Is the Hobie 16 significantly easier to rig than a Nacra 5.2?
-
- Rank: Lubber
- Registered: Feb 24, 2010
- Last visit: Mar 03, 2010
- Posts: 4
Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 04:00 PM
I'm trying to decide between purchasing a 1994 Hobie 16 and a 1981 Nacra 5.2. Both are priced about the same. Since I will have to trailer the thing to the boat launch every time in order to sail it, the ease of getting the boat in the water and ready to sail makes a big difference. So anyway, how long should it take the average person to rig a Nacra 5.2 vs a Hobie 16? My guess is that I'd be rigging pretty much solo because my crew will not know how to do any of it. I heard the Hobie 16 is pretty easy to setup, but the Nacra 5.2 looks a lot sexier IMO. -
- Rank: Chief
- Registered: Jun 24, 2009
- Last visit: Jun 15, 2023
- Posts: 1555
Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 04:49 PM
The Hobie 16 is an easier boat to manhandle and rig. The fact that it is a 1994 may indicate that it is in better condition, depends a bit on how it was stored and sailed. Mast stepping for both boats is a 2 person operation.
The advantages of the H16 are that it is simpler to rig and simpler to sail (no dagger boards). And if age is in any indication there will likely be less bits to replace. H16s are hard to right though and like to try and pitchpole.
The advantage of the N5.2 is that it is a more modern design, it points better and is slightly faster. It also will not pitchpole easily and is comparatively easy to right. Overall it is very well behaved solo and very forgiving of mistakes. I have one so I'm a little biased.
Depending on your setup rigging a 5.2 will take the better part of an hour (likely more like 3 the first couple if times you do it). There are tricks for making it easier though, by using quick release pins at certain spots and leaving some things setup, depends on how much money you want to spend on upgrades. The H16 can be setup in about a half hour (maybe a little more) if you know what you are doing.
D.
--
Dave Bonin
1981 Nacra 5.2 "Lucile"
1986 Nacra 5.7 "Belle"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
-- -
- Rank: Mate
- Registered: Oct 19, 2006
- Last visit: Aug 16, 2017
- Posts: 613
Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 05:37 PM
I have a H16 and have to haul approx. 1 hr to the nearest lake, it takes about 45min to rig even though I have my own mast step setup, http://www.thebeachcats.c…pictures&g2_itemId=53380.
I have also rigged my cat with a furling jib as I sail solo most of the time, needless to say, I make a day of it when I go sailing. The H16 is easy to rig and easy to sail solo but as Dave mentions, when it does start to blow I find myself trapped out on the back of the windward hull with one foot on the hull (there is a footstrap attached to the hull) and the other on the tramp frame to balance the forces trying to pitch the leeward hull nosefirst into the water.
I bought the H16 because the price was right, the distance to drive to pick it up was not too severe and also because the '79 hulls are solid, better/stronger built than later models. and parts are easy to get. The P16 has high volume hulls, which I like, can take a heavier crew, also does not need dagger boards due to the asymmetrical hulls just like the H16.
But like you I love the shape of the Nacra, just oozes sex-appeal with that dart shape to the hulls. I need to educate myself on the Nacra's, I'm looking at upgrading to 18' and if there is an 18' Nacra that does not need daggerboards, I will seriously consider one. Right now the P18 is the only one I know of that does not need daggerboards.
--
TurboHobo
H14T
H16
P18
G-Cat 5.0
P16
-- -
- Rank: Chief
- Registered: Jun 24, 2009
- Last visit: Jun 15, 2023
- Posts: 1555
Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 07:14 PM
The Nacra 5.7 (570) is almost 19 feet long and doesn't have boards or a boom. If I ever see one a reasonable distance from me I'm going to grab it!!! I LOVE that boat.
