You might want to consider the Nacra F17. It sails well with 2 people, with or without the optional jib kit, but is raced single-handed without a jib. I think it is probably more durable than the F16, is a foot and a half longer and weighs about 320 lbs. Based on your statements, it seems a better choice.

The attachment is a picture of several F17s on the beach.

Picture of F17 fleet between races at Great Lakes Champs this year.

That is a great shot.. Also looks like the F17 class is picking up steam and several other locations are starting fleets, so if you go f17 you could go to some class events. Not sure if there are any f16 fleets in north america.

Such a generalization is impossible to justify--as you know, F16s come from multiple manufacturers and are constructed with a variety of different materials, including marine ply, standard fiberglass, kevlar, and carbon fiber. I'm not sure where you're opinion about F16 durability comes from, but materials such as marine ply, kevlar, and carbon fiber are extremely strong and durable. Each manufacturer has their own process, and my experience in evaluating several different F16s have found them to be extremely well made and durable. Although I have only seen one I17, it seemed well made too.

WOW, thats 90lbs heavier as well. Foot and half is 18" so that boils down to 5lbs of weight per inch in length.

Why is it called an F17 anyway? I asked this question a while back and no one gave me a straight answer.

[quote
Why is it called an F17 anyway? I asked this question a while back and no one gave me a straight answer. [/quote]

Because Nacra decided to call it the F17. Much as the 49er is called the 49er or the laser is called the laser.

OK it's a little confusing for me as well. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Is this a one design?
Where are they availible?

Thanks

I"m not going against Les opinion personally but I am going against clearly inaccurate statements.


Les wrote

-1- ... is a foot and a half longer ...

That is just not true. The Nacra 17's (all versions) were measured to be 5.24 mtr (17 ft and 2 inches) long on the hulls. One source for this info is www.texelrating.org. F16's are 5.0 mtr long on the hulls and that is 16 ft and 5 inches. Therefor the difference in length is LESS then a single foot, it is actually 0.24 mtr or less then 10 inches. Of course this is in turn is only halve of the quote "...a foot and a halve..."

We have an nacra 17 at my club and truly you have to line up the boats right along side eachother to actually see the difference in length. It is just that small.


-2- ... I think it is probably more durable than the F16 ...

This is stated as an opinion and there is no arguing with opinion. However, I do wish to underline that no real life experience is available to base such an opinion on. Neither boat has shown to break in a serious way due to wild weather or hard sailing. And the Taipan 4.9 (predessor of the F16's) now has a track record of nearly 20 years; The F16's themselfs having a record of over 5 years now. Opinions and other "gut feelings" won't change that. Sorry.


Wouter

Yes.




Only in the USA.

Or I rather should say that they are only promoted in the USA; No NON-US nacra agent is offering them publically, but may still be willing to sell you one if the customer demands it.


Wouter

The pictures I posted were taken by Mike Teets. I apologize for not giving credit where credit is due.

Regarding durability, it is just my opinion. I have seen the lay-up at Performance Catamarans on the F17 and there is significant glass on the outside of the hull. It was this that is the basis of my opinion. I freely admit to not seeing the same from any of the F16s.

Les, I'm sure the N17s are quite robust. My point was simply that the F16s are all a bit different and it is impossible to generalize. Some of them are extremely robust, others less so.

Eric,

Did you know that the boat in this picture that you had attached is actually a homemade Timber-epoxy Taipan 4.9. Build and sailed by James Sage of Australia.

Wouter

That picture is pretty cool. Its just standing on its hind-quarter.

Something perhaps worth remembering is that the heavier platform will in itself put more stress on itself than the lighter platform. So, if one understands that a thinner skin means you can't drag it up the giant emery board called the beach (but a lighter weight would remove less skin doing this) as much but in most other respects the lighter platform might out perform the heavier platform in strength tests.
I have an old school Hydra and a Taipan platform.
With the Hydra I have to drag it onto the beach to stabalise it. With the Taipan I can just lift it so it doesn't drag and settle it.
A platfrm is as strong as its weakest link. So, if the bolts holding the thing together are the same in light and heavy, the light boat is stronger as less weight = less strain on bolts.
One thing is very clear to me.. lighter = better sailing, feel and control. There is no reason to have a heavier car unless you want to smash it though a brick wall and I think the same applies to boats.

Take a Tiapan for a ride and you probably won't look back as while you might break it you will have had more fun doing so.

Yes. And the photo takes a closer look to realize the boat is airborne. With a spin, this is an F16. I wanted to illustrate my point: F16s (new and "foundation") are heterogenous and may be very strong; e.g. the Taipan has proven itself in timber (marine ply) and various glass forms to be extremely tough in harsh Australian sailing conditions. There seems to be a persistent belief that heavy=sturdy and light=delicate. We're in an era where engineering and materials where light weight boats and cars are being made very strong. My father races a carbon fiber bodied race car--it is rediculously light and yet far stronger than were it made with steel or aluminum. Ferro-cement boats are heavy but will break up on a reef just as easily as a much lighter fiberglass boat.

Did someone say airborne?