Denney Inquisition Part 2(b): Jzerro, that miserable dog by Steven Callahan, May 10, 2008 - posted to Proa File International (groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file)
Rob,
Again your logic defies logic. In one breath I have done nothing but
damage to the proa, and you have gone on and on about how I descibed
nothing but misery aboard Jzerro. In the next, I am "selling" his
boat! Strange kind of salesmanship, I'd say.
Maybe a voyage to you isn't about sunsets and flying fish, but then
again, what would you know, admitting to no real experience. I have
not at all corrected anything about what I have written, though I have
pointed out how you have taken tiny bits out of context--to the degree
of eliminating parts of sentences that were inconvenient to your
position.
I was not aware of any sigfinicant "droves" flocking to the world of
proas, so am not sure how I could put them all off. When Russ and I
began playing with proas in the 1970s, it was extremely rare to find
even another sailor who knew what they were. Even today, when I speak
to sailing groups, it is rare to find sailors who know anything about
them. I won't apologize for writing a piece that primarily extols the
virtues of very simple cruising, in this case on Jzerro, or brings
some knowledge about one proa to hundreds of thousands of readers.
Not sure how that does damage to proas or you, especially given that
you claim your boats have no real relation to a boat like Jzerro. As
per usual, your logic is completely illogical. If such a critique
were valid, an article I would do on a transatlantic racing machine
would be damaging to a company that produces conservative cruising
machines. It's just nonsense.
Why don't you just stop writing untruths about Jzerro about which you
know virtually nothing, and concentrate on your own boats? What is
your real agenda and need for trashing Jzerro? And why do you need to
continue to site me as a source for these unfounded attacks? You
believe a few words that YOU have picked out of context, while
completely denying what is coming straight from the horse's mouth.
How logical is that? This also is written stuff. Why are not my
replies and fuller explanations about what things are like aboard
Jzerro any less relevant than an article that is, by its nature,
greatly restricted in length?
As for more inaccuracies, see below:
--- In proa_file@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Denney" wrote:
>
> G'day Steve,
>
> Proas are not sold by images of flying fish and beautiful sunsets.
> Potential owners want to know how they are handled, and your comments
> about the wet boat, shifting ballast and mast falling down in a jibe
> have put them off in their droves.
>
> Judging by the number of questions I get about it, and the number of
> Russ type boats built since your article (none), the damage was severe
> and long lasting. You are now making it worse by your convoluted
> attempts to justify what you wrote, but that is your problem, not
> mine.
SC: Well, since Russ, I and no others are trying to sell his boats,
just inform people what they are like, I see no reason why there
should be a lot building. He sells no plans, has often refused to
design similar boats for people. Your false points about always
shifting ballast and mast falling down (never has, including when
found on the wrong side of things)have already been addressed ad
nausueum. Please stop this nonense so we can move beyond it. sc
> The group that has been trying to sell Russ' boats include the very
> likable Russ (son of Jim Searunner Brown) who has done the 'historic"
> ocean miles and built some beautiful examples, Jim Antrim and Kurt
> Hughes (renowned multihull designers), Joe Oster, (sailor,
> entrepreneur, web and marketing expert), Wooden Boat and Cruising
> World magazines (combined circulation 200,000), Steve Callahan,
> (sailor, journalist, designer), Michael Schacht (owner of proafile),
> Dave Culp (still a fan but intelligent enough to realise there is a
> better alternative) and sundry others. Russ may not be keen to
> market the boats, but the rest certainly tried very hard and are still
> trying. This combination should be able to sell ice to eskimos, yet
> after 30 years there are only 5 boats built, 3 of which are day
> sailers. Everybody admires them and talks about building or buying
> them, but nobody does.
SC Again, overstatement to a ridiculous extent. Not everybody admires
Russ's boats, nor is everybody talking about building them. And
again, selling plans has nothing to do with how a boat works at sea.
If you are a great saleman, wonderful. Talented salespeople in the
1970s sold hundreds of West Sails to hopeful voyagers, and those boats
worked. At the same time, some of the best boats in the world have
been one-offs. There is no logical connection between the number of
plans sold and a boat's capabilities. sc
> Instead of shooting the messenger (me, circulation 814) you should be
> asking why such a formidable group have failed so abjectly. Is it the
> boat, or the message?
