New style Harryproa cruiser

[alansmith]

Fascinating read. Now just one more thing to dream about. In a sea state it looks like it might be a bit of a wet ride. What is your thinking about 8 to 10 foot seas and blasting though them? Want to know more.. Will be taking my pad to work tonight...

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by lucdekeyser

That would be useful. However, I am beyond race talk. What is of interest to me is to how close I come in maximum avg distance per day that my wife still finds comfortable given the sea state and the angle to the wind. Maybe we could call these psypolars ;-)

Sure. But a claim of 10 knots in 10 on just main and jib, is much more impressive than say 8 knots in 12. With blunt bows throwing spray everywhere and no windspeed indication, one could certainly look like the other...

Having said that, 10 in 10 isn't THAT great, for a performance oriented 50 foot multihull that's presumably in lightship mode, with brand new sails, on a favourable point of sail.

We do similarly with a 44 foot cat fully loaded for full time liveaboard, with I believe, significantly more space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dHkY_XaSGk

On a fairly deep reach - 120' true. At 90' true, the boat would be sailing at windspeed, sometimes a little better.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by lucdekeyser

The upward design spiral is always tempting.
The art is sliding down the design spiral to find the sweet spot for your SOR's.
Hitch's boat is an original and very interesting compromise. It does not fit my SOR's though.

Lucdekeyser, so we can fully appreciate how you arrived at your decision regarding a 60 ft pro could you share with us what boats you previously owned.

[lucdekeyser]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

1. Unstayed masts tend to be more expensive as they have to be built heavier.
2. Many of the newer cats, are mostly mainsail driven with just a small jib.
3. You can add lee boards to cats. Most use fixed keels which are simple and cheap.
4. One vs two helms is a coin toss. Of course, they don't need rudders on both ends of the hulls with associated linkages to disengage the rudders.
5. The original point was it costs very little to extend the hulls. If you can use the same mold, there is likely an overall cost savings.
6. Sounds great...until a wave hits and it's not.
7. Those bulk heads typically form the walls that are going to be there regardless to form the interior spaces.
8. Symmetrical hulls make the design simpler.

We can play around the edges (nebulous definitions of cost of a 30'er vs space of a 40'er) but the point still stands, you can build a much longer cat with much less accommodation for a low price which is largely what is being proposed.

I like the Proa idea. I have a partially built proa dingy. I just don't think it makes much sense for a large cruising boat when there are other options.

I may not have understood all of your comments but in my understanding there is a fundamental structural difference between a cat with hull extensions and a harryproa even if it has equal length hulls.
1. I did say the stayless mast is beefed up but beefing up the whole of the boat for hanging a mast in mid air as with a cat is way more heavy and expensive comparatively. That is the core advantage of the HP structurally. All else are happy secundary effects.
2. There are all kinds of cat rig configurations. There are even cats with only a large foresail. But, except biplane rigged, all cats hang the mast in mid air in a multi triangulated construction with beams, spreaders, wires and the like.
3. I do not want any appendages in the water when hunkering down in bad sea states and I insist on no holes in the hull under the water line. But of course one could install those outside of the hulls of a cat in a similar fashion. But that is not the common cat configuration I compare the HP with.
4. One can choose to have only one helm station in a cat at the price of visibility; in a proa you only need one and you just have to turn around to get the same visibility. The rudders are more of an issue with proa's because they need to be bidirectional or turn at least 180 degrees. But they do not need to be linked. In close quarters the independent movement of the rudders can be an advantage, steering even sideways. But this is only a nice to have in my book.
5. I agree that once one has a cat, it does not take that much to extend the hulls. But one paid already for a cat with the complexity and cost of hanging the mast in mid air. And one needs to extend both hulls each of which are only needed half of the time. It is cheaper thus to build a proa with equal length hulls and extend one of the hulls (to use the same logic).
6. I don't understand the issue you bring up here.
7. There is difference in weight between a mere wall closure and a bulkhead that also is used to close a wall. The HP has only simple beams connecting the hulls. All else are simple walls.
8. I agree: with proa's the symmetry is fore-aft with cats it is left-right. So it is comparing two identical copies of more complicated hulls vs two more simple but dissimilar hulls. A marginal advantage if one, I think.

