Treat her carefully. She knows where she can hit you hard.
Yeah...I do sleep on my stomach these days!
Pepin
In North America.. the largest one design fleet turnouts (not even nationals) are Hobie 16's. (In the 2010 season... See Madcatter Regatta..,. 35 plus boats. Next in line is the A class (midwinters... 30 or so boats... F18's are third at their Spring Fever regional. Hardly Obsolete! ...and my essential point is... that if you want to attract racers from cat racing classes... then you need to address their issues....
Sounds like the target market is quite a bit more fractured in the EU and you don't need to market to Hobie 16 sailors. The risk of course is that the EU scene fractures some more with lots of 16 foot one design classes fighting for market share and occasionally agreeing to level racing under the F16 umbrella.
Calling a CLASS obsolete is not right. Fact of the matter.. in North America ... THE CLASS of Hobie 16's is probably the best organized class going and they generate the best turnouts. Fact is... they are the leader in North America cat racing and quite strong in other parts of the world as well. The need for a two person non spin boat race cat is clear in the North American market. Notice that there are lots of non spin dinghy classes that are quite old as well which meet the needs of dinghy sailors.
Perhaps the word you were looking for is Classic?
A couple of weeks ago I was competing at the UK A Class National Championships. It was a fantastic event and the racing was really close amongst the whole fleet, well the winner was in a Class of his own with 5 Bullets and a DNC. However, and my point is I was on a 2006 Bimare AJ which is made from GRP and not Carbon. Did I or any of the other competitors notice. NO, did it effect my results, I doubt it. I lead a race at one point, and was last but one at one point. The major factor for my performance was me and definitely not the construction of the platform. I have now vowed to become more consistent whilst racing a series of this nature and the only way this will happen is time on the water. Although, a DNA would be nice.
nut on the tiller
doing the work.
Of course, that is why all this
US$40K class killer
nonsense is such BS.
In the overall scheme of things, material choice is an almost negligliable factor. It comes well behind other factors like sailor skill, the boxrule limits, sailcut, luck, etc.
That is the core argument of these posts.
I would have loved to the faces of those crews laying down 35k and for that
all-carbon miracle
and then finding themselves trailing behind a much smaller plain glass/alu cat costing less then half their purchase cost. Can't say that they weren't warned, we've seen this happen several times before with the M20's and F18's.
Wouter
Wouter: can you honestly say that Bundy on a built to the rule F16 would not thrash the **** out of his identical twin on a standard Viper?
If you think it makes no difference then why allow it to even be an option to build such a boat if all it serves is to increase the expenses??
Are you asking me if Darren or Carolijn on say a 19.200 Euro glass/alu/carbon mast (thus min. weight) Falcon F16 (19.800 USD) would beat a 17.750 Euro glass/alu/F18 parts (thus 129 kg) Viper F16 ? That is when both are sailed by their identical twin ?
Yes, I do think that that Falcon would give its crew an egde over the Viper crew, although not at all an extremely large edge. Also note that I could have used the Aussie Blade or Stealth in this example.
What I do contest however is that such a full-to-rule-F16 is anything other then sub 20K in purchase price (as proven by the quotes) and is therefor on a par with a competitive F18. Thus putting the lie that a full-to-the-rule-F16 is anywhere near 35K or whatever the latest scare quote is.
I also claim that this situation is solely the cause of a business decision on the side of AHPC and not any fundamental flaw in the F16 class rules. Hell, what do you expect when using F18 components on a F16 design ? If 3 builders can do it compared to 1 who can't then the norm is definately with the first 3 and the F16 class rules.
Still I think the difference is surprisingly small. Weight is not such an important issue on these boats as is also proven by the large spread in competive crew weights.
Obviously you have it all backwards. Obviously, these full-to-the-rule-F16's were already available for sub 20K expenses when the Viper F16 was launched. Therefore the F16 class doesn't allow a lighter boat to be build and raced relative to the norm but rather it allows a heavier boat then the norm to be build and raced i.e. the Viper. The effect on purchase price is negligiable as the quotes show. The customer knows this before he signs the purchase contract and he is always allowed to disadvantage himself if he wants to. Why on earth would any class outlaw sub optimal designs from racing ? The only crew suffering here is the guy who knowingly chose to buy the suboptimal boat. He can just as easily buy another design without this disadvantage. Hell, I have suboptimal boat myself (according to you that is) and am very content accepting the disadvantage which I perceive to be minimal at best.
