Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

2 hours ago, Sidecar said:

Be positive...... There must also be lots of times going  DDW against current to go 5 miles where you sail most often. Sidecar wouldn’t have to gybe, could stay in the shallows, inside bends and back eddies while other multis are gybing all over the place or going backwards in light conditions..... It can even run by the lee to about 20 degrees before you have to start worrying.

Well, I can do that in my tri (DDW wing and wing if I need to); but your boat Must do that all the time; I like choices when having fun.  Don't get me wrong, horses for courses; I'd never sail my tri in the ocean for a passage making, mine is a day sailor and that's what I like to do.  You folks who like to cross oceans could choose a proa since that is what they are good for.  

35 minutes ago, peterbike said:

M/Thom,   on your 5 mile commute -  you could just tack....      (as in the ninja at the start of this thread)  so the boat does a windward/leeward thing.

You and/or the boat will not die.    :wacko:      you may even get "pleasure"

If a proa could tack (and some can like the ninja and some of them with moveable amas/sliding akas), then it might be a more fun ride, but shunting is anathema if you have to do it against a 2 kt current in a 5 kt breeze--you will literally never get where you want to go.  Might as well stay in the marina and wait for the current to go the other way.   Point is, though, sailing for fun means you can sail in all conditions whenever the muse hits.  

Y'know this thread is sort of silly.  Boats are either tools (most are motored-submarines, tugboats, tankers, fishing boat...); transportation (proas, big catamarans, big tris...), or recreation (toys--smaller tris and cats...); or accommodations (yachts, condomarans...).  Some can do more than one thing, but rarely will they do all those things as well as  something designed specifically to do one thing well.  My tri is a toy--not meant to do anything else and it does that one thing very well.  Decide what you want to do with a boat and get one that does that.  Life is too short to fiddle around with compromises that sorta work OK.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sidecar said:

High tech all carbon built 30 ft Morticia, in OMR trim weighed 1258 kg. So your T35 is doing spectacularly well to be only 1300 kg in the same trim.

 

The OMR weight is not the same as my 1300kg - in those Swedish sheets the SC30 weight is 1030kg - and relates to 1300kg for T-35.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MultiThom said:

Well, I can do that in my tri (DDW wing and wing if I need to); but your boat Must do that all the time;

No it doesn’t I can still set sails off the bow if/when I want, and wing on wing as well. Just as any multihull can set extra sails to windward.

Thing is, the windward “side”triangle on other multihulls is only roughly half the c/c width of the boat, and in the leeward half, sail setting (ie mainsail) is significantly restricted by shrouds. Slow!

Whereas with a Proa, the windward “half” is nearly the full c/c width plus the full unrestricted effective width of the mainsail. And on Sidecar with a prod extended from the windward boom, the windward “side”triangle base is over half as much again. There is the possibility. setting up the windward sail(s) to deflect air around to the lee side of the mainsail, much like a multi part solid wing? The idea/technique needs developing, but if also helps to avoid gybe shunting, there could be big gains, especially in restricted waterways such as you describe.

We shall see.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend's brother (and brother of a respected occasional poster over in Ocean Racing Anarchy) is building another proa, not far from Sidecar. No doubt it'll face a host of teething troubles, but Matt and his brothers have plenty of experience in all types of sailboats - including proas. Nothing is new, but proas are a type of craft where refinement and innovation can really break new ground. 

 

https://youtu.be/IsdX90OImh0

 

 

 

No photo description available.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

DDW - not problem on a tri - ok the mainsail stops a the shrouds but thats ok. Only time you do it is if you are going through some narrow - or are too lazy to jibe. And one time we got hit by a surprice gust - 35-40kn wind with two people onboard and full main and jib - then some battens broke against the shroud  and the bows start to bury ... then it could be nice to depower the main....happend once in 14 years. Had course against land so planned to take a sharp turn to depower the mainsail  - that could be scary if the rudder came out - but the wind died some so when we did it it was no problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This proa discussion is spread over several threads now.... but some basics; what is the difference in performance of a tack or a shunt? Same with jib-shunt? When you see how much you loose on a course in a bad tack I really wonder how that is with shunting compare to tacks/jibs? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some calculations about tacking-shunting; at 10kn speed 45deg to the course a proa would loose 70-75m distance to target - and more than 100m along the course.

A tri will first fall off - get speed then tack - fall abit down to gain speed. So I calculated avarage 7,5kn in the tack - and 5 for the shunt    - has to stop/start.  The tack takes 65m - the shunt 95 - to get to the same spot as the tacking boat - but some meters lower. 

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

Well that took 2 min - I used 36 sek in my calculations....  How is it to do that in seas and higher winds...? 

Smaller ones don't move the mast, so it is quicker on those; but couldn't find a vid of a 30 footer doing it.  Your figures are likely to be close.  For the times I screw up a tack, it does probably waste about as much time/effort as shunting since i let it back up and rudder it over  to complete the tack.  Point being, every shunt on a proa is like a screwed up tack to a trimaran--who wants that?  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It gives you time to drink a cuppa tea.  That's my explanation whenever i blow a tack. Very rare on a trimaran but when I was sailing my Nacra solo unirigged if anybody saw my frequently missed tacks I was pretty good at pretending I did jt on purpose.  If they asked I would tell them that sailing backwards is "good practice."  If I ever get to sail a proa I've already got lots of good excuses for my poor sailing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding tacks - we really dont turn down to get speed in the start of the tack - but after a tack we do. I also think a proa that stops totally can use some time to get going again and also drift abit - so the reality it even worse than stated over. 

