Blade

if you haven't received this months sailing world, it has a write up on the f16 Blade.
What a sweet boat. Matt is doing a great job.

Anyone considering buying a Blade and can make it in April to the F16 event in Gulfport, FLA, come down and see for yourself what a sweet boat it is. It looks as if the f16 class is moving forward strong.

Sounds great!
Would it be possible to make a scan of the article?
Thx

Indeed, I would love to have a copy/scan of the article as well.

I wholely agree that Matt is doing a fantastic job.



It is certainly beginning to look that way. I'm expecting to see 2 new Blade F16's at my own home club this season and meet them regulary in my club races. We are finding that there is serious interest in the design here locally. A few are going to Germany as well as UK.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming season !

Wouter

I just received a copy of the Sailing World article ; Here are some teasers

(The test sailors were Chuck Allen and Matt McDonald)


"The conditions were wild and wooly, with a puffy 20 knot breeze and a nasty chop"

"... launch the boat in the shore break and then witnessed what judge Alan Andrews (BOTY) described as ;"watching a ball of spray scream across the horizon."

"Much like an A-class cat, there's no hobbiehorsing"

"BOTY judge Meade Gougeon, who owns and races an A-class cat ... and is familiar with high performance multihlls, was likewise impressed with the Blade. "The design appeared to be unusually forgiving when the leeward bow was stuffed in a wave at speed downwind," He says. "I wouldn't have believed that this boat could have survived what it did if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Twenty years ago ... would've been considered impractical for heavy air but we all saw how well the thing worked in big air and waves."


Sadly there are some errors in the article, for example our mast height grew from 28 feet to 30 feet and then to 32 feet, but overall the article is extremely positive on the Blade design.

This is one major "two thumbs up"

Thank you Sailing World !

Wouter

Wouter, I think they might have been measuring the mast tip off the water, still, I think it's a little high, what is the actual length of just the mast itself? I know the step is about a foot above the waterline with crew on board.

Anybody else notice the blurb "In 2000, a group of European catamaran racers...developed the Formula 16 box rule." This from an American publication!!
Phill- I guess we are officially "European" now!
I wonder where they got that information?
Hope the Blade does well in the BOTY awards!! Would be great for the class to see another article on the new G-cat F16 too and have it considered for the BOTY- Imagine - TWO F16 candidates for the BOTY (so far-) in one year!


Kirt

Not my doing ! I always call this F16 effort a combined US, Aus, EU projects as it indeed was from the very beginning.

WOuter

Sailing World alread did their 2005 Boat of the Year awards, the Reynolds 33 won for Multihulls over the Blade. They only give ONE award for all Multihulls, which is too bad, as they give out about 5 for the mono's (Best Dinghy, Best Racer-Cruiser, Best Cruiser-Racer, Best Racer-Racer, etc...) To try to compare the R33 to the Blade is nuts, like trying to compare a Laser to a Melges 32. They should have at least two Multihull awards, one for "Beach Cats" and one for Large Cats. The G Cat might be elligible for 2006.

True mast height 8.5 mtr (28 feet).

In the article they also quote us as having 19.7 sq. mtr. upwind sailarea instead of the real 18.7 sq. mtr.

But you won't hear me complain about the article !

Wouter

Is that the mast length (28) or height of tip above water line? I think that is the mast length, so add a foot for above water line.

mast length; from mastfoor plate to top of mast, not height above the watersurface.

Wouter

Wouter,

From the open forum, I see that you would go with the Kevlar option on the Blade and forego the carbon foils if on a budget, where I was originally thinking the opposite. Now, I understand the benefits of Kevlar and I suspect this would be a good option, especially for beach storage, where kids jump up and down on your boat when you are not there. So now it comes down to the carbon foil option to decide on. Money is not the issue, but having to endure the eyebrow raising from the wife as the cost of the boat keeps going up. At last years price upgrade of $1000, I could not justify it, but at $390, I'm on the fence. Any thoughts on if it is worth it or not? I'm not a great racer, but I'd rate myself a good or very good racer and in reality I'll probably be pleasure sailing a lot more than I'll be racing as I have been shifting away from racing over the years.

Thanks,

Jamie

A couple comments on carbon daggerboards and rudders: Although weight savings is one advantage, it is not the real reason to get this upgrade. I went with carbon foils for their stiffness. That's the real benefit. For pleasure sailing that would make no difference; for racing there will be a benefit.

Eric is correct about stiffness.

Give special thought to the torsional rigidity. If a foil is twisted and the velocity of the medium (water) flowing over it is fairly constant from the top end to the bottom end, then there will be only one place along the span of the foil that will be truly in tune or having the proper angle of attack. The rest of the foil will be attacking at a different than desired angle.

GARY

Jamie,

If money is no problem then go for it. If the wife will transition from "awwh, ..., okay then" to "Uh-huh ! ain't having none of that" then I would forego carbon in the split second that she needs to inhale before saying no.

Of course US$390 on a total of what 13.000 US$ is pretty small chance.

Stiffer is better and the additional costs seem to be reasonable. The final decision you have to make yourself I'm afraid, I'm not going to do that for you.

Wouter

A friend (who had watched me right my Stealth after capsizing) was quite concerned when he capsized his and then felt the board bending underneath him when he stood on it! His are glass, mine are carbon....

Jamie, my boat has carbon foils. You will see how they are when we go sailing together.

I have stood on my daggerboards when flipped and they DO NOT FLEX one bit. They dont even "crack" (that sound of flexing fiberglass)

Definatley go with the carbon upgrades.

If you aspire to being a true sailer then you have to get your priorities right, always keep in mind the adage "It's easier to get a new wife than it is a new boat" (never tell her that though and think it, DON'T say it) If you WAN’T carbon, then you need carbon.

Those daggers are only 1.2 kg in weight = less 3 lbs. Who said you can't build things light and strong at the same time ?

Wouter

Jamie,

If you can get one glass and one carbon dagger, do the following:

Place them with the ends on a bucket or sawhorse and then stand in the middle of the board.

If you do this test, you will buy the carbon boards. End of discussion.

Good point regarding capsizing. With my weight, I'll be jumping up and down on the daggerboard trying to get the mast tip out of the water. As for the wife, she's stuck with me no matter what I do. Granted if I stray, I suspect I would wake up with something missing. Regarding the purchase, my ace in the hole is that I'm selling my old underused skiboat. She's happy to see that go, so I can always say I'm using the proceeds for the extra cost. She'll take getting rid of the skiboat anyday over spending extra on a sailboat. It's win-win for both of us, except when I'll be looking out at the lake with 0 knot breeze and only glass.

Refer back to your post about drinking beer on the beach!

Standing on daggerboards to righten a cat is totally unnessary, is tricky and should be seen as abuse. It is something for monohulls.
I don't think/hope those daggers see forces of 80 kg or more in normal use (?)So why test them this way ?

Sail your boat in any decent waves or a bit of a blow and your boards will see a good deal more than 80Kg loaded onto them. That being said, you're right - it shouldn't be necessary to bounce on a board to right a modern lightweight cat.

