> > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
mode=album&album=Tiki-
> > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?
mode=album&album=Tiki->
> > > > range/Tiki-30
> > > > >
> > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a
> Wharram
> > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best, Ben
> > > > >
> > > > > PS
> > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January
under
> main
> > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and
genoa.
> > > > > But we learned something interesting....
> > > > >
> > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as
> > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind
at
> > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on
> without
> > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -
roughly-
> > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It
was
> > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone,
which
> > > > > is not usually our custom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> > > > >
> > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and
> > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was
> > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going
> > > > > pretty well even without a genoa.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date:
2/18/2007
>
I have yet to see a professionally built "traditional design, shunting outrigger canoe" (tdsoc)with 2 double bunks, sheltered cockpit, showroom finish and hot and cold running water. I suspect that if you paid someone to build you one it would cost a lot more than a Harry.
If you are referring to Elementarry, the same applies, although the specs are different. The one for sale is a performance version and performs as well as a traditional Tornado, is immaculately built and finished and has a telescoping trailer and a 3 hp outboard. It is for sale for $Aus16,000/$US12,000 (the owner wants a bigger harry). A Tornado to similar spec would cost more than double this. Even a mass produced Hobie 16 (slower, heavier, far more complex) costs more than this. To compare performance with a tdsoc, I would need to see some performance figures upwind and down as well as on a reach. Rather than 'best guesses', these figures should be comparisons from sailing against known race boats. To compare price with a tdsoc, we need to find a professionally built tdsoc on a trailer, with an outboard.
If you compare apples with apples, I think you will find the harrys are indeed cheaper than tdsoc. In fact, I suspect that the reason there are not more pro built tdsoc's is because a) they are too expensive and b) they do not perform well enough. I may be wrong here, would welcome any information on professionally built trad designed shunters, or why there are not more of them. You may like to check on the proa_file chat group to see if there are any such boats.
I also dispute the 1.5 times windspeed claim. In light air (0-6 knots), this is very hard to prove as the breeze speed varies so much. At the top end of moderate breezes (7-12 knots), you are claiming a top speed of 18 knots. I have once achieved this speed (by gps) in Elementarry, in a good deal more breeze than 12 knots. I have never seen reliable proof that any canoe has regularly achieved such speeds, much less in moderate air. Above 12 knots, you are either dreaming, or are sitting on a boat which is as fast as a very highly optimised, wing sailed C class cat. I would need a lot more proof than has so far been shown to believe this is the case. I would also like to see how well the tdsoc does to windward.
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything to go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I ask.
I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much room and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
> The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed cost so > little. > > - Mike > > > > Todd wrote: > > > > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that > > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall speed. > > > > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may be just > > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in > > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a part in > > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come would > > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each > > would be? > > > > Rob, > > > > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material and > > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ? > > > > Todd > > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert" <cateran1949@> > > wrote: > > > > > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff to > > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to > > take > > > the point loading of the gaff, > > > Robert > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au > > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor" <brag_rotor@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, and 'Pilgrim' > > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much > > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail. > > > > > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our > > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I posted > > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are > > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to denigrate > > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain high > > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't > > comfortable, > > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for our > > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the > > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p > > > > > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS) that > > we > > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now on > > > this > > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig. > > > > > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap- > > around > > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the > > huge > > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use. It > > > will > > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the loose > > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down; > > plus > > > it > > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig, since > > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord > > > shrinks > > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to make; > > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than most > > > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since boyhood, > > and > > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE > > > telling > > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow. > > > > > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have > > uploaded > > > to > > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > <http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641> > > > > > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very > > small > > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for > > example. > > > > > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>) > > > > > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html > > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>) > > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of the > > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds Nos > > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the drag in > > the > > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round > > wire. > > > > > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate > > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in > > > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner flow to > > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge of > > > sails, > > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid > > > dynamics. > > > > > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan rig. > > > > > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the mast > > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar on an > > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > > > imperfections > > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are addressed. > > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic > > > importance > > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and > > stiff. > > > Not > > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed or in > > > high > > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam or > > pole > > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind load > > in a > > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing > > > batten. > > > > > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen from > > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not Pilgrim, > > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A lot > > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to > > Rob, > > > I'm > > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail shape. > > > > > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's > > sails, > > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle > > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles? > > > > > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more at:- > > > > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki- > > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki-> > > > range/Tiki-30 > > > > > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a Wharram > > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > > > > > PS > > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under main > > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa. > > > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at > > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on without > > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -roughly- > > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was > > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which > > > > is not usually our custom. > > > > > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
I don't Know minimal materials,break through in the building
proccess minimum build time required etc..... This is what Rob
preaches as soon as any one mentions traditional design. Knowing
that a shunting outrigger canoe needs minimal amount of anything to
go 1 to 1-1/2 times the wind speed at any boat length. Is why I
ask.