The picture for a jibe; a cat or tri that jibes barely slows down - and just take a turn  and goes again at good speed. So if you need a shunt downwind you really loose a lot distance.... 

Regarding bigger seas and wind; tacking is still easy - using the right moment to tack its often easier than with no waves. But to take a full stop broadside to the waves - then you are sitting duck. 

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

Regarding tacks - we really dont turn down to get speed in the start of the tack - but after a tack we do. I also think a proa that stops totally can use some time to get going again and also drift abit - so the reality it even worse than stated over. 

The picture for a jibe; a cat or tri that jibes barely slows down - and just take a turn  and goes again at good speed. So if you need a shunt downwind you really loose a lot distance.... 

Regarding bigger seas and wind; tacking is still easy - using the right moment to tack its often easier than with no waves. But to take a full stop broadside to the waves - then you are sitting duck. 

For someone who doesn't like proas, you seem to be obsessed with them?

It has been stipulated that shunting upwind in a narrow channel or when racing around the cans on short courses can be a disadvantage.  On longer courses more typical of ocean racing or cruising, it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be, especially if the proa is faster than its competitors.

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

Regarding tacks - we really dont turn down to get speed in the start of the tack - but after a tack we do. I also think a proa that stops totally can use some time to get going again and also drift abit - so the reality it even worse than stated over. 

The picture for a jibe; a cat or tri that jibes barely slows down - and just take a turn  and goes again at good speed. So if you need a shunt downwind you really loose a lot distance.... 

Regarding bigger seas and wind; tacking is still easy - using the right moment to tack its often easier than with no waves. But to take a full stop broadside to the waves - then you are sitting duck. 

I thought of you when I saw this.  Enjoy.

eb4016d64722ac6400137de210909a08.jpg

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

I thought of you when I saw this.  Enjoy.

eb4016d64722ac6400137de210909a08.jpg

Nice! Now this is as close to a Gyrocopter Proa smashup I’ve seen yet!

Trippy things, those Flettner rotors. 
welcome to the fold. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_rotor

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that nobody crushed what I stated - I think it rather close to the truth...   then to say its not a big deal that proas really have big trouble with basic boathandling is the real problem for them , not that they look different.  Most of the designs we see are coastal designs where tacking/jibbing/shunting is important. The problem could be solved wit a design that was atlantic on one tack and pacific on the other - and had a bow and stern. Could be a fun boat to sail - and cheaper than other solutions; simple rudder and dagger - much faster and easy and exiting to handle. 

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

The fact that nobody crushed what I stated - I think it rather close to the truth...   then to say its not a big deal that proas really have big trouble with basic boathandling is the real problem for them , not that they look different.  Most of the designs we see are coastal designs where tacking/jibbing/shunting is important. The problem could be solved wit a design that was atlantic on one tack and pacific on the other - and had a bow and stern. Could be a fun boat to sail - and cheaper than other solutions; simple rudder and dagger - much faster and easy and exiting to handle. 

Yes, anyone who says that a proa could compete with regular boats on a windward leeward course is either lying or has no idea of what they are talking about.  You will not get that argument from me. I would never sign up for a race that was leass than 100 miles due to that handicap.  I do not agree with you regarding how vulnerable they are during the tack though.  It simply hasn't been my experience.  And they are fine for coastal cruising etc...  I've done plenty of short tacking under mainsail only to get to a tight spot, but it will never be as easy as tacking your trimaran.  Consider this: without the jib, you still have to stop and ease the main 90 degrees, then sheet it it the remaining 90 degrees while going back to upwind course.  There is drift and sailing well off of upwind for a considerable part of that maneuver, no matter how quickly you do it.  The boat has to go from stop to reverse, reach then upwind, every tack.  It's clearly not the type of boat you want SeaGul.  

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

For someone who doesn't like proas, you seem to be obsessed with them?

It has been stipulated that shunting upwind in a narrow channel or when racing around the cans on short courses can be a disadvantage.  On longer courses more typical of ocean racing or cruising, it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be, especially if the proa is faster than its competitors.

But that is a pretty big "if."  There are some pretty wild claims on this thread (as fast or faster than a Seacart 30) but those are always faster on paper claims and nobody seems to actually dare race their proa. Those that do are clearly not nearly as fast as a Seacart 30.  To me its BS to claim you are faster than anyone until you actually go out and race and prove it.  What also strike me is the Russell Brown has done some racing of late.  And while we may disagree on some things, I thinks its fair to say, excluding Ryan he is a better sailor and builder than most anyone posting here.  Certainly better at both than me.  And when it came time to do an R2AK he didn't pick a proa.  I know you can and will paper over that, but it kinda speaks volumes. 

