Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 20-04-2008, 21:28   #61
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12
negative harry

Rob,

And good day to you. I know you have a vested interest and are promoting your product. Regardless, I appreciate alternate POV based on sound reasoning. For some time, I followed development of the Harry Proa designs. I was more interested in the Vissionary models for size of accommodation. However, for the expenditure of 4500 hours build time (your estimate), I think the amount of accommodation is small. So, and as will be explained below, I decided against and thus far, you not changed my determiation that HP does not meet my requirements. In short, I think your case is overstated. Take no offense.

My specific response to your points follows quotation within your post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rob denney View Post
G'day,
"Fair point about the North Atlantic, but I am not sure what will be proved. The boats see the same type of loads (though smaller and fewer of them) as a catamaran and are engineered accordingly. In a gale, they are safer than any similar weight cat."

Well, if I believe what I read, the safety of a catamaran broadside to a wave is such that it is spared being flipped (assuming no sail is flying) until the wave height exceeds BOA. This is a theoretical statement, and I am confident that all manner of "just wrong" conditions could see a diminution of the parameters. The HP concept requires that, in the process of shunting, the vessel be brought beam on to the waves. Not a requirement for a cat. Now, to be sure, I expect that 27 ft high waves (beam of Vissionary) are not common to most sailors. The average height in the North Atlantic is approx. 12 ft (REF. NOAA, IIRC). But, the point is that a catamaran, in the process of tacking is not required to make itself more vulnerable to capsize. No, we do not need to get into a discussion about possible pitchpoling.

"Tacking in big seas involves pointing directly into the seas, with a very high chance of getting in irons and surfing backwards onto your rudders. Gybing in big seas is terrifying. Shunting is no different to slow reaching, and there is no chance of getting into irons, no headsails to tame, no travellers or winches to catch fingers and bodies, no waves to surf down. Once you have shunted, especially in big seas, you will wonder why anyone tacks or gybes."

Well, we try to avoid backing on the rudders in seas. It seems to me that, in the process of shunting, rudders/boards would be at least as vulnerable to being pressed the wrong way.

"A second hand stayed alloy rigs will almost certainly end in misery. An unstayed carbon mast is lighter, cheaper (than new) and can be put up and forgotten about. This compares with daily inspection and regular replacement of all the components of a stayed mast. Build it yourself and carbon becomes a very cheap option. Take the weight of the alloy tube in kgs (1 kg=2.2 pounds) and multiply it by $27 to get a ball park materials price. A 35' cat might have an 80 kg/176lb alloy stick. Build it in carbon for a little over $2,000, plus plans. Make it a stayed mast and the materials cost goes down by about 40% but you have to buy, maintain and worry about all the bits to hold it up. "

I disagree completely. Second hand alloy rigs are available and have crossed the seas for decades. The materials and component design is a thoroughly known and familiar quantity. Inspection is easy. Many sailors use second hand rigs. My own rig is nearly thirty years old. Other than a few fasteners, no fittings replaced so far. I do not inspect it frequently. I built it from scratch. I occasionally inspect it as any prudent person would. And, I would inspect any rig of any material or design. Anyone who does not inspect the vessel at least before a voyage is a fool unto himself. I think you do not fail to check your vessel and so regard your statement as disingenuous. I know, I know, you are selling. Well, just so you know, I know.
Dive in bunks are easy enough. Privacy we don't do so well, unless you put the guests in the lee hull, although on a 35' cat you aren't going to get a whole lot anyway.

Given.

"Some of your other points as they apply to harrys:

modest budget (low by some standards)
A harry is about half the weight of a comparable accommodation cat. This is half the work and half the cost
. "

