I have noted the discussion on the different weights of Nacra Inter 17 / Hobie FX 1/ Blade 16. My local NACRA-dealer told me that the 2006 model of the F17 will be about 10 to 15kg lighter than the previous one. Does anybody have an idea how Nacra is going to achieve that?

My current boat is a NACRA 5.0 from 1995, I am sailing the Baltic Sea (Germany, close to Denmark) and considering a new boat for the next season. My problem is that I want to sail the boat alone (about 75kg) as well as with a friend (together about 155kg), and the F17 seems to be the best compromise. I had the opportunity to sail a boat in my sailing-club and it was in every aspect better than mine ...

Thanks for any comments on this!

Nacra said the 2005 boats were going to be 10 - 15 kg lighter too. I'm not sure they are. Also V expensive to import over from the states as they go via the Netherland.

If I were you I would go for either an F16 which can go 1 or 2 up or buy my Inter 17 that I have for sale.

Drop me a PM if you want more details.

Cheers

Simon

I weighed a few boats at this year's Morth Americans and the 2005 boats weighed about 20 lbs. less than the older boats. The lightest was about 320 lbs. (When I had a 2000 I17R, it weighed 345 lbs. with the stock blocks and sheets and 340 lbs. after buying carbo blocks and lightweight sheets.) There was some variation due to changes on the older boats that made them lighter (blocks, sheets, spin. systems, etc.) as their skippers were upgrading to newer systems.

The best of the F17 sailors were finishing races near the top of the F18 fleet which started 5 minutes ahead of the F17 fleet! The Europeans were astonished and said that the F17 (carbon mast) would be very attractive in Europe if people knew how fast it was.

Baltic,

Go to http://www.frappr.com/formula16classgroup

and look for Europe (move map to the right). Here Holger Siebke has put himself on our F16 World map, he will be sailing a Blade F16 in 2006. His location is Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein (Germany). That should be quite close to you. Maybe you two should make contact, it is always fun to have another with the same boat type around ?



I think this dependents on what they are calling "the previous model". It appears that you will have to look for the heaviest I-17 model ever made to be able to claim 15 kg weight reduction.

Les Gallagher (sparky) is giving you the numbers as I know them to be as well.

2000 I17R : about 345 lbs = 156 kg
2005 I17R : Lightest measured = 145 kg

Texel handicap system measured the various versions at :

nacra inter 17 (alu mast): 155 kg
nacra inter 17 +jib (alu mast): jib 158 kg
nacra inter 17R (carbon mast) : 151 kg
nacra inter17 XL (alu mast) : 155 kg

These two sources seem to more or less agree with eachother. Although 10 kg weight reduction seems alot more likely then 15 kg lighter.

How are they going to achieve that ? Well some of it will be because the alu mast is replaced by an carbon one. Typically this saves 3 to 4 kg and indeed if we look at the Texel weight numbers we see that 4 kg is the difference between the older (2st model) alu masted I-17 and the newer F17 (4th model in the series) Actually the name F17 in not used by the European importer on his website www.nacraeurope.com , they are using the name "Nacra 17" and it appears that this version in not the same as the US nacra F17. It is quoted as having less mainsail area (15.5 sq. mtr. in stead of 16.48 sq. mtr.)

I'm not really sure were they win the additional kg's. Here I can only guess and your guess is as good as mine.

Personally I'm sure that nacra could build the I-17R at 130 kg if they really wanted too. But having said this I really don't expect them to go below 140 kg, ever. But that is another topic or rather that is still outstanding challenge put to Nacra (and Hobie as well). We won't go there now.





I really disagree with this. The Formula 16 boats are already a better compromise in this respect. 35 kg's lighter and noticeably faster as reflected in the 4 point difference in the Texel handicap ratings. Also the F16 have seen alot more development over the years in both setups (singlehanding and doublehanding). By he way I also consider the Spitfires (135 kg and rated faster) to be a better compromise in this respect.

The alu masts on the F16's are 3 kg lighter than the alu masts on the nacra 17's, so the difference between the carbon mast on the Nacra 17 and the alu mast on some of the F16's is expected to be only 1 kg. This is far less than one normally expects. Carbon F16 masts are again 3 kg to 4 kg lighter then the F16 alu masts, therefor these will be 2 kg to 3 kg lighter than the carbon nacra 17 masts. For example the Stealth marine carbon mast is 13 kg when fully fitted and that is 7 kg lighter then the alu FX-one mast and 4 kg lighter than the alu F16 masts.

For singlehanding I can say from personal experience that those 35 kg weight difference in platform weight will make a very noticeable difference. In the way of doublehanding I can assure you that the F16's and spitfires have done alot more development. You will notice this in the way the boats feel and how well the sails have been optimized (= speed). I learned the price quote for the nacra 17 some months ago and I can assure you that the most modern F16, the Blade F16, will be seriously cheaper.

The nacra 17 is also advertised as a One-design class with hints to product stability and fair racing. However in the last 8 years we have seen no less than 5 different nacra 17 models coming out with noticeable differences in performance. And I'm talking about big differences like 3 sq. mtr. area in the mainsail (between model Inter-17 and Inter-17R for example). As a formula class we are often accused of having poor design stability but, really ! , we are absolute angles in comparison to this One-Designs class.

I'm sure the nacra 17 is a fine design and a good boat that will give you plenty of enjoyment, but I also feel that there are alternatives available that are just better in every single respect. So why not get the best option ? If you are interested in the F16 then read this :

European group Blade F16

Regards,

Wouter

Thanks for these comments, especially Wouter's which were very interesting indeed.

First, I'd like to point out why I care that much about the weight of the boat. Although I sail mainly with two (my girlfried, one of my sons, a friend), I'd like to have the opportunity to sail alone. One subject is of course the righting the boat after a cartwheel (<- correct word?) - which is with my Nacra 5.0 so easy that I don't regard this with a boat of similar or less weight as a problem. But I have huge problems to get it out of the water. At my "home-beach" I have a steep way out of the water, and it for me, being not too strong almost impossible to get the boat out back of safe land.
Of course, if the boat gets faster due to less weight I don't mind ...

Coming back to the boat in question, the Nacra F17. Here, in Germany, it is indeed available in two versions, with 13,8m2 and 15,5m2 (F17XXL) main sail. However, my dealer confirmed that with next year's model, the version with the larger mainsail will be available only. The current weight is given with with 140 kg (without jib and spinnacker), He guesses the new weight with about 125kg, so you have a complete boat with jib, spinnacker, etc. at around 135kg.
Do you have any information on the weight of a Nacra 5.0? Since this is what it boils down: the reduction in weight between the two boats.

However, it is very interesting what you say about the Formula 16 class. Since you are obviously member of the F16 group: do you have any contact details of Holger Siebke? Kiel is a 20 minutes drive from my place, I am there every second day.

I am pretty new in cat-sailing, and had no intention to look for a new boat. Just by accident I had the opportunity to sail a Nacra F17XXL (2004 model) in my usual conditions and I was surprised at the difference as such - and that I am able noticing it with my pretty little experience. At that point I decided to give the FX One a try too. Again a considerable difference, much better than my Nacra 5.0 - but not as good as the F17. The F17 gives me the impression being a double-hander with single-hander option, the FX One a single-hander with double-hander option. And since I do 95% of my sailing with (a pretty light-weight) crew, I guessed the F17 being the right boat for me.

I must confess that I never had the opportunity to sail a Formula 16 boat (except a Hobie 16 which is certainly not a subject here). It is just an assumption but I'd guess that its ability to go through rough waves at strong winds (we sometimes go out at >5bft with >1,50m waves) is limited compared to a larger boat. Also the mechanical rigidity might be compromised if you have just over 100kgs of weight compared to approx. 140 kgs of a F17 or even 180kg of a Formula 18.
On the other hand I must confess that as I contacted my local Narca-dealer (Sven Lindstädt) he recommeded for my purposes, apart from the F17, the Taipan 4.9 which is a whopping €2000,- cheaper than the NARCA. Is this the boat you're owning?