Having said all this I truly believe that we are nitpicking here. Boatweight and platform stiffness are not big factors in the overall performance of a modern spinaker catamaran. Some of you are making far too much of these factors. The secret of the F16's is in the carefully balanced design ratio's and these are largely unaffected by material choices. An expensive lesson that some overhyped-and-overpriced-all-carbon N20 crews learned recently at the North Sea Regatta (as several M20 crews did before them). I'll bet they were very pleased when the race committed allowed Brouwer/Bundock to start with the F18 fleet after the first few races in the open class. Could have been a promotional disaster for these new 20 footers.
By the way, have you found that F17 measurement form yet ?
Wouter
How does knocking five pounds out of the boat get the Falcon to minimum again?
Thats what I was quoted.
Quoted by whom ?
Wouter
If weight was not such an issue, then why do sailors (who know a thing or two about sailing) scrape to remove every gram they can to get as close to min weight as possible....... And F16 sailors believe 18 kg makes no difference.
If platform stiffness is not critical, then why do teams re-beam their boats when they start to get a little sloppy. Marstrom hulls will near on last a life time. All you need to do is re-beam them every now and then to keep them competitive. Taipan 4.9 sailors often re-beam old boats to try and restore platform rigidity. Small beam Tornado sailors over the years have re-beamed their boats with bigger, stiffer beams. AHPC in the last few years of the Capricorn production produced new beams of slightly better alloy quality, thicker side walls, slightly larger diameter and thicker webbing, all to increase stiffness (Brett could you confirm this).
So is weight and platform stiffness really important or are the F16 sailors right and some of our world’s best sailors have no clue.
The nut behind the tiller will always make the biggest impact. I have seen Mossies regularly beat a classic rigger tornado around the course, but I sure as hell know which is the quicker boat. In big fleet racing, a boat length difference here and there or a few degrees deeper can make a big difference to the overall result. So, should the sailing be only about the sailor, or should you allow the boat to also contribute to the result.
I cannot divulge that information at this time as it may compromise our agents in the field........ <img src="<>/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh" height="15" width="15" />
You don't even want to know what my Invisible F16 cost, it is a bitch to wax it though...
I also know more then a few women who nearly starve themselves to death and look like bloody skeletons because they've somehow convinced themselves that they are more attractive that way.
I guess that you also feel that the doctors and psychiatrists are wrong to claim the opposite in this case as well ? Hundred thousants of women can't be wrong right ? ... Right ?
Correction, the company AHPC believes such a thing. All the other F16 builders and class member opinions are nowhere near that far away from the minimum weight. Hell, even my own ply homebuild is not that far off the class minimum and that says something as I was not at all anal about a few grams here and there !
Wouter
Maybe it is time to remind such agents what it means to be part of the team.
Additionally, this agent wouldn't personally benefit in any way from any
accidental
falsehoods that are let loose in the public sphere, right ? Of course, like no other he understands the undesireable effects such an accident can lead to. God forbid, he should find himself at the receiving end.
Maybe discuss this with him the next time you grap a beer together.
Wouter
That is nothing !
Since I filled my hulls with helium, I need a zeppelin like landing mast on my trailer and talk funny while racing.
Wouter
Hey, about that helium, I thought I read an article in Sailing World about the BMW-Oracle Tri that mentioned they had filled the amas with helium? They didn't go into any detail about how much helium, or how much weight that saved them, anyone know any more details about it?
Great idea...but what's helium cost these days? We could fill up our masts and then not have to worry about turtling!
It is a great example of how to fool the ignorant with a catchy one-liner.
In reality there is only about 450 liters of air in one hull and that amounts to a weight of 0.45*1.293 kg = 0.582 kg.
Ofcourse you can never reduce that amount to zero by replacing it with helium therefore the max weight gain you can achieve with both hulls full of helium is 2*0.582 = 1.164 kg
I'm sure nutcases like Macca or TornadoAlive will easily spend 35K on getting their hulls fully (helium) airtight (hard to do with such small molecules) and buy a years worth of helium supply ! Afterall they will win all races with such a large performance gain !
