Sailing a Proa

[Whimsical]

Originally Posted by rob denney

G'day,
When you hit a container at 9 knots in 9 knots of breeze?

On a mono

Mike

Rob still waiting for my sail

[Robertcateran]

I would like to stick my oar in here.
Joli obviously does not understand the Harry concept. The Harry is not a Pacific or an Atlantic proa, so needs to let go of the associations. There is considerable y more righting moment for the displacement for the Harry than the Pacific proa and only marginally less than an Atlantic proa and considerably more than most other multihulls. The Harry proa relieves the problem of being caught aback as the sheets are taken directly to the ww hull. This means that if the boat is caught aback, the sheets become slack and the sail weathercocks. If a Ballestrom rig weather cocks, it does it gently as the jib damps the motion.
Quoting past gurus on the subject on proas is irrelevant if discussing a significantly different concept.
I have cruised and built multihulls and have had many years sea time on commercial fishing vessels and I regard the Harry concept as one of the safest cruising boats for its accommodation, cost and length
From an engineering perspective the Harry makes a lot of sense. The loads are reduced compared with most other configurations, weight is where it should be for righting moment, fore aft stability is improved by having a longer lw hull and so avoid pitchpoling, lack of rocker and a high prismatic coefficient reduces hobbyhorsing and makes for a more comfortable ride and also reduces wear and tear on rigging and makes for better stability of air across the sails and so improves efficiency.
The relationship between the lengths of the hulls was one of the things I took a bit of getting used to but it makes sense when you look at wetted area and wave resistance at low and high speeds . Also it reduces the stresses if you are beating into a sea
If you wish to reduce sail, you can weather cock the rig at any point of sail and comfortably reef. You do not have to go out on a pitching foredeck to fight a jib. I have had some scary moments going down wind on a small cat when hit by an intense adiabatic wind. The main was hard against the shrouds. I would much prefer a rig that I can simply let go and it weather cocks.
In a blow, reef, and let out a drogue ( I prefer the Jordan Drogue concept but that is a different argument) and if it gets worse, set a sea anchor (or in the case of a Jordan Drogue, let out more of the little parchutes). Setting a sea anchor off the bow of a pitching monohull or tri is not much fun, Off the forebeam of a cat it is only slightly better. Off the back beam of a Harry, it’s relatively easy. As there is no difference between the ends, you don’t have to get into the argument whether it is better to set a sea anchor over the bow or the stern. No worries about the rudders being damaged by the boat moving backwards as when most boats are anchored from the front and they fall back on a wave, or damaged by a wave from the stern if anchored by the stern.
Sailing into a beach, you can drop people directly onto the beach as in most multihulls, rather than ferrying them backwards and forwards in an overloaded dinghy, but with a Harry, you can sail to the beach, let the rig weather cock, and sail straight back again.
One of the strong points is that you can stop and start the boat with sails alone. Something or someone falls overboard, simply reverse the rig and the rudders and return on the same path. By use of both the rudders, you can crab for fine adjustment. SO much easier than the man overboard drills I had to do for my commercial tickets. ( I would have drowned or propchopped the rescuee the first half a dozen times I tried the manoeuvres on the trawlers). I have used the backing up facility on a trimaran I built that was pretty stable forwards and backwards, and it worked a treat for picking things up from the water. A Harry would be even better.
Let’s consider taking a group of people who are not au fait with sailing; there is a large deck free of things to trip over or get entangled with; the rig does not move violently; no worries about heads being clunked with errant booms, the people can sit in the cockpit out of the wind and weather, well clear of sheets and tillers, the motion is easy, there is little heeling, sail right up to the beach and off again without drama. Easy to set the anchor off a main crossbeam.
Contrast this with most cruising boats, mono or multi.
If there is criticism of the concept, please articulate clearly the concerns, giving the figures such as righting moment, capsizing moment, in contrast with other boats. So far I have not seen any criticism based on real figures or criticism that shows a reasonable understanding of the concept. Rob clearly articulated why there is not a problem with being caught aback. You clearly did not bother to read carefully the reply . If you didn't understand, Rob would have been happy to explain the concept in more detail. You have not answered the challenge as to how you would handle on your boat, the problems enumerated by Rob, and have not given any scenarios where the Harryproa would perform poorly in contrast to other boats.
( PS I have no financial interests in Harryproas but do have vested interest as I wish to get one when financially able)

[Robertcateran]

Originally Posted by rob denney

G'day,

When you hit a container at 9 knots in 9 knots of breeze?

