Rob, get real. 18 point reply by Steven Callahan

posts by Steven Callahan to proa_file forum:

Part 2(b): Jzerro, that miserable dog
"your logic defies logic", May 10

comments: May 24
a disservice to those really interested in proas, Stay tuned for more, stiffening of the beams, the hull flying, Jzerro did not fail as a boat, overtake waves when running, water ballast, solid water on the deck, anything but academic, "constantly" meaning regularly

Part 4: Those Islanders; What Where They Thinking? May 24

comments: May 25
did not have to shift ballast frequently on Jzerro, method of determining RM, adding to higher levels of normal stress on the beams, excess RM can be as much of a problem as too little, it is futile and is simply to reply to utter nonsense

repetitious and conscious deceptions
Sep 8, 2011

Rob, get real. 18 point reply Sep 8, 2011

beam loads Sep 10, 2011

freedom 20 masts Sep 26, 2011

so long ProaFile Sep 26, 2011

www.stevencallahan.net

Rob, get real. Your conclusions for points 1-3 and 8 are oversimplified-soundbite oversimplifications or outright misinterpretations and are not based on relevant quotes in context, which I've noted before. When I first read your "sources" I just laughed. This is no way to cite actual references and are not at all specific. They would be more accurate if you had written: Source: Presumptions to support my theories based on something I read or fantasized. At least most of this entire list is an intentional attempt to deceive and, at best, hugely oversimplified. Even these replies will be oversimplified, but who has time to keep up with the deluge of disinformation you emit?

Denny: 1) They are wet boats compared to harryproas. Source: Cruising World article.

SC: Completely untrue. I never wrote Jzerro was a wet boat. Doesn't mean you can't get wet. It's a BOAT, Rob, and my rear has gotten wet on virtually every boat I've sailed. When we did get wet it was because we were handling foul weather. Pilot houses and dodgers existed well before HarryProas and can be fit to ANY boat type. I never compared Jzerro's state of dryness to a HarryProa except to note that in your videos, taken on flat waters with virtually no whitecaps with the boat on a reach, your leeward hull is already scooping up a good amount of water, which would be shed out and down from Jzerro's bow. Anyone can compare the videos of your boat with claimed speed and Jzerro with GPS speed shown, which has no water being thrown on deck.

Denny: 2) They need constant attention to ballast, trim and steering to keep the ama (windward hull) from slamming in waves, unlike harrys which, quite simply, don't. Source: Cruising World article

SC: Untrue. I never wrote or said this, and have corrected you more than once. I did say that we chose to trim the boat and steer sometimes to get the best performance out of her. We also let her lope along a much greater part of the time under autopilot (clearly stated in article). I also discussed ama shape in relation to having at times too much stability, and the greatest motion in the boat from the ama taking off of a wave and then re-entering---not a regular or daily experience.

Denny: 3) If Jzerro gybes with the mainsail up in a blow, the mast gets blown away, unlike a harry where the rig weathercocks, and the boat slowly stops. Source: Your quote. Same article.

SC: I also have answered this. The conditions at this very limited time were boisterous, and I would be concerned on any boat. My conclusions at the time were wrong, but I wrote the article log-style, accurately recording our greatest worry. In the final analysis, Jzerro and other Brown proas have been caught aback, sailed aback, laid ahull the wrong way, and gybed, all without losing their rigs. The splayed fore/backstays act like swept-back shrouds on boats with big mains and no backstays, like open-style designs sailed 'round the world routinely. As for a boat with ballestron rig, even if it can rotate 180 degrees, if it is sheeted off when a gybe occurs, unless the sheet is freed in time (impossible on autopilot as we were on at the time in question), it, too, can still impose sufficient loads on the rig to dismast it.

I'll let Russell address 4 if he chooses, but I sailed Jzerro offshore, and I confess to less skill than Russell.

Denny: 5) Beam to in big breaking seas, your boats will slip sideways and, if heeled enough, the large flat pod will act like the lee hull of a 60's era small float trimaran and cause the boat to capsize sideways. Source: Trimaran experience.

