I saw on another site that said these boats were really fast (Eagle 18 and 20 carbon). Just curious because I haven't heard any mention of them over here. If you want to take a look at their web site, Eagle Sail Boats.

I am going to be out sailing on SF Bay on Sat. Let me know if any of you are going to be out there.

Have you heard about the price for those suckers!? This is muli-handed information but I hear the Eagle is around $32,000 to $36,000.

Without any upgrades or accessories.

Hello catamaran friends,

In small switzerland sails many teams with 18ht and 20ht catamarans. also with eagles 18ht and eagles 20 and naturally bimare javelin and ventilo from switzerland.

both eagles 18ht and 20ht are full carbon with a carbon mast of marstrom.
the eagles 20C was fastest from all in the "Texel Race 2004"
costs the eagle 18ht approx. 23,000.dollar "ready to race"
the eagle 20C approx.. 31,000. dollar "ready to race"

sail fast and light

Greeting steve
www.volvento.ch

Dam for that price that boat better be really really really fast.

Just curious for comparison what is the cost for a marstrom 20?

I think that maybe it should drive itself to reggattas also!

The Eagle is easy and fast. Photo of the Eagle 18HT in 18HT WM Rimini 2004 Itali.
This grey Eagle sails into Switzerland

http://www.bst.ch/ALutz/OST/Galleries/F18HTWM2004/photos/24%20(12).html

"sail fast and light"
Steve
Ventilo 18HT from Switzerland

Wow and here I thought Carbon building techniques were supposed to drive down the costs of boats.

Guess not.

Sorry, no beach cat is worth $30k, even if it is made out of all carbon. (And we've been down the road before folks, am I right?)

25500 EURO (~$31000)

I asked while enquiring about the price of their A-Classe, which is expensive at 18334 EURO without a sail!

Quality costs...materials and labor...You and I may not be in a position to afford a $30,000 cat, but that has little bearing on whether the boat is actually worth the asking price. Do you know how much it cost to develop and build that product? If not, you have no bases to say it is too expensive.

Regards,
Bob

Correct! It also depends on the intended use, mentality of the user and financial ability, it is all relative. That is a little pricey for me but I would be willing to spend $10,000 less on a new ARC 21 or 22.

Hi Skier,
What does "really fast" mean relative to the Eagle 18 and 20? As I recall the Texel race 2004, the Eagle 20 beat the Tornado by about 2 minutes out of a 2hr and 41 minute race. That is 1.2% higher average speed around the 60 mile race course. I would be tempted to call that even. A 1.2% speed advantage is within the noise. How do we know that the Eagle 20 sailors weren't responsible for that 1.2% margin? When I was designing and building beach cats, I learned that if I built a boat for a target market, that boat had to be at least a 5% faster design so that when that boat got in the general publics hands, it still came out as a winner, a faster boat. A 2% to 3% faster design got lost in the noise.
What I see that we have now is two new 20ft boats of the same performance level as the Tornado. And the two new boats are 100 to 150 pounds lighter in weight than the Tornado and they cost five thousand dollars more than the Tornado. Are we getting ahead? Is technology really advancing? If the Tornado PN is 59, I want to see that 20ft boat with a PN of 56, 5% lower than the Tornado. Now that would be advanced technology and "really fast"!
Good Sailing,
Bill

Thats why I am building my new super Taipan 5.7, the std 5.7 was quicker than an old rig tornado in lighter conditions, the problem was the leverage in the windier stuff, So I am building a 10ft wide 5.7 with the same size rig as a new rig Tornado, It should be a bit quicker than the new Tornado for a boat that is 1ft shorter. The newer hulls shape and reduction in weight are the key differences. I am really keen to see how it would go against the Eagle 20, as they dont seem to perform to their potential compared to the Tornado.

I would like to mention that making a boat significantly lighter while keeping it at 20 foot is not an optimal thing to do. Reducing its hull length makes it noticeable faster again.

To give rough mathematical an example

180 kg + 150 kg crew on 20 foot => drag ratio wetted surface = 100 %
130 kg + 150 kg crew on 20 foot => drag ratio wetted surface = 92 %

compare to

130 kg + 150 kg on 18 foot => drag ratio wetted surface = 87 %

For this reason I never understood why Marstrom and even Eagle remained at the 20 foot hull length. Some extra 5 % on top of the original 8 % reduction can be had by making the hulls shorter. Dive stability is not that much of a problem as the reduction in drag causes the sailforce to reduce as well and in in this example a 19 foot hull on the lighter boat will still have exactly the same dive resistance as the heavier 20 foot hulls when running the numbers on the complete boat while sailing.

Wave making drag then ? Look at prismatic ratio's

180 kg + 150 kg crew on 20 foot => Rough Prismatic ratio = 100 %
130 kg + 150 kg crew on 20 foot => Rough Prismatic ratio = 85 %

compare to

130 kg + 150 kg on 18 foot => Rough Prismatic ratio = 94 %

See the shorter 18 foot hull of the lighter boat also has a lower wave making drag coefficient then a 20 foot hulled boat of the original weight. This is an example of how looking only at waterlength can be very misleading.

By now it is well understood that wetted surface drag is a larger portion of the overall drag than wave making drag while the later is still significant enough to not be neglected. So If one has to choose between a lower prismatic ratio of a lower wetted suface ratio one is wisest to choose the lowest wetted surface ratio.

In short at 130 kg boat is best build at 18 foot length (within the limits of this example) instead of at 20 foot. The difference in speed CAN WELL BE significant. Another 5% can easily be gained this way.

