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@gwi.
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe