Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On a hike the other day I saw a gyrocopter flying past and here's what popped into my head, "That thing reminds me of a proa, lots of effort and danger to come up with something not quite as good as an airplane or helicopter.". The analogy being that the proa, though beautiful, in spite of all the effort by ingenious individuals is not quite as good as a cat or tri...thoughts?

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 428
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When I was 25 I bought a 10k mono overloaded it and shoved off with a few friends with far less sailing experience than me with a plan of going to Bocas Del Torros to start a new life as a surf bum. W

I wrote this eons ago (2011) and it's all dressed up over at pacificproa.com, but I prefer just the text. It seems like it might be valuable to some of you. I'd love to be involved in a proa forum, bu

The claim was that in specific, favourable circumstances, Sidecar was similar in straight-line speed to a Seacart 30. That's a far cry from the "faster around a racecourse" you're implying. I hav

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, mundt said:

On a hike the other day I saw a gyrocopter flying past and here's what popped into my head, "That thing reminds me of a proa, lots of effort and danger to come up with something not quite as good as an airplane or helicopter.". The analogy being that the proa, though beautiful, in spite of all the effort by ingenious individuals is not quite as good as a cat or tri...thoughts?

Mundt, is it too rough in the channel to do some real trolling?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mundt said:

On a hike the other day I saw a gyrocopter flying past and here's what popped into my head, "That thing reminds me of a proa, lots of effort and danger to come up with something not quite as good as an airplane or helicopter.". The analogy being that the proa, though beautiful, in spite of all the effort by ingenious individuals is not quite as good as a cat or tri...thoughts?

Bullshit.  The comparison is a very far stretch to disparage proas.

Gyrocopters actually have some advantages over planes, such as short takeoffs and safe unpowered landings.  And they are cheaper and less complex than helicopters.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mundt said:

On a hike the other day I saw a gyrocopter flying past and here's what popped into my head, "That thing reminds me of a proa, lots of effort and danger to come up with something not quite as good as an airplane or helicopter.". The analogy being that the proa, though beautiful, in spite of all the effort by ingenious individuals is not quite as good as a cat or tri...thoughts?

Hahaha..... nothing like starting a new shit fight with the fringe dwelling Proa crowd....... 
What @somasaid ..... ^

Rob will be along shortly

 

4 minutes ago, TwoBirds said:

I'm sure monohullers feel much the same about multies

 

40 years ago, yes........But now... No
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, soma said:

Yeah, I always think “a solution without a problem” when I see one. 

The problem it solves is money.  More waterline for less cost, less weight and less sail area.

If you are rich, you can afford a big one, on the order of ~85 feet for the cost of a 60 foot cat.

There is a good reason for them but most people don't know shit from Shinola about proas, especially the concept of keeping the outrigger and less weight to windward.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Proas and this crazy Gyrocopter makes sense to my pea brain. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Solarbri said:

Proas and this crazy Gyrocopter makes sense to my pea brain. 

They all have their place in this world..... Just like nature puts up with all sorts of seemingly crazy species.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

The problem it solves is money.  More waterline for less cost, less weight and less sail area.

If you are rich, you can afford a big one, on the order of ~85 feet for the cost of a 60 foot cat.

There is a good reason for them but most people don't know shit from Shinola about proas, especially the concept of keeping the outrigger and less weight to windward.

When I read Soma's reply, I thought he was referring to gyrocopters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

They all have their place in this world..... Just like nature puts up with all sorts of seemingly crazy species.

you mean like forum trolls?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

She solves the problem of allowing guys to watch soft porn whilst pretending to be aviation buffs. That thing flies pretty good too, just like a proa often sails pretty good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't knock Gyrocoptors, even James Bond has been known to use one. Seriously though, a very underated light aircraft that has been around for a very long time. Even been used in wars as observation craft due to their quietness but with good speed and very short takeoff and landing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

The problem it solves is money.  More waterline for less cost, less weight and less sail area.

If you are rich, you can afford a big one, on the order of ~85 feet for the cost of a 60 foot cat.

There is a good reason for them but most people don't know shit from Shinola about proas, especially the concept of keeping the outrigger and less weight to windward.

I cant se a proa can be cheaper than a cat for the same money - according to space and speed - building wise... and for the total when you take the 2. hand value into account - its no contest. Gyrocopters I like.... cheaper and can fly... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaGul said:

I cant se a proa can be cheaper than a cat for the same money - according to space and speed - building wise... and for the total when you take the 2. hand value into account - its no contest. Gyrocopters I like.... cheaper and can fly... 

consider the strength of attachments and section modulus required for the cross beams of a cat vs. a proa.  That alone is an enormous cost for a large custom boat.  The cost and weight and complexity of a proa is in the main hull, and the load paths are reasonably simple.  Compare to a cat, with a dolphin striker or a seagull striker, and a mast step in a beam, and mainsheet attached to another beam.  Sufficient stiffness to maintain headstay tension.  All these are expenses and added material that can be put into added length of a Proa if it is to be the same price as a Cat.