So unless some designer comes out with such a platform and doesn't f*ck up the rig at the same time I think we will see the lightweight boats being (very) limited in their gains. Simply because their designers don't take the time to do the basic math and ratio research.

Wouter

Ok, I gotta call BS on the stability bit.... I've sailed F18 and I-20 and the stability comparison.... ha ha ha!!! There is none! That two feet (10%) means a lot in survivability. I think that there is a reason the fastest boats out there are bigger and the designers are fully aware of the reasons.

Just on a quick view, 20' boats were the first 4 finishers in the 2004 Texel. Also consider that 7 of the top 10 boats in round texel were 20'. One thing you can't argue with is results. I don't see that any 18' boats have any Worrell/Tybee records. There has got to be something to it..... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ Design numbers mean one thing, but on the water performance is another. IMHO

Please read my post again Will,

-1- speed and dive stability is two different things

-2- greater dive stability is indeed linked to greater length and so to are larger wetted surface and lower speeds THEN COULD be achieved with a shorter hull WHEN the platform is made a lot lighter.

We are talking in relative terms here not absolute terms. The name of the game is "It could be even better IF...."

Wouter

Hi Will,
You have it right. If we take an 18ft long boat and stretch it to 20ft, we have added 2ft to the bow volume and that new bow volume is 2ft further forward with the 20ft hull. The boat now has more maximun pitchpole resisting torque, restoring moment. The maximum restoring moment has increased for two reasons, more bow volume and longer lever arm to that bow volume. Therefore maximum restoring moment increases as the square of the hull length. A the 20ft hull has (20/18)**2 = 1.23 or 23% more maximum restoring moment than an 18ft hull. This leads to higher top speeds and a more controllable platform for the 20ft boat.
More on these super light weight boats: If I take a 20ft boat at 375 pounds with a 325 pound crew and reduce the weight of the boat/platform 150 pounds, the lighter weight platform has lost (150/700) = 0.214 or a 21.4% loss in max restoring moment.To regain that lost restoring moment the hull length can be increased. How much? By the square root of the restoring moment loss or (1.214)**0.5 = 1.102 or 10.2%. This results in a 22ft light weight hull length with the same restoring moment as the heavier 20ft hull. I do this simplifed exercise to point out that when we make these lighter weight boats/platforms, "everything" doesn't get better. There are some performance/stability negatives.
Let's look at Platstation. What was the big modification to Playstation? It grew from a 100ft long boat to a 125ft long boat. This decision was done after a near "pitchpole" experience. The restoring moment was increased by (125/100)**2 = 1.56 or 56%. This was a major increase in restoring moment and it has led to much of the success of Playstation.
Bill

Well, guys believe what you want to believe. Ignore the pointers and dig into to the commercial talk.

I sailed my own boat, the kind that "just can't sail right", a few more times and I can assure you that I will NEVER EVER buy an "normal" boat again.

You guys just don't know what you're missing. AHPC rig ? Excellent, the bloody rig talks to you. Am I going crazy ? If so than I want to be completely insane by tomorrow morning. And I'm not the only one ; some at my club are actively looking to ditch their old normals boats like a 1 year old Blast to get "one of these". One comment of late, and this guy wouldn;t shut up after the test ride. "I thought the Taipan would be a twitchy and unstable boat, It REALLY isn't. She felt more stable than all the other boats I had and it sped along so enormously". Dive problems ? Not here. I did a bit of the F18 and I can tell you that Your Tiger has more problems there and that the Nacra I-18 takes more chop on the beam. The Nacra 5.5 goes done like a submaring when coming down swell or chop. The T goes in like a good suspension and pops right out ready for the next wave. I put it done to the lightweight mast.

Now this T is smaller and shorter than ALL YOUR BOATS and I think it is heaps better. The accelerations are just orgasmic. Out of trim ? Pull in some sheet or control line and she reacts like you hit the G-spot head on.

Guys, you make up your own minds. I can tell you all you need to know about these ratios and whats works and what not, but you are never going to believe me and honestly THAT IS YOUR LOSS.

I'm sailing and pissing of some unconverted sailors in the process.

Have fun guys and buy some more old rig and old technology boats. God knows not much has changed since the 70's right ?

Or did it ?

Wouter

Hey folks

Notice that the F18HT is the lighter and shorter boat that Wouter proposed. It's PN rating is approaching the I20 and Tornado. 60 versus 59!

The rule does not allow the boat to max out the trailerable beam. It's not 8 for 6 wide... (I think it's 8' 3" in width)

Mark

Bill and Wouter, theory is a wonderful thing and I am sure that everyone who has designed a beach cat since 1967 with the aim of buildng a boat that is as quick as a Tornado has done plenty of theory. Then as they realise that they are not in the same ballpark they have to rethink it all. I am going off a gut feeling and many hours experience on a Tornado and the 5.7 Taipan and I am bloody confident that my widened 5.7 will be a very quick boat, at least as quick as a T and the potential to beat it substantially in all conds and points of sail. Only time will tell but the failings of some of these newcomers (Eagle and M20) can be put down to a few points: M20 has no Jib, might be fine on a W/L course race but it suffers badly elsewhere. Eagle 20: This boat has a lot of potential but there are too many variables at this stage. The rig is in early stages of dev and the platform is unproven. I am going to start with what is essentially a Tornado rig and use that as my baseline. you should never discount the amount of development that has gone into the modern Tornado rig.