I do not find the definitions nebulous. Look at the living space of the KSS39 and what it costs sail away. Subtract what is not necessary for a HP60 and what will never have the opportunity to break. I agree with you that I do not know a definite price yet as the builder may chose to only commit after the first one is built but you'll agree that it can only be substantially lower.

I also agree with you that it does not make sense to go for a proa if one wants a large and heavy cruiser like a condomaran. But it does make a lot of sense to go for a proa if one wants a relatively light and long cruiser.

[44'cruisingcat]

"The cost and complexity of hanging a mast in mid air".... What a load of rubbish.


It's CHEAPER than building an unstayed carbon mast. I looked into the cost when I was building mine. A carbon mast strong enough to stand unstayed is exorbitant. Back then the mast alone would probably have cost about as much as your imaginary 30 foot cat!


The reason the vast majority of production builders use stayed aluminium rigs is because they are cheaper.


The boat is going to have structural beams anyway, to hold the hulls together, and to take the righting moment loads. The rig loads aren't much of an addition.


But, it sounds like you're convinced. Go ahead and build one!

[lucdekeyser]

Originally Posted by alansmith

Fascinating read. Now just one more thing to dream about. In a sea state it looks like it might be a bit of a wet ride. What is your thinking about 8 to 10 foot seas and blasting though them? Want to know more.. Will be taking my pad to work tonight...

I probably do not understand what you are hinting at. So let me answer what I do understand and find out. In a sea state that would make a wet ride I pivot the steering wheel more inside to profit from the protection of the windward cabin. I expect to be protected at least as well as in most catamarans.

Do I want to blast through 8 to 10 foot seas? I have no desire to reenact a U boat attack in the North Atlantic. The point is what are my constraints with a HP 60 vs a 60 foot catamaran? These I am interested in. My basic assumption is that the HP will perform at least as well as the cat. This forum may help put the right perspective on things.

[lucdekeyser]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

Lucdekeyser, so we can fully appreciate how you arrived at your decision regarding a 60 ft pro could you share with us what boats you previously owned.

A decision is only final when an appreciable amount of money that is unlikely to be refunded is in the bank of the builder. If I had owned a series of boats I would already have much of your collected experience and confidence and just have informed you what boat I had ordered. Lacking that, this thread is to submit what I consider the best match with my requirements after a couple of years of desk research and invite your expert and reasoned insight. I do have some rather esoteric aviation design background. This helped me appreciate the high order of complexity of the physics of craft that have to deal at the same time with the dynamics of two types of fluids, air and water, and the glaring paucity of experimental results to substantiate engineering decisions. NA's are very brave indeed.

[alansmith]

Luc, i dig the idea of a proa! it was my way of saying u r fully aware of how wet this ride will be. I am fascinated by the design. U asked for insights. My experience is on fast trimarrans. Half the length u r looking at. Watching the videos u can see quite a bit of spray and the sea state is pretty mild. Just saying....and i am not nay saying u.

My second point is what are the owners of large proas saying about what kind of boat the proa is in real lfe sailing scenarios? How does it work in rough waters? what about large confused sea states? I am just so curious about this topic I can tell u have put a lot of time into getting ready to purchase this boat I am excited for u. Is there any way u can get some real sea experience on one of these beauties? Not harbor sailing!!! I think it is sleek, sexy, and would be a blast....but would really want to know more about sea keeping performance i know there was a proa in one of the cross atlantic races years and years ago that did quite well. It is not a traditional boat...but who the heck cares.
I wish u the best of luck and hope to hitch a ride with u if i m so lucky Fair winds mate

[lucdekeyser]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

"The cost and complexity of hanging a mast in mid air".... What a load of rubbish.
...

As this is an important part of the argument pro a HP let me thread carefully preventing circular thinking.

Given comparable performance,
- an unstayed mast is heavier than a mast meant to be stayed.
- an unstayed mast is heavier than a mast with its stays and spreaders and ...

but the premise is that a HP designed for a unstayed mast fixed in the hull is lighter than a cat with a stayed mast hanging in mid air. Given comparable material.

The choice of material is thus another issue. The masts of the Kelsall charter proa are not carbon. The price of carbon is dropping significantly but remains substantial. Etamax seems to have its act together winding carbon masts. Both options are neither extravagant nor esoteric.

[lucdekeyser]

Originally Posted by alansmith

... My experience is on fast trimarrans. Half the length u r looking at. Watching the videos u can see quite a bit of spray and the sea state is pretty mild. Just saying....and i am not nay saying u.

