Thanks so much for this, I have wonders about the details of your boat since I first saw it years ago on the yahoo forums before they disappeared. There is a wealth of information in this video, so thank you so much 👍👍👍
VIelen Dank für das Video. Mit meinem Schulenglisch komme ich gerade so mit. Das Seglerlatein ist immer noch neu für mich und die Bezeichnungen wie ground clearance habe ich nun aus dem Kontext der Kommentare verstanden. Bin sehr gespannt auf die nächsten Filme. Laienhaft betrachtet finde ich persönlich MEHR "Bodenfreiheit" immer besser. Stört denn die Höhe so sehr, wenn die Bootsseitenfläche nicht auch irgendwie wie ein Segel wirkt? Wohl liegt das Empfinden für jeden anders gewichtet. Wenn ich mehr Personen und auch mehr Campingzeugs mitnehmen möchte, kann ich auch mehr Stauraum gebrauchen , da ist dann das höhere Gewicht das geringere Übel. Meine gebrauchte Proa ist 740cmx450(ca) und hat eine kleine Kajüte. Den Luxus hätte ich schon gerne. Aber erstmal das Ding aufarbeiten und das komplette Rig bauen... Zur Position vom Mastmuss habe ich einige Fragen. Erstmal beobachte ich das hier weiter, dann erklärt sich das sicher. Eine der Fragen trotzdem: Wäre der Mastfuss weiter LUV wärts nicht besser gegen Kenterung? Der Segeldruckvector würde doch negativer in Richtung Wasser gehen? Also vielen Dank nochmal und Ahoy!
I will do. But it's not that difficult either, you have to trim the boat neutrally. I already explained how this works on all courses in video #8. However, the rig looks a bit different now. I explain in the next video. When the boat is going straight you shift your weight forward to go higher upwind and backward to turn to downwind.
Good question. I always wanted to know the weight. I'll try to measure it. I guess 100 + - ? kg. I wanted to make it stable enough. It was more important to me to build it for everyday use than to have to constantly repair it. But you can certainly build it lighter. As for the payload, I can say that there was no problem with 2 people. 2 x 75kg = 150kg So you can take enough camping equipment with you alone. And when the weather is good, more people won't be a problem. But then you're definitely slower.
So I measured the weight of the boat, it is ready to sail unfortunately 190kg! So at least 50% heavier than I had hoped. It could be built lighter, of course, but I wanted to be on the safe side.
@@fjordproa6510 on the safe side is a wise decision for an experimental boat! So what is the sail area displacement ratio? Looking at proportions I'm guestimating 9m^2, and allowing 70kg for crew which would be 9 / (0.19+0.07)^(2/3) = 22.09 that's just slightly more than a tiki 21.
hmm, I'm wondering if it would help to have manu/wave deflectors? in the particular shot of the rough water it's coming over the bow, rather than hitting the beams. maybe it just needs higher bows, without higher deck. Although, this may then be incompatible with a tack rail for the shunt.
I've already added something like wavedeflectors. 4:10 The wooden parts at the bug that run under the trampoline. But work poorly and slow down the boat in waves. Higher bows would not be a problem since the mast foot would like to move on a curve that rises towards the bow anyway. The center of the movement is the top of the mast.
@@alfred-vz8ti Hello, traditional boats were actually all somehow clumsy from today's point of view. My boat is now working quite well in narrow waters, look at video#18 from 2:46 or 4:49. Efficiency is a question in relation to what? Of course, modern racing boats are sailing better, but they also cost x to infinity times more. James Wharram said that one should not compare his boats with modern boats of the same size, but with boats of the same cost. Then his boats do well in all areas. Much larger, thus more seaworthiness, more living space and about the same speed at comparable costs. And due to the low tech used, it is also easier to repair everywhere. My old tarpsail lasted 3 years. I have now built a new one. Material costs 70 euros + 4 hours of manual work. Without the sewing machine it would have taken 2 hours longer. And the material is available in every hardware shop worldwide. I think that's also efficient. I think there is still a lot of potential in proas. I want to adapt Proas to our present conditions. Then maybe more people will be interested in it and contribute their ideas. I mainly have ideas and timeI it would be good if someone would invest money in hydro and saildynamic research. All other problems are not so difficult to solve.
That is one of reasons why all Pjoa designs, after Marshaleese, features a “kiosk” midship. valap style. All after the very first one :). All in one :) you need a high midship anyway when running with steepy waves above 1m high.
@@oj1jo , Garry Dierking recommends multiplying the length of the waka by a factor of 0.7 to calculate the clearance. Is the validity of this formula confirmed by your experience?
@@oj1jo , да, я перепутал. Верное значение коэффициента - 0, 07. Я хотел дать ссылку на фото с макетом "киоска", вставленным в корпус моей ваки, но, к сожалению, настройки этого канала не позволяют размещать ссылки в комментах. Поэтому придётся ограничиться словесным описанием. Воспользовавшись коэффициентом Гарри Диеркинга, я подсчитал, что в моём случае клиренс должен быть 50 см. На всякий случай я добавил 10 % и получил клиренс 55 см. Но поскольку у меня вака представляет из себя плоскодонное каноэ, которое не склонно зарываться в волну, у меня нет уверенности, что я правильно выбрал величину клиренса. Также имеет смысл упомянуть про то, что у меня ама в отличие от вашей амы имеет чисто квадратное сечение по всей длине. Так делают аборигены Маршалловых островов. Я делаю аму из сейбовой фанеры т. 9 мм. Сечение в миделе - 40 Х 40 см, длина - 532 см. Верхнее ребро абсолютно прямое. . Три других ребра радиусные. Если эта ама погрузится в воду ровно до боковых граней в районе миделя, будет получено водоизмещение 160 кг. Таким образом, у меня ни вака, ни ама не являются волнопронзающими, как у вас.. Я не ожидаю от них, что они будут втыкаться в волны, скорее они будут просто подпрыгивать на них. Исходя из всего вышеизложенного, какой клиренс видится вам оправданным в моём случае ? Быть может, 55 см - это слишком много для моего проа с учётом его особенностей ?
Very well designed and constructed! Thanks for sharing. I'm especially interested in your rigging decisions.
Thanks so much for this, I have wonders about the details of your boat since I first saw it years ago on the yahoo forums before they disappeared.
There is a wealth of information in this video, so thank you so much 👍👍👍
I have been watching your videos, Probably the best sorted proa & rig i have seen. Lots of great ideas!
c est ce livre que j'ai acheté avec bonheur en 2016. je recommande expressément ;
Yes, been waiting for it for years...finally its here...I love people who share their creation...thanks for sharing!
VIelen Dank für das Video. Mit meinem Schulenglisch komme ich gerade so mit. Das Seglerlatein ist immer noch neu für mich und die Bezeichnungen wie ground clearance habe ich nun aus dem Kontext der Kommentare verstanden. Bin sehr gespannt auf die nächsten Filme.
Laienhaft betrachtet finde ich persönlich MEHR "Bodenfreiheit" immer besser. Stört denn die Höhe so sehr, wenn die Bootsseitenfläche nicht auch irgendwie wie ein Segel wirkt? Wohl liegt das Empfinden für jeden anders gewichtet. Wenn ich mehr Personen und auch mehr Campingzeugs mitnehmen möchte, kann ich auch mehr Stauraum gebrauchen , da ist dann das höhere Gewicht das geringere Übel. Meine gebrauchte Proa ist 740cmx450(ca) und hat eine kleine Kajüte. Den Luxus hätte ich schon gerne. Aber erstmal das Ding aufarbeiten und das komplette Rig bauen... Zur Position vom Mastmuss habe ich einige Fragen. Erstmal beobachte ich das hier weiter, dann erklärt sich das sicher. Eine der Fragen trotzdem: Wäre der Mastfuss weiter LUV wärts nicht besser gegen Kenterung? Der Segeldruckvector würde doch negativer in Richtung Wasser gehen?
Also vielen Dank nochmal und Ahoy!
Thank you
Thanks for sharing
Please, make a video about rudderless steering.
I will do.
But it's not that difficult either, you have to trim the boat neutrally.
I already explained how this works on all courses in video #8.
However, the rig looks a bit different now. I explain in the next video.
When the boat is going straight you shift your weight forward to go higher upwind and backward to turn to downwind.
thank you for making this! it's wonderful to get some detailed numbers on your successful boat!
what is the displacement and payload?
Good question.
I always wanted to know the weight. I'll try to measure it.
I guess 100 + - ? kg. I wanted to make it stable enough.
It was more important to me to build it for everyday use than to have to constantly repair it.
But you can certainly build it lighter.
As for the payload, I can say that there was no problem with 2 people.
2 x 75kg = 150kg
So you can take enough camping equipment with you alone.
And when the weather is good, more people won't be a problem.
But then you're definitely slower.
So I measured the weight of the boat,
it is ready to sail unfortunately 190kg!
