The last two seasons I have taught myself cat sailing on a 1991 H17, but the boat is getting old and I would like to sail with a spinnaker as well. Moreover, I am in the lucky situation that I can spend some money on a (almost new) boat for next summer.
I always sail on my own on a lake (no surf), weigh about 115 kg / 250 lbs (strong, tall, low fat), and as said a spi would be a prerequisite.
Traditionally I would lean towards the Hobie Cat FX One or Nacra F17/F17 XL, but the Dutch Blade dealer offers a 20% discount on a new F16 so that may be an opportunity as well (at least from a financial point of view). There are no FX One/F17/F16 sailors in my club and I am not (yet) into regattas.
What would you recommend? Are there any other cats that I overlook? I enjoy the "simplicity" of the H17, how are these three boats different in terms of handling. Which of the three is the easiest/most tricky (sensitive to trim, most diffficult to get to speed) boat to deal with. What are differenes in behaviour light vs heavy wind/wave conditions. With my own weight what would be the best boat for taking crew along? Does the low weight of the Blade mean it is a less robust boat, or does it have a totally different structure? Maybe a more general question, how can I judge the robustness of a cat?

Thanks for your help!
Bart

Bart,

I've an Inter 17 for sale at the moment; 5 years old, but looks almost like new; a few signs of wear and tear that you would expect, but hulls and plates / rudders are in tip top condition and for a considerable saving over a new boat.

The 17 is a great boat. Let me know if you are interested - I'll deliver to NL for 1/2 the cost of the ferry plus petrol.


Cheers

Simon

Do a search for these boats on the forum--you'll find extensive discussions and many answers to your questions.

Two comments:
1. Just because something is light weight does not mean it is not strong; it may just be well engineered and well made.
2. Rig and sail the three boats personally if at all possible--you'll learn more in 10 minutes sailing each boat than in 10 hours on the forum.

Excellent advice. There are a fair no of all 3 boats (I'm Wouter will be along in a minute) in NL.

I had seen the posting but delayed my reply to it.

I completely agree with the advice given earlier.

Get a demo sail on all three boats and compare them directly. This shouldn't be a problem here in the Netherlands. I know that we have a Vectorworks marine demo boat overhere, although it is in winter storage right now. I'm sure that our competition would offer a test ride on their boats. Currently 2 interested parties have test sailed the Blade and our succes rate is currently at 100 %. If you know what I mean So yes, by all means test sail all the available boats, but don't make any commitments before having sailed the Blade !

Actually this demo boat is available at a discounted price too. See here



Principally, all named boats will be a significant step up from the Hobie 17, so in that sense you can't go wrong.

But lets me supply a few quick answers to your questions :


>>There are no FX One/F17/F16 sailors in my club and I am not (yet) into regattas.

Where are you actually sailing ?

What would you recommend? Are there any other cats that I overlook?

Not really : M18 = too expensive considering your earlier comments. Spitfire is more focussed on double handed sailing, A-cat is without a spinnaker. You may consider looking at a Shadow (swell catamarans) but at 115 kg you will really load up that boat and not attentain comparable performance to the FX-one/I-17/F16 boats as a result.


>>I enjoy the "simplicity" of the H17, how are these three boats different in terms of handling.


In the controls there isn't that much difference between the 3 newer boats. There is some but not enough to really seal the decision. The difference to the H17 will be significant. Biggest difference will be the overal boatweight. F16 = 107 kg; FX-one = 145 kg; I-17 = 152 kg H-17 = 165 kg. The smaller differences you should really experience yourself during test rides.


>>Which of the three is the easiest/most tricky (sensitive to trim, most diffficult to get to speed) boat to deal with.

I would venture to say that all boats are comparable in acquiring their respective (handicap predicted) speeds. Which still leaves a clear picking order in absolute speeds.

I personally have a very clear favourite with respect to rigs and tunability/ease of trim, but I suspect that this is due to personal taste as well.


>>What are differenes in behaviour light vs heavy wind/wave conditions.

Difficult to write down in a few short sentences. None is bad. The rest could well be solely dependent on personal likes and dislikes.


>>With my own weight what would be the best boat for taking crew along ?


I don't know the I-17 well enough to comment on it in this respect but both FX-one and Blade should handle this extra weight well.


>>Does the low weight of the Blade mean it is a less robust boat, or does it have a totally different structure?


Best example I can give is that the Taipan 4.9 and Taipan F16's have been around for 15 years and weight ONLY 102 KG's there has truly not been any more damages with these boat than with 50 kg heavier alternative designs. So lwo weight in itself really doesn't have to mean "less robust". Moreso as most robustness is quantified to have easily you can make a dent in a hull. I was surprised at how easily one could dent a 150 kg singlehander. Hulls are normally heavily overdimensioned in the way of strength as a result of preventing easy denting or damage under point loads like shells under your keelline while beeching.


>>Maybe a more general question, how can I judge the robustness of a cat?


This is difficult to easily establish. Looking at the history of a particular design is often best. In the case of the Blade look at the Taipan design as the Blade design uses alot of components that have been used 15 years on the Taipans.


Wouter

Hi Bolivar, having had the pleasure of up close experience with all the boats mentioned, I am going to be politically incorrect and say go with the blade. the 20kg difference between the blade and the other two boats is a difference of night and day. of course if you have the pleasure of test sailing all of them, be my guest, but the rig on the blade alone, assuming it has a super wing mast, is worth buying the boat for. I'll probably get flamed for this, but really the rig alone is that much better than the other two boats.
to answer your questions, all three of them have different techniques of getting to speed, so i would say all three are equally difficult or easy, depending on the way you look at it.
I would say the blade would have the most spohisticated mast design, plus if you get the fat head main, it opens up a whole new performance level.
The intern 17 is a older hull design, the blade is the newest. I would say the FX one is a hull design that aspires to be the blade but doesn't quite hit it. With the "planing" potential of the blade, I would imgine that it would be a faster hull design. But don't get me wrong though, all these hull designs are fast and even the blade, which i feel is the fastest hull design is not going to make up for it if you start late, tack the boat badly, bang the wrong shifts, etc, etc. It still all comes down to the sailor for the most part. Hope this helps

Hi,
I agree, all the above advice is good regarding looking at previous posts, sailing the boat, etc.

I chose the FX-1, and would also consider any of the three boats you mention. I love my FX-1. It never takes on a single drop of water, regardless of the conditions I sail it in (just recently in 20-25 kts with 35 kt gusts). I'm sure the others are fine too. Feel free to contact me directly.

Good Luck!

Steve Bellavia
Hobie FX-1, Sail #211

Thanks for your valuable feedback!
Wouter - I mainly sail my cat on De Grevelingen.

Cheers, Bart

Bart,

your weight has some advantage and disadvantage. I think that sailing a single handed cat will give you both no mather what cat you choose. The last two seasons I had the opportunity to sail on the F16. Sailed on the Taipan an the Blade. My personal choise would be the Blade beceause the design is newer and to my opinion it runs a bit faster. These boats are designed for two people with an optimum weight between 130 and 140 kilo's (no issue when sailing the boat with 170 kg but one can feel the difference)it the, so in your case there will be no issue of boat strength.
I haven't sailed the H17 or the FX one so can't help you there.

For my cat experience in general I can tell you that I started cat sailing about 30 years ago on the Noordzee where I still have a good time on several different cats

Dolly

Forgive my innocence in this matter, but why do Nacra/HC need an additional 40 kg to build their hulls? For the sake of simplicity I assume the rigs of the F16 vs I17/FX1 have comparable mass, and in that case the 40 kg makes up about 30% (!!) of the total mass of the hulls. The weight saving may come from the use of newer materials (e.g. carbon fibre) or a different inner/support structure, but from some reading and talking to the salesmen this last weekend it seems as if the building principles and used material are very comparable. Is it so that the F16 boatbuilders just use less material and use it smarter (but if so how?) and are the boats from HC/Nacra in that sense just old-fashioned? Just curious / interested.
By the way: At the Nacra dealer I saw a 3D impression of the new Nacra F18 hull. It has the same 'negative' bow as the Blade and Fx One and is even more pleasing to the eye than the current Nacra F18 design.