However, it boils down to a test-sail at my local conditions and if you have any contact-details of Formula 16 owners not too distant from my place, I'd appreciate if you could forward them to me.

Thanks!

Do not equate weight with either structural integrity or hull strength or rigidity...
A well built home made Tiapan or Blade definately will be strong and stiff.. The Pro built boats including the stealth should have zero worries..

Slack building methods are the reason the Nacras and Hobies are so heavy.. The F18 rules encourage porky boats...

I beg to differ - "slack" building methods would result in boat weights all over the place. PC and Hobie are very good about consistant boat weight (of the 4 Nacra F18's in our area, they all weigh within 2 lbs of each other completely rigged). "Slack" building methods would result in inconsistant weights.

Unoptomised designs, yes. "Slack", no.

Baltic,



I can only speak for my personal situation and from my personal experiences. But I'm not going back to boats that weight more than my combined crew weight. I had several beach catamarans and I really do appreciate the lightweight of my current boat, which is a homebuild Taipan F16 (I modified the Taipan 4.9 design in several aspects myself)

I do sail solo regulary myself and I have to pull the boat up a sandy incline for about 75 to 200 meters, depending on the tide. The sand is often very soft and it often is a real workout. In the past I had to ask for help and if no-one was around then mostly I couldn't go out as I would be unable to put the boat back in its place. With my current 110kg F16 I can pull the boat up the incline by myself. On hot days with very dry and soft sand I have to do in two stages but I can do it. Apart from this handling the boat is simply a dream. I can raise it with one hand on the spi pole and put the dolly underneath it without rubbing it against the hulls. I can put the boat over singlehandedly while on the beach to tension my battens or clear something on the mast. And put it back up right again. All without too much effort. I'm even able to rig and de-rig singlehandedly because of the lightweight mast and the hinged mast step. All this has really allowed me to sail more often and I'm never holding back in fear of getting into a situation beyond my control.




You should be very careful about making assumptions here. I could right one of my former boats, a prindle 16 (ver similar to nacra 5.0 in spec), singlehandedly as well, but I couldn't right the FX-one. I have never righted the I-17 but a I-17 sailor (EU version with alu mast) who participates in our club races was quite clear about his inability to right the boat singlehandedly at 73 kg without additional aids like a waterbag. I'm personally 85 kg. My old prindle 16 boat is quite comparable to your Nacra 5.0 and still the newer and "lighter" boats I could not right singlehandedly. My point here is that overall platform weight doesn't say anything about how easy a boat can be righted. Things like mast length and mast weight make a big difference here and it can easily be the case that a longer mast on a modern boat can make the boat harder to right than a boat with a shorter but heavier mast.

In the way of the Taipan and Blade design (Alu mast) I can garantee you that you can right these singlehandedly with your 75 kg weight. That is with just the righting line and no other aids. The threshold for these alu masted F16 boats seem to be at about 70 kg's.

The Stealth F16 (carbon mast) can be righted with just 60 kgs. The same applies if either the Taipan or Blade is also fitted with a carbon mast.

The best advice I can give you is to actually try righting all these boats singlehandedly. Don't take anyones word or garantee for it, not even mine ! . This way you known what you are getting before signing-off on a large chunck of money. Don't make any assumptions based on unrelated specs like overall boat weight.

Of course I have done so myself in the past and I have a pretty good idea of what the outcome of this comparison will be.



Well that is indeed the right attitude. Speed isn't everything. Ease of handling is.





This is interesting as the US F17 boat has 16.44 sq. mtr. mainsail area on a 9.15 mtr tall carbon mast. The US F17 is a modification on the inter-17R. From your info and that found on www.nacraeurope.com I gether that the European version will have 15.5 sq. mtr area on a 8.6 mtr tall mast. If this version is also called F17 then we have two different F17 versions in the world which are not compatible. 1 sq .mtr area difference is not to be neglected. OR the US F17 sailors will have to downgrade in mainsail area; something I have trouble envisioning. Going on Sparky's and your comments the US F17 will be heavier then the EU F17 as well. And it appears that the EU F17 will have a shorter mast and mostly probably an alu one while the US F17 has a taller mast of carbon.

