I have some other thoughts on the subject actually.
When I look at the new N17 and some of the specs that are floating around on the various blogs, I think " it is basically an F16 with curved foils"
The hullshape is a scaled copy of the nacra F16, that is very clear if you look past the distracting paint job.
The length, according Mischa de Munk who is there is exactly 17 feet instead of 17.6. If so then it is 5.18 meters against 5.0 meters of the F16. Or indeed only 7 inches longer. Note that all of nacra's earlier 17 footers were all 5.25 mtr long = 17 foot 3 inches. It seems weird to go for 17.6 or 17 foot 7 inches now. Why not go for the full 18 foot and milk the marketing predjudice that is related to these numbers ?
I gether it is 2.6 meters wide against the 2.5 of the F16's. Again a difference of 4 inches.
Its mansail is 16 square meters in surface area against 15 sq. mr. for the F16. 7% difference.
The mast doens't appear to be much taller then the F16's but no hard data is available on that. I guess the mainsail luff is about 8.75 mtr on a 9.25 mtr mast so I can put a Texel rating to the boat. Compare this to 8,5 mtr by 8.5 mtr for the F16's.
The overall weight is rumoured to be about 130 kg which is heavier then even the alu masted Viper despite the use of a carbon mast and a possible 5kg reduction because of it. Of course the F16 class allows caron masts to those who want one. So when pushed the viper will grow one very quickly.
Its texelrating on these specs will be 101 whereas F18's is 100 and F16's at 102 with the Viper at 104. No big differences there.
It seems to me that the new nacra 17 is basically a Viper / F16 with enough of the specs slighly altered to be a totally separate class of boat but without being in a different class of performance.
That in it self is a good move by nacra. It has all the benefits of the F18 / F16 line of boats without interfering with either class.
But I don't expect it to be a game changer in the way of performance. I expect it to adhere to the Texelrating just as much as the Nacra 20 carbon appears to be doing despite its curved foils.
So if the new nacra 17 is to be selected then it should be for its non-interference, not for its hyped quantum leap forwards in design or performance. The data doesn't seem to support such claims at all. That is my point.
Wouter
I had a chat with Gunnar Larsen prior to him leaving for Thai Regatta and following the announcement of Nacras Olympic evaluation entries. I asked what spec he had available for the new 17ft Nacra 17. He immediately corrected me and stated that it was in fact 17.5ft long and is a scaled down F20 Carbon rather than a stretched 16 or shrunk Infusion with curved boards. I did ask him beam width and I believe he stated it is 2.6m. He described the hull construction as being glass,epoxy and carbon with a projected weight of 130kg. When I asked about sail area he said the main was a little less than the F18 (16.3m2), but didn't have the figures with him for the jib and spinnaker sizes. As I mentioned all this data came from a very brief conversation whilst he was waiting to board a flight to Thailand so apologies if it turns out there are any errors in these spec details.
I do disagree with your thoughts on whether a curved foil boat is a game changer with respect to performance. Having attended the Weston Cat Open in the UK at the end of 2011 and seen the F20 C (sailed by Peter Vink) racing against the best of the UK F18 and Tornado fleets, as well as Gunnar on an Infusion, it is clearly a gamechanger. In a number of the races (which were sailed in force 3 to 5, sometimes gusting more) it sailed of into the distance lapping the Tornados and many of the F18 fleet. What I would say is that the Texel Rating System as well as SCHRS rating system used in the UK clearly reflects accurately the comparative performance of the latest catamaran designs although does put older designs at a disadvantage (this is not a surprise though as I think we can all agree that is just a reflection of the advances and innovations that are occurring in modern catamaran design as can be seen in the evolution that has happened within the F18 class). Many would agree that the A class is probably at the forefront of catamaran development and performance and it is clear that curved foils with related hull designs is the direction this fleet is going in at this time. I do feel that curved boats are only going to increase in performance over the next few years as sailing techniques develop to get the most out of the boards. Time will tell if curved boards remain in the domain of development classes, like the A class, and smod's or whether a multi manufacturer box rule class with curved boards comes into existence. Please remember this is my opinion based on my observations (and remember that opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and they all smell apart from your own!!!!) and is not intended to offend anyone, but only to stimulate constructive and thoughtful discussion!