My second point is what are the owners of large proas saying about what kind of boat the proa is in real lfe sailing scenarios? ....

I am terribly sorry for misinterpreting your initial message. Your comments seemed so straightforward I was convinced there was a trick question somewhere to be educated in.
I do care about proa's as much as about the color of the skin of my feline. I rate it according to its ability to catch mice. But, yes, there are insufficient statistics on longer term performance of sailing boats in general and proa's in particular given the wide combination of sea states and wind conditions that may be relevant. I doubt even Lagoons generate enough statistical significance.
But the laws of physics do apply. Even on proa's.
So down to earth thought experiments are the best we can do. For now. My question to you is, given your sailing experience in a trimaran, how dry would the ride be of a 60 foot trimaran that had cleanly lost its lee side aka's and ama, and that had doubled the length of the aka's on the other side (and quadrupled its cross section), and somehow transferred up to about 50% of its weight to the remaining ama, and allowed you and the crew to steer from a sheltered mid cockpit on that ama with deck and aka's one meter above sea level? Compared with a 60 foot catamaran? Cruising. I hope the question makes enough sense to solicit a reasonably reliable answer? If not, I will learn even more. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by lucdekeyser

but the premise is that a HP designed for a unstayed mast fixed in the hull is lighter than a cat with a stayed mast hanging in mid air. Given comparable material.

Depends. A 50 foot HP compared to a 50 foot cat, maybe. But the accommodation hull on the HP50 is what, 35 feet long? Compared to a 35 foot cat is the proa lighter?

Come to that, there are cat's and there are cat's. We recently met a guy with a 45 foot x 28 foot podcat which weighed about 3 1/2 tonnes, lightly loaded. No exotic materials at all.

Designs such as some Schionnings which can be built with either conventional rigs or carbon biplane rigs don't show any major weight differences for the two. Cost differences are altogether another matter.

The reality is, a conventional 16 metre rig (ie. our rig) weighs about 350kg, including working sails and furler. (Four of us were able to pick it up less sails, reasonably easily.)

An unstayed carbon balestron rig, including sails and furler, might be lighter, but I doubt if the difference would be very significant. And if I switched to rope rigging...

[Mitchell87]

Originally Posted by Mitchell87

Can you elaborate on this statement. I don't know know anything about proas so forgive my ignorance, but are you saying these are only meant to be sailed on a stbd tack?

Nevermind, I finally was able to watch the videos. I didn't realize they sail forward and backward. That answers that question.

[lucdekeyser]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

...
Designs such as some Schionnings which can be built with either conventional rigs or carbon biplane rigs don't show any major weight differences for the two. Cost differences are altogether another matter.
...

The point I want to make is that to compare unstayed vs stayed masts one has to take the whole boat into account, not just the mast or the whole rig. The Schionning is a case in point. If you take a design that is optimized for a stayed mast converting to an unstayed mast there is not much to be gained. In addition you have a mast in each hull.
Remark also that most proa's carry stayed masts. The Harryproa however does not. But if you take a proa design that is optimized for an unstayed mast converting it to a stayed mast requires serious beefing up of the hull and beam structures. That does make the difference, not the mast and rig itself.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by lucdekeyser

The point I want to make is that to compare unstayed vs stayed masts one has to take the whole boat into account, not just the mast or the whole rig. The Schionning is a case in point. If you take a design that is optimized for a stayed mast converting to an unstayed mast there is not much to be gained. In addition you have a mast in each hull.
Remark also that most proa's carry stayed masts. The Harryproa however does not. But if you take a proa design that is optimized for an unstayed mast converting it to a stayed mast requires serious beefing up of the hull and beam structures. That does make the difference, not the mast and rig itself.

No lucdekeyser, more research is required.
By research I don't mean drinking more Harryproa Koolade.

All these Denny arguments you are repeating have been discussed endlessly, and ridiculed on other forums.

Try following the link I gave you early.

Just because Denny repeats something endlessly over decades, doesn't make it right.

Try the proaforum, proafile, wooden boat, and boatdesign forums for more balanced views.

The two most experienced proa sailors are Russel Brown and Sven Stevens. Probably worth chatting to these guys if you want some balance in your research.


Joe Oster who runs the Proa website I posted earlier also posts regularly on Sailing Anachy under the sockpuppet PROASAILOR.He is another worth chatting to.