Resale market?  Yeah, a cat wins that one for sure.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaGul said:

I cant se a proa can be cheaper than a cat for the same money - according to space and speed - building wise...

Not sure what "cheaper [...] for the same money" means?  I said longer for the same money("More waterline for less cost")

As to accommodation space for a given length, the catamaran wins for sure.  Even a longer proa for the same money will not offer as much accommodation space as a shorter catamaran (none that I've drawn so far anyway).  Two bows on a single large hull can't match the interior volume provided by two hulls with relatively wide transoms.  So there are many good reasons to choose a cat over a proa.

Performance for a given budget, including sail area and mast height, are reasons to consider a Pacific proa.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boudreaux said:

consider the strength of attachments and section modulus required for the cross beams of a cat vs. a proa.  That alone is an enormous cost for a large custom boat.  The cost and weight and complexity of a proa is in the main hull, and the load paths are reasonably simple.  Compare to a cat, with a dolphin striker or a seagull striker, and a mast step in a beam, and mainsheet attached to another beam.  Sufficient stiffness to maintain headstay tension.  All these are expenses and added material that can be put into added length of a Proa if it is to be the same price as a Cat.

Resale market?  Yeah, a cat wins that one for sure.

If your planned use can be met with a production boat and you ever want to resell your boat...well that makes it hard to justify a proa.

If you ARE going custom (for specific needs or joy of the design build process) and it is your forever boat...I can see a proa might make sense.

(myself I'm intrigued by proas not for rational economic reason but because they seem to me an elegant solution AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT, I'd pay a premium for a just for me boat that had my fingerprints on the design and build and I'd pay a premium to sail something interesting...but am I willing to pay enough of a premium?)

The "problem" is proas don't fit the needs of the mass charter market (or other large scale market) so they don't benefit from economies of scale of production boats.

Sort of a cath 22, may not be a lot of proas 'cause there are not a lot of proas...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The gyrocopter replaces something which seems relatively simple (a wing) with something which appears to be incredibly complex (a rotor).  I've done a bit of flying in ultralights quite similar to the flights depicted in the gyrocopter vid.  Low level flying is probably always dangerous but i still get the feeling there's so much that could go horribly wrong with that big rotor...  When I look at Mr. Finn's gorgeous, fast proa I always think, "Damn, one more of those beautiful hulls and that would be an incredible trimaran!". I know that particular proa is magnificent as-is but it would be hard to convince me that adding another hull would be that much more expensive/difficult.  Also notable that when the serious people want to do long, super fast crossings they invariably choose the trimaran.  Love to go for a ride on a good proa though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, KC375 said:

If your planned use can be met with a production boat and you ever want to resell your boat...well that makes it hard to justify a proa.

If you ARE going custom (for specific needs or joy of the design build process) and it is your forever boat...I can see a proa might make sense.

(myself I'm intrigued by proas not for rational economic reason but because they seem to me an elegant solution AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT, I'd pay a premium for a just for me boat that had my fingerprints on the design and build and I'd pay a premium to sail something interesting...but am I willing to pay enough of a premium?)

The "problem" is proas don't fit the needs of the mass charter market (or other large scale market) so they don't benefit from economies of scale of production boats.

Sort of a cath 22, may not be a lot of proas 'cause there are not a lot of proas...

Yes to all of that, but I don't think proas could ever become a mass market boat.  These things are always going to be painful in close quarters, especially when the whole rest of the world tacks when you shunt.  Maybe someone else has some brilliant ideas for a convenient way to tack a proa out of a harbor, but I'm not seeing it.  If it's an ocean greyhound you want and you can compromise in harbor maneuvers, I think the proa is tough to beat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boudreaux said:

These things are always going to be painful in close quarters

Tacking up a narrow channel in a proa is difficult indeed but they can be stunningly superior in close quarters maneuvering when the wind direction is favorable.  The ability to sail up to a dock, stop on a dime and then reverse is unique to proas.

16 minutes ago, mundt said:

When I look at Mr. Finn's gorgeous, fast proa I always think, "Damn, one more of those beautiful hulls and that would be an incredible trimaran!".

No doubt that Russell could design and build a beautiful trimaran but slapping another ama on the opposite side of a proa is not how it's done.  Trimaran amas need to be longer and have more buoyancy, at least 100% of total displacement each and often much more on modern tris.  Plus trimarans can have a beamy transom (like cats) to carry more load and offer more interior space in a given hull length.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Boudreaux said:

Yes to all of that, but I don't think proas could ever become a mass market boat.  These things are always going to be painful in close quarters, especially when the whole rest of the world tacks when you shunt.  Maybe someone else has some brilliant ideas for a convenient way to tack a proa out of a harbor, but I'm not seeing it.  If it's an ocean greyhound you want and you can compromise in harbor maneuvers, I think the proa is tough to beat.