Cheers, Bart

Different weights for different manufacturers hulls are due to several reasons. The Hobie company (as the main and prime example) has, from the time of their first cat, never, apparently, considered "weight" as a major consideration when it came to marketing and manufacturing their cats. They have always relied on their "advertising and promotion" (which has worked well). It has only been when they have faced stiff competition from other cats based on weight-orientated performance that they have reluctantly reduced their collective hull weights. It’s not that they couldn’t reduce their weights at any time and still retain “strength”, but more so that to reduce weight in a hull and still retain strength requires more time and consequently, time being the biggest variable expense in manufacturing, more cost, and unless the price goes up to reflect those extra cost, there is then less “profit”. So weight, or lack of it, comes down, primarily, to a “cost effective” exercise, regardless of the types of materials used.
To one degree or another, this same “ethic” has governed all the “major” manufacturers of the most abundant classes of cats.
There is still of course that “big” question as to why the F18’s minimum weight is so “high”? The common answer is that it keeps costs down as it eliminates the need for the use of, so called “exotics”. This of course is a “furphy” as the weight of any F18 cat could be made at a greatly reduced weight than it is at present without using any “exotic” materials or sacrificing any strength.
My personal suspicion is that “Hobie” had an overly influential hand in the weight “rules” in the class’s early conception and therefore the final weight was retained at Hobies “comfortable” weight of the old TheMightyHobie18 (just my own suspicions)

You are forgiven.

But in defense of both Nacra and Hobie builders, they DON'T need an additional 40 kg to build their hulls. Your assumption is incorrect.

I'll give a listing of hull weights for you ;

A-cat : typically around 14 kg / hull (18 foot length)
Prindle 16 : about 30 kg per hull (16 foot length)
F16 : Typically around 25 kg / hull (16 and a halve foot lenth)
FX-one : Around 35 kg / hull (17 foot length)
I-17 : I have no measured data for that hull but suspect also around 35 kg
F18's : about 45 kg per hull as per class rules (18 foot length)

It is wise to understand that the F18 hulls and beams are heavier because of the minimum weight rule that specifies the platform (not the same as a whole boat) to be at least 130 kg. Therefor F18 designers have no insentives to design and produce light hulls, beams and daggerboards/rudder setups.

So in effect an F16 hull is "just" 10kg lighter per hull than its competitors, while being only 6 inches shorter. Not 20 kg per hull.

So in effect the hulls can only explain about 20 kg weight difference between the boats. The other 20 kg is to be found in other items.

Even more interesting is the fact that even old boats like the Prindle 16 and Dart 18's have lighter hulls than the newer "high tech" hulls except the A-cats and F16's. The reason for this is to be found in choice of materials and a decision to optimize for easy and fast production rather then lightweightness. That is a business decision.

So lets continue with the other 20 kg weight difference (although it is probably more than that)



This is wrong and therefor all conclusions based on this assumption are wrong as well.

The F16's use the aluminium superwing mast or carbon mast while the FX-one uses what looks like a cut down Tiger mast. There is already 3 kg difference in the overall weight of the mast. We (I) know this thanks to a FX-one sailor who measured his components. The Superwing fittings are also lighter. F16 seal the top of their masts with a block of rubbery foam and a thick layer of sealant. Up till recently the big builders use plug made of cast aluminium or even a stainless steel plate. You'll find significant weight differences here. But the superwing mast is also 0.4 kg per meter lighter than its competitors (except the Swell shadow). It has reinforcing ribs inside the mast section that restore the stiffness and strength of the mast while the wallthickness has been reduced. This is more weight efficient. But we are getting into details.

The sails should weight about the same I'm sure. But the snuffer system of Hobie is again noticeably heavier. Note that when you have several items that weight 1 lbs more then you can quickly build up a significant weight difference.




Indeed, the F16's are largely made with the same basic materials and technics, even though alot of effort is applied to get the max out of them. I'm unsure wether the same effort is made by some others.

The real difference in weight is caused by a simple business decision. Both Nacra and Hobie don't want to have stocks of imcompatible parts. This means that they use all kinds of F18 parts for their singlehanders. As good as all of these are much heavier than needed because of the high minimum weight limits in the F18 class. The F16 builders however decided to optimize all parts for F16 usage.

Examples :

The weight difference between the Tiger F18 rudder setup and the F16 rudder setup is ..... 8 kg's !

The weight difference between the Tiger F18 daggerboards and the F16 daggerboards is .... 3 kg's !