[rob denney]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I didn't see any GPS or speed logs, or wind speed indicators....

Certainly the bows needed fining up, that's an amazing amount of spray for 10-15 knots. Makes it look fast though.

You would have to discuss the speeds with Mark Giles, the most experienced multi journo in Aus at the time. He is the guy who claimed them. It's not really important as my point was whether harryproas are "unknown quantities" or not. The boat was set up for coastal cruising with new sails (which needed a recut).

I have asked before, but don't recall an answer. How fast do you (and anyone else with an opinion) think it is going (based on the water going past the boat, rather than the spray) and how strong is the wind? Compare them both to the water and wind effects in the video of your very nice boat if it helps.
..........................
It's impossible to assess resale value or build cost of the Cruiser 18 until one has been built, sailed and sold. Much easier with catamarans. Maybe you could supply pro built costs of one off 40' and 60' cruising cats and their second hand value. We can at least compare this with the build cost of the Cruiser to see what it would need to sell second hand for as a comparison.
All the harryproa owners I have discussed this with buy their boats because of their unique properties, not because they want to sell them.
.....................
The same hull is always to windward because proas shunt. Shunting | Less effort than an overlapping headsail, a little slower than tacking, a fair bit slower than gybing, and much safer and more reliable than either, especially in heavy weather. See http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...be-143727.html for an idea of what is involved in not very strong (25 knots) winds on a cat.

To gybe the proa, you sail beam on to the wind, release the main sheet and pull it in from the other end (a couple of feet of lightly loaded sheet). As you do so, the boat stops and starts sailing in the opposite direction and you bear away onto the new course. No reefing and unreefing the mainsail or furling/unfurling the jib, no rounding up, winching in the flogging sails, tacking without getting into irons or "zone of death" as you bear away and no surfing down waves while you sheet in the main and ease it out.

The design advantage of the different hulls is that you can have one hull for it's sailing qualities (long, low, lean and always to leeward) and one for it's living qualities (high, wide and always to windward, with plenty of space hanging off it. Makes it much easier to see the sails and keeps all the sailing action (and danger) away from those in the cockpit.
..............................
There are more important reasons than total weight and purchase cost for choosing an unstayed mast.
such as the much lower centre of gravity which significantly reduces pitching and the weight of the structure required to support it is less, making for a lighter boat overall. A data point: A 17.5m long Visionarry (the one in the first video) mast, with righting moment of 18 tonne metres (similar to the 44'cruising cat, I think) weighs 120 kgs, costs $Aus15,000/$US12,000. The cog is about 6m above the waterline.

The main advantage is the handling issues. To be able to raise, reef and lower the main regardless of wind strength or direction is a big deal for short handed sailors in unexpected squalls. The normal solution is to reduce sail for night sailing, when short handed or when the forecast is bad. The unstayed rig can be completely depowered (or just left to weathercock, or sheeted on as much or as little as required) in seconds, on any point of sail. It also bends and depowers in gusts, which is a very effective safety valve. Reefing with the sail pointing into the wind and the boat almost stationery is much easier and safer than with it partly filled and pressing against the shrouds. You keep full sail up until the wind increases, then reduce it quickly and safely.

The other big advantage is not having to worry about something breaking and the whole lot falling down. A properly designed and built unstayed mast will need no maintenance, will not need to be climbed regularly to look for problems, won't need to be taken out every year or so and will never need new rigging. These advantages apply to cats and monos as well.
..........................
Blasting through big seas with the early bows and rudders (those in the videos) kicks up a lot of spray. The new bows are finer, the rudders much less intrusive so there'll be less spray, but still some. It's a trade off for rudders that can be steered when lifted, kick up in a collision and don't require holes below the waterline or dagger boards. The steering position is a long way upwind of the rudders, so the spray is unlikely to wet the crew.
............................
Harryproa experience. Luc has sailed on at least one, I have sailed on several. You guys? Does not stop you having an opinion, but with some of your comments, it does indicate how much weight that opinion should be given.

If you can get Russ, Joe or Sven to intelligently discuss harryproas I will be pleasantly surprised. It is something I have been trying to do for nearly 20 years. You will have no trouble getting them to discuss me, and it will all be negative. All of them are or were (Joe and Sven seem to have given up, Russ is going gangbusters) my business competitors. As far as I know, none of them have sailed on a harry.

rob