"Half the work"?? Half the weight does not equate to half the work. I reviewed the making of some of the harrys and vissionarrys and I cannot believe that, with the making of so many of the fiddly bits and all that massive amount of fairing, the building of two completely different hulls which cannot use the same mold/frame set, and two large beams AND the spars, steering wheels (two required!) from dead scratch could be any less labor intensive and therefore time consuming than building a cat in the 35 ft to 40 ft. range. In fact, the cats I mention earlier in the thread make use of flat panels and so can be much easier and less time consuming to build. And, oh BTW, part of the reason for that is the use of ready made components from hinges to spars.
  • "open ocean capable
  • More well found boats come to grief on coastal voyages than in the ocean, as the seas are steeper, currents are more pronounced, winds more erratic and there are more things to hit. Ocean capable is easy. Coastal capable is much more of a challenge."
Well, yes and no. Most designers seem to "derate" some of their offerings as being suitable only for coastal passage. Ever sailed the Gulf Stream? There is an offshore current that, I suspect, no one considers less significant than currents found near shore. I think I detect a nonsequiter in your reasoning. It is more dangerous sailing near shore, but boat design has naught to do with that. Things to be hit care not the size nor capability of your vessel (unless your ship can fly perhaps or is a super tanker)
  • "good speed, but more interested in overall performance, especially light air
  • Light weight and low windage is fast."
Agreed.
  • "must handle well, easy to tack, responsive
  • A bow and a stern rudder are by far the most responsive combination."
Not to mention the more complicated. I have no need to push the technological envelope by asking foils to act as "lee boards" as well as steering foils. I think that I would not receive enough benefit for the complexity and, I suspect, a reduced margin of error.
  • "motion in sea way as comfortable as the length allows
  • Zero rocker and weight concentrated in the middle of the boat."
Well, I suspect that moments of inertia are at least as important as the two parameters you list. However, too lazy to dig into the calculations. I think more consideration of important parameters is necessary when comparing designs.
  • "design for minimal chance of slamming in seas.
  • The lee half of the bridgedeck is trampoline, nothing to slam."
Seems good.
  • "rig to be common, simple to make and maintain, good in light or strong winds.
  • This is not a good description of an alloy mast with headsail and diamonds."
See my remarks above on spars. I think it is a good description of an alloy mast with head sails. Buy components. Assemble. No scrounging about for carbon fibre. No expensive epoxies, time consuming molds. A bit of work with welding machine, electric drill motor, a few hand tool and paint roller and one has spars beyond necessity. The diamonds and the aft lead shrouds are problematic for wear on the sails and when desirous of reducing sail off the wind. However, these are not insurmountable problems, as I am confident you are are aware. Examples are extant of owners solving or mitigating these shortcomings; full Marconi rig, batten cars, battenless main sail.
  • "user friendly way to embark/disembark.
  • Gangplank off the bow for med mooring, fold away steps up the side for marina berthing and a fold down ramp off the beams for dinghy and swimming. Far better than being caught under the stern in a chop."
Full marks.
  • "must be capable windward sailing vessel with practical narrow tacking angle
  • Minimise windage"
Understood.
  • "I want to carry as much all chain rode as practical.
  • Whatever for? A kellet will do a better job at much less weight and less damage to the coral."
When It comes to a coral head or my vessel, I assure you my vessel is first priority. All chain rode may be impractical on a cat, but I expect to carry as much as is practical and to use a kellet as necessary,
  • "tiller steering for simplicity; and I like it.
  • Me too.
  • user friendly all round boat to be maintained by me.
  • Think about this while you are building it.
  • prefer to put money and time into quality rather than quantity/size/lenghth
  • Build a harry and do both. Long cheap lee hull, just enough room in the windward hull.
  • build from start to launch in two years; full time effort at roughly 1250 hrs/year solo with option to hire occasional assistance.
  • With ease. I built a rough strip planked 35'ter in 450 hours. I am now working on a flat panel technique which will make this look slow.
Regards,

Rob
"

I think that either of the designs I mentioned in previous posts in this thread will provide accommodation nearer the vissionary (15m/10m ?) than the smaller harry. After all, the leeward hulls of the HP designs seems not practical for accommodation nor any other than light weight storage.

I read that you and Mr. Kelsall are in a colaboratiuon. Hope you will keep the Planet posted.

Cheers,
Jim
__________________

__________________
sailrjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2008, 10:21   #62
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 135
Gday,

J In short, I think your case is overstated. Take no offense.

R Take more than that to offend me.

J Well, if I believe what I read, the safety of a catamaran broadside to a wave is such that it is spared being flipped (assuming no sail is flying) until the wave height exceeds BOA. This is a theoretical statement, and I am confident that all manner of "just wrong" conditions could see a diminution of the parameters. The HP concept requires that, in the process of shunting, the vessel be brought beam on to the waves. Not a requirement for a cat. Now, to be sure, I expect that 27 ft high waves (beam of Vissionary) are not common to most sailors. The average height in the North Atlantic is approx. 12 ft (REF. NOAA, IIRC). But, the point is that a catamaran, in the process of tacking is not required to make itself more vulnerable to capsize. No, we do not need to get into a discussion about possible pitchpoling.

