Did Rob happen to mention when he was going to be back online? I
wanted to check some materials with him before I placed my order.

- Gardner

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> Rare bird suffered a corroded rudder post. It was supposed to be stainless
> 3.6.1. The posts are going to be replaced with carbon ones.
> The owner reckons it was remarkably comfortable at 13 knots in a bit of a
> sea
>
>

Hopefully Rob will post more details when he gets back online. I was
wondering how far they got before the rudder post gave out. Any wind
speed/boat speed videos or data? Did they just have to motor back in,
or could they use the 2nd rudder for backup steerage?

- Gardner

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> Rare bird suffered a corroded rudder post. It was supposed to be stainless
> 3.6.1. The posts are going to be replaced with carbon ones.
> The owner reckons it was remarkably comfortable at 13 knots in a bit of a
> sea
>
>

Rare bird suffered a corroded rudder post. It was supposed to be stainless
3.6.1. The posts are going to be replaced with  carbon ones.
  The owner reckons it was remarkably comfortable at 13 knots in a bit of  a sea

I am wondering what has happened to Rare Bird. I have mislaid rob's mobile. Can
any one who has his number give him a bell>
  Robert

can be found here:

http://www.julesmarineart.com/galleries/yacht-racing/Brisbane-To-Gladstone-09/Mu\
ltihull-Friday/index.php?directory=.&currentPic=144

Hi Doug,
  Had to spend a lt of time with my mother as she is fading fast, and as well
having to keep up with a couple of hundred external studies students, diving for
mussels and going surfing, didn't get much done.
  No contact from Rob. Maybe they decided the race thing wasn't for them and just
kept going, rather than dropping into Gladstone, fighting tides
  I wouldn't worry about that proa bloke on SA. More interested in what is
happenning to Rare Bird

Robert--- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> thanks, how's your projject?
> do you still get out on the jjarcat?
> i was just looking at the charts to albany, it would make a nice couple with
the kalbarri trip they are about the same distance with very little habitation
and lots of cliffs beyond them. however it looks quite different with no
offlying reefs amd islands to protect, just open southerrn ocean and surf on
rocky shores. so not too sure, maybe later.
> doug
> rob's getting a little hassle from that guy who seems to have a thing about
proas except our proas on SA. i hope our performance wasn't too dissapointing -
hopefully at least finished, two in the race didn't!.
> Hello Rob are you there?
> Probably taking a holiday in some out of the way beauty spot.
>  
> doug
>
> --- On Sun, 12/4/09, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Robert <cateran1949@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Rare Bird b2g
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Sunday, 12 April, 2009, 8:10 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Well done Doug
>
> -- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@ > wrote:
> >
> > hello,
> >  
> > been imagining the race too, while coming down the coast.
> > i got in to mandurah today after 8 days sailing. very lucky winds made good
tme.
> >  
> > so the race started on friday?
> > so now be finished.
> > only 10 -15 multihulls in it.
> > no very representitive. exclusive event for $500 entrance fee.
> >  
> > doug
> >
> > --- On Sun, 12/4/09, Robert <cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Robert <cateran1949@ ...>
> > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Rare Bird b2g
> > To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
> > Date: Sunday, 12 April, 2009, 8:18 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Heard nothing from Rob since 2pm Friday. No idea what has happened.
> >
> > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Gardner Pomper <gardner@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been watching the web site, but I can't seem to find a link to
> > > what the weather conditions were. I did see that Black Jack averaged
> > > 14.8 kts over teh first 223 nm, and hit 22 kts near the finish, so I
> > > guess there was enough wind. Your message seems to indicate that the
> > > winds were really light to start.
> > >
> > > - Gardner
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Robert <cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rob just rang me to pass on the report.
> > > > They are covering the B2G as they would not pass the experience specs
for
> > > > the crew, including his young daughter Katie on helm. Shy reach about 5
> > > > knots, gps 3.2 knots. Occasional rain squalls around. Boats with
spinnakers
> > > > going a fair bit faster. Not enough wind for a kite. Cyanaphobe possibly
the
> > > > leader at this stage.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I am considering a test construction of a dinghy with resin infusion.
I have found a deal on 6mm DC/TC (double/triple cut) corecell for
$25/sheet (for 4x8 sheet). Is there any reason that I can't use this
for flat panel infusion? Do I need to fill the cuts before I infuse
it? I expect it will be slightly heavier than pinhole drilled plain
sheets, but the next cheapest I can find is $81/sheet for 3/8", so it
would more than triple the price.