Aus/asian inter 17, EU inter 17, US inter 17R, EU inter-17 XL, US nacra F17 and now EU nacra F17 - all with significantly different specifications; This thing is getting really confusing !

I'll probably will get flamed for the next statement but why is it so hard for Nacra to settle on 1 (and only 1) inter 17 (or nacra 17) design and have the same boat sold all over the world ?




Here comes my second advice; have a contract made up were the dealor agrees to take back the boat and refund the money if the boat is heavier than (125kg + 5 kg) = 130 kg without the jib kit or spinaker. Actually you should do something similar with any dealer and boat deal, including the F16 sellers.

I really wonder if your nacra guy will agree to that.

In case of the Blade F16, I know that this will be accepted as we have already done that ones.

If a dealer refuses to agree to this condition then ask him why and try to find out what overall weight of the boat he will garantee. You can use the official Texel (or ISAF) measurers to settle the question of how much your boat weights. They have plenty of experience in such a thing and are totally independent of both the dealor and you.

This sounds like a good time to seperate the "rumours" from the reality. And once again I fully advice you do the same with F16 dealers if you are interested in that direction.




Nacra 5.0 was measured by Texel to be 147 kg

Reduction in weight between the two boats ? Get it in writing !




I will get the contact details for you. I will send these to you using the private message feature of the forum




The F17 definately won't be the wrong boat for you, especially not if the rumoured specifications are true. It is just that I personally judge that you'll be better off with a F16.




Personally I never looked at these boats in that way. My experience is that the FX-one likes the higher weight of a doublehander crew better then just the weight of a signlehanding sailor, the FX-one mast seems a little to stiff for comfortable singlehanding. And I only once saw a double handed Inter-17, all others were singlehanders. So actually my personal view on these boats is exactly the reverse of your view.





Well, I gladly offer you a test ride on my own Taipan F16. And you can get a test ride on both the Stealth F16 and Blade F16 here in the Netherlands. Both dealers have a demo boat. My boat is in winter storage right now, so we'll have to wait for the winter to pass first if we go that way.





It is natural to assume that but this is really not the case. If anything the hard part for singlehanded F16's is to "go through rought" waves at very light winds. Boats with significantly more mass tend to keep going more in these conditions. However this combination of rought seas and light winds is rather rare and when you are doublehanding the F16 then you will have sufficient combined mass (boat + crew) to negate the difference to other boats.

It is my personal experience that the F16 performs alot better then what many sailor expect from just looking the F16 specs. I can tell you about several instance where I was sailing right in the middle of the leading I-20's and F18's in the rough stuff as well as the very light stuff with flat water. If anything my worst results were in the medium sized conditions, but here I was still sailing head to head with the F18's and I-20's. Personally I have not seen an any I-17 do that. I'm an average sailor, not extremely good, so the top sailors are smoking my butt, however comparable crews (same skill level) on F18's and F20's will have to sail a good race to stay ahead of me when I'm sailing my F16.

The F18's and F16's are really comparable in performance over a wide range of conditions. In any case alot more than say the I-17 and FX-one.




Actually, some F16 members did several measurements between various boats and found the following numbers for the stiffness in the vertical plane :

Hobie Tiger (F18) ; 93 mm (Build 2004)
Nacra F18 : 95 mm (build 2004)
Tornado : 55 mm (build 1991)
Taipan 4.9 : 65 mm (build 2001)
Blade F16 : 35 mm (build 2004)
Blade F18 : 25 mm (build 2005)

The test was to lay up the sterns of the platform on a waterlevel plane (by saw horses or something) and have one bow supported as well. Then the difference in he vertical plane between the supported and unsupported bow was measured.