R If the waves are that high (and steep enough), you will not be tacking, or shunting, you will have the parachute out. Your 35' cat will have a beam of less tha 20'. The chances of the cat getting beam on to those waves at some stage while sailing in those conditions are 100%. Therefore it is more likely to capsize.

J Well, we try to avoid backing on the rudders in seas. It seems to me that, in the process of shunting, rudders/boards would be at least as vulnerable to being pressed the wrong way.

R Trying is unlikely to be enough in big seas. The harry rudders are much less vulnerable, as the boat does not get pressed back onto them by the force on the jib trying to blow the bows around.


J I disagree completely. Second hand alloy rigs are available and have crossed the seas for decades. The materials and component design is a thoroughly known and familiar quantity. Inspection is easy. Many sailors use second hand rigs. My own rig is nearly thirty years old. Other than a few fasteners, no fittings replaced so far. I do not inspect it frequently. I built it from scratch. I occasionally inspect it as any prudent person would. And, I would inspect any rig of any material or design. Anyone who does not inspect the vessel at least before a voyage is a fool unto himself. I think you do not fail to check your vessel and so regard your statement as disingenuous. I know, I know, you are selling. Well, just so you know, I know.

R As you like, it is your head it will fall on. According to most riggers you are asking for trouble with standing rigging older than 7 years. Cost and weight are only some of the reasons unstayed rigs are better.

J"Half the work"?? Half the weight does not equate to half the work. I reviewed the making of some of the harrys and vissionarrys and I cannot believe that, with the making of so many of the fiddly bits and all that massive amount of fairing, the building of two completely different hulls which cannot use the same mold/frame set, and two large beams AND the spars, steering wheels (two required!) from dead scratch could be any less labor intensive and therefore time consuming than building a cat in the 35 ft to 40 ft. range. In fact, the cats I mention earlier in the thread make use of flat panels and so can be much easier and less time consuming to build. And, oh BTW, part of the reason for that is the use of ready made components from hinges to spars.

R Sorry, half the work applies to the variation on KSS we are now building from. Not the strip planked boats. Building your own composite components is lighter and cheaper than buying them for amateur builders, plus they dont need to be screwed and bolted on and don't leak or corrode. Guess it depends on what you want.

J Well, yes and no. Most designers seem to "derate" some of their offerings as being suitable only for coastal passage. Ever sailed the Gulf Stream? There is an offshore current that, I suspect, no one considers less significant than currents found near shore. I think I detect a nonsequiter in your reasoning. It is more dangerous sailing near shore, but boat design has naught to do with that. Things to be hit care not the size nor capability of your vessel (unless your ship can fly perhaps or is a super tanker)

R The main thing ocean cruisers hit is the shore. One of the reasons for this is their inability to get off a lee shore in a gale, and particularly to successfully tack in short steep seas with insufficient sail to overcome the drag of their rigs and superstructures.


* "must handle well, easy to tack, responsive
* A bow and a stern rudder are by far the most responsive combination."

J Not to mention the more complicated. I have no need to push the technological envelope by asking foils to act as "lee boards" as well as steering foils. I think that I would not receive enough benefit for the complexity and, I suspect, a reduced margin of error.

R 2 foils able to kick up in a collision more complicated than 4? Any of which can rip a hole in the boa in a collision? All rudders act as leeway preventers to a greater or lesser degree. Water foils built to withstand sailing loads have far more margin of error than ones built to hit rocks.

* "motion in sea way as comfortable as the length allows
* Zero rocker and weight concentrated in the middle of the boat."

J Well, I suspect that moments of inertia are at least as important as the two parameters you list. However, too lazy to dig into the calculations. I think more consideration of important parameters is necessary when comparing designs.

R Moments of inertia are based on distance form the centre. Harrys have nothing outside the beams. Everyone who has sailed on them has mentioned how little they hobbyhorse compared to cruising cats. You dictated the parameters, I am only responding to them. If we only work on the important parameters, you would already be building a harry.

* "rig to be common, simple to make and maintain, good in light or strong winds.
* This is not a good description of an alloy mast with headsail and diamonds."

J See my remarks above on spars. I think it is a good description of an alloy mast with head sails. Buy components. Assemble. No scrounging about for carbon fibre. No expensive epoxies, time consuming molds. A bit of work with welding machine, electric drill motor, a few hand tool and paint roller and one has spars beyond necessity. The diamonds and the aft lead shrouds are problematic for wear on the sails and when desirous of reducing sail off the wind. However, these are not insurmountable problems, as I am confident you are are aware. Examples are extant of owners solving or mitigating these shortcomings; full Marconi rig, batten cars, battenless main sail.