At least for the sailing here, I wouldn't consider that a big problem, as you rarely have to do more than 2 tacks/gybes per day.

Marina space/cost and ability to get a box in some of the nice small marinas on the other hand would be a serious issue.

Long story short: choice of boat is dependend on where you sail. Hardly news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boudreaux said:

Yes to all of that, but I don't think proas could ever become a mass market boat.  These things are always going to be painful in close quarters, especially when the whole rest of the world tacks when you shunt.  Maybe someone else has some brilliant ideas for a convenient way to tack a proa out of a harbor, but I'm not seeing it.  If it's an ocean greyhound you want and you can compromise in harbor maneuvers, I think the proa is tough to beat.

With those constraints you'd think they would be usefull getting between pacific islands / island chains...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mathystuff said:

At least for the sailing here, I wouldn't consider that a big problem, as you rarely have to do more than 2 tacks/gybes per day.

Marina space/cost and ability to get a box in some of the nice small marinas on the other hand would be a serious issue.

Long story short: choice of boat is dependend on where you sail. Hardly news.

and how fast you want to go and what you want to do and how many you peeps you want to bring along, trailor or mooring etc. etc. etc.

Proas are more specialized is all, and as such are less likely to fit within one's S.O.R. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KC375 said:

With those constraints you'd think they would be usefull getting between pacific islands / island chains...

Someone should let the Polynesians in on this!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Tacking up a narrow channel in a proa is difficult indeed but they can be stunningly superior in close quarters maneuvering when the wind direction is favorable.  The ability to sail up to a dock, stop on a dime and then reverse is unique to proas.

No doubt that Russell could design and build a beautiful trimaran but slapping another ama on the opposite side of a proa is not how it's done.  Trimaran amas need to be longer and have more buoyancy, at least 100% of total displacement each and often much more on modern tris.  Plus trimarans can have a beamy transom (like cats) to carry more load and offer more interior space in a given hull length.

Trying to stay away from this BUT - Why does a trimaran need to have "a longer ama, with more buoyancy, at least 100%" to match proa stability?

An Atlantic proa derives it's stability in exactly the same way as a trimaran - buoyancy to leeward so the the ama design has to deliver all the same requirements.

A Pacific proa utilizes the weight of the ama to provide righting moment and light ship that's pretty modest. By adding weight to weather (climbing up the beam/adding water ballast) the righting moment can be increased.

When the leeward ama is fully immersed (and doing so causes the rest of the structure to lift into the air) maximum righting moment is reached for that given platforms dimensions.

When the windward ama adds ballast (water?) to a point where it's total mass equates to the float of that leeward ama the righting moment is the same so actually the  capacities are the same and the reasons for the ama's design differences are more about reserve buoyancy and diagonal stability.

Problem is - for the Pacific Proa - you are taking the water for a ride and water is HEAVY!

I first sailed on a Pacific Proa over fifty years ago on a brisk day, in big waves, out of Penzance, England with Toy Richardson who subsequently built and circumnavigated in a 45' cat. It was an absolute blast, Toby steering and trimming with me running up and down the aka. We were doing exactly what the Pacfic islanders had perfected so long ago, 

Cheers (an Atlantic proa) did a fabulous job with Tom Follet sailing her in the '68 OSTAR a few years prior.

These are special boats which can be tailor made to satisfy some special needs, I respect that and admire the sailors that have done so but lets be honest, they don't represent some kind of all singing, all dancing breakthrough - rather we are applying known physical properties in a different configuration and if you are just seeking different that's great - ENJOY!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SeaGul said:

I cant se a proa can be cheaper than a cat for the same money - according to space and speed - building wise... and for the total when you take the 2. hand value into account - its no contest. Gyrocopters I like.... cheaper and can fly... 

My original proa design started out at 8.5 metres length, aimed at complying with the NZ 8.5 class multihull box rule, which are predominantly catamarans. But it ended up needing ~ 200 kilos of correctors to get to the 900kg class minimum.

https://www.multihull.org.nz/8-5-class/

So I gave up and increased the length by a metre. In the same measurement condition, my proa weighs~ 970 kilos, with more (full) headroom and space below. And I get similar speeds, theoretically more, with a smaller (cheaper) rig.

Dollar/kilo, like for like, you get more boat for your money.

Second hand value is another story.... but you could say that about a lot of boats.

I don’t know anything about gyrocopters..... but they have their place.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the paragliders looked relatively safe, then I watched a few youtube vids, holy shite, those things can wreck you very quickly indeed!  Maybe a gyrocopter is safe, as sometimes things are truly counterintuitive, like thinking that flying down close to the ground or sailing close to the beach look safe, right?  I have seen vids of some nasty gyrocopter mishaps, and nobody is going to convince me that those blades spinning around up there aren't cause for concern as you plow into the muck.  I would probably go for a ride on one given the chance and I'd absolutely love to go for a ride on a proa.  See, we can have a nice, civilized discussion without eviscerating one another.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

r.finn, absolutely nothing but respect for you and your boat, seriously, outstanding in every respect.  I also get the desire for something unique and the perceived advantages of the proa.  Just enjoying the different perspectives during some rare shitty weather.  Thanks. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, r.finn said:

It's always been about one thing for me: reduced beam loads.  If someone can't understand that one simple thing, well that's on them.  Onwards and upwards.