Just an experiment, but I do want the boat to hold together.

Thanks,
- Gardner

-Well done Doug


-- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> hello,
>  
> been imagining the race too, while coming down the coast.
> i got in to mandurah today after 8 days sailing. very lucky winds made good
tme.
>  
> so the race started on friday?
> so now be finished.
> only 10 -15 multihulls in it.
> no very representitive. exclusive event for $500 entrance fee.
>  
> doug
>
> --- On Sun, 12/4/09, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Robert <cateran1949@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Rare Bird b2g
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Sunday, 12 April, 2009, 8:18 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Heard nothing from Rob since 2pm Friday. No idea what has happened.
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Gardner Pomper <gardner@ > wrote:
> >
> > I have been watching the web site, but I can't seem to find a link to
> > what the weather conditions were. I did see that Black Jack averaged
> > 14.8 kts over teh first 223 nm, and hit 22 kts near the finish, so I
> > guess there was enough wind. Your message seems to indicate that the
> > winds were really light to start.
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Robert <cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob just rang me to pass on the report.
> > > They are covering the B2G as they would not pass the experience specs for
> > > the crew, including his young daughter Katie on helm. Shy reach about 5
> > > knots, gps 3.2 knots. Occasional rain squalls around. Boats with
spinnakers
> > > going a fair bit faster. Not enough wind for a kite. Cyanaphobe possibly
the
> > > leader at this stage.
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Heard nothing from Rob since 2pm Friday. No idea what has happened.


--- In harryproa@..., Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> I have been watching the web site, but I can't seem to find a link to
> what the weather conditions were. I did see that Black Jack averaged
> 14.8 kts over teh first 223 nm, and hit 22 kts near the finish, so I
> guess there was enough wind. Your message seems to indicate that the
> winds were really light to start.
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rob just rang me to pass on the report.
> > They are covering the B2G as they would not pass the experience specs for
> > the crew, including his young daughter Katie on helm. Shy reach about 5
> > knots, gps 3.2 knots. Occasional rain squalls around. Boats with spinnakers
> > going a fair bit faster. Not enough wind for a kite. Cyanaphobe possibly the
> > leader at this stage.
> >
> >
>

I have been watching the web site, but I can't seem to find a link to
what the weather conditions were. I did see that Black Jack averaged
14.8 kts over teh first 223 nm, and hit 22 kts near the finish, so I
guess there was enough wind. Your message seems to indicate that the
winds were really light to start.

- Gardner

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> Rob just rang me to pass on the report.
> They are covering the B2G as they would not pass the experience specs for
> the crew, including his young daughter Katie on helm. Shy reach about 5
> knots, gps 3.2 knots. Occasional rain squalls around. Boats with spinnakers
> going a fair bit faster. Not enough wind for a kite. Cyanaphobe possibly the
> leader at this stage.
>
>

Rob just rang me to pass on the report.
  They are covering the B2G as they would not pass the experience specs for the
crew, including his young daughter Katie on helm. Shy reach about 5 knots, gps
3.2 knots. Occasional rain squalls around. Boats with spinnakers going a  fair
bit faster. Not enough wind for a kite. Cyanaphobe possibly the leader at this
stage.

I notice that you didn't list budget as one of you criteria <grin>.
That seems to be my primary constraint at the moment, which leads me
to try to find something that I think I might be able to build myself.
I can't get the admiral to take out a big boat loan for something as
radical as this without some real hands on with it. Maybe in 5 years,
but we are running out of time on deciding what to do, or I will be
too old and feeble to sail it.

I have my "liveaboard" design, the latest rev of which I *really*
like, but it is just too big for me to build by myself, I think. I
started to layout panels for the boat to measure the amount of
foam/fiberglass I would need and a very quick estimate is 2.5 times as
much as the harrigami class boat. Since I would not be able to build
it myself, I would guess that it would cost a minimum of 5 times as
much as what I am going with, so that isn't an option at the moment. I
figure I can probably scrape up $10K for the hulls and another $10K
for the beams/sails and mimal equipment for this boat over the next
couple years, and then I will own it, instead of the bank owning it.