SC: Not sure what we have failed at. Crossed the Pacific; wrote an
article that many have enjoyed. Gee, sorry. sc
> You might also ask why a no profile ex yachting bum, notable for
> nothing except being upfront about his failures and his efforts to fix
> them, has managed to establish harryproas in one third the time
> despite the silly name, very rough prototypes, no formal design or
> building qualifications, no ocean voyages, no famous relatives or
> big name supporters and certainly no front page articles in high
> circulation magazines by famous journalists.
SC: Very curious logic here. So you have no real qualifications and
have made no ocean voyages, but you are the ONLY guy we should all
consider the big expert. The fact that we have to dismiss our own
direct experience, qualifications and voyages to do so seems not to
matter. And by the way, if you weren't just repeating over an over
the same bad disinformation, if you would adhere to some kind of
logical analysis, be open to accepting refinements and clarifications,
would ask questions rather than claiming falsehoods as fact, perhaps
you would find people, including journalists, who would be more
interested in writing about you. Russ never has sought publicity.
Quite the opposite. The fact that his father is a multihull pioneer
may have given Russ a head-start in developing his skills, but his
career is completely self-earned, and only a small part of it entails
proas. sc
> The harryproas that are sailing are fulfilling all the claims I made
> and are the sole reason sales are increasing in both number and boat
> size. Either harrys are better, or the negative stuff you wrote about
> Russ' boats has had a damaging effect. You can decide which it is
> and what you do about it. Making a fool of yourself trying to beat
> the crap out of me over things I wrote 5 years ago is probably not the
> answer, no matter how self righteous it makes you feel.
SC No one is beating the crap out of you, just defending the record,
fact, friends, and boats that deserve more than your attacks. You
have not just written this stuff once but continue to right through
this message. For five years you have used me to attack Russ. You've
insulted us. You've made many, many, completely false statements. yet
when we have the temerity to say enough is enough, you lapse into poor
little ol' me. If you don't like warmth, stop setting fire to the
neighborhood. sc
> My comparisons are not with all the boats you have sailed but with
> harryproas, a type you say you know nothing about. This is your
> decision, but your failure to learn about a successful new boat type,
> just because you don't like the designers debating style does not
> enhance your reputation as a designer or a journalist. It also
> reduces the impact of your posts criticising harryproas.
SC More false logic. You use Harryproas to compare with Jzerro, but
nobody can then do the same. I use other boats with which I have
experience to compare to Jzerro because I do have that experience. I
have tried to avoid talking about Harryproas, but your own attacks
make that impossible. sc
> After 3 posts talking about refuting all my claims, you finally tried
> to refute 2 of the least significant ones: 3 of Russ' boats, not 2
> have sailed offshore and the interior space on Jzerro.
>
> I got it wrong about Kauri doing ocean miles. My mistake, thanks for
> the correction.
SC: AS per usual, you purposely try to mislead by misstatement. In
fact, there is more to come about Jzerro. But you're STILL wrong.
Originally, you said only one of Russ's boats sailed offshore. All
his boats have done ocean miles. Kauri and both Jzerros have sailed
offshore. And I have corrected many other false statements by
you--that the mast will always fall down if caught aback (and I
clarified how your taking a small bit of one sentence that you
selected to say so was just a small part of the complete picture);
that his boats are slow; that my article was derogatory towards Jzerro
and proas; that his boats are unsafe; that Cheers was slow; and so on.
In fact, whenever you've written ANYTHING about Jzerro, I have found
more wrong than right, often based on nothing more than your
speculation. Jzerro is not slow to weather. It's one of the fastest
boats upwind and down I have sailed, and given her small size is
certainly among the fastest in the world. There is copious evidence
of this not only through my and many others' experience but also the
race course. Meanwhile, you have NOTHING to offer to support your
claims other than, well, your claims! Unbelievable. sc
> I did not get it wrong about the space. I was not quoting your
> article, but my inspection in Brisbane, supported by the Wooden Boat
> magazine article on Kauri, which is bigger than Jzerro. They
> described it as "accommodating a crew of two comfortably, if somewhat
> close". I was not comparing it to all the other boats you have
> sailed, but to a same weight/lower cost harry which comfortably and
> not at all closely accommodates 5, with space for 6 at the table. We
> had 8 people in the ww hull of Blind Date, and there was still plenty
> of room to move about.
SC: Again, you are factually wrong. Kauri is 36 feet; Jzerro 37.