Regards,

Rob

I can't see many cruising monos doing 9knots in 9knots of breeze. maybe 19 knots or 29 knots
Robert

[Joli]

Hello Rob,

I want to say right up front you seem like a very nice guy and I would thouroughly enjoy spending a day with you drinking a few coldies, talking about your designs, and getting hands on with a harry proa. Thank you again for taking the time to respond.

I think you understand my concerns. To me the harry proa looks like a Cat 3 or maybe a Cat 2 boat. Since ISAF excludes proas we can't go to the governing body and have a judgement saying yes/no the harry proa is Cat 0 or Cat 1. As you said my "pre concieved prejudice" may not allow me to accept the thought that a proa will look after the sailor. The thought of slamming home the hatchboards and letting the boat stuggle upwind on its own in 50 knots just does not seem possible in any proa. If a boat is Cat 2/3 the sailor has to look after the boat, not vica versa.

Rob, if you say you believe your design is Cat0 or Cat1 I will take you at your word and will respectfully rescind all I've posted here. If you say your design is Cat2 or Cat3 then I stand by my statements.

For the record, we have had more then a few knockdowns sailing the Great Lakes but have never suffered a capsize or had a boat sink. We have shredded sails, parted sheets and guys, broken booms, broken goose necks, and have ripped gear from the deck. Fortunatly no one has been hurt and the big chunk of lead always seems to pull the spar back up.

Earlier I commented on the tragedy of a cat that flipped when racing the double handed race on Lake Huron, both people drowned. Floating upside down is not an option for anyboat whether it be a mono that looses its keel or a multi that flipped.

Rob I wish you all the best and will respect your opinion. Cat 1 or Cat 3, your call.

Best regards,

Joli

[Joli]

Hello Rob,

Wanted to answer all this, it seemed easier in a seperate response.

Originally Posted by rob denney

What happens when your mono autopilot breaks in a breeze while you are below drinking your coffee?
In high wind speed we will break something, probably the runners and maybe toss the spar.


When you accidentally gybe when someone is standing in the cockpit or on the side decks?
Our boom is 9 foot over the cockpit floor and over 6 foot higher then the deck, so probably nothing.

When you get caught aback with full sail up in marginal conditions and big waves?
It will be pinned but down nothing else.

When a 50 knot Great Lakes squall from nowhere hits just as you are coming out of the companionway?
It will be pinned down but nothing else.

When a serious wave breaks over the boat while you are on the foredeck, at the mast, or cowering in the cockpit?
Not sure what you are asking here?

When your anchor drags on a lee shore?
We'll sail comfortably upwind in 50 knots.

When you get in irons tacking off a lee shore in a gale, and there is a craypot line wrapped round your prop?
Ditto above.

When you run aground at speed?
Been there done that, no damage. The boat is built to very heavy scantlings.

When you hit a container at 9 knots in 9 knots of breeze?
I think that would be very dependant on where it hits, we have a watertight forepeak.

When a headsail sheet is released for a tack and someone is standing on it?
Nothing good our sheets loads are 8,000 lbs at 25 knots.

When someone is holding onto the fall of the mainsheet near the blocks when it is eased?
Ditto above.

Rob

The answers above are the price we pay to be Cat 0. There is no way our boat is as easy to sail as your design and it is not for the average sailor. We deal with it but when I'm older it won't be possible.

Best regards,

Joli

[Joli]

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

I can't see many cruising monos doing 9knots in 9knots of breeze. maybe 19 knots or 29 knots
Robert

Usually we are 10 knots bs in 10 tws upwind.

[Joli]

Robert,

Thank you for responding, good read.

There is no doubt in my mind that the harry proa is an easy and fun boat to sail. You have done a good job of explaining the advantages in a style we can all understand.

I have asked Rob his opinion if the boat is Cat1 or Cat3. I will respect his opinion and respond accordingly.