1 hour ago, r.finn said:

Yes, anyone who says that a proa could compete with regular boats on a windward leeward course is either lying or has no idea of what they are talking about.  You will not get that argument from me. I would never sign up for a race that was leass than 100 miles due to that handicap.  I do not agree with you regarding how vulnerable they are during the tack though.  It simply hasn't been my experience.  And they are fine for coastal cruising etc...  I've done plenty of short tacking under mainsail only to get to a tight spot, but it will never be as easy as tacking your trimaran.  Consider this: without the jib, you still have to stop and ease the main 90 degrees, then sheet it it the remaining 90 degrees while going back to upwind course.  There is drift and sailing well off of upwind for a considerable part of that maneuver, no matter how quickly you do it.  The boat has to go from stop to reverse, reach then upwind, every tack.  It's clearly not the type of boat you want SeaGul.  

Ryan - I really enjoy reading your stuff because you are one of the very few (only one I know of) who actually owns and sails offshore in a proa.  Nevermind proa, most on here posting don't own and offshore sail anything!  Point is both what you do and how you post afford you a lot of credibility. 

A while back your crew (think it was you owning Jzerro then) posted about the experience of racing Jzerro against an F31R and being somewhat faster or slower depending on conditions but that where Jzerro shined was when the breeze and seastate got up such that the F31 needed to back off.  It prompted further discussion of how the proa might be a better heavy weather offshore platform than a cat or tri.  Not sure if you agree that or not.  But if you don't mind I was wondering if you could explain why you picked a proa for this voyage (compared to a cat or tri):

  * Because it hasn't been done before by a proa and specifically looking to prove that the proa platform is capable of making this type of journey safely?

  * Because the proa offered the best bang for the $ in terms of acquisition cost?

  * Because the proa would be fastest?

  * Because the proa would be safest?

If being safest is part of it, I would really appreciate to understand why you think that. 

Hope you are well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wess said:

There are some pretty wild claims on this thread (as fast or faster than a Seacart 30)

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 have to admire proas for their engineering elegance and how they give such a great (probably the best) knots per dollar or knots for the material requirements. But the truth is, that's so rarely the driving factor in boat choice that, for the overwhelming majority of people, there are other types of boats that meet their needs better. Personally, I'm happy to see anyone out enjoying their time on the water and really don't care if they're sailing a proa, a condomaran, or a puddleduck racer.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

 

A while back your crew (think it was you owning Jzerro then) posted about the experience of racing Jzerro against an F31R and being somewhat faster or slower depending on conditions but that where Jzerro shined was when the breeze and seastate got up such that the F31 needed to back off.  It prompted further discussion of how the proa might be a better heavy weather offshore platform than a cat or tri.  Not sure if you agree that or not.  But if you don't mind I was wondering if you could explain why you picked a proa for this voyage (compared to a cat or tri):

  * Because it hasn't been done before by a proa and specifically looking to prove that the proa platform is capable of making this type of journey safely?

  * Because the proa offered the best bang for the $ in terms of acquisition cost?

  * Because the proa would be fastest?

  * Because the proa would be safest?

If being safest is part of it, I would really appreciate to understand why you think that. 

Hope you are well.

Thanks for the support.  We did race against an F31R and they were clearly faster than us in light air out of the bay.  We had a strategic difference that benefited us, so it wasn't apples for apples during the first 24 hours.  They stayed closer to rhumbline and we went as far east as we could.  24 hours into it they were ahead DTF, but only a little further south than us (Pensacola to Isla Mujeres).  We rolled the dice on a big shift filling in from the East and we both sailed most of the night in very light wind that first night.  By day break the wind began it's 270 degree swing to the east, and we were over 20 miles E of the F32R after it settled in.  So we benefited from the new wind for longer and actually saw their silhouette to the west, at dusk the second night.   That evening we crossed the northern end of the Gulf Stream "loop" and inside the loop there was (as usual) a really nasty sea state.  Short waves from every direction.  Jzerro happily romped through there but it was very unpleasant for the crew. Because of our lee hull having high freeboard, no water came over the prow.  Having sailed trimarans a bit I knew they would be having to slow down to A. keep their sanity and B. safely keep their ama from diving.  We kept our bow E of rhumbline in anticipation of the header.  On the third night I saw their silhouette on the horizon behind us as we both set up for a night of unstable showers from the SE.  After sunrise we crossed the GS again on our approach to Isla Mujeres.  This was moderate 11-15 knots close to the wind, but not a full beat, in relatively flat water.  After reviewing the race tracker, it appears this is where we actually extended the most, the last 60 or 80 miles close hauled in over 10 knots and flat water.  We finished two hours ahead of them.  So I don't know what that means, but I know they were an experienced team, as I've also seen them at the end of a Pensacola to Havana race and a Chicago Mac race.  There was a short tacking duel leaving the Pensacola Bay channel and it was a joke.  They were long gone by the time we finished our third tack.  The only other big maneuver after that was a gybe the next morning and we were on port tack for the remaining 450 miles.  

*I didn't pick the proa because it was specifically unique.  This record has never been done at all, so I could have chosen a Cape Dory 36 if I wanted, but I wanted to do it quickly with a limited budget and low running costs.  A Class 40 is an obvious choice, but I think a vast majority of them would be slower and the price would be way higher to run and own.

*Yes, more knots/$.  

*The Jzerro option was the fastest option for a small budget.

*As previously mentioned I would never attempt this on a 3,200 lb trimaran or cat.  I don't think their beams are up to task and the boat would be a lot shorter.  Honestly it would have to be a pretty robust tri or cat for me to attempt something like this and I'd probably end up on the Cape Dory 36' as the second option, based on budget.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, andykane said:

 

1 hour ago, Wess said:

There are some pretty wild claims on this thread (as fast or faster than a Seacart 30)

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 have to admire proas for their engineering elegance and how they give such a great (probably the best) knots per dollar or knots for the material requirements

This.