The boats would flex under their own weight. Naturally the F16's (Taipans) are significantly lighter in their platforms and are therefor loaded up less. To roughly compensate for this we may multiply the flexing by the ratio between the platform weigths. The new list then becomes (when taking the F18's are the base measurement) :

Hobie Tiger (F18) ; 93 mm (Build 2004)
Nacra F18 : 95 mm (build 2004)
Tornado : 60 mm (build 1991)
Taipan 4.9 : 140 mm (build 2001)
Blade F16 : 75 mm (build 2004)
Blade F18 : 25 mm (build 2005)


However this is not the full picture yet, the lighter boats also feature a smaller rig and their reduced displacement (bouyancy) means that the smaller platforms are also loaded up LESS while sailing ! A wave passing a bowsection with only 10 liters of volume in it will excert a smaller force on the hulls and beams then the same wave passing a move volumious hull with 15 kg liters in the bow section ! The length of a hull also plays a role. 10 kg at the tip of a 5 mtr F16 hull causes a smaller leverage then say a 10 kg force on the tip of a 6.0 mtr Tornado hull.

If we also compensate for this we find :

Hobie Tiger (F18) ; 93 mm (Build 2004)
Nacra F18 : 95 mm (build 2004)
Tornado : 60 mm (build 1991)
Taipan 4.9 : 105 mm (build 2001)
Blade F16 : 50 mm (build 2004)
Blade F18 : 25 mm (build 2005)

So this last list should be strongly correllated to what you feel while sailing the different boats.

It is my personal experience that the Nacra F18 is about as stiff as my own home-build Taipan F16 which is less than halve the weight then the F18 in platform weight. The numbers above reflect this as well. There is not much difference between 105 mm flexing and 95 mm flexing. So the lightweigh build of the Taipan doesn't seem to put apart from the F18 much. The newer F16's however were more attention was given to making the platforms stiff have succeeded in shaming the heavy boat builders. The designer who designed the Blade F16 also designed the Blade F18 and please compare the flex numbers of these boats to those of the Nacra F18 and Hobie Tiger. The Blade F16 is nearly twice as stiff in the vertical plane as the big builder F18's; The blade F18 is 4 times stiffer.

This has all been achieved by changing the beam landing design and adjusting the beam profile for maximum stiffness. The designer expected some benefits but never to this extend. But non of us is complaining. Better to much stiffness than not enough.

I should mention here that both the Capricorn F18 and Cirrus F18 are noticeably stiffer than the big builder F18's as well. So it is more and more become a question of why some designers and builders aren't achieving similar convincing stiffness numbers.

This is just a analyses of the overall stiffness of the platform. There is more of course like robustness of the hulls themselfs. Also here overall weight is not a good basis to make an estimate upon. My own boat weights 110 kg's and is home made of marine ply and epoxy. I'm right next to a Hobie tiger of 180 kg. This season we both suffered a crew coming down on the deck with their trapeze hooks between the hulls and themselfs. The Tiger deck was punctured and area around it was cracked. It needs a proper repair; owner mentioned that the deck has to come off to repair the inside. On my hulls you can see two marks where over 100 mm the paint has been scratched away due to my crew sliding off the hull into the water after the fall. You can see that the top glass layer has been "plucked at" by the sharp edge of the trapeze hook but the fibres are still in their weave and the marine ply core is undamaged. My hulls are still fully waterproof. I can just paint over the area and only a very shallow dent (trench) can be felt with the finger tips. So in this case 130 kg in the platform (ex rig / sails etc) didn't help my befriended sailor while my 60 kg platform handled it like a charm.

That is how little overall platform weight can influence "mechanical rigidity"

It all comes down to making the right design choices and the right choice of materials.

A befriended Taipan 4.9 sailor has a T-bone collision with a Hobie Tiger with both doing about 5 to 8 knots. Only the outer glass shell of the Taipan 4.9 was damaged. In my personal opinion AHPC (Taipan builder) has achieved one of the very best laminate layups of any modern catamaran builder, noticeably better then a score of competitors. The jury is still out on their Capricorn F18 but the Taipan 4.9 layup is still the envy of many builders. It is solid and stiff and hard to damage as well; It seems very dent resistant. More so then my own experience of several other known builders. I've dented a few boat in past, you know.

Indeed, from my own experience I can see that by no means a lightweight boat has to be less "mechanical rigid" than a heavier boat. Far from it. For some reason the lighter boats often appear to show superior behaviour in this respect. Probably because more attention to detail is given to every aspect in these designs.