So at least 50% heavier than I had hoped.
It could be built lighter, of course,
but I wanted to be on the safe side.
@@fjordproa6510 on the safe side is a wise decision for an experimental boat! So what is the sail area displacement ratio? Looking at proportions I'm guestimating 9m^2, and allowing 70kg for crew which would be 9 / (0.19+0.07)^(2/3) = 22.09 that's just slightly more than a tiki 21.
hmm, I'm wondering if it would help to have manu/wave deflectors? in the particular shot of the rough water it's coming over the bow, rather than hitting the beams. maybe it just needs higher bows, without higher deck. Although, this may then be incompatible with a tack rail for the shunt.
I've already added something like wavedeflectors. 4:10 The wooden parts at the bug that run under the trampoline.
But work poorly and slow down the boat in waves.
Higher bows would not be a problem since the mast foot would like to move on a curve that rises towards the bow anyway.
The center of the movement is the top of the mast.
grown men build proas, just to show they are not afraid of feeling foolish.
Why should anyone feel foolish sailing Proas ?
@@fjordproa6510 good rig for trans-pac, in-shore clumsy and inefficient.
@@alfred-vz8ti
Hello,
traditional boats were actually all somehow clumsy from today's point of view.
My boat is now working quite well in narrow waters, look at video#18 from 2:46 or 4:49.
Efficiency is a question in relation to what?
Of course, modern racing boats are sailing better,
but they also cost x to infinity times more.
James Wharram said that one should not compare his boats with modern boats of the same size, but with boats of the same cost.
Then his boats do well in all areas.
Much larger, thus more seaworthiness, more living space and about the same speed at comparable costs.
And due to the low tech used, it is also easier to repair everywhere.
My old tarpsail lasted 3 years.
I have now built a new one.
Material costs 70 euros + 4 hours of manual work.
Without the sewing machine it would have taken 2 hours longer.
And the material is available in every hardware shop worldwide.
I think that's also efficient.
I think there is still a lot of potential in proas.
I want to adapt Proas to our present conditions.
Then maybe more people will be interested in it and contribute their ideas.
I mainly have ideas and timeI
it would be good if someone would invest money in hydro and saildynamic research.
All other problems are not so difficult to solve.
🎨😃👍
How big is your sail?
10m² and made of PVC foil
Did I understand correctly that you are going to increase the clearance between the beams and calm water from 30 to 60 cm?
Yes, because it's not always calm.
That is one of reasons why all Pjoa designs, after Marshaleese, features a “kiosk” midship. valap style. All after the very first one :).
All in one :) you need a high midship anyway when running with steepy waves above 1m high.
@@oj1jo , Garry Dierking recommends multiplying the length of the waka by a factor of 0.7 to calculate the clearance. Is the validity of this formula confirmed by your experience?
@@threecowboys4606 you mean 0,07 probably.
in my case Clearance decreases slower then length
@@oj1jo , да, я перепутал. Верное значение коэффициента - 0, 07. Я хотел дать ссылку на фото с макетом "киоска", вставленным в корпус моей ваки, но, к сожалению, настройки этого канала не позволяют размещать ссылки в комментах. Поэтому придётся ограничиться словесным описанием. Воспользовавшись коэффициентом Гарри Диеркинга, я подсчитал, что в моём случае клиренс должен быть 50 см. На всякий случай я добавил 10 % и получил клиренс 55 см. Но поскольку у меня вака представляет из себя плоскодонное каноэ, которое не склонно зарываться в волну, у меня нет уверенности, что я правильно выбрал величину клиренса. Также имеет смысл упомянуть про то, что у меня ама в отличие от вашей амы имеет чисто квадратное сечение по всей длине. Так делают аборигены Маршалловых островов. Я делаю аму из сейбовой фанеры т. 9 мм. Сечение в миделе - 40 Х 40 см, длина - 532 см. Верхнее ребро абсолютно прямое. . Три других ребра радиусные. Если эта ама погрузится в воду ровно до боковых граней в районе миделя, будет получено водоизмещение 160 кг. Таким образом, у меня ни вака, ни ама не являются волнопронзающими, как у вас.. Я не ожидаю от них, что они будут втыкаться в волны, скорее они будут просто подпрыгивать на них. Исходя из всего вышеизложенного, какой клиренс видится вам оправданным в моём случае ? Быть может, 55 см - это слишком много для моего проа с учётом его особенностей ?
저런 검찰정권을 지지하는 놈들이 문제지.