Yes, Hobiecat USA is. Hobiecat Europe manufactures multihulls and are not even considering an F16 because it is not economically viable. They are however are interested in the 104.
Once again, as above. Nacra are also moving towards the 104 with no interest in the F16 as AHPC are likewise. F18 V’s F18ht ?????
Good, if it brings more people to the sport so we can show them the F16 both on and off the water. The 104 is no scare, I think the concept is too thin to succeed. Since you seem incredibly well informed about the inner working of Hobie Europe, NACRA and AHPC, perhaps you can tell me why they think the 104 is good enough to scrap old successful models and introduce something new and unproven?
Like I said earlier, a comparison between the introduction of the F18 to 18HT is not very valid in my opinion. You will have to point out to me why you keep on comparing those two and how this applies to the F16 concept and the 104.
Ask the manufactures who do make the boats at min weight and find out how expensive it is for them and how hard it is to achieve. Sure you can build a boat lighter but how durable would the boat be. What is its competitive life span before it gets soft? Carbon masts, foils, stocks, tiller cross arm booms, carbon or Kevlar in the hulls ect are significantly more and to say they don’t is kidding yourself.
I have talked with Marcus, Phill and others and know a bit about the challenges. We are doing three strip plank Blades in my garage just now, and weight is a great concern to us. We are not doing a production run to make money, so we can use wood, which is a better material than carbon/foam for the hulls of a F16 or even a Tornado. Just look back at the Gougeon T's and the hype around Marstrøms earlier boats which killed them off. Marstrøm did not build a desent T until 86 or therearound. I think it was Wouter that said earlier that carbon was often an excuse for poor engineering, which is a good point. If you look harder at the issue at hand, I think you will find that you dont need carbon, pre-pregs, autoclaves, kevlar honeycomb etc. etc. to build a lasting, stiff and competitive F16 down to min weight. Weight in the hulls dont neccesarily mean that the boat is more robust or will be competitive longer. With poor engineering and quality it will often be the other way, its competitive life is actually shorter. What is the competitive life of a F18 these days and what was it like in the beginning? Doing it right the first time is better than adding materials and cheap workhours.
I dont understand in what respect I am kidding myself?
Different path, same result. The F16 class was warned about this in the past and chose to ignore, now as a result the 104 is here and will build at a rapid rate, the F16 will become the 16 foot equivalent to the F18ht
We are all doomed to be obsolete becouse our boats are not heavy enough to suit NACRA and Hobie Europe.. Nah, think I'll keep on working on our garage project with technology from the 1940s in good faith that the F16 is here to stay. I think Hobie Europe and NACRA dont have the will to invest in the quality control needed for a min weight F16 (and you dont need carbon to do that). Those two companies will never do an A cat either, for the same reasons, but that class thrives even with the cost of owning a competitive one.
BTW: You can hardly use the F18 vs 18ht as an historic example of F16 vs 104 when the historic facts dont match the present.
