Andrew MacPherson Interview

Nothing new on F16 from Macca.

At least he is consistent...

Doesn't he say that carbon ought to be ruled out on the F16 other than the boards?

Then he raves about the F20 full carbon boat?

And, didn't he say that he wasn't sailing for anyone in a previous thread that was pretty recent?

Am I missing something?

I know the guy is supposed to be really good, but WTF?

So he thinks the big three ought to come in redefine the rules and basicly steal the class away from those who started it. What a guy.

Looks like a fairly accurate summary to me.

Good luck to the big three. <img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" /> We are all a bunch of misfits, free thinkers if you prefer, and we attract others of the same ilk. I wouldn't worry too much about being co-opted.

I venture that the F18 had timing in its favor, not the big 3. (or 2 at the time)

While it is very sucessful, what other sucesses can be attributed to them?

The 20 class is a hoge poge of dead and dying boats with 1 new super carbon machine that is going to resurect it - YEAH RIGHT <img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" /> Some very consistent Macca logic working here.

We have how many different versions and confuguration of 17? All so succesfull because of them.

Nothing wrong with having large builders and their money for marketing, but it is not the end all be all of any class - just ask the A class.

Nacra and Hobie have now got themselves into a real dilemma, by not entering this market earlier. AHPC now holds the key dominant market share / marketing hype, with the Viper. For Nacra / Hobie to gain any foot hold into that market share, their product has to have a real perceived performance gain. The only real way they can do that is by reducing weight to class limits leaving the Viper as the over weight pup, at which stage AHPC would have to redress the weight issues with purpose built beams and rudder assemblies.

For the F16 class it would be a win win situation.

Or they could produce identically specked and performing boats, joining the Viper in a newly developed Formula, gain plenty of exposure on the regatta circuit and press, professional and non professional teams, perhaps a youth or women’s circuit........ And be a real threat to the F16 formula.

I would not be so ****. You can see it coming from a mile away if you are not wearing blinkers.

It is business and nice guys finish last.

No one says they will come in and steal your Formula, however they could set up a rival formula and steal away market share.

Nacra and Hobie both already had boats which where more or less the same as the F16 concept called FX1 and F17, and failed.
IMO I dont see why they will join the F16 class any time soon.

What if they do?

Cool, good for everyone.

As to taking market share, they are going to have take AHPC market share first, with growing fleets of Vipers they are off to slow start and unless they produce a rival boat soonish, they will never catch up.

Or from the Blade, Falcon or Stealth. AHPC could feed of the introduction of any Nacra / Hobie 125kg 16 footers as could Hobie and Nacra feed of the Vipers existance. As with F18s and as Macca poined out in his interview, some people are loyal to their manufactures and will only buy from their manufacturer of choice.

Neither ever had much of a class, they'd be buying into an existing class as a F16 though. I think that makes a difference.

Yeah and, thats what marketing is all about, getting customer loyalty. Unless Nacra and Hobie dip there toes in the water and build a 16ft boat then they can only loose more customers to AHPC which in turn could threaten their F18 sales.

I personally am all for the big boys trying to set up their own class, it would leave the F16 class to get on with doing what they want as per class rules plus there would be other 16ft boats to race against. The handicap rating is so close that the gorilla on the tiller is going to be the winner.

If they are sucessful and hold a F16 Heavyweight or what ever competition and we want to join in then its not too hard for us to put a bit of ballast on to comply to their rules for the comp. Bit more difficult the other way.

The F16 threatens the

big

two and a half because it exposes the lie that catamarans have to be built to 1970's-80's weight to be affordable.
Several of the F16 builders have proven that this is not the case.

If the evidence ever sinks into the thick brain washed heads of the sailing public their masquerade will be exposed for what it is. The fact is; you can have a strong light efficient boat for the same price as a lead sled disguised in a modern design.

The extrapolation naturally takes you to; If they can build a F16 light weight, then what in the world are we doing accepting a 400lb 18' cat or a 13' roto-mold low performance cat that weighs as much as an F16? Thinking sailors will move towards the F16 concept, and forward thinking classes like it...the sheep will continue to follow the crowd over the cliff.

Catamaran sailors would never buy a new cell phone that was as big and cumbersome as those of the 1980's, nor would they own a computer that had the attributes of a Commodore 64, why they will accept a low tech 1970's boat molded in a modern shape will forever escape me when alternatives exist.