Best regards,

Joli

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

I would like to stick my oar in here.
Joli obviously does not understand the Harry concept. The Harry is not a Pacific or an Atlantic proa, so needs to let go of the associations. There is considerable y more righting moment for the displacement for the Harry than the Pacific proa and only marginally less than an Atlantic proa and considerably more than most other multihulls. The Harry proa relieves the problem of being caught aback as the sheets are taken directly to the ww hull. This means that if the boat is caught aback, the sheets become slack and the sail weathercocks. If a Ballestrom rig weather cocks, it does it gently as the jib damps the motion.
Quoting past gurus on the subject on proas is irrelevant if discussing a significantly different concept.
I have cruised and built multihulls and have had many years sea time on commercial fishing vessels and I regard the Harry concept as one of the safest cruising boats for its accommodation, cost and length
From an engineering perspective the Harry makes a lot of sense. The loads are reduced compared with most other configurations, weight is where it should be for righting moment, fore aft stability is improved by having a longer lw hull and so avoid pitchpoling, lack of rocker and a high prismatic coefficient reduces hobbyhorsing and makes for a more comfortable ride and also reduces wear and tear on rigging and makes for better stability of air across the sails and so improves efficiency.
The relationship between the lengths of the hulls was one of the things I took a bit of getting used to but it makes sense when you look at wetted area and wave resistance at low and high speeds . Also it reduces the stresses if you are beating into a sea
If you wish to reduce sail, you can weather cock the rig at any point of sail and comfortably reef. You do not have to go out on a pitching foredeck to fight a jib. I have had some scary moments going down wind on a small cat when hit by an intense adiabatic wind. The main was hard against the shrouds. I would much prefer a rig that I can simply let go and it weather cocks.
In a blow, reef, and let out a drogue ( I prefer the Jordan Drogue concept but that is a different argument) and if it gets worse, set a sea anchor (or in the case of a Jordan Drogue, let out more of the little parchutes). Setting a sea anchor off the bow of a pitching monohull or tri is not much fun, Off the forebeam of a cat it is only slightly better. Off the back beam of a Harry, it’s relatively easy. As there is no difference between the ends, you don’t have to get into the argument whether it is better to set a sea anchor over the bow or the stern. No worries about the rudders being damaged by the boat moving backwards as when most boats are anchored from the front and they fall back on a wave, or damaged by a wave from the stern if anchored by the stern.
Sailing into a beach, you can drop people directly onto the beach as in most multihulls, rather than ferrying them backwards and forwards in an overloaded dinghy, but with a Harry, you can sail to the beach, let the rig weather cock, and sail straight back again.
One of the strong points is that you can stop and start the boat with sails alone. Something or someone falls overboard, simply reverse the rig and the rudders and return on the same path. By use of both the rudders, you can crab for fine adjustment. SO much easier than the man overboard drills I had to do for my commercial tickets. ( I would have drowned or propchopped the rescuee the first half a dozen times I tried the manoeuvres on the trawlers). I have used the backing up facility on a trimaran I built that was pretty stable forwards and backwards, and it worked a treat for picking things up from the water. A Harry would be even better.
Let’s consider taking a group of people who are not au fait with sailing; there is a large deck free of things to trip over or get entangled with; the rig does not move violently; no worries about heads being clunked with errant booms, the people can sit in the cockpit out of the wind and weather, well clear of sheets and tillers, the motion is easy, there is little heeling, sail right up to the beach and off again without drama. Easy to set the anchor off a main crossbeam.
Contrast this with most cruising boats, mono or multi.
If there is criticism of the concept, please articulate clearly the concerns, giving the figures such as righting moment, capsizing moment, in contrast with other boats. So far I have not seen any criticism based on real figures or criticism that shows a reasonable understanding of the concept. Rob clearly articulated why there is not a problem with being caught aback. You clearly did not bother to read carefully the reply . If you didn't understand, Rob would have been happy to explain the concept in more detail. You have not answered the challenge as to how you would handle on your boat, the problems enumerated by Rob, and have not given any scenarios where the Harryproa would perform poorly in contrast to other boats.
( PS I have no financial interests in Harryproas but do have vested interest as I wish to get one when financially able)

[rob denney]

Originally Posted by Joli

Hello Rob,

I want to say right up front you seem like a very nice guy and I would thouroughly enjoy spending a day with you drinking a few coldies, talking about your designs, and getting hands on with a harry proa. Thank you again for taking the time to respond.

I think you understand my concerns. To me the harry proa looks like a Cat 3 or maybe a Cat 2 boat. Since ISAF excludes proas we can't go to the governing body and have a judgement saying yes/no the harry proa is Cat 0 or Cat 1. As you said my "pre concieved prejudice" may not allow me to accept the thought that a proa will look after the sailor. The thought of slamming home the hatchboards and letting the boat stuggle upwind on its own in 50 knots just does not seem possible in any proa. If a boat is Cat 2/3 the sailor has to look after the boat, not vica versa.