In terms of trailerability, that is a tough question. Oddly, I really
never plan on trailering it. I have 2 primary interests, both of which
just fall into the trailerable category. The chesapeake bay is a petri
dish; a carpet can grow on the bottom of a boat in a couple weeks, so
I want to put the boat up on a lift. All the lifts I have see for wide
boats (16-20 ft) are for 50,000 lb boats and cost accordingly. Also, I
have a dock, but a 20' wide boat won't fit in the slips. This means
that on-water collapsing of the beam would be beneficial.

The other criteria is that I would really like to sail europe and the
south pacific, but I don't know that a boat of this size will really
have the storage capacity for that type of voyage, so the ability to
ship it over is appealing.

What I should probably look into is just moving a couple pilings on my
dock and getting a small capacity boat lift and replace the beams and
cables with longer ones, and have the boat demountable.

It is also possible that I should learn more about shipping a boat
some other way than a container, but the numbers I have seen for the
float on/off ships exceed the price of the boat. Maybe if I can
demount it, but not put it in a container, that would be a more
reasonable compromise. Not sure how to find out about that.

- Gardner

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
>
>   I hesitate to say I'm going with any boat, because that would imply
> action, and that's not likely to happen this year.
>
>   If I had to choose, I'd go for a Harry-class boat with the largest cockpit
> that will allow it to collapse down to a 12' beam, with the same
> shape/design/interior of the Harry, and an easyrig tall enough to get the
> boat to an SA/D of 60 to 70 when loaded with two people, motor, fuel, and
> batteries.  I'd probably look to see if I could license the scissors beams
> from cat2fold for a one-off build.  I particularly like that design, though
> I'm not trying to argue for it in place of telescoping beams.
>
>   Rob has argued that the increase in weight from the scissors design isn't
> worth it, especially when you consider that single-piece demountable beams
> would be lighter, stronger, and stiffer.  Whether or not he's right is a
> subjective matter that depends largely upon how lazy you are, or whether or
> not you'll have another person to help you trailer the boat..
>
>   Which does call into question how much you want to spend in order to
> optimize the boat for trailering.  If you don't have to collapse your beam
> on the water, single-piece beams will give you a lighter, stronger, stiffer,
> and cheaper boat that can have a wider overall beam than if you go with
> telescoping beams.  More space and righting moment.
>
>   The question is how often you need to trailer.  If it's only once or twice
> per year, and you don't need to collapse on the water, maybe the expense of
> going with a telescoping system isn't worth it.  You could rig up a custom
> trailer with some cradles/dollies that could allow you to get the boat onto
> a trailer in an hour or two with one or two people.  The scheme of using a
> stub mast to hoist the main mast up by its center of gravity is one that
> could probably be used by a single person as long as it's not windy.
>
>   Going with a less fancy design might be slightly less convenient, but
> perhaps the time penalty is not that bad, especially given the performance
> benefits.
>
>   So, back to the Contrarry, eh?  It's all a matter of perspective.  Instead
> of being a cramped liveaboard, it's actually a luxurious camp cruiser.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
> Gardner Pomper wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So which harry are you going with?
>
> This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
> handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
> turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
> it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.
>
> I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
> specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
> probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
> I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
> requirement:
>
> 1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
> 2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
> 3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
> hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
> 4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
> first message of the thread
>
> I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
> I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
> be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
> out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
> I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
> to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
> beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.
>
> With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K, I don't want to
> spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.
>
> I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
> gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
> hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
> planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
> 6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
> with some rocker.
>
> Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.
>
> - Gardner
>
>

Hi,

So which harry are you going with?

This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.

I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
requirement:

1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
first message of the thread

I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.

With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K, I don't want to
spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.

I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
with some rocker.

Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.

- Gardner

Deafening silence.
  Todds work wsaa certainly impressive, but Noe extra thing to sort out. I know
the basic Harry works, but will still need some refining to get the most out of
it and I don't have enough sailing years left to develop a means of feathering a
Dyna that really satisfies my sense of caution.
I do think it has enormous potential for a Harry.