Both have similar accommodations. Nobody has ever claimed she is a
roomy cruiser. She has quite adequate accommodations for two crew for
a long period, as has been proven with folks living aboard for long
times. If you can build a boat with much greater accommodations of
the same length, and to put the weight to weather, thereby increasing
righting moment max, but you are building a lighter boat, then either
the engineering is lighter with smaller factors of safety or you are
building with unobtanium and I'd like to find out your source. The
ONLY other explanation is that you have escaped the laws of physics. sc
> Maybe if you can see how one of your "top dozen best boats for it's
> purpose" (Jzerro) stacks up against a harryproa, you might reconsider
> your plan of attack, maybe even your next boat. Let's talk proas:
>
> Harryproas, compared to Russ' boats are:
>
> 1) Lighter
> Evidence:
> Blind Date, a 15m/50'ter weighed 2 tons at launch, near enough the
> same weight as Jzerro (38'), before the beams had to be strengthened.
> Aroha, a 12m/40' harryproa weighs just over a ton.
> Reasons:
> a) Harryproa hulls concentrate the rig, water foils and connective
> stresses into a small, strong area between the beams. Russ' lee hull
> has more surface area and large loads throughout it's length so needs
> to be strengthened accordingly.
SC: well, I already commented on this generally, and to address rig,
foils, etc. would take a good deal of space, so I will respectfully
disagree at this time, but have it as you will.
> b) Harryproa beams need to be strong enough to support 60% of the boat
> weight. Russ' beams have to be heavy enough to support 80% of the
> boat's weight in a caught aback situation, assuming the mast stays up.
SC: This is pure nonsense. If Russ's boat is caught aback, the
righting arm would look like a Harryproa's under normal conditions.
By architectural norms, a Harryproa will have an enormously steep
righting curve (higher than a cat's). If you apply any Fs (factor of
safety), seems you'd be designing for way more than 60% of
displacement, especially given that beams are unevenly loaded as boats
sail over waves. When your boat's normal righting moment is much
higher than for a Pacific proa, the beams should be designed stronger,
not lighter or they will suffer from smaller Fs, if they have one at all.
> c) Russ's boats have a huge hole cut in the lee side of the highly
> stressed hull to put the pod in. The area around the hole needs
> strengthening, as does the pod to handle the water loads. Harry's
> have the pod in the lightly loaded windward hull where it rarely gets
> wet and is supported by the beams.
SC: Again, nonsense. First, Jzerro's pod rarely touches water, other
than a drip or two from passing waves. We touched the pod during one
afternoon of day sailing between islands in big ocean swell and
driving the boat to the max for fun. The pod and cabin structure is
very large, so a small cutout for companionway does not compromise the
structure. There have NEVER been any structural failures on any of
Brown's main hulls, pods, or cabin tops. A map of stress would be
complex, not just something you can summarize in a convenient
sentence. As for the harryproa pod, you even misplace it in one of
your blurbs, stating it is on the leeward side of the main hull, which
would put it between hulls. But in any case, neither a windward hull
or pod would be lightly loaded. Quite the opposite. Big waves coming
at the boat from abeam or quarter will pound both. Also, if they are
ever needed to prevent capsize, the pod will be every bit as loaded,
so you are either underengineering it upon false assumptions or should
weigh the same as on a pacific proa. sc
> d) Harryproas do not need the complicated and heavy rudders and
> daggerboard and their cases. They used to have them, but have evolved
> to a safer, lighter system.
> There are a bunch of other reasons, but these will get you going.
SC: The most efficient rudder foil will be as close to the end of the
boat as possible and under an end plate (usually the hull) to keep it
immersed. Many configurations will work. However, moving it forward
requires a bigger blade to produce the same turning force. Any
surface-piercing foil is subject to ventilation or drawing of air down
onto the foil from the surface, a condition that worsens with
increased speed. Any naval architect knows this based on intense foil
research going back more than 50 years (Theory of Wing Sections,
Aero-Hydrodynamics of Boat Design, etc). One can partially control
ventilation using fences, but these too have problems of cavitation as
the boat heaves and pitches. Your solution is a compromise, no more
and no less, and if it is lighter it is, again, either relatively
under-engineered or less effective for its area. There just isn't
any other way unless you have discovered a new physics. AS for
Jzerro, she's never suffered a rudder failure (nor have any of Brown's
boats, or as far as I know, Newick's either) . He does use them in
tandem sometimes to crab sideways. We also lowered the forward one
partially to help upwind work. Newick has a new arrangement on the
way, which should prove interesting. sc
> 2) Roomier:
> Evidence:
> Blind Date (same weight/lower cost) has 2 queen size doubles, a single
> and enough room in the lee hull for a couple more. It also has a
> large galley, nav station, toilet and shower. Plus, it has a covered
> cockpit with comfortable seating for 6, whereas Russ has a canvas
> seat sitting in the middle of the tramp with no shelter.