I get the custom outfit. But 1/3 the price with half as much room
and with only 1/6 the hardware!?
Todd
--- In harryproa@..., Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
>
>
> The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed cost
so
> little.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that
> > doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall
speed.
> >
> > Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may be
just
> > my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
> > aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a
part in
> > your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come
would
> > be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each
> > would be?
> >
> > Rob,
> >
> > If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material
and
> > hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ?
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > --- In harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Robert" <cateran1949@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff
to
> > > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to
> > take
> > > the point loading of the gaff,
> > > Robert
> > > --- In harryproa@...
> > <mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "brag_rotor"
<brag_rotor@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on
> > > > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> > > >
> > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s,
and 'Pilgrim'
> > > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much
> > > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail.
> > > >
> > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our
> > > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I
posted
> > > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are
> > > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to
denigrate
> > > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> > > >
> > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain
high
> > > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
> > comfortable,
> > > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for
our
> > > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the
> > > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p
> > > >
> > > > That's why we're here.
> > > >
> > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS)
that
> > we
> > > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now
on
> > > this
> > > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig.
> > > >
> > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap-
> > around
> > > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the
> > huge
> > > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use.
It
> > > will
> > > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the
loose
> > > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down;
> > plus
> > > it
> > > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> > > >
> > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig,
since
> > > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord
> > > shrinks
> > > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to
make;
> > > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than
most
> > > > modern battens-with-cars.
> > > >
> > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since
boyhood,
> > and
> > > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE
> > > telling
> > > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow.
> > > >
> > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have
> > uploaded
> > > to
> > > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > > >
http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> >
<http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641>
> > > >
> > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very
> > small
> > > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for
> > example.
> > > >
> > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number>)
> > > >
> > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html
> > <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Easmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html>)
> > > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of
the
> > > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds
Nos
> > > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the
drag in
> > the
> > > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round
> > wire.
> > > >
> > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate
> > > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in
> > > > the low Re zone for sure.
> > > >
> > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner
flow to
> > > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge
of
> > > sails,
> > > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid
> > > dynamics.
> > > >
> > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan
rig.
> > > >
> > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the
mast
> > > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar
on an
> > > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> > > imperfections
> > > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are
addressed.
> > > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> > > >
> > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic
> > > importance
> > > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and
> > stiff.
> > > Not
> > > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed
or in
> > > high
> > > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam
or
> > pole
> > > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind
load
> > in a
> > > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing
> > > batten.
> > > >
> > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen
from
> > > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not
Pilgrim,
> > > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A
lot
> > > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to
> > Rob,
> > > I'm
> > > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail
shape.
> > > >
> > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's
> > sails,
> > > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles?
> > > >
> > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more
at:-
> >
> > > > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki-
> > <http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki->
> > > range/Tiki-30
> > > >
> > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a
Wharram
> > > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> > > >
> > > > All the best, Ben
> > > >
> > > > PS
> > > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under
main
> > > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa.
> > > > But we learned something interesting....
> > > >
> > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as
> > > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at
> > > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on
without
> > > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -roughly-
> > > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was
> > > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which
> > > > is not usually our custom.
> > > >
> > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> > > >
> > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and
> > > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was
> > > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going
> > > > pretty well even without a genoa.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
I have got one myself, and I did treated it badly at first. It seems to be very strong.
Sail shape is very much like a roached bermudan sail. The amount of roach can be compared with the angle of the peak halyard, the more horizontal the more stress on the mast.
I changed the angle by placing the halyard block away from the mast.
On wing masts:
I sailed on a cat with a small section wing which used a rotator linking the boom to the mast. That way manipulating the sheet doesn't change the agle of the mast relative to the sail.
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Aerodynamics and sailing performance
Rif efficiency:
Due partly to Robert's comments posted in this group's archives, I've spent a lot of time looking into Wharram rigs, and as a result have become a big fan. This wasn't easy for me, either, because I tend to be a technology nut. There are times I love to pull strings and watch the rotating mast line up with the fully-battened square-top mylar sails, all telltales behaving, and feel a light multihull surge ahead with that little bit of extra drive. The performance is only half the fun -- the other half is in the gadgets and high-tech materials.