Wouter
I also know more then a few women who nearly starve themselves to death and look like bloody skeletons because they've somehow convinced themselves that they are more attractive that way.
I guess that you also feel that the doctors and psychiatrists are wrong to claim the opposite in this case as well ? Hundred thousants of women can't be wrong right ? ... Right ?
Correction, the company AHPC believes such a thing. All the other F16 builders and class member opinions are nowhere near that far away from the minimum weight. Hell, even my own ply homebuild is not that far off the class minimum and that says something as I was not at all anal about a few grams here and there !
Wouter
Thanks for putting words into our mouth...
Lets look at the facts...a group of catamaran sailors looked at the boats offered to the public and found none to their liking. This group came up with their dream boat...defined by a box rule...one of the key criteria was light weight.They moved forward with much criticism, they were told the concept would never get off the ground...but it did...the owners were happy...and several builders were happy to make
the F16 acording to the agreed box rules...including building the boats to the minimum weight or very close to it...every thing was good in F16 land...the F16 sailors had their
dream boat and all was right with the world....
That is until
pro sailor
Macca shows up...he's not happy with the minimum weight...he
doesn't care what the sailors want who developed the class and have everything just as
they envisioned it...he knows better than they do...he wants to come in and re-write the
rules to dumb down the F16 to make it like all the other blahza cats in dead boat
society land. He chooses to ignore the fact that boats are being built to minimum weight
or very close to it and the only people who seem to have a problem with the minimum
weight is Macca, his minions, and AHPC (who utilized F18 parts for economy of
scale)...everyone else (owners and builders) seems to be just fine with the minimum
weight as written.
Macca should follow his own advice and create, fund and promote a 16 foot class with whatever weight he wants and leave F16 to those who created it and enjoy it on its own
merits.
As for pro sailors, who gives a flip what they want? We have to pay out the yazoo to do what these guys get paid to do...excuse me as I wipe away a tear for Macca not getting his way...NOT!
If someone is going to spend their money...they want what they want....not what some pro sailor wants...not what some manufacture wants to give them...its their money and if you can't (or won't) give them what they want, someone else will step up to the plate and get the job done...to spec, on budget...on time...no excuses.
Actually Wouter.. filling a boat with helium is not as silly as it sounds...
Early 80's there was a lot of experimentation done in the moth class here in Oz, they put bladders into the hulls and filled them with lighter than air gas.
the net result was negligible, but still quite a few pursued it. obviously the moth hulls had a lot more volume back then and there was nothing in the class rules to prevent it.
so a very old idea being rehashed yet again.
accidental
falsehoods that are let loose in the public sphere, right ? Of course, like no other he understands the undesireable effects such an accident can lead to. God forbid, he should find himself at the receiving end.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Time to knock the dust off of the tinfoil hat.
Reality is if you want to work with a design firm, build moulds, then build a boat, you're looking at a ~$70k price tag for the first one, maybe more. I can't spend that, my ol' lady would kill me, not even kidding, dead. But, I could spend $35k and probably still walk away. Would I have a
class killer
? No, I wouldn't. The market will bear, what the market will bear, and there just isn't enough people willing to spend that kind of money on an F16 catamaran. Having a half dozen boats making full use of what is available won't change a thing. It would be faster, there is no arguing that a an ultra stiff, and light weight boat wouldn't be, providing it had the right shape to it.
If I can swing it, and pull it together, I want it. What I really want is a complete one off, being I that's not fiscally possible at the moment, it probably won't happen.
It always comedown to the crew though, and I'm working on improving that as well.
I also know more then a few women who nearly starve themselves to death and look like bloody skeletons because they've somehow convinced themselves that they are more attractive that way.
I guess that you also feel that the doctors and psychiatrists are wrong to claim the opposite in this case as well ? Hundred thousants of women can't be wrong right ? ... Right ?
Nicely constructed argument there Wouter. How about answering the question properly. Your reference of women is relating to so called physical improvement. My reference to sailors relates to a performance improvement, so your argument is of very little substance.
And F16 sailors believe 18 kg makes no difference.
Correction, the company AHPC believes such a thing. All the other F16 builders and class member opinions are nowhere near that far away from the minimum weight. Hell, even my own ply homebuild is not that far off the class minimum and that says something as I was not at all anal about a few grams here and there !