  --- In harryproa@..., "captian_rapscallion"
<captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>
>
> Is anyone still working on a dyna rig?
>
>
> --- In harryproa@..., Gardner Pomper <gardner@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > So which harry are you going with?
> >
> > This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
> > handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
> > turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
> > it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.
> >
> > I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
> > specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
> > probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
> > I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
> > requirement:
> >
> > 1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
> > 2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
> > 3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
> > hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
> > 4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
> > first message of the thread
> >
> > I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
> > I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
> > be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
> > out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
> > I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
> > to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
> > beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.
> >
> > With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K,  I don't want to
> > spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.
> >
> > I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
> > gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
> > hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
> > planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
> > 6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
> > with some rocker.
> >
> > Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@> wrote:
> > >
> > >   That's definitely too much sail area.
> > >
> > >   But I like it.  <g>
> > >
> > >   As much as I love the schooner rig, for too many reasons to mention
again,
> > > I'm now looking at a nearly standard Harry with perhaps a few extra feet
on
> > > the lw hull, as well as a taller easyrig.  That would let me get to a
Bruce
> > > number of around 2.0 with the boat, two crew, an outboard, fuel, some
water,
> > > and batteries.
> > >
> > >   Cost and singlehanding are reasons to go with the easyrig.
> > >
> > >   A schooner with rigid booms (no vang required) should be pretty simple
to
> > > singlehand on a tacking boat.  However, until I'm actually able to sail a
> > > Harry, my guess is that the long lw hull without rocker is going to make
> > > tacking a bit of a challenge.  The very qualities which make it a great
hull
> > > for a proa (nice leeway prevention, good tracking, longer waterline, less
> > > hobbyhorsing) make it less than ideal for tacking.
> > >
> > >   It would be possible to build the boat with much more rocker, but that
> > > will add significantly to the cost because you won't be able to create the
> > > hull out of a simple U bend that has little or no compound curvature.
> > >
> > >   So, if I'm going to assume that I'll be shunting most of the time, the
> > > easyrig is going to be much more convenient.  With a 1900 pound boat (2600
> > > with two crew and motor), you could have an easyrig that fits under the
ICW
> > > bridges and still have a Bruce number around 2.0.
> > >
> > >   As for that being too much sail area, well, it is.
> > >
> > >   Until you're out in three knots of wind looking to climb upwind towards
> > > your goal.  At that point a kite isn't going to help, but a tall mast with
a
> > > good rig will be your best friend.  Especially on such a light,
> > > long-waterline multihull with fine hulls that can make some good apparent
> > > wind.  I can't always choose my sailing days, so it's important to me to
> > > maximize low wind performance.
> > >
> > >   The obvious caveat that always bears repeating: just be prepared to sail
> > > with one or two reefs in on "normal" ten-knot sailing days.
> > >
> > >        - Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gardner Pomper wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
> > > could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
> > > much anyway.
> > >
> > > I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
> > > but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
> > > as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
> > > with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.
> > >
> > > This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
> > > how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
> > > options.
> > >
> > > I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
> > > anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.
> > >
> > > - Gardner
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@>
> > > wrote:
> > >>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
> > >>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
> > >>
> > >> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be
> > >> out of balance with too large a jib.
> > >> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be
> > >> about 3/4 rigs.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Damnation! I am an idiot!

Your comment on building a harry lead me back to the harryproa web
site and looking at it again, I realized that I have just reinvented
the harrigami! Compare:

Spec:    Harrigami       Gardner
lw             35'                 35'
ww            26.5'              24'
weight     1210               933 + rig + beams + rudders
beam       17.5'               16.5'
sail area   333 sq ft        400? sq ft

Plus, he has a better folding system.

So, I just reinvented the harrigami, but the costs rob lists for
materials ($5K) is half of mine.

So, I guess I need to just talk to rob about converting the harrigami
plans to flat panel construction. His build time was under 500 hours
with strip plank, so if I can just build flat panels, I should be able
to do it in the same time, right?

Are you going to build a strip plank Harry, or try to get a flat panel
harry designed?