I wish to express my respect for your local nacra dealer. It is not often that you see an agent or dealer advising to look at a design by another builder.

Actually my own Taipan F16 is in basis a Taipan 4.9 that I modified in some aspects. I made the design wider and replaced the rear beam with a stiffer section. I also modified the mainbeam landing. Apart from that I only changed things in the rig. So my hulls, daggerboards, rudder setup, beam (except rearbeam), mast en sorts are the same as those of the Taipan 4.9

So yes I think I can more or less say that "this boat" is the one I'm owning.




If this is the case then I can tell you that the Blade F16 is most likely 3000 Euro's cheaper then the nacra and that the Stealth F16 is most likely 4000 Euro's cheaper. This also confirms the price quote for the F17 I acquired at the beginning of this year and ever since then I really expected it to come down a bit. Apparently it didn't.




Well most of the boats are in winter storage right now and therefor hard to access. The one demo boat that was available in wintertime over the last years has just been sold to a Swedish guy and recides now in Sweden. And Holgers boat will come this Januari.

The way I see it you have three options :

First you travel to Zandvoort in the Netherlands where you can examine the demo Blade F16, I'm not sure wether a test sail can be arrange over this coming weeks, but you can best contact the Blade agent for that. A similar setup you can perform with the Stealth F16 demo boat that is in the Nederlands as well.

Secondly, you try to get a inexpensive plain ticket to either Florida US (Blade) or the UK (Stealth) and be garanteed a test sail. It is my understanding that a return trip ticket to florida is about 400 Euro's. A flight to the UK is only some 80 Euro's or so.

Thirdly, you wait till this coming spring time and you'll drive to the netherlands to get a test ride on all three F16 makes (Taipan = my own boat + Blade and Stealth).

Wouter

The new specs of the nacra 17

Here in a seperate post I would like to get into the new nacra 17 (or EU F17) specs and what it can mean for the future.

According to the comments by Baltic in the posts above where he refers to his local nacra dealers comments ((Sven Lindstädt) and the new specs at the website of the EU importer of nacra products www.nacraeurope.com it appears that the new nacra 17 is :

Length 5,25m
Beam ( width) 2,50m
Mast Lenght 8,60m (I-17R = 9.1 mtr)
Weight 125kg (ex jib / spi) 135 kg (incl jib and spi)
Mainsail area 15.50m2
Optional Jib area 3.5m2
Asym. Spinaker 19m2
# Trapeze 1 persons in trapeze
Construction Vinyl Polyester


This opens possibilities !

Because if I run the Texel handicap numbers for both 1-up and 2-up versions with a spinnaker then I find :

nacra 17 (1-up + spi) = 101
nacra 17 (2-up + jib + spi) = 104

If we compare this too

Hobie FX-one (1-up + spi) = 105
Hobie FX-one (2-up + spi) = 106

Spitfire (1-up + spi) = 105
Spitfire (2-up + spi) = 105

Formula 16 (1-up + spi) = 99
Formula 16 (2-up + spi) = 102

It is quite apparent that we are seeing a convergence here. In the past the Nacra 17 with a rating of 110 in both 1-up and 2-up modes was just to far away in performance to be able to race first in winds with the other modern singlehanders. But now it seems that Nacra has placed herself right smack in the middle of this group.

Especially in the way of double handers it appears that all 4 makes could very well race first in wins among eachother and the Formula 18 catamarans. Hopefully we can look forward to more combined events in the future. like the combined FX-one/Formula 16 event with 12 boats that was held last oktober in the UK. If we can add the Nacra 17's to that then that would be great.

Also all 4 boats are gettting closer and closer in overal specs. For example take a look at the mainsail sizes.

Nacra 17 = 15.5 sq. mtr.
Hobie FX-one = 14.91 sq. mtr.
Spitfire = 15.38 sq. mtr.
Formula 16 = 15.00 sq. mtr.

They are all within 4 % of one another. The luff lengths are between 7.9 and 8.1 mtr.

Boat widths. All a 2.5 mtr. wide


Mast lengths :

Nacra 17 = 8.6 sq. mtr.
Hobie FX-one = 8.5 sq. mtr.
Spitfire = 8.5 sq. mtr.
Formula 16 = 8.5 sq. mtr.

