[MHml] Re: Proa Classification

[Dave Culp]

Ted Warren:

>If we could accept some sort
>of classification perhaps we could concentrate on
>useful discussions. My suggestion:
>
>- Traditional Pacific Proa
>    Small log to windward, fore-aft symmetry, crew shunts spar
>    Developed to be effective over centuries based on available
>    materials and intended use.
>
>- Modern Pacific Proa
>    Rig is in leeward hull, fore-aft symmetry
>    May use modern foils, water ballast, some accommodations
>    out of the main hull.
>     Developed to be effective over hours of thought based on
>     modern material and modern understanding of sailing theory,
>     to be used for a wide variety of purposes, from passage making
>     to day sailing.
>
>- Modern Atlantic Proa
>    Rig is in windward hull, fore-aft symmetry
>    Usually designed by Dick Newick, some copies but not as successful

As usual, Ted's found the practical mark. The danger with trying for 
rigorous "classifications" is that someone just breaks the mold, and 
the classification goes out the window. Remember yawls? "A 2-masted 
vessel with its mizzen abaft the rudder post." Then along came 
transom-hung rudders...

Joe's got perfectly valid point  about some of the fundamental 
differences between a proa with small hull to windward/rig to leeward 
versus a heavy hull to windward/rig to leeward proa, but 
unfortunately, it becomes a matter of degree, and not of 
specification. 25%, 33%, 50%, even more; precisely where does the 
real, fundamental sailing and construction difference become 
significant?

Tiny dancer is clearly a Pac proa, even though her windward hull is 
identical to her leeward--and even though as a practical matter, she 
is sailed with 2/3--3/4 of her total mass on that windward hull (crew 
weight). JZerro is also clearly a Pac Proa, even when she's light 
(~3000#), full of water ballast in her windward hull (450#), and Joe 
and I are standing on her windward rail (another 500#). After a good 
bit of hand wringing, I think I've conceded that Harry is a Pac proa, 
as well (If I haven't specifically said so, I do now). Harry is a 
particularly extreme and un-seamanlike Pac proa, IMO, but he's a Pac 
proa, nevertheless (OK, that should guarantee a slag from *both* Joe 
and from Rob. My work is done...  ;-)

I'll argue long and hard that a "traditional modern" Pac proa (Oster) 
optimizes the construction, sailing and seakeeping qualities a 
cruising or long-distance racer wants in a boat, at lowest reasonable 
cost and highest reasonable performance level, but Rob will disagree, 
and his points are as valid as mine or Joe's. Pity this became a 
mud-sling; both men have valid points, and know their facts (even if 
they won't grant it, of each other)

FWIW, Rob and I finished a fairly long (and boring) "discussion" on 
the proa list recently, regarding the strengths and weaknesses of 
Oster-style and Denney-style Pac proas (another pair of insults to 
the boat-types; neither was initially developed by their named 
supporters). Those interested can go to the egroup site and look in 
the archives (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file). There's (not 
much) mud slinging, and I think we both made the relevant points, 
sometimes in extremely detailed (never pedantic!) fashion. Yeah, I 
took the Oster POV. Search on "righting moment" "trial horse" and 
"racing, was Trial Horse," look from late March through early May.

I think those interested will learn that there's a case for both 
types of boats, and that either does in fact cause the designer (and 
sailor!) to stretch his/her thinking about how sailboats work, and 
what makes them both fast and practical. You might also want to check 
out Michael Schacht's excellent Proafile site: 
http://www.schachtdesign.com/proafile  This is a proa ezine, with 
some really great articles, background and resources on the type.

Dave Culp