Thinking about going to a gaff rig, on a round mast, with soft dacron sailcloth just seems wrong in some ways. Nonetheless, there's a lot to be said about it.
Your comments about frontal area and cord width are certainly valid. It's possible to come up with a more efficient foil shape than that presented by a round mast section. There are countless debates about this rig on the net, the more detailed of which get into aerodynamics that are over my head. But the conclusion is often the same -- a good rotating wing mast, rotated properly, will be more efficient than the Wharram rig.
But there are two downsides to that argument.
One is that it takes a lot of work to rotate the mast properly, and this has to be adjusted every time the apparent wind angle changes. People with rotating masts rarely have them at the right angle for optimum efficiency, and therefore often lose the first foot or two of their mainsail due to mast turbulence. This means that most of the time, in real conditions, the Wharram rig is more efficient than the rotating wing.
Good racers, with adequate crew, will of course not worry about this. They'll have the knowledge and extra hands to keep everything adjusted throughout a course. But for everyone else, that soft wing sail has real performance benefits. I suspect that the sail area high up, enabled by the gaff, also adds to the speed of the rig.
The second downside is cost and complexity. Sail track, cars, hinged/rotating batten pockets, mast rotators, and a rotating mast bearing all add a significant amount of cost amount of money, and all add additional failure points. The Wharram rig might not be as simple as Rob's elementarry rig, or perhaps a junk rig, but it's magnitudes simpler than a bermuda rig.
Wharrams aren't perfect, but they offer a unique ratio of performance to both cost and ease of use. The fact that this is done with soft sailcloth makes them even more impressive.
Unfortunately, I have worries about how to implement that gaff on an unstayed carbon mast. There would be additional point loading high up, an additional halyard, and perhaps an issue with chafe. The mast might have to taper less than it does on Rare Bird.
Resale price:
I imagine someone else might answer this, but I'll reply just the same. The prices on used harryproas are not rock-bottom because they are all quite new, and all quite handmade. This is very different from the market for ten-year-old fiberglass boats made on production lines. The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed cost so little.
Take a look at what it costs to build a 12m catamaran or trimaran, and then compare that to Blind Date, and there's a significant difference.
There's just no production line, yet, for Rob's designs.
- Mike
Todd wrote:
I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall speed.
Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may be just my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a part in your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come would be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each would be?
Rob,
If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material and hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ?
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote: > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff to > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to take > the point loading of the gaff, > Robert > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "brag_rotor" <brag_rotor@> > wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, and 'Pilgrim' > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail. > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I posted > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to denigrate > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain high > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't comfortable, > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for our > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS) that we > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now on > this > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig. > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap- around > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the huge > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use. It > will > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the loose > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down; plus > it > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig, since > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord > shrinks > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to make; > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than most > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since boyhood, and > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE > telling > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow. > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have uploaded > to > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very small > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for example. > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number) > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html) > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of the > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds Nos > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the drag in the > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round wire. > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner flow to > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge of > sails, > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid > dynamics. > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan rig. > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the mast > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar on an > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > imperfections > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are addressed. > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic > importance > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and stiff. > Not > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed or in > high > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam or pole > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind load in a > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing > batten. > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen from > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not Pilgrim, > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A lot > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to Rob, > I'm > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail shape. > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's sails, > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles? > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more at:-
> > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki- > range/Tiki-30 > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a Wharram > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > PS > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under main > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa. > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on without > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -roughly- > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which > > is not usually our custom. > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > >
I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall speed.
Works just as well on gobs of sail area boats, but why anyone would want this type of boat is a mystery to me.
Rob,
If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material and hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ?
Good question. The extra money goes into the fitout and the finish. Both of the boats on our brokerage page are almost new. They are very cheap compared to a cat of the same space or performance (in the case of Rare Bird) and a pro built one off cat of the same performance as the Elementarry.
