I'm thinking of buying a new boat.
The new Taipan is about 1000 AUS more expensive here in Australia then the N17. They claim at the website that the new N17 here in AUS is weighing 120 KG and that the new Taipan is weighing about 100 kg all up. Is that true? Sail power looks about the same. Which one handles and is set up the best solo?

Go Tiapan or Blade...

Blade Specially having the designer in AUS.

Flying cat,

I will give a more detailed reply to this post on the F16 forum.

For now I will leave it at :

A link discussing the Nacra 17, FX-one and F16 by a guy who has experience with all named boats. Note that the Taipan F16 and Blade share the same mast and rig (The standard Taipan 4.9 has the same mast but noticeably different cut mainsail)

And my comment that I rate the Taipan as the more desireable boat out of the named two. Mostly because of its rig. The feel of it and the performance.

Wouter

Robi,

I am putting in my order for a Blade F16 with Matt. Would it be possible for us to talk and can I give you a call?

You may remember that I had communicated with you earlier. We used to live on Arvida in Weston and have been recently relocated to karachi, Pakistan for a 2 yr assignment with my company...We really miss Weston!!!!

Please provide me with your telephone number and the best time to call this weekend. I would really appreciate listening to your experience as the first Blade owner in Florida.

Regards,
Asim

It's certainly true that the Taipan weighs about 100kg, rigged - 98kg cat rig and 104kg sloop rigged if I recall correctly.

The boats are weighed at nationals and as far as I know the claimed weights are accurate - our 4.9 is now getting quite old and is just an average T4.9, but we have to carry weight to get it up to 104kg.

Check your PM box. I sent you my number, so we can chat.

There seems to be a lot of iterest in the blade. Did they get that dialed in yet? How much dough $$ are we talking about for a new blade in AUS anyway?
Thanks..

I'm pretty sure they will put whatever sail you want on it. The square top is performing a little better I guess. How do they compare going downwind (with spin.) not just in speed but also in handling? Thanks

Flying cat,

On the F16 webpage there is article dealing with the race results of the 2001 Australian Taipan Nationals.

Here the weights of all the participating (and measured) boats is given.

I will send you the link in the private messaging service provided by this forum. Reason, if I give the link in this post then 100's of readers will start clicking on this link and overload the allowed datatransfer limited. Causing our F16 webpage to go ofline. If anybody else is interesting in this data, it is available by following the "F16 articles" link on the F16 webpage and looking for the "optimal taipan crew weight" article. In this article a link is given in the header that will take you to the used data points. An option is to private message me and I will send you the direct link back.

Wait, let me try something else !



Worked ! So here you all have the measured data.



In summary :

The fleet contained 35 (measured) boats (all Taipan 4.9's) ranging from Aus007 (was then over 10 years old) to Aus230 (which was then 1 year old);

The average boat weight was 104 kg exactly, with a standard deviation measure of 2.3 kg's (for the mathematically educated people on this forum). For the less educated persons out here this means the average weight of all boats was 104 kg with 70 % of the other boats being within 2.3 kg of this value (both lighter or heavier). The lightest boats were 102 kg or less (4 boats) and had to carry lead to get up to 102 kg. The heaviest boat was AUS 015 and it weight 111.3 kg; it looks like this was a home-build ply-epoxy boat. Mind you the owners are allowed to change, add or replace items like ruddersetups themselfs on these boats, also these boat maybe home-made by an amateur so these things can quickly account for additional kg with respect to boats straight from the factory.

If only all catamaran classes would publicize their measured data in the same way, right ? Would make choosing the right boat a whole lot easier.


The current class minimum weight for the Taipan 4.9 is 102 kg in the sloop rigged, doublehanded setup. It is my experience that factory build boats, that are build after 2000, are between 102 and 104 kg. Often depending on which extra's you ordered with the boat. Independent handicap systems like Texel and SCHRS (ISAF) all measured these doublehanded/sloop rigged taipans to be between 102 and 105 kg of weight. Taipans that are singlehanded are always a little less in overall weight, typically about 2 kg's, because the jib and related hardware is not on the boats. Some taipans that are exclusively sailed singlehanded carry a different mast section which is lighter as well; these boats are often just below 100 kg (min class weight for these = 97 kg).

I don't think that the sailpower is very comparable between the two boats unless the Austalian nacra has increased its sail area from 13.68 sq. mtr. to 15 sq. mtr.

Wouter

You really have to ask for it but then indeed, you get any sails put on it that you want. Personally, I would sooner NOT by the boat if it wasn't fitted with the newer optimized (F16) sails then buy it as a standard Taipan 4.9. The difference, as Carbonatecat wrote, is just that much. Mostly however in the feel. A standard Taipan rig is still fast in the right hands, but in my opinion it just takes more skill to get the maximum out of it.