What I have had to do though is just stand on the board (not on the tip, no bouncing) and just lean back to pull the Stealth back up. This is not abuse, and the board (and slot) can take it comfortably.

Ok, I won't bounce or stand on the tip, but at 138 pounds, I doubt it's going to be as easy as just standing on the board and watching the mast come up, especially if it's not blowing. I suspect I'll have to have a bag of water thrown over my shoulder to make it work. Won't know until I try it the first time, but maybe I'll have one of the beach crew come out on a waverunner to stand by as I see what works.

138 lbs = 62.5 kg

At that weight you are not going to solo right the alu masted F16's unless the wind is helping you by blowing on the tramp. You may just be able to right the carbon masted F16's, but even that will be somewhat challenging as 62.5 kg is not much weight by any comparison. I expect that even modern A-cats will have you hanging out flat while righting at that weight.

Alu masted F16's have their threshold at 72 kg (= 160 lbs)
Carbon masted F16's have their threshold at about 60 kg (= 135 lbs)

But these are thresholds meaning righting in flat water and no wind will be very challenging but doable, while righting with some decent wind and seastate may be noticeably easier.

Waterbag seems to be the best solution, favoured by several sailors. A few kg's or liters of water on your shoulder will be enough. It is the most depenable solution and the most inexpensive, simplest and lightest.


Wouter

Jamie-
At 138 I would definitely carry a waterbag. I'm about 30 lbs. more than you and I carry one on my 4.9 (narrower beam too!) as "insurance"- And I have had to use it once. Also doubles as a sea anchor in case you get in big trouble and want to drift slower.

Kirt

Jamie,

I'm 65Kg and have only once failed to pull the Stealth back on my own (admittedly it has a carbon mast). This one occasion I'd capsized about 4 times in one race , and on the fifth the boat just wouldn't come back - a combination of tiredness and the subsequent discovery of about a couple of litres of water in the mast!

Whatever else you do (waterbag etc.) MAKE SURE your mast is watertight. I've since done so by pressurising the mast with a small paint spray compressor and testing the length of the mast for leaks. I found two major ones at the hounds and one of the upper diamond tangs - I filled them with epoxy mixed with microballoons, problem solved!

Due to my light weight, I've given the carbon mast some thought as it should be easier to right than an aluminum mast. But it is my belief that Matt does not offer one with the Blade and I'm really not sure if it is worth pursuing or not. My main concerns are:

1) UV damage (5.5 months a year) and durability.
2) If it is an issue to have the mainsail cut to match the mast characteristics.
3) Getting a mast to the US if none made here.
4) Possible cost issues

I'm slowly coming to the point of committing to which options I want, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Food for thought:

Carbon fiber masts vary widely in quality and utility.

Aluminum masts vary widely in quality and utility.

Aluminum will be lower maintenance and less expensive; opposite is true for carbon.

The superwing mast (on Taipans and Blades) is superb and at the high end of quality for alum masts and the low end of weight for alum masts. It will perform better than some carbon masts and is not THAT much heavier.

I'm not anti-carbon masts and may get one someday; I just want to point out that carbon doesn't necessarily make it better. I prefer my superwing alum mast to tear-drop shaped stiffer carbon masts I've tested. The ultimate carbon F16 mast has not yet been made--I would envision it to be similar in profile and weight to the latest A-cat masts but strengthened in strategic places to handle the loads of twin trap wires and spinnaker use. Until someone designs and builds such a mast, I don't believe there's much advantage over the alum superwing. Gary's Altered has the closest yet (sawed off A-cat mast with wood added to hold the spinnaker), but his mast is a 1-up only mast and I doubt it would withstand the added forces of twin wiring.

Fiberfoam makes an F20 sized carbon mast. Not cheap, but I am sure it would hold up to normal trap and spin use and abuse.

I'm sure Hall Spars could build you anything you want, as long as you can write the check. http://www.hallspars.com

Ben Hall races A Cats so I'm sure he can do it. Could any of you A cat guys tell us what a new Hall Mast costs? My guess would be about $3,000?

I believe the VM Blades that are being built today are fairly close to the F16 minimum weight (probably 3 to 5 kgs over min, just from a very short conversation). How much lighter is the carbon mast? Better to stay class legal, in my opinion.

1) UV damage (5.5 months a year) and durability.

Alu wins out big in this respect.

2) If it is an issue to have the mainsail cut to match the mast characteristics.

not a problem.

3) Getting a mast to the US if none made here.

expensive

4) Possible cost issues

carbon mast itself will be expensive as well. Think many thousants of dollars (3000-4000 US$)


Alu mast is often also alot easier to modify/repair up to the point of breaking the mast itself. Differences in overall mast weight is not expected to pass 9 lbs. So raising the mast unto the boat should not be that much different. By far most sail development has been done on the Alu rig, so it is fully expected that the new and young carbon rig will be of the same performance as the current alu rig. The carbon rig simply hasn't seen the same amount of devellopment to result in maximizing its potential. But even then the difference between the two are expected to be really small, indistinquisable in anything but very competitive racing in decent sized fleets. The carbon rig will need to get a custom mainsail and that will be more expensive then just getting the standard Dacron sails for the alu mast.

In my opinion the only true benefit (in your case) of carbon is the rightability. I'm not sure whether paying roughly 3500 to 4500 US$ more for that is attractive. Personally I didn't think this to be the case and so I decided to go for alu when I had to make the choice in early 2003. Now I'm 185-190 lbs so rightibility was never a question. Still if I were lighter then I think I would still have opted for the alu mast and right my boat with the aid of a waterbag. Thus keep that large chunck of money in my pocket or spend it on new sails some 3 to 5 years done the road (I'm racing my boat so I need new sails sooner then others)

Wouter

I didn't need much convincing to just stay with the alu mast. I was only thinking about carbon for the rightability. I just know I'm going to need help at 5'-7", 138 lbs on righting the boat when solo. I just wonder how much of a hassle using a water bag is going to be, especially when the boat comes up and it is wanting to take off and you are holding onto this sea anchor with one hand. Ideally, I want something that works quickly, and is not a hassle to use. I have to wonder if a righting pole is a viable solution or if I should just get use to throwing a water bag over the shoulder? Haven't tried either so I wouldn't mind some input.

You are a pretty small guy Jamie. Your expected future situation is out of the spectrum that I know personally (experience) or that I'm familiar with. I hope some others can help you.

I have no experience with righting poles.

Wouter

Jaime if I were you, I would not stress it too much. You will have plenty of time on my boat to get familiar with the rig and with what works.

When you read this, please give me a ring, I lost your number.

Robi

There was a thread going on about righting methods/aids not too long ago. The simplest/cheapest method was to pack a contractor bag/yard waste bag and use it by throwing it over a shoulder. I have not tried it, but I'll probably keep one handy. I'd be "GLAD" to have it . Especially, if you are right on the cusp of getting it righted without any aid (I am 150-155 and a little closer to righting it without aid than you are).