> To use length instead of weight or cost for the comparison, Aroha
> (12m/40' harryproa) has 2 big doubles, plus a toilet, sit down
> shower, galley and covered seating for 6.
> Antrim/Oster's 70 footer has much less room and righting mopment,
> weighs and costs more than the 60' charter harryproa.
> Reason:
> The harry accommodation is in the windward hull where it not only
> increases righting moment, but is not impeded by the rig, rudders or
> the structure needed to support these. On the bigger boats it can be
> in both hulls.
SC: Any style boat can be designed with large cabins, including a
Pacific proa. Because Brown chose a small interior has nothing to do
with type. As for your boats being definitively lighter, again you
either are relying on some new physics, have found unobtanium to build
them with, or are relying on designing to smaller loads while creating
a craft that must produce higher loads. Your CG is well to weather,
increasing RM relative to all other craft type--pacific proa, cat, or
tri. The cat must deal with compression loads on the beam, but loads
related to righting moment would be way smaller for a boat of given
displacement, and the Pacific proa a fraction of that. How you can
increase RM and produce an even steeper righting curve while reducing
weight is more than a mystery, it's impossible without reducing
strength or using materials with greater strength/weight ratios, the
latter of which seems not to be the case. sc
> 3) Drier:
> Evidence:
> You can't make up your mind whether Jzerro was wet, damp or dry. Dave
> says it is a very wet boat and now Mark agrees with him. Sort it out
> between yourselves. Harry's are sailed dry.
> Reason:
> All sailing on a harry is done from the sheltered, covered, leeward
> facing cockpit on the windward hull. If you have to work at the mast,
> the single part sheet can be released, the boat stops and you do what
> has to be done on a stable, dry platform.
SC: I will address this in an upcoming message: The Denney
Inquisition, Part III: Jzerro, She's All Wet. Generally, though, you
seem unable to grasp that boats have different characters under
different conditions, and that this business of design is a matter of
grey areas as we choose compromises. Only children believe in the
tooth fairy and Santa Clause. sc
> 4) Faster:
> Evidence:
> The video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8chR6DAFjGA I am sure
> you have all sorts of previously unpublished top speeds to tell us
> about (be careful, remember Dave and Mark have also sailed Jzerro),
> but nowhere have I seen it suggested that Russ' boats reach at wind
> speed under plain sail from 8-15 knots in flat water. Upwind speeds
> I have only anecdotal evidence for so will leave them out, but the
> harry will be quicker to shunt.
> Reason:
> Less windage, drag and weight, longer waterline, more righting moment,
> flexible rig. For an analysis of the two types by a naval architect,
> look at http://www.planet.fi/~kcad/cpc/Cruising_proa_concepts.htm
> I prefer Newick "It's more fun to go fast" to Marples "speed
> management" and design my boats accordingly.
> A ballestron rig and rudders that don't have to be lifted and lowered
> is much easier to shunt than one direction rudders and a genoa.
SC: Well, again, you make claims about how poor Russell's boats MUST
perform, despite what we who have sailed her say, or even what has
been in print, or race results. It's simply absurd. Meanwhile, you
have the temerity to swear your boats are faster, with zero references
to offer other than your own wishful thinking. It is pathetic.
Anyone with any integrity would have the willingness and capability of
backing up such a claim. So Russ and I will bet you $2000 Jzerro will
outsail you in a regatta including inshore and offshore races. Of
course, you have every excuse to not come over for the regatta. You
sell lots of plans but have no money, and even when Jzerro was in
Australia you couldn't scare up a Harryproa to race her at, say, Arlie
Beach, but until such time as you have SOME evidence of your idle
claims, why don't you just stop making them? sc
Also of note: You CLAIMED to have spoken withe Russ's crew at Arlie
Beach and heard Jzerro was slow, especially upwind, and slow to shunt.
Well, that's just rubbish. That crew was Mark Lamb. This is what he
wrote to me, received April 21, 2008
"I was the only crew member in Airlie Beach and going over to New
Zealand, I have written to the forum and told them the the truth about
Rob. I don't know how he can live with himself talking such crap."