I personally dislike the standard Taipan jib setup and much prefer the selftacking jib setup (= F16 but also supplied by AHPC). It is actually the most important "special request" after adding a spi that I advice, followed by the more optimized mainsail.





Speed. Like I said, the biggest difference between the standard Taipan mainsail and the new (F16 based) mainsail with larger squaretops is the feel of the rigs. The last are easier to get going, in my personal experience. The larger square-top makes twisting of the sail easier which allows the top of the rig to keep driving better when going downwind. The whole rig is also alot more lively in its feel. Sheeting actions result in very noticeable difference in speed and feel. I think this to be an advantage, however the other side of the coin is that the wrong trim will hurt you more. But then again, you really feel it is the wrong trim as well, so you know about it.

Others mention that the larger squaretop depowers more automatically then the old rig. Making continious sheeting less necessary when you have found the proper general trim for the conditions. It is also said that the boat accellerates more and heels less as a result. I personally did not sail with the standard rig often enough to really confirm this comparison. I can only confirm that the rig indeeds wants to go and hardly heel when trimmed right even in significant gusts.

In all out speed, I feel that the old standard rig (without a spi) is not much slower in straight line speed in stable wind conditions. I do feel that when the conditions become more challenging that the newer shape sails are favoured. But don't expect a huge speed increase. When sailing downwind with the spi I don't expect much speed difference between the old and new mainsails. Mostly because the spi is provide by far the bulk of the drive on this course anyway and we assume these to be the same. I do think that the newer mainsails have one advantage here though. The improved self depowering behaviour of the newer mainsails allows you to set and forget the mainsail much more than the old main when singlehanding with the spinnaker up. Also you can better maintain mainsail the leech tension on the mainsail thus supporting the mast under spi load while the large squaretop still maintains some level of depowering in the gusts.

In my personal opinion the newer (F16) suit of sails (and selftacker system) are better in every respect than the old standard setup, however in some aspect the difference is bigger then in others. Most of the really noticeable difference is in the feel and ease of trimming. I think that all out speed (in stable conditions) is one of the area's with the smallest difference. Of course automatic depowering and ease of trim can really add speed in unstable conditions.


That is my opinion.

Wouter

I heard the US build versions (made by vectorworks marine) from now onward come from a new mould. This mould was made after learning a few new building tricks from other catamaran builders. I heard they are using a different foam material now as well, plus some other stuff. So it looks the glass/vinylester design is getting dialed in.

With respect to the rig and hardware, I think we can call the design dialled in by now. Glenn Ashby (Ashby sails) has now made about ten sails for the Blade design now and his design is now in its 3rd iteration. Of course Glenn has made even more F16 sails (for Taipans as well) and he based his F16 design on earlier experience with the Standard Taipan mainsails. In real life sailing the Ashby sails are very much welcomed by their owners, even the Blade designer himself said that he was very pleased with the feel and performance of the Ashby mainsails. I haven't tried them myself yet, so I can only relay what others tell me. I did sail against a boat with Ashby sails and it certain didn't feel like my competition had any disadvantage. If anything I was the one with a disadvantage, I personally have a Redhead F16 mainsail and a Goodall selftacking jib. My squaretop is 600 mm wide, standard Taipan 4.9 = 400 mm, new Ashby/Goodall/Landenberg mainsails have a squaretop op about 850 mm wide. I have a mainsail of the second generation (2003)

Similar comments are expressed by owners of Landenberger and Ullmans sails, although the number of these owners is still limited. From Singapore we hear very positive noises about the newer Goodall mainsails. That is in relation to the older standard Taipan Goodall mainsails that nearly all of them were using on their Taipans. They also have a few Ashby sails overthere now but we don't really have good comparison data on that, not enough time has passed.




If you buy american and ship is across the point then you are looking at 12.800 US$ + 1500 US$ (rought estimate about shipping) = 14.300 USD = 19.450 AUD. However, in your case I would by stuff like sails, mast and Ronstan hardware locally. This both save you shipping costs (shipping the mast is expensive) and I think sails and hardware is cheaper locally in Australia. But you just have to look into that youself.

There is another option for you as an Australian. There is something going on in Australia at the moment, something I'm not at liberty to discuss in public. My advice is to contact Phill Brander yourself at phillbrander(at)bigpond.com and ask him directly about acquiring a professionally build Blade F16 in Australia and see where that leads you.

Wouter

I, too, am comparing the Blade and the US N17r. I go back and forth and usually come to this question: Are they really comparable? If I wanted a pure singlehanded boat, the the N17r is the choice - if I wanted the option of a tuned doublehanded (and singlehanded option) then the Blade F16 is the choice? Correct???

I know the Blade can be sailed singlehanded, but is it truly optimized for it? I want a boat that does both well.