13 days.

I used the Solo Right which was made by Hobie Gary for my TheMightyHobie18 magnum. It was basically an oar with an adaptor to slide into the bottom of the dagger board slot. You would walk out on it and the boat would come right up. I only used it in testing sutuations but it worked very good. Gary used to have a video on his website of a 115lb girl righting a Mystere 6.0 by herself. He doesn't make them anymore but it was a very effective setup that could be easily replicated. He is on the forum also so you could ask him for further details.
I also have Rick's Power Righter on the Taipan but I haven't had the boat in the water yet to test it, hopefully this week. It is a very nice setup and I am sure it will work just as effectively. If you are unsure of being able to right your boat in any condition than I think it is good to have something like these two, even if you only use it in emergency situations. I also always carry a VHF radio, just in case....

Hey Robi,

From what I heard crews can also learn on your boat what DOESN'T work.

You still have this colour scheme on your hulls ? Graey Taino





Having said this, I'm sure that after attending Ricks seminar shortly these rumours will be just that, rumours.

Good luck

Can you please elaborate on this comment of yours? I dont understand it.

The graphics have been long gone. They were scratched up pretty bad in our last hurricane. Its Crazy with a Z. The font makes it look like a E.

Do you do graphics?

Wouter,

A while back in this thread, when discussing aluminum versus carbon masts you stated, "UV damage (5.5 months a year) and durability. / Alu wins out big in this respect."

What is your basis for this statement? Particularly the UV part. I thought most carbon masts were coated with something to make them UV tolerant. For example, Hall Spars says their A-class mast is coated with awlgrip. Does your statement concerning UV damage apply to coated carbon masts?

Geoff
(I17R)

We have found over several years that carbon masts are the equal, or in most ways superior, to aluminium. The UV that is often talked about is a “non event” as all carbon masts are coated with clear polyurethane before use (or should be) this totally eliminates any possibility of UV damage. The “strength” of a carbon mast is in all ways better in practice, than aluminium, other than direct impact. Though in a direct impact situation a carbon mast can “break” whereas given the same impact on an aluminium mast, it will most times “bend” to the point that there is a fold or crimp on one wall, which generally leaves that mast beyond satisfactory repair. A broken carbon mast can be re joined without any major dramas, if you are familiar with the correct procedures. An aluminium mast will “corroded” quite badly in any area where there are concentrations of alkali’s and/or acids in the atmosphere (even if the aluminium has been anodised to 35 microns, and not to mention “electrolysis”) whereas the carbon is unaffected, and there is the obvious advantage of the carbon, by being a “stronger” material, it can be made appreciably lighter than the same profile mast in aluminium. As a “moulded” or “spun” profile, the carbon can be strengthened or lightened wherever it is desired (personally tailored), an advantage that is extremely difficult to accomplish in aluminium. To our way of thinking the improvement of a carbon mast over an aluminium one is about the same as the improvement of an aluminium mast over a timber one. Its simply, new technology versus old.

I just got in from Singapore in the early hours of this morning. I met up with Scott McCook at Changi S C and managed an afternoons sailing of the new VWM Blade owned by David Adams - THANK YOU, David! First impressions are that it's a very good package, even 'straight out of the box'.

I'm going to take the opportunity, if people don't mind, to jot down some thoughts on the experience of this boat versus my own Stealth and my general impressions. I'll post later, after I've caught up with work, sleep, kids etc..

Darryll is refering mostly to other points then durability and that was the question.

Aswer the question of what effect UV and Weather has on properly anodised aluminium. Could an aluminium mast survive 30 years of beachside parking in the sun ? To my personal experience the answer is yes; I had a 1974 Prindle 16 that I sold in 2004. One that was parked 6 months at the time in the sun and sandstorms. Yes it had been degrading by the influence of acids and salt (the white spots) around the fittings but it didn't fail and wasn't about too.

Shall we put a carbon mast through the same measure of abuse ?

UV coating is all fine but it is only a method of slowing down UV degradation. Quite effectively I might add but slowing down over stopping notheless.

I've seen alu mast after being sandblasted in sandstorms for over 20 hours. On the lower part of the mast, the top layer of aluminium oxide was blown away but under the action of salt an new layer was formed. Now do this with a carbon mast. That UV protection layer will not grow back on its own, no matter what other people say.

No I don't think todays carbon masts are something other then durable, but alu wins out just the same in the long run.

Same with carbon beams or extually even more so.

Now if you trailer your boat all the time and can keep it out of the sunlight and weather then carbon mast will go on a very long time, possibly 30 years or more. It is not that carbon is fragile. It is just that whatever abuse to put it through alu will hold out longer.

Wouter

Okay, call me argumentative (what I am) but I just love to react to this :




Shouldn't this read "Can be superior" over "are superior" ?

I've seen my share of carbon duds. The fact that a certain technology has the potential to be better doesn't mean that it actually is better in its implementation.

One great example are the Taipans. There was a test platform of a Taipan 4.9 in 2000 with a Saarberg Carbon mast and a Goodall mainsail. This combo proved to be way inferiour then the old alu mast and mainsail. Mast was way to stiff for the sail while the old combo (alu) had over 10 years of development on it done.

Like with every new technology; it needs a good time of development (trail and error) to realize its theoretical potential. I personally see carbon masts in F16 as in their initial stages while the alu mast rig has now seen over 15 years of development by some very skilled sailmakers. You are not going to beat that alu development with the first series of carbon masts. In the future you may; but not straight away.





Were I am we keep the boats on the beach for 6 months. A couple of spring/autum sandstorms can do wonders with this protection layer. Once it is gone it is downhill. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think carbon mast owners overhere do repaint/recoat their masts every so and so period. In theory Darryll is correct but in practice some other happenings may well impact on it.






For one thing the alu superwing mast is one the most resistant masts I have ever seen. See other posts. It think carbon replacements need first proof that they can be better then that. I'm unwilling to conclude that they are just by looking at a single material property number. In addition, carbon much stonger than aluminium in a direct sense. It is alot stiffer and lighter by direct comparison and this means that carbon layup can by alot stronger PER GIVEN WEIGHT and stiffer. Most most equate this "stronger per given weigth" to just "stronger", but this is incorrect and can even be deceiving. The stiffness is not all together an advantage either.

For a mast sail combo to be trimmable, a big necessity on catamarans, the bending of the mast is needed to flatten the mainsail or to have the top bend away. With the stiffness of carbon this is directly impeded. The solution is to make carbon masts with a smaller cross section and thinner walls. The direct side effect of this is that the mast is intentionally put under higher stresses to result in more bending and thus the mast as a whole will be weaker then it could be when looking at the material properties themselfs.

In addition stiff materials really do not like sudden changes in loads. Many will call this impact. For a while there A-cat carbon masts would break when capsizing the boat at anything but very low speeds. The stiffness of the carbon prevented the mast from bending with the shock load like aluminium and taking the real punch out of the blow.

