New BIMARE X-16 vs old Javelin 16

Thanks, I will try that first.

Simon,
I think you are talking about what it says on the AHPC web site about the Viper, which is just generically talking about the F16 aiming at lighter sailors than other classes of boats, as opposed to other brands of F16's.

So I wrote to ask Greg Goodall about this, and here is his reply:

Hi Mary,
You are correct; they have got their facts the wrong way around. The Viper will carry heavier sailors much better than any of the other F16's. The Viper is the most buoyant and stiffest F16 being built. The Viper is about 10% more buoyant than the Blade and 50% more than the Taipan.

When I designed the Viper I was very conscious that the weight for most crews for F16 was 120 to 150 kg (165 - 330 lb). Hence I designed the Viper with plenty of buoyancy to carry this crew weight. Too much buoyancy in a hull design is only a very small penalty in performance, but an under buoyant boat is a much bigger penalty.

Having extra buoyancy has the added benefit of making the boat safer and more comfortable to sail.
Regards,
Greg

OK

The viper is not built to minimum class weight. I would not purchase a boat that is substantially overweight.

If you look closely at a viper you are in essence looking at a capricorn with two feet cut off. The beams, rudder stocks (not sure about the rudders) are straight off the capricorns.

The Viper is an over engineered boat, which I am sure makes the boat extremely rugged, but at the same time this causes the boat to be overweight. Although if you look at the last F16 - A cat invitational you can clearly see that boat weight has very little to do with performance. Robbie Daniels won the event on a Viper with CF mast. That being said, put Robbie Daniels on a piece of plywood with a bed sheet as a sail and he will beat everyone on the course.

I guess when you build trucks they can be driven by truckies.?? <img src=

alt=

/>

I find it very strange that members of a class like the Formula 16, which is trying to build itself up, would not be supportive of and encouraging to new boats and to designers and builders who are creating boats specifically for the F16 class.

Mary, what makes you beleive the F16 class members are not supportive and or encouraging?

Personally I do not think the F16 class is

trying

to build itself up. People come to the F16 class because they are looking for an alternative to high performance cat sailing; a light weight spinnaker boat with the ability to race one or two up. People do not come to the class because of what the members preach, people will only preach what the class preaches.

The F16 class members do not need to support any builder. I think it should be the other way around. The builder should support the class members. Remember there wouldnt be a builder if it were not for the class members. The members are the people who put money in the builders pockets by purchasing boats, hardware and sails.

The F16 class is in a very comfortable position as of today and I am sure it will only get better. Obviously any boat added to the fleet will only make the class bigger. But to say the class is trying to grow itself is not an accurate statement.

I rest my case.

Can you at least answer my question please.

The mast is 9,00 m long and the advertised weight is 100 kg.
Therefore the boat does not come from factory F16HT compliant.
The exchange rate prevents the X-16 to be exported to the US. On the other end the weak USD is making reach the European importer of YS built boats

I believe that the X-16 currently has an A class rig on it, which would explain why the height is what it is. It's understandable that a manufacturer will want to re-use existing components, but I hope that this is just a stepping stone to producing a fully compliant F16. I think the kite on the X-16 is significantly smaller than F16 allows, but even so the X-16 was already competitive at Carnac. Converting it to a fully compliant F16 would seem like a win-win situation, and should not be a great deal of work: the boat is already down to weight, and the platform is compliant.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I have a 2004 Javelin 16 and can tell you, that the mast is not a pure A-cat mast. Maybe the length and outer section is the same, but the spreaders are simplified (not adjustable) and there seems to be some reinforcement to the mast section to sustain the weight of two sailors. At least you have the advantage to use A-cat sails. Oxo sails offers two sails for the boat (called F16 sails on the Oxox web page). One with abou 15m² and one in A-cat size or close to it, the stock main sail is a Petrucci pentex sail, at least on my boat.
I think that the only parts which are taken form the Bimare AJ A-cat are the beams, daggerboards and rudders.

As somebody else wrote some days or weeks ago, you may get a positive answer, if you ask Bimare for a 8.5m mast.

Cheers,

Klaus

People can write all they want but that still doesn't have to mean it is actually true.

Wouter

Mary,

What are you referring to here? The class has always encouraged and involved manufacturers interested in the class.

The Bimare X-16 was not built for the F-16 class and does not meet the rules, although it appears to be a very nice boat. Bimare could have chosen to make a boat according to the F-16 parameters if it was interested in doing so.

AHPC and Greg Goodall have been very supportive of the F-16 class. Their Taipan is a foundation boat and new Viper was designed to fit the F-16 rules. It does fit the rules and I'm sure many sailors will buy the Viper as it looks like a very nice design. It happens to be heavier than the rules allow, which may or may not be important to some sailors.

That is the main reason I am looking at the Blade. And also the reason I bought the Mystere 4.3, so I could learn the spinnaker and the snuffer system. Now that I have sold the 4.3 I am working on putting funds together to get the Blade. Hope to be on the circuit next season. Can't wait.

Doug

Hi all,

now I will preface this by making it clear I represent a manafacturer, being Formula Catamarans Australia. But I find it difficult to just accept statements like those from Greg without knowing what tests and statistics they are based on.

I think if we had statistics of Volume and Stiffness tests comparing the different F16's being built at present, you could then make such statements. But until these tests are conducted and statistics published, I think it would be more accurate to describe the Viper as one of the higher Volume and Stiffer platforms on the market. Rather than

the most bouyant and stiffest

.

Above is obvioulsy an email, not a press release, so he would be free to state such about his product.

That said, I am sure he knows the current F16 market and even an eyeball of the other boats will show the Viper has the most volume.

As for stiffness, without tests and statistics, you can not be 100% correct, however I would be supprised if it was not.

Everybody can beat their chests all they like about who's product is biggest & stiffest etc (some might say it's a male thing <img src=

alt=

/>), but at the end of the day volume & stiffness alone will not get you a sustainable product.

Other items for consideration should be (just in he platform alone) : -

1. Distibution of volume
2. Hull rocker
3. Dynamic lift
4. Platform weight
5. Platform torsion

Having seen the Viper & Blade (both the US & Aus model)along side each other on the beach at Zandvoort & a recent regatta here in Oz, I can confirm (unbiased) that both designs vary in all aspects listed above & prospective customers should make their own minds up about which product will give them the best scenario without manufacturer's marketing statments or uneducated statements on this forum. <img src=

alt=

/>

Obviously Gary & myself favour the Blade design & support the philosophy behind Phill's design. <img src=

alt=

/>

Personally I like certain aspects of the Viper (as I do about the Stealth), but equally there are other aspects I dont like & its purely personal opinion.

Yep, it is the whole package that counts.

Those comments were expressed in an email and he is free to say what he wants I guess.

By the way, the Capricorn has more volume than the Tiger. The Infusion has more volume than the Capricorn. I do not see a noticable difference on the track though.

Each package is very different from each other and all have some positive aspects to them plus some negative.

Yes...exactly those F18's mentioned vary quiet a bit & these days It seems the rig development is the only thing separating the later designs.

Going off topic, but it would be really interesting to see a F18 worlds with the current top 80 teams on identical F18s (Hobie 16 worlds style). Sure there would be the usual guys at the front, but there would be some interesting reults right thru the order..... <img src=

alt=

/>

Factory supplied boats.....

Capricorn
Tiger
Infusion
Nacra F18
Cirus

Each day, competitors swap boats. Each competitor only has one day on each boat....... That will be interesting. Unlikely, but interesting.

Here's what I have thought about all the different hull designs in the F18 class, and the A cats.

Some do better in big waves, some do better in flat water, some go better upwind, some go better downwind. Which one beats which one, theoretically, with identical crew, weights, sails, and identical wind, etc. will be determined by the seastate or how much upwind vs. downwind work is in the race. The challenge for the crews is to figure out their own boat and make it go as fast as possible in -all- conditions.

And you are right, the best crews will still come out on top. You just can't go out and buy experience and skill, that takes time on the water. The crews who sail the most, together, are going to perform the best.