--
Dave Bonin
1981 Nacra 5.2 "Lucile"
1986 Nacra 5.7 "Belle"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
-- -
- Rank: Mate
- Registered: Feb 19, 2008
- Last visit: Aug 26, 2023
- Posts: 671
Posted: Feb 25, 2010 - 01:53 AM
in 1977 a new 5.2 cost about 50% more than a new h16
but 13 years newer is a lot...
check sails, blocks and lines of 5.2 closely as new bits can cost a lot
i have a 5.2 and am biased too
http://www.thebeachcats.com/index.php?module=pictures&g2_itemId=72046&g2_imageViewsIndex=1
the 5.2's mast in longer than the h16's which means it will be more difficult to raise solo. esp. if it is still the original "free" mast base and not the later "pinned" base
i leave mine mast up on a lake beach next to a h16 and it takes us the same time to raise sails and push off from the beach
i don't like the way the battened jib on h16 hangs up in light air, a real pain when you are solo
i like they way the BIG hulls on the 5.2 can be loaded up and still sail ok
video of 3 adults and 2 children on a 5.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ0WhsOR0Ds
video of a 5.2 pulling out of a nose dive that would have flipped an h16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYsF-wtdjEE
edited by: erice, Feb 25, 2010 - 01:07 AM -
- Rank: Chief
- Registered: Jun 24, 2009
- Last visit: Jun 15, 2023
- Posts: 1555
Posted: Feb 25, 2010 - 10:12 AM
All good points. The Nacra is certainly better behaved in higher winds, once you get up the courage to let er go. And the H16 starts to bog down once you get a crew weight over about 300 lbs. For what you are describing both boats will work for you. The deciding factor should likely be relative condition.
The 1994 is likely in better shape, but not necessarily so. It really depends on how hard the boats were sailed and how everything was stored. If the H16 was sailed every day and stored uncovered fully rigged it may have soft hulls and poor repairs and will have to have bits and pieces replaced. If the N5.2 was sailed for a couple of years then put away it covered on a trailer it could be in better shape and just need a buff on the hulls. You really never know until you see them.
--
Dave Bonin
1981 Nacra 5.2 "Lucile"
1986 Nacra 5.7 "Belle"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
-- -
- Rank: Chief
- Registered: Jun 24, 2009
- Last visit: Jun 15, 2023
- Posts: 1555
Posted: Feb 25, 2010 - 10:13 AM
The Nacra could just be toast also. I thought I should point that out. :)
edited by: Wolfman, Feb 25, 2010 - 09:17 AM
--
Dave Bonin
1981 Nacra 5.2 "Lucile"
1986 Nacra 5.7 "Belle"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
-- -
- Rank: Lubber
- Registered: Feb 24, 2010
- Last visit: Mar 03, 2010
- Posts: 4
Posted: Feb 27, 2010 - 06:29 PM
Thanks for all the info everyone! I ended up getting the Nacra 5.2 because it was in really great cosmetic shape, the rigging was new, the tramp was new, and it had nice Harken blocks which would I'm sure are quite pricey to buy new. I got it for $1,200 which seemed pretty fair to me. Right now I'm thinking of just keeping it in storage near a boat launch so I don't have to take the mast apart and trailer it if I want to sail several times a week. It seems doable but just a real PITA. Does anyone know what it costs to store a trailered boat in Newport, Long Beach, or Huntington Beach CA (in order of preference)? The guy I bought the boat from was paying $60 a month for storage in Ventura, but when I called a place in Newport they wanted $156. Is that the going rate here? -
- Rank: Chief
- Registered: Jun 24, 2009
- Last visit: Jun 15, 2023
- Posts: 1555
Posted: Feb 28, 2010 - 01:11 PM
Great stuff. When looking at a used boat for pleasure usually condition is king rather than age. If you need any advice on how to rig it, fix it or make things easier don't hesitate to ask, there are lots of 5.2 people on here and some of us have the pre 1985 boats. Welcome to the Nacra club, you will love it!
--
Dave Bonin
1981 Nacra 5.2 "Lucile"
1986 Nacra 5.7 "Belle"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
--