Agree. Reduced loads means less weight. if you crunch the numbers, increase LWL or  SA by 10% or reduce Displ by 10%, easily the best value for money in terms of speed, space and safety, comes from 10%  increased LWL..., ie convert any “saved” weight to extra LWL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A gyrocopter is far, far, far safer than an airplane or helicopter.

As long as you never unload your rotor...if you do recovery is not so likely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I watched a few gyrocopter vids and here's what i got:  those things crash a lot!  And surprise, surprise!  The pro gyrocopter guys say, "Gyrocopters are incredibly safe, it's always pilot error."  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 9:17 PM, mundt said:

On a hike the other day I saw a gyrocopter flying past and here's what popped into my head, "That thing reminds me of a proa, lots of effort and danger to come up with something not quite as good as an airplane or helicopter.". The analogy being that the proa, though beautiful, in spite of all the effort by ingenious individuals is not quite as good as a cat or tri...thoughts?

Proas are the recumbent unicycles of the sailing world.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 7:28 PM, Boudreaux said:

Someone should let the Polynesians in on this!!

Yes - my only real experience with pros was a small canoe in the Philippines - that had some genius to it.... 

When talking about a boat that goes to sea and sails - there are some basics; its good to have a purpose made bow - and stern - and they have different tasks to carry out - so they end up different. 

Then its symmetri; distributing forces is often easier with symmetri - and also buildingwise.

Then the energy of movement; when beating or jibbing - you dont stop the  hole shit and have to start again every time - lots of energy wasted- that will be very significant.

Look at the AC boats now - they almost keep the speed even tacking/jibbing. The faster you go the more you loose by stopping/starting - obvious. 

Most bang for the buck conseptwise - i think cats like Raider and the other clean Grainger cats - then Shockwave 39 and TRT1200 is ideal concepts. And if you want space a bridgedeck cat is close to perfection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 12:26 AM, TwoBirds said:

and for those that can't afford a gyrocopter or don't have a runway

 

..I dont trust those loose sheets and lines there - would prefer some carbon structures  to keep them in order; an to start/land on water would be nice...

Skjermbilde 2021-01-29 kl. 10.25.00.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeaGul said:

Then the energy of movement; when beating or jibbing - you dont stop the  hole shit and have to start again every time - lots of energy wasted- that will be very significant.

Look at the AC boats now - they almost keep the speed even tacking/jibbing. The faster you go the more you loose by stopping/starting - obvious. 

This is not an issue on long passages, the exceptions being tacking upwind in a narrow channel or racing other boats around the cans.  Stopping the boat is a relaxing non event.  You can sit and wait for your friends to catch up in conventional boats or charge on.  Definitely not a concern on ocean passages.  It's a good chance to switch to a different headsail when needed as the aft end can be set up differently in preparation for the next tack.

The current crop of AC boats are the most ridiculous and impractical things ever!  Talk about "a solution without a problem", they are a joke.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

This is not an issue on long passages, the exceptions being tacking upwind in a narrow channel or racing other boats around the cans.  Stopping the boat is a relaxing non event.  You can sit and wait for your friends to catch up in conventional boats or charge on.  Definitely not a concern on ocean passages.  It's a good chance to switch to a different headsail when needed as the aft end can be set up differently in preparation for the next tack.

The current crop of AC boats are the most ridiculous and impractical things ever!  Talk about "a solution without a problem", they are a joke.

.... ref. the space argument over - proas is not the boat you would use for long ocean passages - more typical coastal sailing - where this problem will be significant. AC boats are marginal - and maybe also foiling - but its coming on faster boats in many variations. The handling of sails - all sail have to be losed up turned around -and sheeted again - compared to moving the rudder on a self tacking boat. An how the boat moves - bare off stopp and then get going - turn up again - an while stopping you need to carefully nurse the sails to get moving again and take care of fore and aft rudders ? I havent tried but it sounds rather complicated.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

I havent tried but it sounds rather complicated. 

Then you are only speculating.  Maybe "not the boat you would use for long ocean passages" but I would.  It's what they are best at.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SeaGul said:

 proas is not the boat you would use for long ocean passages - more typical coastal sailing 

 

Don't forget that "Jzerro" already has more ocean crossings and blue water miles than most sailors (regardless of their choice of boat) will ever experience.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SeaGul said:

.... ref. the space argument over - proas is not the boat you would use for long ocean passages - more typical coastal sailing -

 

Snip...

this is a wild generalization, at least 80% of cats, tris, and monos " is not the boat you would use for long ocean passages - more typical coastal sailing -" simply because they weren't designed for the purpose, there are plenty of proas that have been built for blue water and coastal cruising and they work just fine. Here's a link to a page with info on over 60 proas  

Like any other hullform you design and build the boat for the job it's going to be used for, and buy insurance :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

Then you are only speculating.  Maybe "not the boat you would use for long ocean passages" but I would.  It's what they are best at.