Wouter
I would imagine AHPC are more focused on producing a product that is cost efficient and performs. They are under no illusion that if their boat was 18 kg lighter, it would be quicker...... But also more expensive. They have designed and built a boat that performs equally or better than all current F16s, giving away a weight advantage but making up for it with superior design.
The reason why large volume manufacturers find it expensive to build boats down to weight, fully utilising the freedom of the current formula is because catamaran manufacturing is not an on the side “hobby” project for them, but either their main source of income or an economically viable business in its own right. They offer worldwide distribution, dealer servicing, marketing, product warranty, extensive research and development programs.
Quote below from Brett Goodall.
http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubb...
As a major manufacture we have to guarantee our boats, and in Europe that is 2 years by law. If you under build your designs then you are effectively playing Russian Roulette with your business. The other option is you have to charge more per boat to cover the high level of warranty claims.
The second point of stiffness is something that gets highly over looked as an integral design feature. I’m not going to get into the
He said
-
She said
-
my numbers show
arguments here... As an engineer I know we can all take different conclusions from the same results. But the fact is stiffness comes at a cost, either dollars or KG (lb for the Americans among us). You have to choose the trade off between weight Vs stiffness. On a side note I believe this is a good feature of the F16... that is that the designer must make another critical decision.
While I agree that some manufactures choose to build easy / cheep boats in favour of
High Teching it up
I think it is rude to assume it is "Apathy? Ineptitude? Laziness? Greed? Arrogance?. In all situations the decisions have been carefully thought through and choices made.
I encourage anyone who feels they can do a good job at designing / manufacturing a catamaran to do so... then consider doing it commercially.
There is more to speed than weight. I would like to see the F16 weight limit removed.. no min weight.. As there is a lot more to performance than min weight.
I personally believe the Viper beams are not even close to being to big. It makes a massive difference in performance to the boat.
F18 beams in general are to small.
Have you seen the size of the tree trunks on the M20.
The Viper is fast because it has stiff hulls, bulkheads/sub decks, stronger beams. It not a business decision to put on the same beams its a performance/quality decision.
Do you hear any Viper sailors wanting to raise the class weight?
So remove the weight limit, let everyone find a compromise between weight, quality, stiffness, performance.. The Viper won't change. I predict the boats will get heavier and stronger and hence faster. Unless your willing to spend real $$$'s.
F16 is a development class, go for it...
Wouter
ROFL. For somebody claiming to be so smart you do post stupid things at times.
Are you sure they don't just consider the advantages of the larger hull design and shape to be of greater advantage than the extra weight being a disadvantage?
Just a thought... I wonder how fast the Viper would go if they were able to ditch the extra 20(?) kgs???
Tiger Mike
They have attracted world class crews who perform equally or better then all current F16 crews, accepting a weight disadvantage in boat design but making up for it with superior sailing skills by their crews.
So, I've correct your mistakes for you.
Wouter
Get your facts and head straight. This is what the class rules say.
It is not a pure development class and never was. Good luck with your products and new career.
Sadly we do, or are we to count for example Greg or Robbie (see youtube video's) not as a Viper sailors ?
This has got to stop.
And the doomsday quotes of 35K+ for an optimized F16 (that seem to come from
nowhere
) must end with it.
We are all in this boat together and it will do no good for anyone to polute one's own nest.
It is time to close the ranks and grow this exiting class together.
Fortunately most Viper owners do not fuzz at all about such issues and are happy to participate in the F16 class and we welcome them all warmly.
I would claim that the Viper is fast because it is an F16 !
The F16 class design ratio's are spot on. For example, the sheet loads are viable to mixed crews because the sails are better proportioned to the physique of such crews and not because the hull has bulkheads (that in fact all F16 builds have). Improved ability to sheet the sails makes crews faster.
Of course the F16 class will NOT remove the minimum ready-to-sail weight from the class rules. If we did then yes I think a 35K F16 will be a realistic possibility. There is no point in going overboard in this sense.
I do however fully agree with mr Bundock statement to :
... let everyone find a compromise between weight, quality, stiffness, performance ...
That is exactly the basic idea behind a formula set of class rules. It allows for slow development giving us better boats over time while maintaining fair racing and also limiting the purchase cost to acceptable levels.
Wouter
45degapparent,
I can't fault the facts in your posting and so I won't.