- Gardner

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:13 PM, captian_rapscallion
<captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone still working on a dyna rig?
>
> --- In harryproa@..., Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So which harry are you going with?
>>
>> This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
>> handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
>> turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
>> it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.
>>
>> I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
>> specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
>> probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
>> I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
>> requirement:
>>
>> 1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
>> 2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
>> 3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
>> hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
>> 4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
>> first message of the thread
>>
>> I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
>> I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
>> be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
>> out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
>> I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
>> to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
>> beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.
>>
>> With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K, I don't want to
>> spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.
>>
>> I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
>> gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
>> hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
>> planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
>> 6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
>> with some rocker.
>>
>> Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.
>>
>> - Gardner
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >   That's definitely too much sail area.
>> >
>> >   But I like it.  <g>
>> >
>> >   As much as I love the schooner rig, for too many reasons to mention
>> > again,
>> > I'm now looking at a nearly standard Harry with perhaps a few extra feet
>> > on
>> > the lw hull, as well as a taller easyrig.  That would let me get to a
>> > Bruce
>> > number of around 2.0 with the boat, two crew, an outboard, fuel, some
>> > water,
>> > and batteries.
>> >
>> >   Cost and singlehanding are reasons to go with the easyrig.
>> >
>> >   A schooner with rigid booms (no vang required) should be pretty simple
>> > to
>> > singlehand on a tacking boat.  However, until I'm actually able to sail
>> > a
>> > Harry, my guess is that the long lw hull without rocker is going to make
>> > tacking a bit of a challenge.  The very qualities which make it a great
>> > hull
>> > for a proa (nice leeway prevention, good tracking, longer waterline,
>> > less
>> > hobbyhorsing) make it less than ideal for tacking.
>> >
>> >   It would be possible to build the boat with much more rocker, but that
>> > will add significantly to the cost because you won't be able to create
>> > the
>> > hull out of a simple U bend that has little or no compound curvature.
>> >
>> >   So, if I'm going to assume that I'll be shunting most of the time, the
>> > easyrig is going to be much more convenient.  With a 1900 pound boat
>> > (2600
>> > with two crew and motor), you could have an easyrig that fits under the
>> > ICW
>> > bridges and still have a Bruce number around 2.0.
>> >
>> >   As for that being too much sail area, well, it is.
>> >
>> >   Until you're out in three knots of wind looking to climb upwind
>> > towards
>> > your goal.  At that point a kite isn't going to help, but a tall mast
>> > with a
>> > good rig will be your best friend.  Especially on such a light,
>> > long-waterline multihull with fine hulls that can make some good
>> > apparent
>> > wind.  I can't always choose my sailing days, so it's important to me to
>> > maximize low wind performance.
>> >
>> >   The obvious caveat that always bears repeating: just be prepared to
>> > sail
>> > with one or two reefs in on "normal" ten-knot sailing days.
>> >
>> >        - Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gardner Pomper wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
>> > could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
>> > much anyway.
>> >
>> > I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
>> > but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
>> > as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
>> > with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.
>> >
>> > This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
>> > how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
>> > options.
>> >
>> > I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
>> > anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.
>> >
>> > - Gardner
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@...>
>> > wrote:
>> >>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
>> >>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
>> >>
>> >> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might
>> >> be
>> >> out of balance with too large a jib.
>> >> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to
>> >> be
>> >> about 3/4 rigs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Is anyone still working on a dyna rig?