And Ryan and Russell are not the only Proa sailors with offshore experience, unless 4 Fastnets and RORC class offshore poinscore championships, 2 Sydney Hobarts with a class win and a shit load of other offshore stuff over 40 years doesn’t count in your world.

You start with with paper theory and analysis, and it is all you have to continue with,  until there is something else to go on.....

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

This.

And Ryan and Russell are not the only Proa sailors with offshore experience, unless 4 Fastnets and RORC class offshore poinscore championships, 2 Sydney Hobarts with a class win and a shit load of other offshore stuff over 40 years doesn’t count in your world.

You start with with paper theory and analysis, and is all you have to continue with,  until there is something else to go on.....

No I mean what I said which is those folks are unique in sailing their proas offshore.  Are you claiming that any of what you describe above was in a proa?  Heck you even posted on here that you would not race your proa.  Not busting your chops; my wife or I will not race our current triamaran either (the old joke of you did what to your living room?) though I did race the last.

I was responding to Proa's (the person) post where yet again it was again inferred proas are faster than their competitors (and come on that is a constant theme you folks spout) and my point remains that I really don't see any real world (not paper theory) race course evidence of that. They seem length for length slower and lbs for lbs similar (my best GUESS - not claiming any expertise - based on what limited real world evidence exists) compared to other multis.

And before you start thinking I am attacking proas (or you); I ain't.  I was and still am interested to learn more about heavy weather capability and storm force/survival tactics in a proa as some seem to suggest they maybe have an edge here and that is interesting (to me).  But again, in that regard I am more interested to be hearing from somebody who owns or owned one and was or is sailing their proa boat offshore.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

Ryan - I really enjoy reading your stuff because you are one of the very few (only one I know of) who actually owns and sails offshore in a proa..........  Point is both what you do and how you post afford you a lot of credibility. 

A while back your crew (think it was you owning Jzerro then) posted about the experience of racing Jzerro against an F31R and being somewhat faster or slower depending on conditions but that where Jzerro shined was when the breeze and seastate got up such that the F31 needed to back off.  It prompted further discussion of how the proa might be a better heavy weather offshore platform than a cat or tri.  Not sure if you agree that or not.  But if you don't mind I was wondering if you could explain why you picked a proa for this voyage (compared to a cat or tri):

  * Because it hasn't been done before by a proa and specifically looking to prove that the proa platform is capable of making this type of journey safely?

  * Because the proa offered the best bang for the $ in terms of acquisition cost?

  * Because the proa would be fastest?

  * Because the proa would be safest?

If being safest is part of it, I would really appreciate to understand why you think that. 

 Hope you are well.

Fixed it for you......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m asking for reals here, doesn’t a biplane catamaran with 2 freestanding rigs share most of the advantages and few of the disadvantages of a proa?  And yes, I’ve actually been aboard Solarbri’s former boat and spent quite a bit of time talking to the original designer/builder. And yes, that guy is a real genius whose latest project is a proa!  I’ve only seen his proa a couple times and haven’t gotten to pick his brain about it. I really enjoyed reading about Jzerro being able to keep the hammer down when an F31 couldn’t. In my little world the F31 has always seemed a pretty damned robust boat so if Jzerro was able to beat it in rough conditions that’s very impressive. I still don’t quite get the concern about beam failure. The few times when Fboats have flipped the beams never failed, even during hard recovery afterwards.  I’d be way more worried about a big surprise squall flipping me than a beam failure in an F. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, r.finn said:

Honestly it would have to be a pretty robust tri or cat for me to attempt something like this and I'd probably end up on the Cape Dory 36' as the second option, based on budget.

Are you aware of and what do you think of the F40 trimaran Skateaway?  Not same budget (great build) but similar size and weight to Jzerro.  I would think that boat would also be up to the task.  FYI, the builder and designer (Keith Burrage) sometimes posts on SA but I doubt is aware of or on this thread. 

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

I’m asking for reals here, doesn’t a biplane catamaran with 2 freestanding rigs share most of the advantages and few of the disadvantages of a proa?

Some random theoretical comments:

 Two full sized hulls and heavier (despite absent central mast loading) bridging structure means weight can be saved and put towards a longer leeward hull and a smaller windward one. As you say, structural strength isn’t the issue, but the weight saved is. And then there is windage saved as well.

Sections on Rig/aerodynamic drag and Computer aided design: http://www.cateco.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Multihull-design_Shuttleworth.pdf

Cat Biplane rigs would have a similar “hole” to Sidecar between ~ 60 and 150 AWA. Possibly worse, due to the larger (relative to Sidecar) windward sail.

When you have to reef, which sail do you reef first? (Answer: weather one). If you are doing a lot of tacking, do you reef both or are you going to unreef and rereef every tack? Ditto schooner proas. Sidecar doesn’t have to do either, but I reef the leeward one first.