In my experience, and I really shocked a few alu masts in my past, The alu mast will takes any load, capsize or general shock load without bending. The elasticity of the superwind masts is such that they can bend really really far before permanently bend themselfs.

I have repaired an alu mast myself that was dented after a storm blew my over and it hit a gate with its upper part. It took out a big dent and afterwards tried to take out some small remaining curve in the top. Let me tell you we started out really gentle but quickly we had two adults bobbing up and down one the end of the mast with their full weight to get it to deform. The mast was bending by nearly 30 degrees downward, which is ALOT when you see it. So I really don't agree with "it will most times “bend”"





That is true, with aluminium you buy a new one. The fact that an Alu superwing mast can be had for less then 1000 Euro's will make this still cheaper then repairing a carbon mast that costed 3000 Euro's whne it was new. In fact I can break 3 alu masts before even arriving at the price that it would have costed me to get the first carbon mast. I'm still on my first alu mast though and in 9 years of sailing/racing catamarans I haven't broken a single alu mast.





Like I said my Prindle 16 had a 30 year old alu mast and race halve the time in 15 + knots winds.




This is not a durability issue. Also carbon mast NEEDS to be lighter as otherwise the mast will be FAR too stiff or the crosssection will be far to small.





This propertie is as good as impossible with aluminium. However this is also not a durability issue. In addition it takes quite well developped engineering skills to realize this potential into reality. I refer again to the case of the carbon masted taipan 4.9. The fact that this can be done doesn't mean that it will be done in reality. As far as I know even A-cat masts are only offered in three categories : flexible, medium and stiff. Correct me if I'm wrong but it is either too expensive or impractical to offer more variations. Get the wrong one for your crew and you are worse off or you'll have to have you mainsail recut to correct for it. Naturally, the last action can also be taken to correct a standard alu mast to your crew weight. With this the question becomes ; how much additional effect can be expected from a carbon mast, and is that worse an additional 2000 Euro's to you ?





Great one-liner but I'm sorry to say that I can't underline this statement. The major difference between timber and alu was that more general shapes and improved shapes were possible with alu then with the old techniques used for timber. This difference is not really present in the comparison with alu to carbon and so the difference between the latter two is alot smaller then the first two. In addition glue techniques have allowed timber masts to catch up again, something many are forgetting. Right now it is possible to make shaped and hollow timber masts using strips or plancks and glue. These are then routed into shape. They are quite lightweight and the bending characteritics can be engineered to quite a decent level.

Biggest advantage of aluminium was of course the costeffectiveness of production. A anodised extruded section can be had for such a small amount of money that the labour intensive timber mast production was simply not viable anymore. We musn't allow ourselfs to think that everything is driven by advances in performance.

Wouter

Like I said, that font doesn't work.

The other part I have already told you about in a private mail.

Wouter

Ohhh, I'm really looking forward to this.

Sadly haven't really sailed the Blade myself yet, while I did sail the Stealth F16 is 2 days worth of racing (6 heats).

Via others I know the comparison between the Taipans and Blades, but I'm anxious to learn of a direct comparison between the Stealth F16 and Blade F16. In private mails I've been asked about that quite a few times and I always had to answer that I really don't know.

John, I've send you a PM as well. Please read it.

Wouter

How about a Blade F16 with the Stealth F16 steering?

That is exactly the part where I'm interested in.

The two designers took a completely different approach here.

Stealth was fitted with T-foil rudders, an active element in the way of prevents hobbie horsing and dives and it definately works (personal experience)

Blade directed alot of attention to making the hulls very forgiving in this respect. Meaning that you can dive them under or rock them about without losing much speed at all and while being assured of full recovery. The redistibution of the volume should cut down on hobbie horsing.

Have both approaches resulted in the same net result or not ?

Would adding T-foils to the Blade make it better still or is that not needed anymore ?

Like I said I'm anxious to hear the comparison by someone who knows that Stealth design very well and thus can make a founded comparison.

Wouter

Ok, kids time for bed, Daddy has some reporting to do....can't wait.

OK guys here it is:

I must preface this ‘report’ with the statement that it is entirely subjective, and totally my personal opinion, based on just one afternoon’s sail in conditions and a sailing area that I have not sailed a Stealth in. There was no other Blade or Stealth around, at the time that we were afloat, with which to compare speed or behaviour, my views are therefore based entirely on experience and my best judgement. With this proviso in mind, please feel free to read into the following whatever you wish.

Boat: [color:"red"] VWM Blade F16 [/color] Sail No. [color:"red"] SIN 708
[/color]
Wind conditions: [color:"red"] 15 – 17 knots [/color]

Air Temp: [color:"red"] 31°C [/color] Sea state: [color:"red"] Moderate chop [/color]

Mast: [color:"red"] Superwing with Proctor spreaders [/color]

Main: [color:"red"] Ullman [/color] Jib: [color:"red"] Ullman [/color] Spinnaker: [color:"red"] Redhead [/color]

First impressions:

The boat is apparently well built with good quality fittings and beams, the trampoline area is relatively uncluttered with the important controls easily to hand. I particularly liked the ‘de riguer’ self-tacking jib track moulded mounts and the double sided jib sheet system (the Stealth has a single jib sheet). The mast rotation arm is centred via the trampoline with controls out to the side deck each side, whereas the Stealth has the more common boom mounted system. The sails, once up, looked very good with plenty of shape quickly available to either sail via the downhaul systems. I didn’t like the mainsail Cunningham though as there was insufficient travel available on the cascading 8:1 system. This was re-tied several times before launching but was still insufficient to properly flatten the main once on the water. The hulls are the main thing I was interested in though and Matt should be very proud of his product. Scott (McCook) tells me that the VWM stem is shorter at 410mm than the 450mm shown on Phil’s plans and as built by ProSail Asia into Agent Orange. This gives the VWM boat a slightly more aggressive look, but does it affect the boat’s performance? The hull finish is excellent and I could not fault the joints, beam trays or board trunks. Speaking of boards, I was amazed to see that the Stealth centreboards are almost double the depth of the Blade’s but around two thirds of the width! For my test sail this Blade was fitted with AHPC Taipan rudder blades as the owner was adapting the ones supplied by VWM. This may have had some repercussions on my test sail as I shall explain.

On the water:

I was fortunate that Scott agreed to crew for me as my wife had decided that the Changi S C swimming pool and sun loungers were more attractive than blasting around Serangoon Harbour on the end of a wire! We therefore set off at a brisk pace upwind with me out on the trapeze while Scott adjusted the mainsail cunningham and mast rotation (see earlier). Once we had established that the main was as good as we could achieve in the circumstances, Scott joined me out on the wire and we began to really push. The Blade slices easily upwind and feels like a much bigger boat. Whereas the Stealth will ‘bounce’ on the waves upwind due to its flat bottoms and relatively high buoyancy, the Blade handled the waves in a more cushioned but still very buoyant way. The sailing angle of both boats seems to be very much the same with the forefoot of the bow just out of the water, but the Blade seems to give a more comfortable ride. It was a shame that we did not have a Stealth with us to compare pace. There was a Taipan 4.9 F16 also out for a sail and the Blade was clearly faster. At this stage it became clear that we had an issue with the rudders not being parallel, the boat was sailing well enough, but occasionally the rudders would ‘lock out’ as I tried to play the waves. We continued though, as we were having a really good time in the building breeze. The Blade tacks every bit as well as the Stealth and carries its speed through the tacks – I was starting to really enjoy the ride and getting quite a good feel for the wave pattern. We started to really fly and Scott played some more with the mast rotation – the Blade seems to be more responsive/critical of mast rotation due to the Superwing – the Stealth uses a more pear shaped, tapered carbon mast and although it does, of course, respond well to correct rotation, it is more forgiving than the Superwing. I quite liked the Superwing mast, but I think I prefer my carbon tapered mast for this reason.