SC: Oversimplified misleading disinformation: Not much detail about the trimaran experience, but I sailed quite a lot on FT, a minimal-bouyancy trimaran, Kauri, and Jzerro, and found that capsize does not necessarily follow being beam to in big seas. We drove FT relentlessly with float under water routinely in the 1979 Bermuda Race, and won. There is as substantive arguments against full-bouyancy floats contributing to capsize (hulls lift and are subject to forces from wind and breaking waves). In any case, never has Jzerro or any Brown proa tripped over the pod. It has proven very effective for preventing capsize in storm conditions.

Denny: 6) The beams of a Pacific proa need to be stronger than those of a harry of similar overall weight and beam. If you dispute this, please tell us what you expect to happen to the beams if the boat is caught aback in a strong enough gust to lift the accommodation hull.

SC: Curious engineering: Designers I know design for maximum loads, plus a factor of safety. Newick's approach is to be able to support entire boat weight on the end of a single beam end. In other words, if the boats have equal maximum beam, weight and maxium righting moment, they should have the same beams strengths. A HarryProa type could reach maximum RM on normal sailing tacts, Pacific proas should the ama be caught to leeward, that's all. I have no worries about Brown's proas having enough strength in the cross arms to withstand maximum load of the ama is caught to leeward. You have zero evidence otherwise. After crossing oceans and surviving multiple gales, his boats have suffered no beam failures.

7) 38' Cimba is near enough the same weight as the 50' Blind Date, with less sail area and much less accommodation. Source: Wooden Boat magazine layout drawing

SC: Also curious: Not sure how you build a 50 footer with much more accommodation (and therefore cruising loads)and as you point out later, much greater righting moment, but at the same weight as a 36-37 foot sporty cruiser that employs pretty lightweight construction (more below) without either the smaller boat being overbuilt, which it appears not to be, or yours being underbuilt, but perhaps you do build with unobtanium.

Denny: 8) Sitting in the spray to leeward and having to carry anchors, chain and equipment back and forth between the hulls in rough seas is less pleasant than sitting in the sheltered cockpit in the windward hull of a harry along with all the ballast which can be moved to leeward in quiet conditions, if required. Source: Cruising World article

SC: Curious logic and intentional misrepresentation: I don't recall mentioning HarryProas or comparing. And what you say might be a partially valid comparison to Brown's boats if we did sit in spray and humped anchors and chains between hulls a lot, but we didn't and you know we didn't. Any cockpit can be covered to keep spray off of crew. Does Brown shift ballast ever? Sure. Did we? Sure. As I recall, at some days out, we decided the ama was providing too much stability and was riding too heavily for maximum comfort and speed, so we pulled an anchor and rode out. No problem at all. Took all of two minutes. We could, remotely from cockpit, add water ballast should we choose. (I don't recall ever using it, but Russell may have added some for a bit while I was off watch). Backwards logic is that if you move ballast to leeward in light conditions on a Harry, do you go down to that wave-piercing wet hull in heavy conditions when you need to move it back to windward? Seems to me a lot safer the other way around as we did. Also, I like having mast and sail controls at hand as in Jzerro, not way off on a hull being covered in spray and possibly solid water with no secure cockpit, especially if one needs to free a snagged line, reef, or deal with any other rig problem.

Denny: 9) Only 4 of your large proas have been built, despite a lot of effort to sell the concept. This is nothing to do with you, apart from your quoted negative comments above. It is everything to do with the excellent Pacific proa web page and the attempts of Joe and Jim Antrim to sell boats based on yours.

SC: Self-contradictory disinformation: On the one hand, you criticize Russell for NOT trying to sell plans and being very conservative about recommending proas to people but now he's making "a lot of effort to sell the concept." Make up your mind. How the self-evident success of his designs have inspired others who might want to design similar proas lends only positive to them. What on earth is your point here?

Denny: 10) Your boats are beautifully built but have some weak points, which I have tried to correct on harryproas. Source: Comments from people who have sailed them.

SC: Pure and utter nonsense: You continually misquote those who've sailed with Russell on his boats and you have no experience on them. Among other things you have lied about, including but not limited to Russ's crew at Arlie beach and across the Tasman. Even if your proas address some compromises inherent in a Brown proa, so what? His have strengths over your compromises. Oh, I forgot, you're the only designer in history who creates boats without compromises.