I also understand the sentiment that is expressed with it and I recognize that many have become irritated in a similar fashion. I too have become fed up with certain parties trying to be both in and out of the class, causing a huge amount of controversy that is quickly nearing its
enough-is-enough
point. It appears that this is giving rise to a backslash to anything related to the Viper or Australia and that is very regrettable.
Yet I feel Darren Bundock (poster Bundy) is very much innocent in this respect. I recently had a meeting with him and Carolijn Brouwer and discussed various issues related to the F16 with them.
I found them to be fully supportive of the F16 class and their concern was much more related to the enduring controversy then with the F16 class rules. On this area I think we all fully agree. The solution is therefore simple, keep what we got in the way of class rules structure and put an end to the endless controversies.
I feel that is also what Darren is saying in his posting.
I'm looking forward to working together with him and Carolijn in growing the class here in NL en EU
Wouter
congrats on your teams recent successes...
Hope you are enjoying the
retirement
..
All the very best
Cheers
Stewart (hoping to retire very soon)
F16 is a development class, go for it...
I think that the above statement is a very valid one and one that time will prove. With the technologies available the 100 kilo boat is very feasible but to achieve that weight the boat will be smaller in all areas including hull volumes and beams and hence will not be as stiff and will sit lower in the water ( drag ). That balance between stiffness, hull volume and economy of build will be the leveller in performance and for me that is a really good thing as it will allow the heavier boats such as the Viper to compete equally with the more exotically built lighter boats.
As to taking the min weight rule away all together, to thornier subject to even contemplate for a few years I'm afraid.
When we envisioned this class and began it my objective was a light (since I'm getting old and too many years of dragging 300+ lb boats up beaches, raising heavy masts, trying to right heavy NACRAS/Hobies, took it's toll on my back), high performance small cat that could be sailed/raced by one crew or two by just slightly changing sail plan. I used to sail NACRA 18sqs and they are certainly a fast single hander but heavy, hard to move around, heavy mast, almost impossible to right, etc. I bought an old
woody
A cat- ~200 lbs. and took it to sail with my old 18sq buddies- amazingly to about everyone it was just as fast around a W-L course as the bigger, wider, much more sail area squares- but the trailering, launching, righting, sheet loads etc. were so much lower I could see sailing/living with this boat into
old age
. Since I had kids the option to carry them with me occasionally was something I really wanted to. It was at the
A
cat worlds talking to Jim and Greg when I found out about the Taipan- which was being built and sold at the current F16 weight and met my
ideal requirements
quite closely. So I got the first one in the US, and with some other international Taipan enthusiasts, we looked at the success and model of the F18 class and designed ours around a simple concept: a light, 16 foot catamaran with relatively high performance at a relatively economical price that could be sailed either one or two up
heads up
that could be built by anyone who chose to meet the
box rules
. BIM was building the BIM 16 at the time and the hope was this would provide another production boat to get the class off the ground, but it was up to the Taipan to do that alone- and it was obviously up to the task.
I agree with Bundy that there is more to speed than (boat) weight- I raced for years on a 365 lb. NACRA 5.0 (not knowing it was that heavy until we finally weighed all the boats a Nationals!) and did very well against lighter boats- certain conditions can even give a heavier boat an advantage IMO. But unfortunately dragging/trailering/loading/righting that boat by myself was a killer compared to my 220 lb Taipan or 165 lb
A
cat.
The beauty of a box rule is everybody who meets the min/maxs of the rule can play and can design a boat that meets their specific needs. I for one would rather spend another several hundred dollars or Euros for a lighter boat not because it might be marginally faster but for all the other reasons. When we first started this class many of the
originals
had some physical
issues
- bad back for me, several with severe arm injuries, desire to sail with a small child/crew, etc.
This group has always been about being a little
different
- and that's fine with me- and I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and we should respect that as long as they are not trying to force it on the rest of us.
I am just thrilled that 10 years after envisioning this class we have had multiple manufacturers of great products support our class and design/build boats to our rule. I think that is enough of a testament as to the validity of the original concept of the class. Macca, Brett, Mike, Bundy, Wouter, etc. all have some good points- let's focus on the positive and let people design/build/sail the F16 they want.
I personally am off to sail my old original Taipan!
Kirt