--- In harryproa@..., Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So which harry are you going with?
>
> This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
> handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
> turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
> it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.
>
> I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
> specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
> probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
> I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
> requirement:
>
> 1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
> 2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
> 3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
> hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
> 4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
> first message of the thread
>
> I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
> I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
> be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
> out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
> I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
> to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
> beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.
>
> With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K,  I don't want to
> spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.
>
> I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
> gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
> hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
> planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
> 6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
> with some rocker.
>
> Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.
>
> - Gardner
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
> >
> >   That's definitely too much sail area.
> >
> >   But I like it.  <g>
> >
> >   As much as I love the schooner rig, for too many reasons to mention again,
> > I'm now looking at a nearly standard Harry with perhaps a few extra feet on
> > the lw hull, as well as a taller easyrig.  That would let me get to a Bruce
> > number of around 2.0 with the boat, two crew, an outboard, fuel, some water,
> > and batteries.
> >
> >   Cost and singlehanding are reasons to go with the easyrig.
> >
> >   A schooner with rigid booms (no vang required) should be pretty simple to
> > singlehand on a tacking boat.  However, until I'm actually able to sail a
> > Harry, my guess is that the long lw hull without rocker is going to make
> > tacking a bit of a challenge.  The very qualities which make it a great hull
> > for a proa (nice leeway prevention, good tracking, longer waterline, less
> > hobbyhorsing) make it less than ideal for tacking.
> >
> >   It would be possible to build the boat with much more rocker, but that
> > will add significantly to the cost because you won't be able to create the
> > hull out of a simple U bend that has little or no compound curvature.
> >
> >   So, if I'm going to assume that I'll be shunting most of the time, the
> > easyrig is going to be much more convenient.  With a 1900 pound boat (2600
> > with two crew and motor), you could have an easyrig that fits under the ICW
> > bridges and still have a Bruce number around 2.0.
> >
> >   As for that being too much sail area, well, it is.
> >
> >   Until you're out in three knots of wind looking to climb upwind towards
> > your goal.  At that point a kite isn't going to help, but a tall mast with a
> > good rig will be your best friend.  Especially on such a light,
> > long-waterline multihull with fine hulls that can make some good apparent
> > wind.  I can't always choose my sailing days, so it's important to me to
> > maximize low wind performance.
> >
> >   The obvious caveat that always bears repeating: just be prepared to sail
> > with one or two reefs in on "normal" ten-knot sailing days.
> >
> >        - Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gardner Pomper wrote:
> >
> > Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
> > could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
> > much anyway.
> >
> > I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
> > but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
> > as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
> > with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.
> >
> > This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
> > how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
> > options.
> >
> > I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
> > anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@...>
> > wrote:
> >>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
> >>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
> >>
> >> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be
> >> out of balance with too large a jib.
> >> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be
> >> about 3/4 rigs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Hi,

So which harry are you going with?

This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.

I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
requirement:

1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
first message of the thread

I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.

With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K,  I don't want to
spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.

I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
with some rocker.

Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.

- Gardner


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
>
>   That's definitely too much sail area.
>
>   But I like it.  <g>
>
>   As much as I love the schooner rig, for too many reasons to mention again,
> I'm now looking at a nearly standard Harry with perhaps a few extra feet on
> the lw hull, as well as a taller easyrig.  That would let me get to a Bruce
> number of around 2.0 with the boat, two crew, an outboard, fuel, some water,
> and batteries.
>
>   Cost and singlehanding are reasons to go with the easyrig.
>
>   A schooner with rigid booms (no vang required) should be pretty simple to
> singlehand on a tacking boat.  However, until I'm actually able to sail a
> Harry, my guess is that the long lw hull without rocker is going to make
> tacking a bit of a challenge.  The very qualities which make it a great hull
> for a proa (nice leeway prevention, good tracking, longer waterline, less
> hobbyhorsing) make it less than ideal for tacking.
>
>   It would be possible to build the boat with much more rocker, but that
> will add significantly to the cost because you won't be able to create the
> hull out of a simple U bend that has little or no compound curvature.
>
>   So, if I'm going to assume that I'll be shunting most of the time, the
> easyrig is going to be much more convenient.  With a 1900 pound boat (2600
> with two crew and motor), you could have an easyrig that fits under the ICW
> bridges and still have a Bruce number around 2.0.
>
>   As for that being too much sail area, well, it is.
>
>   Until you're out in three knots of wind looking to climb upwind towards
> your goal.  At that point a kite isn't going to help, but a tall mast with a
> good rig will be your best friend.  Especially on such a light,
> long-waterline multihull with fine hulls that can make some good apparent
> wind.  I can't always choose my sailing days, so it's important to me to
> maximize low wind performance.
>
>   The obvious caveat that always bears repeating: just be prepared to sail
> with one or two reefs in on "normal" ten-knot sailing days.
>
>        - Mike
>
>
>
>
> Gardner Pomper wrote:
>
> Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
> could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
> much anyway.
>
> I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
> but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
> as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
> with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.
>
> This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
> how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
> options.
>
> I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
> anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@...>
> wrote:
>>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
>>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
>>
>> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be
>> out of balance with too large a jib.
>> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be
>> about 3/4 rigs.
>>
>>
>
>

Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
much anyway.

I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.

This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
options.

I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.

- Gardner

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
>
> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be
> out of balance with too large a jib.
> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be
> about 3/4 rigs.
>
>

Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
much anyway.

I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.

This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
options.

I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.

- Gardner

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@...> wrote:
>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
>
> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be
> out of balance with too large a jib.
> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be
> about 3/4 rigs.
>
>

> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and


Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be out of
balance with too large a jib.
Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be about
3/4 rigs.