2 (untidy)reefs:

69AA510B-40C3-43F2-90A9-3E595CFC7797.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, interesting and useful thoughts.  Weight and windage...  Just my opinion but in a well-designed, well-built cat I don't think either are so bad.  Can you tack well with a reefed biplane?  I don't know but I'm guessing you can, I'm also guessing the lower center of effort means you could reef later?  Can you tack the biplane with only the leeward main flying?  Hmmmm...Maybe we should call Pete Goss?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mundt said:

Just my opinion but in a well-designed, well-built cat I don't think either are so bad.  Can you tack well with a reefed biplane?  I don't know but I'm guessing you can, I'm also guessing the lower center of effort means you could reef later?  Can you tack the biplane with only the leeward main flying? 

It is not a matter of “bad”, but of optimisation/minimisation...... in that respect, Proas offer more possibilities. And the faster you go, the more important it gets. Also, the less power (ie motoring with a feeble motor) you have, the  more important it gets.

For both reasons, I busted my butt to get Sidecar “aerodynamic” at ~ 30 degrees AWA and keep it light without carbon. More improvements still to come.

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

Some random theoretical comments:

 Two full sized hulls and heavier (despite absent central mast loading) bridging structure means weight can be saved and put towards a longer leeward hull and a smaller windward one. As you say, structural strength isn’t the issue, but the weight saved is. And then there is windage saved as well.

Sections on Rig/aerodynamic drag and Computer aided design: http://www.cateco.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Multihull-design_Shuttleworth.pdf

Cat Biplane rigs would have a similar “hole” to Sidecar between ~ 60 and 150 AWA. Possibly worse, due to the larger (relative to Sidecar) windward sail.

When you have to reef, which sail do you reef first? (Answer: weather one). If you are doing a lot of tacking, do you reef both or are you going to unreef and rereef every tack? Ditto schooner proas. Sidecar doesn’t have to do either, but I reef the leeward one first.

2 (untidy)reefs:

69AA510B-40C3-43F2-90A9-3E595CFC7797.jpeg
 

 

Why do you think the bridge deck has to be any heavier on a biplane cat than on a Proa? Seems like they can both be built to a minimum of two beams and some netting. If that’s the goal. Also, I feel like the “hole” you speak of is much more like between 80 and 110 or so. 
If I were to need to reef while sailing upwind, I put a reef in each sail, to keep the drive consistent in each hull. Will it tack with only one sail up? Only if it’s blowing pretty hard and we have lots of way on. On one trip across the sea of Cortez, I reefed by taking one sail completely down, while sailing downwind (1/2 the sail area), so I could slow down and get some rest. 
I’ve yet to be on a better cruising platform than a biplane rigged cat, sailing downwind, wing on wing.  Anything else is uncivilized  as far as I’m concerned. 
And the cool thing with my boat, is, I get to store it for cheap, sitting on the trailer, while spend time with family. 
(I still own her). 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Solarbri said:

Why do you think the bridge deck has to be any heavier on a biplane cat than on a Proa?

Higher loads.

Oversimplified summary:

Has to be able to lift half the weight instead of a quarter.

Higher twisting loads due to longer ww hull.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

With so so so many cats and tri out sailing all over the world can somebody please direct me to a list of the many failed beams?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh, it's not about beam failure, pacific proas don't sail on the crossbeams like tris do,  it's about reduced beam loads which let you have lighter beams and lighter scantlings in the hulls to carry those beams, which lets you have a smaller rig because it's pushing less parasitic weight which let you have lighter beams to carry the rig, it's a spiral, where you get off is up to you.

Look at it this way, over half a trimaran exists only to keep the rest of the boat from falling over, on a pacific proa it's about 15% of the boat that exists for the sole purpose of keeping the rest of the boat from falling over, the  saved weight can be used to make the boat longer and probably faster than a tri that weighs about the same, why is such a simple thing so hard for tri sailers to understand?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that calls to hear from actual proa sailors are coming from some of the most prolific posters in this thread, most of whom have never sailed a proa themselves. 

FYI, here is a list of participants in this thread to date and how many times each person has posted here:

Sidecar, 41
mundt, 39
r.finn, 36
SeaGul, 33
TwoBirds, 29
ProaSailor, 22
Wess, 19

Solarbri, 9
MultiThom, 8
Raz'r, 7
KONeill, 6
Ovakus, 6
unShirley, 5
PIL66 - XL2, 5
Rasputin22, 5
KC375, 4
oldsurfer, 4
harryproa, 4
ALL@SEA, 4
Boudreaux, 3
mathystuff, 3
Merlin Hawaii, 3
Guvacine, 3
triple jim, 3
Geese, 2
Max Rockatansky, 2
Laurent, 2
MRS OCTOPUS, 2
lucdekeyser, 2
peterbike, 2
soma, 1
Waynemarlow, 1
boardhead, 1
Tom Kirkman, 1
can-UK, 1
Bill Gibbs, 1
weightless, 1
stief, 1
Autonomous, 1
Russell Brown, 1
Monkey, 1
fufkin, 1
Training Wheels, 1
multihuler, 1
Bruno, 1
he b gb, 1
Keith, 1
El Borracho, 1
andykane, 1

 

Kind of a "quorum call", so to speak.  Just sayin'...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the way you explain it makes some sense but wth well-built beams (as unofficial rep of tri sailors) I feel like the weight and likelihood of failure is really insignificant.  The cost of building another ama?  I'm terrible at building things but I'm guessing if you already built one then the cost and time of building another is pretty minimal.  One advantage of the Proa might be narrower overall beam for dockage?  And I'm probably one of the few here who have ripped a beam right out of the boat.  I get that what you're saying is that if your 2 driving criteria are lightest and cheapest then probably the proa wins.  Sidecar and Jzerro are amazing boats.  I also think Solarbri's boat is incredible and well-proven too.  Forgive me, for I have sinned but I even like a few monos.  It is interesting that the real serious French record chasers seem convinced that a trimaran is the way to get it done. Wouldn't it be cool if VPLP designed and built a G class proa?  Would a 150 foot proa cost as much as a 125 foot tri?  Would it be faster and easier to operate?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mundt said:

Wouldn't it be cool if VPLP designed and built a G class proa?