After a fair bit of this upwind work, we turned to try the spin. The kite was up very quickly and smoothly, the system is exactly the same on my Stealth with a single line hoist. First of all we heated things up with me out on the wire and Scott playing the kite from on the hull, the main was cleated in hard and I played the traveller. The Blade absolutely LOVES downwind! It’s not as solid downwind as the Stealth though, which (with its foiling rudders) simply picks up and drives with every gust. The Blade needs to be worked downwind to get the best out of it and (when you get it right) is very rewarding. The lee bow would occasionally bury but the boat simply shook it off and carried on. I was having some difficulty staying on the side of the boat with the rapid speed changes and no aft toeloop(s). A couple of times we nearly came a cropper as I left the boat and went waterskiing! We carried on and tried a few fast gybes, now though Scott was trapezing behind me and I stayed on the hull up against the rearbeam. The Blade is just as responsive as the Stealth, and the misaligned rudders were not a problem at lower manoeuvring speeds. At the higher powered-up-with-spinnaker speeds though the rudder issue was a bit more of a problem and within minutes I’d flipped the boat in one bearaway gust as the rudders locked out.

This now gave me a chance to see how much of a difference there might be between a carbon and an ali mast – I weigh about 70Kgs soaking wet (which I now was ) Scott is around 75Kgs I would guess, so the F16 should pop up real easy with our combined weights. In those conditions, on my own, I reckon to get the Stealth back up within a minute of putting the kite away. With the Blade, Scott quickly had the kite away, but the boat showed no sign of coming back up with just him on the righting line. I quickly got up onto the lower hull and then leaned on Scott. With our combined weight it still took probably more than a minute for the mast to ‘unstick’ but then only seconds after that for the Blade to pop back upright. Our pitchpole had been a biggie – we’d lost one centreplate (I recommend attaching the boards to the shrouds with a length of line and a caribine) and the tiller bar and extension! A quick sort-out and then we sailed a short distance upwind to collect the (floating) centreboard. A tack and we picked up the tiller bar. I should explain that, because of the borrowed rudders, the tiller bar had to be retained on the tillers by bungee. No breakages though, so some more sorting out and we set off again. We made some more distance to windward and I was again impressed with the smooth action upwind in the moderate chop. A couple of reaches for fun, fully powered up, with us both wiring and then we turned downwind again. This time I hiked the boat at the outset with Scott trapezing behind me and locked up against my back. With the boat heated up again we managed to surprise quite a few onlookers with the speed of the Blade downwind, incredible amounts of green water splashing across the trampoline, the lee bow disappearing and reappearing, and the boat barely slowing. It’s a much wetter ride than I’ve experienced on the Stealth, but fun! The Stealth tends to plane easier with its much flatter bottoms, it’s not as smooth a ride upwind but downwind I think it has the edge over the Blade – it’s predictable and I think you can push harder in strong breezes. That said, I still think the Blade is a superb boat that feels much bigger than an F16.

How much of the Stealth’s downwind strength is in it’s rudders is difficult to tell- the Blade and Stealth have very different hull bottoms. But, as already mentioned on the catsailor forum, I’d really like to try the Blade with John Pierce’s latest Stealth rudders.

Overall I’d say the Blade is probably a more comfortable boat upwind than the Stealth, the two boats seem to handle equally well and both have almost identical systems and gear. I also thought that torsionally the Blade is not as stiff as the Stealth and the hulls could be seen moving a lot in the chop upwind. This may well have helped the ride. The Stealth uses nice large 3 1/2" dia round beams as opposed to the smaller mast section beams on the Blade. The Stealth is, in my opinion, a stronger downwind boat and can be pushed harder than the Blade and in stronger breezes. I particularly am sold on the Stealth carbon mast, both for its lightness and its non-critical nature in terms of rotation.
Which boat would I buy given the choice? That’s a tough one! I think if it HAD to be the standard boat, it’d be the Stealth – just. My ideal though would probably be the Blade (because of it's looks and upwind ride) with a Stealth mast and rudders (if – as I suspect – the Stealth rudders are the real power behind the Stealth’s amazing downwind behaviour). For the moment though, I’m very happy with the boat I have.

Thanks alot John, just what I was looking for :

Your comparison seem to run parallel to that of Stealth vs Taipan for a long way.

A few quick comments :



What do you mean exactly by this. The hulls are less high ? Or just the very front part ?




Here too we see two entirely different design approaches. It appears that both work. Interesting.





That is a pitty. The rudder board profile as supplied by VWM is of a noticeable better section than the AHPC ones. You would have had full control at all manouvres with the other ones. I have the AHPC ones myself and while they are generally good sections, you can make them stall (lock-up) during some more extreme manouvres. Still it; appears you had more trouble with steerage then is normal for well alligned AHPC rudders.





After having raced the Stealth F16 in several day/heats I feel that no boat without T-foil rudders can feel as rock solid as the Stealth F16. You really can just ram the boat downwind and do your thing on the trampoline, the bows will simply not dig in no matter what. I don't know about the payback though (loss in speed ?) but I much rather loose some speed momentarily then risk a deep dive with possibly a capsize. I remember that during the race we eventually wouldn't even pay attention to the bow anymore. We would just round the bouy, get of the trapeze dive forward and start pulling the kite. This in itself is racing advantage in my book. On my Taipan we need to time the bear away and following actions with the movement of the bow section.

I'm absolutely convinced that the T-foil rudders are the reason for the solid feel of the Stealth. Besides John this is easy to test really. Just lend yourself a couple of daggerbaords of a fellow Stealth owners and slide this in your rudder stocks instead of the T-foil ones.





Yep, say no more, those are AHPC rudders alright.





A wild guess here : Your downhaul was on still tight and the top of the mast was hooking the water OR the wind = Standard Superwing behaviour and entirely preventable. The squaretop top is still standing up too much.

I've encountered this behaviour myself a few times. The rig is not cut loose enough. Run mainsheet traveller out (all the way) first, then run out as much mainsheet as there still is left, then completely slack the downhaul, possible running it out with your hand a little bit. THEN Shake the mast a little using rotation arm (mainsail will unjam herself in the mast). Now she will come up as expected. 10 seconds max. If not then release the outhaul (along the boom) as well and make sure the bolt rope is not jammed right about the goose neck.




There should be a system to raise the boards, this should also keep the boards on board during a capsize.




It is true then. Different design approach then usage of T-foil rudders but it works.




That may well be an excellent cross polination between the two designs.




I always thought the Stealth to feel much stiffer then one would expect by looking at the beams themselfs. I was surprised at that myself. I also suspect that SIN 708 can be made stiffer easily by having (halve) disk like inserts underneath the outer bolts, in both beams. See close-up of mainbeam. With this the walls of the beam are really jammed up between the inserts and the beamlanding and can't flex.







Thanks alot John,

I will from now one refer interested parties to this report.

Wouter

the STEM Wouter, the very front of the bow....



This boat had that mod and yet it still wasn't as apparently stiff as the Stealth. I suspect that it's more than just the beam section that Stealth use. It has a lot to do with the care that John Pierce takes with EACH beam tray he builds for every boat, the way that the striker plates fit into the trays, and the attention paid to the drilling/tapping of the bolt holes.

Great report John! Sounds like you had a good time on the water in Singapore.

A couple of questions to Wouter (I guess)

1: What track is that I see used for the selftacker in the picture (Ronstan?)

2: Why have they done the beam bolts that way? I am used to seeing the beam bolts go trough the whole beam, and compression pads inside the beams. I surmised this was the best setup for max. stiffness.

Thanks Rolf,
We had an absolute ball! BTW the Stealth beams are bolted the same way as in the picture. The method you describe is the one that has always been used by most of the T builders. (as well as other cat builders).
On my Stealth the bolts are Allen bolts with dished washers, but later Stealths have a shaped piece similar to those in the Blade picture.

Wouter

I can tell you that we extensively tested these rudders, we had the prototypes for over a year before we built a mould, and we tried them in 2 boat tuning runs against identical boats with non-t-foil rudders.

In light winds and medium winds on flat water we could see no difference in speed between the 2 set-ups, changing crews every few runs.

As soon as there was any waves, even in light winds the t-foils would start to pull away, consistantly.

As the wind increased the t-foil boat got quicker downwind regardless of waves, upwind the closer the chop the quicker the t-foils were, their upwind speed was related to nastiness of chop not wind strength.

I have to say that I only “skimmed” through Wouters “counter” reply to my earlier post on my opinion of carbon compared to aluminium, but I take it that he disagrees with it??
I did read his comparison of time effect on aluminium comparing it to a “theoretical” similar time exposure to carbon and on this I would like to point out that although his comparatives concern the “life” of the two different material masts, he is forgetting that most of the boats that any aluminium mast is standing up on when exposed for long periods of time, to the extremes of weather, are on FIBREGLASS boats. Now any fibre reinforced plastic (fibreglass) boat is constructed from the same basic materials as an FRP mast. The base resins may vary but the basic form and structure are the same, so if the aluminium mast stands up to years of exposure abuse I presume that the boat that the mast(s) are standing up on will disintegrate in a relative short time, IF, as Wouter intimates, the life of the FRP under weathering extremes is much less durable.
The resins in the laminates of every fibreglass boat will break down under the direct influence of UV exposure that is a feature of ALL resins. The only thing that protects the laminate resins from UV breakdown is the surface coating of either “gel coat” or some other “paint coating, but as we can see from FRP boats that have been in long service, some for over 50 years, the surface coatings work extremely well. Why should the life (through exposure) for a boat hull be any different from the life of a FRP mast with similar coating protection?

On the point of “impact” and “durability”, after much “experimentation” we have an internal laminate of 300gm/sqm Kevlar twill added in the lay up of our carbon masts from a point approx 450mm above the hound position to a point approx 1.5 metres below the hound position. This is the area “of greatest stress” when a mast is impacted when “ditched” hard and suddenly. Carbon masts that have failed in the past under these conditions have usually failed approximately 600 to 800mm below their hounds. They haven’t failed through any compression loads at that time, but if the fracture is inspected, it is found that the laminates have failed on the “tension” side of the mast (carbon is very strong under compression, not so much under tension). They have literally been “pulled apart”. By adding Kevlar (extremely strong under tension) to the mast over this area we have found that breaking a carbon mast, even under the most extreme “pitch pole” situation, just doesn’t happen.
Still when its all boiled down, “time will tell” and I personally feel that in a relatively few years when all these questions are fully answered, and the availability and price of carbon are not an issue, we will see as many boats with aluminium then as we do with timber now.

John_p,
Do the t-foils prohibit (by aserting force) the use of standard kick-up stocks? What about a one-off Stealth stock that would fit the Blade gudgeon? I'd be glad to test it for you - just to see of course!

General gelcoat layers are 1 to 2 mm thick, mast coatings are measured in microns. Takes a whole lot longer to wear 1-2 mm down then a few microns.

Besides I have recoated/rebuffed and repainted my hulls a few times but never my alu mast.

Now I'm not saying carbon is bad, never did, just that I'm suspecious of carbon "simply" being superior in most aspects among which durability. But I'm happy to agree to disagree. No disrespect intended on my part.





Indeed, we can wait quite a few years for that. And labour costs needs to come down as well. Humm, this is maybe a bit too sarcastic, Please don't take offense, none intended.

Sure alu masts costs when only building a handful of boats, you have to order a minimum of 40 mast, but when building around 20 boats a year or more (all the succesful classes) then extruded alu masts can be inmensely more cost effective from the builders perspective then carbon masts. We can easily be talking about a 1000 bucks difference per mast. Now I know that you Darryll have a different opinion on this and I understand your reasoning. Indeed in a batch of 40 mast you will have several crooked ones that you need to through away. However I've been involved in several superwing mast orders and I know exactly what it costs. Even with the discarded mast and shipping the costs of aluminium is very attractive compared to carbon when building a series of boats beyond 20.

It will not be easy at all to see carbon masts beat that.

However, Stealth Marine is doing it and they are, afterall, the most inexpensive F16's available (big credit to John Pierce and Sue). And I'm looking forward to you putting on carbon masts on your F16's as well.

The secret here is in-house production of carbon mast. If you have to get them from a supplier then forget about any serious cost reductions. These supplier will have you pay for their carbon masts.

With knowing the costs of a 40 mast Superwing mast batch I can tell everybody that I don't see carbon mast completely replace the alu ones anytime soon.

Wouter

I think it is ronstan. And I have a ronstan personally and I'm fully satisfied with it. It certainly doesn't jam wioth sand and salt like the Harken recirculating ball rails. Hate those.





I thought/think that one of the stiffest setups is :

-1- inner bolts all the way through with a spacer in the beam.
-2- Outer bolts sunk into the beam with large filling piece between lower inside of beam and the head of the bolt. This piece must be of a material with a high compression resistance.
-3- Shaped beams (not round)

Of course the stiffest setup is the one used by the Blade F18. Stiffness on that boat is simply unbeleivable.

Wouter

What did they do different and can it easily be incorporated into the Blade F16?