Hi,

I am almost done with the harryproa design I have settled on. It will
be a trailerable boat, 35' lw, 24' ww hull, collapses to 12' beam in
the water and 8.5' beam for trailering once you remove the crossbeams.
Hull weight (not including rig, crossbeams, rudders or equipment) is
1000 lbs, so I figure sailing weight, with crew and provisions of
about twice that. There is 1 double bunk, and the cockpit can insert a
board to make a single bunk up there. Materials cost for the hulls is
$10,000.

I have run into some issues with the rig, and I would like advice.
Given the constraints of easy singlehanding, and low cost, I would
like as much sail area as I can get, since I often sail in 5 kts of
wind. I would like at least 400 sq ft of sail, preferably more. I have
been looking at various used sail outfits to get an idea of sail
dimensions, and the luff/foot ratio seems to run between 3:1 and 4:1
for the most part, usually closer to 3:1.

My concern is the boom length. The ww bridge deck is 8' from the lw
hull, so any boom longer than 8' must clear the hardtop, which is 8'
8" off the water.

I also have fantasies about being able to ship this boat around inside
a shipping container, meaning that nothing can be longer than 40', so
the mast will need to be in at least 2 pieces.

The only sails I can find with a foot of 8' or less are Tornado cat
sails, or similar, with a sail area of 120sq ft or so, so even having
2 of them in a schooner rig does not get my sail area close to what I
want, although I could have 1 piece masts if I use those.

If I go with an easyrig, with the boom 9' off the water, I need to
raise the lw hull height from 4' above wl to at least 6, so that I can
reach the sail from the lw hull deck. The good side is that the foot
can now be about 13' (I will still have a short pole on the ww hull
for instruments, lights, etc, so there is a limit to boom length).

I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
have plenty of sail area (500+ sq ft). I would have to have a 2 part
mast for the container, or for trailering, since the mast would be
nearly 60' long. This last is really too much sail, but in the
ballpark of what I need.

So, my question are:

1) is it worth buying used sails, if I am on a budget? Any of the
sails I am talking about can be had used in very good or better
condition for < $1000. Any rough guess of what a 300 sq ft main sail
from dacron would cost?

2) Is the 3-4:1 aspect ratio reasonable for a boat like this? It
should be very fast, so does it make sense to have a higher aspect
ratio (5:1 or better)? This would require a new sail to be made.

3) I can get more sail area from a schooner rig, for the same mast
height. With an 8' foot and a 39' mast, I can probably get a 32' luff,
so with an 80% roach, I should be able to have sails made that will
give me 200 sq ft each with 2 simple 1 piece masts. That would match
my mininum sail area.

I guess all these questions boil down to a comparison between a
schooner rig with 1 piece masts and new sails, vs an easyrig with a 2
part mast and used sails. The schooner can keep with a lw hull 4'
high, but the easyrig will need 6' height on the lw hull.

The tradeoffs are:
a) price (including hull modifications)
b) ease of single handing
c) speed
d) ease of trailering
e) weight
f) ability to put in a container (optional)

I always get good opinions here, so thanks in advance!

- Gardner

I would be interested in how you end up building the table. I have
just started to think about mine, and I was considering using tongue
in groove plywood and thin formica sheets over it, instead of the 3/4"
melamine boards, because I thought it would be easier to vacuum proof
the joints (and it is lighter and cheaper).

What do you plan on doing?

- Gardner

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> Hooray! Welcome back!
>
> Let the list know if you are still considering that workshop!
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, captian_rapscallion
> <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, my brief stint as a professor is finished! I plan on getting
>> everything ready to go and start building panels ASAP. I'll probably start
>> setting up the table this weekend weather permitting.
>>
>>
>

Hooray! Welcome back!

Let the list know if you are still considering that workshop!

- Gardner

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, captian_rapscallion
<captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well, my brief stint as a professor is finished! I plan on getting
> everything ready to go and start building panels ASAP. I'll probably start
> setting up the table this weekend weather permitting.
>
>

Well, my brief stint as a professor is finished! I plan on getting everything
ready to go and start building panels ASAP. I'll probably start setting up the
table this weekend weather permitting.

Is anyone working on a dyna rig for a harriette?