I would LOVE to see what they could do.... Hell, if I was a rich man, I would PAY big time to see what they could do..... . I would also get Morrelli and Melvin to design one too AND  build them both.

“Proa theory” should get increasingly better as displacements/sizes increase.....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

the weight becomes fairly significant when you compare the tris two sets of beams that each has to carry 2/3s or more of the boats weight to the proas one set of beams that only have to carry 1/6th of the boats total weight...

then consider that the tri's amas will weigh at least 4 times as much as the proas ama, and we haven't even mentioned the extra structure in all 3 of the tris hulls needed to carry 2/3s of the boats weight as opposed to the proas 1/6th of the boat in two hulls.

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with beam failure, that's simply not a consideration for a pacific proa because pacific proas do not sail on their cross beams as cats and tris do, it's about the benefits of reduced beam loads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn you Sawash!  I'm the laziest bastard on this thread!  If it wasn't so work intensive I'd have to make a lot of threats and rantings right now...  I gotta take a quick nap

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW even a horribly lazy guy like me could carry around my multi 23 ama (yes the entire ama) pretty easily and my L7 g10 Ibeams are ridiculously light, strong and simple.  But like I said, If you are super determined to go as light as possible I guess the proa wins.  But here's something crazy:  Water ballast on the proa!  Hahaha!  Anybody that tells me it's a good idea to build the lightest, least loaded boat and then adds water ballast????  I've tried to be as nice as possible here but there's something really... unfortunate about water ballast to me.  I keep a sponge and bucket on my boat specifically to get rid of that shit.  Sorry bout that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simplistically, imagine this:

Cut the leeward hull of 36ft Solarbri into halves. Cut the windward hull into thirds.

Fix the windward middle third between the two leeward halves and you get a 48 ft leeward hull. Join the outer windward thirds back together and you get a 24ft ama. Plus you also have spare weight and  material shaved off the two fat sterns and the lighter, less loaded bridging structure....Where to put it ?

Would 48 ft (and more) Solarbri be faster,  more comfortable and safer with the same sail area than the 36 ft Solarbri for exactly the same money? You could even leave the rig biplane as it was.....

Imagine what you could do for the same pile of material starting from scratch......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of further upsetting @Wess and @SeaGul consider this simplistic sacrilege:

Cut away the beams of a SeaCart 30. Then join the amas end to end, so that they are 60ft LOA. Now reattach enlarged ama back to the main hull again with some of the beam structure. You will still  have significant spare crossbeam and shaved off stern weight/material of the main hull to configure the result any way you want, Atlantic, WTW or pacific.

Would a 60 ft “SeaCart” Proa be faster, more comfortable and safer than a SeaCart 30 for the same rig and money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even a dummy like me can see the value in that, good illustration!  And holy shit, a 60 foot Seacart proa would be amazing.  Please tell me it wouldn't want water ballast and you will have fulfilled my most erotic boat porn fantasy of all times!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sidecar said:

At the risk of further upsetting @Wess and @SeaGul consider this simplistic sacrilege:

Cut away the beams of a SeaCart 30. Then join the amas end to end, so that they are 60ft LOA. Now reattach enlarged ama back to the main hull again with some of the beam structure. You will still  have significant spare crossbeam and shaved off stern weight/material of the main hull to configure the result any way you want, Atlantic, WTW or pacific.

Would a 60 ft “SeaCart” Proa be faster, more comfortable and safer than a SeaCart 30 for the same rig and money?

Why you need a 60ft ama to windward? - it will be the 30ft hull that predicts the speed on a pacific proa? Still if it has to shunt it looses. 

And making hulls - the cost lies in the ends and all the added things  - if you are going to build  a SC30 main-hull - one off not from mould - you could make it 40ft by extend the midsection without too much cost - but you will have a lot useful volume and a faster hull/bigger boat. A 40ft ama will mach it - then have one dagger and one rudder in main hull. 

Basic you have now a very fast boat - then the rig - a problem it cant be stayed like a tri  - you have to make something there - so its a disadvantage - but can be solved. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mundt said:

Even a dummy like me can see the value in that, good illustration!  And holy shit, a 60 foot Seacart proa would be amazing.  Please tell me it wouldn't want water ballast and you will have fulfilled my most erotic boat porn fantasy of all times!

And here is a trick question for you..... Which had more windage/aero drag? The SeaCart 60 Proa or the SeaCart 30 tri?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sidecar said:

At the risk of further upsetting @Wess and @SeaGul consider this simplistic sacrilege:

Cut away the beams of a SeaCart 30. Then join the amas end to end, so that they are 60ft LOA. Now reattach enlarged ama back to the main hull again with some of the beam structure. You will still  have significant spare crossbeam and shaved off stern weight/material of the main hull to configure the result any way you want, Atlantic, WTW or pacific.