R There is more to solving those problems than saying they can be. Battenless mainsails are a short lived joke. Batten cars are expensive and break. Dropping the main ddw on a 3 stay rig is a very scary experience in a gale regardless of the system. The whole experience of sailing a modern sloop rigged cat is just plain hard work compared to an unstayed rig. You should try it, you will be astounded.

JI think that either of the designs I mentioned in previous posts in this thread will provide accommodation nearer the vissionary (15m/10m ?) than the smaller harry. After all, the leeward hulls of the HP designs seems not practical for accommodation nor any other than light weight storage.

R Not at all. Any surplus weight can go in here with no effect on the structure, unlike an overloaded cat. There is a huge amount of avail able space in there. You said two doubles, that is what a harry has.

J I read that you and Mr. Kelsall are in a colaboratiuon. Hope you will keep the Planet posted.

R Sure will. KSS is the fastest, easiest, cheapest way I know to build a conventional hull and decks. The changes I have made enable us to build rockerless, vertical stem, U section hulls even quicker. I am working on a quarter scale model of a 60' charter proa lee hull. Take out the thinking time and it will be about 12 hours work all up. No fairing above the waterline, no cutting or shutting or frames required.

Seems the only things we really differ on are the rudders and rig. There is nothing stopping you putting leeboards and rudders in the hull (I had this on my earlier boats, did not like the danger) and a second hand alloy stayed rig, which I also used in the early days before realising the benefits of unstayed. Do these and a harry would fulfil all your requirements.

Regards,

Rob
__________________

__________________
rob denney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 23:20   #63
Registered User
 
Little Otter's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cumming, GA
Boat: Ranger 22, currently saving for a larger cruising boat
Posts: 527
Images: 3
i agree with South african i was going to build a boat also but was told no, i have studied the ferrier designs and they appear to be the easiest to understand.
__________________
Sailing and exploration are necessary for life to endure
Little Otter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2008, 16:43   #64
Registered User

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
Heres another newbie for you guys to sink your teeth into.I have always been a monohull sailor but now i am getting interested in multihulls.Give me the pros and cons of cat. versus tri. Terry Mc.
__________________
Terry Mc. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2008, 11:41   #65
Eternal Member
 
imagine2frolic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Las Brisas Panama AGAIN!
Boat: Simpson, Catamaran, 46ft. IMAGINE
Posts: 4,508
Images: 123
Terry Mc,

You just had to open that door didn't you? Pandora's box awaits that question....LOLOLOL

There are many threads on that subject. With a little research you will get every facet on the subject. Just keep an open mind to everything you read. As everyhting in life there is a pro & con with cats & monos too.
__________________
imagine2frolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2008, 13:55   #66
Senior Cruiser
 
Alan Wheeler's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marlborough Sounds. New Zealand
Boat: Hartley Tahitian 45ft. Leisure Lady
Posts: 8,038
Images: 102
Terry, there are many threads already on that subject. Don't go starting it all again. Go search and you will have hrs of reading.
And that means other members should not continue that discussion here. Please stick to the topic.
__________________
Wheels

For God so loved the world..........He didn't send a committee.
Alan Wheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2008, 17:58   #67
Registered User

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3
Richard Woods has some proven affordable catamaran designs under 35 feet. Woods Designs Sailing Catamarans is his site I think.
__________________
ThomasG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2008, 07:44   #68
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4
Outboards vs Inboards

I purchased a 41' Horstman designed catamaran that had 2 9.9 Yamahas in wells. The engines ran fine but were wholly inadequate for the vessel. I have since installed twin diesels with shaft drives. Perhaps someone here can use or knows of someone who can use the outboard setups presumably on a smaller boat with less windage. I have all the controls, wiring, brackets and fuel filters etc... I would rather avoid all the scams on Ebay.
__________________

__________________
sailor02653 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the Best Material to Build a Wheelhouse From? ssullivan Construction, Maintenance & Refit 81 01-06-2007 15:28
BUILD A CAT?? Bob Norson Multihull Sailboats 105 22-02-2007 17:45
high build primer northerncat Construction, Maintenance & Refit 23 02-02-2007 18:05
Home Build cat Moby Dick Multihull Sailboats 6 22-12-2006 16:14
Anyone know how to build a radar? jim lee Marine Electronics 23 26-10-2005 22:39



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:34.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.