Rob, if you say you believe your design is Cat0 or Cat1 I will take you at your word and will respectfully rescind all I've posted here. If you say your design is Cat2 or Cat3 then I stand by my statements.

For the record, we have had more then a few knockdowns sailing the Great Lakes but have never suffered a capsize or had a boat sink. We have shredded sails, parted sheets and guys, broken booms, broken goose necks, and have ripped gear from the deck. Fortunatly no one has been hurt and the big chunk of lead always seems to pull the spar back up.

Earlier I commented on the tragedy of a cat that flipped when racing the double handed race on Lake Huron, both people drowned. Floating upside down is not an option for anyboat whether it be a mono that looses its keel or a multi that flipped.

Rob I wish you all the best and will respect your opinion. Cat 1 or Cat 3, your call.

Best regards,

Joli

G'day,

Look forward to taking you for a sail one day. Hopefully into a Lake Huron front so we can sit comfortably round the cockpit table, drinking those coldies, completely sheltered, with the hatchboards out, (impossible to flood the cabin) discussing lunch with the cook while the kids play comfortably on the big bunks and the boat sails itself (no struggle) upwind, in perfect safety.

Definitely Cat 1, could easily be made Cat 0. Although there is the little problem that ISAF rules do not apply to proas (which is not the same thing as ISAF banning them) so stirctly speaking it is neither. If you rephrase the question to "Could harryproas safely race in Cat 1 or Cat 0 events", the answer is definitely yes, with potential to win them as well.

However, this is a pretty lousy requirement as the vast majority of cats and tris (including Great White on Lake Huron) that have capsized have been racing in ISAF sanctioned events. I much prefer your "Is it a safe family friendly cruiser?" question, which I hope I have answered to your satisfaction.

No need to rescind anything, I have enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for answering the seaworthiness questions (you forgot to mention spilling your coffee ;-)). Your boat sounds impressive, though hard work. What size, what design, etc is it? Are there any pictures? 10 in 10 is pretty quick. Comfortably upwind in 50 and no damge when you run aground are not to be sneezed at either. Have you done any racing on it? When you are too old for the runners and headsails and all the other hard work, give me a call and we can talk about putting an unstayed cat rig on it.

Something I forgot to add. The next generation of Harrys may have unstayed telescoping wing masts if the rig on my 50' solo boat works. If so, they will hve a rig which can be halved in height. This will do as much to make them safe in a gale as their width, retractable rudders, 4 bows and clear foredecks.

Thanks for all the support from this group. It was not long ago that I would post a harry comment and have a torrid couple of weeks defending the boats from all and sundry with little or no support. To have two knockers, one of whom only posted twice, the other who was eventually won round is a major step in the direction of acceptance. Another 30 years or so, harryproas may be mainstream!

Mike, school's back so I have some time to play. Wil let you know when I am going sailing.

regards,

Rob

[roblanford]

Thanks Rob D. for taking the time to describe specific handling of your proa. It sure makes a lot of sense to me.

[Robertcateran]

Thanks Joli,
for a remarkably civilised discussion. If I am ever on the great lakes again, I'd love to see your boat-I lam fond of most sailing boats though I do prefer to sail flat.
Robert

[catty]

"Catty is correct that no harrys have crossed oceans."

"Harrys are neither Pacific nor Atlantic "

Stone the crows Rob, you argued for years with all the proa experts that your proas were of the "pacific" variety and not a unique lots of weight and lots of windage to windward variety. ( the evidence is all there on the forums) .

So after nearly ten years of development, threating to enter races and always finding excuses not to, you continue to pass off your thoughts on how the boats will perform in adverse conditions as facts. A few daysails in nice conditions is no test in my book. It appears that its ok for your sycophantic armchair followers though. Wake up roblanford and robertcateran!

[Joli]

Hello Rob,

Thank you again for taking the time to respond and the gracious offer to go sailing with you one day. That would be a hoot, I’ll bring the beer. Stout, porter, lager, or ale?

As promised, you’ve stated your design the Harry Proa would be a Cat1 maybe Cat0, so I rescind all my objections as listed on this thread. My fear; the boat was Cat3 and was being promoted as a “family cruiser” capable of being sailed offshore. The newest breed of multis is drawing in novice sailors for obvious reasons and it’s creating a catch 22 scenario. That conversation is for another thread though.