Would a 60 ft “SeaCart” Proa be faster, more comfortable and safer than a SeaCart 30 for the same rig and money?

But this Seacart proa is far less stable or safe compared to the Seacart trimaran and will need the pod to keep it upright and/or mast floats etc... like you see on other proas, no? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wess said:

Are you aware of and what do you think of the F40 trimaran Skateaway?  Not same budget (great build) but similar size and weight to Jzerro.  I would think that boat would also be up to the task.  FYI, the builder and designer (Keith Burrage) sometimes posts on SA but I doubt is aware of or on this thread. 

When Ryan was looking at options to dock/fix Jzerro I offered my New Jersey facility and it certainly did occur to me that he could have switched rides for his adventure. Just sitting these two, real world, offshore proven vessels side by side and reviewing the fine print in each execution would have been of great interest to both parties. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, boardhead said:

When Ryan was looking at options to dock/fix Jzerro I offered my New Jersey facility and it certainly did occur to me that he could have switched rides for his adventure. Just sitting these two, real world, offshore proven vessels side by side and reviewing the fine print in each execution would have been of great interest to both parties. 

Yea I hesitated to post the question and regretted it as soon as it was obvious that Ryan didn't know the boat.  Didn't want you to get sucked into a topic that seems to get hackles up of a few.  Did knida figure that you, Russell (Brown) and Ryan would all like each other in a kindred spirits kinda way.  And I too thought of your spot when Ryan was headed back towards NJ and the east coast.  Do you still have that property on the barrier island?

Personally I think both Skateaway and Jzerro are cool boats and very similar in many ways.  Both are fairly light and small by today's standards but also fast and capable of the task of serious offshore sailing.  Both are no frills (and I mean that in a nice way) but comfortable and not just stripped out racers.  Both were designed, built and sailed extensively offshore by their original owners. I am guessing Skateway would be a bit faster and I would be more comfortable in her offshore in terms of safety simply because I know the type (trimaran) and lack proa experience.  Ryan is a straight-up and experienced guy and is obviously more comfortable with the proa which intrigues me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its rather big difference here; 40ft ocean going powerful trimaran with  - see the vid. very easy 20+ knots - no effort - can take the payload that trip needs - so its the right thing to use. But it was listed at 280.000USD. 

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

I think its rather big difference here; 40ft ocean going powerful trimaran with  - see the vid. very easy 20+ knots - no effort - can take the payload that trip needs - so its the right thing to use. But it was listed at 280.000USD. 

most things more doable if you throw a quarter mil at them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you add a pod - but bow and stern and tacking - atlantic on one tack and pacific on the other. 

To sum up:

Tacking/jibbing is better than shunting.

To have a bow and stern is better than symmetric - can have more space and a "longer" hull for the same lengt. 

Just one dagger and one rudder - no need to double up or change place. Simpler and easier to use. 

Rigging - unstayed and you have the same advantages as other proas.

Very light and cheap - one main hull and one ama. 

Better for motor. 

 

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

Of course you add a pod - but bow and stern and tacking - atlantic on one tack and pacific on the other. 

To sum up:

Tacking/jibbing is better than shunting.

To have a bow and stern is better than symmetric - can have more space and a "longer" hull for the same lengt. 

Just one dagger and one rudder - no need to double up or change place. Simpler and easier to use. 

Rigging - unstayed and you have the same advantages as other proas.

Very light and cheap - one main hull and one ama. 

Better for motor. 

Why are you in a proa thread?  Your purpose from the beginning has been to disparage proas and you are very prolific about it.  Please fuck off and find a thread you can be enthusiastic about.  Begone troll!

I'm inclined to down vote you again but have reached a point where ignoring you is the wiser course.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro-people are very sensitive - but its very hard to get some facts. Downvote what you want. The basic idea of proa I got after a while - but I can not see the point in shunting and symmetric ends. But there a solution to that - why isnt this popular - is it dogmatism?  

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

Pro-people are very sensitive - but its very hard to get some facts. Downvote what you want. The basic idea of proa I got after a while - but I can not see the point in shunting and symmetric ends. But there a solution to that - why isnt this popular - is it dogmatism?  

 

bla bla.gif

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

To have a bow and stern is better than symmetric - can have more space and a "longer" hull for the same lengt

 Just one dagger and one rudder - no need to double up or change place. Simpler and easier to use. 

The bows/sterns remarks are funny coming from a viking.....Reimers, Rasmussen et al would turn over in their graves.

 Maybe the Vikings missed a trick by not using their long ships as mono proas? Same righting moment... and they wouldn’t have to wear round a square sail.... Shunting probably would have been faster, and more certain.

All of Farrier’s amas are effectively double Enders, and G32 cat sailors might also beg to differ.

And most high performance multihulls these days have more that one rudder, and in the of cats, two centreboards...A few tris even have three centreboards.

 Sidecar BTW has no centreboards, so am I allowed the extra rudder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is MUCH more interesting, a concept that deserves a lot more development offering the stability of an outrageously wide trimaran on the "Atlantic" board and minimal hull drag for light air performance on the Pacific board.