Rare Bird's owner strayed from the minimalist approach (and got a very comfortable, well fitted out boat) and a schooner rigged Elementarry is not very minimal either.
regards,
Rob
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote: > > The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff to > sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to take > the point loading of the gaff, > Robert > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "brag_rotor" <brag_rotor@> > wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on > > sail formats for the HarryProa. > > > > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, and 'Pilgrim' > > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much > > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail. > > > > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our > > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I posted > > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are > > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to denigrate > > anybody's design, multihull or monohull. > > > > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain high > > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't comfortable, > > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for our > > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the > > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p > > > > That's why we're here. > > > > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS) that we > > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now on > this > > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig. > > > > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap- around > > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the huge > > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use. It > will > > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the loose > > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down; plus > it > > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom. > > > > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig, since > > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord > shrinks > > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to make; > > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than most > > modern battens-with-cars. > > > > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since boyhood, and > > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE > telling > > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow. > > > > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have uploaded > to > > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' ..... > > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641 > > > > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very small > > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for example. > > > > Depending on the Reynolds Number.... > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number) > > (http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html) > > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of the > > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds Nos > > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re. > > > > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the drag in the > > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round wire. > > > > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate > > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in > > the low Re zone for sure. > > > > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner flow to > > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge of > sails, > > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid > dynamics. > > > > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan rig. > > > > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the mast > > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar on an > > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller > imperfections > > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are addressed. > > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him. > > > > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic > importance > > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and stiff. > Not > > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed or in > high > > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam or pole > > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind load in a > > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing > batten. > > > > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen from > > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not Pilgrim, > > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A lot > > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to Rob, > I'm > > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail shape. > > > > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's sails, > > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle > > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles? > > > > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more at:-
> > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki- > range/Tiki-30 > > > > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a Wharram > > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig? > > > > All the best, Ben > > > > PS > > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under main > > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa. > > But we learned something interesting.... > > > > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as > > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at > > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on without > > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -roughly- > > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was > > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which > > is not usually our custom. > > > > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig. > > > > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and > > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was > > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured > > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going > > pretty well even without a genoa. > > >
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007
Due partly to Robert's comments posted in this group's archives, I've
spent a lot of time looking into Wharram rigs, and as a result have
become a big fan. This wasn't easy for me, either, because I tend to
be a technology nut. There are times I love to pull strings and watch
the rotating mast line up with the fully-battened square-top mylar
sails, all telltales behaving, and feel a light multihull surge ahead
with that little bit of extra drive. The performance is only half the
fun -- the other half is in the gadgets and high-tech materials.
Thinking about going to a gaff rig, on a round mast, with soft dacron
sailcloth just seems wrong in some ways. Nonetheless, there's a lot to
be said about it.
Your comments about frontal area and cord width are certainly valid.
It's possible to come up with a more efficient foil shape than that
presented by a round mast section. There are countless debates about
this rig on the net, the more detailed of which get into aerodynamics
that are over my head. But the conclusion is often the same -- a good
rotating wing mast, rotated properly, will be more efficient than the
Wharram rig.
But there are two downsides to that argument.
One is that it takes a lot of work to rotate the mast properly, and
this has to be adjusted every time the apparent wind angle changes.
People with rotating masts rarely have them at the right angle for
optimum efficiency, and therefore often lose the first foot or two of
their mainsail due to mast turbulence. This means that most of the
time, in real conditions, the Wharram rig is more efficient than the
rotating wing.
Good racers, with adequate crew, will of course not worry about
this. They'll have the knowledge and extra hands to keep everything
adjusted throughout a course. But for everyone else, that soft wing
sail has real performance benefits. I suspect that the sail area high
up, enabled by the gaff, also adds to the speed of the rig.
The second downside is cost and complexity. Sail track, cars,
hinged/rotating batten pockets, mast rotators, and a rotating mast
bearing all add a significant amount of cost amount of money, and all
add additional failure points. The Wharram rig might not be as simple
as Rob's elementarry rig, or perhaps a junk rig, but it's magnitudes
simpler than a bermuda rig.
Wharrams aren't perfect, but they offer a unique ratio of performance
to both cost and ease of use. The fact that this is done with soft
sailcloth makes them even more impressive.
Unfortunately, I have worries about how to implement that gaff on an
unstayed carbon mast. There would be additional point loading high up,
an additional halyard, and perhaps an issue with chafe. The mast might
have to taper less than it does on Rare Bird.
Resale price:
I imagine someone else might answer this, but I'll reply just the
same. The prices on used harryproas are not rock-bottom because they
are all quite new, and all quite handmade. This is very different from
the market for ten-year-old fiberglass boats made on production lines.
The big question is why handmade boats of this size and speed cost so
little.
Take a look at what it costs to build a 12m catamaran or trimaran,
and then compare that to Blind Date, and there's a significant
difference.
There's just no production line, yet, for Rob's designs.
- Mike
Todd wrote:
I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that
doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall speed.
Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may be just
my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a part in
your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come would
be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each
would be?
Rob,
If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material and
hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ?
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au,
"Robert" <cateran1949@...>
wrote:
>
> The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff to
> sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to
take
> the point loading of the gaff,
> Robert
> --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au,
"brag_rotor" <brag_rotor@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on
> > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> >
> > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, and 'Pilgrim'
> > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much
> > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail.
> >
> > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our
> > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I
posted
> > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are
> > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to
denigrate
> > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> >
> > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain
high
> > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
comfortable,
> > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for our
> > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the
> > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p
> >
> > That's why we're here.
> >
> > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS)
that
we
> > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now
on
> this
> > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig.
> >
> > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap-
around
> > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the
huge
> > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use.
It
> will
> > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the
loose
> > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down;
plus
> it
> > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> >
> > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig,
since
> > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord
> shrinks
> > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to
make;
> > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than
most
> > modern battens-with-cars.
> >
> > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since
boyhood,
and
> > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE
> telling
> > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow.
> >
> > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have
uploaded
> to
> > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> >
> > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very
small
> > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for
example.
> >
> > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number)
> >
(http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html)
> > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of the
> > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds
Nos
> > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> >
> > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the drag
in
the
> > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round
wire.
> >
> > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate
> > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in
> > the low Re zone for sure.
> >
> > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner
flow to
> > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge
of
> sails,
> > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid
> dynamics.
> >
> > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan rig.
> >
> > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the mast
> > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar
on an
> > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> imperfections
> > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are
addressed.
> > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> >
> > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic
> importance
> > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and
stiff.
> Not
> > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed or
in
> high
> > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam
or
pole
> > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind
load
in a
> > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing
> batten.
> >
> > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen
from
> > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not
Pilgrim,
> > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A lot
> > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to
Rob,
> I'm
> > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail
shape.
> >
> > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's
sails,
> > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles?
> >
> > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more
at:-
> > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki-
> range/Tiki-30
> >
> > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a
Wharram
> > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> >
> > All the best, Ben
> >
> > PS
> > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under
main
> > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa.
> > But we learned something interesting....
> >
> > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as
> > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at
> > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on
without
> > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -roughly-
> > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was
> > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which
> > is not usually our custom.
> >
> > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> >
> > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and
> > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was
> > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going
> > pretty well even without a genoa.
> >
>
I like the idea of an unstayed mast especially on a boat that
doesn't need to have gobs of sail area to attain good overall speed.
Don't really agree with you on the wire vs foil thingy, may be just
my misunderstanding. I don't have a formal education in
aerodynamics. But doesn't frontal area and cord width play a part in
your apple vs an orange theory ;) I wonder what the out come would
be with the same size sail for given length masts attach to each
would be?
Rob,
If the whole principal behind your designs are minimal material and
hardware then why such the high price tag $$$$$ on used boats ?
Todd
--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
wrote:
>
> The Wharram rig makes sense to me, possibly with a curved gaff to
> sooth the exit. Not sure of how to set up the unstayed mast to
take
> the point loading of the gaff,
> Robert
> --- In harryproa@..., "brag_rotor" <brag_rotor@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > This is a hopefully useful contribution to the debate on
> > sail formats for the HarryProa.
> >
> > We have sailed a Wharram Tiki 30 since the '90s, and 'Pilgrim'
> > has provided us with a source of much glee in nailing much
> > larger and supposedly faster vessels on most points of sail.
> >
> > The numbers we can demonstrably repeat (especially since our
> > recent coat of bottom paint) caused some surprise when I posted
> > them last time - apologies for my lack of tact. All boats are
> > an improvement over no boat, and it is not my place to denigrate
> > anybody's design, multihull or monohull.
> >
> > Pilgrim is a small catamaran, and cannot comfortably sustain high
> > speed in rough water - ask my wife! Well, Olly isn't
comfortable,
> > anyway. We will need something more comfy and spacious for our
> > declining years, but I am most reluctant to give up on the
> > giant-killing fun we enjoy. Eaten any Oysters lately? #;^p
> >
> > That's why we're here.
> >
> > We did check our numbers and have also discovered (see PS) that
we
> > can point and foot well under main alone. So my focus is now on
> this
> > type of mainsail, and its possible application to an EasyRig.