That was in response to my request I use a previous message regarding
Jzerro and Arlie Beach. To whit with some eliminated to avoid
explitives aimed at you, Rob: " . . . I never meet the guy to start
with. What a dick head, there is no way in the world I would say crap
like that, I remember in one race we were first to the windward mark
and tacked quicker than the other boats. Rob is a goose. the crossing
was very quick from my memory it was 24hrs to Lord Howe we stayed
there for two day I think and it was 3 or 4 days to NZ it was very
quick." sc
> 5) Safer:
> Evidence:
> a) Harryproa crew do not need to crawl out to the end of the leward
> hull to handle genoas.
> b) There is no blind spot for 150 degrees to leeward when the genoa
is up.
> c) Harryproa crews do not have to worry about masts falling on their
> heads in a fresh air gybe. Whether this happens or not depends on
> whether we believe you or Russ, or just look at the rigging angles.
> Doesn't really matter, it can't happen on a harry.
> d) There is no damage to the harryproa rudders or hull if the rudders
> (and daggerboard on Russ' boats) hits something.
> e) The crew does not get wet, so is less likely to suffer from
> tiredness. Or sunstroke. It must have been unpleasant sitting in
> the equatorial sun all day? Or did you sit below in the "close
> cabin"?
> Reasons:
> a) Harryproa masts are unstayed, so the boom and sails have nothing to
> stop them rotating 360 degrees. The sheet is lead directly to the
> windward hull so the boat cannot be caught aback.
> b) The rudders are not mounted in the hulls and can kick up in either
> direction. Current ones can also be lifted in shallow water so the
> boat can be sailed in 400mm/16" of water.
> c) The cockpit is covered.
SC: Well, again, you mix up things like evidence and theory. You
have ZERO evidence that your boats are safer. They have gone
relatively nowhere wheras Brown's boats have traveled far with ZERO
loss of life or notable injury and NO structural failure save his
first boat built at age 14 and sailed offshore within months of
launch--something you still make every excuse in the book to avoid.
In my carreer, I've known scores of designers and sailors of boats
designed and built to the edge, and vitually all have had the guts to
try their boats out in open water within months of launch, myself
included. Few have had lots of money and many, like the young teen
Russ, were virtually broke, as was I in 1981. People have voyaged
with little or no money for generations, so this lame excuse that
after ten years you still can't get it together just is a dog that
won't hunt. Also, you again use inconsistent logic. You've been a
great success, you say, and have done your thing for ten years, but at
the same time, you are still experimenting, seemingly not ready to
prove anything really (just making unfounded claims and wild
speculation is, after all, so much easier). And all the while,
without any real evidence of your boats' value and while still
requiring more experimentation, you feel comfortale selling plans. It
boggles the mind. sc
> 7) More maneuverable: Harryproas have two rudders when required, can
> turn 180 degrees in 1.5 boat lengths at 7 knots, and can crab
> sideways at any speed.
>
> 8) More comfortable to sail and use: See above, plus:
> a) A single. lightly loaded sheet to control the entire rig.
> b) The crew sits far enough away from the sails to be able to look at
> them without getting a stiff neck, and can walk (not climb) into the
> cabin without having to slow the boat down to prevent water getting
> below.
> c) No need to shift or pump ballast. Not sometimes, not rarely, not
> continuously (take your pick you have said them all). Russ fitted a
> pump to move water ballast, and it was still on the boat after the
> refit in Australia, so presumably he does use it. The picture on the
> cover of Cruising World shows the boat flying a hull in 10-12 knots of
> breeze, (no white caps) sailing at maybe 6-8 knots under full sail
> complete (as usual) with crew on the ww hull. Regardless of whether
> this is a photo shoot or not, this is a very low hull flying wind
> speed. Compare it with the Rare Bird video.
SC Again, this is all wild speculation on your part. I never, ever
said "continuously" as you claim, and have corrected you before, as
will the dictionary and a full reading of the line I wrote. Stop
lying to readers. AS for Jzerro sailing, how do you know what it was
blowing in the protected lagoon? You have ZERO source for it, but as
you have hundreds of times, simply make something up to suit your
whim. Its NOT harryproas that we dislike, it is YOU, precisely for
this pigheaded approach that does everything it can to avoid the
nuances of truth. And by the way, perhaps you could (again) ask if
you don't know something. Russ does have water ballast. We never
used it, once, since I have sailed with him. But it is a nice feature
for a pacific proa, I think. sc
> d) Harryproas do not suffer the banging of the windward hull that
> Steve mentions, and which I think is partly caused by the semi stiff
> rig stayed to the ww hull, and partly by the fact that the windward
> hull is often out or almost out of the water in rough conditions.