Certainly ISAF designations are not perfect but what other gage is available for trying to categorize boats? I trust you have seen the changes in 06’, 3.05.3 regarding stability and capsize resistance. I think it is written with the latest breed of monos and multis in mind. R33’s have done as much damage to the multi as the Schock 40 has done to the canters and the latest versions of monos built to minimum scantlings with keels falling off is simply criminal. Any offshore boat floating upside down is a recipe disaster.

Our boat is an old C&C 61. They are a famous series, the most well known being Sorcery. Looking around the web you will find stories of Sorcery sitting on the beach in Mexico and tripping end over end in the Pacific. Today Sorcery sails out of the Royal Newfoundland Yacht Club. These boats have big rigs and are built to very heavy scantlings. We have found 8-10 knots is a nice cruising speed, it gives us and soft motion and the boat is easily driven at that speed. The loads at 18 are fairly frightening. The kids understand surging the winches and stay out of the TOD. We are happy to report we’ve never sheared a winch of the deck J. If you are in Ohio, give me a shout, we’ll go sailing.

We don’t get to race our boat often; the kids’ race 420’s and we have been delegated to shore support. Soon though we’ll get to play and the Newport to Bermuda sounds like a fun race when we are on the East Coast.

I’m not averse to new ideas provided they are properly designed, tested, and engineered to withstand the rigors of sailing in less then favorable conditions. We both know; experience is a cold hearted bitch who does not give her lessons cheaply or easily so I’m cautious.

You’ll find plenty of support on this site, lots of enthusiastic multi hull guys here. They do their best to make it tough on us old mono guys. Maybe someday when we grow too old to bend on a 250# main we’ll talk?

Best regards,

Joli

[rob denney]

Originally Posted by catty

"Catty is correct that no harrys have crossed oceans."

"Harrys are neither Pacific nor Atlantic "

Stone the crows Rob, you argued for years with all the proa experts that your proas were of the "pacific" variety and not a unique lots of weight and lots of windage to windward variety. ( the evidence is all there on the forums) .

So after nearly ten years of development, threating to enter races and always finding excuses not to, you continue to pass off your thoughts on how the boats will perform in adverse conditions as facts. A few daysails in nice conditions is no test in my book. It appears that its ok for your sycophantic armchair followers though. Wake up roblanford and robertcateran!

G'day,

Stone the crows, indeed. A (backhanded) compliment from catty! If you have been following the forums for 5 years you know all the flaws, errors, wrong paths and flops that I have made with harrys. You also heard from all the "experts" who said they would never work. Yet, with this vast store of negatives to draw from, the best you can do is a semantics issue, an error, a repeat of your last post and a cheap insult. High praise for the current state of harry's development, I reckon.

The semantics: The context was harrys vs Pacific and Atlantic proas for handling and capsize, where the three types are different. This issue was laid to rest years ago.
The error: I have been developing boats which were simpler, easier, faster and cheaper for 30 years, not 10. The end result is harryproas.
The repeat: Your dig at my lousy race record which I dealt with when you first raised it.
The cheap insult: Up to the recipients to respond, or ignore.

This just leaves me passing off my thoughts as facts. To clear this up:
I have never sailed a proa in 50 knots. Nor have I sailed on Lake Huron. I have sailed part of a Sydney Hobart in 50+, and been bashed about by 40+ in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Bay of Biscay, Med and Tasman seas. In monos, cats and tris, not in proas. I have sailed 3 of the 6 or so prototypes I have built in 30 knots, as have the owners of Aroha and Blind Date. To this, I have added the extensive engineering that has gone into harrys and a few hours light to moderate day sails in the 2 fifty footers that have been launched so far. The result is how I think they will handle 50 knots on Lake Huron, storms in the open ocean, lee shores and sundry other scenarios.

I appreciate that not everyone has the experience and knowledge to do this. Those people will have to wait until one rounds the Horn. However, it may help them to understand if they could write down why harrys won't do as I say.

Why won't unstayed masts depower in a gust or break because one of 50 fittings let go, why won't a 28' wide x 12" deep raft be stable in a gale, why boats without daggerboards don't have leaky dagger cases, why travelling safely at windspeed is such a drag, why kick up rudders, safe, easily handled rigs, sheltered central cockpits, high righting moment, light weight, easily driven long narrow hulls, clean ends, the ability to reverse, etc etc are not good things for cruising boats. Comment on these and the other features and we have a discussion. Comment on me and my shortcomings and we just have another slanging match.