> >
> > The Wharram Tiki Wingsail is a cunning combination of a wrap-
around
> > sleeve luff and a short gaff. Usually loose-footed due to the
huge
> > sheeting angle available on a cat, the rig is simple to use. It
> will
> > reef going downwind (a major safety factor) because of the loose
> > sleeve luff and the weight of the gaff bringing the top down;
plus
> it
> > is safe to gybe all-standing due to the lack of a boom.
> >
> > The gaff keeps the sail area useful to the top of the rig, since
> > bermudan triangles lose performance rapidly as the sail chord
> shrinks
> > with respect to the mast. A square-top variant is easy to make;
> > the gaff then becomes (in effect) a batten, but cheaper than most
> > modern battens-with-cars.
> >
> > Aerodynamics - this has been an interest of mine since boyhood,
and
> > as a student I recall our aerodynamics instructor at the CAAE
> telling
> > us that even a small wrinkle or rivet can perturb the flow.
> >
> > His favourite example was a wire and a foil, which I have
uploaded
> to
> > the photos folder 'Aerodynamics and Sails' .....
> > http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/browse/1641
> >
> > This illustration is meant to focus on the importance of very
small
> > things in the overall drag picture - a sailing boat, for
example.
> >
> > Depending on the Reynolds Number....
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Number)
> >
(http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html)
> > ....the foil could be of the order of 10x the thickness of the
> > wire for the same drag. This can double at very low Reynolds Nos
> > (Re) to around 20x - and sails run at low Re.
> >
> > Which suggests that a 5% imperfection might _double_ the drag in
the
> > worst case. It can, too. Some shapes are worse than a round
wire.
> >
> > This puts exposed masts in a poor light unless they rotate
> > very precisely. Shrouds don't look good, either. They are in
> > the low Re zone for sure.
> >
> > Sailmakers do have techniques for picking up some cleaner flow to
> > leeward of masts by putting a baggy step in the leading edge of
> sails,
> > but it is still a disaster in terms of aircraft quality fluid
> dynamics.
> >
> > There is a _lot_ of improvement to be had over a bermudan rig.
> >
> > The Wharram approach uses a deep sleeve luff, so that the mast
> > 'disappears' aerodynamically inside the sail, like the spar on an
> > aircraft wing. The cut is all-important, since smaller
> imperfections
> > start to matter more once the main sources of drag are addressed.
> > Chris Jeckells made my sails, bless him.
> >
> > The thickness of the mast ceases to be of great aerodynamic
> importance
> > when the sail is hoisted, so it can be properly plump and
stiff.
> Not
> > too plump, since we do not want excessive drag when reefed or in
> high
> > wind with the rig down. Fortunately the stiffness of a beam or
pole
> > increases rapidly with diameter. Flexibility to shed wind load
in a
> > gust could be added in the gaff - like a windsurfer's flexing
> batten.
> >
> > Two Tiki Wingsails are shown in the photo folder, one seen from
> > another boat, and one shot from on board. These are not Pilgrim,
> > and the sails do not seem to be setting as well as ours. A lot
> > of people are relaxed about sails, and as I have admitted to
Rob,
> I'm
> > a pestilentially picky perfectionist when it comes to sail shape.
> >
> > Wrinkles may be common - but I prefer them on other people's
sails,
> > not mine! Remember the wire and the foil. A 5% wrinkle
> > might double the drag - so how about lots of small wrinkles?
> >
> > The two photos are there to show the Wharram wingsail - more at:-
> > http://www.wharram.eu/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=Tiki-
> range/Tiki-30
> >
> > So what do you folks think, is there a case for using a Wharram
> > sleeve luff/gaff combination on a HarryProa EasyRig?
> >
> > All the best, Ben
> >
> > PS
> > About that run up the coast of Lanzarote in January under main
> > alone - lazy skipper, should have reefed both main and genoa.
> > But we learned something interesting....
> >
> > The tack was 88 degrees on the GPS (and compass - near as
> > one can tell on a compass) and we started footing upwind at
> > nearly 9 GPS knots. Tricky to get a main flying spot on without
> > any genoa telltales, but eventually we had 9 knots -roughly-
> > showing on the GPS. Pretty good, I thought vaguely. It was
> > a pleasant surprise to point so well under main alone, which
> > is not usually our custom.
> >
> > Sea was bumpy, hence the reduced rig.
> >
> > Afterwards I had a look at the GPS points I'd put in and
> > from the times did a speed over ground by hand, which was
> > 8.8 knots, and 8.8/16 is 55% of max wind speed measured
> > 1/3 the way up the mast. 8.8/14 is 63%, so we were going
> > pretty well even without a genoa.
> >
>
Offline 
Send Email