Are there any plans by Stealth to push their F16 more in the US?

Tom
Here is some of my research on the Nacra 17 (USA)
length is 17’ 5”
width of 8’ 2.5”
mast height 28’ 9”
main sail area of 160 sq. ft.
spinnaker 15.5 sq. m.

The Nacra F17 seems to be only sold in North America, with the carbon spar from Southern Spars of New Zealand. This model is also the most popular
carbon mast 30’ 4”
Main sail is 170 sq. ft
Spinnaker 15.5 sq. m.
Spinnaker 18 sq. m. ( Class Racing Crew 230lbs & Up)
Mid pole snuffing system

Both Nacra models were built as a true single handed cat, not to be confused with the Australian N17, which is a 17’ design as a sloop. There’s a nifty jib option for the 17
But not legal for class racing.

Christopher H.

I have the following numbers supplied to me when I was investigating getting a Nacra F17 over from the USA, these were current Aug/Sept. 2005:

Carbon mast 30’ 4” - not 100% sure on this. I was after the mainsail luff length for our rating rule.
Main sail is 170 sq. ft
Spinnaker 19 sq. m.
Spinnaker 21 sq. m. ( Class Racing Crew 230lbs & Up)
Mid pole snuffing system
Weight 135kg

And to make things more interesting, take a look at the specs measured by the independent organisations of the Texel and ISAF rating committees


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

www.schrs.com


They differ once again from the spec given earlier by others. With the EU N17's having 150 sq. ft sailarea

Wouter

To FlyF17,

With respect to the Stealth I can only advice that you contact John Pierce about that yourself. Stealthmarine(at)tiscali.co.uk




The last bit of your statement assumes that the alternatives to the F16's are TRULY optimized for singlehanded sailing. I know that such claims are often expressed by various sources but I'm not sure wether in direct comparison these claims are indeed validated.

Personally, I only call the A-cat boats "truly optimized for singlehanded sailing". All the other boats; FX-one, Nacra 17, Hobie 17, F16's and what not are all less then truly optimized for singlehanded sailing in the way the A-cat is.

A different question is wether a particular design lends itself well to be singlehanded or not. Here the criterium is less stringent and more designs are able to claim this.

Everybody has their own set of criteria of singlehanding, so I shall indicate on what I judge the different "to-be-singlehanded" designs personally :

-1- Ability to right the boat unaided and with simple means
-2- Ability to handle the boat off the water singlehandedly (unaided)
-3- Ability to handle the boat on the water singlehandedly
-4- Ability to perform well on the boat singlehandly
-5- Ability to race the boat well in modern fleets of fast (spi)boats
-6- Ability to adjust the layout of fittings and controls to personal preference under class rules
-7- Ability to fit the boat with aftermarket parts of independent suppliers
-8- Factory support network
-9- Robustness and resistance to abuse

Both the nacra 17 and FX-one score big on points 3 and 8; But do less so on points 1, 2, 6 and 7. Points 4, 5 and 9 seems to be somewhere in between.

With respect to the F16's I can say that these score pretty darn well on all points with the exception of point 8. The last is simply because the F16's simply don't have the larger dealor support networks as the big builders have. That is a fact. Point 9 is surprisingly enough not the weak point of the F16. There is less to work with indeed, but for example I've seen the Taipan take abuse that I dare not put other boats through.

In my personally opinion; the Blades and Taipans excel in points 4 and 1/2/3 because of their well tuned controls and light weight. Example : My cascading 1:12 downhaul allows me to really crank on the mainsail luff with just my left hand (I'm right handed); I have yet to see a similar system on many of the alternatives. The boom setup of the F16, never ever hangs up and operated smoothly all the time. Over the years the FX-one and nacra 17 has altered their designs to similar systems. So indeed the three designs are converging, thus making them all more comparable. But it must be said that the F16's had all this stuff from the vary beginning, meaning in the Taipans case as early as 1989.(and that is not a typo). In time I expect more stuff to appear on the other boats as well. Stealth F16 is leading the way with the T-foils on their rudders.

So in direct comparison I personally value my own F16 over the alternatives of the big builders. With one of the big builder products I have quite alot of experience and I wouldn't want to trade boats with it.

If you are asking me wether the Blade is truly and fully optimized for singlehanded sailing then I will answer that it isn't while stating at the same time that neither the other boats like the FX-one and Nacra 17 are. All named boats have made compromises that took all away from the true optimized setup that the A-cats are.

If you are asking me wether the Blade is less suited to singlehanded sailing then the other alternatives then I will say, "certainly not, if anything I regard it as better." In one particular comparison I'm absolutely sure as I have more then sufficient experience with the involved boats.

