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)
posts by Steven Callahan to proa_file forum:
Reply to Denney's critiques of Brown et al Apr 2, 2008 The Denney Inquisition Apr 13 Part 2: Jzerro, that miserable dog Apr 15
comments: leepod dimensions, wikipedia, copyright issues
confused: reply to Dave Culp May 10 confused: reply to Rob Denney May 10 Part 2(b): Jzerro, that miserable dog
"your logic defies logic", May 10
Part 3: Jzerro; She's All Wet 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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