Sorry, it can not be easily incorporated into the VWM Blade F16.

They took large round alu tubes and rolled them into a more rectangular section with large corner roundings. A bit like a boxed oval. This extra material and the stress hardening makes the beams stiffer for the same frontal area. The also ended up with a flat section on top and bottom of beam and used that to fit 4 bolts per side. The beamlanding is probably more rigorously reinforced as well. All together this lead to a very stiff platform.

VWM Blade F16 beamlanding doe not have the shape that will take rolled beams. Neither is there room for 4 bolts per side and we can't chance the stiffness of the beam landing much after the hulls have been cured.

Having said all this, I feel we must not loose ourselfs. The Stealth F16 is a very stiff boat in my personal experience. A very good achievement since F16's are build very light, less material to play with

My own Taipan (homebuild) is much more flexible. However I do not feel that my boat is too flexible for the racing I do. I feel both boats have ample stiffness for good performance and handling, just one has alot more stiffness. The Blade F16 of VWM should be noticeably stiffer then my own boat, while still being less stiff then the Stealth. In this way the blade should have more then enough stiffness for good performance and handling. I think johns test experience underlines this.

Lets not get obsessed with it.

One thing though, as standard the Blades are delivered with only washers under the bolt heads. Having a large block as depicted earlier should make the connentions stiffer (when a proper material is selected for the blocks). You could try that.

One other thing we must not forget is that during the first season you need to tighten the bolts a few times. The bolts will unscrew themselfs when they are still really clean and a bit greasy. Dirt and old grease will lock them up better. ALso the laminate work and bolt-beam setup will deform a little initially under the first full loads.

I had to retighten my bolts 5 to 6 times in the first season and each time I won alot of stiffness, and loose it again after 2 to 3 times of sailing. For all we know the Singapore boat could have been in need of that. After the boat has been properly broken in everything should settle down.

Also don't degrease your bolts when they are new. These Stainless steel bolts can fuse (cold weld) themselfs tight when they are too clean. You can never again undo them and you'll have to cut them out. So have them lubricated dureing the first season and just tighten them often. Following season everything should be alright.

Wouter

To add my comments, I sailed on the Blade the following day in Singapore. Thanks for the shorter tiller extension Jalani. I was told it was shortened the previous day.

Anyway, my immediate concern for the Blade and its potential is the stiffness of the platform. Coming from the Taipan, it is really, really soft in comparison. The hulls would move independently a couple of inches in different directions from each other. And the wind and wave conditions were very mild. To be competitive, you need a solid and stiff platform. Also the front beam needs to be able to bent upwards 4 or 5mm so when the rig tension comes on it moves to be horizontal. Can't quite get this with current dolphin striker arrangement.

Other things, removed the jib barber haul. This had been placed on to limit movement of the self-tacker jib along the track. Not really in my opinion necessary. Found that with different sheet tension the jib would find its own spot on the track, and with the barber haul any ease in the job-sheet would lose all power in the jib, and height.

Cunningham/downhaul really not a great system. Needs an internal cascading system which has been discussed at length on this forum.

We used the normal Blade-supplied rudders and they felt good. I actually had these on my old Taipan so good to use them again. Tacking and gybing smooth. Gybing a lot quicker than the Taipan, tacking about par.

Rig and sails essentially the same as Taipans (common mast).

Overall, the Blade has the potential to be a great boat. Just a few things that need to be overcome. All new designs do have some level of teething problems and the Blades are going to be easy to fix (I hope).

On the centreboard size, was the boat ever tested with long and narrow boards? The flyer A-Cats, Capricorns and the other new wave-piercing cats have gone to this trend. Interested to know if they were tried or not.

Again, this is was opinion from a couple of hours of sailing. My background has been on Taipans so that is where my base-boat comparison is based on.

In other news, I am in Europe. Once it warms up, should be around for a sail on the F16s. Will be based in London so the Stealth guys are the nearest to me.

JC

Seems like the Blade hull design has some great potential but the platform still needs some work starting with the steering....

That's not strictly true, or fair, Flying_Cat. The only reason that I was having steering problems was because of misaligned, borrowed rudders. The AHPC rudders were borrowed from a Taipan, but naturally, the T4.9 tiller bar was too short for the Blade. So we had to use the Blade tiller bar adjusted down as narrow as it would go to get the AHPC tiller arms in far enough so that the rudders were parallel when centred. Unfortunately it wouldn't adjust far enough, so (when centred) the rudders had roughly 2cms of toe out on the leading edges when compared with the trailing edges. That is a LOT! Despite this the boat sailed and handled pretty well (considering).

The VWM rudder/stock combo as supplied looks excellent and JC seems to confirm this above. It was just a shame that the Blade's owner was working on them when I used the boat...

JC - sorry about the tiller extension. I just wasn't quite able to get it out of the way as we had one of our 'moments' and I bent the end off it! It was just one of those things....

We didn't use the barber hauler either when we were sailing and I agree with your comments. If it was 'on' then that was after we came ashore. While I obviously agree that the Blade was not as stiff as expected, I don't feel that it is a 'major' failing. A lot of the Blade's ride comes from that movement and the boat responds well enough to gusts etc. I prefer a boat to be stiff but it is something that can usually be built into a boat afterwards if necessary. I did just that with my first, very old, tired and tatty Tornado. Just a weekends work with an angle grinder, epoxy, glass, aluminium blocks and assorted tools. Where previously I had been able to lift one bow about 6" before the other bow started to move, I reduced it to about 3"...
It is also entirely possible that David Adams needs to torque his beam bolts up again as that boat has been out in several breezy days over the last few weeks.

That should not have been the case. I wonder what causes this.

I did the math work on the beams myself, a favour to Phil and god knows I'm still no way close to leveling on the favours. And the beams of the Blade (both the homebuild and VWM versions) are stiffer than the Taipans in all aspects. So we should not find the cause here.

Phill tested three boats to check the math and he found the following ratios :

AHPC glass Taipan : 100 %
Homebuild timber epoxy Taipan : 97 % flexing of glass Taipan
Homebuild Timber epoxy Blade : 70 % flexing of glass Taipan.

(Stealth F16 felt at least twice as stiff to me, maybe more)

This is comparable to what the math showed.

The measured Blade was wider then both Taipans and using the round 80mm x 2 mm Alu tube for both beams. VWM uses a 90mm x 1.8mm at the rear and also a stiffer section in front, both beams are stiffer then the measured Blades round sections. And I fully expect the VWM Blade to be stiffer then the measured prototype.

The Blade should feel noticeably stiffer then the standard Taipan. That is also the comment of the testers. The Timber epoxy Blade that was build here in the Netherlands feel stiffer then my own boat and even the glass Taipan of Geert. Additionally the vertical flexing of the blade, in the used test setup, was measured in 1 inch plus something. If you felt a couple of inches flexing then something is definately wrong.

I wonder what it could be.

I think I will e-mail David Adams and find out.

Wouter

Thanks,

I noted this down.

Both Bart and I felt that something like this would be the case. The only uncertainty we had left was whether it was possible to hurt speed significantly but not having the boat in the right attitude. I mean what if you sat to far back on the boat that is still kept level by virtue of the T-foils ? There is no way of telling whether the weight balance is just right, with the T-foils only engaging momentarily, or whether the weight distribution is off but corrected by permanently engaged T-foils with related additional drag ?

What are your experiences on that ?

Wouter

Yes, I'm sure it's possible to hurt the speed of the Stealth by sitting in the wrong place, and forcing the rudders to do unnecessary work (just like any other boat).
It's easy however to find the right place to sit... if you pull the securing pin out of one of the rudders, when the T-foil is running parallel to the surface and doing no work it will just slide up and down in the stock as you go over waves. If it's permanently stuck down you are too far forwards and if it just slides up you are too far backwards.
However because the T-foils compensate, fore and aft trim though still important, isn't as critical as it is without the T-foils.

Going back to the C/Al mast point - one of my club's Hurricane sailors wrecked his (Al) mast when a shroud managed to escape from the spreader. He had to wait over a year to get a new one as there were no blank sections available anywhere and the company that makes them wouldn't make any until they had orders for (I think) six. If it was a C mast (a) it might have been fixable and (b) he'd have been able to get a replcaement made straight away.

Working on them?

Hi John,

I think you have sold me on T foils, downwind is a major problem on Altered in highwinds. I think I may have to look into them.

Yeah I know I am a slow learner, it's only taken capsizing downwind every second race for a year, to convince me that Altered needs T foils.

Regards Gary.

Hi there,

I am following the discussion about the carbon mast, to explain a littlebit we (my father and me)are making carbon masts for A-class all around the world and there is a note that there are only weak , medium and stiff masts but this is not right. If you want we are building the mast to the spec of the sailor, this means weight of the sailor, sailmaker and type of boat and there is no price difference between this. There is also a note about the strenght of the mast, the carbon mast now a days is much more superior to the alu mast. The weight reduction is one of them but when you build the mast the right way with the right material it is stronger ( can load more stress) and bends the way you want it and even on the place where you want to have the bend. This comes with an experience of building masts for 1996 and takes ofcourse a lot of years to find out. When you do a pitchpoll the older mast could break but now a days the masts we are building don't have that problem as far as we know, only when you fall with you complete weight in the middle of the mast then there is a change of breaking. The last comment is that mast we are building from 1996 are never been spray paint or so ever and there is from 1996 up to know nobody who ever did this to protect against UV because the resin itselfs is designed with a maximum possible resistance to UV. This is ofcourse not 100% because that's not possible, every resin has influence of UV, even gellcoat (the reason why gellcoat gets a littlebit yellow after a while). I am sailing with a mast of 4 years old now and there is no problem at all with that mast. My upinion is that when there enough carbon avialable next year or so that the carbon mast get cheaper and that it will replace the alu mast. Specially when you are talking about classes where development is one of the issues in the class.

Thanks,

Hans Klok

From personal experience Hans, I couldn't agree more. The questions/critisism that has been expressed about carbon masts mostly seems to be "theoretical" coming from people without any personal experience/use of masts made from carbon - a little like someone talking "expertly" about "the joy of sex" without having experienced it.
After you sail for a while with a carbon mast, I don't think that you would ever go back to aluminium, even if it is just for the comparitive ease of stepping it, let alone for the other "joyous" characteristics from it under sail compared to aluminium

Our initial moulds for T foil rudders and stocks are in their final stages GARY. When they are finished we will be putting them to the test to work out what could be a few "unknown" eccentricities with their “rake angle” on the boat, they are of a similar principle to the “Stealth” system, that is they are push up, push down vertically in the stocks. This in itself MAY need some refining as the percentage of the leading edge of the rudder relative to the extended pivot point of the gudgeons varies with their relative height position in the stocks and when one hull is raised out of the water a similar thing happens which may affect the steering detrimentally. Until we fully test the system we won’t know the final outcome, although from all reports, none of this seems to be of any concern with the Stealth system. When we have the system fully functional we will make them available to anyone who wants to put them on their cats. The stocks being moulded in carbon makes it a relatively simple job to adjust them in the lay-up stage to suit any catamaran transom.

The daggerboards i've seen for my future boat are tested for strength, one person can easy stand on it. I've ordered a carbon Blade and the daggers are also carbon but not the mast. I haven't sailed on many catamarans before and hope the boat doesn't go upside down.

Mirjam
the Netherlands

Welcome to the forum, Mirjam. When do you get your new Blade? Is it coming from VectorWorks?

Paul

I ordered my boat in the Netherlands where I live. the company is Dynautic and they build the Blade and other carbon parts.
Mirjam

Mirjam,

Welcome to the class and forum, indeed.

And let me extent this welcome by inviting you to the Zandvoort F16 event, Global Challenge, 12-19 aug 2007.

They are expecting a few boats from all over the worlds and it will be a bonanza for sailors new to the F16 class and boats. You'll learn heaps in those days, more then you can discover yourself in 1 to 2 seasons of sailing. There will be several other newbie crews/sailors at the event, so you certainly won't be alone.

Wouter

hi all,
nothing about alu dagger boards?
here in Italy some cats are using this, can be ideal for home builders
regards
Emanuele

I'm very aware of aluminium daggerboards and rudderboards. Indeed I've seen them on Mattia catamarans and even Topcat catamarans.

For the F16's these were indeed never seriously considered. It was easy enough to get foam/fibre boards.

Wouter

Wouter,
yes i'm referring to the Mattia daggerboards. They have a plus...the price.
another question, can you give me some info about the mast
profile (alu) used in F16 (Taipan and Blade)e.g. dimensions and weight?
Is it the same of the Capricon F18?
Thanks
Emanuele

Emanuele,



Not the same as the capricorn mast.

150mm x 63mm and, about 1.65 kg per meter.

It is however a true wingmast, in fact that exteriour profile is as good as the same the carbon A-cat masts.

Wouter

Emanuele; If you are going to sail solo I would definately consider a Carbon Mast. They are alot easier to right after a capsize. (See the numerous posts regarding righting a Blade single handed) You shouldn't need pillow cases, trash bags etc.

Thanks Wouter - MarkP
for the info, Actually I have some profiles
(1 Marstroem carbon A class,
1 carbon A class broken,
1 aluminium l. 9000 with a section similar to the A Italian production

error on the key board, excuse me
1 aluminium l. 8500 profil Capricorn.
Well, for my next boat I have the mast!
For the 3rd item I must misure it, I think is good for the F16.


My real problem is this: I already have two cats, a F18 (for sale) and a A Class, but I normally go with a Mattia Esse for regattas.
In the next future i think the F16 can be a good soluction,for goin solo and with my wife.
I'm looking for the Blade plans but the real problem is the time to build it.
Ciao!!!
Emanuele

Viruscat,




A good alternative is to buy the hulls and finish the cat up yourself from there. That is a considerable savings in time and also still allows you to fune-tune all the important things to personal preference.

Wouter