All with 1 % of eachother


Hull lengths :

Nacra 17 = 5.25 sq. mtr.
Hobie FX-one = 5.23 sq. mtr.
Spitfire = 4.97 sq. mtr.
Formula 16 = 5.00 sq. mtr.

All within 6 % of one another

More and more all the specs are converging on the same "5 mtr x 2.5 mtr x 8.5 mtr x 15 sq. mtr." general setup.

The only spec in which these boats still differ noticeably is the overall weight but nacra is rumoured to have drastically lowered their overall weight and I know Hobie is under pressure to do so by theit FX-one sailors as well.

Interesting times, lets see what comes of it.

Wouter

Ok.. I stand corrected.. Certainly unoptimised building methods.. As well as poor choice of materials maybe..
Then wrapping this all up "in we do it because the sailors want it this way"..

Hello all,

I downloaded the 2005 Texel PDF file.

I see the 2005 Texel numbers as follows, for the Nacra 17;

Nacra Inter 17;

metal mast( 28ft,6 inches),main s.a. 160 sf, no jib, 1-up

Standard wind
no spin spin
115 110

Heavy wind
no spin spin
116 112


fyi......nice info on this discussion too!

Bruce
?-17 normal
St. Croix
US Virgin Islands

Thanks for this information - to all of you.

To get a proper foundation for discussion I now advised my dealer to obtain precise information on the weight, sail area, and make of mast for the 2006 model of NACRA F17. As soon as I have that, I'll post it.

And Wouter, thanks for forwarding my address to the Blade-dealer.

In the meantime, I'd like to understand the Texel handicaps. First, I guess, the higher the number, the slower the boat? Second, these numbers are apparently based on static figures since Wouter was able to create a new handicap based on the - assumed - less weight of F17. This would mean that boats with the same size, weight and sail area would have the same handicap = equally fast. Is this realistic?

Sorry if this was already discussed before (I'm pretty new to the forum) - may be somebody can provide a link where the creation of the Texel handicap is explained. And the address where the list itself can be obtained would be from interest, too ...

Kai,

Find 2005 Texel in pdf attached

Bruce
St. Croix

..looks like I cannot attach a .pdf here, go to the Texel site, look for 2005 Texel ratings, it is a rather nice and concise document and very informative.
Tropical Depression #27 just passed :-(

This was to get you the contact details of Holger, he has got those and I didn't. But of course this Blade-dealer can be handy in other respects as well ! But I will leave that between you and him.





Correct. Interest rating numbers are F18 = 102 and A-cat = 99 ; both of these can be regarded as good bench marks to which you can compare the performance of other boats. Example : boat A => rating = 115 this boat will arrive at the finish in 115/102 % = 113 % of the time that it takes an F18 to get there. Under the assumption that both boats are sailed by comparable crews. 13 % speed difference means that with each 8 boatlengths of travel the F18 will have won a boatlength.



The handicap system uses several key boat specifications to determine a handicap upon. These key specifications are put into a interpolation formula that was regressed from a large fleet of different boat types in the past and a performance prediction (=rating) is acquired. Of course this rating has only meaning in relation to the rating numbers of other designs. It is a relative system, not an absolute one. But as we only race other catamarans with a Texel rating this relative character of the system is not at all a problem.



There are a few more inputs but the general idea in indeed along these lines.

Actually the Texel system has often proven to be remarkably accurate. It is not prefect by any means but it is more accurate than one would think by just looking at the simplicity of the system. Per experience driven systems like yardsticks rating very often converge to almost the same preformance predictions (in relative sense). In a good number of cases the error margin is below 2 %. But as every one knows a few exceptions can be named. However as long as you compare similar boats to one another (FX-one, I-17, F16 etc) the system is rather accurate.



http://www.watersportverbond.nl/content.asp?me_id=468%20

Or the direct link to the calculation model :

http://www.watersportverbond.nl/data/536_description_rule_and_drawing.pdf



http://www.watersportverbond.nl/data/AE1_numdet1_18-9-05.pdf

And here you can acces the online rating calculator were you can generate your own rating for custom or modified baots.

http://www.watersportverbond.nl/data/calculation_form_8-7-05.xls

Wouter

Wouter - you have been right all the time. Please find in the following my conversation with Jan de Boer, I guess that ends this discussion.