I think this looks like a load of fun for a protected waters retirement toy - I could go for this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, boardhead said:

So this is MUCH more interesting, a concept that deserves a lot more development offering the stability of an outrageously wide trimaran on the "Atlantic" board and minimal hull drag for light air performance on the Pacific board.

I think this looks like a load of fun for a protected waters retirement toy - I could go for this!

A local guy built one, sailed it for a couple years and now is making a trimaran instead.  Must have some flaws he couldn't get past.  I think it might have been too wet a ride with bigger wind if I recall correctly and too long to set up/take down (trailer sailor).  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MultiThom said:

A local guy built one, sailed it for a couple years and now is making a trimaran instead.  Must have some flaws he couldn't get past.

So by this logic, anyone who has ever built a trimaran and then gone on to build another boat is proof that trimarans are a flawed concept.

Am I doing this right?

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

So by this logic, anyone who has ever built a trimaran and then gone on to build another boat is proof that trimarans are a flawed concept.

Am I doing this right?

Yah.  Simple logic for simplistic minds. Especially suited for people who can't read a second and third sentence explaining the first.

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

Pro-people are very sensitive - but its very hard to get some facts. Downvote what you want. The basic idea of proa I got after a while - but I can not see the point in shunting and symmetric ends. But there a solution to that - why isnt this popular - is it dogmatism?  

Replace science with proa... though you probably struggle with science too.

Image result for your inability to understand science

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All@sea,    could you please be a little bit more definitive ?

There are a few different types of proa - which one are you talking about ?

eg.;   the gorgeous one that I posted above ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice boats that is linked over - makes a lot sense. 

Vikingships and traditions boats - yes many are double enders - using planks it makes sense - also bec they dont sail faster that the following seas and have to have a solution for that. Vikings - like the people in the pacific used streering-oar - not rudders - they had no daggers either and didnt know how a good foil should be shaped. Yes Farrier has double end amas - he had a reason for that - a SC30 has a "longer" amas that is cut - and its a lot faster. 

Im from the region of Oseberg and Gokstad - some years ago we met the Oseberg replika on its first sailtest with the yellow tri. And I followed the building of it - very impressive from logs to vikingship using basically an axe.

I have nothing to do with Harryproa. The argument og one big hull is a good - and I have experienced that a trimaran has some issues with slamming hulls and motion in seas. 

Many foils; its ok - a tacking proa could have good use of two rudders and even two daggers - the problem is when a rudder or dagger has to work both ways - then it gets complicated.   Same with the rig.

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

the problem is when a rudder or dagger has to work both ways - then it gets complicated.   Same with the rig.

This feels like an endless argument, but two way foils are not a problem. Tom Speer drew some nice two way profiles that work great. I have a 6' Speer profile leeboard on my boat. Works great. It's not complicated, it's a board. It sticks down in the water, you go to windward. Very simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

other than a stabilized monohull like Akka I don't really see the point in tacking outriggers, they have to be overpowered on one tack or underpowered on the other, or both.

RDA-ML_1.JPG.eeb231ebefd78a2a94bb4098e6bbfb37.JPG

if you're going to tack then cats and tri's do a much better job, weight saving is minimal since you have to make most of a full set of beams for both sides, and once you add in a safety ama you've got an odd looking trimaran that weighs just as much and is much less efficient.

The Vaa motu is a really gorgeous boat, I'd love to go for a ride on it, heck, I'd like to build one :) but I don't see how it does anything as well as a proa on one hand or a tri on the other.

 

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

Tom Speer drew some nice two way profiles that work great.

http://www.islandcad.com/grasshopper/Speer_foils/

Speer_foils_2_anim.gif.0bf2d104925667f597a6dfa9986e8099.gif

The image below is a Speer Proa 3-Series P30208 section T-foil with a 30" chord, a horizontal span of 5+ feet, two ~12" vertical tips and a P30008 section vertical strut with 24" chord:

P30208_Jun22f.thumb.png.6450cbb95e5858fa938198419777a54d.png

Sections for Proa Boards and Rudders
http://www.basiliscus.com/ProaSections/ProaIndex.html

 

Or you could use conventional foils and allow the spade rudders to spin 360 degrees...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, TwoBirds said:

I don't really see the point in tacking outriggers

One utility of tacking outriggers is to allow for an interesting experiment comparing a pacific to atlantic proa by simply tacking. I get it that the comparison is not perfect but still my impression (correct me if I'm wrong) was that most tacking outriggers don't find that one tack is significantly faster than the other and I always thought that was interesting. The two configurations are different enough that I would have guessed that a preferred tack would emerge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot find a picture of it, but in the 90's there was a successful 60+/- foot tacking proa that won a handful of races in the Med but was lost during a transatlantic race.  It was yellow with large, round beam sections and very wide.  Anyone know the boat I'm thinking of?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, r.finn said:

I cannot find a picture of it, but in the 90's there was a successful 60+/- foot tacking proa that won a handful of races in the Med but was lost during a transatlantic race.  It was yellow with large, round beam sections and very wide.  Anyone know the boat I'm thinking of?

Ask, and you shall receive...

https://histoiredeshalfs.com/50 multis/G DF14.htm

Sorry, in French...

If I remember well, it was built with bits and pieces from former multihulls.

It did not end well...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites