Allow me to take care of the F16, Taipan related questions.

>>I am really impressed with the catamaran commumnity if you guys are representative

Well lets just say you've picked us on a good day !



-1- Nice boat that Hunter 170. Main point however is ; No trapeze. This does make things more complicated. If you start out singlehanding then you will have your work cut out for you. I believe trapezing is best learned as a crew on a doublehanded boat. This is wise anyway to learn the differences between the boats and the tricks on a catamaran. This can be done relatively quickly. Did you sail other High performance sailboats with friends. Like Lasers or 470's ? It is just liek driving ; not particulary difficult one you got the hang of it but the first steps are better made with an experienced person on the seat next to you. I don't think getting P16 or Nacra 5.0 instead of a High End cat will make much difference in this.


-2 a- Dependents completely on the design of the boat. Even in a class like the F16's one design is more of a cutter and another more of a bouncher. It dependents on the conditions which is faster. The hoppers are more noisy and often wetter. The cutters more smooth and silent. The Taipan is a cutter and I believe the I-17 is so as well. The FX-one, Stealth F16 and Blade F16 are more of a hopper. The latter three are intended to create a component of dynamic lift (semi-planing) at speed and go faster as a result. On the other hand a while ago we made Brobu's I-17 (normal, not the R) go as fast as the FX-one of his sailing buddy despite his much smaller mainsail. Different boats take different tricks to make them go fast. Some will tell you that this boat is always much faster than some other but that is mostly an emotional statement. (of which I'm also guilty off occasionally). I remember Eric Poulsen telling me about the differences between boats he tried and telling enthousiastically about the downwind planing of one and them choose another design because of the slapping upwind as a result of the same flat bottom. I trully think this comes down to what you prefer. Most catsailors fall into one of two categories : Cutters and planers. Cutters like smooth boats, planers like noise and spray. A cutter with a planing boat will sail as poorly as a planer on a cutting boat. So it is like putting the right bolt with the right nut. Get the combo right and the differences between crews seem to largely disappear. So what are you ? With respect to F16's ; Taipan 4.9/F16 is definately a cutter, Blade F16 and Stealth F16 are planers.

-2 b- I don't think you are overly concerned; it is a good question. About wing masts. Its meaning dependents on who you speak to. In refer to teardrop masts when the crossection is a teardrop. I refer to wingmasts when the front is an elliptical instead of part or a circle and when the thickness is much narrower than the width. A wingmast is much more like an aircraft wing than the teardrop mast. Hobie 16, Prindle 16, nacra's all have teardrop masts. Hobie FX-one has so to (but doesn't turtle in my experience and I've been out in 25 knots on my side) I don't know about the I-17 R (I-17 = teardrop) , Stealth is teardrop, Taipan = wing , A-cat = wing, Blade = wing. From the Taipan Wing I know it is as good as impossible to get the mast deeper than its hounds even when trying hard by hanging on. A well designed platform can be quite easily righted from a turtled position with the proper technic.


-3 a- I think we must take care not to overconcentrate on relatively minor issues. I think all boats under current investigations are considered competitive and will stay that way for years (except the H17 which is discontinued). So I think the choice it , do you want to spend a good dollar to get one of the newer once or do you want to get out on a cat and have fun / learn. All mentioned boats Taipan, FX, Stealth, Inter, Blade, A-cat will set you back some while the Prindle 16, Prindle 15, Hobie 16, nacra 5.0 can be had for a very attractive secondhand price. The modern ones are all comparable in controls and fittings. The same with the older ones. A decision on max investment will narrow down the choice and discussion alot. A design is almost never to new for a beginner although the learning curve to a A-cat for example will be steep. But than again all are steeper than that on a Prindle 16 or Prindle 15. Newer also means more sensitive control while a older design must be "handled". Both have pro's and con's. I do think there are some differences between the current list of boats. Some boats talk more to you than others but non are bad choices.

- 3 b - Bulletproof : none (don't let anybody tell you otherwise not even Hobie folk) except the older types like H14, P15, P16 etc
Ergonomics : pretty much all. Differences come down on personal likes and dislikes
Single handing - doublehanded : All with slight preference to : Taipan/Blade, then Stealth then FX / I-17 (reasons lightweight and the fact that the F16's have (been designed with) jibs and not aftermarket jib kits);
Getting back on : I-17 has a pretty high freeboard, FX/Blade/Stealth slightly less so and Taipan is easiest to get onto after capsize. (can anybody concur?)
Responsiveness : all are good some are better. Taipan does very well for its age. Apart from that I think newness is a good handle to list the boats on this aspect.
Rought Conditions : Freeboard is key here so I would say the list is in inverse to the one about geting on after capsize.
Excell- suffer : I think I will have to let this one pass. I can't indulge myself in this while being a F16 class official.


-3 c- geographical location of dealors and builder is definately a pro. However it is not the end of all things. Shipping a mast over land can turn out to be as expensive as having it cross the ocean. Hobie gives good product support via their local agent. On the other hand everything most come from Hobie. More than few sailors prefer to buy their own stuff and sails with other suppliers. Shipping a sail from Florida to Washington state isn't that much quicker or cheaper than shipping one from Australia. I can't really comment more on this; I have an Australian boat so I have made decision in this. Mostly because I was shipping in Prindle parts outside my local dealor anyway. So for me not much has changed.

Hope this helps

Wouter

FX-1 " hops "over the waves whereas the I17 " plows " thru them??

Was that due to the boat design or skipper's weight and positioning on the boat? I myself have seen my I17R plow thru waves while the I17R I was racing was hopping over them!! Skipper's weight equal. Skipper position..........he was on the very back of the boat. I was a bit forward.

My vote goes to the I17 as best boat. See attachment with spinnaker.

Tom

Hello Tom,

Your opinion is that the I17R is the best boat. I have no doubt that it is a fantastic boat. "Best" is a superlative rather than a comparative, speaking grammatically; it's a strong word that requires justification. Have you sailed, seen, or analyzed any of the other boats mentioned?

Hi Jake,
What I am telling you is that the mast section on all SC/ARC products was chosen to prevent turtling. When the top 8 to 10ft of mast is submerged, the displaced volume is enough bouyant force to prevent turtling of the boat with no one sitting on the upper hull. You can always drive any turned over boat turtle with a couple of 200 pounders sitting on the upper hull trying to avoid getting wet.
Turned over boats do not stay with the tramp pointed into the wind very long when the boat is first turned over if the mast has sufficient bouyant force to prevent turtling. The boat will spin around with the tramp downwind in less than a minute if the mast has sufficient bouyancy to prevent turtling in the first place. The SC/ARC mast section is the most streanlined section, Al extrusion, of any sections available for two person boats. What more could you ask of a mast, more streamlined and prevents turtling.
Bill

Hi Eric,

I looked back during a race once and saw a Taipan 4.9. He was back a ways though!!

Just kidding. Actually, I saw a Taipan 4.9 last Spring. Beautiful boat! If they sailed them here, I would buy one, but we sail the I17R here. We have five locally now. So, that makes the I17R the " best " boat.

Happy Sailing,

Tom

Attached you will find two I17R's running for the finish line! The problem is I'm the trailing boat.

Hi Wouter,

I think that it is not so simple as some hulls are cutters (meaning they slice through the water in a displacement fashion) and some hulls are planers (meaning they ride atop the water like a power boat). We both know it's not that simple, and I don't want any newcomers to catsailing to be misled. The line between the two categories is very blurry. For example, the Stealth and I17R both have flat-bottomed but very narrow sterns while the Taipan 4.9 has rounded bottom but wide, voluminous sterns. The upshot is that both types of sterns can allow planing in certain points of sail and with crew weight in the right place. Upwind and downwind the "cutters" and "planers" (I like your term "hopper" better; and I would call them "slappers") each have different characteristics, but the fact is cats sail most of the time in displacement mode with occasions of planing. Cats easily exceed the dogma of "hull speed" due to the narrow, fine hulls and low wetted surface (esp flying a hull). I'm not telling you anything you don't know, I just thought we ought to get the info out so others aren't mislead into thinking one type of hull planes like a jet ski and other type cuts through like a tanker. It's kind of like the wave piercer discussion--all cats pierce through wave, but where volume in the hull is distributed determines the hull's response when piercing a wave. Cutters, slappers, hoppers, piercers...when you get out on the water, it's amazing how comparable the performance is between the categories. They may behave differently, but big differences have not been seen in speed.

As a side bar, I've noticed that hull design may be a surprisingly small piece of the performance puzzle. Look at how well the Tornado hull shape still performs (incidentally, the T4.9 is very similar to a mini Tornado hull shape except for the plumb bow). I don't know much about the Tornado, but from what I've heard, rig devolopment, light weight, and the best sailors are what keep it on top. I'm not a great sailor and I'm a novice at setting up my rig. But at least I got a light boat going for me. The Australians have, over the years, approached cat design differently than here in the States. Go back to the early 80s--in the States we were sailing Hobie 16s and the Aussies were sailing Mosquitos and Cobras. Goodall told me they tried to make light weight boats with very refined rigs--that's how they get speed; whereas the nacra/inter and hobie design m.o. appears to be more of a heavy boat, big rig, brute force approach to speed. Both approaches work, just different underlying philosophy, and that philosophy comes through in the differences between the designs. The I17R is a big boat (for a single hander) with a big rig; the F16s are smaller, lighter and have smaller rigs. So here's another way to categorize single handers--the brute force and the finesse groups. Every one of the boats in either category that I've been has been fun to sail. I guess that's really what matters.

Hi Tom,

Having a fleet is definitely a good reason for it to be the best boat for you.

Best Rgds,

Indeed I try to tell in simple terms much of what you wrote down in more detail. The main issue for me is that a sailor that likes to sail smooth should not look for a hooper/slapper/planer/wavepiercer and vice versa. The combo is what works. That is what I intended to say in my finishing sentence of the paragraph. With regard to the term planing. No cat planes fully and probably never will. It is indeed more like "having a (small) portion of its weight carried by dynamic forces created on the hull. I personally believe that such surfaces allow you to drive the boat harder without picthpoling and that explains more of the (possible) speed increases than the actual "plaining".

Personally I agree that the rig is more important than the hulls and I have a very strong perferrence for one particular rig. I've sailed many others but never encountered the same feeling of control. Of course with such a responsive rig it is also very easy to downhaul it out of its groove. But I love the way she talks to ya.

And you are right about :"I just thought we ought to get the info out so others aren't mislead into thinking one type of hull planes like a jet ski and other type cuts through like a tanker."

That is why I commented on the Brobu's boat and the way it was made very quick with the proper tricks.

But I also think that we can't all explain it too JB in a few posts. With his current background he will go equally fast or slow on pretty much all types named. The differences are in the cost, lust for technology, looks, and support. And even there they are not that big.

And that is as far as I can go without heavy slacking on the boats of our competition !

Regards,

Wouter

Come to think of it ; Wasn't the Inter-17 also designed in Australia ?

I guess it all dependent on where one sails. example Florida = Taipan land. Michigan = Inter-17 land

But I would prefer to see a criterium defined on which to determine the label "best catamaran" other then location.

Or is the Lada the best automobile because there were so many around in the former Soviet block ?

Wouter

>>The SC/ARC mast section is the most streanlined section, Al extrusion, of any sections available for two person boats.


"What more could you ask of a mast, more streamlined and prevents turtling."

Lets start with the demand that it be trully unique !

Okay lets hear it; Width versus thickness and also the round of the ellips on the leading edge. If it is not elliptical up front then don't bother.

Wouter

Catamarans that have flatter shallower hulls tend to have more initial pitch stability because their longitudinal metacentric radius is larger. If you divide the second moment of area of the waterplane (at the LCF) by the immersed volume you get a good approximation of the metacentric radius at small pitch angles. With flattish hulls the center of buoyancy moves forward farther with the same change in trim - which means the longitudinal righting moment increases more quickly.

For most catamarans the effect of the flattish hulls on pitch stability is just hydrostatic.

- unrelated about the Tornado - I think their hull design is one of the main reasons they are so fast!

talk to you later
have a great weekend
-colin

Hi Wouter,
The SC mast section was designed in 1978. It has a design point chord of 6.5 ins and a max width of 3.25 ins for a slenderness ratio of 2.0. The cross sectional shape, width distribution, was obtained by using a NACA 0050 foil section. When compared to Hobie, Prindle, Nacra and Tornado masts of the same period, the SC section was the only one with a thickness to chord ratio as low as o.50. The actual absolute thickness, 3.25ins, and chord, 6.5ins, minus the sailtrack area determined the volume per unit length of the mast that was required to keep a 12ft wide by 20ft long catamaran from going "turtle" in typical turnover conditions. I tried slightly smaller mast sections, Tornado, but they let the boat go "turtle" so a new larger mast section was required to prevent this 12ft wide two person boat from going "turtle". It had a slenderness ratio of 2.0, better than any of the other boats of its time, and it would not let the SC20 go "turtle".
When I designed the SC product line, I was sailing in the Atlantic Ocean off Palm Beach, Florida. There are no bays or protected waters to sail in. There are no islands a couple of miles offshore to sail downwind of. There is just the Atlantic Ocean with the Gulf Stream marching North at 4 knots. This SE coast of Florida is "BEACHCAT CATAMARAN GRAVEYARD". I felt it was morally wrong for me to sell a beachcat to the public that would "turtle" when turned over in that ocean. I also felt it was morally wrong for me to sell to the public a boat that could not be righted by the people sailing the boat. That is why every SC and now ARC product ever built has a righting system as a standard part of the rigging. No other boat builder does this and some have paid the ultimate price for this decision.
Fast and Safe Sailing,
Bill

Guys, thanks again for the great feedback. So much to learn, so little time...

Wouter, regarding the lack of a trapeze on the Hunter 170: of course, you are right, but I did add a trapeze to my boat last season (one of many performance enhancements and the only trap equipped H170 in the US that I know of). I only got to use the trapeze (singlehanding) a few times before the water got too cold but what a blast! Might I actually find it easier to trap on a catamaran than a monohull? I did find it easier to trap sloop rigged because the boat had a fair amount of weather helm when uni rigged. There's no easy way to adjust CE vs CLR as far as standing rigging goes (and never had time to play with changing CB or rudder positions). I assume that uni configured catamarans can be setup for a balanced helm (via mast rake)? Anyway, pushing the limits of the boat and limited time on the wire is what ignited my interest in higher performance catamarans.

thanks again,

Jerry

Jerry,

By all means, trapping on a catamaran is much easier. Although we're stereotyped as being unstable, cats are a kazillion times more stable than monohulls (just try to step on one from a dock and you'll come to a full understanding). We just load up the boat with more horsepower to compensate! Seriously though, we usually trapeze much lower on catamarans than monohullers do because of the additional stability.

Jerry...Balancing the helm is a function of rudder rake not mast rake. Raking the mast influences the total load on the rudders but the rudder rake determines how much of that load is transmitted to your hand. If you do a search on this forum you will find a lot of discussion on the subject. Good luck ...Dan

Dan,

We may just be batteling terminology, but adjusting the rake does affect the amount of helm you feel (since the helm force is a direct effect of the loading on the rudders). Up to a point, it is preferable to adjust the rake of the rig to compensate for helm since upwind performance is affected by the actual load carried by the rudders and boards (and the consequent lift generated).

Jake...Of course you are correct. I guess I oversimplified things a bit...Dan

Get a used a-cat to start with. They are light.
What is the use of a single handed cat that is best moved by 2 people?
Turning turtle isn't really a problem. Cats can be righted from a turtled position. Also just swimming the bow around as soon as you flip will eliminate the worry of turtle.
1 exception to that statement is shallow water. If your mast tries to turtle, and drives into the bottom, it could bend or break. So, in shallow water, get to swimming that bow around asap.
The more you have to spend, the lighter and newer the boat you buy can be. For me 300# is a strain to pull up the beach by myself.
Basicly they all work and are faster than most monohulls, so for lake sailing any cat is fine.