SC: You think, you suppose, you surmise. All crap. Any boat
reaching in big seas will be slapped. Also, any hull surging over big
waves will bang sometimes. I've never known a fat little bullet like
the hull you choose for Harryproas not to bang, especially upwind, but
there again, I suppose you have found your own ocean and/or physics to
escape the reality in which the rest of us sail.
> e) Harryproas rarely need sail changes, luffing or sheet easing, due
> to the higher righting moment, flexible mast and light weight On
> Russ' boats these are either continuous or occasional depending on
> when Steve wrote it.
> f) No genoas to lower, hoist, winch in and trim every time you shunt.
>
> 8) Easier to build: Double diagonal is hard work compared to strip
> planking, and very hard compared to KSS. For this reason and others,
> harry's are probably cheaper as well.
>
> Other things I have said:
> 1) Russ is a superb builder, a consumate seaman and from my
> conversation over lunch with him, a nice guy. None of my comments
> about his boats have anything to do with him as a person.
> 2) Harryproas have not done any ocean miles. Been across some pretty
> wild bars and in the Tasman Sea in 30 knots and big waves, but no
> ocean passages. This is nothing to do with the boat's ability, and
> everything to do with my parlous finances and the owners of the three
> large ones sailing having other things to do with their boats.
SC: As said before, this has to be the lamest excuse on record. I've
been voyaging for 30 years, often with hardly two nickels to rub
together. sc
> 3) Harryproas have been engineered by a very competent (and expensive)
> composites engineer. As most of the sailing loads are of the same
> type as a catamaran, (but of lower magnitude and complexity), they
> won't fall apart.
SC: Questions: Who is the engineer? Did he engineer given loads by
you or by first principles? sc
> 4) An unstayed ballestron rig would improve Russ' boats significantly,
> not least because it would force the accommodation into the windward
> hull where it would actually do some good, and remove the fear of the
> mast falling down in a jibe. Out of hull rudders would make Russ'
> boats safer. Some shelter for the crew would make them more
> comfortable.
SC: You can fit any proa, even Russ's types, with ballestron rigs.
You could fit a boat like Jzerro as a cat-ketch with two rigs, for
example. AS for shifting the accommodation, I believe nothing could
be worse. I will explain in more detail in an upcoming note. That
you have chosen this option, well fine. But you really do need to
supply some evidence, not just wild speculation, if someone like me is
to believe it is superior to other options. Why more folks aren't
demanding of real proof and evidence rather than just words from you,
which are frequently wrong, remains a mystery. sc
> It has been a while since I have posted these advantages, and even
> longer since I have needed to debate them as the results have spoken
> for themselves. You are 4 years behind the times. I suggest you read
> the harryproa web page, look at the video, re read the articles in CW
> and WB and then decide whether you really want to continue this
> conversation.
>
> If you decide you do want to, then these points should give us
> something to debate, rather than your petty and ultimately pointless
> crusade to prove I am the devil incarnate.
SC: You are hardly the devil incarnate (again you overestimate your
importance), just a jerk with a huge axe to grind and no scruples
about how you do it. There is no real reason for debate because you
leave no room for it as you repeat untrue things that you at least now
know are untrue, mis-use logic in the most perplexing ways. You have
only stirred the need to reply so that readers aren't left with the
wrong impression that we all accept the crap you've written. It is a
shame you are not more interested in the facts and what many of us
have learned from real experience, education, and from others in the
field, because you might have gained something from it, but frankly,
you have proven a total waste of time. Do whatever you want with your
boats. I really don't care, but this is supposed to be a clearing
house of information, not your personal soap box upon which you can
launch out to attack those who could offer you much if you were only
interested. sc
> Peter,
> The lee pod extends 1.6m/5'3" from the hull side and has a clearance
> at rest of 600mm/2' from the static waterline at rest. It is
> 720mm/28" high. All external dimensions so knock off an inch or two,
> and a couple more off the height for a mattress. Any other
> dimensions you want, let me know. I probably have enough
> measurements for a full set of drawings if anyone is interested. ;-)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
Other Proa Pages