Yes Im speculating but on the experience from sailing tris an cats - an isnt it - complicated to shunt compare to tack? In the real light  stuff- to stop and reverse - it could leave you drifting for long time. When rudders was introduced  the double ended proa got a big disadvantage when using it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

Yes Im speculating...

Again.  Uninformed speculation without any proa experience.  Why do you trash what you don't understand?

Not that all proas are alike by any means but some have distinct performance advantages that you seem determined to ignore.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To just quote  one part and make a conclusion theres nothing in the argument - is kind of how I feel the proa-fans are doing by the hole theme. Theres huge points against proas - but they have some sweet spot - if they can use just main hull - but then a cat or tri can power up more sail an be faster anyway - bec. they have more stability.  Here is Jzerro shunting? - dont say there some genius in play here.... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

Theres huge points against proas - but they have some sweet spot - if they can use just main hull - but then a cat or tri can power up more sail an be faster anyway - bec. they have more stability.

At least you present some evidence this time, which is the next best thing to experience, but then you jump to a demonstrably false conclusion.  Bluewater cats and tris of the same displacement as Jzerro (approximately 4,000 lbs. loaded) are not known to be faster.  Can you prove that?  More righting moment is not necessarily faster.  The boat is more likely to nose-dive instead of lifting the windward hull, which can lead to pitch-pole.  All these arguments have been discussed and answered repeatedly, yet someone always comes along and states "the obvious" (that more righting moment is always better) and ignores the experience and wisdom of the Pacific proa configuration.  It is tiresome.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaGul said:

To just quote  one part and make a conclusion theres nothing in the argument - is kind of how I feel the proa-fans are doing by the hole theme. Theres huge points against proas - but they have some sweet spot - if they can use just main hull - but then a cat or tri can power up more sail an be faster anyway - bec. they have more stability.  Here is Jzerro shunting? - dont say there some genius in play here.... 

 

SeaGul, what is it you are trying  to achieve on this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, r.finn said:

SeaGul, what is it you are trying  to achieve on this thread?

I didnt start it... I just argue - dont blame anyone - like you do - when theres no good arguments.   And I have one really good argument for a proa; they are very cheap 2. hand... 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

At least you present some evidence this time, which is the next best thing to experience, but then you jump to a demonstrably false conclusion.  Bluewater cats and tris of the same displacement as Jzerro (approximately 4,000 lbs. loaded) are not known to be faster.  Can you prove that?  More righting moment is not necessarily faster.  The boat is more likely to nose-dive instead of lifting the windward hull, which can lead to pitch-pole.  All these arguments have been discussed and answered repeatedly, yet someone always comes along and states "the obvious" (that more righting moment is always better) and ignores the experience and wisdom of the Pacific proa configuration.  It is tiresome.

You call Jzerro at 36ft 4000lbs loaded a bluewater what - racer or cruiser? I would say a racer since the payload is not big. In the vid over - most of the weight is in the main hull - how much stability do it have  then? Seems like quite easy to tip over...does it have water ballast? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

I didnt start it... I just argue - dont blame anyone - like you do - when theres no good arguments.   And I have one really good argument for a proa; they are very cheap 2. hand... 

It's just that you don't really seem to know what you are talking about and you don't seem to listen.  That's good if you are just here to argue though.  Have fun!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

You call Jzerro at 36ft 4000lbs loaded a bluewater what - racer or cruiser? I would say a racer since the payload is not big. In the vid over - most of the weight is in the main hull - how much stability do it have  then? Seems like quite easy to tip over...does it have water ballast? 