The weight difference between the Tiger F18 beams and the F16 beams is .... 1 kg to 2kg per beam !

Add these differences to those found in the snuffer system, mast and other parts and you'll quickly gether some 20 to 25 kg additional weight.

Does this means that Nacra and Hobie need this weight to build a good boat ? No, not really. It is just that the business director decide to cut cost and increase profibilty but use parts that were orginally designed for the F18 (and their heavy weight limits)

I'm quite sure that both companies could build their singlehanders significantly lighter if they wanted too. But several of us realized a few years back that neither would go that route unless absolutely forced to do so by the competition on the marketplace. And subsequently the F16 class was born, established and grown.




The nacra/hobie boats aren't old-fashioned, the squaretops rigs are just as modern as the ones on the F16's for example. The rudder profiles aren't "old" neither, It is just that the individual parts were never optimized for their "new" usage.

An interesting detail in this is the fact that the One-design Inter-17 class rules (now called F17) allow an I-17 owner to cut shorter his daggerboards. Naturally these board were designed and optimized for the F18 class and doublehanded sailing on the rather heavy platform. This means that they are really too big and too strong for signlehanded use. But they had these F18 daggerboard lying on the shelve and why not use then ? Make alot of sense from a business perspective.

F16 builders were NOT building any F18's at time when they designed their F16's and so they designed the F16 parts to be fully optimized for F16 use. This allowed lighter construction without really sacrificing any strength.

You really feel this difference when sailing these boats. On the F16's you hardly ever pull your daggerboards up while sailing. The boats are calms and balance over a wide spectrum when the boards are fully down. The fact that the boards are significantly shorter and because the sail loads are noticeably smaller allows the daggerboards to be 60 % of the weight of those F18 boards (and FX-one and I-17 boards).

My whole setup of 2 daggerboards, 2 rudderboards, 2 rudder stocks with protectors + tiller and joystick combined weight just 8 kgs ! And it was halve the cost of a comparable F18 setup as well.

So why are these F18 parts so heavy ? Well how else can you get the platform to weight in at 130 kg and the whole boat to weight in at 180 kgs ? As said earlier the sails will all weight very much the same and so to the lines, cleats and blocks. So all that extra weight is concentrated in a few key parts which are the ruddersetup, mast, beams, hulls and fittings like snuffer systems, trampoline etc.


It is my personal hope that in time we can "convince" both Hobie and Nacra to go the -truly fully optimized- route and start designing, building and producing truly optimized boats in addition to the F18's.

I'm sure they can buy several F16 designs and skip the designing face all together if they wanted to.





Forget about the negative bow, that is the least important aspect of these new hullshapes. The truly interesting parts are the shape of the keel line and the volume distribution. Get that right and they are in, get it wrong and you can throw away the design.


Bart, I hope my answers provided some insights.

One more thing. To press home my comments I would like to add that amateur home-builders who are building in Wood-epoxy are producing F16's that are about 110 kg's in overall weight, with the hulls being 25-26 kg. It is a sad time when amateur builders can produce much lighter boats using plain multiplex while the professional builders are giving us 150 kg boats using the "latest technologies". And believe me these darn multiplex boats are way more dent resistant then their glass counterparts. In the of strength and stiffness these multiplex boats are at minimum just as strong and stiff as the glass ones. When build with skill they are both stronger and stiffer. But this is not the topic at hand.



Cheers,

Wouter

Bart et al,
Why don't you look at the Stealth line of cats also.

You may be impressed with thier innovation.

For example, Stealth produces , as standard, foils on the rudders.

None of the other builders you mentioned, offer this technology.

Plus, it is interesting to see that the new Stealth spinnaker snuffer has gone full circle and is now back in the tramp. Very interesting indeed.

Bart, give them all a ride and go sailing mon!


Bruce
I 17
St. Croix
USVI

Wouter, Thanks for the lecture ;-), but seriously it is good to see some numbers. On the negative bow, I intentionally wrote "pleasing to the eye" in the hope to avoid another technical discussion, because some boats are truly beautiful to look at!

Groet, Bart

If it all comes down to "personal" choice, assuming that all else averages fairly much equal, the Blade has to be the one of the "prettiest" cats that has come along in years (except for the Alpha F14, but thats another story)