Denny: 11) Jibs on proa forestays are a nightmare compared to a ballestron. They either take time to remove and rehank, which has to be done on a very narrow foredeck with no rails or they are furled with all the cost, weight and windage aloft this entails. They are another source of drama if caught aback. Source: last video at > http://pacificproa.com/brown/video.html

SC: Overgeneralized, overstatement, but at least, finally, an actual reference: I certainly stated that shunting Jzerro took a little time, but not long once I got the routine down, in part because the sail area is very small and easy to handle. I also wrote that it all happens without drama and in complete control. In the video you cite, it takes Russell from 00:50 to 02:36--less than two minutes--to get Kauri's jib unhanked, changed to the other end, raised and retrimmed. The boat already has been accelerating under the main on the new tack. No one is panicked, nor endangered. Generally, of course you can use two sails or one and change ends as shown on Kauri. We used two on Jzerro, which was quite fast; I'd say less than 30 seconds from tack to tack, and the spare, which is nice to know you have, rests securely on the prior bow, ready for re-use. In open waters, this may happen only once in days or weeks. The deck is not narrower than trimarans I've sailed and can be easily broadened and fit with more lifelines if one desired. Kauri and Jzerro have some lifelines at the ends, although minimal, but this has nothing to do with boat type. Also, I prefer the much wider choice in sail inventory than a fixed ballestron rig with limitation of working sail (unless, of course, you opt for multiple sails with all that cost, etc.) One thing I adore about Russ's boats is the number of sail options available to suit every condition, from setting double headsails and no mainsail running downwind to genoas, storm sails, spinnakers. Seems a personal choice to me.

Denny: 12) Deep V hulls with rocker pitch more than rounded hulls with none. Source: 3rd video, same page, sundry boat design texts.

SC: Where to start with this oversimplified mistruth? The video has no comparison with a HarryProa video as it is of Kauri going upwind. I only see HarryProas reaching in calm waters. Pitching is a very complex issue that has as much to do with weight and its concentration and how the boat is handled as it does hull shape. Hugo Myers developed models and tests that indicated the opposite of what you claim. If you want to see how a full-ended boat with no rocker can pitch badly, see Orma 60s go upwind against a big chop. That's one reason designers have compromised in recent years, introduced a bit more rocker and pinched the sterns of the amas. As the wave crest passes a full bow, it kicks upward, which can be resisted by a full stern, but as it passes aft, it also kicks the stern up and bow down, which can be resisted by a full bow. It's a matter of balance that designers have sought for centuries. Concentration of weights is very important, something a challenge to all multihulls with such a percentage of weight in the beams. Some of the most pitch-resistant boats have been monohulls with very full sterns and very narrow bows and weight very concentrated aft of amidships, but these boats had their own host of problems (wedges heeling out and lifting rudders free if knocked down; poor ultimate righting moment, etc. There is no evidence the HarryProa choice is better or worse than Brown's, and even if you ever prove it true, full ends and no rocker do incorporate other compromises. Full bows can add to resistance and little rocker usually slows the boat's ability to turn.

Denny: 14) The hole in the lee hull for the pod is in a highly loaded area, as is the cockpit. Both require more strengthening/weight/cost of the hull than the similar sized hole in the windward hull of a harryproa.

SC: Utter nonsense: The small companionway opening in Russell's boats are flanked by huge deck surface areas directly between head/backstays that are more than sufficient to carry all loads. He has never even had a hint of failure in these areas and this is a non-issue. The cockpit is dropped between the beams. It's side that carries the compression loads of the mast is more than sufficient. No matter where you put the mast, it is going to exert loads, and an unstayed stick places enormous twisting loads on the hull (and in a Harry's case, the end of beams in that hull. Loads are loads, and to pretend they exist only on Brown proas is simple folly. Quite the other way around: Normal working loads on a boat with greater displacement, higher-volume hulls, and greater righting moment are much, much greater. This is basic physics (force equals mass times acceleration or deceleration). Also, not sure why HarryProas have smaller companionways, but if they are, they're very tight indeed.

Denny: 15) The drag of the pod on the lee side of the lee hull is higher than if it was on the lee side of the windward hull.