Lifting Jzerro's ama out of the water requires 850 lbs of force.  This is about 20' to weather of the lee hull's center of buoyancy and can be loaded with water ballast.  How much I'm not sure because I've never filled it completely.   The air draft is roughly 40'.  I can answer some of your questions, but would never try to convince you that proas are the only good type of sailboat.  All boats have their strengths and weaknesses.  As I said earlier, I chose the proa because it stresses it's beams less than a cat or tri and is very quick $/mile.  A monohull that would be as fast would be far more expensive and I personally wouldn't want to be on a cat or trimaran that weighs 3,200 lbs in the middle of the ocean.  it would be much shorter than Jzerro.  But I love cats and tris as well.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rasputin for the soft-porn aviation vid!  Truly heartwarming.  Here's the question for me, take the obviously beautiful, fast, capable Jzerro, add some very light, strong akas, another ama, move the rig to the middle, do the dagger and rudder...  Considering that you'd be losing a few bits and adding a few bits on the other side, how would the overall performance and ease of operation change?  Likewise, what if you made it into a cat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 25 I bought a 10k mono overloaded it and shoved off with a few friends with far less sailing experience than me with a plan of going to Bocas Del Torros to start a new life as a surf bum. We got a few hundred miles offshore and one of my crew freaked out and wouldn’t come out of the cabin and the other was taking stupid risks that I thought would probably end with him falling off the boat. So I came back to the US dumped my young friends and picked up a couple older fellows with some sailing experience and we sailed to Bermuda and then to Saint Croix. In Christiansted harbor there was a proa and I thought it looked stupid and with my barfy youthful swagger basically told the owner it wasn’t it real sailboat. Now I look back on the many many hours of having the wind shaken out of my sails by ocean swells, wishing I had more diesel to burn when there was plenty of wind to push a boat like Jzerro and I wish I had known enough to take a fake sailboat like a proa instead of my mono slug. I think now I’d probably rather have a nice trimaran or a nice catamaran than a proa but what I really admire are the people who are out there cruising that can get after it without throwing a bunch of money and diesel at their problems. 
If I could take off with a surfboard and a bunch of dry food on a proa today I’d rather do that than on a Gunboat in 5 years.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, my L7 akas are g-10 I beams. As far as i can tell they are ridiculously strong and pretty light.  I've twisted them enough to peel the paint off em but i hate to think what it would take to break one. And no water stays!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mundt said:

Just for reference, my L7 akas are g-10 I beams. As far as i can tell they are ridiculously strong and pretty light.  I've twisted them enough to peel the paint off em but i hate to think what it would take to break one. And no water stays!

Interesting.  Where could I see pics?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaGul said:

I didn't start it... I just argue - dont blame anyone - like you do - when theres no good arguments.   And I have one really good argument for a proa; they are very cheap 2. hand... 

nothing wrong with that, I like a good argument as much as the next guy, a GOOD argument, perhaps if you were to do some research and actually learn about proas you could start arguing intelligently, you might even find yourself on the other side...

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Geese said:

 I think now I’d probably rather have a nice trimaran or a nice catamaran than a proa but what I really admire are the people who are out there cruising that can get after it without throwing a bunch of money and diesel at their problems. 
If I could take off with a surfboard and a bunch of dry food on a proa today I’d rather do that than on a Gunboat in 5 years.  

Check out "Lost in the Swell". A different way of "getting after it".

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SeaGul said:

Yes Im speculating but on the experience from sailing tris an cats - an isnt it - complicated to shunt compare to tack? In the real light  stuff- to stop and reverse - it could leave you drifting for long time. When rudders was introduced  the double ended proa got a big disadvantage when using it. 

Not that you care what I think, but this is not right. I'm not going to comment on blue water sailing, but I've sailed beach cats since I was a kid, I crewed on Tornados off the beach and sailed H16s and H18s all my life. In 2001 I built a beachcat-sized 21' proa. Beachcat style rudders on the windward side of the main hull, schooner rig.

In very heavy conditions I'd much rather shunt my proa than try to tack a beach cat. I've been blown over backwards on a H16 in conditions my proa would have been fine in. I sailed the proa in two Texas 200 raids where we saw well over 25 knots sustained, and the boat was fine, it was easy fast fun sailing.

In very light conditions I'd also rather be in the proa. Wetted surface is less and when coming about you're going from a reach to a reach, you have more power. You're not trying to drift through a tack with your nose in the wind, no power and going backwards.

Maybe you should actually try to do a thing before you develop strong opinions on it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TwoBirds said:

nothing wrong with that, I like a good argument as much as the next guy, a GOOD argument, perhaps if you were to do some research and actually learn about proas you could start arguing intelligently, you might even find yourself on the other side...

So can you point out something I said that is wrong?

First time I saw a cat and a tri  (same regatta - the Newick tri Heloide and an 28ft homemade plywood cat- those followed a mighty 70ft plane racer cold moulded - Buksesnekkeren)   I really got it in a second - it was totally obvious to me what the genius was - and I can understand the pros and ons cats vs tris. But I struggle with the proas as bigger boats. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KONeill said:

Not that you care what I think, but this is not right. I'm not going to comment on blue water sailing, but I've sailed beach cats since I was a kid, I crewed on Tornados off the beach and sailed H16s and H18s all my life. In 2001 I built a beachcat-sized 21' proa. Beachcat style rudders on the windward side of the main hull, schooner rig.

In very heavy conditions I'd much rather shunt my proa than try to tack a beach cat. I've been blown over backwards on a H16 in conditions my proa would have been fine in. I sailed the proa in two Texas 200 raids where we saw well over 25 knots sustained, and the boat was fine, it was easy fast fun sailing.

In very light conditions I'd also rather be in the proa. Wetted surface is less and when coming about you're going from a reach to a reach, you have more power. You're not trying to drift through a tack with your nose in the wind, no power and going backwards.

Maybe you should actually try to do a thing before you develop strong opinions on it?

So how was the results in those regattas?  That is can be hard to tack a beach cat in heavy conditions  - yes. And jibe and going round a mark  can be even more scary - but going round a mark from upwind to downwin with a proa  - how is that? Seems scary. And jibbing - how do you do that - by shunting? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

So how was the results in those regattas?  That is can be hard to tack a beach cat in heavy conditions  - yes. And jibe and going round a mark  can be even more scary - but going round a mark from upwind to downwin with a proa  - how is that? Seems scary. And jibbing - how do you do that - by shunting? 

It was a raid, not a regatta, but it's not as fast as a modern beach cat. Maybe H16 or H14 speed, I'd say, mostly because of smaller sail area, total of about 160 ft^2.

Shunting is not as fast as tacking. But it's safer and easier in a lot of wind or in very light wind. Shunting upwind or downwind is easy. Blow the sheets and sheet in on the other side. That's it. You're sideways to the wind, so you have a lot of power. You go from a reach to a reach, you never have to go through a zero power zone with your nose in the wind.

Proas have disadvantages. They're slower to shunt downwind compared to jibing, and shunting up a channel is a pain in the ass.

They have advantages, they're loaded very lightly, for example. Most of the time in my boat there's a 21' long waterline, 1' wide at the middle, the ama barely touching the water. Small rig, low loads, the whole thing is very low stress and nice to sail.

But what you're stressing about is just wrong. Shunting is easy and safe once you're used to it. You're not "drifting", you're sideways to the wind! You have a lot of power! Much more than when you're tacking a boat.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely safer when gybing in breeze.  On the way to New York recently I gybed in the Gulf stream, in 28-33 knots, and it was truly a non stress situation compared to passing the leech of a mainsail through they eye of the wind, on any boat.  Boy I hope that's easy to understand.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If a proa sails with the main hull to windward it would have really good stability  - but its seems that it is not preferred? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SeaGul said:

If a proa sails with the main hull to windward it would have really good stability  - but its seems that it is not preferred? 

Again, I chose the pacific proa because it places less stress on the beams than a trimaran or catamaran.  Do you understand this or do you need further explanation?  I hope you've just been messing with us.  If so, well played.  If not, well...  :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SeaGul said:

Yes Im speculating but on the experience from sailing tris an cats - an isnt it - complicated to shunt compare to tack? In the real light  stuff- to stop and reverse - it could leave you drifting for long time. When rudders was introduced  the double ended proa got a big disadvantage when using it. 

 

4 hours ago, SeaGul said:

I didnt start it... I just argue - dont blame anyone - like you do - when theres no good arguments.   And I have one really good argument for a proa; they are very cheap 2. hand... 

 

4 hours ago, SeaGul said:

You call Jzerro at 36ft 4000lbs loaded a bluewater what - racer or cruiser? I would say a racer since the payload is not big. In the vid over - most of the weight is in the main hull - how much stability do it have  then? Seems like quite easy to tip over...does it have water ballast? 

 

1 hour ago, SeaGul said:

but going round a mark from upwind to downwin with a proa  - how is that? Seems scary. And jibbing - how do you do that - by shunting? 

This is all so reminiscent of the, now antiquated,  "mono vs multi" argument so popular in the 60s and 70s.

Armchair admirals with no practical experience, and little to no factual knowledge, theorizing based solely on their dogmatic belief systems, ego, and self aggrandizement.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlin, that last sentence is so beautiful...it brought a tear to my eye, so true. R. Finn, I actually split the carbon beam on my multi 23 and then ripped the same beam right out of the deck where it was bolted to the main hull all while sailing mostly my usual pussified style so I guess I get your reasoning, though I do think with good materials and techniques the stress on your beams shouldn’t necessarily dictate your choice of boat.  I would absolutely love to go for a ride on a proa, they look super fun and I’m pretty sure fun is the only reason to go sailing anyway, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaGul said:

If a proa sails with the main hull to windward it would have really good stability  - but its seems that it is not preferred? 

If you try sailing my proa with the big hull to windward I promise you "really good stability" is not a phrase you will use to describe the experience.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaGul said:

If a proa sails with the main hull to windward it would have really good stability  - but its seems that it is not preferred? 

A proa that sails that way, has more righting moment than either a cat or a tri of equal displacement and beam.

The problem is the leeward hull needs to be  as long as or longer than the main hull for speed and safety, as tri sailors have found out. Beam stresses and the beam size goes up, with more and heavier wave contact, so displacement increases, windage increases and the rig size goes up, making the boat heavier and more expensive for its waterline length.

if you look at all the traditional Polynesian craft, especially the ones that still race, their amas are tiny and held together with sticks by comparison to western style proas. You would think after a millennium of sailing them they would have worked out what is best and most efficient for a given pile of scarce boat material?

Carbon Credit an F31 SRCX is/was up for sale at $195,000AUD, at a fraction of its new price. All carbon, weighs 1500kg OMR.

I can sell you 31ft Sidecar for $60,000AUD and make money on it. All wood, weighs 970kg OMR.

Carbon Credit would be a little faster, but isn’t $135,000+ AUD worth (more than triple) faster, and I sail mine single handed all the time.

For the extra 530kg OMR Sidecar 2 would be 40+ft long in wood or 45+ft in carbon, rig would still be smaller than CC and would be faster, safer, and still not use up all the dollar differential.

Proas give you the opportunity to maximise main hull speed potential, cheap to do, whilst minimising rig and above deck costs, where the money really is.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mundt said:

Merlin, that last sentence is so beautiful...it brought a tear to my eye, so true. R. Finn, I actually split the carbon beam on my multi 23 and then ripped the same beam right out of the deck where it was bolted to the main hull all while sailing mostly my usual pussified style so I guess I get your reasoning, though I do think with good materials and techniques the stress on your beams shouldn’t necessarily dictate your choice of boat.  I would absolutely love to go for a ride on a proa, they look super fun and I’m pretty sure fun is the only reason to go sailing anyway, right?

Ryan, take the hint, it looks as though Mundt is begging you for a ride.

He already has an open invitation to sail on Sidecar. Getting here is a bit tricky, especially at the moment...

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, I'm begging!  And if I'm still mobile whenever things open up again I'll crawl across flaming, broken glass to make it happen.  My dream would be to do it in a place like Kaneohe (or anywhere with warm air and water) just in case anybody cares...And I'd also like to mention that Sidecar's boat is incredibly beautiful.  Could we get a few more pics while we're gathered here?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TwoBirds said:

nothing wrong with that, I like a good argument as much as the next guy, a GOOD argument, perhaps if you were to do some research and actually learn about proas you could start arguing intelligently, you might even find yourself on the other side...

It was an ad hominem attack, "an attack on an opponent's character rather than an answer to the contentions made".  Not OK with me.

2 hours ago, r.finn said:

I hope you've just been messing with us.  If so, well played.  If not, well...  :)

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. People know themselves much better than you do. That's why it's important to stop expecting them to be something other than who they are."
 -- Maya Angelou

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete Goss' approach works for dealing with the critics: "get on with it and sod ’em."

Quote
It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who knows great enthusiasm, great devotion and the triumph of achievement and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while doing greatly - so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat ...
 
In other words get on with it and sod ’em - don’t know who said this, but it’s a favourite of mine.

Chapter 3 of Goss' "Close to the Wind" (he's using FDR 's Man in the Arena quote)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a study I did for myself some time ago, to try and see through all the hype and bullshit about proas and other multihulls. Not many multihulls, let alone proas in Tasmania to compare against on the water.

Ballpark and theoretical/hypothetical, I know, but without hundreds of proas out there racing for a real comparative, here are some Base (average) Speeds of some multihulls all calculated off an OMR spreadsheet (ie real data) with 3 (287 kg) crew, to ponder about:

Diam 24: 10.1 knots. F22: 10.9 knots. F82R: 11.3 knots. Sidecar: 11.8 knots. Seacart 30: 13.1 knots. F31SRCX: 13.4 knots. Grainger 10 cat: 13.6 knots. M32 cat: 14.0 knots.

Double the Base Speed gives indicative top speed, and Base Speed is indicative of max speed upwind. Sidecar so far as I can determine, sails to at least its Base Speed.

On a theoretical 20 mile race between them all, Sidecar would be fourth last over the line, and second, 5 seconds behind the F31SRCX on OMR handicap, with the F82R a further 33 seconds behind to complete the handicap podium.

Sidecar has the smallest rated sail area of all of them, and only the F22 and Diam are lighter. It has more headroom, storage and accomodation space than all of them, except perhaps the F31SRCX.

A lot of money to pay for a 5 second OMR advantage and a bit more speed.

I am not interested in selling Sidecar plans and I am very sure that most multihull designers who, if they really put their mind to it, could do a lot better than Sidecar. I could do better myself....Now.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sidecar said:

Sidecar has the smallest rated sail area of all of them, and only the F22 and Diam are lighter. It has more headroom, storage and accomodation space than all of them, except perhaps the F31SRCX.

Apologies, The M32 is also lighter...... but still a bit short on the accommodation side.

And FWIW, Base Speeds, mainsail and screechers, from drawings, not ratings, of Sidecar, Incognito G 32 and Seagul’s T35:

12.6 knots, 11.6 knots and 13.5 knots (green rig) respectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

Apologies, The M32 is also lighter...... but still a bit short on the accommodation side.

And FWIW, Base Speeds, mainsail and screechers, from drawings, not ratings, of Sidecar, Incognito G 32 and Seagul’s T35:

12.6 knots, 11.6 knots and 14.7 knots (red rig) respectively.

Corrected. And main and jib numbers are:

11.2 knots, 10.2 knots and 13.5 knots respectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites