How popular are Supercat 17's?

great boat.

Jon,

The designer of the boat, Bill Roberts, frequents this forum and will certainly answer any specific questions you have in detail. There are a decent number of S17s out there but like most sail boat classes, there are areas where they are more popular. They're well respected as very solid stable boats with good performance and are definitely more resistant to pitch polling than the Hobie 14 and 16s.

Hi Jake,
Thanks for your comments. I think you covered Jon's questions very well.
The only thing I would add are some PNs to relate relative boat performance of other boardless beach cats. SC 17 PN=73.3, Hobie 16 PN=76.1, P16 PN=77.5, P18 PN=74.9, Dart 18 PN=76.9, N5.0 PN=76.4 and ARC17 w/spi=70. The SC 17 can be upgraded to an ARC 17 if you want to with a factory kit. The kit includes a self tacking jib, a square top mainsail and a spinnaker and pole. If you usually sail single handed, the self tacking jib would be a big help by itself.
Good Sailing,
Bill

With respect to SC-17s and their Portsmouth numbers - it's a ratings beater, sails faster than the rating would have you believe from what I've seen.

Super Cat17…Great boat, you won’t regret buying one. To my knowledge there is not another “boardless beach cat” under 18’ foot that is faster or more resistant to pitch polling (except for the latest evolution of the Supercat 17…the ARC17).

I have owned a 1982 Boston Whaler built Supercat 17 and I now own a 1994 version built by the people who current build the ARC catamaran series designed by Bill Roberts. That should tell you something…how many people would go out and buy the exact same product again if given the opportunity to purchase something other than what they own?

The Supercat 17 is very well designed and built. They excel in rough water, and good wind, an inevitable combination here in the Atlantic off of South Florida. Bill Roberts (the designer) has always been very accessible to answer any of my questions. Whether it deals with overall set up, performance enhancements, or sailing techniques that takes advantage of the symmetrical hull design rather than the typical asymmetrical Hobie and Prindle hull designs.

Parts are never a problem as they are just a phone call away. Tom Haberman of ARC catamarans and Aquarius sails, will fix you up with whatever replacement parts you need. And if you what to add some more horse power, Tom can do that too, with newer style square top mains and spinnaker kits that are designed and tested to work optimum on the SC17 platform, no need for trial and error.

Regards,
Bob

Keith,
A boat being incorrectly rated by US Sailing can only happen if and when racw committes do not turn race results in. Race committes ,Please turn all ET race results to Darline Hobock. They can be sent by e mail. All it takes is a couple of clicks on the computer.
I think you are right on the 17's PN. I sailed one for the first time in 15 years at the Tradewinds this year. The boat sailed to a 70 not using the spinnaker. Darline has this data. Let's all be good race results reporters.
Bill

What is the approximate cost of a new arc 17 with all the options?

Also, Bill, if you know, what is the cost of an new Arc 21?

I am in the market for a new boat after getting run over by a power boat yesterday.

Hey Arbo, You got run over by a Powerboat?? was that at the Wild thing buoy races on Saturday??

I saw this boat when these photos used on their website were taken last February at Navarre Beach, Florida. Beautiful boat boat, and great quality. Go for it!

http://www.aquarius-sail.com/

I've only seen one up here, but if I'd known the guy was going to sell it, I'd have bought it!

In answer to your title question, they aren't.
There are no concentrations of s17s anywhere.
There is one in the mid-atlantic which races once or twice a year.
I have never heard of a regatta which had two S17s attend.

Are you interested in racing or just sailing?

First off, thanks for all the input! This is a great forum, I post a question and the next day get great input, even from the manufacturer!

I'm not really looking to race. I currently have a '80 Hobie 16 and was thinking about a newer Hobie when I saw this boat for sale. I live in Ithaca, NY and the boat is in the Finger Lakes region. I don't even know the asking price, but if you're interested and I pass on it, I can let you know what I find out.
So, if I go to take a look at the boat, are there any things that I should be looking out for? Any years better or worse than others? I think the ad said that the sail had the number 4 on it. What general price range should I expect for a SC-17?
thanks a bunch.

Jon

Eric,
I'm sorry to hear about your boat accident and thank goodness you and your son weren't hurt. I design'em and sail'em but I don't sell'em. I don't know the prices. I do know that Tom Haberman at the factory has an ARC 17 and 21 ready to sell. The 21 is slightly used but good as new, only sailed a few times. The 17 is new and has not been rigged yet. Give Tom a call at 651-462 7245 and get the details.
I'm glad you guys are OK.
Bill

Hi Jon,
I overlooked one of your questions, the one on "pitchpole tendency". The relative tendency of boats of the same size to pitchpole can be evaluated by simply measuring the height of the bows of the boats in question. For a boat to pitchpole, it must first push the bow underwater and make the deck become the bow, the hull part that is splitting the water. The boat with the tallest bow , the most hull volume forward, is the "less likely to pitchpole" hull shape. Also flat foredecks pitchpole more violently, more quickly, than rounded foredecks.
Good Sailing,
Bill

The SC /ARC range of boats look interesting, I followed the link to the web-site, like the look of the ARC 21, quoted weight is same as F18 ! Is this correct ?
Bill, you amaze me, in previous posts you defend heavier boats with more horsepower as the better route, yet your designs are quoted as being comparatively very light, and on the Tornado thread you argue against going with a carbon mast while many of the ARC boats are fitted with carbon masts. Maybe one day we`ll figure out which side of the fence you really sit ?
I know which route I`d go if it was between F18 & ARC 21, depends on what they cost of course, but I`d go with the ARC even if there`s no class, looks like a big enough toy to go 3 or 4 up, a long way down the coast.
Of course, the 27 looks like even more fun, but I`m digressing here.
The SC17 looks like a good boat, and has the option of upgrading the sails to squaretop main & added spinnaker. Sounds like a fun toy with potential. No offense to Hobie sailors, but I`d go with that option over Hobie 16 any day.

Cheers
Steve

Hi Steve,
Yes, the ARC21s weigh in at just under 400 pounds complete. That is a fiberglass and aluminum boat. I did not know the F18s were so heavy for an 18ft boat. The ARC21 could be built at 300 pounds in all carbon everything and double the cost. The 300 pound boat would have a PN of 58, big whoop! Is it worth it? I don't think so.
As far as ARC products go,the boats are the best built fiberglass/epoxy/aluminum boats on the market. And just so you know, the spinnaker launcher, the square top mainsail and the self tacking jib all first came out on ARC products. The other boats are copycats and some of them can't do that right.
My point about heavier wider boats being high performance is that it is a less expensive way to go fast than all carbon everything and narrow.
On the Tornado mast question: If the new carbon mast weighs the same as the aluminum mast or is only a few pounds lighter weight than the aluminum mast and has the same section and bend as the aluminum mast, then the boat won't know the difference and it will be the same speed. The word carbon does not automatically make a sailboat go faster. Also the Tornado is an established class with a few thousand boats spread around the world. If the class rules are changed and the carbon mast is changed in section and weight and is faster, then that makes a few thousand aluminum masts obsolete. Is that best for the Tornado class for a 0.001 improvement in PN??? I don't think so. The words "one design" have to stand for something in a 40 year old "one design class".
Bill

Bill - our club's results are used in the adjustments, or at least the US Sailing site says so. I keep them relatively up to date on our website, and Darline gets them from there. Past years are also there. We unfortunately use the DPN instead of wind-corrected, which is of less help in the grand scheme of things. Also unfortunately, our 17s have become inactive as far as racing goes, so there's no new results to report to add anything to the 17. We have a 15 that sometimes races, and that's another one that really impresses me.

The new ratings beater in our club is the A-Cat! Amazing boats...

with all due respect, Bill is too general.
i could take a set of hobie16 hulls and make a boat that would never pitchpole by modifing the rig. or, i could take a set of 16' hulls with a 6inch high bow, a deck shape like a torpedo and set the main beam up high enough with streamlined stantions, making a craft that wouldn't pitchpole. the hull would ride under water, and as long as the front beam and associated platform never went under water there would be nothing to trip up the forward motion of the craft.
the point being is that there are many factors in cat design. the rig size and postion be as crucial as hullshape and bow height.
-sailing rules-

Of course we're getting off topic here, but I always found that the thing that contributed largely to the initiation of pitching on my Hobies was the hull/deck joint lip. I sailed on boats with flat and rounded decks that can tolerate punching it in only to pop out the other side, but whenever the deck lip on my 18 or 14 started to get in the water the deceleration and tripping action began to be felt.

Hi Jolly,
If you took all the presently available US built boardless beach cats in the 16ft, 17ft and 18ft length range and measured their bow heights and then took them out and made them pitchpole using the same sailing technique, you will find that the taller bow height boats are harder to pitchpole than the shorter bow height boats.
The imiginary boat you described with the torpedo hull shape underwater has no pitchpole resistance because there is no reserve bouyancy at the bow. It is the reserve bouyancy, the freeboard, in the forward end of the hull that when pushed underwater makes the center of bouyancy migrate forward in the hull and this creats "restoring moment" which opposes the pitching moment from the sails and stops the boat from "pitchpoling". When the foredeck finally goes underwater, there is no further increase in restoring moment so the boat frequently "pitchpoles".
The craft you have configured with the Torpedo foredeck/hull shape that sails underwater has no additional or further increase in restoring moment as the bow is pushed further underwater. As I understand your configuration, it would pitchpole quite easily.
Think about the modification done to Playstation to improve its "pitchpole characteristic". How was that boat changed? The bows were extended 20ft and made much taller. These changes created more "reserve bouyancy" further forward and resulted in a major increase in restoring moment for Platstation which allowed the boat to be driven harder and faster than the original design.
sailing rules, meet Mr. Bernoulli
Bill,

>>If you took all the presently available US built boardless beach cats in the 16ft, 17ft and 18ft length range and measured

Well the list that results from this condition is not really big is it ?

Hobie gateway
G-cat 5.0
Arc-17
Hobie 16
Nacra 5.0

All others like Mystere 5.0 are of course canadian. Other hobie products like the Pacific are European build. Isotopes and such are of course american build aren't boardless. I don't understand what boarded or boardless is imporant with respect to pitchpoling Than the Nacra 5.7 is longer than either 16ft. 17ft. or 18 ft. And so on and so on.

So what bill is saying out of the list of 5 boats, as given above, the "higher bow - higher pitchpole resistance" is valid.

Of course in general this is not always the case although it is often unlikely that taller bow boat is worse than a shorter bowed boat.

The counter example is of coure the difference between 90's generations A-cats and the new Flyer A-cat shapes. Here the smaller bowed hull has more dive resistance because of other aspects that were changed. However these don't fall under the definition as given because these boats have boards or are often produced outside the US. The A2 is of course US build but not available yet.

Wouter

Wouter,
You could add P16 and 18 to your list.
Check the man's first post. The man asked about the SC17 relative to Hobies and Nacras. He is not a racer and wants a boat for daysailing and he is considering the SC17. He asked if it was more pitchpole resistant than Hobies and Nacras. I was trying to give him a simple way to compare boats of the same size/type rather than just say, "yes, the SC17 is more pitchpole resistant".
Bill
PS If you want to go off on a tangent, get into a discussion with the guy purposing Torpedo shaped submarine hulls for a catamaran sailboat.

Remeber that the extra bouyancy should not be used during normal sailing, it is just as an safety margin when you sail the boat bad! Using the extra bouyancy gives you loads of drag compared to using the normal water line.

The new A-cat shape requires that you sail the boat correctly. You have a designed water line, sail the boat that way. If you get the bow to much down, move back and depower the top of the sail and get the boat back to normal position. No one sail the A-cat bow down when going downwind! You might need the non existing extra bouyancy in some extreme conditions, but how often does that occur? The A-cat is a racer and is designed for upwind-down wind racing during "normal" conditions.

Weight
Is a heavier boat is more resistant to pitch poling than a heavier one?!
Take an M20 sailing downwind, add 80 kg in the middle of the tramp or maybe a bit above to compensate for a heavier mast and rig. Is that better or not?
The righting torque for pitch poling divided by total weigh of the boat including crew is always better in a lighter boat.

/hakan

Wouter,
I have seen some of these 90s design boats with the downward sloping foredecks pitchpole when no other boats in the race pitchpoled. I guess someone needs to tell the builders of some of these new boats about the "other aspects".
Bill

I have to argue for the carbon mast on the T. Like someone said on that thread (no, I have not read it in a while), instead of buying several extrusions and testing them to find the best/most suitable, have a mast built like you want/need and be done with it. A team can have a mast(s) tailored to suit their needs and the bend characteristics and quality can be more tightly controlled.

As far as narrower and lighter goes... If you build a lighter boat, then less hull volume is required b/c the weight of the whole package goes down and requires less displacement. So, if you keep a similar volume, more of it will be in reserve for when you need it. Also, with a lighter boat, the crew then becomes a greater percentage of the total package weight and has more control and effect over the center of gravity. On the con side, weight aloft becomes more of an issue too (pitching). As you go to the heavier wider boats, it's not just the volume in the hulls that is keeping them up. Since you have more beam, the crew can get further away from the bow and has more leverage (fore and aft) against the platform to keep the bow up.

W

You of all people Bill should know that to say that "a higher bow has a lesser tendency to pitchpole" is way too simplistic.
Darryl

Will,
I think this post belongs in the Tornado mast thread. But anyway, picking out an aluminum mast to suit a team's wants/needs, assuming such a mast exists, is a matter of going to the boat source and testing several masts from the mast storage rack. You do not have to buy several masts to pick out a stiffer one or a softer one to suit your wants/needs.
Your next comment about the carbon mast confuses me. You start off saying a team can have a carbon mast built like you want/need. Then you go on to say its quality can be tightly controlled. If a carbon mast is built to each customers needs, every mast is a different composite layup. On the other hand if the quality is tightly controlled, all masts are identical in layup, weight, section, bend characteristic, CG location,etc..
The other part of your post has to do with narrower and lighter which I think is a spin off from the SC17 pitchpole question. I'm lost.
Your comment about, "on lighter weight boats the crew becomes a greater percentage of the total package weight and has more control" over everything, total sailing weight and max righting moment, is very true. Boat weight plus crew weight equals total weight. Total weight is the prime driver of hull drag. Lighter weight boats become righting moment limited in less wind strength and require crews to trapeze sooner. Max righting moment determines max sail thrust sailing upwind especially. The two most important drivers of the speed of a particular sailboat design are HULL DRAG and SAIL THRUST. On a lighter weight sailing system the crew weight affects both hull drag and the sail thrust to a greater percentage than on a heavier boat. The lighter weight sailing system will be more sensitive to variations in crew weight than a heavier weight boat. This is an inherent undesireable characteristic of lighter weight boats/platforms.
Bill

Bill,

You're confusing "quality" with "consistancy". Quality of carbon masts can be tightly controlled even though the consistancy can be varied. You can order a high-quality stiff mast, or a high-quality flexible mast. They can lay up the same amount of cloth, but change the fiber orientation to change it's characteristics.

With the aluminum masts, they try to make them all as similar as possible, and simply allow the differences that occur "naturally" in the tapering process to change the characteristic of each mast.

Basically- using aluminum, they build the mast and then figure out how stiff it is. Using carbon they determine how stiff they want it and then build the mast to suit.

Also- how is the lighter weight boat being more sensitive to crew position an undesirable characteristic? A good crew can change their position to tune the boat to the conditions. Also- a lighter weight boat with the same hull section as it's heavier counterpart won't be that much more sensitive as the crew will still be placing their weight over the same section of bouyancy.
However- I entirely agree that a lighter boat would need a correspondingly lighter rig. The A-cats have been known to capsize to windward if the crew allows themselves to get teabagged when a gust dies out.

Yes, I was commenting on quality and not consistancy. The quantity and layup of the carbon can me more widly adjusted than a aluminum mast can. The quantity or resin can also be tightly controlled. You all were talking a/b one designs and masts earlier, so I figured it did belong here. The A cats are one design, but different masts for different people. Stiffer sections for heavier skippers....etc

I think it's kinda nice to be able to see more change when shifting weight. Increased sensetivity to weight is just one more thing to consider when sailing a high performance boat. You don't see F1 drivers running around the course and never braking or shifting.

On a side note, what good is a high tech fast/efficent design if you can't push it hard? I would rank sailability high on the list of speed producing factors.