Even if you don't know enough to comment on the boats rather than me, please keep posting. The more you do, the more I get to point out the advantages, and the higher the odds that people will look at the web page, watch the video, maybe even see the light and buy plans or become armchair supporters, both of which are equally satisfying to me.

Regards,

Rob

[catty]

"This just leaves me passing off my thoughts as facts"

So long as people understand this point clearly. We now have the dangerous situation where posters are interpreting your posts as fact, and are recomending to inexperienced would be cruisers that they look at your un tested designs as a cruising alternative. The last thing we need is people getting hurt

I suspect if they read some of the posts etc from some of your very few actual plan buyers a different picture would be painted.

You state cheap to build...... they say misled
you say quick to build.......... they say misled
you design rudders....... they rebuild rudders
you say proa worth stuff all second hand........ market agrees (rare bird etc still unsold after years during multihull sales boom.

[rob denney]

Originally Posted by catty

"This just leaves me passing off my thoughts as facts"

So long as people understand this point clearly. We now have the dangerous situation where posters are interpreting your posts as fact, and are recomending to inexperienced would be cruisers that they look at your un tested designs as a cruising alternative. The last thing we need is people getting hurt

I suspect if they read some of the posts etc from some of your very few actual plan buyers a different picture would be painted.

You state cheap to build...... they say misled
you say quick to build.......... they say misled
you design rudders....... they rebuild rudders
you say proa worth stuff all second hand........ market agrees (rare bird etc still unsold after years during multihull sales boom.

G'day,

Another selective quote, this time with some very twisted logic attached. The vast majority of my posts are based on facts and/or experience. Surely not even you thought I had sailed a proa on Lake Huron in 50 knots?

Why on earth would anyone get hurt on a harryproa? They are the safest type of sail boat available. Why? There is no need to go on pitching foredecks for sail changes or anchor work, less chance of getting wet and tired and making mistakes, a rig controlled by one lightly loaded string and all the other safety features I mentioned to Joli. Interestingly, most of our plan buyers are people with either a huge amount of sea going experience, or very little.

Could you post references to posts by "actual plan buyers" who have built the boats? As you say, there are not many of them (30 something at the last count), and as far as I know, they are all pretty happy, apart from one guy who abandoned his part built hull. I will not be discussing clients or their affairs, but will be glad to let you know what we did to alleviate any problems raised.

As for your specific points,
Why would a boat weighing half as much as the norm not be cheaper to build? With lower loads concentrated in smaller areas, far fewer fittings, a simple layout and even simpler rig, it gets cheaper still. I back this up with case studies on boats I have built and detailed on Harryproa Home Page and the series of articles by Mark Giles in Multihulls World magazine detailing the cost and time to build Rare Bird, the first Visionarry Cruiser.

I built most of a 35 footer in 490 hours, see harryproa/news/ Harrigami's progress 2 and follow the time and cost links. I am pretty rough, but the boat was sound. The shapes are simple, the plans easy to follow, why wouldn't people be able to build them quickly? With KSS, they become even quicker and easier.

Rudders and the rest of the boats have always been a work in progress and will continue to be so as long as I am involved. What we have in the plans is tested and proven, what we are working on will be even better. Once it has been tested and engineered it goes into the new plans and old ones are updated free of charge. All plan buyers are aware of this. Do you want me to stop improving the boats just because some plans have been sold?

I don't control the market. Resale value of a new type of boat was never going to be a strong point. As far as I know, of the half dozen serious potential buyers of Rare Bird, 2 of them bought plans, at least 2 more are thinking seriously about it. Harry people tend to be pretty precise about what they want in a boat and are not prone to accept compromises.

I think you are missing the point. The fact that there is so much interest in harrys, when there are only 3 non prototypes launched and only 2 of these sailing speaks volumes about the advantages of the type. Or perhaps of my selling ability, but given the warts and all approach I have taken to talking about their development, the former is far more likely.

Plenty of stuff in this for you to take out of context and twist around, but i would still like to hear why you personally don't like the boats and/or think they won't work. maybe you could also answer the questions in this and the previous post when you have a spare moment.

regards,

Rob