Sadly, I don't have much personal sailing experience with the Nacra 17. I only sailed a few times against a nacra 17 and the fact that we never saw eachother after the start is almost exclusively caused by the fact that our sailing skills were nowhere comparable. So I really don't have a proper data set with respect to the nacra 17. My current data suggests that there is a significant performance gap in favour of the F16's but I really think this to be to strong a conclusion considering the limited data I have. Also I have no personal data on the US nacra 17 which I fully expect to be faster then the EU versions.




Well, you can only judge this properly yourself. And you really should do that. But I really do think the Blade F16 to be better than the others in both uses. I know that my own Taipan F16 is in comparison to the European versions of the FX-one/Nacra 17. And the Blade compared again favourably to my Taipan F16. And I found that I'm not alone in this See this posting

I can fully confirm what Carbonated wrote when looking at the Superwing mast to the FX-one mast. But I can't do so for the nacra comparison as I have not sailed one myself.




In my opinion the F16's do both roles very well, maintaining a lead to the other boats mentioned in both uses.

But really, you should go out and arrange a test sail on the Blade F16 and judge for yourself. You will know it immediately, at least that is what I'm told by the others who did before you. Don't take my word for or that of others. We all love our own boats. Get straight to the basis and test drive it yourself.

Ohh, actually we have a former A-cat owner (Boyer mark 5) in our F16 pool now and he commented that the Blade is frightingly close in feel to his former A-cat. He doesn't feel at all as if he has made a noticeable step down by selling his A-cat in order to get an Blade F16. I'm sure that if we measure it really well that there should be a step down but it is not obvious at all. This in turn is a pretty good achievement in my book as teh F16 is also a fine doublehander while the A-cat is not. So in the F16 class we have been able to strike a pretty good compromise.

If you want then I can bring you into contact with this former A-cat owner. You can ask him yourself. Or you can go to thsi posting of him were he writes down himself the things I mentioned above Blade compared to boyer A-cat

There is another test sailing report here : Double handing the Blade F16 By Tim Bohan, a Florida based cat sailor and well known contributor on these forums

I can quote many more test-sailors with similar quotes and experiences. The blade boat is indeed well received as a design.

But don't take our word for it, see for yourself and get a test ride.

Wouter

Wouter.

The SCHRS rating is for the EU Inter 17. We don't have one in the UK, Thus no-one has measured it, thus no rating.

The Texel one is the old (heavier) Inter 17R at 151 kg.

Simple as.

That's close, the large F17 is smaller than the 19sm Formula 18 spinnaker. Of course these sails are coming from Skip Elliott Loft.
Not sure any Nacra F17 (US versions) have ever been sold outside of North America.
Ted

As a sailor of the Inter 17 I have to answer Wouters comments in relation to the boat and so provide answers from someone who has 5 years of sailing the boat.

-1- Ability to right the boat unaided and with simple means

If it's windy enough to tip it in you can get it back up again. Yes, if you tip it over in a F1 you WILL NOT right it on your own.

-2- Ability to handle the boat off the water singlehandedly (unaided)

Yep the Inter 17 is not the lightest boat in the boatpark.

-3- Ability to handle the boat on the water singlehandedly

Yes agreed, the Inter 17 is a challenging boat to sail. It rewards the fit and skillful. Many people ask what it is like to sail and I say that - Ask Bob Curry!. I'm not as fit as I should be, but after 25 years of cat sailing the skill (I hope) is just about coming along ok

-4- Ability to perform well on the boat singlehandly

I Refer to my answer to 3

-5- Ability to race the boat well in modern fleets of fast (spi)boats

I have many people moaning that the Inter 17 is one of the quickest single handers down wind and no slouch in a 2 up fleet either - Big kite, wide to allow you to power it up and long with deep bows to allow you to keep the boat powered up. It does (in EU I17 guise 13.4 sqm mainsail) suffer a little upwind in the light stuff.

-6- Ability to adjust the layout of fittings and controls to personal preference under class rules

You get a set of plans (or you should do) with the boat, and that is how it should be rigged; However, there is nothing to stop you changing things for non class regatta's - As I have. As long as you don't add sail area, reduce weight etc, the rating stays the same.

-7- Ability to fit the boat with aftermarket parts of independent suppliers

Harken not after market ?
You do not have to buy your rope, wire (and running rigging) or blocks from Performance. Hulls, Mast, beams, Plates and Rudders you do (to stay as an Inter 17)

-8- Factory support network

Not great in the UK, but it is there if you need it. Also the Web is a wonderful thing

-9- Robustness and resistance to abuse

Oh FFS. Elsewhere you have a go at Performance for over building their boats and now you say they cannot take the rough stuff, or sail in the big stuff.

Rubbish. All the performance range (not seen an A2 so cannot comment on that) are very well build and last for ages. My 5 year old boat is still going strong, had a "proper" clean up last year and people were asking if I had a new boat.

My opinion on the Inter 17