Tom and all,

1. First of all,...if you all are poppin' chutes in 20mph,.....then you single-handed sailors have the 'right stuff'...congrats and applause to you all,..I am going to look at the pics you suggested

2. As to the I-17 hull relationship to the water,..as to being 'bow down' as compared to 'seeing light under the bow'....again, you are correct,...it is skipper weight placement......in fact, that is how i sailed the 1st year,..'bow up',.....first year on the boat for me and I was in the top 5 so I was happy,........

3....then the F-16 forum ( Wouter and the Austrailians and others),....dialed me in,.......this is definately a 'bow down' upwind design,...the whole design of the I-17 likes going upwind with the majority of the bow in the water,..I target mine at 50% to 80% submerged at full throttle, never thinking about 'backing down' either....the boat just likes it and,..if I do not blow a tack in a wave,..the I-17 usually is at the top mark first (...and I am an average skipper, ..so it is not me..).........as a note,..the I-17 will fully submerge the bow upwind but does not like it ( I am sure you have seen this),..for it is a precusor for a very nice,slow pitchpole (...because it is slo,..I merely throw my weight 'back and out' and the bow comes back)

4. The local FX-1 owner also has a FOX also ( similar hull design, FOX is bigger al around)....so I go sailing with him when there is too much wind for theUni's...and I like the term 'slapper',....which is what thes hulls do,....in fact the noise of speeded water 'slapping' the hulls drives me nuts.....these hulls, the front 2-3 feet litereally dissolve a wave to foam and spray,..it is an amazing thing to watch........also the transition to full volume in the hull, again amazingly, say at 3-4 feet from bow, this part of the hull never ( hardly ever) goes under the water( there are limits of course).

...bottom line,..todays' single haded cats are alot of fun,..you never wait for crew,...and all your buddies want to take it for a ride..


regards,

Bruce
St. Croix

>>Wouter, regarding the lack of a trapeze on the Hunter 170: of course, you are right, but I did add a trapeze to my boat last season (one of many performance enhancements and the only trap equipped H170 in the US that I know of). I only got to use the trapeze (singlehanding) a few times before the water got too cold but what a blast! Might I actually find it easier to trap on a catamaran than a monohull?


Mostly so , yes. On the other hand I think the Hunter 170 is a daggerboard boat with balast in the bilge. This means it can't be capsized. Catamarans however can and cats do require a little more sensitive steering than a balasted monohull. Skiffs are entirely different of course, these require alot more finess on the helm. So for all intents and purposes I think the cat would be a most natural progression from the Hunter 170+ trapeze.



>>I did find it easier to trap sloop rigged because the boat had a fair amount of weather helm when uni rigged. There's no easy way to adjust CE vs CLR as far as standing rigging goes (and never had time to play with changing CB or rudder positions). I assume that uni configured catamarans can be setup for a balanced helm (via mast rake)?

They are. This, as you have seen, is a much debated topic among sailors but it all boils down to this :

-1- reducing the FEEL of weather helm can be done both by mast rake and rudder rake

-2- reducing weather helm itself can only be done by mast rake.

Point -2 is advice from a performance point of few and it is often also the easier of the two to adjust. Certainly on cats.

Think of it in this way. Both mian and jib have their won CE and the combine CE is somewhere between these two.

The best performance is achieved when part of the side loads are carried by the rudders as well. Otherwise these add only drag for no gains at all. Assume the protions of the loads are optimally distributed between board and rudder. Now take away the jib. The new CE moves to the position of the CE of the Mainsail. Ergo, the leverage of the new sail force to the baord and rudder changes. From now on the rudder takes a large portion of the sideforce and the board takes too little. Now you can mask this away by reraking your rudder but your performance will still be suboptimal. You can bring the performance back to optimal again by raking your mast further forward and bringing the CE of the Mainsail to the postion of where the combined CE of the slop used to be.

Often mono's do allow the mast to rotate a little forward or backward. Upgrading your hunter may be as simple as placing chainplates between the (shortened) stays and the hull points.


Wouter