Mr Seeman,

The new Nacra Inter 17 is better in weigt than the older one
I mean 1999 and 2000 and 2001 boats ,there weigt was round 152 kg
Now the boats ar 137 kg and 138 kg out of the box.
And Sven Lindstad knows out the brochure that the boot weigt 140 kg
Now they do !!
I hope this e-mail will help you.

Best regards,

Bas Kolk

Nacra Europe BV
Floralaan 2A
2231ZV Rijnsburg
The Netherlands
Tel+31(0)71 40 800 80
Fax+31(0)71 40 881 44
Email b.kolk@nacraeurope.com
Net www.nacraeurope.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Seemann"
To:
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: NACRA F17


Dear Sirs,

some weeks ago, you advertised on your website a used NACRA Inter 17. I
phoned concerning this offer but had to learn that the boat was already
sold. The friendly gentleman on the phone apologized but suggested to
consider a new F17 since the 2006 model would be considerable lighter
than the current model - he guessed around 10 to 15kg, bringing down
the weight of the new F17 to 125-130kg.

This reduced weight is a very important subject to me since I am
sailing alone from time to time and handling the boat on the beach by
my own is a difficult task ...

I contacted my local dealer, Sven Lindstädt, concerning the new F17,
but he denied any changes on the current model and confirmed the data
for the 2006-model as follows:
Main 15,5 qm
Jib 3,5 qm
Spi 19 qm
Size 5,25m x 2,50m
Weight 140 kg
Mast 8,60m
It is obvious that I am confused. I am certainly in the position to
afford a new boat, but only would buy if the weight comes closer to the
competitors of it.

You are the european importer of NACRA and I would kindly ask you to
clarify this situation. I am pretty sure that I didn't misunderstand
the gentleman on the phone - so if you could verify this subject, I'd
appreciate it.

Thanks for your efforts in advance and best regards,
Kai Seemann

It doesn't quite end it Baltic. I'm sure we're all wanting to know what boat you're going to go for?

the protagonist in me wants you to buy the F17 just so that wouter would have wasted all those hours typing all that crap up :P

IMHO the FX1 is a much better suited for doublehanded sailing than the I17 (I own an FX1 for two years now). The FX1 is a LOT more buoyant and it doesnt really care about the extra weight. This year I sailed the Texel race on an FX1 with crew, we both weight about 75-80KGs and were just fine. About the weight, those 15-20KGs are not going to make much of a difference when righting and moving around on the beach. On the rare occasions that I do go over the wind and waves are usually strong enough to easily right the boat solo. Also, for my taste Nacra changes their models too often which is not good for trade-in value.

Wasted ? Ohh No !

My comments are not wasted if somebody buys any F17 or whatever boat they finally decide upon. My comments will still have served a purpose as the buyer will have a clear(er) picture of what they are actually buying. And such a thing is always valuable.

Nobody should buy any boat because I either endorsed it or dissed it. If anything, my comments should merely expand your horizon and point you towards more alternatives.

Wouter

I also agree that the explanations of Wouter haven't been wasted - actually I Iearned a lot. The major point in this is that there is a world outside of Hobie and NACRA, which somehow cures a bit my current frustration. It would have been almost too easy: just trade in my old boat, get the new one in time for the season from a source just one hour drive away ...

Since I have been asked, I certainly will not go for a new F17. The investment of more than €10000,- ending up with a boat with almost the same weight like my previous one although admitingly faster does not make sense to me.
There are still months ahead to consider other alternatives, e.g. the mentioned F16s.

I don't know if anybody is familiar with a guy named Nils Bunkenburg. He is designer of the Hobie Fox or Tiger (I always mix them up ...) and the new Eagle Cat 18HT - and member of my club. I had a conversation with him concerning my demands and he had some interesting comments. But this is another subject ...

Thanks for all the help so far!