If weight is no issue why has Hobie Europe offered 6 catamarans less than 4 meters in size yet people are still moving forward with the F12 concept?

Why would the big 2-1/2 want to undermine the F16?... If other builders are building to F16 specs (or extremely close to them) it leads us to believe that the big 2-1/2 chooses not to. Apathy? Ineptitude? Laziness? Greed? Arrogance? Only they know for sure why they don’t put out a product that rises to the F16 concept.

Geez! Thanks.

Seeker,

While I am not disagreeing with you, there are many point you have not considered.

Firstly, it is more than possible to build a boat close to minimum weight without blowing the budget. Smaller manufactures and home builders have proven this. However this does come as a trade off on two fronts, durability and stiffness.

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 get highly over looked as a 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 favor 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.

Oh and more

on topic"... does this forum enjoy the banter with macca???? this is the second thread specifically aimed at him. Just an observation.

Personally, I would be willing to take that risk.

And no, I don't enjoy these discussions, mainly because they are almost entirely data-free.

I think its more to do with him targeting the class more than anything. This just happens to be the choosen battle ground. In other words, he started it. <img src="<>/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin" height="15" width="15" />

At some point it will be fiscally viable to build boats lighter, cheaper and stiffer. Some person or company will come out with the next best thing in composites that will make us wonder why we even bothered with epoxy/carbon-fibre. Like many things in the past, it'll probably happen by accident, though those opportunities grow few by the day.

Any manufacturing business, if they've got the capital to move forward on a different product to fill a niche, they will do so. So long as it looks like there is a going to be a return on that investment, in other words its gotta pencil out. Sure, someone could have a underweight, fully optimized F16 built, but how much would it cost, and how many could you sell? Look at Marstrom, how many M20's do they sell?

So, is there actually a niche for a fully optimized F16?

Karl, maybe one day I'll magically grow wings and be able to fly like a humming bird.

Lighter, stronger, faster, better is without exception more expensive. Time to be realistic.

Brett

Thank you for your thought provoking response.

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.

>>>I find this hard to accept, if this were true no one would sell

A

class cats in Europe as they are without question much more fragile than the F16. As a manufacture you have the right to define a reasonable scope of use for your product, outside of which the warrantee is void, as is the case with every other manufactured product.

The second point of stiffness is something that get highly over looked as a 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.

>>>As an engineer you know without a doubt that the very discipline itself is centered on designing structures, whether a catamaran, a car or a space shuttle ... maximizing strength/weight/performance/cost restraints and countless other factors.
To do other wise is no more scientific than a back yard builder saying

if one layer of glass will do the job, two will make it twice as strong

that's not engineering. Using F18 beams sizes for economy of manufacturing, with all due respect, is a marketing decision, not as much as an engineering one, although I concede there is a slight benefit in stiffness as a by product...

While I agree that some manufactures choose to build easy / cheep boats in favor 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 was not trying to be rude, nor did I assign any particular attribute to AHPC, Hobie or NACRA. There is some reason the three above builders have not built an optimized F16... a larger boat builder has an advantage over a smaller builder in raw material costs because of the quantity of materials used if nothing else. Why is it that smaller builders do not have the same issues with the minimum weight?

I encourage anyone who feels they can do a good job at designing / manufacturing a catamaran to do so ... then consider doing it commercially.

They are...they just don't have the budgets to attract the

hired guns

to sail their boats to victories.

Oh and more

on topic

... does this forum enjoy the banter with macca???? this is the second thread specifically aimed at him. Just an observation."

No, I do not enjoy the banter with Macca or any of his minions but it does royally insults peoples intelligence when someone covertly tries to paint an alternate reality like he does thru deception and twisting of the facts. Many of those who do not abide in the truth become victims of their own lies, that is, they repeat the lies so often they began to believe it themselves.

Brett...while I have your attention I would like to ask you a question....is the Viper basically a Capricorn F18 with the distance between the stations compressed? It sure looks like it, and it would be a great way to develop the product with minimum hassle. Just curious.

Aido

Lighter, stronger, faster, better is without exception more expensive. Time to be realistic.

No, that is a false premise...That is why we

engineer

things instead of building them

on the fly.

A properly engineered product aims to give the greatest cost/benefit ratio...spending a lot of money doesn't guarantee a superior product...only a more expensive one.

Take off your

Macca glasses

and you will be able to see the obvious.

Seeker,

Great to here some solid arguments that aren't just thrown around.

I had a response all done but it seems to be lost in internet land somewhere... anyway there was nothing of great importance in it...

But i will answer you question again:

The Viper was designed to try a few ideas we had coming off the back the CAP. We had some theories regarding hull shapes and volume distribution that we wanted to try out. The Viper was really a prototype for these ideas before we implemented them into an F18. The result is even still surprising us with what it can achieve.

As for weather it is a Capricorn compressed... not even close. One of the joys of CAD design is that you can have many hull designs overlayed on one another, we had the Cap as a reference but the whole hull was built from scratch. also with Cad design , product development is quick, cheep and easy so there is no need to cut corners. i have had some people want jobs done on the cheep and from experience, it is ALWAYS better in the long term to do it properly from the start.

I'm a little too busy right now to bother getting into this again, but I always love the conspiracy theories that come out of this group!

The big manufacturers are selling lies!!!?? awesome stuff.

Oh, I am with Goran Marstrom this afternoon and tomorrow, would anyone like to know the costs to build a fully optimised (properly engineered, with warranty) F16? I am sure we can work it out for you all..

Always a sign of ones importance when you have to name drop. Was it Mrs Bucket or Mrs Bouquet.

Yup a Marstrom carbon F16 would be ubber cool and a rich mans toy but it still is going to have to be 107 kilos, so I think I'll stick to my Stealth and spend the rest on a year of sailing practice ( and I bet I would be faster around the course than with the Marstrom ).

Right, where were you yesterday? I didn't see you doing your sailing practice with the rest of us <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

And next time I see you please remind me that I need to convince you to come to Como <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

Designing a boat, much like sailing one is a series of carefully thought out compromises. They may me detailed engineering decisions, but all still contain a cost benefit factor.

The big 2 have a history and significant amount of money tied up in existing boats that are very close, in concept anyway, to the F16. Someone in their organization has more than likely done some noodling over this and obviously decided for the time being there is not an economic benefit for them to enter into this market. As Bret pointed out, for a “company” to produce a product it has to backed up with warranty, real engineering, and plain old product development and support. This is unbelievably expensive if your market is only a few boats.

Compounding this is that the F16 rule is written to be a performance race boat. Part of the problem with achieving mass acceptance of a light weight performance package is always going to revolve around educating the customer. Everyone, of course, would want to have the fasted lightest baddest, all carbon super racer on the beach. Unfortunately for the commercial builders who have to back their product there are a large number of people who end up treating their new boat the same way they treated the 500 dollar used Hobie they had previously. Going out in conditions they are not qualified for, dragging it over rocky beaches, lax maintenance etc. You cannot treat a modern flat bottom high volume hull like you would your old thick keel V-bottom, not matter the weight. An A class will last a long time, but it will not make it a season if treated like I have seen a lot of people treat their boats. This does not apply to all, but if you look to mass marketing, you begin to attract this group of owners, which is why I feel the bigger builders will continue to avoid the F16.

The F16 concept was set up as sailor’s class, with more in common to the A than the F18. Both of those have been successful, but for very different reasons. People get upset with macca in particular, but he is just a spokesman for those that feel that the class should be builder dominated, and that if the class revises its rules the big players will start to play. The world already has several similarly sized heavier boats that have not been a marketing success. Yet we see continued attempts to raise the min weight, which IMO is one of the sole reasons the F16 class has grown where others failed.

Getting us back to the design and compromise concept. Weight does not necessarily equate to stiffness or robustness, it is cost and marketing. Using F18 beams on a 16 is a cost decision. It reduces molds, design, inventory and shop space and labor. It is not a design decision for stiffness of the boat, as a round section could easily be specified and sourced that saves considerable weight and is a lot better in torsion than the rectangular section now. Recycling F18 castings, foils and fittings does the same. In the end, this additional weight has to be very near what the boat is over, meaning the hull laminate is very close on weight per surface area to many of the small and 1 off builders. I apologize for singling out the Viper as all builders and even home builders face the same sourcing cost, and ease issues, but these particular items were used repeatedly in the context of this post.

The F16 is not for everyone, nor should we try to make it so but there is a nitch and enough customer base to make it a good thing.