SC: Again, utter nonsense. You have zero evidence of this. It might be true if the lee pod dragged all the time, but it rarely touches water. On the contrary, if on the windward side, the pod would be routinely exposed to breaking waves, especially in beam seas. When struck, the large area of pod and a hull to support it in a windward proa must suffer significant slamming.

Denny: 16) A harry with the same accommodation as Jzerro would beat it in a race. Source: The weights, sail areas, righting moments and lengths of the two boats.

SC: Pure speculation based on nothing real. You will get sillier and sillier. Weight, sail area, and righting moment are but a small piece of the overall performance figure and balance between developing power and reducing resistance. You supply no evidence that any Harry is remotely competitive. All I can say is, in your dreams. And if it were true, why didn't you take the opportunity to show us when Russ sailed all the way across the Pacific and remained in your general backyard and raced Jzerro? I know, you have plenty of excuses.

Denny: 17) The leeward pod is weight in the worst possible place. Source: boat design texts.

SC: Baffling disinformation: Worst for what? Yes, it puts some weight to leeward, but boat stability is based on center of weights and the pod is a very small weight compared to the overall boat weight and the center of gravity is well enough to windward to create more than enough righting moment. At the same time, the pod provides superb accommodations volume and reserve buoyancy. To say it's in the worst place is like saying to lee half of a monohull is in the worst place because the weight would be better on the windward side. Can boats have too much stability? Well, yes. In large craft, it can result in a high metacenter, which produces more aggravated motion that can become dangerous. In small craft, it just means usually a harsher motion, and unnecessary drag to carry sail. From the available videos of Harrys, which are sailing in very benign conditions on reaches, it appears to me that the masts are already pushed close to their limits, or at least show enough mast bend to already be spilling wind from the sails, but the windward hulls are still firmly planted in the sea. Why would you need the weight of a pod to give the platform more power than it can develop?

Denny, finally: 18) Double diagonal construction is slower and more expensive than strip planking, both of which are slower than infused flat panels.

SC: Say what? I spent five years building cold-molded hulls, and knew many who built strip plank, etc. We always figured it was six of one half dozen of the other in terms of difficulty and time. Much of any significant difference had to do with the individual design and details---is the framework inherent in the structure or is a mold required; can the surfaces be built with a more efficient method like Constant Camber; etc. Both methods remain competitive on a strength-per-weight basis and time to construct basis as cored fiberglass. All are best if vacuum bagged, but this can sound more intimidating than it is. Jim Brown and others have shown it can be learned quickly and practiced in places as remote as the middle of a jungle. AS for infused panels, well the folks who invented it at Tillotson Pearson, and the professional yards that use it routinely, like Hinckley and Gold Coast, all talk about how difficult it is to get right, flat panels or otherwise. You must be very careful to get full infusion without pooling. Dry spots are a disaster. I know of none of these folks who would recommend infusion for amateur building without training and supervision. If folks are successful with it, good on them, but for a one-off, I don't think I would bother to attack it any more than building a big oven and doing pre-preg.

Rob, I can understand why you might want to justify your fantasies, but trying to build your career and sell boat plans based on nothing more than making stuff up to belittle Russell Brown's work, which is just so amazingly successful in the real world, is really quite pathetic and irritating at the same time.

I would gain a good deal from you and begin to gather up a tad of respect for you if you would begin to be more candid about your own failures and learning curve, and to cite real sources for information on your boats, particularly your clients accounts of building and sailing them. I looked at Sailing Anarchy for a reference to one of your boats crossing the Tasman, and found nothing, for example. The only reference I saw, which you quoted, noted that the mast was stayed en route, presumably to limit its flex, and the lee hull suffered from flexing. You claim to having created the only commercially successful proa in the world, but you also complain that you never have enough dough to stick together and equip a boat to prove anything. That just doesn't fit together. You live in Australia but are conspicuously absent even the local regattas. And so why, I ask, should anyone take you seriously, and why do you presume to waste everyone's time until you begin to limit your discussions to one topic that can be rationally covered? Please, Rob, give all of us, including yourself, a break.

Rob, get real. 18 point reply by Steven Callahan, Sep 8, 2011 - (#29611) posted to Proa File International (groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file)